Question about S&W .44 Frontier DA

[Billy Shears]

I am the proud owner of a nearly pristine example of S&W 1st model double action in .44 Russian. I bought it nearly two years ago; it came out of the estate of an S&W collector. I sent to the factory and received a letter, stating it had been shipped from the factory in 1913, which was near the very end of when these guns were available. My understanding is that the frames had all been manufactured before 1900, and S&W didn't sell out of their stock till 1913 -- well after their stronger, more modern hand ejector was available.

And this is what puzzles me. The gun was first offered for sale in 1886, if memory serves, and it took them nearly thirty years to sell their production run. I've never understood this. I've read that the gun never sold well, and I can't for the life of me understand why that is, especially now that I own one and have fired it. I can understand why the guns didn't sell particularly well once the hand ejector was available, but they were available for years before that, and didn't sell well then either. It can't be the top-break construction, since S&W had no trouble selling their single action top-break model 3s in the very same calibers (primarily .44 Russian and .44-40). Having shot the gun, I can attest personally that it is accurate, and the double action, while not quite as good as that of a modern S&W revolver was nonetheless quite good, having a trigger pull that was neither overly long, nor overly heavy. Nor did the gun, so far as I can tell, have the reputation of Colt's first DA revolvers, of having a delicate lockwork, prone to breakage. So if the gun was robust enough for the cartridge if fired, had a sufficiently reliable lockwork, and didn't suffer from a too heavy or too long trigger pull, why wasn't it a popular sidearm? I don't get it. I love mine. The only flaw it really had, as far as I can tell, was one common to virtually all American revolvers except the Single Action Army: having a grip that was way too skinny, and slipped down in the hand a bit with each shot.

Can anyone explain this?

 

[Jim K]

I am not sure I can give a good answer, but those guns were a bit delicate also. Not as bad as the Model 1877 Colts, but not good either. All the springs were flat or flat V type that broke, and worse were made in such a way that they were about impossible for a gunsmith to make. (Ask me how I know.)

And IMHO, they looked like heck. I don't know what that meant in an age of rococo and gewgaws on buildings and about everything else, but I just think they look odd.

FWIW, I envy you. I would love to have one, but have not been able to find one I could afford.

Jim

 

[Lone Star]

My guess is that the guns behaved badly in recoil, were perceived as being more delicate than Colt SAA's, and that the top-break system was thought to be marginal in strength for large caliber loads. How hard is that DA trigger pull?

The British Army tested a DA break-top S&W in .455, but chose the Webley MK I. Some of that was surely national pride, but some was the stronger Webley locking system.

By the time these guns were available, many people buying large caliber revolvers were going to remote places, where the greater power of the .45 Colt and the .44/40 and the perceived greater strength of the SA Colt were preferred.

Sasha Siemel mentioned in his books that S&W .44 revolvers were popular in frontier Brazil, but didn't specify the model(s). I think he ordered a pair of Triple-Locks as late as the 1930's, by which time he also had a .357. (The Triple-Locks were assembled from parts on hand.) Siemel is most famed for spearing large jaguars, but he also used revolvers and rifles. One rifle was a Winchester M-92 in .44/40, so he may have had a revolver in that caliber, also.

Generally speaking, I think the top-break S&W's in 44/40 were skating on thin ice, safety-wise. Prior to the New Service, I think the only gun that I'd have bought in a heavy caliber was the Colt or Remington SA. Yet, the Russians and others liked .44 S&W's in .44 Russian. I understand that they were quite popular with Spanish officers at the time of our war with Spain, 1898. Ludwig Lowe in Berlin made good copies, and they'd hardly have done so, unless S&W .44's were selling well...somewhere.

Lone Star

 

[Old Fuff]

Apparently the problem was in the chambering, rather then the revolver. Both the single-action No.3 New Model and the .44 Double Action normally were made to use .44 S&W Russian cartridges, but when the cylinders were lengthened (and in the case of the No. 3 New Model the frame as well) to use .44-40 rounds they both flopped.

Between 1881 and 1913 the company made 53, 590 D.A. revolvers in .44 Russian, which is a respectable number for that time period, especially considering that the number didn’t include any large military contracts. In addition some 15,340 chambered in .44-40 were made between 1886 and 1913. Throw in some 1000 Wesson Special variants and you get a grand total of 69,930.

Hopefully Billy will feel better now, and he is darn lucky to have what he does.

 

[Lone Star]

To add a bit to perceptions at the time that those guns were made, have you read Sir Henry Rider Haggard's famous book, "King Solomon's Mines"?

Unlike Sir Arthr Conan Doyle, Haggard had some gun knowledge, and had served in the Second Zulu War. He had his explorers carry Colt SAA .45's.
He actually said, "for the heavier pattern of cartridge." At the time of writing, the .44/40 was the only other SAA caliber offering.

Evidently, Haggard felt that this was the most reliable large caliber revolver for use in remote areas of Africa. His explorers were trekking deeply inland from South Africa.

But the .44/40 was also well thought of. Lt. Col. Vincent Fosbery, VC, who later devised an automatic revolver for Webley, mentioned that the Colt .44 was the surest stopper that he saw used along the Afghan frontier. Alas, he didn't mention whether he had seen many men shot with the .45 Colt. The .44/40 would surely have been superior to the .450 and .455.

I do think that looks hurt sales of the larger DA S&W's. Their SA guns probably had better trigger pulls and, certainly, better looks.

You asked a good question, and one that I've often wondered about.

Lone Star

 

[Billy Shears]

My guess is that the guns behaved badly in recoil...

But it doesn't. I know. I've shot it. As I said, the only problem comes from the skinny grips, which were very far from unique to this revolver. American DA revolvers (and some single actions) have all, always had overly skinny grips like this. I don't know why. But Tyler T-grip adapters and larger grip panes were what the aftermarket had to come up with to correct this problem that gunmakers inexplicably never got around to fixing themselves, until Ruger came up with their modern revolvers that had an internal tang, rather than a grip frame (American ones anyway, my Webley Mk. VI has a decently hand-filling grip from the factory, the way it should). With these narrow grips, the gun does tend to sink down in the hand with each shot, but again, the frontier DA was nothing unusual in this regard.

The configuration of the grip on this revolver is little, if any different from S&W's later single action model 3s, and the bore axis is no higher. The gun fired the same calibers. And S&W revolvers never had any reputation as unduly hard-kicking guns. I don't see how this could be it.

...were perceived as being more delicate than Colt SAA's...

They were, possibly. The great strength of the SAA was not only its good durability, but its simplicity. IIRC, the lockwork had only six parts, and it was easy for even relatively unskilled smiths to repair. But this particular S&W model DA, if not as robust as the SAA, was no worse than plenty of other guns on the market in this regard, I think.

...and that the top-break system was thought to be marginal in strength for large caliber loads...

But this doesn't account for why S&W was able to sell its single action top breaks in the very same calibers as fast as they could churn them out. The lockwork makes no difference as far as the strength of the frame goes. But the SA sold well and the DA didn't. It may well be, as Old Fuff indicated, the single and double action top breaks didn't sell well in .44-40 because of skepticism that the hinged frame could safely handle a cartridge of that power. But I think the .44 Russian DA was never a particularly hot seller either, so the reason for this revolver's relatively poor sales has to be something other than the hinged frame.

How hard is that DA trigger pull?

It's really quite good to be honest. I've never measured it, but I'd estimate it's around the 10-12 pound range. It doesn't feel any heavier than the trigger pull on my S&W M1917 revolver, and it actually feels lighter than the pull on my Colt M1917 (though the New Service's large frame and long trigger action, combined with my rather short fingers may have something to do with that, as I can only get the pad of my finger on the trigger in DA mode). And the single action pull probably breaks somewhere around four pounds. It's not a bad trigger at all.

 

[Old Fuff]

The .44-40 version didn't sell very well in the (single action) No. 3 New Model either.

Not counting some major military contracts that were numbered in they're own serial number series, S&W made some 35,796 No. 3 New Models in .44 Russian, and only 2,072 in .44-40. Adding military contract guns and target models would increase the basic revolver's numbers considerably.

If you read contemporary literature you won't find anything concerning strength issues during the black powder era. The Army did find problems during rust tests that degraded small internal springs.

Look at the way target shooters held these revolvers and you'll soon understand the reason for the round butt's popularity. (Bent arm and wrist).

 

[Billy Shears]

Look at the way target shooters held these revolvers and you'll soon understand the reason for the round butt's popularity. (Bent arm and wrist).

It's not the rounded base that makes the gun slip down in the hand, it's the overall skinniness -- something that carried over to square but revolvers later on. There's a reason S&W came up with a grip adapter in the 20s or 30s to fill in that space just behind the trigger guard (Patton had one on his .357), and that Tyler, Mershon, and Pachmayr all came up with their own versions later. American revolver makers have always made their guns' grips too damn skinny. Why I'll never know.

 

[Jim Watson]

The S&W topbreaks, SA and DA, sold so poorly in .44-40 (and hardly at all in .38-40) that you see good numbers of 44 Russian guns with the longer cylinder as used for the Winchester cartridges.

 

[rswartsell]

Aww c'mon Billy, no pictures? What would Sgt. Pepper say?