I know this isn't a S&W but I need help finding out more about it and there isn't a forum for this gun.

You don't see one of these every day - very nicely made large frame revolver - 44 Russian caliber - at least as well-built as Colt, S&W. Remington, or Merwin Hulbert. Serial number is on 9 parts - grip frame butt, both wood grips (counted as only 1), side plate, loading gate, hammer, trigger, trigger guard, cylinder, cylinder arbor (the rod that the cylinder turns on) - I'm sure it's on the barrel too but hidden by the frame which would make 10 parts! I think Merwins only have 9 parts marked.

I'd like to find out more about it. You read in a bunch of places on the web "less than 1000 made" but I don't know where that comes from. There's a pub over at Cornell Publishing on the F&H company but apparently only 4 pages are devoted to the large frame revolvers - not enough to warrant the $20 price. David Chicoine doesn't list this revolver in his Gunsmithing Guns of the Old West book but has something in American Gunsmithing on the preceding Old Model Army that I may have to buy. If anyone had heard/seen anything else, or knows anyone who collects these then please let me know. Thanks!

John

__________________
It's good to be the king.

That is a nice gun. The F&H large frames are one of my favorite guns. Flayderman's seems to be where the 1000 production info comes from. I saw an old model at a gun show that had 1027 serial number. Sullivan Forehand and Henry Wadsworth were Ethan Allen's sons-in-law. Flayderman said, no one has done a definitive history on the company. Your revolver is the more valuable model. This is what Fladerman's values it at, good 1200.00, fine 3200.00.

Outstandingly cool piece, John ! Congratulations ! Have you shot it?

Larry

Thanks guys - I haven't shot it yet but I will.

__________________
It's good to be the king.

Nice example of a F&W New Army. F&W produced the New Army to incorporate modifications to the earlier Old Army model in response to tests of the U.S. Ordinance trials in 1974 when that Model was tested against the Colt SAA and the Schofield, both of which had been previously tested and adopted by the Ordinance Department. I don't know when the New Army was tested, but it must have been approved on some level because a U.S. New Army was sold at Little John's Auctions in 2006. That gun was "U.S." stamped, fully inspected and had inspector/ subinspector cartouhes on its stocks Thus, it was not a test gun but was inspected and purchased as an accepted firearm. In John's lot description, he noted that the gun was one of a handfull of known U.S. F&W New Armys and, as an 75 to 80 percent gun, was the best example known. Estimated value was $6K-$10K. It hammered down at $18.5 plus the buyer's vig. OC Young had a couple of high condition civilian New Armys on his site for quite a while priced almost as high as his Merwin Hulberts in comparable condition.

The New Army model was not purchased by the Military for deployment and never caught on in the civilian market as a successor to the Old Army model, which itself was never popular.

For comparison, I picture below my F&W Old Army with a Second Model American.

__________________
Rush

Rush,

I appreciate the response. Good info and great photo of a really beautiful Old Army and equally nice American. Just out of curiosity is the serial number on the barrel of your Old Army anywhere?

A poor attempt to duplicate your great photo.




John

__________________
It's good to be the king.

John. Right back at you. SN on My Old Army is 297, all matching.

__________________
Rush

But is that serial number on the barrel anywhere? Thanks!

__________________
It's good to be the king.

Beautiful and rare gun. F&Ws are great guns.
I'm not sure if this one is Hopkins and Allen or F&W...I can't remember but it was at the last Poulin auction:

Looks like Rush's F&H First Model Army with a few parts replaced?

__________________
It's good to be the king.

Better late than never. The F&A Old Model Army Has its SN in number of places, including the barrel, cylinder back face, butt of the frame, loading gate bottom and ejector rod frame, as shown below.












I don't know whether the 227 on the ejector rod frame is a replacement or a Factory mistake, but there it is.

I agree with Lavallois, here are a couple of closer shots of my F&A so the replaced ejector rod on the Auction gun can be identified. I'm not surprised the replacement parts had to be fabricated. The ejector assembly is pretty fragile to begin with and Factory parts were probably not available after production of new guns in this model ceased.



This picture shows the ejector rod deployed. Its design does not fascilitate fast reloads.




The big bore Hopkins and Allens differ from the F&Ws in a number of obvious ways, including the loading gate and ejector design. It is interesting that the F&W, H&A and 1st Model Merwin Hulberts were probably made by the same workers in the same factorys under seperate contracts with each of those 3 Companys.

Here are a couple of pictures of my Hopkins & Allen XL No.8 revolvers in Cal. 44-40. You can see they are quite different than the big F&Ws.






This picture shows the H&A loading gate deployed for comparison. It is more robust and easier to deploy than the F&A, but still not as fast as the Colt or, of course, the S&W Model 3s.

__________________
Rush

Rush -

Absolutely terrific photos! I used to have a HA XL no. 8 in 44-40 - like the top one in your photo - but foolishly sold it. Regretted it ever since. Is that beaded knife scabbard genuine?

John

__________________
It's good to be the king.

I know what you mean about letting some old ones go. It always seems like a good idea at the time. The sheath is a pretty faithful reproduction of an original.

__________________
Rush

BRush,

I love that short barreled H&A you have there. I know these old H&As are rare no matter what the barrel length but that one must be super rare. That's the first one I have ever seen. And I must say I am pretty jealous

I also like those short barrels a lot as long as they are at least period cut and used. I bought that gun from a well known dealer who thought it was factory original. When it arrived I could see that it wasn't. I kept the gun because I liked it and I believe it was shortened in period. But I will never trust that dealer's judgement again.

__________________
Rush

It was very nicely done. From the pics it looks like it was done that way at the factory.