New pictures and details of the .44 Russian Model 3
So what exactly do I have? Things I found interesting is the top latch screw has something under it with a serial number on it, looks copper or brass and the grips have odd numbers on them. Timing is good and locks up like a bank vault except when you slowly cock the hammer the cylinder doesn't go quite far enough but if you do it fast it does. Kinda concerns me with shooting it. Top latch has slight play on it as does the trigger guard, nothing serious though.
Well where to start . . . that revolver is a Model 3 Russian, 3d Model, made from 1874 to 1878. It has been buffed and plated at some point after it originally left the factory. The clues are a poor prep job, heavy buffing, rounded edges, dished holes, and lightened stampings. Original nickel finished examples did not have trigger and hammer plated, since it was thought that the tolerances of manufacture were too tight to allow an additional thickness of plating on these moving parts. The cylinder retaining screw is a crude replacement, with some sort of washer holding in in place. Lastly, wear to the gun is probably responsible for the cylinder no longer going into battery when cocked. The cylinder stop should work properly whether cocked slow or fast, so the hand or the ejector star is worn. Some will advocate peening the tops of the star to bring a top-break revolver back into proper timing. I would not shoot it without some guarantee that it will always lock securely into battery.
I cannot tell where you live, but would probably not know any gunsmiths in whatever the area, so let us know where you are and another member might know where to look? Ejector stars are not a big mystery, with both home remedies and professionals available. Modern revolvers are handled every day by competent gunsmiths and you should check around your area to see if any of them will fix your gun.
Home remedy is actually isolating the chambers that do not come up into battery and lightly start peening the tops of the ratchets in the the center of the extractor star. As you peen them with a flat punch, try the results until you find all of the chambers locking into battery with a slow pull of the hammer. If all chambers are coming up short, you will need to perform this remedy to every chamber.
Gunsmith Chris Hirsch specializes in antique weapons---and particularly in S&W's (if the fact he does work for David Carroll is any indication). He has done work for me (very intricate welding, and functional finishing of the welded pieces). The result is there's no sign it was ever broken---and the gun works just fine.
Google can hook you up with him---Chris Hirsch Gunsmith.
Ralph Tremaine
"Specializes in antique weapons" means he works only on antique weapons.
Original nickel finished examples did not have trigger and hammer plated, since it was thought that the tolerances of manufacture were too tight to allow an additional thickness of plating on these moving parts.
WOW, Gary, where did you discover this most interesting tidbit? This is not to question your claim, but rather, to identify your source material(s), simply because I had never read or heard this one before--and it certainly makes sense!
And, all along, I thought it was done because it looked good, a nice contrast. As with most decisions, the basis is usually economic or functional. Aesthetics are a distant third.
About all I can recall is that it was placed in my notes after a few discussions on this Forum several years ago. I want to say that Roy was even involved, but my notes do not state the exact source.
Added: I just pulled out four Model 2 tip-ups in good shape and measured the gap around the trigger and hammer. On the narrow end of the spectrum one would pass a .004" on one side but not the other. The largest gaps would pass a .004" blade on both sides. That means that the gap in the Model 2 was no larger than .008". I read that a good quality nickel finish can be done with a thickness of .003". Another source stated "The coating thickness runs 5 to 125 microns (0.0002 - 0.005 inches), ..."
Using those numbers, plating would have bound up about half of the guns I checked. It those parts were plated, they would have to have been milled thinner than standard dimensions.
__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515
Last edited by glowe; 08-10-2018 at 10:43 AM.
Reason: added content
Plating always adds thickness to material. That fact has always been known as long as I can remember. Gunsmithing literature going back to the 1890s mentions that result. It's not exclusive to just S&Ws, of course, and heavy buffing of a surface reduces it's dimensions and subsequent plating may, or may not, not cause a fitting problem. Ed.
New pictures and details of the .44 Russian Model 3
Linear Mode
