Can you tell me about the 1st Model .44 Double Action?

[9245]

I’m considering getting a first model .44 Double Action, I’ve recently gotten interested in the old west stuff (more than I was before) and I’ve always been interested in the Schofield (the CLEARLY superior revolver to the Single Action Army), but that lead me to the first model .44 double action (I’ve also heard it called the “New Frontier,” and the Double Action Number 3), which is basically the same thing but double action, it would seem to me that would make it the best revolver produced in the “Old West” period, yet most people don’t even know it was ever made, they might have heard of the Schofield, or the Number 3, the Russian, or even the New Number 3, but not this. That interests me.

What calibers were they made in? Was it just .44 Russian, .44-40, .455 Webley, and .38-20? Was a .45 LC or .45 Schofield version ever made?

Would a holster made for a Schofield work?

What is the current value?

Are parts generally available?

Were they rated for smokeless or were they black powder only?

Was a speed loader ever made? Will any modern ones work?

What were the available barrel lengths? What was the most common?

Were all the frames really made in 1898 or earlier? Why would Smith and Wesson sit on the frames for 15 years? Were they assembled to order? How do you get the production date?

 

[Books]

I’m considering getting a first model .44 Double Action, I’ve recently gotten interested in the old west stuff (more than I was before) and I’ve always been interested in the Schofield (the CLEARLY superior revolver to the Single Action Army), but that lead me to the first model .44 double action (I’ve also heard it called the “New Frontier,” and the Double Action Number 3), which is basically the same thing but double action, it would seem to me that would make it the best revolver produced in the “Old West” period, yet most people don’t even know it was ever made, they might have heard of the Schofield, or the Number 3, the Russian, or even the New Number 3, but not this. That interests me.

What calibers were they made in? Was it just .44 Russian, .44-40, .455 Webley, and .38-20? Was a .45 LC or .45 Schofield version ever made?

Would a holster made for a Schofield work?

What is the current value?

Are parts generally available?

Were they rated for smokeless or were they black powder only?

Was a speed loader ever made? Will any modern ones work?

What were the available barrel lengths? What was the most common?

Were all the frames really made in 1898 or earlier? Why would Smith and Wesson sit on the frames for 15 years? Were they assembled to order? How do you get the production date?

.44 Russian - .44-40
Probably won't fit a Schofield holster.
Depends on condition - $ 400 and up.
Parts are hit and miss.
They are not approved for smokeless powder.
Model 29 speed loaders will work.
Barrels of 4", 5", 6" and 6 1/2".
All frames produced before 1899. They are antiques.

And they are fun to shoot. In .44 Russian anyway. .44-40s are a bit much.

Books

 

[deadin]

Interesting gun to shoot DA.

Do it enough and you will end up with a forearm like Popeye...

 

[glowe]

What calibers were they made in? 44 Russian 44 Winchester, and 38-40

Would a holster made for a Schofield work? The 44 DA is much deeper frame than a 45 Schofield, and will typically not work in a Schofield holster if the holster was made specifically for the Schofield.

What is the current value? If you find one for less the $500 there is almost certainly something wrong with the gun.

Are parts generally available? No

Were they rated for smokeless or were they black powder only? Light smokeless loading is fine. Cowboy action loadings for 44 Russian or 44 Winchester is also good.

Was a speed loader ever made? Will any modern ones work? What is your hurry? The 44 Russian is the same diameters as 44 Special

What were the available barrel lengths? What was the most common? Books has stated the answer above

Were all the frames really made in 1898 or earlier? There was no science behind the company and the BATF determination of antique status. Antique status for all S&Ws were established in the early 1970s and Roy Jinks was the company's choice to work with the BATF back then. Some gun manufacturing companies kept logs dating the manufacture of guns, while S&W did not typically keep such records. An agreement was reached with the BATF that frame manufacturing dates would work for determining antique status and the best estimates seemed to be the way the company went. In the case of the 44 DAs, an agreement was made to state all frames were manufactured before 1899, but whether that was fact or compromise is still a question that maybe Roy can or has answered.

How do you get the production date? Typically, you do not get production dates. Factory records were kept by ship date, so when you request a historical letter, you will get a date shipped.

In my mind, the bottom line is if you want to shoot a lot do not pick a 44 DA. They have a reputation for being fragile, much like the Colt 1878, with too many parts and springs that can break or wear. I do have to say that I have not owned any that were a problem, but I probably shot them all quite sparingly. The other unfortunate issue is that there are a ton of clunkers out there. The exterior might look good, but they may be messed with inside or just plain worn out. I see about 10 for sale like described above before I see one nice one today.

 

[sigp220.45]

I have owned a grand total of one. A guy had it hanging in his basement, stuffed into a pretty decent WWI 1911 holster. I gave him $200 for it and the Perkins Campbell holster. I plunked it into a bath of 50/50 acetone and transmission fluid, scrubbed off decades of accumulated crud, found a box of .44 Russian Fiocchi ammo on line, and carried myself to the range.

It is fun to shoot. The sights are tiny, the trigger heavy, and the recoil surprisingly stout. The .44/40s must really be a handfull.

Good luck on your quest!

 

[Oscar Zulu]

^^^

That picture with the IWB holster gave me a chuckle.

OZ

 

[Oldmanwesson]

The No. 3 frame revolvers are my favorite. The .44 DA Top Break goes by many names, partly S&W's fault: originally developed at the request of the Russian Navy, Dan Wesson insisted on calling it the "New Model Navy No. 3", and continued to refer to it as such even though the Russians never bought any - to differentiate it from the No. 3 Single Action new Model (the "Army" model). The reason some call it the First Model is the fact that it was the first double action (or self-cocker) revolver S&W came up with. They didn't release it for sale right away, though. The .32 and .38 were released first, and the .44 last - hence Third Model. It is also variously known as the No. 3 Double Action and 44 DA Top Break First Model or Third Model. The "Frontier" is just the same in .44-40 caliber. There is also a rare "Wesson Favorite" variant which has some small modifications to the frame. I disagree that it is comparable to the Colt M1878 as far as being delicate goes. The Colt feels like a toy gun made from pot metal compared to a S&W 3rd model frame, and the mechanism in a Colt could give a gunsmith a headache. I hope this helps. I'd take a Smith over a Colt any day! (okay, so I'm biased)

 

[glowe]

. . . I disagree that it is comparable to the Colt M1878 as far as being delicate goes. The Colt feels like a toy gun made from pot metal compared to a S&W 3rd model frame, and the mechanism in a Colt could give a gunsmith a headache . . .

I think you might be confusing the Lightning or Thunderer with the Model 1878. I have owned them in the past in long barrel lengths and they are actually larger overall than the 44 DA. the Colt is a deeper frame than the S&W and reminds me more of the 44 Russian when working the guns in single action mode. You need a large hand to cock either of them, while the 44 DA is much easier to reach the hammer. The Colt 1878 is about the same weight as the 44 DA, lighter barrel without the rib, but heavier frame and mechanism. I wish I had a picture of them side-by-side to show the difference, but here is a side by side of a 5" 1878 and a 6" Frontier, same scale, different angle is the best I can do.

It remains a fact that the early large frame double action revolvers are less robust than their single action counterparts in both early Colt and S&W revolvers. Double the parts and you double your risk of failure. As I said above, the S&Ws I own did not break and neither did the Colt 1878s I owned, but overall they are less durable than Model 3s and SAAs.

 

[Kinman]

The No. 3 frame revolvers are my favorite. The .44 DA Top Break goes by many names, partly S&W's fault: originally developed at the request of the Russian Navy, Dan Wesson insisted on calling it the "New Model Navy No. 3", and continued to refer to it as such even though the Russians never bought any - to differentiate it from the No. 3 Single Action new Model (the "Army" model). The reason some call it the First Model is the fact that it was the first double action (or self-cocker) revolver S&W came up with. They didn't release it for sale right away, though. The .32 and .38 were released first, and the .44 last - hence Third Model. It is also variously known as the No. 3 Double Action and 44 DA Top Break First Model or Third Model. The "Frontier" is just the same in .44-40 caliber. There is also a rare "Wesson Favorite" variant which has some small modifications to the frame. I disagree that it is comparable to the Colt M1878 as far as being delicate goes. The Colt feels like a toy gun made from pot metal compared to a S&W 3rd model frame, and the mechanism in a Colt could give a gunsmith a headache. I hope this helps. I'd take a Smith over a Colt any day! (okay, so I'm biased)

I think they are my favorite also, I think that considering their year of development they are elegant personal defense weapons.
Much better than protecting yourself with a blade or single shot derringer, giving you better odds against muliple assailants. I believe my g.g.grandfather carried one on his trip on the early transcontinental railroad, my grandfather talked about "grandpa's .44" and when I asked what make and model he only remembered it being double action. He had been a Captain in the Civil War and after the war decided to make a stake in the early California oil fields, while sending the rest of the family on the Oregon Trail where they settled in Northern Idaho.

 

[Modelof1891]

.44 DA Parts

I do know of three NOS type barrels available for this .44!

 

[Dave Fox]

Holsters

I found a quality Belgian made No. 3 S&W double action copy cheap at a local gun show. Charles Clement Co. Came with a deteriorated military-style holster. Condition is excellent, bore as new, tight action. .44-40, which I hand load. Anyway, as to holsters, I sought in vain of holster makers for an example. Then had a eurika! moment and tried both the leather and canvas WW I-era Webley Mk VI .455 holsters in my accumulation and the Belgian copy fits like a glove. Good modern copies of these holsters are readily available.

 

[oldvet67to89]

I picked up a S&W Frontier DA, in a pawnshop in San Francisco, back in 1968 (I reckon), cost me $25.00 + tax. Still have it.



I'm dealing with cancer issues, both me and the boss (aka other half, she who must be obyed, etc.) so have put most of my guns in storage.