Colt New Service 44 Special Rollmarks

[jesseatamez]

Hey Everyone,

So back in the day, Colt really didn't like putting S&W's name on their products and vice versa. We see the lengths Colt went to to avoid just this by the flat nosed 38 Colt Special, 32Colt New Police, etc. Now, the exception it seems always lies in the large frame revolvers. We've seen pre-war factory N-Frame 45 Colt revolvers thusly rollmarked, rare yes, but they do exist. However, I found an interesting example online of the same practice from the boys over at Hartford that runs opposite of their other cartridge rebranding efforts. It's a New Service, and it's marked on the barrel as 44 Russian and S&W Special. Now if Colt insisted on tweaking the bullet designs for the smaller calibres just to avoid S&W's name being on their barrels, then why would they not do the same with the 44 Special? In simpler terms, why no flat nosed "44 Colt Special?"

I personally think it could be one of three things or some combination thereof:

Maybe each company's respective big bore offering was off limits for rebranding due to a "gentleman's agreement" between the manufacturers or just out of respect.

Or, it could be a volume driven issue, the medium and small frame guns were sold in far greater quantities than the large frame revolvers from each respective manufacturer. So, putting the competition's name on the barrels of many thousands of guns was unappealing on a different level. Heck, even S&W who lead modern revolver cartridge development beginning with it's introduction of the 32 S&W Long, put US Service Ctg on the early 38 Long Colt K Frames.

Or maybe it was an issue of chambering popularity, from what I've read the available chamberings for the New Service were quite diverse, moreso than the N-Frame Smiths. I know 45 Colt was the most popular commercial chambering for the New Service. Colt, thinking the demand for a 44 Special version would be low, probably took little issue with rollmarking S&W into those barrels.

I'm curious to hear everyone else's thoughts, thanks in advance.

 

[Texas Star]

Thanks for posting. I've never seen that marking before; just read about it.

Maybe whoever ordered the marking just wasn't thinking about it or the feud wasn't as hot as usual.

If you watch the Tales of the Gun video on S&W, you'll learn that Edwin Wesson detested Sam Colt over some issues, and that Colt was probably irate that the Rollin White pattern, licensed to S&W, kept others from boring revolver cylinders clean through until about 1872. That delayed Colt's production of a powerful cartridge revolver until 1873. That was a bitter pill to swallow, and the two companies were already arch business rivals. Remington was their only real competetition in the US market, less so abroad. (Remington did have some foreign sales, including 10,000 M-1875 .44 guns to Egypt, then under British rule. And Remington sold many Rolling Block rifles to foreign armies.)

We'll probably never know why the barrel is marked that way. I doubt if anyone at Colt knows today.

Is your .44 NS with a 4.5-inch bbl? I'd think that's a fairly rare length, in one of their less common chamberings. You have an unusual gun. How does it shoot? I was very pleased with one in .45 Colt, made about 1936. It had the more common 5.5-inch bbl. that is perhaps ideal for that cartridge in a daily carry gun.

 

[29aholic]

I've seen the same marking on early SAA's as well, but they are scarce.

 

[jesseatamez]

Texas Star,

That's an interesting thought about that rollmarking not being "standard" per se. I've yet to see others in that chambering so I don't know if it was normal practice. As for no one at Colt knowing today, you're absolutely right, I'll bet a call to Colt customer service would elicit more questions about a New Service than answers. Also, my apologies for not being clearer on this, but it isn't mine, just one I found an image of in a completed auction online. Still though, it was the perfect image for my discussion topic.

Regards

 

[feralmerril]

Colt single action armys also had 44 Russian and S&W Special marked on the barrels.

 

[Texas Star]

Texas Star,

That's an interesting thought about that rollmarking not being "standard" per se. I've yet to see others in that chambering so I don't know if it was normal practice. As for no one at Colt knowing today, you're absolutely right, I'll bet a call to Colt customer service would elicit more questions about a New Service than answers. Also, my apologies for not being clearer on this, but it isn't mine, just one I found an image of in a completed auction online. Still though, it was the perfect image for my discussion topic.

Regards

You may have misinterpreted me. I've always read that the marking is what Colt used; I just hadn't seen it in person, let alone on a 4.5-inch barrelled NS. BTW, the bluing on that gun looks pretty dull. Colt normally used a quite nice finish, except on the M-1917 Army .45's.

The only 4.5-inch NS barrels I've seen were on .38 Specials, although it could be ordered in other calibers. I suppose it was a handy length, but I feel that the 5.5-inch barrel best balances and complements the looks of that heavy-framed gun. And it adds some velocity.

My first NS was a M-1917, for Christmas at age 16. I still think the NS was one of Colt's best classic guns.

I was pleased that the .45 Colt I later owned never had extraction issues, although I've always been uneasy about using that ctg. in DA revolvers, due to the very small rim. Of course, the Army agreed and made that special Frankford Arsenal 1909 load for theirs. But the RCMP, the NYST and other major LE agencies used the NS in .45 Colt for many decades, evidently with satisfaction, other than grumbling about the size and weight.

The NS was too big for Elmer Keith's hands, and he preferred S&W's in general. But I bet that others loaded up some hot ammo in those Colt .44's...

 

[2152hq]

My guess,,and it's only that, to the op question "In simpler terms, why no flat nosed "44 Colt Special?"..


I believe if Colt hadn't already had marketed a '.44 Colt' labled cartridge,,they would have flat nosed the 44 S&W Special, and offered the chambering as the 44 Colt Special or other such name.

There was a .44 Colt cartridge already. Though not one of Colts better known numbers, it was theirs, it was manufactured, and it was chambered in the OpenTop series revolvers of the 1870's.
It is totally different from the 44Special round.
In the early 1900's,,the 1870's weren't that long in the past.

Unable to shadow the S&W cartridge,, they were stuck with it. Plus it was a proven seller. That didn't hurt things either.

 

[jesseatamez]

Texas Star: I gotcha now about the rollmarks. I appreciate you sharing your experience with the big old Colt. As for the 45 Colt, it's an exercise in compromise in my mind which worked out well much like the British SMLE Rifle.

2152: That's an explanation I hadn't thought of in regard to the 44 Colt. I was also thinking about 44 Special/Russian's reputation as a target round once you brought up the 44 Colt. I suppose Colt would have wanted no doubt in the mind of serious target shooters that this was the round they always shot, even at the expense of that S&W on their barrels. After all, the 44 Special is said to be one of the most inherently accurate cartridges in the revolver world.

Thanks

 

[Texas Star]

I think the most likely answer is that Colt wanted customers to know that both .44 Russian and Special could be used, not just one. But they could have just said .44 Special, minus the S&W name, no other .44 Special being made.

 

[handejector]

Or maybe it was an issue of chambering popularity, from what I've read the available chamberings for the New Service were quite diverse, moreso than the N-Frame Smiths. I know 45 Colt was the most popular commercial chambering for the New Service. Colt, thinking the demand for a 44 Special version would be low, probably took little issue with rollmarking S&W into those barrels.

I'm curious to hear everyone else's thoughts, thanks in advance.

I think this.
In 44 caliber cartridge revolvers, nothing came close to the rep for accuracy of the S&W cartridges. MANY records were set by NM#3's in 44 Russian.
I think Colt simply thought it was better to put the S&W on the barrel for the market recognition that already existed.

If you watch the Tales of the Gun video on S&W, you'll learn that Edwin Wesson detested Sam Colt over some issues, and that Colt was probably irate that the Rollin White pattern, licensed to S&W, kept others from boring revolver cylinders clean through until about 1872. That delayed Colt's production of a powerful cartridge revolver until 1873. That was a bitter pill to swallow, and the two companies were already arch business rivals.

Edwin may have detested Colt- I don't know. But Edwin was dead in 49, years before S&W was formed, and 6 yrs before the patent.
I don't think Colt worried that much about the White patent.
He was getting filthy rich selling percussion revolvers.
He died in Jan, 62, and probably never saw big bore cartridges or guns for them in appreciable numbers. The Henry was not produced in any quantity till later in 62. I don't think the 22 short and 32 rimfires had impressed Sam very much while the Union was screaming for his 44's!

 

[jesseatamez]

Impressed

Lee,

Thanks for the post! Never thought any of my posts would get the attention of the big man! Anywhoo, I'd always heard the 44 Russian was fairly legendary in the accuracy department. I've always wondered though, how did that big, slow, heavy bullet perform so accurately? Is it a matter of predictability? I understand heavy bullets tend to be less affected by external factors as well as retain more downrange energy. Is this that? Or is this something else entirely? If you want so the thread doesn't drift you can just pm me about this.

 

[handejector]

I don't really know.
I would assume it is just a very good balance of power, diameter, and weight, combined with a very high quality firearm shooting good ammo. S&W has a good rep for accuracy.
I once owned a Mod 14 that always put 5 rds of Federal WC ammo in one ragged hole at 50 yds from a Ransom rest. The 6th was usually detached, but right beside the big hole. Max width usually ranged from 3/4 to 1-1/4 inch.

 

[Wyatt Burp]

This 1900 vintage N.S. Target was barrel marked simply ".44 S&W" plus the regular patent dates and stuff. It was bored out to .44 special by someone in the past. The gun was made, of course, around six years before the .44 special came about. Pictured here also is a box of .38 colt new Police which is just a flat nosed .38 S&W. Colt now didn't have to put ".38 S&W" on the guns. But they sure didn't mind on the earlier New Service. Weird.

 

[Muley Gil]

In my parts bin, I have a 5 1/2" NS barrel marked the same as the one in the OP's 1st post. However, mine has a ramp front sight.

 

[ddixie884]

I also have a couple of those late .44 New Service barrels with the ramped sights........

 

[wlmccann]

If you will do a little research, you will find that standard barrel lengths in the .38 Special and .357 Magnum are 4 and 6 inches. The standard lengths for all other calibers are 4 1/2, 5 1/2 and 7 1/2 inches with the 5 1/2 seemingly being the predominant length. I have a number of these New Services and some frames stashed away to rebuild. In the stash is a 5 1/2" barrel marked as shown and with the late ramp type front sight. Before anyone asks, no they are not for sale. I could use a 4" .357 barrel and I might be interested in swapping the 5 1/2" 44 Special barrel for a 4 1/2", but be advised the 5 1/2 is factory new with about 99% of finish. Got hooked on the New Service as a teenager.