Why aren't model 3's more popular in cowboy action

>Why aren't model 3's more popular in cowboy action shooting? Like I see just a bunch of single action army clones as the most popular?
>Why is .45 colt more popular than 44-40 winchester?

The answer to both of these questions is the same: availability.

A decent SAA repro is cheap. A decent Model 3 repro is expensive. .45 Colt is readily found everywhere. .44-40 is not.

>>33914594
>Why is .45 colt more popular than 44-40 winchester?

.45 Colt is significantly easier to reload. .44-40 is bottlenecked and relatively thin-walled at the top.

also fudds love them some .45 and some Colt

Model 3's are more awkward to use and generally a reload is not required during a Single Action match, at least not under time. They are also significantly more expensive.

.45 Colt is easier/cheaper to reload and still a modern cartridge. .44-40 has been replaced by .44 special/magnum in all but CAS.

Nobody gives a hot gay fuck about M&H.

>>33915164
>.45 Colt
>modern cartridge

pick one

>>33914594
I think Merwin & Hulbert required more processes that would be expensive to replicate over making a SAA copy. A while back I remember hearing that a company was going to make a replica, don't know if it ever took off or ended up being affordable though.

File: webley.webm (2MB, 814x594px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 814x594px

>>33914594
I don't get why all revolvers aren't top-break. With modern metallurgy they could be made plenty strong.

It's plainly the best revolver design ever made.
>inb4 swingout makes it obsolete
No automatic ejection

>>33915483
>I don't get why all revolvers aren't top-break.

Because it's a design with an inherent weak spot in the frame.

>With modern metallurgy they could be made plenty strong.

And that same metalurgy could make a fixed frame revolver even stronger.

So that's why.

>>33915483

Make a top break revolver capable of firing .460 magnum and I'll believe you.

>>33915561
Not that guy, but the Thompson Contender is a top-break pistol that has no problems handling things like .357, .223, or .45-70. It should stand to reason that a modern top-break revolver would be able to do the same.

>but why would you want one in light of the frame being weaker?

It's naturally ambidextrous and lets you reload far more quickly due to being fitted with an auto-ejector.

>>33915561
>And that same metalurgy could make a fixed frame revolver even stronger.
Diminishing returns.

>>33915879
Reload times would be pretty much the same once you drill enough. Though I do want to see at least one modern gun in top break.

>>33916003
It would require less drilling, and it would be MUCH cooler too.

>>33915183
Ruger and Marlin still sell guns chambered in it today. It's not just for SAA clones.

>>33916014
For speed and certainty it would be about the same amount of training because the main problem is getting used to speed loaders, it also introduces the problem of hot barrels needing to be grabbed, especially on snubnoses.

It is 100% sexier though, want a H&R 999 for that reason alone, not to mention 8 shots of .22 in whatever you see fit to load.

>>33915418
Merwin and Hulbert was a piece of mechanical art. Reproducing one would be too expensive except for the boutique market. Few people will buy a $2000 revolver and those that will probably will buy something else by the time it's available.

>>33915879
>Not that guy, but the Thompson Contender is a top-break pistol
There are three main parts to a top-break revolver.
The Barrel.
The Cylinder.
The Receiver.

The Receiver and Barrel are connected at a pivot point.
When a round is fired, pressure is directed against the Barrel and imparts force upon this pivot point regardless of the locking mechanism on top of the Barrel section.
This causes wear that affects both the Barrel and Cylinder; wear that may impact the Timing, the Lock-up, and the Pin connecting the Barrel and Receiver.
It will not blow up the gun, but will cause problems with the separate parts.

With a single-shot and single-barreled rifle or shotgun, which is NOT top-break, you have a locking mechanism joined with the barrel in-line with the pivot point(rather than atop it, like a top-break revolver). The system also lacks a cylinder, which makes it more robust.

Do not compare Apples to Bananas and you'll look less retarded in the future.

>>33916407
>forgetting the cam
>forgetting 6 o'clock revolvers exist
>ignoring most force is linear in a firearm
Congratulations on being half right and full asshole.

>>33916448

irrelevant since there are only a handful of 6 o'clock revolvers, and none as top breaks.

>>33916448
>>forgetting 6 o'clock revolvers exist
Congrats, now you're putting pressure directly on the pivot pin rather than the flimsy locking mechanism.

>>33916448
only 6 o'clock top break revolver I know of is the one from Trigun, and I hate to break it to you but that one isn't real.

>>33916486

It should be noted that in terms of physics, this would make for a shorter "lever" and would therefore impart less rotational torque on the pivot.

>>33916503
>less
well yeah

But you're still talking about a design that uses a rotating cylinder and a forcing cone alongside that pivot; it's going to be beaten and worn much more quickly than a conventional model, and those still do have occasional problems with cylinder timing and locking up correctly.

>>33915183
As another anon said, other manufacturers make modern guns in the caliber, not just cowboy guns or facsimiles thereof. The .44-40 is strictly for cowboy guns, and the .44 special does anything it can do better.

>>33916699
.44-40s obsolescence does not have any bearing on whether or not .45 Colt is also obsolete (protip: it is)

>>33916556

Well yes, I'm not debating that. A top break revolver will certainly beat itself to death faster than a solid frame.

>>33916748
Out of an original (large frame) Vaquaro or a Freedom Arms 83, you can load the .45 colt to stupid power levels, for hunting and such. So I would say its hardly obsolete as a multipurpose/all in one round.

>>33917151
>i-in this one really specific instance you can make it almost not a joke cartridge

You put enough steel around anything and you can load it hot.

>>33915561
And yet we have break action rifles and shotguns and the Russians decided to make the Rex polymer AND .357.

Nobody has tried redesign since the 1800s and it doesn't need to be super strong, just strong enough.

Cowboy action shooting isn't about the shooting. It's about the larping. It's about the excuse to buy the clothes and the holster rigs and walk around wearing it.

You gotta understand that the guys who invented CAS were the generation that grew up on westerns in TV and movies. No shit like 50%(at least) of all hollywood shit was westerns. 98% of the handguns in those westerns were SAAs.

>>33914594

>Why aren't model 3's more popular in cowboy action shooting? Like I see just a bunch of single action army clones as the most popular?
Cost. I like old Smith's as well too, but I can get two Ruger Vaquero's for less money.

>Why is .45 colt more popular than 44-40 winchester?
44-40 is still an option, but with 45 long colt, I can shoot my Vaquero's, an old Colt 1917, and a Judge/Governor. Also, "Colt 45" is probably the oldest gun meme I can think of.

>why does no one make a Merwin & Hulbert repro?
I'm a pretty knowledgeable gun nut, and I had to look that shit up. Not enough demand or following to support a commercial venture I suppose.

>>33918180

THIS.

My gun club hosts a monthly match, plus regional events. They literally turn out 1000 yard range into a parking lot for top of the line RV's, and the outfits, guns, and support gear would literally put any cosplay convention to shame. In my experience, most SASS types are older folks who love the old west era, and now have the time and money to lean into it hard.

>>33918085
>And yet we have break action rifles and shotguns
Because the locking mechanism isn't mounted on top of the barrel and the pivot point is mounted to the barrel itself.
Until a proper redesign that's proven to work and doesn't cost four-figures(it will) is discovered, you're better off with a revolver using a solid frame.

>and the Russians decided to make the Rex polymer AND .357
The world will never know if it was actually good.
Taurus makes revolvers, but they aren't proof of anything except how not-simple the intricacies of a revolver are and how to fuck them up.

>>33914594
I use a model 3 schofield in 44-40 as well as my winchest 1873 repro. We need a merwin hulbert repro though. Maybe if we send in some ideas to uberti or pietta.

>>33916748
Protip no cartridge is obsolete. Ive taken down bear with my 50-70 and i go deer hunting with my 44-40. Quit whining like a child and gtfo.

>>33918180
I do CAS for the historical value and fun. not for larping. Also 19th century clothing is baller.

>>33918584
Accurate lmao. There are a few younger like me who do CAS because of that old west aesthetic. I do alot of blackpowder shooting because that smoke and smell

>>33918749
Being obsolete doesn't mean you can't use it anymore.