themanchesterwizard: thankyou my friend for your help.
duelist1954: It does not take the .44 Spl, which is too long, and it does not take the .44 S&W American, which has a .45 caliber, heel-based bullet.
themanchesterwizard: hi does this not take the .44 S&W cartridge as the .44 Russian is a slightly different size & im assuming the .44 S&M american woulnt fit?
darkbrisco: why is there a very big part of my soul that hopes and prays he dresses like that in public?
jsm666: What is it with the single action? Why does it exude such magic? It's not as if self-roostering or even double action revolvers (e.g. the British Beaumont-Adams) weren't possible back then, and I know which I'd prefer in combat (if only for fear of being so terrified I'd forget to rooster the bloody thing).
Seth Tyrssen: Well shucks ... judging by the opening and closing scenes, ya must go through a lot of camera operators ...>grin!<
BushcraftBritannia: No it isn't, he uses a British made Webley and a swing loading pistol that may be the Colt Police Positive, but I'm not sure.
MasterofSwords991: Hey that's the Indiana jones revolver
72darkf: I kind of like topbreaks. Strange that they never really hold theyr ground with theyr advantage during reloading. Never had a chance to try one yet, alas. How reliable is the ejection with expanded mouths on cases? Smith topbreaks, Enfields? Wondering if any new design with modern technology by any major manufactor would come out one day. The simplicity of it would be a selling point, I think.
duelist1954: The New Model No 3 is better by far...better ejector, better caliber, better grip design.
ChasingTruth TakingFlak: Hey Mike, which grip do you think is better, the new model 3 or the original model 3 American?
247Weed420: This is the gun used by Robert Ford to kill Jesse James
Huey H March: Thoroughly enjoyable channel. I just subscribed.
duelist1954: The sights were very fine, which 19th century shooters preferred. Even Colt SAA sights in the 19th century were much more narrow than they are on modern SAAs
HarbingerOfBattle: Quick question from an idiot, If the the new model 3 was the best single action of the 19th century, why was the sighting so bad? Wouldn't that throw off the shooter's aim, or am I missing something?
duelist1954: Well, even though I like the rear sight on the Schofield latch, the latch itself if much easier to accidentally open than standard No 3 latch. Other than that, the New Model No 3 has a better grip design. It points more naturally than the Schofield. It has a shorter ejector housing than the Scho, and an easier reach to the hammer for roostering.
cherokid: Hi Mike. I really think the break top revolvers are very cool. I bought an old S&W in 38 s&w just to look it over and have one. Its not a shooter . The schofield supposedly has a stronger latch mechanism. Why is the number 3 superior to the schofield?
RonanMacQuarrie: Thanks again
duelist1954: I have seen several Russians with the spur removed...never saw one without the hump...doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I can't confirm it. Taking the hump off really won't improve the grip due to the very straight grip angle.
RonanMacQuarrie: I heard that some cowboys would file the hump down as well as the spur, is that true or just inaccurate hearsay?
Matthew Mccallum: Right! this a actual original,
Taylor and company do make replica's
dan marva: thats not a uberti replica right?
makalda92: can you sell me those bullets?I have original s&w model 3 .44 russian but I can not find any cartridges.I live in Finland
pecospest: Good clip , Mike !
You are making things clear , lots of people are confused between the schofield , the russian (s) and the NM#3.
I shoot a NM#3, late model ( long cylinder ), 5" barrel , in 44SWR , original " pimpish "pearl grips that has the trigger guard spur , from what i read it was an option .
The replicas do not look quite like the originals ,they don't have the right extraction mechanism , a fact that is visible under the frame in front of the trigger guard.
duelist1954: Yup, but they are out of stock. I asked for one to test a few months ago, so they are trying to get a few added to their next shipment from Uberti.
Matthew Mccallum: Yeah your right, did you know that Taylor's and Company make replica's of the new model 3 frontier.
duelist1954: You could come close, but the NM No 3 has a significantly different grip, not just the hump. The angle of the grip is much more shallow on the NM No 3 than it is on the Russian. Also the extractor housing under the barrel is much shorter on the NM No 3.
Matthew Mccallum: Perhaps one could make their own new model 3 by making some changes to the Russian model.
duelist1954: seven inches
WildGaston: Whats the barrel length on that beuty?
SlickVega: too cool! thanks a ton for shooting that old beaut and sharing the video :)
Ladderadder Mcglitternips: I like how shooting these kinds of guns is not about being OPERATOR or badass, it's about being a suave motherfreaker
duelist1954: Jay will have Alan Harton of the Single Action Service do the work. Alan is one of the finest restoration gunsmiths in the country. He has worked on several of my guns and on a number of Jay's guns.
duelist1954: No. The New Model No. 3s shot .44 Russian except for a variant made for .44-40 called the Frontier Model. The .44 Spl cartridge was introduced in 1907, specifically for smokeless powder. The NMNo 3 was in production until 1912, but the cylinder would have been too short for the .44 Spl.
WildGaston: So did the new model army originally shoot .44 special?
ralph crosby: TAYLORS HAD A COUPLE AT THE LAST GUNSHOW AT DULLES. Way over priced for a replica and one that is not the proper caliber or even handle Black Powder worth a damn
duelist1954: They came out two years after the battle.
andrewvanrhoberts: I wonder if these pistols were used in the Battle of Little Big Horn
lisar3006: David R. Chicoine is a Gun Smith that specializes in restoration of antique firearms. I am sure he can repair the enlarged firing pin hole in this fine old S&W NO#3.
KossoffFan: I agree with this assumption. To me, the earlier barrel mounted latch was a superior design. Its not that much more difficult to open than the Schofield anyway. I would think even at full gallop, a cavalryman could easily hold the reins and still reach over to unlatch it. I have an Iver Johnson Pocket .38 with the same latch design, and most of the time i can still open it with the thumb of my gun hand just by pushing up under it with my thumb.
duelist1954: I don't know the official answer, but my assumption is that S&W didn't want to have to make royalty payments to Maj Schofield. Also the Schofield latch is prone to accidental openings from catching on the edge of the holster.
TheSonofFrank .: So why didn't the Schofield frame-mounted latch stay in the design?
ralph crosby: stil a bit of a reach on it with the thumb to the hammer. Even without the russian strap, I would like to see production model of this. From Smith
1guyin10: That is a sweet gun!
KossoffFan: Its so funny SASS wouldnt allow it because it was based on a Target model New Model No. 3 that existed back then. So the whole thing was still historically accurate. Stupid old bastards lol.
grant1863: I have a Beretta Laramie (made by Uberti) that looks a great deal like the No 3, I thought it was more of a Schofield but it has that hump. It wasn't approved for SASS because of the adjustable rear sights and Beretta dropped it from their line. thanks for the video, great to see in action.
KossoffFan: Please do a video as soon as you get one. I want one of these myself. Its probably my favorite revolver from the 19th century aside from the 1878 Colt DA and the Merwin-Hulbert revolvers.
duelist1954: Yes, in .45 Colt, but they are out of stock. They are going to try to get me one in their next shipment from Italy.
KossoffFan: They now have a New Model 3 replica on their website. I dont think its available yet. But its chambered in .45 Colt.
Col. Bat Guano: Hold your horses, let them grow back first!