1900 Sears catalog ads for Colts

Bully. Let's all order a Bisley for $15.

Give me a couple of SAA's.

I think most of those prices were more than 2 weeks pay for a person, about the same as they are now.

One thing these ads brought out to me is that the idea of ejecting all the cartridges at once didn't come along for quite a few years (after the introduction of cartridges themselves) and was a selling feature even as late as 1900.

Actually, simutaneous ejection for revolvers had been around for quite some time. S&W "Schofields", and other top breaks used it. No offense to our membership but I think that was the gun the US Govt. should have adopted over the SAA. According to some notes the govt. testers took, it was about 16 seconds for the cavalry to eject and load a Schofield and about 60 seconds to eject and reload a SAA. This was from the mounted position.
Of course by 1900, the one piece frame of the Colts was stronger and the Colt were far more attractive looking than the S&Ws of that era. S&W introduced their solid frame swing out cylinder hand ejectors in 1899 if I remember correctly. There's one partially cut off at the bottom of one of the pictures. I guess Colt patents prevented S&W from marketing a solid frame swing out cylinder for revolvers for about 11 years.

Only the Colt ads of the period touted single ejection. The S&W ads touted simultaneous ejection.

What a 'Wish Book'..!

How much are they in the 2014 Sears Roebuck catalogue? LOL

Looking at my Fall 1909 Sears & Roebuck, SAA's are $13.90, $20 for Pearl handles. Bisley's are $13.90. $16.20 for a New Service, and so on.

twaits said:

I agree about the Schofield. But they really should have chambered it so it would accept the longer 45 Colt cartridges. I think that was one of the things going against it. Where the SAA would chamber either .45 S&W or 45 Colt the S&Ws cylinder could only chamber .45 S&W. That would suck if you ran out of ammo for your Schofield and all you could find on the battle field was .45 Colt.

S&Ws first side swinger was the model of 1896

Click to expand...

Erik, I failed to mention the caliber difference due to laziness, but that fact is crucial to this discussion. It is as Frank Zappa used to say, "the crux of the biscuit". As far as I know, S&W failed to recognize that the govt. wouldn't want to scrap huge lots of an already adopted revolver caliber. Precedent says they never would due to monetary reasons.

A later example was when Gen. MacArthur was army chief of staff in the 1930s. His Office of Chief of Ordnance and Springfield Armory were testing the M-1 rifle. They wanted to adopt it. When it got to the general's desk he said basically, great rifle, but rechamber it from the approx. 6mm. round to the 30-06. The govt. had billions of 30-06 ammo in storage.

S&Ws failure to market the Schofield in the standard 45 cal. cost them a huge contract and changed revolver history in the US. It was quite a marketing and strategy failure on their part.

That's right, Erik. I forgot the year for S&W. It was 1896


Mike

Given that the Army's common load for the SAA was .45 S&W, and would be until that weapon was phased out, along with the Model 3 Schofields - running out of ammunition wasn't going to be a problem.

In the Army's eyes, the Colt was more desireable because of fewer moving parts to contend with - even though the soldiers and troopers of the era didn't do a whole helluva lot of 'maintenance'.

They didn't want parts to be co-mingled - fewer parts meant reducing that risk.

Then, as now - the soldier's primary battle weapon was his rifle or carbine - revolvers were a last-ditch affair.

Having never examined a SAA or non-self-ejecting cartridge-based revolver, is there an arbor to hold the cylinder, similar to the percussion guns?

Yup...

Those blackpowder designs are what later revolvers evolved into.

dogface6 said:

Given that the Army's common load for the SAA was .45 S&W, and would be until that weapon was phased out, along with the Model 3 Schofields - running out of ammunition wasn't going to be a problem.

In the Army's eyes, the Colt was more desireable because of fewer moving parts to contend with - even though the soldiers and troopers of the era didn't do a whole helluva lot of 'maintenance'.

They didn't want parts to be co-mingled - fewer parts meant reducing that risk.

Then, as now - the soldier's primary battle weapon was his rifle or carbine - revolvers were a last-ditch affair.

Click to expand...

Six, all good points, thanks.

"This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine"......USMC Maj. General W.H. Rupertus, from "The Rifleman's Creed"