[Single Shot Pistols]

Back in the day, a lot of single shot pistols were made in everything from .22 Short to .50 caliber cartridges.   Some of these are very interesting to me.  

But, I have noticed that out on the used market, when looking for these vintage firearms, about the only things I can find are .22 RF pistols.   I did once see a S&W 1891 in .38 S&W, but it was in such bad condition that I passed on it, in spite of being a real fan of the caliber.   That was years ago, and I have not seen another one since.   Occasionally, I'll see a vintage Rolling Block in .50 caliber, but not very often.   

All of this leads me to believe that the overwhelming majority of single shot pistols made back then were in fact, 22's   Nothing against .22's, I have one myself...



...but it would be nice to have something, ANYTHING, in a centerfire caliber between, say .32 Short Colt and .45 Colt.   I know some modern replicas of the Rolling Block are out there, but I'd really prefer something "vintage."  And it does not have to be a rolling block.   There are a plethora of interesting makes/models of .22's out there, but centerfire single shots seem to be exceedingly rare.   Could it be because these were mostly seen as target pistols, and the .22 was the dominate cartridge for that kind of shooting?  

In fact, as I work though the files in my mind, I have only ever seen 2 single shot pistols of vintage make out in the wild.   The first was that .38 S&W 1891 I mentioned above, and the second was a Remington Rolling Block in .38 Special that was NOT its original caliber.  Passed on it as well, but wonder if I shouldn't have.   

Anyway, setting the various .22's aside, what exactly was made as a single shot cartridge gun with a pre 1900 design?   Are these really the only 2 options, or is other stuff out there, and I just need to keep looking till I find something?

Any experts who can chime in are welcome. 

[Does anyone have a rough idea of what Turnbull charges?]

Okay, all of this is helpful.    Gives me a good ballpark idea of what they charge.   I'll be honest, and say that I knew it'd be expensive, but didn't think it'd be that expensive.  I will consider various options carefully.   

[The .25-20]

1 hour ago, Sedalia Dave said:

 

Being Silly is what makes life worth living. 

 

Absolutely, and we all need to be silly from time to time.   To be honest, assuming I could create a .25-20 revolver, the idea of a second cylinder in .25 ACP does make a modicum of sense.   I think it would be fun.   

 

Lower right gun is a Cimarron Lightning with dual .32-20/.32 H&R Magnum cylinders.    I think this would be the perfect gun to become the .25.    

[Does anyone have a rough idea of what Turnbull charges?]

What Nimble said. 

[The .25-20]

If I ever do this, I am assuming I'll load the .25-20 the same way I load .22 Hornet for use in my converted SAA; with a load of Trailboss.   It winds up being a little quieter than a .32-20 and with even less recoil.

Hmm...

.25.   Dual cylinders.   25-20 and .25 ACP...

Now I'm just being silly.

[Does anyone have a rough idea of what Turnbull charges?]

I am very seriously considering sending the Big Iron and the Small Iron to Turnbull to have them refinished nice, and possibly engraved.  My thinking is, I'll never recoup the costs I've already sunk into them, and I want to enjoy them and for them to look impressive.  And, these are my "special" guns, so I may as well make them more special, if that makes any sense.

But I am wondering what Turnbull actually charges for stuff like this.   Their website doesn't say.   The only clue is that for engraving, they offer A, B, and C level engraving, as well as "standard" or "expert"  I'd assume that those options get progressively more expensive.  I'd also guess that they charge not quite as much as Colt charges for their engraving with the same names.  Of course, Colt's pricing is...   Well...   Astronomically expensive.   So it would be too hard to charge less than them, but still a lot.   But who knows?     As far as their refinishing goes, I can make a guess based on what other people charge, but I really am shooting in the dark here with guesswork.   

Does anyone actually know?

[No collector value guns can make for a great collection]

7 minutes ago, watab kid said:

i like those , they are very interesting pieces , if they bould talk bet they have interesting story's to tell 

 

I think I agree with you.

[The .25-20]

  

One cartridge that I don't have any guns for, but has always intrigued me, is the .25-20.   As most of us know, it's a .32-20 necked down to .25 caliber.  Winchester chambered the Model 92 for it, Marlin the 1889, and I think the Model 27 pump.   I seem to remember reading a story when I was a kid about someone who had a bolt action in the caliber, but I don't recall what it was, let alone if it was a real rifle or not.    As far as I know, Colt did not chamber the Lightning for it.

Every once in a while I come across a Winchester 92 in the caliber and consider obtaining it, but I never do.   Once in a blue moon, I do see factory ammo at a LGS, but based on what I know, it's probably new old stock.

But what I find interesting is how Colt, nor anyone else, ever chambered a single action revolver in the caliber.   I have read that there were attempts, but that the gun would never work right, so Colt never brought it to market.    As to why it would not work, the most common explanations I've seen are it had too much fouling with black powder, or that the rounds had a tendency to somehow back out of the cylinder just a little causing the gun to jam.   I don't know how accurate that is, but it is what I have read.

 

Recently however, two things happened that made me wonder if, today, a .25-20 SAA would actually work.   After all, if we are shooting smokeless in it, there'd be no fouling problem, and the much lower pressure most of us load our cowboy cartridges too would, perhaps theoretically, eliminate the other problem.  (Maybe.  I don't know for sure.)

But what were the two things that got me wondering about this?   Well, the first was how I recently obtained a 1st Gen SAA that a previous owner had converted to .22 Hornet.   The other was I saw on Guns International a Merwin & Hulbert that had been converted to .25-20.  The asking price is much higher than I am willing to spend, but it did get me thinking about the caliber and using it in revolvers.   (Note:  The rules as written do allow for rifles in ,25-20.   For revolvers, the minimum caliber is .32 with no exceptions listed.  So, a theoretical .25-20 revolver, even if it works, would probably not be SASS Legal.  You could argue for some wiggle room in the wording, but I don't think there is enough to allow for it. )  Assuming that you could customize a revolver to shoot the caliber, based on my experience with the Hornet round, it would be a pleasant shooter.   It seems, at the very least, to be an intriguing concept to me.

Has anyone else ever wondered about the possibility of a .25-20 revolver, just for fun?   For that matter, if that Merwin & Hulbert exists, then it is possible that other pistols do as well.  Anyone ever seen one?  

Also seems to me that since the .25-20 is a necked down .32-20, that modifying any rifle in the larger caliber would only require a new barrel to convert it to .25-20, if you wanted something different from the Marlin or the Winchester 92.

The possibilities are, at the very least, intriguing. 

 

Hmmm....
 

 Are you pondering what I'm pondering?

[No collector value guns can make for a great collection]

6 hours ago, watab kid said:

see your not alone , we all like these old and neglected guns just because they are interesting , old and neglected i need to get my photos up to date so i can show mine but they look a lot like everyone elses  

 

That's good to know.

 

The above Merwin & Hulbert made me remember this one...

 

Doesn't look so good, does it?  .38 S&W, inherited it from my father, who got it for free when he was helping a lady clean out her house and found several guns.   This was one of them.   Shoots well.   One day when using it, the firing pin broke, and I had it repaired so it can shoot again.

I actually was considering having this one restored, so I called up Turnbull and they told me they don't do nickel for various reasons.   I've searched for places that do, but to be honest, I think I can get another one the looks good for about the same price as restoring this one, so I'd probably do that and leave this one as is.   Then I'd have two!

Curiously, I did discover that it will lock in place between chambers, so you could load all 5.  Not sure how it does it, but it does do it.

I've also got this one...

 

Looks like it's been heavily modified.  Skull crusher cut off, front sight is not right, finish is VERY rough.   But it's tight, functional, and fun to shoot.  Got it for, iirc, around 300 bucks about 10 years ago.

[No collector value guns can make for a great collection]

1 hour ago, watab kid said:

he thought it might have been factory converted and refinished but im too lazy to letter it

 

I encourage you to get it lettered.

Over the last couple of years, I have been getting letters for everything that I can get a letter for.   Colts (which are expensive), S&W, Parker Shotguns, Marlins, Winchesters, Webley Revolvers, Rugers (which are only $10!), Ithaca, and I have learned who else has letters available for if I ever get one of their guns.  There are surprisingly a lot of companies that do it, and sadly a lot that don't.

It's been an EXPENSIVE project, but I think it's worth it.  It's nice to have the documentation, especially for anything over 50 years old or an antique, to help you prove its status.   Granted, some letters are very sparse in what they provide.   The best of the bunch is S&W.   They give you general information about the model, as well as specific details for your specific one.  AND, if they happen to know something special about it, they tell you at no additional charge.  My New Model 3 target for example, was originally owned by a national pistol champion from here in the Boston area.   They even printed a copy of the article about him in American Rifleman and included it with the letter.   Colt could learn a thing or three from S&W.

But let that go.  

There was an article in The Parker Pages latest issue that I got today that said how they have acquired the original factory records for Parker guns that were owned by Remington.   Hopefully this will mean that someone has acquired the rest of Remington's historical data, and maybe letters for them will soon be forthcoming.  One can only hope.

[Ian Shoots a Small Revolver]

9 hours ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

Hey,I like that .33 with the conversion cylinder.  I can find the pistol, but where did you get the cartridge cylinder for it?

I got the cylinder from Taylor's.  Word of caution, the revolvers are not well made.  I had to have my gunsmith to extensive work just to make it functional.   The trigger pull was about 100 pounds, and the hammer pull to cock it was even heavier.  The timing was off too.   And, the cylinder didn't fit.   My gunsmith was able to fix all these issues. but it took a relatively inexpensive gun and turned it into an not so inexpensive one.   Still glad to have it though.

[No collector value guns can make for a great collection]

If you collect Single Action Army revolvers, not for the investment potential, but more for the ability to shoot an otherwise enjoy them, then sometimes guns that have little to no, "collector value," can make for a great way to build your collection.   Such guns tend to be relatively inexpensive compared to their more nice looking contemporaries, and they are at times very easy to find.   For example...


 

This is a First Generation gun made in 1885.  It's a .44-40.   It's mechanically perfect.  But it is as ugly as sin.   It was described by the dealer who sold it as having a "bad chrome refinish," and that is an insult to bad finishes everywhere.  Pretty much all of the markings have been scrubbed away, the trigger hammer and ejector housing have been gold plated, and the original grips, as you can see, are badly worn with age.  But it shoots like a dream.   It letters as being blued at the factory.  I briefly considered having it restored, but you know, I actually like how it looks, especially the parts covered in gold.  It gives it some curious character.  I did replace the grips (but kept the originals) with reproduction first gen ones.  I got it about five years ago, for five hundred bucks., which is dirt cheap for a shootable 1st Gen antique.

Another interesting thing I got more recently is this one...



This 1910 vintage pistol is very strange. I got it late in 2025 for $1200, and if you look at it closely, you can see that it's a Bisley frame that has been modified to be more of a standard SAA. That in and of itself is unusual, but not unheard of. John Wayne had at least one such pistol in his collection and used it on one of his movies. But what's really odd is how via a new barrel of unknown origin and some sleeves, this is now a .22 Hornet. That makes this quite probably unique. Not "valuable" but highly unusual. I am waiting on a letter to tell me its original configuration.

Another modified from its original configuration is another antique...

This one letters to 1881 as a .44-40. It letters as nickeled. But as you can see, the ejector housing is blued, and the as you can't see, it's been converted to .32-20. Colt has no record of the change, so who know who/when it was done, or why. I understand this was a common change in the 1920's, and a person I knew who was familiar with these things is of the unverified opinion that this is when it was done. He felt that if it was not done at the factory, whoever did it, did a great job. I got this for $1700 in 2007.

And finally, I'll share this one...

This Second Generation .45 cost me $700 in 2010. Colt's website dates it to 1971, and I am waiting on a letter. For such a newer gun, it is strange to me that is has no original finish left, but that's what allowed me to get it so inexpensively. In fact, I can see this gun making a trip to Turnbull someday, if funds would ever allow. Time will tell.
 

Now, I think all of these guns, if they looked better and were more original, would have likely been way out of my price range.   But because their so called, "collector value" was gone, or at least greatly diminished, I could afford them, and that's a good thing.  

I can't be the only collector who is actually interested in so called, non collectable guns.   Or am I?

[Ian Shoots a Small Revolver]

5 hours ago, watab kid said:

i like my ssmall revolvers , they dont fit the hand very well but they ae fun - i have an NAA revolver in 22 WMR , a victor in 22 short and a S&W no1 in 22 short so far 

 

I will echo that sentiment.  Small revolvers, are a lot of fun.    When I was deciding on what my "Small Iron" would be that I paired with my "Big Iron" I worked though a lot of possibilities.

See this thread for more details...
 

 

[Ian Shoots a Small Revolver]

3 hours ago, Dapper Dave said:

Here ya go. Harrington and Richardson America .32SW revolver, DA/SA, 5 shot.

Oh, well...



Pietta replica of .31 C&B with .32 S&W conversion cylinder

 

S&W 1-1/2 in the same caliber.

[Ian Shoots a Small Revolver]

17 minutes ago, DeaconKC said:

They make a gorgeous little .32 ACP pistol.

Yeah, but that's an autoloader.   Not SASS legal! 

 

[Eligibility of Ruger Old Army?]

34 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

Your "ALL" except Pettifogger, missing a very very KEY POINT!!  We aren't talking about SASS (USA RULES).  The question concerns the German requirement that it (ROA) be a "Documented" replica of an existing firearm of the era.  The Ruger Old Army is NOT a replica.  It only sort of resembles the Remington.  Not being a "documented" replica, the ROA would NOT be legal under GERMAN rules.  In that vein, it is NOT acceptable.

Hmm...   I can not dispute anything you said.

But, using the exact same reasoning, the Ruger Vaquero would not be legal either.   It's not a documented replica, it only sort of resembles the Colt.

The more I ponder this question, the more additional conditions it raises.

[Ian Shoots a Small Revolver]

.22 Magnum is nothing to sneeze at.  It's actually got a pretty good bite.  That being said, yeah, if you want something bigger, that's perfectly understandable.   That being said, I think it was Jeff Cooper, of all people, who said that the man with a .22 in his pocket is better armed than the man with a .45 in his bedstand at home.

All of that being said, since, they'd probably fit, I'd love to see a version of these in .32 S&W.  I've seen it argued that .22 Magnum is actually more potent, but the .32 would be SASS legal!

[Ian Shoots a Small Revolver]

My father bought my mother one of those for her birthday many years ago.   Although, hers is a .22 Short.   It came in a nice small presentation case.   Mom was all excited, thought it might be a fancy necklace or something.   Then she opened it and saw the pistol.   They laughed about it for years.

[Holster Configuration for Longer Barrels?]

I think pictures will help. 



This is the gunbelt and holster I use for my Buntline.  You can see how it's centered to the "dip," and how it is angled forward a bit.



And this is with the gun mostly drawn.  By pulling it closer to horizonal as it is drawn, it clears the holster more easily.

I do have another belt somewhere with a dip on each side for when I use 2 Buntlines.   But what is even more fun is when I use both Buntline holsters, and after the Buntline comes out of the first holster, a Sheriff's Model comes out of the second.  Everyone who didn't see me getting ready at the loading table is usually shocked.

[Holster Configuration for Longer Barrels?]

I have some very generic holsters that I use for everything from 4-3/4 to 7-1/2 inches.   They hang straight down, and for me, they work just fine.

But if I am shooting guns with LONG barrels, I use something a bit different.  When I am shooting my Big Iron with the 10" barrel, or my 12" Buntlines, I use a holster that was designed to be a crossdraw holster, but I wear it strong side.  The holster then hangs pointed inward/pointed forward, and allows for pulling the pistol out without having to pull it "all the way up" like you'd have to if it was hanging straight down.   I don't know if I'm describing this well, but it does help.   Also, I tend to hang the holster on a belt that has a kind of a "dip" where they holster sits instead of being a perfectly straight belt, so the holster hangs a little lower.

I suppose that these features that make it easier to draw a 12" barrel would offer even more help with a 7.5" one.
 

[Eligibility of Ruger Old Army?]

The Ruger Old Army is a modernized version of the Remington New Army, commonly referred to as the Model 1858.

58's did have SAA style sights.

 

Its not a Rogers and Spencer.

[Case for The Big Iron and The Small Iron.]

I plan to get several more from them.  Basically, pistols for which I do not have the original box so I have something to keep them in.   I will get these "fitted" cases that they already for real Colts, S&W's and Remingtons in the collection.   Replica guns or guns for other brands will likely get their generic cases that are REALLY inexpensive for what they are.

Plan it is to get Red for real or replica Colts, Blue for S&W, Green for Remington and Black felt for anything else.   I may get a "custom" dual case for a pair of Colt Bisley's I have, but don't think I'll do much else in the way of custom made cases.

But I will splurge for locking latches and carry handles. 

[Tuning colt clone revolver worth it?]

If tuning the gun makes it work better for you, do it.  If you think it works just fine as is, don't do it.

Most of my guns are stock, or pretty close to it.  The only guns I have had tuned were ones that were so rough from the factory as to be almost unusable.  Those have included an Armi San Marco Model 92, rifle, and a Colt NRA Centennial revolver.  In the opposite extreme, I have an Uberti 66 that was so slicked up and the springs so lightened that the hammer didn't fall fast enough to set off the primers.   I asked Happy Trails if he could return it to "more or less stock," so that it would work.   He did.  It's still probably the "slickest" rifle I have, some things can't be undone, but I had it taken back to a functional level, so to speak.  I did get an action job for a Uberti/Taylor's 86 that was overly stiff out of the box.  More recently, I got a replica of the Remington 1863 .31 Cap and Ball made by Pietta.  Horribly made gun.   Had the gunsmith tune it up nice.   

Other guns only get needed repairs.  So in the end, do what you think it needed for your guns according to your preferences.

[Case for The Big Iron and The Small Iron.]

Well, I have a great update on status of my Big Iron, and Small Iron revolvers.  I had a custom case made for them by the good folks at Hampel's Woodland Products, https://www.hampelswoodlandproducts.com/ and I have to say that I am very pleased with the results.

 

The carry handle and locking latches did add to the cost, but not a lot, I think they were worth it.   They make this a travel case, as well as a storage one.  Well, maybe not AIRLINE travel, but it is good for in the back of the van with the rest of the luggae.



And you can put a lotta nice stuff in it.  The Big Iron, the Small Iron (with ,32 Colt cylinder installed, the second cylinder in .32 S&W Long, and a box of ammo in all three calibers along with my Arizona Ranger badge 

$175, shipped.

 

I don't know if I'll get any more custom cases, but some of their pre-made specific and generic ones for sure.

So the only thing left to do, I suppose, is send the pistols off to Turnbull to have them done up nice.    At the very least, The Small Iron needs to have those ugly PVC grips replaced, probably with wooden ones to match the Big Iron, but seeing them both engraved with really nice finish is something very tempting.   Sure, I'm investing a lot more into these things than they are "worth" but I'm having fun with them.  

'

[Ruger's polilcy on guns returned for service]

I can understand returning a gun to factory original specs for various reason.

But I don't understand why they will change a gun from factory specs to add something to it it did not originally have.    Seems to me to be unneeded tampering.