Jump to content

Talk:Smith & Wesson Model 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge

[edit]

I have to say I personally think that the Schofield Model 3 article should be merged into this one, rather than the other way around- Schofield did not actually make revolvers, AFAIK, so maybe an article entitled Smith & Wesson No. 3 Schofield Revolver (or something similar) may be in order?--Commander Zulu (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it should be merged into here. It does seem to be a variant of the Smith & Wesson, and WP:GUNS#Variants specifies that the variant should be merged into the parent's article. I suppose one thing we should also do is expand this article greatly.--LWF (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the articles; There's been a "Merge Notice" up since April- I think that's enough notice. ;) Commander Zulu (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I own a S&W Performance Center Schofield revolver (ie, of recent manufacture), and a Colt Single Action Army revolver.

I believe the real reason that the Army decided to go w/ the Colt revolver is durability. There is a lot of 'monkey motion' in the S& W. The extractor can give trouble. It appears that using black powder would eventually clog up the mechanism and it would not be easily remedied by a 'field fix.' I suspect that the Colt SAA is more robust and less likely to get out of order, esp in the field. It also seems easier to fix than the Schofield. After the Army sold them and they went to civilians, they would prbly give good service: not getting the hard use and likely carried in relatively good conditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.111.193 (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

should be moved?

[edit]

I would suggest that the article to which this is talk page be moved from "smith & wesson no. 3 revolver" to "smith and wesson model 3".If i may point out,this article clearly states within that it is a revolver,and purely as an example i state that the smith and wesson model 19 or smith and wesson model 36 do not have "revolver" included in the titles of their wikipedia pages.Or most revolvers,really.Anyone with more than none to very,very basic or in some cases partial knowlege of firearms actions will recognize it from the picture(s) as a revolver,and those who have very little to no knowlege can figure it out from within the article,and links to the page "revolver".As a person very knowlegeable of many firearms including this one,i say that i don't know of a non-revolver firearm by this name.And as far as i know,the more proper designation would be "smith and wesson model 3",not "smith and wesson no. 3".Though the "no. 3" works understandably,i think it less proper and official.thank you,and i respect any dispute,so dispute me as you see fit with an objection as a new section.i may do it myself,but i think i may wait a few days to see if i have been disputed.but i may not.thank you again,Keserman (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC) sorry,perhaps i should wait,but what i see as sufficient reason makes me plan to move it now,and objection can still be left,and it can be moved back to old title.Keserman (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hog long?

[edit]

Try a little proofreading. According to the specifications section, this pistol is 10 feet long. It should probably be millimeters rather than centimeters, with the correspoinding recalculation of length in inches.24.61.30.217 (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For further reading

[edit]

OK Corral

[edit]

In the page for the 'Gunfight at the OK corral' it is stated that Wyatt Earp used one of these pistols in the famous fight. Should this not be mentioned in the article? It seems more significant than some video games which are mentioned.Dean1954 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_3&oldid=1212525909"