Impetus for the "new" #5s

[Axehandle]

What do you guys think about the TLA Improved #5 taking a significant part of the credit for the current crop of #5s by Reeder, Clements, Bowen, Harton, and who knows who else... Yeah, the orginal dates back to the 1920s but what was being done by the gunsmiths in the form of a #5  before  "Grover's Improved #5"

[cubrock]

I'd have to think about that.  I think a lot of the impetus re: all the #5s out there is what has been written over recent years referencing Keith's #5.  There was quite a lag between Grover closing up shop (1998) and the recent spate of #5s (really came into its own in the last 5 or 6 years).  Between those times, Brian Pearce and Hamilton Bowen hatched their #5 replica.

On the other hand, people like 2 Dogs have/had TLA #5s and then were instrumental in pushing/paying for some of these nice custom #5s we've all seen.

Sooooo....I'll still have to think about it.  Great topic to chew on, though!       

[2 dogs]

IMO, Grover took quite a bit of "artistic license" with his Improved #5 sixgun. There are significant differences between Grovers sixgun and the original. Grovers sixgun for example is a very heavy duty style sixgun capable of firing far heavier cartridges than the original 44 special 250/1200 sixgun that Keith called "The Last Word" in 1929. Personally, Im just fine with that fact.

In my opinion, a sixgun is not a true #5 unless it incorporates ALL of the original Keith features. Like Jeff Coopers scout rifle concept there are all sorts of Hybrids on the #5 platform.

The Grand Old Man set down in his writing what he wanted the #5 to be....

The main frame is extended over the hammer so as to increase the sight radius.
Sights are fully adjustable.
Bisley style hammer and trigger set back in the trigger guard.
Distinctive grip frame configuration.
Base pin latch lever system.

[Axehandle]

Now 2 Dogs....  I'd be willing to bet that I have read a paragraph where you took a stance 180 degrees from this.....  Could one of these or perhaps both be one of those devils advocate things? 

[Boge Quinn]

IMO, Grover took quite a bit of "artistic license" with his Improved #5 sixgun. There are significant differences between Grovers sixgun and the original. Grovers sixgun for example is a very heavy duty style sixgun capable of firing far heavier cartridges than the original 44 special 250/1200 sixgun that Keith called "The Last Word" in 1929. Personally, Im just fine with that fact.

In my opinion, a sixgun is not a true #5 unless it incorporates ALL of the original Keith features. Like Jeff Coopers scout rifle concept there are all sorts of Hybrids on the #5 platform.

The Grand Old Man set down in his writing what he wanted the #5 to be....

The main frame is extended over the hammer so as to increase the sight radius.
Sights are fully adjustable.
Bisley style hammer and trigger set back in the trigger guard.
Distinctive grip frame configuration.
Base pin latch lever system.

I'm with 2Dogs - without these features, a sixgun may be a NICE sixgun, but it's NOT a Number 5. I think Grover's Number 5 hits all the bases to be defined as a true Number 5, but in a Ruger-strength sixgun - which is (partly) why Grover called his the IMPROVED Number 5. I think EK would have enthusiastically embraced the heavier sixgun as in improvement. It would be interesting to hear what he'd think of the "right-handed" design, though - I think that's an improvement, but they do handle differently for a guy who's run SAs all his life.

[cubrock]

For some reason, I doubt EK would have liked the right-handedness of a TLA gun.  Quite honestly, it is mostly gimmick.  I can't load it any faster than I can a standard SA and I highly doubt that someone highly trained with either would beat the other in reload time by enough to make a difference.

I do think, though, that EK would have liked the TLA Improved #5, given his affinity for .44 Magnum.

[Boge Quinn]

True, you shoot a "lefty" SAA for years and the TLA does feel odd. As much as I love my TLAs, I can't run 'em as well as I can a "regular" sixgun. I agree, the "righty" thing is gimmicky, but the craftsmanship and the "woo" factor of the TLAs are off the charts!

[cubrock]

Agreed.   

[Axehandle]

Hmmm....  I am now thinking that there are two "Number 5s"...   EK's working gun and the one we see pictures of...  The essence of the #5 was that it was "The Last Word."  EK's last word in '29 at that.   Of course we should expect a 2009 version with 80 years of handgun evolution to be slightly different...  So, while we may call them #5s or improved #5s, the bottom line is, while they may be an embelished copy of the original, they are an individual expression of our own "Last Word."    

[last grover]

copies or reproductions of any colt sixgun is a tribute to the original designer and manufacturer. any improvements of the original usually come from someone using their 'IMPROVED" copy for a purpose other than what it was originally intended. elmer keith  modified his piece primarily for long distance targets with hunting being secondary rather than for personal defense as colt intended. grover acually never improved keith's gun, modern metalurgy was the biggest factor when you compare grover's to keith's. grover intended his to  be more for hunting and less long distance targets. some say they are both the same but i beg to differ. you don't get buck fever shooting a bullseye at 100 or 300 yards. i somewhat dissagree on grover's righty being  just a gimmick. i'm sure he was as comfortable with his right handed gun  as a left haded bolt action rifle would be to a left handed person. just my opinion but my grover is easier for me to load than my colt clones.

[cubrock]

Gimmick may not be the right word, as I certainly didn't mean it to be derogatory.  However, I think Bill Grover was a brilliant marketer and I see the "right-handed" gun being more a mark of distinction than anything that is practical enough to be worth all the extra work it took to make.  If you find anyone who has seen a TLA but knows little of them, the one thing they all remember is that the guns are "backward" or "right-handed" or some such term.  I think Grover made his guns this way to make his company stand out - and it worked.

Regarding improving Keith's gun, the improvements were minor.  I would add to the metallurgy you listed the following improvements:

1.  Caliber.  Grover really had nothing to do with this, as the .44 Magnum wasn't around in 1929.  But, I'm sure Keith would have chosen .44 Magnum for his "Last Word" had it been available.  We see this in the fact that Keith virtually abandoned his #5 as his primary carry gun once the .44 Magnum came on the scene.  Playing "what if" further, had Keith had a gun that could handle "Ruger-only" .45 Colt loads back in the 1920s, I bet the #5 would have been chambered in it instead of .44 Special or even .44 Magnum.

2.  Sights.  I think Grover's sights are an improvement over the original #5 sights, particularly the rear sight.  Again, it isn't that Grover designed a better sight than Keith - he just had better options from which to choose than Keith did.

3.  Springs.  Replacing leaf springs with coil springs is definitely an improvement over the original.  However, Keith himself said this, especially when referring to Rugers.  Again, not a Grover innovation, but definitely an improvement over the original.

[flintman]

 Cubrock has a point,I think anyone used to the loading gate being on the right side may have a bit of a time adjusting to Grover's design.Of course it is STILL a good design.Take care Cubrock,Jeff