Lets all learn to sing this song:

" 1905's have square butts ; 1902's have round butts "

Lee, and others

While I keep writing about this problem, I do understand what the
Collectors were trying to accomplish - much after the fact. And I am
aware that, decades earlier, Walter Roper was really the concept
guy behind what the Collectors later adopted.

The underlying problem is that, engineering-change wise, the Model of
1902 has two more engineering changes than does the Model of 1905, but
other than the butt configuration ( which was not an engineering
change per se, but rather a model change ) the guns are alway
identical. Because the Collectors are using the same "change"
designation for both round and square butt configurations, and
because the Collectors have done away with the Model of 1902 and
refer to all K-frames as Model of 1905 ( after about 1906 - which the
factory did not do ) guns with the same engineering changes are
called the same thing. I believe this to be the underlying reason for
adopting our current naming methodology.

However, in the process of doing this, we distort history. And this is
what I object to. I haven't found a way to resolve this issue
satisfactorily for both perspectives: a common name for same
gun sans butt configuration, and not distorting history.

The problem starts with the untimely introduction of the Model of
1905. It was introduced some months before the engineering change
that redesigned the cylinder stop/fifth frame screw. At that instant
in time ( and it existed for several months ) that Model of 1905 was
identical to what we now call the 1902 1st change - except for butt
configuration. This is consistent with what one would expect: they
simply changed the butt configuration on the Model of 1902 from
round to square.

The Collectors have, generally, dealt with this issue by deferring the
recognition of the Model of 1905 until the redesign of the cylinder stop,
and electing to call this early square-butt a pre-1905. Nothing can be
further from the truth, at the time, but that is what has been done.

And furthermore, at the point where the cylinder stop is redesigned,
the Collectors refer to both round and square butt K-frames as the
Model of 1905. This distorts history in two ways. By losing the 1902
as a designation, it is totally inconsistent with all the factory
advertising, up through the end of the 1960's . And secondly, it
loses the original definition of a Model of 1905 ; ie, a model with the
4-screw frame and earlier style cylinder stop.

This is a difficult situation to resolve, and as I mentioned earlier, I
do not have a solution to keeping history straight, and being able to
refer to otherwise-identical guns with the same name. Personally, I
think round-butt frame should be referred to as the Model of 1902, and
square-butt frames as Model of 1905. After all, it is the Model of 1902
that survives to this day; the square butt frame was discontinued
several years ago. (See my earlier story about "Long Live the King".)

Your gun is a Model of 1902, because it has a round butt. It is not
a late-1902, and it is not a 1905; it is a Model of 1902 . It is at least
a 1902 3rd change, because it has the new rebound slide. It may be
a 4th change, if it has the next engineering change.

To me, the most interesting part about it is the caliber roll marking.
This is the second gun, in as many days, to be so marked. I wonder if
Ed will suggest that the same miscreatant who incorrectly roll-marked
that earlier one, also did this one !

Regards, Mike Priwer