|
|
06-18-2011, 03:33 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
Lemon Squeezer
Hello, Sorry if I'm doing this wrong but I'm totally new to this, both the site and posting to anything. Found the site while looking for info on a 38 S&W revolver that belonged to my dad; he always referred to it as a lemon squeezer. I don't even know how one measures barrel length or where to find the serial number. I did find a number (same one) on the bottom of the grip and on the inside of the cylinder, so I assume that is the serial number. Will that number give me the approximate age of the gun? Can anyone give me any info on these? Like I said, I know little about it--I know how to aim and fire and that's about it.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
06-18-2011, 03:54 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 10,451
Likes: 3,929
Liked 50,502 Times in 6,019 Posts
|
|
Not long ago, I wrote an article about the "lemon squeezer" guns, otherwise known as the Safety Hammerless or New Departure revolvers.
Here's the link - go to page 40 for the article.
http://www.bridleandbit.net/ebooks/b...files/main.swf
Hope this helps.
John
__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
06-18-2011, 04:10 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 1,525
Liked 1,825 Times in 736 Posts
|
|
Looks like a 4th model 38 S&W Safety hammerless with a 3 1/4" barrel. Barrel length is measured from the front of the cylinder to muzzle. It fires the older 38 S&W cartridge, not the more powerful and longer 38 special. Serial number should be between 116000 to 220000, if higher then it may be a 5th model. These were made between 1898 and 1907. Looks to be in nice shape.
John
Last edited by TIMETRIPPER; 06-18-2011 at 10:29 PM.
Reason: corrected spelling
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
06-18-2011, 06:02 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times in 7 Posts
|
|
Paladin, do you get paid by Dillon to write articles like that one or is it just a bragging rights sort of arrangement? Also, why did S&W abandon the top break, auto-eject design? Was the design not strong enough to allow for more powerful cartridges?
|
06-18-2011, 07:23 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 10,451
Likes: 3,929
Liked 50,502 Times in 6,019 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenbb
Paladin, do you get paid by Dillon to write articles like that one or is it just a bragging rights sort of arrangement? Also, why did S&W abandon the top break, auto-eject design? Was the design not strong enough to allow for more powerful cartridges?
|
One of my first articles appeared in the Blue Press before I worked for Dillon. It was a nostalgic piece on my first gun, purchased by my dad and me when I was just 11 years old. I sent a copy to Jeff Cooper, and he wrote back to give me encouragement, having enjoyed the piece. I was very proud that he'd take the time to do that. After I wrote it, I worked full time for Dillon for 7 years and was their top salesman for almost all of that time. I used to write the articles for free when I worked there. It was fun, and kept me off the streets in my spare time. Then the Blue Press editor arranged for a more or less token payment every time one of my articles appeared. I was happy with that, getting paid for what I liked to do. In the meanwhile, I also did articles for Guns & Ammo Handguns, American Gunsmith, and Gun Digest (2003 best article John Amber award winner, given in 2004). When I retired, Dillon paid me what they pay other gun writers, which was quite a bit more, and honored me by making me a contributing editor. I still enjoy writing the articles, and the money I earn from them enables me to buy more guns to write about. Such a deal, huh?
S&W topbreak revolvers were handy for ejection and loading, but the frame design was inherently weak compared to the side-ejecting design. Although the "hand ejectors" were a bit slower to eject, the difference in speed was small.
The Webley and Enfield revolvers stuck with the topbreak design quite a while beyond WWII. They did not use very powerful cartridges, though. I wrote an article about them in the April, 2011 Blue Press, which you can find here on page 40 of that issue. The last gasp of the "topbreaks."
http://www.bridleandbit.net/ebooks/b...files/main.swf
John
__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -
Last edited by PALADIN85020; 06-18-2011 at 07:28 PM.
|
06-18-2011, 09:43 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
Thanks everyone. Enjoyed the informative article, PALADIN85020.
Also, TIMETRIPPER, now that I know how to measure, it is indeed a 3 1/4" barrel and the number I found begins with 201.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
06-20-2011, 08:05 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: El Cerrito
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
I suspect that top-break revolvers invoked military use to Britons, while Americans thought of top-breaks as cheap knockoffs of S&W.
There is that Russian .357 top-break prototype out there somewhere.
Modern Firearms - IzMech MP-412
I don't see why an updated top-break design would be impractical. But fashion would be against it.
|
06-25-2011, 09:43 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
lemon squeezer
i bought a 38 lemon squeezer at an estate sale,nickle finish,one chip above trigger guard...serial #71462....any idea when it was manufactured,and possible value.....i plan on keeping it anyway....bill trice
|
06-25-2011, 09:46 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
lemon squeezer
forgot to say it has a 6 inch barrel
|
06-25-2011, 10:07 AM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,842
Likes: 3,260
Liked 7,111 Times in 1,896 Posts
|
|
I have one in the 84,000 range, also with a 6 inch barrel, and it was manufacured in January of 1897.
|
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|