Rollin White manufactured a couple of revolvers and throughout this forum and other places they are predominantly called infringements. I see them as what they are, made for Smith & Wesson and see them as belonging in my collection alongside the model 1s 1½s & 2s. Rollin White was contracted to make these revolves for S&W and they were all sold by S&W. Guns stamped made for Smith & Wesson were mainly acquired through legal action, Rolling Whites were acquired through a contract to manufacture. Here is a picture of a Rollin White above a Model 1.
Do you agree or disagree?
Have you have Rollin White pistol that you classify in your S&W collection?

Rollin White also made a single shot and which “I’m guessing” did not infringe on the bored through cylinder patent as it was a swing breach not cylinder.
From my limited knowledge these single shots were sold by Rollin White (prior to the one pictured) and he was no sued or identified as infringing on the patent.
Can someone comment on the single shot Rollin White pistol?
Where do these fit into the Rollin White / Smith & Wesson arrangements?

Cheers.

Attached Images

Rolin White & Model 1.jpg (76.7 KB, 303 views)

My understanding is that the small number of Rollin White revolvers made before the lawsuit are legitimate infringements. Those made later are not Smith & Wessons, but would today be called "licensed by."

Bob

Aussie Collector, The Rollin White story is too long to post here, however about 10,000 guns were made with the Smith & Wesson and/or the Rollin White Arms Co. name on them, in two styles of .22RF, one with an ejector, like yours, and one with only an extractor stud, like a S&W Model 1. About another 350 were made in .38RF with a larger frame. Other names will seen on some of these guns, such as Lowell Arms Co., etc. About another 10,000 guns fall into that category. As you note, Rollin White also made a single shot .22 pistol and I've seen long guns with White's name on them. Ed.

Thanks for these replies.

From Wikipedia: “In a legal context, an infringement refers to the violation of a law or a right. Such as: Patent infringement”.
The above did not apply to Rollin White Arms revolvers to my knowledge, I’m not aware that his company was sued for infringement, or was it?
When I have read about the lawsuits I have not seen Rollin White included, thus my question. Can you give me details of where I can read about the lawsuit? Thanks.

I always thought the “licensed by” referred to guns like the Remington conversion revolver where in this instance S&W “licensed” Remington to convert (their cap and ball to cartridge) without risk of legal action for breaching the bored through cylinder patent.
Thinking about this, I can see where all Rollin Whites revolvers could be called “licensed by”, the difference being S&W commissioned and sold the Whites, where Remington requested permission (to use the patent) and sold their own pistols. Thanks.

I was not aware of the 38rf Rollin White, thanks for this information.

Cheers.

p.s. I need to learn how to insert multiple quotes

G'day Ed. I read this again and would like clarification, funny how rereading something you get a different perspective. Are you saying there was 38rf revolver, the way I read it the first time, or talking about the .38rf single shot with the swing breach?
Cheers.

The interesting sidenote to this story is that the patent Rollin White infringed on was taken out by Rollin White, but bought by Smith & Wesson.

Aussie Collector,
Here is the Rollin White I have in my collection.
Serial No. 220
Top of barrel is marked: MADE FOR SMITH & WESSON
Left side of barrel is marked: BY ROLLIN WHITE ARMS CO. LOWELL MASS.
Patent dates on the cylinder is worn but appear to be, Apr. 3. 1855 (can't see what is next until) 18. 1860.
The end of the barrel is marked 189.
The left side of frame under grips is marked 189 & 175.
Both grips are marked 189
The 3rd Edition of the Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson by Supica & Nahas, list Rollin White Arms Co. under Non-Infringements.
Attached are a few photos.
Dave

Attached Images

	PICT0002.JPG (149.9 KB, 144 views)
	PICT0003.JPG (152.2 KB, 114 views)
	PICT0004.JPG (169.0 KB, 131 views)
	PICT0005.JPG (153.9 KB, 119 views)
	PICT0001.JPG (197.8 KB, 110 views)

Aussie Collector, Yes, Rollin White made an estimated 300 to 400 solid frame, spur trigger revolvers in caliber .38RF. The gun is similar to the .22RF and about 60% bigger. The are very rare and seldom come on the market. I'd call them a belt model vs. the .22RFs being a pocket revolver. On Nov. 26, 1856, Rollin White signed the agreement with S&W assigning his patent and agreeing to accept .25 cent per gun produced as White's royalty. S&W employed an outside contractor, a Mr. Bush, to assemble the Model 1s, which he did from 1857 to 1860. Model 1s were not made in the S&W plant until after 1860 . S&W paid Bush, three dollars and change for each assembled gun and .25 cents to White.The dealings between White and S&W were not happy events and later on White marketed guns with bored through cylinders under his own company, which lead to law suits and legal problems between S&W & White. The Rollin White story is much too long to include here, however the story has been covered in several gun magazines and in articles by the late Frank Sellers, co-founder of the S&WCA, and our leading expert on evasions & infringements. Ed.

Thanks Dave.
Nice Rollin White revolver.
Your example is the first time I have seen barrel stamping like that. On most Whites I have seen, the stamping look to be all done at the same time, same font, same size, same line, one run, on your example you can see that it could be 2 stampings done at separate stages of manufacture. This indicated to me that there is a possibility that Rollin White Arms made the gun and the Made for Smith & Wesson was stamped after manufacture, also some of the letters look different (comparing lettering on pic 2 and 3), although it might be the picture. This is an early example, on the later ones the stamp is on the top, one line all matching “Made for Smith & Wesson By Rolling White……”. Interesting.
I have read most of the 1st and 3rd editions and recently looked in the 3rd for Rollin White in the contents; no luck and no index so no luck there. Thanks for pointing it out.

Thanks again Ed.
As I said I was not aware of the .38 (revolver).
I’m familiar with the White patents and Dan’s revolver and the second partnering with Horace. What I’m interested is some of the details that are missing in the S&W books I have read.
I’ve spent the last hour researching Frank Sellers and will be ordering the book “American Gunsmiths” I could not find any articles so I hope some more of the story is in this book.
Cheers

I have 2 questions from the original post, I have rephrased here. Thanks.

Regarding the Rollin White single shot with the swing breach.
1. Was this an attempt by Rollin White to make a pistol that did not infringe on the bored through cylinder patent?

From what I can tell the single shot was discontinued when the contract for the revolvers appeared, and production was moved to the revolver.
2. What was the atmosphere between Rollin White and S&W with this single shot, and did it influence or play a part in S&W giving the revolver contract to Rollin White?

Cheers.

I have no idea what the nature of the relation ship between S&W and Rollin White was, but the single shot would have no bearing since the patent only covered revolvers with bored through cylinders There were multi-barrel guns that were made around this time that weren't infringments because they didn't have cylinders. Two that come to mind are the Sharps four barrel guns and the Remington multi-barrel pistols.

__________________
Tom
1560

Aussie Collector,
The stampings on my Rollin White appear to be the same style and font.
Shown in the link below by the NRA museum. is serial number 224 with the stampings like my number 220. I have not really researched these, but it would be interesting if it could be determined when they went to the one-line stamping on the barrel rib.
The National Firearms Museum: Rollin White Arms Co Single Action Pocket Revolver
Dave

Infringements are a unique and fun collecting niche..............





Did I say fun?

__________________
Pace

Thanks Dave,
I did see something in front of “ROLLIN WHITE” thought it not to be a stamping, looking at the one in the link its “BY ROLLIN WHITE” so yes the barrel markings most likely went on at the same time.
Someone may be able to comment on when they went to one line stamping.

Thanks Tom,
I agree with you it didn’t breach the patent. It was Rollin Whites way of producing a “modern” firearm without patent breach. I always wondered if it soured relationship with S&W.

Pace, I’ve admired you guns on other posts and thanks for posting them here.
Flayderman’s lists aprox 5000 of these so yours must be close to the last White, assuming consecutive numbering, when they then changes to Lowell Arms.
Cheers.

You do know White was a base scoundrel, do you not? By way of example, and this is a mild one, he offered Colt's a means by which to make guns that infringed on his patent, and yet avoid the problems when SW sued.

His plan was to have Colt's go ahead and make the guns, and then when SW sued, he, White, would be out of the country and unable to testify on SW's behalf. This would, he proposed, keep SW from prevailing in the suit.

Here are some pictures of the .32rf Rollin White single shot pistol.

Made 1861-1864 about 3000 pistols. This is the most common model.
There is a .38rf pistol to.

Attached Images

	IMG_0837_zps960d4481.jpg (34.1 KB, 66 views)
	IMG_0834_zps1cafd02d.jpg (34.5 KB, 65 views)
	IMG_0833_zps0a883b9c.jpg (22.6 KB, 52 views)

I remember reading a fairly extensive article about Rollin White, but I don't remember where or when. Maybe it will come to me, and if so, Ill contact you. There have been articles about the White patent and the various means tried to circumvent it, such as front-loading cylinders that were not bored through.