What S&W Model 3 was used by Japanese military?

Bradish · #1 12-29-2019, 04:17 PM

Hello everyone,

I'm new on the S&W forum and hope I'm in the right place for this question.

I am interested in learning how to identify what S&W Model 3 (and possibly other models) were used by the Japanese military (army and navy it seems) prior to their manufacturing and adopting their own revolver, the Japanese 1892 Type 26 9mm.

After searching around on the web it appears that it is the "New Model 3 Russian" but this model seems to have a couple of sub-models, 2nd Model and 3rd Model, where were used for the Japanese Government Contracts. I haven't been able to determine if either or both of these have what I call a finger spur on the underside of the trigger guard which would make them easier for me to spot in pictures and shows if present.

Is there a place I can go on the web which details what actual S&W Model 3s (or other models) were used by the Japanese military prior to their manufacturing their own Type 26 revolver?

I've emailed Frank Allan asking if his "The Japanese Chose The Smith & Wesson" book is still available but haven't heard back yet as I just sent it yesterday. I'm hoping it will help.

Any help would be greatly appreciated... Peter

opoefc · #2 12-29-2019, 05:02 PM

Welcome to the Forum ! I'm not aware of a specific place on the internet that's devoted to the Japanese purchases of the new Model 3 revolvers. Over the years I have had various examples of Japanese marked S&W revolvers in my collection, from the Model 1, 1 1/2, 2, NM3s within w/o trigger guard spurs and .44DAs. The Japanese were large purchasers of S&Ws, both for the military as well as the various prefecture's Police units. Civilian ownership of firearms was mostly prohibited. Japan also purchased other makes of 19th century firearms - Colt, Winchester, Spencer, Ethan Allen, etc. judging by examples of those weapons with original Japanese markings. ( Beware of fakes, as various #2 Army S&Ws have shown up with spurious market. Original marks will be in "Old Style" Japanese characters, difficult for modern interpretation sometimes. ) Ed.

Bradish · #3 12-29-2019, 05:42 PM

Thank you Ed.

I didn't know the Japanese had purchased S&W's for police units. That makes my desire to learn how to identify the various revolvers grow even greater. Thank you for that information.

I'm primarily interested in learning how to identify the military models. I have to start with what S&W models the military (or government) purchased as the predecessor to their Type 26. Then I'll need to take the next step to learn how the military marked those weapons as theirs. I've seen the Navy anchor stamp with the two wavy link across the shank which was posted in another thread. I would expect someone has studied all this and published or posted it somewhere. Hopefully this is so and someone will point me to it or Frank Allan's book has what I need.

Thanks again. Take care... Peter

opoefc · #4 12-29-2019, 07:13 PM

Peter, Frank's book ( actually a monograph ) is a very good source of info. on various Japanese marked S&Ws as well as past issues of the Journal of the S&W Collector's Assoc., Sometimes Japanese shipped Model 3s will letter as such, but will have no Japanese markings. I have a S&W Revolving rifle that letters as shipped to Japan, but no Japanese markings. I suspect the S&W distributor in Australia who handled the Japanese order diverted the rifle to a local customer, as I found the rifle in Australia. Ed.

Bradish · #5 12-29-2019, 07:24 PM

I've seen the word "letter" used several times in the past day or two while researching this. What do "will letter" and "that letters" mean? Is it a special marking on the firearm or is it a document associated with the transfer?

Thanks again... Peter

rct269 · #6 12-29-2019, 07:48 PM

A letter is a document now prepared by the S&W Historical Foundation treating with the history of the particular model in question, as well as the initial disposition of the particular weapon being lettered------when shipped, to whom shipped, and the specific configuration of the weapon at the time.

One such letter on one of my guns treats with a New Model #3, #30261, which was shipped on October 18, 1896 to Hartley & Graham Co. in New York City (a S&W distributor). The letter goes on (as they sometimes do) to note "Smith & Wesson only produced 3,463 units of this model in 1896 of which just over 3,000 units were supplied to the Japanese Government.".

The letter concludes (as most all of them do) with "We hope this information is helpful to you."--------just as I hope it is to you.

Ralph Tremaine

As to how to identify particular S&W models of interest to you, I suggest you get the book Smith & Wesson 1857-1945 by Robert J. Neal and Roy G. Jinks, Jinks being the author of the letter noted above, and S&W's Historian of many years (until recently when he became the S&W Historical Foundation's Historian).

Bradish · #7 12-29-2019, 09:04 PM

Thank you very much Ralph. I had no idea that was what a "letter" was referring to. I keep learning which makes retirement even more fun.

I researched the "Smith & Wesson 1857-1945" book you suggested and have ordered a copy of the 1996 revised edition rather than the 1966. Now, let's hope Frank Allan still has his book available.

Thanks again... Peter

AlHunt · #8 12-29-2019, 09:29 PM

I have nothing to offer your pursuit but wanted to say "welcome aboard". It sounds like your on a great quest and could contribute some interesting information to the forum going forward.

Bob L · #9 12-29-2019, 09:35 PM

Peter, it looks like you can purchase the book from the website, japanesemilitaryfirearmparts.com. Good luck, welcome and Happy New year!

mmaher94087 · #10 12-29-2019, 11:36 PM

Peter, Frank Allan's tome (softcover) is probably the best reference for Japanese purchased Smith & Wesson's available. Another good (hardcover, out of print) reference for overall pistols used by Japan is: The Hand Cannons of Imperial Japan by Durban*.

Should you wish to get a "Letter", click the 'Downloads' at the top of this page and scroll through the menu.

*My apology to Harry Derby for misspelling his name.

Bradish · #11 12-30-2019, 12:31 PM

Al, thank you for your welcome, it's appreciated. Whether I'll be able to offer any interesting information in the future remains to be seen.

Bob, I will follow up on your link. I'd like to hear back from Frank Allan first though. He may say that the folks at your link are now the source for his book. We'll see.

Mike, I have a copy of "The Hand Cannons of Imperial Japan" by Harry Derby (autographed by him in 1982) which I obtained to help understand the Japanese Type 26 revolver. I had looked in the Table of Contents for the S&W M3 and didn't see it but I just checked again and it is in Chapter XIV "Foreign Procurement"! It appears that a S&W M2 .32 cal rimfire was used by the Japanese Army but the M3 Russian .44 cal (old and new M3's) were officially "adopted" by the Japanese for use by their Army and Navy. The chapter is an interesting read.

Now let's hope I can find a "real" S&W M3 which was officially adopted for the Japanese military. If I can afford it I will certainly attempt to obtain a "letter" for the sidearm.

Thanks again to all of you for the information you have so kindly provided. It is appreciated.

Take care... Peter

Club Gun Fan · #12 12-30-2019, 01:06 PM

Peter Welcome. Any information you have in the future, no matter how small, adds to the big picture for us collectors of anything Smith & Wesson. By the way, The Japanese Government ordered a large shipment of .38 Chiefs Special's.

Bradish · #13 12-30-2019, 02:28 PM

Don,

Thank you. I'll do my best.

You startled me with your comment about the Japanese buying .38 Chiefs Specials. My S&W knowledge is minimal and I had to look up this model. It's much more modern than what I'm after at the moment, even later than the ~1942 Victory 38 Special I have for our military pistol matches. I'm just working on the Japanese military handgun line from the later 1800's which I got interested in because of the Type 26 I bought on a whim because it was so unique with the swing out side panel and being a top break which I knew little about at the time.

I think I have a big enough challenge with the S&W M3 in the Japanese military at the moment. Lot to learn.

Thanks for your thought however. It's quite appreciated... Peter

Bradish · #14 01-01-2020, 12:35 PM

Some interesting information has come to light, at least for me.

It appears that Smith and Wesson made their Model 3 with and without the "trigger guard sash hook" (as it apparently is identified). The earlier model 3s seem to have them and at some time later it was removed. The Japanese seem to have bought both but so far I've only found ones marked for the Army and Navy as having the hook, and ones purchased later (don't know when the hook was removed) were for the government but without a specification about whether they were for the military or something else (could have been for police units?).

It also appears that the Army's models are fewer in number than the Navy's but I don't have any evidence for that suggestion. At the moment prices seem to range in the almost $2000 to $4000 range (including shipping, taxes, fees, etc.), with condition and markings making a difference. Prices are only based on the few I've found for sale or auction.

I've ordered Frank Allan's book so I'm hoping it will extend my knowledge considerably. In particular I'm hoping it will define the various markings which determine what military service used them.

Happy New Year everyone! Take care... Peter

Club Gun Fan · #15 01-01-2020, 12:54 PM

Peter
Most of the New Model #3's that went to Japan went to Takata & Co. I have owned several that lettered as such. One was stamped with an anchor. It was the only marking indicating it was Japanese.
Good Luck in your search.

opoefc · #16 01-01-2020, 07:39 PM

Peter, An interesting variation of the Japanese marked Model 3s are the ones captured from the Russians in the Russo/Japan war and later captured from the Japanese by the Chinese in WW2. They can have both stamping of Russian ownership as well as Japanese & Chinese. I recall in the Korean War a buddy acquired a souvenir Model 3 taken from a North Korean officer that started out as a Russian S&W Model 3 that changed ownership to Japan then to China then to North Korea. Ed.

BP Dave · #17 02-07-2020, 11:55 AM

Peter--

You probably already know this, but it's something I found confusing when I became interested in the single-action Smith & Wessons from a military angle. The militarily used large bore single actions generally fall into four main frame types and are all variations of the Number 3. The earliest was the American model, which was modified slightly to become the first model adopted by the Russians (sometimes called the "Old Old Model Russian," although that term might cause purists to cringe). That one is easiest to pick out, because the backstrap is rounded and the barrel appears disproportionately long. The next two models are both "Russian Models," have a pronounced hump or knuckle on the backstrap, and are usually seen with the distinctive trigger guard spur. I have heard various collector names for those, but often they are called the "Old Model Russian" and the "New Model Russian." The next model was the "New Model" or "New Model No. 3," which also has a knuckle on the backstrap, but that knuckle is less pronounced. This model can be found with the trigger guard spur, but usually is not. I was a bit of a slow learner, and it took me awhile to catch on that the "New Model Russian," which is a Number 3, is very different from the "New Model," which is also a Number 3. I believe the Japanese militaries bought the latter two Russian models as well as the New Model No. 3 in quantity, but they seem mostly to have gone for the New Model No. 3 which seems by far to be the most common these days (although "common" is a relative term in this context).

As far as identification of a Japanese military purchase, many are marked only with a small, often obscure, anchor stamp, some have more extensive Japanese markings, and some of the ones used by Japan's artillery have a few lines of rather pronounced stamping or engraving. Some are not marked at all or the markings have worn away. There are references that list the serial number ranges purchased by agents for the Japanese government, which you could cross reference with any markings to help you ID a real Japanese purchase.

I hope I haven't bored anyone, and, of course, if I am mistaken in something I said, corrections are welcome and invited.

--DJ

model3sw · #18 02-07-2020, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rct269

One such letter on one of my guns treats with a New Model #3, #30261, which was shipped on October 18, 1896 to Hartley & Graham Co. in New York City (a S&W distributor). The letter goes on (as they sometimes do) to note "Smith & Wesson only produced 3,463 units of this model in 1896 of which just over 3,000 units were supplied to the Japanese Government.".

The letter concludes (as most all of them do) with "We hope this information is helpful to you."--------just as I hope it is to you.

.

Ralph are you referring to the Frontier model 44-40 New Model 3s that were (while in the factory) converted to .44R then sent to fill the contract with Japan ?

I recall reading something about this (that I mention above) that quite a large number (IIRC appx somewhere between 1000-2000) of the limited production .44-40 / Frontier New Model 3s met this fate. Can you expand on your response, please. Even " I " can still learn something new or have another tenured member verify same ?

Were you referring to the New Model 3 Frontier (44-40) New Model 3 or another variation ?

Many thanks, Sal Raimondi, Sr.

model3sw · #19 02-07-2020, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BP Dave

Peter--

You probably already know this, but it's something I found confusing when I became interested in the single-action Smith & Wessons from a military angle. The militarily used large bore single actions generally fall into four main frame types and are all variations of the Number 3. The earliest was the American model, which was modified slightly to become the first model adopted by the Russians (sometimes called the "Old Old Model Russian," although that term might cause purists to cringe). That one is easiest to pick out, because the backstrap is rounded and the barrel appears disproportionately long. The next two models are both "Russian Models," have a pronounced hump or knuckle on the backstrap, and are usually seen with the distinctive trigger guard spur. I have heard various collector names for those, but often they are called the "Old Model Russian" and the "New Model Russian." The next model was the "New Model" or "New Model No. 3," which also has a knuckle on the backstrap, but that knuckle is less pronounced. This model can be found with the trigger guard spur, but usually is not. I was a bit of a slow learner, and it took me awhile to catch on that the "New Model Russian," which is a Number 3, is very different from the "New Model," which is also a Number 3. I believe the Japanese militaries bought the latter two Russian models as well as the New Model No. 3 in quantity, but they seem mostly to have gone for the New Model No. 3 which seems by far to be the most common these days (although "common" is a relative term in this context).

As far as identification of a Japanese military purchase, many are marked only with a small, often obscure, anchor stamp, some have more extensive Japanese markings, and some of the ones used by Japan's artillery have a few lines of rather pronounced stamping or engraving. Some are not marked at all or the markings have worn away. There are references that list the serial number ranges purchased by agents for the Japanese government, which you could cross reference with any markings to help you ID a real Japanese purchase.

I hope I haven't bored anyone, and, of course, if I am mistaken in something I said, corrections are welcome and invited.

--DJ

Since the advent of the internet we have all become smarter and more educated collectors. All we had prior were books printed decades prior which were the "bibles" for us to go by but by comparison with other tenured collectors we find that the majority of the Japanese Contract guns are found absent of any Japanese (or other type) markings.

The prices on the Japanese models used to command a premium 20 years ago. Now we find the majority of the New Model 3s went to Japan in many configurations, even some with target sights and other with the Russian type "tang" on the trigger guard, longer cylinder models that were .44-40 Frojntier models converted to .44R at the factory just to "get rid of them". For some reason the .44-40 Frontiers did not go over in a big way. In fact most of the NM3 Frontiers I've encountered in the past 40 years always seem to have "something" wrong with them. Mostly the cylinders pop right out when you open the gun to eject the shells and many other idiosyncrasies. Currently I still have 3. Serial #2 is cut down to a "belly gun", with no finish but excellent mechanics and no slop on the lockup so nice and tight when closed. the other 2 (one is SN 1995 and I think the other is 1966) of which the cylinders pop right out when you open them.

Nice oratory but the 1st model Russian is often mistaken (at a glance) for the Model 3 American as the configuration is near identical

The one with the most radical changes is the 3rd model Russian with the large grip frame that is extremely high where the web between your index and thumb would touch with a big, unmistakable and clear 1874 stamped on the frame there (on that back grip "knuckle") and on the side of the gun again. as well as the integral front sight.

As a side remark and personal opinion the 3rd model Russian is the "beefiest" of all 3. More of the 3rd models show up in better mechanical condition than the others regardless that most of the finish may be gone / worn / aged.

I have a 1st model Russian, refurbished at the factory in November 1922 that is still in very decent shape or excellent (as refinished) condition.

So instead of shooting one of my Americans, I shoot the 1st Russian (with the near same "feel" as the American) but .44 R ammo which is not very easy to come by and reload. I load all my own for these oldies because if it blows up in my hand I don't want anyone else I could blame but myself ... what i really mean is that I load so carefully to "target" specs per Philip Sharpe's formulas that it is highly unlikely that I would get a mis-load.

I tend to load the .44 Americans and .44 Russians on my old single stage press instead of my Dillon 650, as I do with most of my competition rounds.

Hope some of the above makes sense, Sal Raimondi, Sr.

model3sw · #20 02-07-2020, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opoefc

Peter, Frank's book ( actually a monograph ) is a very good source of info. on various Japanese marked S&Ws as well as past issues of the Journal of the S&W Collector's Assoc., Sometimes Japanese shipped Model 3s will letter as such, but will have no Japanese markings. I have a S&W Revolving rifle that letters as shipped to Japan, but no Japanese markings. I suspect the S&W distributor in Australia who handled the Japanese order diverted the rifle to a local customer, as I found the rifle in Australia. Ed.

Hi, Ed, I still have 2 Japanese Contract New Model 3s, none of which I presumed were Japanese Contract when I purchased them. Actually, I thought one ( SN 21702) in nickel, with factory installed circular lanyard loop, might have been a Revenue Cutter Service when I purchased it 25 years ago, not that it was advertised nor hinted it might be ... just a hunch. SCSW4 indicates "most" of a SN range including 21702 were shipped to Japan. Roy's letter confirmed, shipped to Japan but I'm still not convinced.

The other 33888 with cylinder and barrel from 34784 (blue with Russian tang on trigger guard).

Never saw that Peter Frank's book before. Just ordered it. Thanks for the advice. Sal

rct269 · #21 02-07-2020, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by model3sw

Ralph are you referring to the Frontier model 44-40 New Model 3s that were (while in the factory) converted to .44R then sent to fill the contract with Japan ?

I recall reading something about this (that I mention above) that quite a large number (IIRC appx somewhere between 1000-2000) of the limited production .44-40 / Frontier New Model 3s met this fate. Can you expand on your response, please. Even " I " can still learn something new or have another tenured member verify same ?

Were you referring to the New Model 3 Frontier (44-40) New Model 3 or another variation ?

Many thanks, Sal Raimondi, Sr.

I was referring to whatever Jinks was referring to when he did the letter (August 30, 2011). As I read the letter here and now, he refers to my gun as a "Smith & Wesson New Model No. 3 .44 Single Action Special Order Target Variation, caliber .44 S&W Russian, revolver". He goes on to note "This was a special order and the revolver was shipped with a 6.5 inch barrel equipped with a Paine front sight, adjustable target rear sights, special checkered Russian style trigger guard, blue finish, and checkered black hard rubber grips." As you can likely tell from its (lousy) photo on page 190 of N&J (Revised), it's a short strap gun. Between that and its serial number (30261), we can comfortably rule out it ever being a Frontier model. It's a little bit of an odd ball, but not that much of one.

Ralph Tremaine

Bradish · #22 03-03-2020, 09:06 PM

Hello again,

A lot has happened since my last post at the beginning of the year, but most importantly I've learned a lot about Japanese military marked S&W Model 3's. In fact I now own one and it arrived today.

For me the breakthrough came when I received Francis Allan's book, "The Japanese Chose The Smith & Wesson". It all started to make sense to me but I still needed to understand identifying a genuine model. I found several S&W Model 3's at gun shows but none were stamped with the Japanese Navy or Army marks.

After much consideration I concluded I would have the best luck trying to find one with the Japanese Navy anchor with the two wavy lines ("stamp of the Imperial Japanese Navy"s (IJN's) Kure Naval Base") usually found on the butt or forward of the trigger guard. The Navy marked S&W's seemed to be more common than the Army's and were more easily identified, at least for me.

After examining all the listings (sold or for sale) I could find on the Internet I settled on going after the one in Rock Island Auction 1034 Lot 6313. They specified it was a Japanese Navy marked S&W New Model 3 (https://www.rockislandauction.com/de...-no-3-revolver). It wasn't in very nice shape but for something around 140+ years old I wasn't really concerned. It probably meant I wouldn't be forced to buy one of the more expensive ones in better condition in order to get one.

RIA had two nice pictures (attached I hope) of each side in their listing but none showed the Navy mark nor did they say whether the serial numbers matched. I wrote and asked them about this. They sent me excellent pictures. The Navy mark (anchor w/2 wavy lines) was forward of the trigger guard and the serial numbers didn't match (butt 9029; top strap 9030, restamped 3 over 2 & 0 over 9; cylinder 9050). It was in the 1879 shipment to H. Ahrens & Co of 600 revolvers for Japan.

It was a lot of money but looked to be in the likely price range for it so I bid... and won (hammered at $1900). It arrived today and everything is as RIA described. Plus I located a 4th serial number on the inside of the right walnut grip (9030). While it cost more than any other firearm I have, I'm satisfied.

Hope this information helps others looking for one of these... Peter

mmaher94087 · #23 03-03-2020, 10:31 PM

Nice example. Most are mismatched from my observations. Smith & Wesson did not do modern day collectors any favor by making everything interchange (or do we cuss out Ely Whitney?) as the revolvers were reassembled by the armorers with no regard to the serial numbers. If one pursues these S&W, Japanese revolvers then there are those with no markings and those with the anchor and no wavy line used or sent to their Navy. Then there are the Japanese Artillery models which are harder to find.

Bradish · #24 03-04-2020, 11:39 AM

Thanks Mike, your perspective helps a lot. I wondered if the mismatch of serial numbers was a big deal because it was uncommon. Since all the serialized parts were shipped in the order of 600 revolvers to H. Ahrens & Co I was less concerned than I would have been if they had been scattered among different orders. But... I'm new to this and hope to learn more as time passes.
Do you know what the stamp is that appears on the cylinder, and just what the 'London proofed and "NOT ENGLISH MAKE" marked.' description statement by RIA mean? (images attached)
Thanks again... Peter

mmaher94087 · #25 03-04-2020, 12:04 PM

Those stamps are the marks showing that the 'foreign' made gun was proofed for sale in England. The marks might be for the Birmingham proof house.

Bradish · #26 03-04-2020, 02:07 PM

The marks, or at least the "NOT ENGLISH MAKE" stamp, now make sense. The stamped marks on the cylinder and one on the frame forward of the cylinder all looked the same, rather like a crown with something below it and definitely not a Chinese character (the Japanese and Koreans still use them today).

The other two marks (same mark), one between the crown like mark and the cylinder and the other forward of the NOT ENGLISH MAKE stamp look like a small circle over a capital N, is a proofing mark also?

Do you know where I can go look up what various marks like these mean?

I'm wondering what path this revolver took over time. It looks like it was delivered to the Japanese and used in their Navy... but then what? It came to Britain somehow and proofed as not made there?

And then of course it eventually came to be in the collection of Dr. Gerald Klaz who appears to be a physician in Santa Monica, CA. If he is still around I may be able to get some history of the revolver from him.

Thanks again. You have been very helpful... Peter

handejector · #27 03-04-2020, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradish

I'm wondering what path this revolver took over time. It looks like it was delivered to the Japanese and used in their Navy... but then what? It came to Britain somehow and proofed as not made there?

The S&W NM #3s were still in use in Japan during WW II for Home Guards (militia/reserves) according to what I have read (somewhere). It makes sense that they would have been.
I never thought much about it, but did the Brits have any occupation troops in Japan after WW II? I would think that they did since they suffered so badly at the hands of the Japanese in Asia.
If so, it would be easy to see how one became a souvenir. Then, it later got sold in England.

I'm pretty sure the Japanese had to surrender all arms.

mmaher94087 · #28 03-04-2020, 10:43 PM

Bradish, sadly, Dr. Gerald (Gerry) Klaz passed away late last year. As for the path, S&W sold these revolvers to Japan directly but I suppose that some were sold to dealers in England who resold them to Japan.

Bradish · #29 03-05-2020, 10:12 AM

Hi Mike,

Thank you for confirming the information about Dr. Klaz. I had tracked down a Dr. Gerald Klaz, age about 84, to Santa Monica, CA where it appears he died in August of 2019 and was buried in nearby Mt. Sinai Memorial Park so I initially assumed the revolver was from an estate sale. I contacted Rock Island Auctions and they said consignors are supposed to include any paperwork associated with each item (there wasn't any). However, RIA will pass on my contact information to the consignor (probably the estate administrator) so I'll see what happens. If you don't ask, the answer defaults to no or nothing.

Based on Francis Allan's book, it would be hard to believe that a revolver with serial number 9029/30/50 such as this one would not have gone to Japan via the dealer, H. Ahrens. Allan lists 17 surviving examples in a shipment of 600, serial numbers 9001 to 9600, in his book (p-59) going to H. Ahrens in 1879. All but one (no details) are marked and described mostly the same as this one, Kure Anchor stamp in front of trigger guard, blued, smooth walnut grips, sash hook, lanyard ring and 7" barrel with pinned front sight. Three have nearby serial numbers the closest being 9025.

Could this one have taken a different path before Japan? Yes. But at the moment it looks unlikely. The English marks do seem to make this one unusual. I will continue to investigate. Hopefully Murph (see post before yours) will be able to shed some additional light concerning the marks when he returns home this Saturday and looks in his books.

I'm new to this so I don't have the perspective of experienced collectors so I am just trying to learn. It's a rather fascinating item in any case and I'm enjoying the chase.

Thank you again for the information about Dr. Klaz and your thoughts about the possible path the revolver might have taken.

Take care... Peter

Bradish · #30 03-06-2020, 11:58 AM

Hey Murph,

You've opened up a whole new world for me to investigate. Thank you! I've been all over the Internet looking for them.

You mentioned you had books at home. Are there any you would recommend to me?

Also, there's one mark (definitely not a Chinese character) which I haven't found anywhere so far. It's on the right side just left of the London Proof Mark and another is below on the frame forward of the "NOT ENGLISH MAKE" mark (see attached). It looks like a small "o" on top of a capital "N" which has a bowed left leg.

Any idea what it is?

Thank you again. You're help is greatly appreciated... Peter

Bradish · #31 03-06-2020, 03:50 PM

Hi Murph,

The "Lend Lease" program and the "Call to Arms" are not familiar to me. Nor was I aware that a government would distribute older guns to citizens, volunteers or National Guard personnel during a war but it makes sense. However, this revolver was likely a black powder cartridge firearm and I wonder if they would have had any ammo for someone to shoot in it.

All the proof marks I didn't understand are shown in the pictures attached to message #24 on 03-04-2020, 10:39 AM. I'm attaching pictures of the barrel top (don't believe there are any "added" marks on it), the Japanese Navy proof marks (anchor with 2 wavy lines and I think the number 49 or something), and the serial numbers on the butt, cylinder and top strap.

Hope this helps... Peter

Ivan the Butcher · #32 03-06-2020, 09:48 PM

As to ammo types, Eley-Kynoch (of Birmingham) made many Black Powder cartridges that were loaded with smokeless, and called them "Nitro for Black Powder". That info is on the cardboard box, but not on the headstamp.

My oldest box of Winchester 44 Russian brass is of the "Balloon Head" type and states they are for loading with Black Powder or Smokeless powders. I believe they are from the late 20's.

Great thread guys, please keep it up.

Ivan

mmaher94087 · #33 03-06-2020, 10:26 PM

Bradish, this is only a guess as to the ".. small "o" on top of a capital "N" which has a bowed left leg." This 'could' be a '2.0' as often the English expressed the pressure used to proof the gun and was expressed in 'Tonnes'. Many examples will read something like: " Not English Made. 5 mm. 2.5 Tonnes". I believe these markings are more modern and only appeared post WW1. Something else to research.

Bradish · #34 03-08-2020, 01:58 PM

Hi Mike,

I described the mark based on thinking it was in the same orientation as the London Proof Mark. I briefly looked at it rotated left 90 degrees and came up with Zo which didn't make any sense to me. It being a 2.0 certainly looks possible now that you've mentioned it.

The pictures I posted were from the full size images Rock Island Armory took for me and became reduced in resolution when I uploaded them to this forum earlier. I've taken the original image and cropped it to show the lower mark (the better of the two marks by far) in 100% resolution. Then I did a little brightness/contrast tweaking for two more which is marginally helpful. Then I took a picture with my camera with the best light I could get to show detail, and cropped it (different but not particularly better). I don't know how much all this might help see the mark better but I hope it will. See the results attached.

More a bit later... Peter

Bradish · #35 03-08-2020, 02:17 PM

Naturally I had to go looking for "pressure" proof marks. Haven't found anything definitive about pressure number proof marking yet but did come across a blog (Firearms History, Technology & Development) with what appears to be a fairly comprehensive and detailed set of posts on "Testing Firearms" at Firearms History, Technology & Development: Testing Firearms

The topics are (in reverse order, latest at top, start at bottom):

Testing Firearms: Extreme Torture Test
Testing Firearms: Military Acceptance Tests for Ha...
Testing Firearms: Shotgun Pattern Test
Testing Firearms: Machine Rests
Testing Firearms: Bullet Penetration
Testing Firearms: Measuring Bullet Velocity - III
Testing Firearms: Measuring Bullet Velocity - II
Testing Firearms: Measuring Bullet Velocity - I
Testing Firearms: Measuring Trigger Pull Force
Testing Firearms: Measuring Chamber Pressures
Testing Firearms: Proof Test - II
Testing Firearms: Proof Test
Testing Firearms

I haven't read it all but it looks pretty good and might be of help to those who are interested if they haven't seen it already.

Hope this helps... Peter

model3sw · #36 03-10-2020, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradish

Hi Mike,

I described the mark based on thinking it was in the same orientation as the London Proof Mark. I briefly looked at it rotated left 90 degrees and came up with Zo which didn't make any sense to me. It being a 2.0 certainly looks possible now that you've mentioned it.

The pictures I posted were from the full size images Rock Island Armory took for me and became reduced in resolution when I uploaded them to this forum earlier. I've taken the original image and cropped it to show the lower mark (the better of the two marks by far) in 100% resolution. Then I did a little brightness/contrast tweaking for two more which is marginally helpful. Then I took a picture with my camera with the best light I could get to show detail, and cropped it (different but not particularly better). I don't know how much all this might help see the mark better but I hope it will. See the results attached.

More a bit later... Peter

I'm coming into this late and did not read all of the above posts ... however ... Looks like a simple "29" in archaic type font of that time frame.

I have a few old NM3s with this style type-set/font. One, for many years was transferred on bills of sale as the 9 being a 0. Under higher magnification it is distinguishable as it's true impression ... a 9.

Bradish · #37 03-10-2020, 09:46 AM

Hi ANTIQUESMITHS,
Interesting.
I'm afraid the mark on my SW NM3 is not well stamped. The angle of light makes a difference and can change the mind about what is there.
Can you take a good, clear picture of the "29" mark on your NM3 and post it here? (use the "Advanced" reply to attach)
Hope you can. It would make the comparison much easier.
Thanks... Peter