.38 Safety Hammerless Third Model with 6" barrel

mrcvs · #1 01-28-2020, 07:26 PM

The recent thread posted about the rarity of the 6" barrel during the pre 1899 time frame (e.g., "antique" revolvers) inspired me to dig out my .38 Safety Hammerless Third Model with a 6" barrel, shipped to Philadelphia 07 January 1897.

The photographs are not the greatest as taken indoors. Will post better photographs soon taken outdoors. The bluing is much better than as photographed. The blued finish came out more as patina than bluing.

Boulder350 · #2 01-29-2020, 11:04 AM

Here is my 38 with number 47xxx. Barrel matches the frame. I never lettered this one

BMur · #3 01-29-2020, 12:34 PM

Hey Mark,
Wow, that's an early 3rd model with the 6" barrel. In fact, that's the earliest one I've seen. What's exciting about it is that the serial number is very close to the beginning of the 3rd model run (Circa 1890) so it supports that the 6" barrel would likely also be found in the late 2nd model. In fact I'm sure that they exist since some of the 8" and 10" are found just before 1890 and the catalog lists them available in 1887.

All of the "early" 8" and 10" barrels have that line on the barrel that is telltale of a two piece construction. That would be for "ALL" models listed having the 8" & 10 " available in 1887.

This is part of what I was hoping to prove about the "EARLY" 6" barrels as well but I've never actually confirmed a matching number one "pre-1890".... even though they are listed in the "Factory catalog" in 1887!

I'm trying to Prove that the process the factory used was different in manufacturing the long barrels "PRE-1890 than "POST-1890". I may be wrong but some of the post 8"and 10" barrels do not have a visible line on the barrel. Suggesting that the factory solved the problem of barrel warpage during forging the longer barrels?

What I need to see is a very early 6" barrel to support this position. So basically I'm suggesting the manufacturing technique they used to forge and actually assemble the early long barrels was totally different prior to 1890? Which opens a can of worms as to why? Something must have occurred in and around 1890 that solved the barrel warpage problem If I'm correct. and if you think about it???? That would be the reason why the 6" barrel "suddenly" became more popular and saw much higher numbers in production!

"BECAUSE" the factory solved the two piece problem!! Making it much easier and economical to make them!! Also the problem seems to be a focus on the .32 and .38 caliber barrels only. Likely due to the thinner metal construction causing the longer ribbed barrel design to warp while white hot.

A factory letter would be a good idea I think.

Thanks for posting it.

Murph

BMur · #4 01-29-2020, 01:48 PM

You will also notice that the earlier 1883 Factory reference clearly lists the difference in cost for the various barrel lengths? The longer the barrel? The more it cost to purchase.

What I find very interesting is that the later 1887 Factory catalog reference "DOES NOT" show the prices for the longer barrels!

Obviously they weren't cheap to manufacture and the cost to the consumer was likely quite expensive at that time which might also be why so few 6,8, & 10" barrels are found!

I'm also saying that by 1890 the prices dropped because the cost and process to manufacture the longer barrels became much easier. So I'm also looking(researching) for catalog price references. That would prove that the process became more cost effective after 1890!! I'd be willing to bet that the longer barrels introduced in 1887 were very expensive and that in 1890 they were listed "Somewhere" much cheaper....This would support my theory. It would also fill in the blank as to why you can't find them on earlier guns....because it was too expensive for the consumer to purchase at that time because the manufacturing process "required" a two piece barrel construction! Which was "way more" expensive from a machining process and time consuming. I mean it fits like a glove!

That's also "WHY" the earlier long barrels in .32 & .38 are so rare on the top breaks! They cost a lot of money to make and purchase "Prior to 1890".

Murph

mrcvs · #5 01-29-2020, 02:54 PM

Some better photographs as taken in sunlight.

BMur · #6 01-30-2020, 12:32 PM

Natural light is always better.

Murph

mrcvs · #7 01-30-2020, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

Natural light is always better.

Murph

Yeah I know!

I should have waited for a sunny day before my initial post but I got impatient.

BMur · #8 01-31-2020, 01:20 PM

Well,
In sunshine or shadow it is what it is Mike. A rare Long barrel in the Antique serial number range.

Murph

Club Gun Fan · #9 02-08-2020, 03:00 PM

Here is my 38 Safety Hammerless 3rd Model 6" nickel serial number 0.

mrcvs · #10 02-09-2020, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Club Gun Fan

Here is my 38 Safety Hammerless 3rd Model 6" nickel serial number 0.

Don,

I'm impressed! Yours casts a tall shadow over mine.

BMur · #11 02-09-2020, 12:01 PM

I don’t know. I would never compare the two. But I sure would see a benefit to displaying them together in a glass case. How often do you see that?

Murph

model3sw · #12 02-09-2020, 03:04 PM

Ian, Very nice. The longer barrels on this model are not very often encountered, especially not in better shapes.

A few years back I had become interested in one for sale with a 10" barrel but took a few steps back because i was near certain it was monkeyed with. First, it had a perfect vertical seam. All stamps seemed in or near proportion but I cannot believe the factory would construct a longer barrel by vertically clipping the barrel to and an extension, that would have to be perfect for the rifling to match.

I thought perhaps it had been revised by an outside gunsmith or barrel maker such as Pope but it had no Pope markings nor did it have that "Pope" warm and fuzzy feeling when you looked at it.

You would expect if that was done by a after market barrel maker or gunsmith extending the barrel to find the barrel sleeved with one solid straight sleeve the entire length of the barrel .

When there is something that truly catches my eye to warrant a closer look I use the 3 strike rule. Something very minor wrong e.g. one of the parts is stamped with 1 number misplaced or off, I might accept that at builder error (or hangover). I recall many years back, most men drank alcohol all day long. Not to the point of sloppy drunk but it was the "norm" back then, well into the 1980s, I kept a bottle of each alcohol that certain claims adjusters liked in my small liquor cabinet at my shop.

I didn't even have to ask if the wanted, they would just open the cabinet and look for their bottle to pour out about 3 fingers of whatever they liked best.

Strike 2, Grips are wrong ... if it is nice enough or scarce enough I can overlook the improper grips to later replace with the correct grips. Here is where I usually stop or become VERY suspicious of strike #3, e.g. touch ups, some fine sand markes or polish-thorugh spots.

If touched with a wire wheel or wire brush, that, alone was consider all 3 strikes and I'm outta there.

I think you did well. I like the older, odder types.

I can very much live with a little less blue or one showing honest wear or usage as long as it is mechanically excellent and all the parts match.

There's my 3 cents worth for today, but I'm OCD about mechanical condition and cringe like I'm hearing nails being screeched on a black board when I see a repair that is either just faked enough to barely function (and likely not in time or loose) or have been *****-ED ("Faked" Up Beyond All Recognition).

BUT, if's and oddball and meets at least minimum certain criteria, I'd give it a good second look, too, with intention to purchase.

All the best, Sal.

mrcvs · #13 02-09-2020, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

I don’t know. I would never compare the two. But I sure would see a benefit to displaying them together in a glass case. How often do you see that?

Murph

Well, does Don wish to sell me his, LOL?

mrcvs · #14 02-09-2020, 03:23 PM

I should mention that I lucked out in purchasing this one, because I purchased it back when I was smart enough to realize it was uncommon, but not smart enough to realize that this could have been monkeyed with, in that the barrel may not have originated with this firearm, or worse. And, it did not have a letter with it.

Later, I was educated enough to realize there is a lot of monkey business with these, even these, a lowly .38 Safety Hammerless. All numbers matched and the factory letter confirmed the current configuration, as later purchased by me.

Club Gun Fan · #15 02-09-2020, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrcvs

Well, does Don wish to sell me his, LOL?

I'll ask you the same question. LOL!

mrcvs · #16 02-09-2020, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Club Gun Fan

I'll ask you the same question. LOL!

Buying is the fun part! I've never been good at selling.

When you think about it, a Safety Hammerless with a 6" barrel is counterintuitive. Hence, the rarity. They were designed for self defense, at close range. No need for a longer barrel for that...

Club Gun Fan · #17 02-09-2020, 06:48 PM

Back in the day The United States Revolver Association held a match. I'll quote from the official rules. "Pocket Revolver Match (Indoors) Match O-POCKET REVOLVER CHAMPIONSHIP. Open to everyone: 25 shots at 20 yards in strings of five shots on standard American targets, as in Match M: light must be artificial: each string to be fired within 30 seconds after the command :Fire". Arm, any pocket revolver of .32 caliber, or larger within the rules. Magazine pistols are not allowed. Ammunition, full charge, factory loaded, brought to the firing point in unbroken packages.". I can see a 6" 38 Safety hammerless being used in this match.

BMur · #18 02-09-2020, 07:38 PM

That’s why the longer barrels are so collectible!
Ok Sal, help me out with that 10” barrel story. Was it on a hammerless frame? Talk about rare?

Murph

Hunter Keith · #19 02-09-2020, 09:44 PM

Do not know if it as uncommon as 6 inch bbl. "Safety Hammerless, but it shoots and functions perfectly. i was a little surprised how it "bit the web of my shooting hand. All the numbers match, very finished challenged. Armlist find.

mrcvs · #20 09-06-2020, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hunter Keith

Do not know if it as uncommon as 6 inch bbl. "Safety Hammerless, but it shoots and functions perfectly. i was a little surprised how it "bit the web of my shooting hand. All the numbers match, very finished challenged. Armlist find.

I would hazard to guess that the 5" barrel length would be significantly less common than a 6" barrel as it would not have the advantage a 6" barrel would for United States Revolver Association matches and also it would not have the concealed carry advantage of a shorter barrel length. But that's nothing more than a guess.

Browsing the internet reveals that unsubstantiated sources suggest that less than 100 Safety Hammerless revolvers with a 6" barrel were manufactured. I suppose that is possible, but it seems low to me.

BMur · #21 09-06-2020, 11:59 PM

I'm still thinking it was more expensive to manufacture a longer barrel early on. I'd sure like to know if the early 6" barrels were two piece construction? Does anyone have a 6" barrel that was issued to the U.S. Army? Pretty rare but those are very early 1890.

I still have not seen any 6" barrels on any caliber guns that match prior to 1890!! and the 8" and 10" barrels prior to 1890 "all" have two piece construction.

Murph

glowe · #22 09-07-2020, 04:59 PM

I wonder if rare is the correct term for this revolver? I see quite a few here and I had one at one time as well. I had ran the database for percentages of various 38 Safety barrel lengths and find the following:

1.5" - 3%
2" - 6%
3.25" - 55%
4" - 12%
5" - 14%
6" - 10%

It seems that the 6" is had about the same amount of examples in the database as the 4". Guess the 4" was too long for the pocket revolver buyers and too short for the long barreled buyers. I would think that the mind-set for the late 1800s and into the early 1900s was long barrel is good for some buyers. Not sure why, but the long barreled hog-legs were very popular and maybe that carried over somewhat for the 38 Safety.

I love these little gems, and bought quite a few over the years. Had to decide what I wanted most, which was early hand ejectors, so this is the sum total of what I had, from parts guns to high condition gems.

mmaher94087 · #23 09-07-2020, 08:42 PM

BMur wrote: "I'd sure like to know if the early 6" barrels were two piece construction?

S&W forged barrels up to and including 8" as one piece units. They experienced unacceptable warpage losses beyond 8". I can not attest to the advertised 10" barrels as I have never owned an early one. The 10" Single Shot barrels are one-piece but came later. The early barrels up to the 8" are one-piece forgings.

To answer your second question: "Does anyone have a 6" barrel that was issued to the U.S. Army? Pretty rare but those are very early 1890." YES, I have two and they are one piece forgings.

"I still have not seen any 6" barrels on any caliber guns that match prior to 1890!! and the 8" and 10" barrels prior to 1890 "all" have two piece construction.". I really don't know how to answer this statement but I will say that the 8" barrel of the .38 Single Action 2nd Model (1877-1891)
that I have is one piece. The revolver has been refinished but no line indicates a two-piece barrel.

BMur · #24 09-07-2020, 10:19 PM

Mike is your S/A 2nd model a very late serial number? Perhaps 1890 or later?

I have documented several 8" barrel lengths with 2 piece construction. In fact I own 2 myself. I have a 32 D/A with an 8" barrel and two piece construction.(See photo) Also a 38 D/A with 8" barrel and two piece construction. Both date pre-1890 and both have very clear vertical lines on the barrel.

I also have two 10" barrel revolvers. Both are two piece construction and both manufactured prior to 1890.

With your two 6" barrel hammerless U.S. Army issue having no vertical line on the barrel and being manufactured/shipped in 1890? I guess that must be the cut off date for the two piece construction? I've seen two factory letters for this variation and unfortunately Mr. Jinks did not list a price per gun. The theory being that the longer barrels were much more expensive early on as compared to the more common lengths.

All of the Revolving rifles were two piece construction. You can see an X-ray of that on page 320 of the Neil & Jinks book. Manufactured from 1873-1887.

I still need to find a 6" barrel that "Matches" on any 32 or 38 cal SA or DA top break revolvers that date to Pre-1890 to confirm that the 6" barrel length was not part of this two piece construction. If we look at the New Model 3 or the 44 cal DA’s? You can find a lot of 6” barrels! The same is NOT true of the 32 & 38 prior to 1890! Why?

The 8" barrel Pre-1890 most definitely was. At least all of the few that I have seen are anyway.

Any gun that dates to after 1890 manufacture
having a longer barrel would likely have a one piece construction. That's the point I'm trying to make. That's why they were rare "Pre-1890". They cost a lot more to machine them and also when did the price actually come down to a marketable price for the longer barrel lengths? This is likely the reason for so few 6" barrels noted in the antique serial number range. This doesn't include later post antique production. It also does not include "miss-matched" barrels found on earlier guns.

All I need to see is one 6 inch barrel Pre-1890. If they aren’t rare? Why can’t I find one?

Murph

mmaher94087 · #25 09-08-2020, 11:54 AM

"Mike is your S/A 2nd model a very late serial number? Perhaps 1890 or later?". Serial number is 75287 out of 108255 made 1877 - 1891.

BMur · #26 09-08-2020, 01:41 PM

Thanks for the info Mike,
Can I get you to please post photo's of the gun? Profile, barrel address, etc.

For those who are not familiar with "The line" see photos. The earliest long barrels were actually two piece. The end piece was threaded and screwed into the female top strap. Often collectors mistake them as being "stretched" but they are not. They are original and extremely rare. That's how I was able to purchase the 8" DA 38. The guy ahead of me at the table was talking trash to the dealer about the gun. Saying it was altered and stretched. The dealer was intimidated and said he didn't know. Then it was my turn to see the gun. That was a good day.

The first two photo's are from a re-nickeled 8" barrel 3rd Model D/A 38. You can see the line has been buffed and kinda hard to see? So, it's possible that a re-nickel could cover the line if done heavily?

The second set of photo's is a 10" barrel SA 38 2nd model( not refinished and very strong line is visible) that also letters. Both went to Robinsons in 1887. First year the 10" barrels were offered. The 6" and 8" barrels were available in 1886 according to the letter sent to the U.S. Navy from Smith & Wesson on availability of barrel lengths.

I believe that very few were made and most were sent first year of production to Robinsons for display. Those are the only ones that I have seen and documented. Circa 1887.

They didn't sell because they were two piece barrels and "very expensive" to manufacture and sell. That's my theory anyway. It makes sense. I just need to see a 6" barrel from the same time frame to see if it was also two piece. That would answer a lot of questions regarding why they are so rare on early guns. It might also have been the reason the 6" barrel is not seen on early 32 & 38 S/A & D/A caliber top break guns. Cost! and difficulty manufacturing same.

Murph

mmaher94087 · #27 09-09-2020, 12:51 PM

Murph, pass the Crow please. I grabbed my 10X OptiVISOR and examined my nickel, 8", .38 SA, 2nd that's been refinished and I found the two-piece joint. It doesn't show on the left but it is barely visible on the right. I suspect the refinish had something to do with it.

BMur · #28 09-09-2020, 02:18 PM

Thanks Mike,
Pour me one too please!

I think yours was also part of the introduction of the long barrels on the 32 cal and 38 cal SA & DA revolvers in 1886/7 and likely displayed at Robinsons as well. The serial number falls right in that time frame.

That’s how rare these two piece early long barrels are. Before 1886? They did not exist! Unless special ordered? I’m really doubting that.

Now if we can just locate a 6” barrel pre-1890 example? ( Good Luck!) That would solidify why the long barrels are so rare on early guns. Two piece construction requirement and cost!

I wonder how they solved the warpage issue? Like you mentioned, all the target barrels are one piece. Those began production in 1893. So by then they solved the problem I guess.

Murph

mmaher94087 · #29 09-09-2020, 08:49 PM

As for the warpage issue; I read (somewhere) that the issue was between the more rapid cooling of the relatively light barrel and the cooling of the heat retained by the mass of the breach block. Maybe Smith & Wesson placed the hot forgings in a furnace/oven and gradually reduced the heat to minimize the warpage?