Date of manufacture of .44 Double Action Frontier No 12,250
To Ed, (opoefc)
I noted you had foreman's records for a .44 Russian DA First Model, in a recent thread. As this DA Frontier is of similar vintage, have you the foreman"s records on this one?
.44DA # 12,250 was made July 25, 1884.(Correction: 7/25/84 is for a .44DA in Russian caliber. #12,250 .44DA Frontier in 44-40 cal. made May 21, 1901. I didn't notice you said "Frontier model " ED
Wow, that's absolutely nothing short of AMAZING as it did not ship until July of 1901, as per Roy over on the private side. It sat in inventory for 17 years!!!
As far as photographs go, I am intentionally holding these back as there is provenance with this one and I have an article "in the works" for the Journal. We shall see if it is worthy of publication or not. There is some primary source information I need to access and this is on hold due to social distancing.
I submitted a request for a factory letter in early May so hopefully it shall arrive soon.
Oh Well,
That got me excited also Mike...17 years difference? that would have been one to document.
However, it's not really unusual in that era for guns to sit in the factory for 10 years or more. I have documented several antique Colts that were proven to have been discontinued at the factory in 1886 ( The .41 cal and several 38 cf. New House Pistols). Also a double cased and engraved set of .41 cf Colt Newline revolvers that were actually discontinued in 1877 (NOT what is presently found on the webs as 1879 for the 41 & 38 Newlines!)(Factory records proven) and both were shipped in 1894( New House) and 1886( New line cased set) respectively. So those guns sat for about 10 years before actually being shipped.
.44DA # 12,250 was made July 25, 1884.(Correction: 7/25/84 is for a .44DA in Russian caliber. #12,250 .44DA Frontier in 44-40 cal. made May 21, 1901. I didn't notice you said "Frontier model " ED
Thank you Ed. If it's not too much trouble, when was 10,106, also a DA Frontier manufactured? I promise you it's the last one I will ask about as it is the only other one I own. (Shipped 26 Nov 1900, as per the factory letter).
Initially, I was amazed by the manufacture date relative to the ship date, and I never even thought to assess for "is this even possible"? As these were produced 1886 to 1913, I imagine a production date of 1884 would be impossible to begin with.
But, this is interesting, nonetheless, as a production date of Tuesday 21 May 1901 tells us some interesting things. First, as all frames were forged prior to 1899, there was at least a 3 year lag time from forging to assembly, and so it is not such that a fully assembled revolver remained in stock for in excess of three years. Also, interesting about this revolver is that the barrel is stamped ".44 WINCHESTER CTG", whereas number 10,106 is not stamped as such. The ship date on these are only 8 months apart, which suggests, although does not prove, that the stamped barrels came about at some point during this 8 month time frame, unless, of course, 10,106 was assembled much earlier, which is why I requested the date of manufacture.
If the date of manufacture of 10,106 is not much prior to the ship date, it suggests that components may have been manufactured much closer to the assembly date than the forging date, and may have not been kept in stock, but manufactured as needed. Or, maybe perhaps most components were in stock and it was decided to stamp barrels assembled by the time 12,250 was manufactured, but not at the time 10,106 was manufactured.
Also, it is interesting that the stamped barrels on these acknowledge a competing manufacturer (Winchester) instead of just stating .44 WCF (of course the W does stand for Winchester), or .44-40. Perhaps because Winchester did not produce similar firearms (at that time, Smith & Wesson was mostly revolvers and Winchester was long arms), perhaps it was deemed acceptable to at least acknowledge a competitor.
I have decided that, although it is hoped my article, once completed, might have some element of surprise, it cannot hurt to post the completed auction link, and so I will provide that. Amazingly, it appears much better in person than the auction photographs present it as, and the wear to the barrel and other blemishes, as depicted in auction photographs, are almost nonexistent.
I am not stating that my article, which will take me some time to compose, will even be worthy of publication, but I am going to give it a try. It will be some time until I get this completed. Also, it might be deemed pure rubbish, in which case I will update this thread with some most interesting information about the past history of this revolver.
Ian notes "-----all frames were forged prior to 1898-----." in his post #10. Is there a consensus on that as a fact or is it as I was brought up to believe, an agreement between S&W and ATF--------------reached as a matter of convenience for both parties?
I don't know for a fact one way or the other, don't even care a whole lot; but it never made a whole lot of sense to think it really happened that way.
Ian notes "-----all frames were forged prior to 1898-----." in his post #10. Is there a consensus on that as a fact or is it as I was brought up to believe, an agreement between S&W and ATF--------------reached as a matter of convenience for both parties?
I don't know for a fact one way or the other, don't even care a whole lot; but it never made a whole lot of sense to think it really happened that way.
Ralph Tremaine
Hi Ralph,
If we ponder this a moment - how would it be a convenience to both parties or to either party?
In what way would either of them have anything to gain?
The important thing is that back in 1972 it was determined that all 44 DAs were classified as antiques by the BATF, since it was determined that all frames were manufactured before 1899.
My Frontier 44 DA, sn 4671, which I assumed was made the first year of production, did not shipped until May 1891. I am thinking that this Model was pretty much a loser as far as popularity was concerned.
I am adding a copy of the letter confirming antique status for several S&W models.
__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515
Last edited by glowe; 07-06-2020 at 12:04 PM.
Reason: added content
If we ponder this a moment - how would it be a convenience to both parties or to either party?
In what way would either of them have anything to gain?
Well, that would be another of those things I don't necessarily know about, but have perhaps absorbed by osmosis. It seems as though there is considerable traffic back and forth between firearms manufactures and the ATF. The cost of this traffic is born by the taxpayers on the one hand, and by the customers of the firearms manufacturers on the other hand----seemingly you and I on both sides. It follows both would benefit if what was a firearm suddenly became an Antique---by the stroke of a pen.
That said, we'd probably be better off asking the man who was more than likely involved----to one degree or another---perhaps engineered the whole thing. To that end, I'll pose a "Questions for Roy Jinks" (and suggest you may need to follow up).
Guys & ladies, lest don't rock the boat. For now & forever, I hope, the ATF is happy with "all .44DAs are antiques" Believe me, NO upside in asking anyone any questions, period ! Ed.
Ed, just a followup question. Your floor books state the date of manufacture or basically when the serial numbered frame was put together with the other parts to make it a firearm.
The serial numbered frame could have actually been made days, weeks or even years earlier. In other words the run of forged frames would obviously have to have preceded the assembly of the gun and as we can see surely precedes the shipping of said firearm.
So I think that this is why in Roy's letter to the ATF he clarifies which guns frames were built prior to the antique date cut off as he actually lists one model with a serial number so as not to include ALL frames of that model.
Guys, lest don't rock the boat. For now & forever, I hope, the ATF is happy with "all .44DAs are antiques" Believe me, NO upside in asking anyone any questions, period ! Ed.
I sure wouldn't want to lose Antique status for whatever the reason. It's a proven fact that having to register an "Antique" firearm instantly destroys value and a lot of collector interest. I mean clearly destroys value. How many time's do you watch an antique sit unsold because the FFL dealer wants to register it?
I've been forced to register several antiques only because of rarity and "the math" made sense but 99% of the time it doesn't make sense and the value drops considerably.
In my opinion this is one subject that needs to be kept "OUT" of the hands of lawyers and gun haters or we just might regret it.
Same folks that thought they were doing a good thing open carrying at Starbucks in California because it was "legal to do so"....Result? Now its a crime!
In my opinion we should simply embrace the documents posted by Glowe as Gospel and leave it be.
Just backing up what Ed said. 100% We are in California, it's already bad enough here. "PLEASE"!!!
Ian notes "-----all frames were forged prior to 1898--
I corrected my post to the proper date of 1899. As in ALL frames forged prior to 1899. Interestingly, this also applies to the Remingtion 1901 pistol. Manufactured first decade of the 20th Century, all frames pre 01 Jan 1899.
This discussion reminds me of a discussion that I have with my wife all the time. She is a nut for reading expiration or sell by dates on groceries.
I argue that she thinks that you can drink the milk up until midnight on the 10th (the date on the jug) but if you drink it on the 11th you will die.
Many times it isn't even an expiration date but a best by date or a sell by date. Many times this is a recommendation of the manufacturer to protect them from complaints or by health groups. To me, if you leave the milk out for three hours the day you bring it home it can go bad so a pre-printed date is superfluous. But I digress.
In regard to the current discussion, it amazes me that if the frame was made on December 31, 1899 its an antique but if made on January 2, 1900 its a nuclear weapon.
Iby ( Mike ) If 2802 is a frontier model in 44-40 and not a .44DA " Navy " ( you didn't specify ) in .44Russian, then the make date I gave you is not for a Frontier. .44DA Navys and .44DA Frontiers have different serial number ranges specific to each model . 2802 Frontier 44-40 was made May 27, 1889. Ed.
Iby ( Mike ) If 2802 is a frontier model in 44-40 and not a .44DA " Navy " ( you didn't specify ) in .44Russian, then the make date I gave you is not for a Frontier. .44DA Navys and .44DA Frontiers have different serial number ranges specific to each model . 2802 Frontier 44-40 was made May 27, 1889. Ed.
Date of manufacture of .44 Double Action Frontier No 12,250
Linear Mode
