I've picked this up today. Nice gun chambered in .44 Russian. Serial number is 18500. Was curious if I could get a ballpark estimate of when it was made?

Decent looking revolver. As to when? Well that will take someone more knowledgeable than me to tell. I know it was built before they discontinued that model but not how much before.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

Late 1800's to early 1900's. What do you want from me? It's a big ballpark!

__________________
The best I can with what I got

The frames were all made pre-1899 so they are considered an antique.

They were sold until 1913 and not in SN order (as typical with S & W); it 'probably' shipped sometime in the late 1880s to early 1890s but only a letter of authenticity will tell you the date.

http://www.swhistoricalfoundation.com/swhf_letter.pdf

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

I have serial number 27994 and it shipped Sept-1890 so you will be in the early 1890 or late 1889 is my best guess. Great looking revolver.

regards

__________________
Everett Briggs
SWCA#3124

Most likely the late 1880s. Ship dates range from 1884 to 1889 in your serial number range. These guns apparently were not the most popular model out there, so inventory would have been high and S&Ws were never shipped in serial number order.

Never understood why the official name was given as a 44 Double Action, "1st Model" since there was no 2nd Model made. I just call them 44 Russian Double Action revolvers. Of course, there was a Frontier Model which was a 44 WCF and a 44 DA Favorite, which was a lightened frame/cylinder/barrel model, but neither were given a 2nd Model designation. Just an oddball name selection I guess. Here is my 44 WCF for comparison of the cylinder length to yours.

These were big revolvers. Not as large as the early Model 3 American or Russian Models, but still big frame top-break revolvers. I also added an image of one compared to a 32 DA. The 32 is very similar to the 44, and hard to distinguish if photographed alone. Only the short cylinder on the little 32 DA allows for easy identification.

Attached Images

	P101023.jpg (116.4 KB, 378 views)
	P1013.jpg (117.4 KB, 71 views)

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

You will note the "Navy" identification for the large frame 44 D/A? I've often wondered where that "Navy identification" came from.

Murph

I just found something in Roy Jinks Book: History of Smith & Wesson on page 131 & 132
The 44 Double Action was designed for the Russian Navy and was built on a modified Model 3 Frame. Since the New Model 3 Single action was known as the Army model, The Smith & Wesson Catalog of 1881 illustrated this model as the NEW MODEL NAVY No.3.
Since it was originally designed for the Russian Navy, D.B. Wesson kept the name alive.

Murph

Nice pics! If I read this properly, is mine a New Model 3 Navy? It looks exactly like the one pictured in .44 Russian. I have a 4 digit serial number so I'm assuming very early production.

Attached Images

DSCN2302.jpg (74.4 KB, 61 views)

I got curious and looked in some early reproduction catalogs.
First and second photo are from the 1883 Smith & Wesson catalog.
The Third photo is from the 1887 M. Robinson catalog. Both refer this large frame 44 Russian revolver as the New Model 3 Navy. Notice they also refer the Single Action as the New Model 3 Army.

Murph

Attached Images

	0722B97A-A4AE-4BD4-8102-7A9ED0C86D5F.jpg (89.1 KB, 41 views)
	5E6D7A34-78D3-4C88-8B80-C40FE0643489.jpg (77.1 KB, 44 views)
	8FA5B1CE-0890-4CD3-B809-650C98716BB2.jpg (60.0 KB, 46 views)

I have 22708, and Roy said it shipped September 1889.

These are such fun Revolvers!

Do you Load your own Cartridges?

Yup!

Oddly, no one seems to call them that today though...

We should all start revitalizing S & W's own actual nomenclature for these!

The only way you are going to get an accurate date is from Roy and/or a letter. My #11237 shipped in June of 1884. They were not shipped in numerical order.

__________________
Peter #2091

NO! Please NO! The collector books are written and accepted, which removed much of the confusion over S&W nomenclature. Besides, the 44 Double Action had no connection to the Navy that I can find!! Also, I doubt that the Frontier had much to do with the west either since only 15,000 were made.

I should add that there are some reports that foreign countries used this revolver in service for the their Navy Departments. Have not found which countries, but not here in the US.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Yes. For this one I shortened some .44 magnum brass. I loaded some 200gr LRNFPs over 4.5gr. of Unique, which gives an average of 626 fps. This is quite mild compared to the original loads, but has enough pop to make for a satisfying shooting experience. I'm going to try some Trail Boss loads when I lay hands on some.

Old girl has still got it; this was five shots, rapid-fire at seven yards.

Do I recall that John Wesley Hardin carried one?

I have No 34641 and it shipped May 1900.

opoefc informed me once from original shipping ledgers that my revolver was produced 03 Feb 1897.

John Wesley Hardin is said to have carried a Frontier Smith & Wesson 44 D/A. It's photo'd in a few of my books with court records that documented it.

I guess The Russian Navy was suppose to have adopted the 44 Smith & Wesson double action. I have no idea why they didn't. Perhaps it was a lack of paying for the first order? Maybe they wanted them for free again?

Murph

Check your messages...I messaged you about a fairly rare Mold on the flea bay...may have ended by now though!

Yes but...the Big 'Standard Catalog of Smith &Wesson" Book refers to them as the "Navy" Model...So...I see no conflict there!

Yes...I can not remember off-hand who though...

I have seen them a few times on line in Auctions, some South American Countries for sure had them...not sure if they had them for their Army, or, Navy though, or if they had them for both.

Wasn't payment supposed to be in gold?

Nice shootin'!

Kinman,
It really was a patent infringement issue. They were making a clone of the 44 Smith & Wesson that was cheaper and basically just as good. So the Russian's bailed on the deal and bought the clone and really they bought an infringement of an active patent.

What blows me away is in the U.S. patent office you will find "approved" patents of guns that are identical to Smith & Wesson's applied for by foreign gun makers at the same time Smith & Wesson's patents were still valid. Those patents should have been denied. NO QUESTION. So, that is the real question....How did that happen?? I think that's where the real gold ended up.

I think that's why Rollin White had absolutely no chance to extend his patent. The Bulldogs in Europe were already being manufactured and copies of that model were already being made before Rollin White's patent expired!

Then Smith & Wesson designs a New Model 3 Navy 44 for the Russian Navy and what do they do? You got it...They cloned it yet again. It's the way of the world I guess.

*** Check out the photo. That is NOT a Smith & Wesson. It’s a clone. Best one I’ve ever seen!

Murph

Attached Images

A12A31BC-9589-41FF-8EA5-9025BF11F2D3.jpg (50.7 KB, 42 views)

I remember one on the Gee Bee about 2007 or so, .44 Russian, which had a 2-1/2 inch Barrel or so...likely a Gunsmith Modification from back when, but it looked perfect and "as if" m-a-y-b-e it could have been Factory, ( but no idea about Barrel Top Texts, but I would have noticed those if they'd been cut short though ) and I went after it, but so did a few other people, and I lost out around the $850.00 dollar mark, which it sold for.

I wish I had gotten it just to find out for sure, if it was Factory or not, and also, just because it was so neat!

It looked good...real good...

Oh well...sigh...

Nope.

Rollin White's patent expired on April 3, 1869. His petition for an extension on his patent (Senate Bill 273) was approved by both branches of Congress in December of 1869. It was subsequently vetoed in January of 1870 by President Grant at the behest of Chief of Ordinance Alexander Dyer.

Dyer's objections were that the patent was sketchy to begin with, and that it had barely withstood legal attack on an essentially divided Supreme Court decision. Dyer also noted that people had made plenty of money off of the patent; White's gross had been around $71,000, and Smith & Wesson had made millions. But the real gist of it was that the government had effectively been shut out from making cartridge load revolvers during the Civil War, which, to quote Dyer, meant that "the Government suffered inconvenience and embarrassment enough during the war in consequence of the inability of manufacturers to use this patent ..."

Elisha Foote, who was the patent commissioner that initially denied Rollin White's application for a patent extension, supported Dyer's view. He noted that "in the form in which Mr. White made his pistol, it is believed to have little or no practical utility."

There were indeed politicians that supported extending the patent—chiefly, because Smith & Wesson had agreed to allow the government to make cartridge load revolvers if the patent was extended. That, and the question of whether Rollin White had had a fair trial to begin with (a questionable assertion) raised some interesting legal concerns. But at the end of the day Grant's veto stood.

None of this had anything to do with the Bulldog revolvers in Europe.

Mike

The influence of the Bulldog revolver is apparent and in fact the core of creation regarding "ALL" American made Double action revolvers. That includes "ALL" of Smith & Wesson double actions, Colts, Forehand and Wadsworth, Harrington & Richardson, Iver Johnson, Thames, Merwin & Hulbert/Hopkins & Allen, etc. etc. So, the Bulldog "WAS" worldwide influence. No patent was going to stop it's production or Worldwide influence. NO lawsuit would have slowed it down.

I think that's the real issue. American arrogance. Actually thinking that an approved Patent would or could control the world? Good luck! The basic design of the gun posted on this Thread was also based on the Bulldog design.


Murph

When did anyone try to stop the production of Bulldog revolvers with an American patent? I think you're inventing a bunch of nonsense to make a non-point.

The Bulldog may have influenced the development of American double action revolvers (whether it was "core" or not is open to interpretation), just as the French Lefaucheux pinfire revolver almost certainly influenced the development of the Smith & Wesson cartridge load revolver. And within our own borders we see the same thing: Colt may have come up with the revolver on his own, but he certainly wasn't the first as Elisha Collier's flintlock revolvers amply demonstrate. This just means that people were inventing off of each others' inventions. One could argue that this is simply the natural course of innovation.

Part of the question in the Rollin White suit was whether having a foreign patent on a novel invention precluded one from patenting the same thing in America. That's not a question of arrogance; it's one of legal jurisdiction—and you can guess how that went, given the outcome of White v Allen.

Mike

[QUOTE=glowe;141056159]NO! Please NO! The collector books are written and accepted, which removed much of the confusion over S&W nomenclature.
Gary
I wish we could go back to S&W's names for their Models. Nowhere in the old records or catalogs do I see the words "lemon squeezer" "lemon squeeze" lady smith, but collectors use the all the time. That doesn't make it correct.

__________________
Don Mundell

".44 Double Action First Model: New Model Navy No 3 Revolver"


Hosted on Fotki

In...

Hosted on Fotki

I remember reading (in a book, maybe during High School) that U S Grant bore a grudge against S&W for not allowing the use of the White Patent by the Government. He felt it extended the war and cost lives on both sides. The veto may have been inevitable but Grant’s grudge may have influenced his pen.

That may be why S&W shared the 1/2 moon clip in WWI.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

That would not have been very rational of him.

Rifles were by far the most used and most relied on...Rifles and Bayonets when close enough.

Revolvers were likely running only some ways ahead of Sabers...and way behind Cannon and Mortars.

Battles were not fought with, nor decided by use of, nor won by Revolvers.

Yes, had there been .44 / .45, and .36 Caliber Metallic Cartridge Revolvers, re-loading would have been a little faster than with the Cap & Ball...but a lot slower than Cap & Ball Remington New Model, where one can install a waiting loaded and capped Cylinder in about three seconds.

But, if Metallic Cartridge large Bore Revolvers had been available, both sides would have had them, and it would have been a "wash"...

So what then did Mr. Grant imagine to have been the difference it would have made to shorten the War or to have swung the War more rapidly to the Union's Favor??

As far as I can imagine or reason, it would have made no difference at all.

According to Chief of Ordinance Alexander Dyer, this was at least part of the reason why Grant vetoed the patent extension bill for Rollin White. Here's a direct quote from Dyer's correspondence in 1869 on the topic:

Whether or not this is a good reason is debatable, but it's clear that the issue of licensing the patent to the government during the Civil War played a role here.

Mike

Yes...


Played a role in the politics relating to the continuing annoyance and mess the Patent represented.

Did Mr. White have the authority to assign it's use to the Government in whatever qualified or limited ways?

Or, had S & W assumed total control of the Patent and had demurred?

- I do not remember..!

I ain't a lawyer, but my reading of it is that Smith & Wesson had an exclusive license on the patent. Ergo, they controlled who it could be subsequently licensed to.

I suspect that if Rollin White had his way, he would have happily licensed it to others. He wasn't trying to create a monopoly ... he just wanted the royalties.

Mike

Not just being stubborn like Ford over Walter Chrysler's patent on the automatic transmission. Ford would not pay Chrysler and waited until the patent ran out in '51 before he put an automatic in anything, including Lincoln. At least thats the way I remember it (can't say for a fact).

I think it was General Motors that first developed the automatic transmission -- in the late 1930's. If my memory serves correctly, it was offered as an option on various higher-end GM vehicles in the 1940's.

Smith & Wesson had a profit motive in maintaining exclusive control over the patent; it meant that they could maintain a near monopoly on cartridge load revolvers. It's arguably the reason that they could go head-to-head against Colt and become such a force in the industry so quickly.

Rollin White, on the other hand, was probably just in it for the royalties. Whether or not he really understood the implications of an exclusive license to his patent is anyone's guess, but it was the first of any of his patents to make any money and I suspect he would have agreed to just about anything at that point. That said, if he had any inkling how successful the bored through cylinder would become, I'm guessing that he would not have given S&W the exclusive right to the patent, but would have instead worked out a royalty deal that anyone could have paid into.

This was very much the approach that George Selden took with his 1895 patent on the automobile. Selden sought to collect royalties from any and all automobile manufacturers. Long story short, he ended up losing his patent monopoly in court after it was challenged by Ford (and Ford's considerable financial resources).

Mike

At least in the movies.



You would have to ask him.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

Is this the Automotive section? I guess I should have checked back sooner, prior to the record Thread drift.

Phil,
I want to see you reload a Remington in 3 Seconds. That's faster than Clint Eastwood in Pale rider. Although, he didn't seem to be in much of a hurry.

Murph

Sure!

Soon as I remember where I put it...I'll have a friend Video it.


I meant that "three seconds" figuratively, like "Two Shakes of a Lamb's Tail" - but I'll see what I time at...especially since I have only done it once and slowly, Lol...who knows?

Hi Tinker Pearce,

Sorry your Thread got a little drifty...sometimes one thing leads to another, till finally we pause, take a breath, and wonder, "What the heck Happened??"

Lol...


Anyway, to gently Rein in the Mare a little bit here...

Here's our "Official House Gun", kept loaded ( Full-House Swiss 3F-BP, 240 Grain DEWCs ) and with a charged 'H.K.S.' Speed Loader next to it...

Later than yours, has the longer Cylinder, but still .44 Russian.

Love the old .44 'DA's..!

Hosted on Fotki

Oyeboteb:
Official house gun? You won't need a speed loader because if you empty that young cannon in the house it will be two hours before you can find out what you hit!

Along with a good couple days of "Ears Ringing" I bet!