A New Model No 3 2nd Model Russian I recently acquired. Much thanks to the illustrious Dr Jinks.

These stocks…there aren’t words to discuss the sheer beauty of this ivory. This revolver wasn’t even on my radar and only was in contention because I was outbid on previous lots from Dr Jinks’ collection.

Attached Images

	10A14838-E908-478F-BDA5-84283D268783.jpg (93.0 KB, 790 views)
	76906BEB-1B02-4010-BAA8-286D4650C9EE.jpg (94.1 KB, 606 views)
	6BBDD9D4-0C1A-4EE2-911C-62D86DB86CD1.jpg (82.4 KB, 555 views)
	84B59D3B-373B-499F-87B9-F1D47A7E077C.jpg (36.9 KB, 494 views)
	4A10E431-9828-4E6C-86E6-66C581DB129F.jpg (76.5 KB, 408 views)

Your revolver looks fantastic, it's a beauty.

Why is the cylinder wear more than the rest of the revolver ?

Perhaps because it was closer to the holster----you reckon?

Ralph Tremaine

I haven't been able to find the discussion about the blue loss but as I remember, it has something to do with the steel and heat treating of the cylinder. Blue loss on the cylinder seems to be prevalent on all the tip up and top break revolvers.

__________________
Mike Maher #283

Cylinder wear like that is fairly common on revolvers that were holstered during that era….I have seen many Colt Single Actions with more finish worn off of the cylinder and ejector housing than the barrel because those parts rubbed hardest against the holster.

__________________
Terry Lester

Yes, I think that’s a logical answer except I would expect there to be more holster wear at the end of the barrel as well, which is not the case with this particular revolver.

IIRC, doesn’t it have something to do with the properties of bluing and how it wears over time on a less thick object, such as a frame or barrel vs something more compact, such as a cylinder? Or the malleability of a more linear object (frame, barrel) vs something more compact (cylinder)?

Beautiful gun and grips.

Here is something I have discovered from working with damascus and I think it helps explain why cylinders often have more wear and a bit different hue than rest of gun.

I sometimes blue damascus blades after etching. It really makes the difference between straight high carbon and steel with some nickel pop. But, I found out something else also.

IF I do a differential HT, where I only harden the edge of the blade and leave the spine area soft, when I blue the knife the steel of hardened portion always comes out a different hue that the soft portion. Exact same alloy, different heat treat. In fact if you use just straight high carbon and only harden the edge and then sand and polish to a high degree you can easily see the difference between harder and softer with the naked eye.

On revolvers the cylinder is always harder than the rest of the gun as it needs a different heat treatment. I have put the cylinder into the blue solution at the same time as the frame and had it come out with some difference in blue.

Hardening and tempering changes the grain structure of steel. The fact that blue solution will effect different structures differently, even if the alloy is exactly the same is completely understandable. How the blue wears differently would also be understandable

Here is a great picture of a clay hardened blade that shows this. The clay on spine keeps the spine from hardening. THIS IS NOT MINE. But both an beautiful blade excellent example of how different grain structures can effect the appearance of steel.

Depends on the design of the holster. Notice the cylinder flutes, which are more protected from being rubbed on a holster, are still a nice dark blue.

__________________
Terry Lester

Yes, you are correct!

BTW, absolutely beautiful revolver!

__________________
Terry Lester

Ian.
A beautiful revolver and outstanding grips
The finish on the cylinder appears to have flacked not worn.
Probably just from laying on the wrong thing over time.

This one is holster worn

Attached Images

20190422_131653.jpg (151.5 KB, 139 views)

You beat me to it. That is flaking, not wear.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

That is a gorgeous revolver and the ivory is superb. That being said, can I ask a question?
How does blueing flake, instead of just wearing, the cylinder looks like paint almost.
Obviously the experts know why. Can you explain what is going on for us layman. 😁

Agreed that “flaking” is the term used by collectors to describe the finish loss on the cylinder in this picture…….


as compared to the “wear” pictured on the cylinder in this picture…….


Perhaps “flaking” is an early stage of “wear”???

__________________
Terry Lester

I will take a stab at this, but please feel free to support, refute, or modify. I am not an engineer by trade and never attended a course that addressed metal properties and metallurgy.

Bluing is a form of rust. Rust itself forms by the addition of oxygen to the iron, where ch is why a rusted object has more mass than a like unrusted object. The addition of oxygen can, of course, occur from oxygen in the atmosphere, or from the addition of oxygen from water (H2O).

For th purpose of this discussion, it would be best to think of bluing on a firearm and rust as completely synonymous, as, hopefully, most of our daily experience with rust is on objects other than firearms.

So, if one has a rusty object, one can use steel wool or sandpaper and with minimal physical effort, expose bare steel beneath. The wear against a firearm from an object such as a holster has worn through the bluing exposing bare metal beneath.

An object can flake rust for, I believe, the following reasons: The degradation of the surface beneath due to excessive corrosion, the accretion of much rust due to prolonged exposure to oxygen, and—and this last one is a guess—poor adherence due to the physical or chemical composition of the ferrous containing object beneath. I think this also alludes to the “grain” of the steel, which I alluded to in a previous post, above.

So let’s consider the cylinder on my revolver to be an “unknown”. I have read about this concept relative to blued Winchester 1892 and 1894 rifles and carbines produced from the 1890’s up through the 1920’s. Those produced in the 1890’s that remain in good to excellent condition often contain a vividly blued receiver in which there are forge marks along the grain that do not contain bluing as the bluing did not adhere to these linear striatum’s well. Today, they appear as bare steel and often with minor oxidation over the years. This might be an example of the failure of bluing to properly adhere due to the grain structure beneath. Now, in the teens and ‘20’s, my understanding is that Winchester rifles contained a greater nickel content than did earlier ones. Nickel, being a non ferrous metal, would not rust, and so the bond of the bluing to the steel with a greater nickel component often causes these receivers to flake bluing. I have read that this is due to the migration of nickel molecules to the surface of the receiver over time, but I don’t know if I believe that. It might be more akin to a painted surface that was improperly prepared. It might look good at first, but starts to flake due to the lack of adhesion of the paint due to the surface beneath.

So, relative to my revolver, the subject matter of this thread. Even though I, and others, alluded to forge lines, it seems unlikely due to the fact there is flaking and not striations present. Flaking is not due to excessive corrosion, because extensive rust is not present. So it must be the fact that the composition of the cylinder differs from the rest of the revolver. Initially, I assumed the metal composition of the revolver would be similar throughout and that the flaking might be due to the application of the bluing process to a more compact and thicker object, lik the cylinder, vs to thinner components, such as the sideplate.

But, with regards to the Winchester rifles & carbines discussed above, the metallurgical composition of other components differed from that of the receiver, causing the receiver to flake and other components to retain much original bluing. A similar principle must be occurring here in that the metallurgical composition of the cylinder differs enough such that it flakes and other components do not.

Again, feel free to support, modify, or refute.

mrcvs, that is a great post that answers at least my question if not some others.
Thanks for taking the time to put it together.👍

Doc
What is the pay rate in Pennsylvania? You out bid me on a number of guns in the auction! Good for you, at least they went to a friend, who I know will let me play with them if I ask.
Don

__________________
Don Mundell

Since a time frame for this flaking might be important, although we will never know when the flaking began, and even if it is inert or in a dynamic state, this revolver shipped (unknown as to when forged) in October of 1875.

I will say I knew about this upcoming auction for some time, I had an incredible amount of overtime this year, and other than antique firearms, I otherwise lead a frugal lifestyle, and, to a lesser degree, so does my wife.

And, like I said, this one wasn’t even originally on the radar screen and the only reason why I considered it was because it was Lot 112 and I was outbid on several lots previous to this one. It all worked out well! I think I prefer this lot over the lots I was outbid on prior to Lot 112.

Ian, very thoughtful post #16 above. Just two more comments and a conclusion …..besides the cylinder flaking, I think I can see in your pictures very slight thinning of the bluing on the sides of the barrel, and so I believe that your gun was used with a holster at least for a short period of time. Also, I do not see any flaking in the protected areas of the cylinder flutes. Subsequently I believe that the gun being holstered during its period of usage at least contributed to the flaking on the periphery of the cylinder.

__________________
Terry Lester

Yes, no flaking in the flutes.

Maybe the flaking was not physical, as would be the case with other revolvers posted in this thread, but chemical in nature. Prolonged contact with the tannins of a leather holster?

Is that an "0ld,Old Model Russian?"

".. Is that an "0ld,Old Model Russian?"..". The OP stated 2nd Model which is also called 'Old Model'. The photos show the 'saw handle' bump on the frame that only appear on the 2nd and 3rd models.

Old, Old Model (OOM) = 1st Model
Old Model (OM) = 2nd Model, and lastly,
3rd Model

__________________
Mike Maher #283

And the factory letter for this revolver arrived today.

Edit: A letter is forthcoming, but, in the meantime, here’s the link for the sale of this revolver from November:

Smith & Wesson No. 3 Second Model Russian Revolver

!an
I followed your link and again reviewed the outstanding auction.
It suddenly occurred to me that none of the Jinks guns included a factory letter.
Strange

Because that is NOT wear. That is what we call FLAKING. When I have time, I plan on doing a thread on flaking with pics to explain it. I recently bought a gun just because it helps illustrate flaking so well.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

This needs to be a sticky for all our members with spouses that take too much of an interest in one’s firearms purchases. “Honey, I only bought this gun to illustrate a flaking article I am writing!”

Pure genius—no wonder he is the boss!

__________________
Possum—The other white meat!

And here’s the factory letter.

Attached Images

5867E4F7-EFF6-43AB-B884-8FA3B30115CB.jpg (82.4 KB, 31 views)

Congrats Ian on the acquisition of a very fine piece!!!

__________________
Tom Graham SWCA #2303

Roy forgot to mention "Imitation" ivory. They came from an imitation elephant!

__________________
Don Mundell

I once had an absolutely beautiful NM #3 Target (38-44) with but one small flaw in the finish. It was pretty much gone from the cylinder---------and if you'd never even heard the term "flaking" before, you'd take one look at the cylinder and know right off what it meant----purely ugly!!

So---I for one am looking forward to Lee's dissertation on the topic, if for no other reason than to understand why it happened in the first place------and why it doesn't seem to happen any more-------or perhaps we just haven't had our newer guns around long enough for the affliction to make itself known-----if age has anything to do with it-----which I think it does not.

In the meantime, a nit: In post #16 mrcvs speaks of "degradation of the surface beneath"----and "poor adherence due to the physical or chemical composition----of the object beneath". This is perhaps simply a matter of figures of speech, but there are clearly those who think of bluing as something applied to the surface of the gun, much as paint is applied to a wall. Bluing IS the surface of the gun. It most certainly has transformed the surface from was to is, but it's still the surface.

At this point, discretion being the better part of valor, I'm going to wait until Lee tells me why this surface feels the need to leave so I can come to understand all I know about this. (Knowing about stuff is one thing----understanding what you know is a whole different ballgame!!)

Ralph Tremaine

They are some of the nicest Ivory I have ever seen
Wish I could hold the gun

This gun, hands down, and by far and away, has the nicest Ivory I’ve ever seen and is a pleasure to handle. Probably the same thrill as having one’s hands on the steering wheel of a McLaren sports car as one drives it off the lot for the first time—but the 25% depreciation is not incurred.