The Gun Broker auction for this Model 1 first issue ended
yesterday evening. The item # is 919486717 if you want to
look at it.

I had bid on this Model 1 early on, but had gotten outbid. The
hammer design kind of bothered me because it did not look
like the hammers I have seen on the internet. It looked a bit
thick, and the rivet holding it to the main part of the hammer
looked crude. Plus, the seller did not offer any returns on this
gun. I eventually passed on it.

What do those of you who have this Model 1 first issue think?
Legit or not? I'd like to pick one up one day, but I don't want
to get duped.

Attached Images

IMG_0214.jpg (119.3 KB, 116 views)

The shadows are obscuring the outline, but it appears to have a different top section than originals?? You can save GB color images of the gun as you did with your first image. Looking at the gun online, it is not factory original hammer, which affects the value considerably. I believe that is a 3rd Type, and if so about 2000 were made. It was manufactured in October, 1858.

Attached Images

model 1.jpg (93.1 KB, 143 views)

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

I have one SN 1321 , and my hammer does not look anything like that. I bought mine a year and a half ago for abt. 1/2 of that selling price. Seller was happy with price and so was I, so I think that one was over priced esp. in light of the hammer issue.
In light of the crazy prices today, I may be wrong, but I don't think the insanity affects the old antique prices as much as newer guns.

The old girl looks pretty good for being 164 years old. It amazes me the
events it has lived thru.

__________________
Mike 2796
SoFo Bunch member

I'm pretty sure this one has a correct hammer, but the rivet holding the two sections together was replaced with a (?) pin of some sorts, (nail?). It was a 1st, 1st, 3rd and shipped from factory on 11/5/1858.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

The OP's hammer spur has been welded and riveted to the hammer base. It's not correct. The hammer top rivet should be a screw that goes in from the right and the spur should look like the one in post # 2 or 5.

__________________
Mike Maher #283

No rivet but a screw

IMG__151515.jpg

__________________
Daniel
SWCA#2471

Interesting. I noticed that the seller listed as a "rare split hammer". I'll look in my S&W McHenry/Roper book to see if anything like that is mentioned.

Secondly, and not to hijack your thread, but it was suggested to me that I come to this forum because I'm looking for a Model 1, second variation .22 short cylinder. Figured this thread being current and for the same type of gun would be worth it. I'll make a seperate post too.

The OP's hammer is of the correct type for an early Model 1 S&W but it has been repaired. The "split hammer" is found on the Model 1, 1st Issue or variant. There are six 'types' associated with this early revolver.

The 'Model 1, 2nd variation' has a one-piece hammer. "S&W McHenry/Roper" (1958?) is outdated and should be replaced with The Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson by Supica and Nahaus, vol. 4, 2016.

__________________
Mike Maher #283

Serial number would place it as a First Issue 3rd type. Hammer is incorrect. Here is a photo of mine, serial #1208, not too far under the one on Gunbroker.

Attached Images

L Side in Case.jpg (149.9 KB, 29 views)

I'm waiting receipt of the newest Supica/Nahaus book. In transit from Amazon.

Another thing I also noticed about the hammer was there is no
hammer groves or serrations on the top of the hammer spur to
help your thumb grip it during cocking it. And the hammer
spur is too thick.

Personally, I think the replaced hammer segment was simply never finished, but likely fitted to the gun and the project forgotten. If you know a good machinist, it could easily be fashioned into a facsimile of the original part, complete with checkering at the top of the hammer and probably even replace the rivet with a screw. Slightly aged, it would greatly improve the look and value of that revolver.

There ae machinists out there that could reproduce the whole revolver, so this would be a simple project for the right person.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

I watched this gun auction with some interest, and I had even bid on it early on. Like others here, I dropped out pretty quickly as I know that the cost of having a new split hammer made isn't insignificant, and I wasn't sure that the rest of the gun was good enough to justify the trouble.

These "split hammers" (meaning that the hammer is actually in two pieces with an articulating hinge in the middle) was one of the Achilles' heels of the Model 1, 1st Issue guns. The design worked, but it was fragile and prone to damage. How the gun got to this point is mostly moot since the gun is clearly not correct and would either need a hammer transplant or to have a new hammer made to make it look correct again.

Mike