Australian Colonial Police Smith & Wesson .44 DA Revolver

Aussie Collector · #1 06-06-2023, 09:38 PM

"Extremely Scarce Documented Australian Colonial Police Smith & Wesson .44 Double Action First Model Revolver with Stock".

Looking at this item at a recent RIA auction I was excited, something S&W in Australia I was not aware of. Something I had to now look for, the more I read the more questions I had.

The names mentioned are very knowledgeable and well respected authorities in things S&W. No offence is meant to anyone involved, my comments and thoughts could be completely incorrect. I would be very happy to be on the wrong track.

Looking at the 44DA.
The 44DA in question is said to have shipped from S&W 28th February 1905 to a US distributor. Obviously arriving in Australia some time after this for the story to gel.
The shoulder stock cut is not factory this is quite obvious.
The broad arrow or "pheon" stamp is a British Commonwealth stamp. Australian NM#3s purchased by the South Australian Police (S.A.P.) were given this stamp. The stamp on the 44DA appears different. Possibly it's the photo, lighting and or angle. It appears to me to be made of three different strikes. You could expect variations on the broad arrow stamping however there was a standard for these stamps and they vary very little.

Possible purchase by colonial police?
The purchase of firearms for police in Australia differs to the US. Firearm are purchased at a State or Territory level. A document trail still exists for most of these purchases. There are no records that I'm aware of that show a 44DA being purchased by S.A.P. I say S.A.P. because they purchased the bulk of the NM#3s with shoulder stocks that came into Australia and retained most of them to 1954. Only the shoulder stocks that went to the S.A.P. were stamped with the broad Arrow. And only the S.A.P. shoulder stocks were stamped with NM#3 serial numbers.

The shoulder stock sold with this 44DA is from the South Australian police stocks. Records indicate NM#3 serial number 13020 was sold in 1954 to a US dealer. Presumably the stock was with the guns sold however it might not have been.

Possibly this 44DA was a private purchase in Australia? Purchased by a private individual or a policeman as a private gun.
Around the birth of this gun the South Australian mounted police were still using the S&W NM#3s. Foot patrol were issued with Adams revolvers with a few police, not liking the Adams, using privately owned guns. In 1909 S.A.P. purchased Webley & Scott revolvers for the foot patrol police.
Therefore between 1905 and 1909 it's very possible that the 44DA could have been a private purchase. And after the Webley revolvers and later the Webley & Scott semi-autos it's still possible a S.A.P officer purchased this 44DA as a private gun. This would however not account for the broad arrow as pivate guns were not stamped.

The shoulder stock is numbered to the new model number 3s shipped to South Australian police in 1882. The stocks were stamped with the guns serial number by the South Australian Police. The NM#3s remained in service into the early 1950s. Except for the few sold to Northern Territory police the NM#3 revolvers and shoulder stocks remained in the hands of the S.A.P. up to 1954 when they were sold.
S.A.P. retained a complete record listing all the NM#3s serial numbers held and sold in 1954. There is no mention of a 44DA in the register of sales with the NM#3s.

If the 44DA was used by Western Australia Police then there would not be a broad arrow stamp.
The Western Australian police purchased some of the NM#3s and a few were sold to the public in the late1880s by the Australian retailer.
Western Australian police guns were not stamped and most are reported as distroyed. I have one example of a western Australian NM#3 in my possession and it's not stamped with the broad arrow.
Northern territory police also had a few NM#3s which were purchased from the S.A.P. in 1911 when the territory went from South Australian control to Commonwealth. It's possible this 44DA was adapted in Northern territory.

I have many books on Australian police guns, South Australian (max slees book some of you may know) NSW, Victoria, and others covering colonial Australia and police firearms. None of these books mention a S&W 44DA that I recall.

"Extremely Scarce Documented"
Looking at these documents
1 - A letter written to the chief of police in Ballarat, New South Wales.
Ballarat is not in the state of New South Wales, Ballarat is in Victoria. In Australia we do not use the title "chief of police". semantics? maybe?
Im interested in the responce letter as I think it would be more important.

2 - A letter from the Australian dealer confirming Australian Police use of the .44 DA.
I would like to know who the Australian dealer mentioned who confirmed the Australian police use of this gun. I would talk to this dealer directly. What proof or documents was given or used to back up the claim it was it an opinion?

3- 1993 notarized letter from previous owner C.D.R.
Ballarat mentioned in the letter is not in NSW, as mentioned above, Ballarat is located in central Victoria.
The Ballarat airport in the 1959/1960 period was controlled by the RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) and not used for freight.
All this means is C.D.R most likely did not fly into Ballarat. The nearest operating airport for freight at that time would have been in Melbourne some 2 hours drive.

As written above, police firearms are purchased at a State or Territory level. They are also sold at that level, not on a local level or at a local municipal sale. If the gun was purchased at a Ballarat sale then it was from private ownership.
The letter indicates the writer believes the 44DA shoulder stock set is factory. Clearly it's not. The stock came from the NM#3s and the 44DA stock cutout was done after the gun left the factory.

4 - 1993 letter, firearms collector and dealer O.C. Young acquired the gun from C.D.R.
No comment as I have not seen this letter

5 - statement from S&W historian Roy Jinks.
The letter states Marcus Hartley Co. of New York City received this DA44 shipped to them on February 28th 1905. Interestingly Marcus Hartley Co. did export firearms to Australia. Looking at records of sent firearms I could not find any evidence of any S&W firearms in the 1905 or 1906 shipment records of firearms sent to Australia by Marcus Hartley co. I could not find any shipments to Australia after 1906 from Marcus Hartley co.

Advanced Australian collectors mentioned in the write-up. I know a few of the advanced Australian collectors and do not know of anyone knowing of a 44DA being used by colonial police. Or have I seen one in the collections viewed over the years.

This one has so many questions around it. I would like to know more and would certainly like one of the "few known" examples although my personal opinion is there may be only one.

Did the writer of the auction item have doubts also? In the write up on this 44DA is the sentence..."Purportedly these .44 DA revolvers were adapted in Australia with a New Model No. 3 stock." The meaning for the word "Purportedly" is - is as appears or is stated to be true, though not necessarily so.

Regardless of the true history of this 44DA it's an interesting one. What are your thoughts?

BMur · #2 06-06-2023, 11:45 PM

I don’t have any researched information on this interesting example.
I posted some photos from the auction so members can see what you are referring to.

My only comment is regarding the photo of the base of the grip frame. That cut out for the shoulder stock, though not factory, looks very old to me and heavily used as evident from the rough edges and patina inside the cut out. It’s also well placed and centered so in my opinion it was machine cut a long time ago.

The V marking doesn’t look that old to me. It does not look like it dates to the same timeframe as the stock cut but later.

I have an old Webley 45 with a similar mark on the top strap and once read that it represented a de-milling or removal from service but I don’t know if that is applicable here.

Murph

BMur · #3 06-07-2023, 11:26 AM

I like stamps and study them a lot.
Again, I have no research info on this Smith & Wesson 44 but looking at various Webley revolvers the Wide V looks engraved in many areas and examples that I looked at. Some smaller markings do look like stamps but many don’t. This observation gives more possible authenticity to the hand marked wide V on the base of the grip frame of the antique gun in question. In my opinion it is hand applied and not applied with a singular stamp or die.

See photos.

Murph

Aussie Collector · #4 06-07-2023, 07:20 PM

Very interesting broad arrows you have there.
I wonder if different Commonwealth countries used a different stamps and methods of imprinting the broad arrow.

My comment on the broad Arrow is based on many guns possessed and seen with the "Australian" stamp. I'm privileged to have more than a few South Australian Police NM#3 with shoulder stocks. And quite a few other S&Ws (HE), Webley & Scott's, Martini's, albini's and others once owned by the Australian Commonwealth with the broad Arrow. All appear to be once hit stamp imprints of the same shape arrow.

Ivan the Butcher · #5 06-07-2023, 08:46 PM

What is the value difference in a "Documented Police Gun" verses a "Private Ownership" gun?

As the saying goes: Buy the gun, not the story!

Ivan

BMur · #6 06-07-2023, 09:15 PM

Aussie Collector,
I did some searching and found a reference from a Webley military revolver collector website that is more confusing than actually documented as a military stamp. This being specific to the hand engraved arrow, broad or broken found on Webley military revolvers.

Some claim the Military acceptance stamp or broken arrow or broad arrow marking, stamp etc depending upon who is referencing the marking, when found on the top strap represents an out of service mark.

In my photos you can see obvious stamps on very small parts that fits as a Military acceptance stamp.

However, the broad arrow that is often hand engraved or chiseled on the topstrap seems to have another meaning. It’s not a stamp it’s engraved.

I tend to believe that it represents an out of service mark.
They also claim the acceptance stamp inside a capital D is Australian Military. See photo.

So that tells me there is some common ground regarding the use of that “Broad Arrow” in Australia and in Great Britain.
It also tells me that the marking is both stamped with a die and hand engraved since it seems no two are identical. See photos.

Your initial post seems to question the broad arrow marking on the grip frame. I’m suggesting it is NOT an acceptance stamp but an end of service hand engraved marking that seems common to Webley military revolvers.

As far as the provenance, to me it’s mostly recollection that is documented. Recollection is often not spot on accurate but before you contest as a researcher you must have some rock solid proof.
I think a person would remember picking up an antique revolver in Australia but that’s just me.

Murph

Aussie Collector · #7 06-07-2023, 11:17 PM

The Broad Arrow in Australia has always been to signify government property and is still in use today by Australian army.

https://www.army.gov.au/our-heritage...ns/broad-arrow

Sometimes a second Broad Arrow was placed head to head to signify sold out of service. There are other marks often found over the broad Arrow that also signifying sold out of service. I have a webley with "S" type lines stamped through the arrow. Another with an "X" again signifying sold out of service.
I will post up some pictures over the weekend.

I'm not sure what to think of the 44DA. Regardless what the history is it is a good story.

I do question the legitimacy of the broad Arrow.
I don't doubt the gun was purchased in Australia. I do question the history and being Australian colonial police.

BMur · #8 06-07-2023, 11:48 PM

Aussie Collector,

Thanks for the attachment. It’s very clear in your attachment that the marking was well known throughout Australia. Not just in the military.

Many military personnel go on to be law enforcement and would bring their military skills and teachings with them.
Marking a gun out of service with that broad arrow is not a stretch of the imagination. I think that’s what that represents. It’s never an exact science when we talk about hand markings. The photos I posted clearly show multiple variations of engraved broken arrows that are not stamped but hand chiseled on the metal.

Just one additional comment on the provenance that mentions some well known names in the collectors circuit and have been around for a very long time. Jim Supica and O. C. Young are exceptional collectors that have high dollar stuff. I have purchased from both gentlemen and can state clearly that their knowledge is up there in the gun collecting circuit. Most if not all of their items are high dollar collectibles. I purchased two Colt Rainmakers from O. C. Young and both letter.

It’s possible that this 44 S&W DA with shoulder stock was part of a smaller law enforcement detail that is not as well known. In fact there are endless possibilities with this gun. I also believe it was as mentioned purchased in Australia so what I am seeing is a rare bird that needs more research.

Did you purchase it?

Murph

Nagloc68 · #9 06-09-2023, 05:29 PM

Interesting thread, especially given the collectors involved, I have two S&W so am a novice collector, but even I have heard these names. I have a few Lithgow Lee Enfields and a S&W Victory .38/200 with Aussie broad arrows. The .44DA seems about the same and I attached a photo of my Victory. However, honestly I don't know.

@Aussiecollector - you have some great historical data, e.g., the import logs - is that publicly available or have you assembled this yourself?

mmaher94087 · #10 06-09-2023, 08:11 PM

I find this thread interesting too. I'm not familiar with any Australian Colonial Police marks or any Australian acceptance marks in general except for the ones shown by Nagloc68 above. The inverted "V" with the center mark not touching the apex of the 'V' is the mark with which I'm familiar. I'll venture that it is the mark used for all Smith & Wesson's. I have no idea of the timeframe or which manufacturers used those marks shown above, but I've never seen them on S&W firearms, and I will admit that I have a very limited knowledge in this area of collecting.

Aussie Collector · #11 10-14-2023, 07:43 PM

I have had the opportunity to speak with quite a few colonial collectors here in Australia the last few months.

All collectors said a S&W 44DA was not used by colonial police in Australia.

One collector had a 44DA "supposed" to be used by south Australian police. The story from the daughter looking after her father's estate an ex policeman. Many years earlier her father carried the gun on duty so the story goes.
The story could not be proven, plus the fact police in Australia do not keep their duty gun.
The collector had a discussion regarding the 44DA with Max Slee (author of Service Arms of the South Australian Police 1838-1988).
Max reportedly said there were rumours the police may have tested a 44DA. Nothing could be substantiated and no records could be found indicating it occured.
The collector sold the gun as a regular 44DA.

In a discussion with Ian Skennerton, author of 100s of books including "The broad Arrow" a book on British and empire markings. He said the Broad Arrow on this 44DA is definitely not a government stamp but done to appear to be so. Ian said every instance he has seen the Broad Arrow done with three strikes has turned out to be faked.
He went on to say it's possible that an armourer at some point may have had to apply the Broad Arrow and did not have a stamp doing it in three blows however he has not seen one.

opoefc · #12 10-14-2023, 08:35 PM

My thoughts: I believe Aussie Collector is spot on in his analysis of this .44DA. I've had many S.A.P. guns over the years and bought & sold them with others, including my friends, Jim Supica and O.C. Young. It's an interesting .44DA, but buy the gun and not the story. Ed

Club Gun Fan · #13 10-14-2023, 09:53 PM

Aussie
I finally got a N M #3 Austrailian Polce. I won it in the last RIA auction. SN 23306, 6.5" nickel. It has the shoulder and a holster. No holster for the revolver. I did buy one for David Carroll.

mmaher94087 · #14 10-15-2023, 08:20 PM

While this will prove nothing, I believe that I saw this .44Russian, Double Action revolver at the winter Las Vegas Antique Arms Show about 20 years ago. I passed on buying it because the stock mounting slot on the butt cut into the serial number and did not look like any factory cut as it has rounded ends suggestive of a gunsmith with a milling machine and a round cutter. The seller at the time wouldn't let me take the stocks off to confirm that the serial number was restamped on the left grip frame as was the practice at the factory. He would not confirm the restamp of the serial. The stock did not fit the revolver frame like the factory because the Double Action and Single Action frames are different. This DA revolver had a non-fitting SA shoulder stock. I believe this revolver was the product of someone's imagination.

Aussie Collector · #15 10-16-2023, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Club Gun Fan

Aussie
I finally got a N M #3 Austrailian Polce. I won it in the last RIA auction. SN 23306, 6.5" nickel. It has the shoulder and a holster. No holster for the revolver. I did buy one for David Carroll.

Congratulations.

I believe the holsters for the 6 1/2" were different to the 7". I have one that is slightly different and better fits the 6 1/2" barrel.

Interestingly most documentation indicates the 6 1/2" were not cut for the shoulder stock.
Yet most of the 6 1/2" in the US appear to be cut for the shoulder stock.
My 6 1/2" from the first shipment, has been cut, but not by Smith & Wesson.
Your 6 1/2" was on a later shipment so possibly the first shipment of 6 1/2 were not cut with later shipment cut for shoulder stock....