This is a 1902 1st change square butt, and the only one I've ever seen. It was in a rack in a glass case in a downtown gun & sporting goods store when I walked in one day ca 1968. Most of the other revolvers in that rack were 4" bbl police trade-ins. I'd not previously seen such a long barrel on a service revolver, and I could tell it was old by the bone/charcoal dark blue even before I looked at the serial number. Some years after my purchase I wrote to Mr. Jinks & learned that it was shipped on April 5, 1905 to a New York City dealer, M W Robinson. It eventually came to the West Coast where I bought it over 60 years after it left the factory.

S/n 6158x is original, with all numbers matching and retains most of its finish. The trigger is smooth-faced and the stocks are in excellent condition. The left side of the 6.5" barrel is stamped for both the 38 Special and "US Service Ctg." There is no marking on the right side of the barrel. The top of the barrel is stamped with two lines, reading from the left side. The top line has the company name & address, followed by two patent dates, and the bottom line has seven patent dates.

The cylinder stop notches have the hardened steel shims and the lockup is the tightest I've ever seen on any revolver--at the age of 108, no less! The books state that the square butt K-frames were introduced in November 1904 in the 58,000 s/n range, and that the 1905 models (so designated because of major lockwork redesign) began production ca May of that year @ s/n 62450. My guess is that some round-butt 1902s were still made after 11-04, and that maybe around 3,000 total of the 1902 square butts were made. I will welcome input from more knowledgeable forum members as to the rarity of this model, and invite others who have examples of 1902 square butts to add pictures thereof to this thread. I'll also be interested in opinions as to what my revolver might be worth today.

NOTE: Edited on August 8th to remove original blurred side view photos & replace with better pictures. The closeup photo of the barrel's caliber markings came out blurry but is legible.

Attached Images

	M&P 1902 sq bt cu ls.jpg (73.1 KB, 230 views)
	Copy of M&P 1902 sq but ls.jpg (47.5 KB, 269 views)
	Copy of M&P 1902 sq bt rs1.jpg (58.6 KB, 264 views)
	M&P 1902 sq bt rs logo.jpg (72.8 KB, 243 views)
	Copy of M&P 1902 sq bt bbl ls.jpg (36.3 KB, 191 views)

this should be interesting, the experts will be along shortly. meanwhile I gotta run to the store for popcorn

Dan

Did you post blurry pictures deliberately to heighten the drama, or what? I can still tell that it's a beautiful gun.

__________________
Why, I aughta.....

I really would love to see a few in-focus pictures!!!

Those two are terrible..............

I don't think I would make any hard and fast rules based on April 1905 versus May 1905. S&W history is that of approximations and estimates. There are so many "qualifications" out there that it makes one's head spin. Every time the company started manufacture of a new model, it seems there were classes of revolvers called transition in one form or another. To me that means that the first new models produced often were made of leftover parts from the previous model as well as some of the new model's parts. Others will be along, but if the gun has a square butt and was made in 1905, it sure sounds like a Model 1905 to me.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

From "McHenry & Roper", P207. Model .38 Hand Ejector-Military & Police."Frame--Tang changed for square butt stocks. November 18, 1904, about No. 58,000. Both round and square butt frames made." So, from November 1904 to May 1905, 6-7 months, there were Model 1902s manufactured with square butt frames.

This points out the fallacy of classifying Models 1902/1905 by the cosmetics of butt shape. If the descriptions used in McHenry & Roper are followed and mechanical changes between models used to make these distinctions quite a bit of the assumed ambiguity between models would be easily resolved.

Agreed.

This is a 4 screw gun, no trigger guard screw as well, correct?

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Glowe & Hondo 44--

This gun has NO screw in front of the trigger guard. I once removed the sideplate to look at the "innards" and it does not have the rebound slide with the internal coil spring. As I remember, the rebound part is more of a rocker arm with a separate leaf spring. The Xray pictures in the Neal & Jinks book illustrate the 1902 mechanism.

Sorry about the photos; I'll try to re-shoot. New photos added to my op on August 8th.

If you believe in the catalogs, and all the associated advertising, (which is how the
guns sold), then this is an original Model of 1905. That is the name given to the
square-butt frame. The Model of 1902 is the name given to the round-butt frame.

The venerable Model of 1902 did not disappear in 1905, or even 1906, or even 1955 or
even 1956. Both models were always in full production, and offered as separately-
name models, for at least 60 years after 1905. And, sad to say, the square-butt
model was dropped from production and discontinued in the mid 1990's. It is the
round-butt model that, alone, has survived since 1899.

That your factory letter refers to your gun as a Model of 1902, is a convenience that
the collectors have imposed. It is not reality. The model of 1905 was initially
produced from serial number 58000 to 62449 - approximately. Intertwined in those
serial numbers are the round-butt model of 1902 1st change, and therein lies the
problem for the collectors. They are not happy to have two otherwise-identical
guns that have different engineering change definitions: the 1905 has no engineering
change notation, yet the 1902 is already at the 1st engineering change.

This happens, of course, because the 1905 was introduced towards the end of the
1902 1st change, but in the same serial number series.

Clearly, what happens next, at serial number 62450, when the 5th frame screw
is introduced, is that the model of 1902 advances to the 2nd engineering change, and
the model of 1905 moves to its first engineering change. That is the reality of the
situation, but that makes the collectors very unhappy campers.

So - the collectors change history just a bit. They delay recognizing the model of
1905 until serial 62450, calling everything previous to 62450 a model of 1902. At
62450, they drop the model of 1902, and call everything a model of 1905.

That is how your gun got to be lettered as a model of 1902.

As to more popcorn, Dan, you don't have to keep going out for more. Just buy a larger
bag.

Insofar as this 6158X is concerned, it has been thought that May 1st or 2nd was the
earliest ship date for the square-butt model of 1905. This gun precedes that by
about a month.

Regards, Mike Priwer

If you look up the word "conundrum" in the dictionary, there is a picture of a pre-5 screw, 4 screw, square butt 1902.

__________________
Pace

Now you are just showing off!

That is a beautiful Model 1905 you have there!

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

But...but...but...ain't that what a gun forum's for?...ta show off yur guns

__________________
Pace

Pace40--That's a beautiful np finish with ivory grips. What length barrel? Is it a 1905 with screw in front of the trigger guard? If it does not have that screw, it is a 1902 square butt, as discussed below.

Mike--your detailed comments are interesting, but I must respectfully disagree. My understanding, derived from the Neal & Jinks book & subsequently Jinks' S&W history book written in 1977, et al, is that the 1902 model began in that year @ s/n 20967 and went thru a "first change" during 1903 @ s/n 33804. This first change involved "beefing up" the diameter of the rear end of the barrel and related slight changes in the front of the frame and yoke. The internal mechanism (lockwork) was not changed at this time.

Thus, the simple addition of the square butt frame in November 1904 did not and does not, imo, make that frame into a "1905" model, because the internal mechanism was NOT changed. BOTH round and square butt frames were changed in 1905 to include a new cylinder stop assembly that required an additional screw in front of the trigger guard. 1902 models (regardless of frame type) did NOT have that screw. Thus it is very easy to distinguish the 1902 models from the 1905 models.

As my revised op photos clearly show, my revolver has a square butt and NO screw in front of the trigger guard. Therefore, I believe I have described it accurately as a 1902 square butt, having no desire or intent to mislead anyone in this forum.

I'm sure Mike will be back. In the meantime, here's a couple photos to show what he's talking about. Page 40 & 41 from the 1905 factory catalog and a factory price list from 1911. You'll note the factory nomenclature for these guns is 1902 for round butt and 1905 for square butt.







That's it for me but you may want to look at this thread...Oh, and the gun above is a 4 screw (no trigger guard screw) and lettered as an "Early Production Model 1905"

38 S&W Special & US Service CTG's

On a separate note...Hey Dan!

My bucket's bigger than yours

__________________
Pace

jw - If you are using the information on 1902s supplied by Roy, you must also check out the first entry for the 1905s. Roy sates that both these early round butt and square butt revolvers were called Model 1905. The catalogs into the teens clearly name the round butts as 1902 and the square butts as 1905. I guess it comes down to how do you determine the correct designation of a particular revolver? My preference is to use the official S&W catalogs names of the era to determine the model names. If the company who was making the revolvers differentiated between round butts and square butts, then who am I to argue? With all due respect to Roy, this is the only revolver that I know of where he has used different terminology than the factory.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Pace40 (& glowe)--

Thanx for posting the interesting 1905 catalog photos & 1911 price list. If I may "nit-pick" that info a bit, the catalog calls the guns ".38 Military." So when did the "and Police" get added to the name? (The 1911 price list uses that term, so it must have come in before then but after 1905.)

The catalog page 41 states that the guns "...are identical except in the shape of the handle..." This is true ONLY if the round butt and square butt guns have identical lockwork. This is NOT true of the "1905" model (with front trigger guard screw) and the "actual" (if I may use that term) 1902 model with the older lockwork (no 5th screw). So imo that catalog statement can be construed as misleading!

I think most people with a knowledge of manufacturing businesses will agree that there is often a difference between the manufacturing (engineering/production) departments' and the sales departments' descriptions of products.

Just because the older catalogs use two different dates for round & square butts doesn't make it "correct." That terminology ended at some point & maybe forum members who have old catalogs can tell us when that occurred. Did catalogs of the 1930s still differentiate between 1902 and 1905 models? I think at some point the catalogs described the guns simply as "M&P" and offered both round- and square-butt versions.

Therefore I tend to go with engineering department descriptions rather than catalog info, in the interest of improved historical accuracy. It seems awkward to me to use "model changes" that are not recognized in the books about S&W. I think "1905 square butt with 1902 lockwork" is more cumbersome than "1902 square butt."

I don't think the gun industry is like the auto industry as regards model years. Imo, 1902 round butts made after 11-04 did not become "1905" models until the lockwork was changed @ s/n 62450. So why call the "identical" square butts (with 1902 lockwork) "1905" models? It doesn't make sense (to me), that is, if people are able to regard the misleading catalog info as sales "hype."

At any rate, this discussion has provided much for for thought.

The 1902 vs 1905 designation ended in the 1917 catalog, the same catalog calling them Military & Police. But, they still ran them as 2 distinct models.








Mike's turn.

__________________
Pace

I have catalogs through 1925 and they still separated the round butt and the square butt. Here are the pages from the D-3, 1923 Catalog. The round butt revolver was $0.40 less than the square.

Attached Images

	Page 10-11.jpg (125.8 KB, 66 views)
	Wholesale List2.jpg (90.7 KB, 53 views)

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Read my post carefully - you'll find the above statement in there.

There is no doubt that the two guns were cataloged as two separate models. That is
not debatable - its just a fact. It went on through names changes, through WW2, and
even through the assignment of model numbers. They were separate catalog entries
through 1963. Here is a page from the 1961 All Model Circular:



This next image is the factory letter for 58652, a 4-screw square butt Model of 1905.
This is, more-less, how these guns ought to letter. Their situation is exactly the same
as the original model of 1902, which ran from about 21000 to 33000. The original
model of 1905 runs from 58000 to 62449.



The underlying cause of the confusion lies in the use of the same serial number
series for two different models, and this becomes a problem when the collectors
attach names to the engineering-change categories. If they had not attached
names, like 1st change etc, and instead simply used the serial number (which was
common to both guns) there would be no problem.

This next image is a composite summary of all the information in Neal and Jinks,
regarding the .38 M&P lines of revolvers.



The time axis for this graph is the vertical axis of the page, but serial number is
being used instead of shipping dates. There are two things wrong with this way
of organizing the information. First, no provision is provided for the 4-screw model
of 1905 - which surely existed. The model of 1905 is delayed until the 5th frame
screw. That is about 3000 guns that are missing.

The second thing wrong is there is no provision for the model of 1902 after 62450.
Clearly it didn't go away , but yet with this organization, they don't letter as 1902's,
but instead as 1905's .

We have to realize that the K-frame purchasers were reading, or being shown, the
catalogs and the advertising. That is how they knew the guns, and that is how they
were ordered - and that is a fact. They were not ordered by Ropers internal notes.
1,000,000 K-frames were bought by a lot of people. Nearly that many people
read the catalogs and other advertising. None of these buyers read Ropers notes.

Furthermore, we have to realize that fewer that 50 factory employees, and probably
a lot fewer, were ever aware of the notes that Walter Roper had created. The
primary purpose of these notes was for service and repair department, giving them
guidelines for finding the right parts for a gun to be repaired.

Now - getting back to my assertion about the root cause of the problem. If you look
at the above graph, and replace the engineering change notion with something else,
and if that something else is a particular cabinet that has the spare parts for
guns in that serial number range, then that list works equally well for both round
butt and square butt guns. Its when we try to call it a 1st change or a 2nd change
that we have a conflict between the two models.

Regards, Mike Priwer

Glowe, Pace40 & Mike--Thanx for comments & catalog info.

I have no argument whatsoever as to describing the M&P as being either a round or square butt, Those are two different frame contours and thus important points of identification. The problem comes when we get into the "model" designations. "Changes" within model variations exist also, and as we know, they were not all adopted with a given s/n. Prior variations were shipped after a "change" went into effect, as old parts were assembled into new guns at the factory.

I've never read McHenry & Roper, but I gather from posts above that Mr. Roper was an S&W employee, as is/was Roy Jinks. I do not know if S&W management has ever allowed non-employees access to the factory records. I agree that most customers would order from the catalogs using the terminology therein, but we know that S&W made many guns that were never shown in catalogs, variations by caliber, barrel length, sights, etc. Thus I cannot accept a catalog description as an "absolute authority" in describing the various models.

Mike, your graph is very nice but does not show the origin of square butts WITHIN the SECOND MODEL (1902) beginning at s/n 58000. (This info is in the Neal & Jinks book--1975 copyright, as well as Jinks' S&W History book copyrighted in 1977.)

The two books I mention just above describe the evolution of the K-frame/M&P as follows:

FIRST MODEL (mfd 1899-1902) had no design changes.

SECOND MODEL (aka 1902) had a "first change" in 1903. The addition of the new square butt frame forging in Nov 1904 @ s/n 58000 apparently was NOT designated as a "change" and had the same internal lockwork as the round butt Second Models made before & after s/n 58000.

THIRD MODEL (aka 1905) began manufacture @ s/n 62450 ca Spring 1905. The Third models (both round & square butts) can be easily distinguished from the Second Models (rnd & sq butts) as follows:

SECOND MODELS had NO screw in front of the trigger guard. The cylinder stop notches were shorter (than the THIRD MODEL cylinders) with the V-shape guide-ways centered in the notches.

THIRD MODELS had the screw in front of the trigger guard, longer cylinder notches, with the V-groove guide-ways appearing offset towards the rear of the notches.

From reading the books, my impression is that the factory called a gun by a different "model" number when a design change noticeably affected the external appearance of the gun. The SECOND (1902) model M&P added the front lug under the barrel, noticeably different from the 1899 FIRST MODEL that locked up only at the rear, like a Colt. The THIRD (1905) model added the front trigger guard screw with the revised cylinder stop and longer notches.

This model continued thru four designated "changes" (involving mostly internal lockwork features) until the beginning of WW2. The early Third models from s/n 62450 (prior to its "first change" @ s/n 72350) had lockwork identical to the Second models except for the improved cylinder stop.

Apparently the improved safety developed ca 12-44 for the Victory Models didn't get classified as a Third model "5th change" but was identified by the S-prefix to subsequent serial numbers. But aside from that development, the lockwork of the Third model 4th change as from the 1920s remained in use until the development of the short action guns ca 1950.

At any rate, it seems highly illogical to me to describe a gun without a front trigger guard screw and short cylinder notches as a THIRD ("1905") model. Those features belong to SECOND ("1902") models regardless of butt contour.

As regard's Roy's letter to Mike, I have the utmost respect for Roy, having met him once or twice when he kindly autographed my books that he wrote. I don't know if another employee wrote that letter for Roy to sign, or perhaps Roy didn't catch it, but I really think he knows better than to state a gun is a "1905" or "Third" model IF he was informed that the gun did NOT have the front trigger guard screw. etc. Otherwise, he would be contradicting the information published in his books!

I think one way to resolve the confusion might be to stop referring to model "years" and instead use the First, Second & Third Model designations. If it will make you all happier, I can try to re-title my thread as "Second Model HE M&P Square Butt." I am interested in accurate descriptions and I think that inaccurate/confusing descriptions are a dis-service to our great hobby of S&W collecting.

I would still like to know just how "rare" are square butt M&Ps between s/n 58000-62450, meaning guns without the front trigger guard screw, etc. So far only one other gun's photo has been posted here besides mine.

I've really enjoyed this discussion and I think much interesting information has been posted. I hope it may help resolve confusion in this area of terminology and perhaps help locate other guns in that range. No offense meant to anyone.

I don't think you're going to get a reliable answer on the number of survivors. They're out there and pop up from time to time but are certainly not common.
Target models even less so.

__________________
Pace

JW

If there is any doubt in your mind as to who wrote the letter for 58652, call Roy and
ask him. Factory number is 800-331-0852.

As to the chart that I drew, summarizing the material for .38 M&P's, let me offer a
couple of preliminary comments, and then explain why it is as complete as possible.

First, its a time-line by serial number. Second, the left side of the time-line is
the round-butt model of 1902, and the right side is the square-butt model of 1905.
This supports the idea that, other than butt configuration, the guns on both sides
of the line are identical. Third, it is predicated on the notion that there are two
models. All the advertising literature is very clear that there are two models - that
is the wording that is used in the literature. Roy has confirmed that in various
communications.

Now - as to the apparent omission of the introduction of the square butt model.
In view of my preliminary comments above, which side of the time-line should
have the entry for the square-butt frames, starting at serial 58000 ?

If, as it is written in Neal & Jinks, it was an option of the model of 1902, then
it should appear - somehow - on the left side of the time-line. But, this means
that it has to switch sides at serial 62450, and move over to the right side to
become a model of 1905 .

That didn't happen. They were always two separate models - for at least 60 years.
Furthermore, what else didn't happen is that the model of 1902 disappears. That is
the implication of Neal & Jinks.

On the other hand, the entries for 58000 through 62449 can be placed on the
right side of the time line, which would mean that it was the introduction of a
separate model, intertwined in serial numbers with the model on the left side.

I believe this is what creates the problem for the collectors. This would result
in two models that do not have the same engineering change designation: the
model of 1905 side-by-side with the model of 1902 1st change. Worse yet, with
the addition of the 5th frame screw, that would become the 1st engineering change
for the square-butt model, but the second engineering change for the round-butt
model. This nomenclature would not be acceptable to the collectors. This next
picture depicts what the time-line would look like, in this case.



It is for this reason that I believe that the collectors delayed recognizing the
introduction of the model of 1905 until the introduction of the 5th frame screw, and
then renamed everything to start from that point. Its not reality, because the
model of 1902 does not go away, but it is what they did.

As to the question of how many 4-screw 1905's were made, I am aware of 14 that exist.
This number has to be put in context: out of the first 62449 4-screw K-frames, there
is probably less than 300 or 400 that are known, in all databases, to exist. The
survival rate may be 15 to 20%, but only a small fraction of those are known. The rest
are just sitting somewhere.

My guess is that there were at least 2000 original 1905 4-screw guns made - maybe
more.

Mike Priwer

Mike, you've obviously put a lot of work into your timeline. I think the difference of opinion could be resolved if we stop using the 1902 & 1905 designations and refer to "Model" instead. The square butt frame forging certainly offered a major appearance change option to the M&P, but when introduced @ s/n 58000 it was mechanically exactly like the round butt guns made just before and any round-butts made after until s/n 62450 when the 5th screw was added. Both were M&Ps, just with different frame contours.

Lumping the few early ("1902") square-butts in with Third Models having the fifth screw I think is misleading (& therefore "wrong"), because it does NOT recognize the rarity of square butts in the s/n range 58000-62449. (You say you know of 14--I presume that includes mine and the other two shown above in this thread--which is not very many out of a possible production of 2,000-3,000.)

The round & square butts in the 62450-73250 range all had the 5th screw in front of the trigger guard, longer cylinder notches with offset V-guideways and identical lockwork. I think we both agree that those are Third Model M&P Hand Ejectors regardless of butt contour.

I agree with you that having a "1902" round butt made after s/n 62450 described as a third change, contemporary with new Third ("1905" square butt first change) Models would be both awkward & ridiculous. I really think the Sales Dept went off-base for several years in continuing those year designations to distinguish between round & square butts. It seems to me that after the catalogs dropped the year designations they began using the name M&P as a "model" designation offered in both round & square butt versions. Thus the "year" designations were not a permanent catalog description...and round butts were made up until the large military orders after the 700000 serial numbers and the Victory models which were all square butts. After all, as time passed, I think "1902" and "1905" models would come across as pretty old & obsolete, after the WW1 era & beyond. (That would be like trying to sell new "1902/1905" autos during the 1920s!)

In all honesty, I think our hobby would be better off if we stop using the two years of 1902 & 1905 to designate M&P "models" and instead start using the terms "First, Second & Third" Models (of K-frame Hand Ejector 38s).

JW

Let me be clear up front - I am not proposing a change in the definitions. The last
person that tried that wound up in big trouble. I'm only saying that, consistent
with the catalogs ( and that goes for 60 years, at least ) the round butt gun and
the square butt gun are two different models. Around 1920 or so, the names were
changed from 1902 to round-butt., and from 1905 to square-butt. They were still
two separate models, however. We have to keep in mind that when a 1913 guns
surfaces, we should use the names as they existed at that point. Ie, a 1913 gun was
known as either a model of 1902 or a model of 1905. I'm purposely avoiding this
issue of engineering changes - it really doesn't fit when two identical models are out
of sync by one change specification. Realistically, no one who actually ordered
one of these guns had any idea or knowledge or conception about which engineering
change he/she was going to get. That wasn't part of the deal.

To support the claim that there were two models for many decades, here is the
All-Model Circular from 1960. By definition, each entry in this multi-page document
is a separate model.



If you'd like, you are welcome to see catalogs and flyers from many years from 1905
through 1964 in this album:

Smith & Wesson Forum - mikepriwer's Album: MLP11 1902 vs 1905

As to the significance of the 14 known 4-screw 1905's, there are two issues here.
First, the only way that we know what guns exist is if they somehow come to
our attention. They can be offered for sale at a published auction, a factory
letter can be requested and we can somehow find out about it, we own one ourselves,
a friend owns one, etc. For however many mechanisms there are, the guns somehow
have to come to our attention. The reality of our S&W forum is that it is a very
small microcosm of all the people who own early S&W's . Maybe we represent 1 or 2 or
3% of all the S&W owners/collectors. Whatever that number is, it is not very big.
And, even of that number, not everyone talks publically about their guns. So -
it's more than likely that we know of only a very small fraction of the existing guns.
That is the first number than has to be estimated.

Second, while we know how many K-frames were made, from 58000 to 62449,
we don't know how many survive to this day. The factory records generally do
not distinguish between models of 1902 and models of 1905. Again, we only become
aware of these guns as they surface in public. The survival rate for these 100+ year-old
guns is variously estimated at 10 to 20 %, which I think is very high. Of 62450
guns, even a 10% survival rate is 6245 guns. Do you know of that many surviving
guns from that whole 6 year period ? I don't . No where near that number.

To give you an idea of how devastating these two assumptions are, suppose that
the survival rate is 10%. 10% of 62450 is 6245 guns. Suppose that 10% of that
population has been exposed to the public. That is 624 guns that we would know
about. Now - 58000 to 62450 is 4450 serial numbers, which is about 7% of the
62450 serial numbers. Pro-rating that 7% over 624 guns is 43 guns. Knowing 14 of
them is 30% of them. That is significant - given the assumptions.

The point of all this is that its very difficult to know how many of anything still
exists today , 100+ years after the fact.

Regards, Mike Priwer

I'm following this with interest and have a question for anyone:

What specifically does one classify a Round Butt 1902 M&P say, with all the engineering changes of the 1905 -3rd Change?

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Jim

I think the only honest answer to that is it depends on who "one" is. The period catalogs, price lists, etc. are very specific in that a round butt is a 1902, square butt is a 1905. The later books and collector's definitions use serial number cutoffs that overlap the butt configuration distinction and these definitions have been in place for years. If they were just called 38 M&P round butt or square butt 3rd change, there would be less of an issue. Its when the year designation is used that it conflicts with the earlier literature. Then again, if you called the factory in 1906 and ordered a 6 inch M&P round butt, they would not have known what you were asking for because the name of the gun at that time was 38 Military Model of 1902. M&P did not show up till years later.

Yep...clear as overpurked coffee

__________________
Pace

Pace,

Thanks. I understand that the rd butts are considered model 1902s, but the SCSW for example lists nothing past the 1902 - 1st Change. Yet we know the round butt 1902s were cataloged right along with 1905s for many years. And we can identify them as 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th Change based on their engineering changes but there are no identifications for the 1902s with those same changes.

Since the 1902 has a jump on the 1905 with one change already before the 1905 was introduced, then a 1902 equivalent for a 1905 (3rd model) with 5 screws would logically be a 1902-2nd Change. And a 1902 rd butt with a rebound slide would be a 3rd Change; equivalent to a 1905 -1st Change, etc, etc.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Yep Jim, you're right but you have to remember that when you get to the 1902 2nd change, the books (and collectors) merge the two models into 1905.

__________________
Pace

"the books (and collectors) merge the two models into 1905."
Heresy. That eliminates the fun of arguing over a distinction without a difference.

Jinks' "The History of S&W," in the table on P. 161, makes no distinction between round butt and square butt models after SN 18125. They are all Model 1905s (with the various changes) thereafter. Only some have square butts and some have round butts. I'm cool with that.

Yes I know, but does he have an explanation as to why the catalogs show two distinct models for so many years as Mike Priwer illustrated?

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

It occurs to me that calling the 1905 a square butt 1902 might thicken
the sauce.

I realize I am on dangerous ground given the collective knowledge and
sincere and supportable positions expressed.

On the other hand, the debate appears to hinge on where the definition
springs from.

Catalogs or proprietary and technical engineering viewpoint, as well as
collector level books and conventions.

It is easy to see the premise is central.

On the whole, an interesting and intelligent thread.

__________________
I Love This Site

Since the appearance of the 5-screw Model of 1905, the engineering designs and subsequent change progressions are essentially identical for the round vs. square butt versions of the M&P. The only difference is cosmetic, i.e., the butt shape. Nonetheless, it's a given that the "is it a 1902 or a round-butt 1905" debates will continue forever.

Yes, agreed. It just seems like such a glaring inconsistency between the catalogs and the dropping of the 1902 in collector categorizing after the 1902 - 1st Change. But Mike said above that someone who suggested changes "got into big trouble" for proposing any changes.

Well I've made up my mind and it's a logical compromise that fits both sides of the issue, at least IMHO. But I guess I better keep it to myself....

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Jim, and others

Its easy to overlook the fact that it was only a very very few people - less than
50 and probably less than 25 - in the factory who ever knew anything about models
of 1902 and 1905. Its not like the factory was eating and living and breathing these
concepts; rather, almost no one had ever heard about it. The whole reason for the
thinking about engineering changes was primarily for the benefit of the parts department.

On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of S&W gun owners knew about 1902's
and 1905's and square butts and round butts. And the factory advertised that way
for 60 years. So - who do you want to believe ?!!

It is true that serial number ranges, and not the names of those ranges, uniquely
determines what parts to use in repairing one of these guns. This is very important,
because it means that the concept works for the purpose it was intended. That is,
for the repair and maintenance of these guns.

What it doesn't work for, and what it was not intended for, is the classification
of these serial number ranges by an engineering change number. It doesn't work
for precisely the reason that Jim mentions: the change numbers are out of sync
between the two M&P models. A 1905 no-change corresponds to a 1902 1st-change;
the first engineering change to the original model of 1905 is the second engineering
change to the model of 1902 - because physically the guns are the same and use the
same parts.

It is also very very true that the model of 1902 never goes away. Its get renamed,
but it never ever ever goes away. And yet, because of the above out-of-sync
problem, the engineering-change implementation forces the 1902 1st change
into the 1905 no-change category.

This is where the pedal does not meet the metal.

On a casually-related note, there is an interesting article in the S&WCA Journal Vol 20 Number 2
Summer 1986. The name of the article is
"The Classic Examples - V : .38 M&P Target, Model 1902, 2nd Type"
The article is part of a series that the author was doing, on what he thought were classic examples.
This particular gun is serial number 62222. It is a 4-screw square-butt .38 revolver.

Regards, Mike Priwer

Mike,

That's a very interesting observation you've made above. Lacking any available or published category for what apparently in his opinion HE considered that .38 M&P Target model a sq butt 1902 4 screw, and just informally extended the last category of "1902-1st Change (with 4 screws)" and called it a Model 1902 Type 2.

In HIS mind at least, a 4 screw sq butt made in the 6-7 month period from November 1904 (sq butt introduction) to May 1905 (Model 1905 and 5 screw sq butt introduction) was a Model 1902 'Type 2 or a new change'. We don't know what he considered a sq butt 5 screw. Maybe a Model 1905; that makes obvious sense.

Clearly the 1902 rd butt as you show with Smith's literature, was represented as a separate and distinct model for another 60 years. Yet unlike all (or most) every other of Smith's products which fit neatly into the published categories for describing them by engineering changes, the 1902 rd butt is orphaned. Very curious.

So I just have to refer to my .38 Military (or M&P) 1909 vintage #143XX 1902 rd butt as a:

"Model 1902 (indicating a rd butt) with 5 screws, rebound trigger slide and 2 extractor dowel pins". Jeez, what a mouthful.

While a .38 M&P sq butt of the same vintage is simply a "Model of 1905 (indicating a sg butt) -2nd Change".

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Jim

It wasn't HIS - its how it lettered. The author of that article was, at the time, the
editor of the S&WCA Journal. The factory historian wrote the letters - not the
Journal editor.

That categorization of 62222 is exactly the problem that I have been talking about.
According to Neal & Jinks, the model of 1905 does not start until serial 62449 - which
is a 5-screw revolver. There is no provision in N&J for a square-butt frame prior
to 62449 - so 62222 has to letter as a model of 1902. That is the cold hard
facts of the categorization as put forth in N&J, and that is the kind of confusion
that it produces.

Regards, Mike Priwer

Mike,

Oh, I get it now, Roy wrote the letter and made up the "Type 2" of a Model of 1902, to "shoe horn it" into the 1902 model because the s/n pre dated the 1905 introduction.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

I propose an early 4-screw with a square butt should be decreed to henceforth become a "Model of 1904" by acclamation. Problem solved.

Seriously, this discussion can go on forever with no resolution without establishing some reasonable nomenclature convention, whether or not it agrees with what the ancient S&W advertising copy says. .

Jim

No - not quite. The author of that article invented that new terminology. Read the
story again. The gun lettered as a 1902 1st change.

Regards, Mike

“The Model of 1905 (add appropriate Change # here), 1902 Model round butt”.

Mike,

Sorry I didn’t have the Journal article to read but thx for that clarification.

I've followed this controversy with interest for some years now and am still publicly on the fence as far as taking sides until I learn as much as possible. Both sides have compelling points and make their arguments in a very courteous and professional way, which I appreciate. As I study the points on both sides two main themes come to mind:

1. Collectors have identified, organized, and documented the engineering changes (not saying perfectly, however), without which we would have little idea which model is which. Especially considering how S&W made such an effort to keep them so transparent to the customers. At least until the advent of Model and Dash numbers.

2. Catalog information, lest we forget at times, is partly marketing IMO, but very useful when used in conjunction with the collector classifications based on actual observation of the actual guns, parts and engineering evolution, and therefore very important.

So it goes w/o saying that considering both seems prudent.

Why Smith, after the 1902 & 1905 became virtually the same gun except for grip shape of course, when the 1902 Model began acquiring the same engineering improvements as the 1905, considered them two separate models doesn't take a big leap in thinking. And it's apparent that the company wanted the round butt associated with the Model 1902 moniker and the square butt associated with the 1905 moniker. Solutions to these mysteries usually only become apparent when one considers Roy Jinks’ 'bottom line statement': Smith was in business to SHIP PRODUCT OUT THE DOOR AND MAKE A PROFIT. Maybe they had a boat load of round butt 1902 frames in inventory to get rid of. There was a bunch of 1920’s serial numbered 1902 rd butt frames not shipped until 10 or so years later in the 1930’s after the advent of the snubby barrels according to Roy; the 2" barrels gave the 'out dated' rd butts a new lease on life all of a sudden and they achieved a new singular purpose over the more popular sg butts, (that they have regained again currently). That's the kind of thing marketing and catalogs can reflect to affect sales, they weren’t published to clarify details for collectors many years later, although certainly useful for that too.

But let's also consider Smith's thought process during this period of time when often the same guns but with different barrel lengths/configurations were considered different models; these come to mind:

In 1917 and 1946, .38/32 S&W (Terrier vs. RP) and .32 (HE vs. RP), I frames, respectively, had different model names depending on barrel length and grip shape;

In the 1950s we saw the Target Masterpieces, later Models 14, 16 & 17 for 6" K series guns and Combat Masterpieces, later Models 15 & 18 for 4" K's.

So at this point I see both sides. Both a 4 screw 1902 square butt existing first, replaced by a 5 screw 1905 Sq butt model thereafter. Now that being said, if I were "in charge" way back then and according to my logic, I might have continued the collector classifications for the .38 M&P Model of 1902 (2nd Model) round butt guns thru 2nd Change (the equivalent of the 1905 pre any changes), 3rd Change, 4th Change, 5th Change and 6th Change (the equivalent of the 1905, the sq butt guns, 3rd Model-4th Change). Since there were clearly two separate models marketed, it appears justified. But does it have to coincide with Marketing catalogs? Lord knows the 1950s I frame classifications as written and actual observed guns, lack some consistency while both are transparent in the catalogs of the day as far as I’m aware.

SO I’M NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES! I’m conscious of your statement in an above thread about the last person who tried that getting into "big trouble".

Also I consider this quote from Alk8944's post above:

““Frame Tang changed for square butt stocks. November 18, 1904, about No. 58,000. Both round and square butt frames made." So, from November 1904 to May 1905, 6-7 months, there were Model 1902s manufactured with square butt frames.”” This seems not inconsistent with Roy’s letter quoted above by you from the journal article about the pre 1905 sq butt Target model that Roy labeled Model 1902 -1st change. The ‘Type 2’ terminology by the author being a convenient little label to fill in the gap missing from ‘the books’. Pace40’s gun above has a conflicting letter however, calling his 4 screw a 1905. So there’s a small contradiction on Roy's part. Roy's opinion on this issue is, to wit, “Sq butts are 1905 models, get with the program.” as you said in another thread. (BTW, have we heard from Lee who was going to make a case in that thread?)

Therefore, I'm wondering out loud, why there can't be agreement that square butt guns (like the three subject sq butt revolvers of this thread) be considered a continuance of the 1902 Model (potentially a rare model) for those made in the 6-7 months prior to the emergence of the Model 1905? And consider the square butt guns with the 5th screw improvement that follow after the Mod 1905, #62450 s/n introduction (.32-20s at # 18126), per H of SW, being the M&P Model 1905 (3rd Model), including subsequent changes, i.e., ejector pins, rebound slide, etc. And the rd butts be considered the M&P Mod 1902s, consistent with catalogs, at least mentally. I see no reason the sq butts can’t jump to the right side of the timeline and be Model 1905s after # 624449.

Okay, those are some of my thoughts now that I know just enough to be dangerous, where am I going wrong? I apologize in advance if I’ve gored anyone’s ox, it was not intentional.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

DWalt--I like yr tongue-in-cheek new description of the Second Model (1902) square butts as "1904 models." As the books seem to use the "Second Model" to designate the guns produced between 1902-05; I probably should have used that term to title this thread, rather than "1902 Square Butt." But then we might not have had this very informative & lively discussion.

Mike--Thanx for posting the link to the old catalogs. I remember the "All Model Circulars" from the 1950s; the same info appeared in the old Stoeger "Bibles" (I have a few from the 1948-1954 period).

I fully agree with Mike that folks ordering guns from the S&W catalogs didn't care about the technical distinctions. Also, I agree that the only people in the factory who did care/need to know were/are the people in the engineering design & service departments responsible for making/installing the parts needed to repair the older guns. Some parts would be interchangeable but others not. In preparing this post, I tried interchanging the yoke & cylinder assemblies between my Second Model that began this thread and my 1905 First Change (described in a separate thread). The older cylinder with short stop notches (from the 4-screw gun) did fit & function in the later (5-screw) gun. But the later cylinder was very tight in the older gun & would not rotate. I don't know if this proves a lack of "backward compatibility" or if the cause was difference in hand fitting involved in revolver assembly in that era.

I do think these technical differences matter to collectors, which is why accuracy in factory letters I think is very important. In any type of collecting hobby, I think all would agree that the most important factors in valuing items are condition & rarity. Given two items that are identical except for condition, the one in better condition would bring a higher price. Likewise, given two variations in identical condition, the one that was produced in fewer numbers (therefore more rare) ought to be more valuable. (Examples: Blue or nickel finishes, uncommon barrel lengths, etc.)

As an example, I think there may be a similar situation with the change from 4-screw sideplates to the 3-screw type ca 1955. Had model numbers been in use before then, I think the change would have resulted in a new/higher "dash number." But model numbers didn't begin until 1957. So (in the M&P category) there are two years of "pre-Model 10" 3-screw guns vs roughly seven years of 4-screw guns, all but about the first 9,000 or so in the C-prefix serial range. Thus it becomes important to specifically state the number of screws when describing guns of this era.

Also, my interpretation is that when the books list a specific serial number as beginning a new "model" or "change," the published s/n is the first gun to have the new features. Guns with lower numbers have the older features and fall within the previous description category.

When discussing the older M&Ps from a collector perspective, I refer to Mr. Jinks' chart in his history of S&W. I have the seventh printing of that book, so please set me straight if the chart was changed in a later edition. The Neal & Jinks book and the Krause "Standard Catalog" seem to use about the same terminology. The 1899-1902 M&Ps are called "First Models." The "Second Models" were made from 1902-05 and include a "First Change" in 1903. Mr. Jinks' chart does not use the 1899 and 1902 designations, but I think the Krause catalog does. Rather than use the term "Third Model," to describe guns made after s/n 62449, the books all call them "1905" models thru 4 changes up to the WW2 era. (I think "Third Model" might be a better term, but if everyone agrees that guns #62450 & later are "1905" models I have no real problem there.)

(The British Contracts and V-prefix serials up thru Dec 1944 are mechanically "1905 4th change" but are commonly termed the 38/200s and Victory Models. The "postwar guns" with S-prefix serials appear to have never been regarded as a "5th change" & I guess the only term for the redesigned guns ca 1948-50 is "Short Action." But I digress.)

Now Mr. Jinks' own book, as well as the others, state clearly that the "1905" (5-screw) guns were made in both round and square butt versions, throughout the various changes, as Hondo mentions in his post just above. So even though the catalogs called round butts "1902 models" up till about 1915, the books published for the collecting fraternity imply that round butts above s/n 62449 are "1905" models of some type.

Further, the books do NOT state that "1905" models began production in November 1904 @ s/n 58000. The guns from 58000 thru 62449 are listed as within the Second Model First Change category. We think that both round & square butt types are included in this group of 4-screw guns, exact quantities of each are not known. Accordingly, I simply cannot agree that collectors, or factory letters, should describe the 4-screw guns as "1905" models, because they have "Second" (1902) Model features and NOT "1905" features.

I don't know if Roy Jinks reads this forum, due to his busy schedule. Maybe when he returns from vacation, perhaps those advanced collectors here who know him better than I do might run this discussion by him. I think it would be interesting to learn what he thinks about it. After all, the whole purpose of getting factory letters is to provide information for collectors, so shouldn't the letters use the terms in the books written for collectors (especially those written by Mr. Jinks)?

At any rate, I want to again thank all that have contributed to this thread, and especially Mike, for their time & interest. I have found it very interesting and also very civil and gentlemanly, which I think is the proper way to have a discussion/debate of this sort. I think it has been a credit to this forum & its members.

Jim, JW, et al

For me, this discussion is about what I see as a glaring inconsistency with the so-called
collectors specifications. ( I think the intent of referring to "collectors" is that the
definitions provide people who collect S&W's with a means of categorizing engineering
changes. Its not that a group of collectors got together and came up with these ideas.)

These inconsistencies happen in two places. First, for me, there is no doubt that
the model of 1905 was introduced at serial number 58000. I believe that it was
not an option, but a separate model. There is nothing in the published factory literature
to suggest otherwise. But - there is no provision for this in the collector specifications.
This results in those original 4-screw square-butt frames being lettered as a model
of 1902 - precisely because that follows the collector specifications. I think this is
wrong - they should be designated as original models of 1905.

The second inconsistency is the disappearance of the model of 1902 after serial 62449.
To me, this did not happen - yet the collector specifications bring that about. For
example, I've had 5-screw round-butt guns in the 80,000 serial range letter as
late-shipped 1902 1st change guns. This is wrong - a 5-screw round-butt frame is
the 2nd engineering change to the model of 1902. In the context of (what I consider
to be the errors in) the collector specifications, this is understandable.

I understand the rational of tracking and specifying engineering changes by serial
number. By serial number alone, it works fine for both the model of 1902 and the
model of 1905. Its when the notion of an engineering change gets applied to
these serial number ranges, the problems occur. To make the definitions work when
engineering name changes are added to the serial number ranges, the specifications
have to depart from reality. They have to delay the recognition of the model of
1905 until the 5th frame screw is added, and they have to do away with the model
of 1902 after serial number 62450. Otherwise, we would have otherwise-identical
guns with different engineering change nomenclature.

This is what the discussion is all about. Its not really about who was thinking what
80 to 90 years ago. To me, its about the disconnect between what the factory
advertised they were making, and what the collectors are trying to call it.

As to the comment about what is wrong with moving the model of 1905 from one
side to the other: it results in the same model ( no engineering change ) appearing
on both sides. That is just another case of creating needless confusion. The whole
point of a picture showing two sides of the line is that there is two models sharing
the same serial number series.

I think - I hope - that I am approaching this from my engineering undergraduate
background, and not my graduate science background. Ie, I'm not so much interested
in how these definitions came to be, as I am about how they don't fit reality - for me.
This is why I am not suggesting how all this might be resolved - rather I am just
focusing on my view of this situation.

Regards, Mike Priwer

Mike,

The inconsistencies you mention puzzle me also, and while not an engineer myself, I think there is a need to understand this matter from an engineering viewpoint as opposed to a "sales" perspective.

You mentioned an 80000-series round butt being lettered as a 1902 First change. On the surface, this would seem nonsensical--if the features of that gun are as described in the books. The highest 1902 1sr change (4-screw) gun would be 62449. Given that the 5th screw was added at #62450, yr 80000-series piece would have to be a 5-screw with the new-style rebound slide with internal coil spring. By chance, did you ever remove the sideplate & look at the lockwork to verify that?

Your opinion seems to be that beginning at #58000, all square butt (sb) M&Ps should be regarded as "1905" (Third) Models and that all round butt (rb) M&Ps should be termed 1902 (Second) models, regardless of technical features, to be consistent with the catalog descriptions. In that case, #80000 would have to be described as a "1902 Third or fourth change." I don't think the factory ever used such terminology, did it? The books surely don't--at least. not yet!

(The books state that a gun in that s/n area would be either a 1905 first or second change, depending on the method of aligning the extractor star. Unlike some changes where a specific serial # is given, the changes between approximately nos 72000-140000 overlap. (I don't have the book in front of me so am not citing the specific s/ns here.)

Imo, the fact that a gun was shipped late (even years) after being built, should not affect its model description. My understanding (and correct me if I'm in error) is that frames are forged & guns are assembled in production batches. I'm not sure at what exact point in the process a frame gets a serial number, but numbered frames I think may be stored for perhaps some amount of time until they are assembled into complete guns. Then, complete guns may be stored for a long time prior to shipping. Both these things appear to have occurred at times (such as during the early 1900s & the 1930s, etc), A notable example is the First Model .44 DA guns originated during the 1880s. They qualify as government-defined "antiques" because all their frames were made prior to 1896, and yet were cataloged or sold into 1913.

Since the 1980s (when round-butt N-frames were first built), the addition of a new frame forging might result in a new model # or a new dash #. If not, the type of frame contour has to be part of the description of the gun--just as the M&Ps were offered as either rb or sb variations, but otherwise with the same "model" name & identical mechanically (after the 1920s or so).

This could be resolved if a "standard" terminology could be devised so that factory letters would be consistent with the mechanical features of the guns in a specific serial range. I've posted in the Historical Foundation section of the forum to ask if the factory records list the type of frame for guns that were offered in different frame contours. Models made in only one frame type (most of the guns made in the 1800s, N-frames up to the 1980s, etc) would not require such a notation, but this might be important for others.

I've read about sb guns being altered to rb configuration for easier concealed carry. I don't know if rb guns were ever changed to sb, but to determine if a gun made in both styles is truly original, collectors would need to know which frame contour a given s/n had when it left the factory. While it would be nice if a complete standard nomenclature could be developed, such would have to depend upon an agreement among Mr. Jinks, the S&W Collectors Association, and probably the Historical Foundation as well.

JW

That is exactly the problem - I use the word inconsistency, you use the word
nonsensical . We are both talking about the same thing.

Yes - I did remove the side-plate, and the lockwork was exactly as it should have
been for a gun of that serial number. I sold that gun a few years ago. I have
another round-butt ( that I still own ) serial number 78222. It letters as a 1905
1st change. To me, that is not right, but this is what results from following the
collector specifications.

The serial number is established, and stamped, when the stocks are fitted to the
frame. The frames are then stored in boxes, or bins, awaiting soft-fitting into
a revolver. Following soft-fitting, the parts go to finishing for bluing or nickel,
and then are finally hard-assembled into a completed revolver.

Perhaps you are aware that the square-butt frame was dropped from all production
in the mid-1990's. All frames have been round-butt since then. This was a cost-
cutting move; it was less expensive to make one frame forging/finishing than two
forging/finishing. In this context, the round-butt frame was the natural choice,
because it can be converted to square-butt with a pair of grips. A square-butt
frame, on the other hand, can not be converted to round-butt with such a maneuver.

Regards, Mike Priwer

So you're saying the square butt change should start the 1905 clock not the 5th screw. sounds reasonable to me. Can't figure why the 5th screw is used to start the 1905 in Jinks' books? The sq butt change was a more major change than the 5th screw. (No wonder Smith never put Model Names on the old guns!!)

Agreed. Different models (not eng changes), have long shared the same serial # range, i.e., the .32 HE, .32 RP and the 22/32 pre war Kit Gun for one example. The guns were built in sequential #'d batches with blocks of #s set aside. That could never be done for eng changes. The 'bottom of the parts bin syndrome' takes precedent, meaning we see all the time old parts used later in serial # ranges the new parts. And post 1957 guns with dash #s stamped but w/o the eng change represented by the dash # and vica versa.

Disagree. The point at which the square butts move to the right side of the line is at # 62450, but it's no longer the same gun because it picked up the 5th screw, the Model 1905 1st new feature.

I hope my responses reflect a true understanding of your explanations.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Not necessary to remove the sideplate. The rebound block/coil spring retaining pin extends thru the left side of the frame and can be ID'd by the location of that pin on the outside.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Jim

Left side of the line is round butts - right side is square butts, because the advertising
says they are two different models. So - how can it move from one side to the other ?
How do you rationalize that, if they are two different models ? My concept is that
its the public advertising that drives that chart.

You're right - never have to remove to sideplate to know whether its old or new
trigger rebound. I remove it so I can disassemble and clean the gun !

Regards, Mike

Mike,
My lack of clarity. My comment was a scenario based on some of the letters indicating the early sq butt 4 screw was a 1902. In that case it would start left of the line and move to the right as a 1905 when the 5th screw was acquired.

My best,
Jim

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Hondo & Mike--

Thanx for additional comments. I appreciate Mike's detailed info on the manufacturing process, confirming my thinking that numbered frames get stored before being assembled into complete guns.

I'm aware that most current S&W revolver production was standardized to use the round butt forgings, and understand the "production economy" rationale for so doing. The "Heritage" series guns, both K & N frame models, were made that way ca Y2k-2001. But I think rather recently the 1917 Army .45 revolver has been reissued in its original style: square butt. The photos I've seen don't look like the stocks are the "conversion" type (round to square). Do we know if the factory made new forgings for that release, or did they use leftovers? Seems like with S&W, we can say "never say never."

Returning to our original topic here, the idea of calling a 4-screw square butt (in s/n range 58000-62449) a "1905" would require that guns 62450 upward (the first 5-screw guns) would have to a a "first change." This is incomsisent with the nomenclature of our major reference books. And likewise, calling 5-screw round butts above 62449 "1902" models is also contary nomenclature. Why should we be bound by catalog nomenclature? When the round butts became "standard" in the 1990s, they didn't get new names, did they? Did they get new model numbers? Did they even get new "dash" numbers just because of the round butts? If not, and we don't attach "model years" to this late 20th Century major design change, why should the collecting fraternity adhere to this practice for guns made in the early years of the 20th Century? Being consistent with the early catalogs thus seems to be inconsistent with the technical reality of the products. If being consistent with the early catalogs is deemed more important, then we need to know exactly the date (and s/n nos or range if possible) when the catalog nomenclature changed from "1902" & "1905" to plain "M&P" and the factory letters would have to follow suit in describing guns made before & after that time. Is that even feasible?

Looking at the 1905 catalog and the 1911 price list I have to ask the obvious question. When did the Military Model become the Military and Police Model? If you take the factory literature as Gospel then sometime between 1905 and 1911 the model name changed. So anything made before date X should be a pre-M&P right?