Model of 1902

Waveski · #1 08-15-2018, 05:36 PM

A couple of years back I acquired a nice 1902. Honest wear , mechanically fine , post WWII replacement grips. Ser.# indicates 1903 build year. Given the price paid I was happy with the deal despite the grips. I later fitted the revolver with wood grips which were closer to correct , but probably not quite. Recently I came across a set of hard rubber grip panels and tried them on for size.

I think I might have a winner.

Please view the images and let me know if the hard rubber grips are period correct. The current wood grips are also shown.

Thanks , 'Ski.

HughD1 · #2 08-15-2018, 06:05 PM

What is on my Grandfathers 1902

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

murphydog · #3 08-15-2018, 06:11 PM

Most likely the hard rubber stocks are correct. The RB gold medallion stocks are from the next decade (1910-'20), but it could have had walnut service stocks (checkered, flat upper tops without medallions).

rct269 · #4 08-15-2018, 06:19 PM

1902's were shipped with either hard rubber or walnut. If I were to make a wild guess, I'd say more with hard rubber.

Ralph Tremaine

glowe · #5 08-15-2018, 06:44 PM

I also think that hard rubber was most common. The walnut stocks were as shown below and were introduced when the Model 1899 started production. The tops are called concave and were sunken. My 1902 shows hard rubber. Get a factory letter to know how your revolver was made.

Waveski · #6 08-15-2018, 07:09 PM

Wow , those walnut concaves are nice!

stu1ritter · #7 08-15-2018, 07:36 PM

These are correct walnut grips on my 1902 Target 1st Change, shipped in 1905 referred to as "checkered Walnut non-monogramed grips". Not nearly as nice as Gary's.

Stu

Absalom · #8 08-15-2018, 07:38 PM

When in doubt, look at the documents. The hard rubber was standard for the 1902 and the walnut for the 1905 in all period catalogs I have seen.

The 1912 factory catalog shows it pictured as such, although the text does not state it anywhere. The 1910 A&F catalog states it.

So I think the wood would have always been a special order item, or for special models like a target model.

glowe · #9 08-16-2018, 08:58 AM

Roy's book states the stocks were either hard rubber or walnut. The company's 1903 catalog also makes that statement. The two pages below are from that catalog. I do not believe that walnut was special order for the 1902.

bruce5781 · #10 08-16-2018, 09:30 AM

My 1902 shipped walnut.

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk

glowe · #11 08-16-2018, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruce5781

My 1902 shipped walnut . . .

Bruce, I think I see a screw in front of the trigger guard? If so, that is one of those sticky situations of a round butt M&P made after the official years of the manufacture of the Model 1902. If your stocks are original, the gun would have been made in 1910 or later. The OPs gun was shipped in 1903 as stated, so it one of those original 1902s.

Waveski, now that I think about it, it is very difficult to know the manufacture date of an M&P, but rather the serial numbers were dated by when they were shipped. Could you share the serial number of that 1902?

handejector · #12 08-16-2018, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruce5781

My 1902 shipped walnut.

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk

And here is where the 1902/1905 controversy/discussion/argument can confuse the novice collectors, and why I prefer to stick with the older and well established Neal & Jinks classifications.
I'll concede that it is NOT improper to call this gun a 1902 because it has a round butt. However, those gold medallion grips came along much later than the 1902, and are not correct for the OP's gun, which appears to be a 1902-1st Change. They may well be correct on your gun, because I see a Rebound slide stud, meaning that MECHANICALLY speaking, your gun is at least a 1905-1st change. Using N&J's system, the 1905-1st is when the rebound slide appeared.

Since the ejector rod knob on this gun appears to be made in one piece with the ejector rod, I'll guess that mechanically, this gun is a 1905-3rd Change. It could, of course, be an 05-4th.
Assuming this IS a 1905-3rd mechanically speaking (using the N&J system of classification), I would simply call it a "1905-3rd with a Round Butt". Anyone, anywhere in the world can describe this gun in an email to me as a "1905-3rd with a Round Butt", and I know exactly what he has. If he is asking me for a rebound slide for the gun, I know EXACTLY what he needs. The slides are different in the 05-1st, 05-2nd, and 05-3rd- THREE distinct varieties. If he says he needs a slide for a "1902", I have no clue what he is talking about because 1902's don't have rebound slides.

You can all do what you want in this world changing situation, but I'll stick with N&J, because it just makes it so easy to know exactly what model one is looking at, or NOT looking at when conversing over distance.

bruce5781 · #13 08-16-2018, 11:18 AM

True. Mine was a late bloomer.

"That is a very interesting gun. It has a factory checkered front strap, back strap, and trigger. It (#161033) shipped on March 30, 1911 to J. A. Johnston Co., Pittsburg Pa. An identical gun just two numbers higher (#161035) shipped to the famous barrel maker and target shooter Harry Pope in Jan. 1911. Perhaps the original buyer of my gun was a shooting companion of Mr. Pope's."

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk

Absalom · #14 08-16-2018, 11:24 AM

Lee’s point about the identification of the correct part, in this case the rebound slide, is the only good argument for using an anachronistic collector label rather than the historically correct one.

Otherwise, one should call the baby by the name which the parents gave it.

handejector · #15 08-16-2018, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absalom

Lee’s point about the identification of the correct part, in this case the rebound slide, is the only good argument for using an anachronistic collector label rather than the historically correct one.

Otherwise, one should call the baby by the name which the parents gave it.

So, it is not OK to call Michael Thomas Jones "Mike"?

glowe · #16 08-16-2018, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absalom

Lee’s point about the identification of the correct part, in this case the rebound slide, is the only good argument for using an anachronistic collector label rather than the historically correct one . . .

Which is which??

Absalom · #17 08-16-2018, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowe

Which is which??

Attached another shot of the S&W catalog. It really leaves no wiggle room as to the factory's use of the 1902 and 1905 labels.

All catalogs through the 19-teens (until S&W abandoned the year distinction) from retailers selling both use the same distinction, based solely on butt shape.

So all the evidence so far shows this to be the historical usage. No matter their vast expertise, Neal & Jinks' book cannot challenge that because it is a secondary work, not contemporary. If someone comes up with a catalog from the time before 1918 which references a round-butt Model 1905, that would be a different matter. I'm not aware of one.

Muley Gil · #18 08-16-2018, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absalom

Attached another shot of the S&W catalog. It really leaves no wiggle room as to the factory's use of the 1902 and 1905 labels.

All catalogs through the 19-teens (until S&W abandoned the year distinction) from retailers selling both use the same distinction, based solely on butt shape.

So all the evidence so far shows this to be the historical usage. No matter their vast expertise, Neal & Jinks' book cannot challenge that because it is a secondary work, not contemporary. If someone comes up with a catalog from the time before 1918 which references a round-butt Model 1905, that would be a different matter. I'm not aware of one.

It is interesting, to me anyway, that the 5" barrel is not mentioned as being available.

Absalom · #19 08-16-2018, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muley Gil

It is interesting, to me anyway, that the 5" barrel is not mentioned as being available.

Interesting point. I hadn't caught that. If you look at the Abercrombie & Fitch catalog I attached to post #8, that's about the same timeframe and shows the 5" as an available length.

PS: Came up with another peculiar tidbit, also regarding the stocks that the thread is actually about

I pulled my reprint of the 1915 Schoverling, Daly & Gales catalog.

It confirms my point about the distinction, but they offered the 1902 with wooden stocks, although the illustration clearly showed the hard rubber.

And they only offered 4 and 6 inch barrels on both models.

glowe · #20 08-16-2018, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muley Gil

It is interesting, to me anyway, that the 5" barrel is not mentioned as being available.

They offered a 5" barrel in the 1903 catalog, but not a 6". Reality is that I have a first year 1902 with a 6" barrel and a 1908 ship date with a 5". I believe that the catalog just left out a barrel length from time to time. Looking at my list of 32 Winchester and 38 M&Ps, all standard barrel lengths were available throughout the 19'aughts and teens.

I don't see the image you refereed to about the 5" not being available in Absolum's images??

glowe · #21 08-16-2018, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absalom

Attached another shot of the S&W catalog. It really leaves no wiggle room as to the factory's use of the 1902 and 1905 labels . . .

I go way back in supporting the round butt 1902s into the teens when Mike Priwer started battling members with the theory many years ago, but I only point out in this thread that it can be confusing to use the 1902 term in reference to teens guns.

I worked with Marketing teams in a large corporation for many years and they pretty much do what they want. Whether the president of S&W or even upper management knew or cared about the terminology of their K frame revolvers is unknown but probably only done in general high level overviews and discussions. It would have been unlikely that marketing would have talked much with the factory or their workers, probably resulting in some errors like dropping stock types and barrel lengths. Normally, marketing departments have a lot of leeway when putting together promotional materials like flyers and catalogs.

Bottom line is that we have to decide whether to use the names that we find from some marketing and sales people or the names developed and standardized by early collectors using technical and mechanical changes to differentiate between the models. There are pitfalls for both sides of the arguments.

Absalom · #22 08-16-2018, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowe

... Normally, marketing departments have a lot of leeway when putting together promotional materials like flyers and catalogs.

Bottom line is that we have to decide whether to use the names that we find from some marketing and sales people or the names developed and standardized by early collectors using technical and mechanical changes to differentiate between the models. There are pitfalls for both sides of the arguments.

I see your point, but marketing does not operate in isolation. It wasn’t just marketing, but by extension sales, retailers and thus everybody in society who bought and used the revolvers who would have used the terms the way they were used in the company literature.

As Lee has explained, later collector terminology can indeed be useful by adding precision. However, for those likely over 99% of folks who will never call Lee on the phone and ask for a rebound slide, abandoning the simple “1902 = round, 1905 = square” system really just complicates things.

Obviously, ex-post-facto terminology is perfectly appropriate and helpful in many cases. We use the term “Middle Ages” and “medieval” even though nobody back then was aware of being in the middle of anything, because it provides us with a common reference. But in case of the 1902/1905, the Neal/Jinks usage does not benefit enough people to foist it on every lay person asking about grandpa’s old gun.

Muley Gil · #23 08-16-2018, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowe

They offered a 5" barrel in the 1903 catalog, but not a 6". Reality is that I have a first year 1902 with a 6" barrel and a 1908 ship date with a 5". I believe that the catalog just left out a barrel length from time to time. Looking at my list of 32 Winchester and 38 M&Ps, all standard barrel lengths were available throughout the 19'aughts and teens.

I don't see the image you refereed to about the 5" not being available in Absolum's images??

It's in the picture in post # 17.

Waveski · #24 08-16-2018, 06:35 PM

"Waveski, now that I think about it, it is very difficult to know the manufacture date of an M&P, but rather the serial numbers were dated by when they were shipped. Could you share the serial number of that 1902?"[/QUOTE

I have not had time to catch up on this entire thread , but I did get as far as the above request ...

Waveski · #25 08-27-2018, 06:33 PM

I was quite happy to have the opportunity to acquire the hard rubber grips for my m.1902. Now I am even happier. A forum member , right out of the blue , made me an offer I could not refuse on a set of concave non-medallion wooden grips. I now have all bases covered.

It has been a good couple of weeks for me and the old Smith.

Shown are the medallion grips which the revolver wore for the last couple of years , the hard rubber set I acquired about 2 weeks ago , and the concave walnut set which arrived today. I am a lucky guy!

DWalt · #26 08-27-2018, 07:41 PM

34263 would almost certainly have shipped have shipped in the late 1903-early 1904 period, based on about a half-dozen nearby SNs on my list. That would make it a Model of 1902, first change, by the N&J nomenclature. I ignore the "changes" nomenclature as it is entirely collector convention, and was never used by anyone at S&W. So far as I am personally concerned, if it has a round butt and was made before the "Model of 19xx" nomenclature was dropped by S&W around 1914-15, it is a Model of 1902. If it has a square butt, then it is a Model of 1905, no matter what kind of rebound stud it has, whether or not there is a screw in front of the trigger guard, or any other mechanical minutiae, simply because that is what S&W called them in their catalogs - Either a Model of 1902 or a Model of 1905. Someone here several months ago told me that I could not do that because everyone knows all those slight mechanical variations determined what was a 1902 or 1905 and it had nothing to do with the grip shape. To which I replied essentially "Phttttttt" but I really wanted to use some stronger language. Some people have a lot of chutzpah. I have absolutely no objections if anyone else wishes to use artificial nomenclature invented long after the fact, but I resent it when someone says that I must use it also.

Waveski · #27 08-27-2018, 08:53 PM

1902 is OK in my book. It makes sense to me , which is nice.