|
|
 |
|
09-02-2018, 10:09 PM
|
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Gods waiting room, W/C FL
Posts: 3,736
Likes: 3,334
Liked 4,549 Times in 2,011 Posts
|
|
SOME OUTSIDE THE BOX THINKING, RIGHT THERE.
Will it kill a bear? 
|
09-02-2018, 10:27 PM
|
 |
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tulsa County
Posts: 2,413
Likes: 1,644
Liked 3,135 Times in 1,146 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4barrel
I am thinking about drilling a hole in mine.
|
Not me. Don't see it working. 
Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk
__________________
CPT, Armor (Ret)
Luke 22:36
|
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
09-03-2018, 11:26 AM
|
 |
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,996
Likes: 5,005
Liked 7,702 Times in 2,624 Posts
|
|
Another Moor patent, this one specifically for the device we are discussing:
https://patentimages.storage.googlea.../US1281195.pdf
The language of the truncheon patent again suggests that the device is essentially a modified design for an ordinary truncheon in order to permit it to be pressed into service for increased potential accuracy while shooting a revolver at longer distances. I see no language that suggests or even imagines that the device is to be used as a club while attached to a revolver.
__________________
David Wilson
Last edited by DCWilson; 09-03-2018 at 12:48 PM.
|
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
09-03-2018, 12:40 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: yonder
Posts: 2,223
Likes: 4,191
Liked 3,548 Times in 950 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCWilson
|
...the creative 'inventor'.
Last edited by jughed440; 09-03-2018 at 01:20 PM.
|
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
09-03-2018, 01:27 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The SW Va Blue Ridge
Posts: 17,540
Likes: 89,854
Liked 24,926 Times in 8,533 Posts
|
|
The sight radius is determined by the position of the front and rear sights. This device can not lengthen the sight radius, as it has no additional front sight.
__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!
|
09-03-2018, 01:50 PM
|
 |
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 3,305
Likes: 14,958
Liked 2,549 Times in 1,145 Posts
|
|
Perhaps it's just me, BUT, I'm thinking that I REALLY need one of these! 
Why, I have no idea, I just know that I do!
|
09-03-2018, 02:02 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,996
Likes: 5,005
Liked 7,702 Times in 2,624 Posts
|
|
In the 1920 census, Edward N. Moor, 61, widowed, is a lodger at a large apartment building on California Street in Oakland. His profession is Salesman and his industry is Patents. His son, Edward N. Moor Jr., lives across the bay in Marin County. He has a wife and son. His profession is City Salesman and his Industry is Machinery.
Also living in Oakland is Harry C. Schroeder, 40, immigrant to US in 1881 and naturalized in 1900. His profession is Patent Attorney and his industry is General Practice. He is categorized as Employer.
Moor Jr. is categorized as Wage Worker, and his father works on his own account.
Moor was also granted patents on a fishing reel, several lathe attachments, and a "heaving plug" (whatever that is) for oil wells.
In the video link posted on the previous page, Jim Supica said the truncheon/barrel he was discussing had been produced by Automatic Screw Company of California. I found in old papers a reference to the California Automatic Screw Machine Company of Los Angeles, which is sort of consistent with the stamped C.A.S. seen in one of the photos in the original post.
__________________
David Wilson
|
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
09-03-2018, 02:14 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,996
Likes: 5,005
Liked 7,702 Times in 2,624 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muley Gil
The sight radius is determined by the position of the front and rear sights. This device can not lengthen the sight radius, as it has no additional front sight.
|
The provided photos of the actual device show no obvious front sight, but both patents describe new rear and front sights that would for the truncheon variety have a sight radius of 10-11 inches (my estimation), or 1-2 inches less than the length of the truncheon itself.
__________________
David Wilson
Last edited by DCWilson; 09-03-2018 at 11:23 PM.
Reason: Removed duplicated word.
|
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
09-03-2018, 02:47 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Florence, Alabama, USA
Posts: 2,349
Likes: 40
Liked 1,397 Times in 773 Posts
|
|
It would serve as a foreend for a good grip on those long shots.
|
09-03-2018, 10:01 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SW MT
Posts: 6,737
Likes: 10,512
Liked 6,029 Times in 2,968 Posts
|
|
I would not let a gun auction site determine value but ask Sotheby's if it is a museum collectible.
__________________
Front sight and squeeze
|
09-04-2018, 12:35 AM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Texas & San Antonio
Posts: 33,630
Likes: 241
Liked 29,143 Times in 14,091 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCWilson
The provided photos of the actual device show no obvious front sight, but both patents describe new rear and front sights that would for the truncheon variety have a sight radius of 10-11 inches (my estimation), or 1-2 inches less than the length of the truncheon itself.
|
Yes, the second patent specifically mentions a front sight on the club, and it is shown in the patent drawing, but is not seen in the photos - at least I cannot see a front sight.
"A rear sight 15 is provided, a screw 16, recessed to receive a pin 17 and spring 18 are inserted in club..."
Last edited by DWalt; 09-04-2018 at 12:37 AM.
|
09-04-2018, 07:27 AM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: S.E. Iowa
Posts: 679
Likes: 288
Liked 731 Times in 309 Posts
|
|
Wouldn't the muzzle blast split the wood?
|
09-04-2018, 10:40 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Texas & San Antonio
Posts: 33,630
Likes: 241
Liked 29,143 Times in 14,091 Posts
|
|
It is possible that one of these may already have sold at a major auction, and that would establish a comparable value. There are ways to find out such auction information (professional appraisers do it all the time) but other than a Google search, I do not know how. Others may be able to provide guidance.
Last edited by handejector; 09-04-2018 at 11:34 AM.
|
09-04-2018, 12:06 PM
|
 |
Administrator
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 27,020
Likes: 8,997
Liked 48,767 Times in 9,262 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWalt
It seems to me that the device was held onto the barrel by the front sight, somewhat like the socket bayonets of Civil War rifled muskets were retained by the front sight of the barrel. I would think that it had to be made to fit specifically either Colt or S&W revolvers and they were not likely to have the same barrel OD. In 1919, I believe there were considerably more Colts than S&Ws in police service.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by elm_creek_smith
It does have an attachment point to the barrel. The knurled collar turns and locks behind the front sight.
Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk
|
You are both right. It has a mount that functions just like the old bayonets- you slide it on till the collar will rotate and lock behind the front sight.
I saw the one Jim Supica brought to Tulsa. If you watch the video at around 2:00 into it, you can see the mount quite clearly.
It is NOT fully mounted on that M&P Jim is showing. I think the slot is too narrow to go past the thick base of the front sight. The one Jim shows is probably for a Colt. A lot of the older Colts did not have a wide base for the front sight, like the New Service and the New Police models. Even the Colts with a wide base, like the Official Police, have bases narrower than an S&W M&P.
Value?
First, you need to determine what it will fit. An S&W guy probably doesn't want yours if it fits a Colt, and vice versa.
Then, think about who wants it and why.
It is not a Factory S&W or Colt item- it is just an interesting curiosity that fits on an old gun.
I think your best market is those who collect old police gear.
Start at $500 and do what you gotta do.
I collect M&Ps. If I saw it at a gun show for $500, AND it fit an M&P, I'd pass because it is not a Factory item and I can add a gun for that or less to my collection. If it wa $200-250, AND it fit an M&P, I'd think about it.
__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett
Last edited by handejector; 09-04-2018 at 12:12 PM.
|
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
