I know there were 1,000 1899 M&P shipped to the US Navy and they are #5001-6000. Then there were 1,000 1902 M&P shipped to the US Navy and they are #25001-26000. I also know the USMC used a lot of the US Navy weapons. Such as the Winchester Lee 236 for rifles etc. I would also assume, and that is where you get in trouble, that the USMC would have possibly been issued some of these S&W M&P's. I have not found any place mentioning this or any photographic evidence one way or the other. Do any of you guys have any ideas if the USMC did have any of these S&W's, or not, I would love to hear from you with any possible evidence. I am not 100% sure what the Navy did with them after receiving them into inventory. I know some went on board ships, but that is the extent of what I have heard.
Never followed up on who they were issued to, however USN M&Ps would make sense the Marines got some of them.
All of them are as scarce as hen's teeth, especially in nicer conditions. The nicer conditions being 75% and better.
If you find one that is in "new' condition, I'd be very careful to examine and have evaluated before bidding.
More stories than Grimm's fairy tales on the US M&Ps usually when trying to explain why most are found in service used / battle conditions.
These did not sit in a storage closet !
I have a few of both types in the nicer "service used" condition but not a heap of junk. Nicer guns.
There is a story that when the Navy issue came out of service they were just tossed into a 55 Gallon drum or keg to be wholesaled or surplus sold but USGvt.
Don't know that tossing them in a barrel or keg was factual but would account for the tiny nicks and dings found in most of them.
I have a 1902 Navy. Several years ago I posted lots of detailed photos of it here:
......
I've actually shot mine. I trimmed .38 Spl. cases to the proper length and loaded them with lead bullets and Unique. It's a nice shooter.
.....
This apparently didn‘t catch my attention in your old thread, but I‘m surprised that on a 1902 model .38 MIL the factory would use special cylinders which would not chamber standard length .38 Special cases.
By that time, after all, they were advertising right on the barrel of the commercial variant 38 S&W SPECIAL & US SERVICE CTG.
Colt, of course, bored the chambers through so all .38 DA Colts from 1889 on can accommodate Special cases.
The .38 Military cartridge pre-dated the .38 Spl. It is shorter. These were not special cylinders. They were chambered for the military cartridge at hand - the .38 Long Colt.
Notice the caliber designation on my revolver:
It says nothing about .38 Spl. Only the later revolvers are stamped, "38 S&W SPECIAL & US SERVICE CTG."
There's no problem firing the military cartridge in a .38 Spl. chamber. It's like firing a .38 Spl. in a .357 Mag. But a .38 Spl. will not chamber in a .38 Mil. chamber. It's too long.
....There's no problem firing the military cartridge in a .38 Spl. chamber. It's like firing a .38 Spl. in a .357 Mag. But a .38 Spl. will not chamber in a .38 Mil. chamber. It's too long.
Yes, I know all that. The whole point of S&W developing their .38 Special load out of the .38 Colt rather than their own .38 S&W was that they hoped the interchangeability would make the gun and cartridge attractive to the US military.
I‘m just surprised that as late as 1902 S&W would still use short-bored chambers, just for the military contract, limiting the gun’s versatility. At about the same time, in place by 1903, Colt tightened the barrel diameters of their military and civilian models and claimed them as capable of firing both calibers, without changing or strengthening anything else.
Yes, I know all that. The whole point of S&W developing their .38 Special load out of the .38 Colt rather than their own .38 S&W was that they hoped the interchangeability would make the gun and cartridge attractive to the US military.
I‘m just surprised that as late as 1902 S&W would still use short-bored chambers, just for the military contract, limiting the gun’s versatility. At about the same time, in place by 1903, Colt tightened the barrel diameters of their military and civilian models and claimed them as capable of firing both calibers, without changing or strengthening anything else.
Absalom,
I had never given thought to your points about the .38 Spl.
The fact is, I was assuming the Spl. round came shortly after the 1902 Navy series. However, I never had researched the advent of the .38 Spl.
If we believe Wikipedia, the .38 Spl. round was developed in 1898. That blows my timeline completely.
I do know this for a fact: My 1902 Navy will not chamber a .38 Spl. It is most certainly chambered for the .38 Long Colt. I suppose the military contract specified that cartridge and S&W complied.
I'm glad you have brought this up. It's an interesting set of facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absalom
As we know, S&W got no more military contracts.
Now just wait a minute! I seem to remember something about the 1917 for WW1 and various military models from WW2.
Now just wait a minute! I seem to remember something about the 1917 for WW1 and various military models from WW2.
Of course.
I was thinking in the narrower context of replacing the .38 cal. Colt revolvers with .38 cal. S&W revolvers around the turn of the century, quite obviously an ambition for S&W.
And that failed. No more after that last 1000-gun order of the Model 1902. The Army upgraded most older DA Colts to the 1901 specs, bought the DA Colt Model 1903, and the Marine Corps was re-equipped with a new Model 1905.
The S&W .38 hand ejector, still advertised as the “Military Model” in the 1902 catalog, became the Military & Police and didn’t get to play a significant military role until 40 years later.
I am not 100% sure what the Navy did with them after receiving them into inventory.
I know of one (M1902 Navy) that ended up being issued to an Australian Army officer stationed in Papua New Guinea. Just how it got there and where it was in the interim, I have no idea....
Oh, by the way, this was in the 1960-70's.
If I can find my correspondence with him I have the serial and Navy issue number of the gun in question....
I've actually shot mine. I trimmed .38 Spl. cases to the proper length and loaded them with lead bullets and Unique. It's a nice shooter.
These are cool guns, and not often seen.
Curl
I shoot mine as well. (4-1899 Navy, 2-1899 Army, 1-1902 Navy) I just buy 38 Long Colt brass instead of cutting my 39 Spcl down. Got them from Starline. I have over 500 brass non hand.
I will see if I can find the correspondence with the Aussie........
(I own M1902 Navy #1181.... It's also covered with British proofs and has a lanyard swivel, so it was probably part of the aid to Britain early in the War.)
I will see if I can find the correspondence with the Aussie........
(I own M1902 Navy #1181.... It's also covered with British proofs and has a lanyard swivel, so it was probably part of the aid to Britain early in the War.)
To quote from Charles Pate’s book:
“Most of the Navy revolvers remained in inventory at the time of World War II, and at least 500 were included in pre-Lend-Lease transfers to Britain.” (P. 127)
I think both yours and the Aussie’s came from that batch.
Finally found the correspondence with the guy in OZ.
The Navy # on his M1902 Navy was "1917" (which should make the serial number ~26918). He was stationed in Papau 1965 to 1967.
The .38 Military cartridge pre-dated the .38 Spl. It is shorter. These were not special cylinders. They were chambered for the military cartridge at hand - the .38 Long Colt . . . Curl
The 38 MIL cartridge did pre-date 38 Special, but the the 38 Special pre-dated the MIL use in the S&W. From serial number "1" to 5,000, the chambers were long enough to chamber the 38 Special, so the Navy and Army 1899s were special built for the US Government. Colt revolvers were being used by the Military prior to the S&W contract and I have always assumed that the Colt round became the standard. It was the same as the 38 Long Colt round. It would stand to reason that S&W had to comply with short chambered cylinders as that was what the government specified. I think that those in charge of US ordinance in the late 1890s could have been around when a big mistake was made with regards to allowing 45 Colt and 45 Schofield to be issued at the same time to the Army in the 1870s. Stories about right guns and wrong ammunition or vice versa would be enough to not want to repeat that mistake.
As for condition of those examples out there today, I see many more US Army S&Ws in very good condition than US Navy guns. Finding out that most likely no Army revolvers made it to the US Army active duty and were given to National Guard units in the US, may be the reason why they seem to be in better condition than Navy guns?? also, no salt air in most US Army bases.
I will see if I can find the correspondence with the Aussie........
(I own M1902 Navy #1181.... It's also covered with British proofs and has a lanyard swivel, so it was probably part of the aid to Britain early in the War.)
So the US Navy #1181, but what is the S&W serial#? The US Navy numbers do not follow the S&W serial numbers. They did not inspect and number them in S&W serial number sequence. So they are all over the place. Guns with S&W #' next to each other can be a lot of US Navy #'s apart. I have been trying to keep track of both the S&W 1899 US Navy S&W #'s and their corresponding US Navy #'s for the past couple of years. So far I have 20 partial #'s for the 1902 model. Partial meaning either both 3"s or only one of them. And I have 34 partial #'s for the 1899 US Navy. If anyone out there would like add their #'s to the list I have, then please send me what you have. I know some of them have had the US Navy #'s ground off and you may not know that one. That's OOK as I am just trying to figure out how many if possible may still be out there.
... Colt revolvers were being used by the Military prior to the S&W contract and I have always assumed that the Colt round became the standard. It was the same as the 38 Long Colt round. It would stand to reason that S&W had to comply with short chambered cylinders as that was what the government specified. ...
I’m unfortunately underequipped with the standard book references when it comes to the early history, so I know less of the details here than I should.
What would be good to know here is whether these were push- or pull-orders. What I mean by that: Did the Army and Navy ask S&W to produce these because they were interested in alternatives to Colt, or did S&W talk them into giving their guns a try and placing these orders, maybe (not unheard of) with political help?
The fact that the Navy since 1889 and the Army since 1892 had purchased the .38 Colts with bored-through chambers and continued to do so right through the time of the S&W orders (with the Model 1901, straight chambers) would make it odd for the responsible parties (presumably the same ordnance staff) to be concerned about different chambers for the S&W.
So the US Navy #1181, but what is the S&W serial#?
S&W serial from the front strap 25104..
The Aussie that had # 1917 couldn't find his paper work that showed the S&W serial. (He did tell me that for years he thought the "1917" indicated the manufacture date....)
I never understood why Colt continued to bore through their cylinders when no longer using a heeled bullet? It must have affected accuracy and maybe muzzle velocity as well? I find evidence that Colt introduced a stepped chamber after the Model 1901, assuming in the 1903, but have never inspected this model.
The Pitman Notes are interesting for this caliber's use in the military. Colt apparently kept their bore large, a carryover from the heeled bullet design until the introduction of the Model 1903 that was ordered with a reduced bore diameter to improve accuracy. The author notes cartridge change from black powder to smokeless in 1901.
It is also interesting to note that General Pitman never mentioned the S&W Model 1899 in the 1891 - 1911 section. He did, however, do a detailed discussion on the 45 Colt and the 45 Schofield models. As for how S&W got a contract for the 1899 and 1902 may be well known by Charles Pate, but is not covered in detail in any reference I have. Only Roy's comments that "one thousand of this model were issued to the Navy and 1,000 to the Army. The Navy models were ordered June 25, 1900." It also goes on to state that "the Army model was ordered February 18, 1901."
Maybe Charles can find this thread and comment further as to how the company obtained contracts from the Army and Navy in the first place?
I have one of the earliest Army models (s/n 13030) which would be the 29th one shipped on March 29, 1901 per my Letter.
Interesting to note is that Roy states "...and designed to fire the S&W .38 Special cartridge". Below in final paragraph Roy states ".38 US Military cartridge".
I guess I had never realized that there is (was) a difference until this post. I've not shot my 1899 Army, and I just now tried several brands of factory .38 Special (Winchester, Fiochhi, Magtech) with LRN, FMJ and none of them will fully chamber. All rounds protrude about 1/8" & cylinder will not close. There is also a step in each charge hole....so I can confirm what has been noted above....modern 38 Special ammo has a longer case.
I could never find out about the gothic numerals 02 in the lower left grip panel. I asked Roy but the Letter and all had no comment. It sure looks factory to me but I checked Army Unit records and descriptions and could not find if they numbered "test weapons" or something. I did find an internet photo of another US Army that was on an auction site years ago with a higher serial number than mine and it had the exact same gothic style numbers in the heel of the left panel, but was 03...so go figure.
Since I don't reload IF I wanted to shoot this vintage piece, I would need to find .38 Long Colt. Is that a correct statement?
Is that ammo in any current production line-up? i.e. what weight and style bullet?
I'm always amazed at what I learn each time I log on here. Thanks to all for the discussion.
.....
Interesting to note is that Roy states "...and designed to fire the S&W .38 Special cartridge". Below in final paragraph Roy states ".38 US Military cartridge".
........
Since I don't reload IF I wanted to shoot this vintage piece, I would need to find .38 Long Colt. Is that a correct statement?
Is that ammo in any current production line-up? i.e. what weight and style bullet?
.....
The most commonly available .38 Long Colt load is the cowboy action round from Black Hills. You can usually get it from multiple online vendors like Midway.
As for the wording in the letter, the gun and frame size as such were definitely designed and dimensioned for the new .38 Special (and .32-20), which explains the introductory sentence. The .38 MIL, just like the .38 S&W BSR variant of WW II, were adapted versions.
I would assume the "02" stamped on the left stock was simply a rack number and was not done at the factory. Remember that these guns went to several states and a few may have stamped them, but most did not.
The fact that your revolver does not chamber 38 Special is a good thing, since some have been re-chambered. That is technically a modification that reduces value, but my guess is that many collectors out there have a modified 1899 Army and do not even know it. The length difference is just over 1/8". I have loaded standard 130g RN and found poor accuracy. Image is a target with only 9 of 12 shots hitting the target. Switching to HBWC lead, I was very pleased at 15 yards with 6 of 6 in the black.
In reality, the 38 MIL may be the rarest caliber ever produced by S&W.
..... I have loaded standard 130g RN and found poor accuracy. Image is a target with only 9 of 12 shots hitting the target. Switching to HBWC lead, I was very pleased at 15 yards with 6 of 6 in the black.
.
I've noticed the same thing in my "very lightly used" 1899 commercial. While I haven't slugged the barrel, my guess is some diameter difference as compared to "modern" 38 Specials causing the rifling not to adequately engage the bullet. But it shoots fine with HWBC's.
I know of one (M1902 Navy) that ended up being issued to an Australian Army officer stationed in Papua New Guinea. Just how it got there and where it was in the interim, I have no idea....
Oh, by the way, this was in the 1960-70's.
If I can find my correspondence with him I have the serial and Navy issue number of the gun in question....
Shuffled around during and since WW II. Roosevelt sent the Brits 500 (total) Mod 1899 and Mod 1902 Navies in June 1940 along with 20,00 Mod 1917s to shoot the Germans expected to be wading ashore any day now.
Finally found the correspondence with the guy in OZ.
The Navy # on his M1902 Navy was "1917" (which should make the serial number ~26918). He was stationed in Papau 1965 to 1967.
By the way, I’m wondering how that chap screwed up to be stationed there in the wilds with a 65-year-old surplus gun
The Australians last used some of their S&W BSR’s in the Korean War (not officially, they were off the roster of issue guns by then, but based on some photos). Afterwards, they were FTR’d, mothballed, and ultimately resurfaced after 1986 at Vega Arms in Sacramento. No 1899 or 1902 model among those I’ve ever encountered.
By the 1960s, the Browning Hi-Power was the standard issue Australian sidearm.
By the way, I’m wondering how that chap screwed up to be stationed there in the wilds with a 65-year-old surplus gun
He never mention why he was posted there..... He did say that he only fired it on one occcasion, Seems that some of the natives threw a few spears and arrows at his camp. A few shots into the bushes chased them away......
Is it me or is there a reason one usually sees more Army's than Navy's in the wild? Same production numbers so why is this? I rarely see either one but it seems more of the Army specimens surface than Navy examples. I dearly love the markings on both. Just curious...
Is it me or is there a reason one usually sees more Army's than Navy's in the wild? Same production numbers so why is this? I rarely see either one but it seems more of the Army specimens surface than Navy examples. I dearly love the markings on both. Just curious...
Is it me or is there a reason one usually sees more Army's than Navy's in the wild? Same production numbers so why is this? I rarely see either one but it seems more of the Army specimens surface than Navy examples. I dearly love the markings on both. Just curious...
Roger
Too many swabbies & anchor clankers, collecting S & W's I suspect.
Us ground pounding, dogfaces already snagged our 1911's, A1's, Garands, etc. so needed something more to fill holes.
Jarheads?????? Have no clue, if history is any teacher then the Marines never got good equipment issued until every Army, Navy and probably Coast Guard, requisition was fulfilled with double or triple redundancy, so those poor folks could be still looking for "tip-ups".
Flyboys (and gals): Who knows.....well you know....they're flyboys and gals....what can we say.
ALL IN JEST FOLKS...……….KUDOS AND HONORS TO ALL WHO EVER PUT ON THE UNIFORM IN WARTIME OR PEACE, INCLUDING LEOS EVERYWHERE..YOU HAVE MY UTMOST RESPECT.
Shuffled around during and since WW II. Roosevelt sent the Brits 500 (total) Mod 1899 and Mod 1902 Navies in June 1940 . . .
That is very interesting Lee. Since Pate suggests that most all Army revolvers went to state National Guard units, would it be logical to think the 500 to Britain would have been Navy guns? That could also explain why more Army revolvers are found here in the US than Navy guns??
..... Since Pate suggests that most all Army revolvers went to state National Guard units, would it be logical to think the 500 to Britain would have been Navy guns?....
Per the quote from Pate I cited above, he specifically states that the 500 to Britain were Navy guns. One would expect he had sources confirming that.
“Most of the Navy revolvers remained in inventory at the time of World War II, and at least 500 were included in pre-Lend-Lease transfers to Britain.” (P. 127)
Can you guys give me little more information on this Charles Pate book? Name etc of the Book? Tied looking on internet and need more information to marrow things down.Thanks!
Can you guys give me little more information on this Charles Pate book? Name etc of the Book? Tied looking on internet and need more information to marrow things down.Thanks!
You don't need it! Get a scrap piece of metal the thickness of the notch in the extractor rod, and file a notch in it. Took me about 10 minutes, years ago, to do that. Works like a champ, and Don doesn't get to buy his new Cadillac!
1899 & 1902 US Navy's
Linear Mode
