Model19man
Member
I am trying hard to convince myself that it is a Smith product. But the odd traits make it really tough. I can't think of any Smith and Wesson produced revolver that said Sprinfield Mass on the cylinder. Am I forgetting something?
Mystery Gun- What is it?
- Thread starter Varangi
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 27,669
- Reaction score
- 21,360
See this thread, scroll down to post #16, 3rd photo down.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-ha...ctor-1896-first-model-fresh-gun-porn-4-u.html
It's those pesky rollmarks that make me think (hope?) the OP's gun is from the factory, but it may be all in vain
1. Babalooie's statement, "I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that serial numbers were not required on guns until the firearms control act of 1968" was true only for shotguns and rimfire rifles. I don't know if numbers were ever required for prototypes not offered for sale, but every prototype I have seen was numbered, usually in a unique series. (correction- Winchester singleshot pistols were not numbered)
2. Most major manufacturers have in-house collections of their competitors guns and any promising innovations they come across. Given this gun's provenance, is it unreasonable that Rock Island Arsenal would have had examples of contemporary European revolvers? I believe there was a European 10.4mm revolver cartridge in the 1880's.
Bob
2. Most major manufacturers have in-house collections of their competitors guns and any promising innovations they come across. Given this gun's provenance, is it unreasonable that Rock Island Arsenal would have had examples of contemporary European revolvers? I believe there was a European 10.4mm revolver cartridge in the 1880's.
Bob
Greg, without meaning to offend, you're kind of in X-Files territory on this. You want to believe. For the rest of us, the dispassionate approach is to evaluate it sans markings, on the merits of its observed mechanical and engineering characteristics in a historical context, and ask, would we still then say, "Oh, this has to have been made by Smith & Wesson!"
Incidentally, I did bring these photos to the attention of Roy Jinks a couple days back. His initial reaction was, in his words, that he "would not rule out a copy."
I can appreciate the owner's reluctance to do so, but the reality is in gun collecting, refusal to submit any reasonably disputed specimen for full scruntiny is generally regarded as presumptive evidence that it's not genuine.
Last edited:
handejector
Staff member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 26,134
- Reaction score
- 47,053
What you don't realize is that some of us have seen dozens or hundreds of guns marked "S&W" that are not S&W.
Roy has looked at the pics in this thread. He says the gun is beyond him.
A large amount of the early paper still exists.
Roy has shown contracts and drawings from the Russian deal dating to the 1870's.
The early developmental design drawings for Hand Ejectors still exist. Some are designs that were never built. Why is there no drawing or even mention of this large SA design?
So, it is far more likely that the gun is a knockoff made in europe. Again, we've seen lots of them.
So, we are asking for more pics and more data.
Sorry, but based on a few fuzzy pics, we can't simply buy the story and proclaim the gun to be the missing link in S&W evolution and worth a million bucks.
We can most likely get to the bottom of this if you and the client want to work with us.
If it were to turn out to be a heretofore unkonwn variant, good for him and good for us.
All we need is the evidence.
And the key word to this entire dialogue is "potentially" as used by Greg.
It may be, it may not be,but all voices of this learned community have to be weighed in. Often as not,someone appears here with a discovery,and they don't have ears for other than a confirmation of their remarkable find.
deadin
US Veteran
Anybody want to buy a gun that looks kind of like a 1911 and is marked "W.F. & Co."?? 
Page 143 of the History of Smith & Wesson by Mr. Jinks shows a photo of a K-frame .32 caliber revolver as designed in 1895. The revolver in the photo is an experimental model that was made by modifying a Colt 1892 Army Model. The gun in the book more or less "resembles" the gun posted above.
Bill
Bill
Model19man
Member
OK now I see what you mean. Here is the OP's gun and a pic of the M1896 First Model from the other thread, just to have both side by side for comparison sake.
See this thread, scroll down to post #16, 3rd photo down.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-ha...ctor-1896-first-model-fresh-gun-porn-4-u.html
It's those pesky rollmarks that make me think (hope?) the OP's gun is from the factory, but it may be all in vain
I saw Lee's enlarged photo of the logo and it appears double stamped (or a doubled image) which could explain why they look like asterisks instead of diamonds.
Other than that, I am very much a greenhorn with no opinion or knowledge to add. I will leave it to those with much greater experience and knowledge to sort out. It will be very interesting to see more photos with more detail showing.
Other than that, I am very much a greenhorn with no opinion or knowledge to add. I will leave it to those with much greater experience and knowledge to sort out. It will be very interesting to see more photos with more detail showing.
I'll second that. I have numerous Winchester 69As and 72s and Remington Nylon 22s that are not serial numbered. And I rather like their anonymity, in spite of the fact it makes establishing their manufacture dates a bit more esoteric. People were not so anal about the "need" for serial numbers back in the good old days, and such guns were quite common.
John
handejector
Staff member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 26,134
- Reaction score
- 47,053
I do think I was wrong about the diamonds.
I caught that this morning when I was blowing it up and looking at it again, but I did not have time to make the crude drawing below that shows what we mean.
I think it is simply a ghost image, not double stamped.
More pics will tell us a lot.......
Attachments
A lot to digest in this thread, and a lot of great info. Its interesting to have a gun that is somewhat baffling to even the most experienced collectors / historians.
If the gun IS S&W, why SA and why 41 Colt? If the gun is NOT S&W, wow does it appear well made.
Here is my question which really hasn't been discussed yet:
We have a gun that "41 long colt fits inside" without wiggle ? We have to assume the OP would also try a 44 S&W or the like to verify its at least 41 cal but smaller than 44. Given that, how do we explain why it was made in the caliber 41 colt (assuming that IS the cal) if in fact a S&W prototype? We have to assume the idea was to possibly make a larger number in the same caliber.
If you look at US sidearm development, in 1889 Colt churns out one of the first successful DA cartridge revolvers which was adopted by the US military (army and navy IIRC). Why would S&W make a revolver SA, which has traits in common with circa late 1890s S&Ws, when Colt already had a DA? Why would the US army or any other military consider a SA when the DA exists? Also, why the 41 colt? 45 cal was a proven man stopper and was well thought of, and later on we find out that the 38 colt was a little too weak for a military sidearm. The solution was then logically to marry the 45 (in this case 45 Colt) stopping power to a DA design, not a SA, hence the Colt 1909 army revolver. If the idea was the to split the difference, the prototype, if made by S&W, should have been an early DA IMO NOT a more primitive revolver type. In addition, as Lee said, why would they make this "prototype" when logically, it was made either right with a 1896 prototype, or perhaps made after the 1896 production began?
Also, in S&Ws history, you have S&W famously refuse to make any revolvers in 45 colt which the Army considered to be the best of both worlds, in most respects. Take the better design for military use (schofield or a model 3 derivatives) with the better cal, 45 colt. Why would S&W make anything in 41 colt AFTER that? Also, the 41 colt was never really that successful or well thought of (compared to 45 colt) for S&W to bother even making one prototype in that cal. The same is true if the intention was commercial. Its an older design coupled with a lack luster cartridge - what is the motive? I can't think of one.
Now of course, I am only saying this IF the gun is in fact 41 colt. It could be a cal that is close in width and length, but I don't know of any other one off the top of my head. A key to this puzzle is to 100% positively identify the cal, if it can be done.
There is little reason this is possible for many reasons in this thread and my post regarding the cal, if 41 colt.
If the gun IS S&W, why SA and why 41 Colt? If the gun is NOT S&W, wow does it appear well made.
Here is my question which really hasn't been discussed yet:
We have a gun that "41 long colt fits inside" without wiggle ? We have to assume the OP would also try a 44 S&W or the like to verify its at least 41 cal but smaller than 44. Given that, how do we explain why it was made in the caliber 41 colt (assuming that IS the cal) if in fact a S&W prototype? We have to assume the idea was to possibly make a larger number in the same caliber.
If you look at US sidearm development, in 1889 Colt churns out one of the first successful DA cartridge revolvers which was adopted by the US military (army and navy IIRC). Why would S&W make a revolver SA, which has traits in common with circa late 1890s S&Ws, when Colt already had a DA? Why would the US army or any other military consider a SA when the DA exists? Also, why the 41 colt? 45 cal was a proven man stopper and was well thought of, and later on we find out that the 38 colt was a little too weak for a military sidearm. The solution was then logically to marry the 45 (in this case 45 Colt) stopping power to a DA design, not a SA, hence the Colt 1909 army revolver. If the idea was the to split the difference, the prototype, if made by S&W, should have been an early DA IMO NOT a more primitive revolver type. In addition, as Lee said, why would they make this "prototype" when logically, it was made either right with a 1896 prototype, or perhaps made after the 1896 production began?
Also, in S&Ws history, you have S&W famously refuse to make any revolvers in 45 colt which the Army considered to be the best of both worlds, in most respects. Take the better design for military use (schofield or a model 3 derivatives) with the better cal, 45 colt. Why would S&W make anything in 41 colt AFTER that? Also, the 41 colt was never really that successful or well thought of (compared to 45 colt) for S&W to bother even making one prototype in that cal. The same is true if the intention was commercial. Its an older design coupled with a lack luster cartridge - what is the motive? I can't think of one.
Now of course, I am only saying this IF the gun is in fact 41 colt. It could be a cal that is close in width and length, but I don't know of any other one off the top of my head. A key to this puzzle is to 100% positively identify the cal, if it can be done.
There is little reason this is possible for many reasons in this thread and my post regarding the cal, if 41 colt.
Last edited:
How about this for a possibility:
A "lunch box" gun made from parts found at a tool room at S&W, where the inventor fabricated only the parts that don't fit in with what we've seen / know, such as the frame. This would explain the odd time period, odd features, odd cal, SA when DA had been around, etc. This guy then would have been able to have it blued at S&W before it was completed. He could have did it with a few other guys, just for fun, or maybe did it on lunch breaks for years. Because he was not well known, and not a braggart, the gun disappeared after he brought it home to never been seen again, until now!
A "lunch box" gun made from parts found at a tool room at S&W, where the inventor fabricated only the parts that don't fit in with what we've seen / know, such as the frame. This would explain the odd time period, odd features, odd cal, SA when DA had been around, etc. This guy then would have been able to have it blued at S&W before it was completed. He could have did it with a few other guys, just for fun, or maybe did it on lunch breaks for years. Because he was not well known, and not a braggart, the gun disappeared after he brought it home to never been seen again, until now!
I missed the post suggesting "41 S&W" which could be unverifiable, although that possibility makes more sense than 41 colt.
Masterpiece
Member
Lee,
That was my most logical observation right from the start, given the photo posted, & is why I asked how you came to the conclusions that it was incorrect as you did at first!! Hoping to view a clearer photo myself!!
Eddy's Shooting Sports
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2012
- Messages
- 37
- Reaction score
- 30
Sit tight guys. Probably won't be until Thursday for more pics.
As for the existing logo close up, I took it hand held with no flash so it is a very bad image.
Greg
As for the existing logo close up, I took it hand held with no flash so it is a very bad image.
Greg
When I think of this as a knockoff the 1st question that comes to mind is, a knockoff of what? What S&W existing model like this was there to knockoff?
When I think of S&W timeline, starting a comparison with the 1896 HE DA seems way to late. This mystery gun seems to have roots in the SA New Model #3 era. I ponder if Smith was considering a side swing cylinder as far back as that but needed to move forward with their breaktop DAs in 1880 to keep up with the market? Did a whole chapter of SA side swing cyl technology get bypassed and end up in the dust bin of history only to reincarnate in the 1896 32 HE and 1903 2nd Model in a new DA form?
Mystery gun indeed!
When I think of S&W timeline, starting a comparison with the 1896 HE DA seems way to late. This mystery gun seems to have roots in the SA New Model #3 era. I ponder if Smith was considering a side swing cylinder as far back as that but needed to move forward with their breaktop DAs in 1880 to keep up with the market? Did a whole chapter of SA side swing cyl technology get bypassed and end up in the dust bin of history only to reincarnate in the 1896 32 HE and 1903 2nd Model in a new DA form?
Mystery gun indeed!
Last edited:
This is a very interesting study of a very interesting revolver regardless of country of origin. And it definitely beats whats on TV or responding to another "What's my model 10 worth?"
Unfortunately, as I have stated it is a little before my area of interest as most of my collection dates from 1910 to 1975. I have looked again at my 1899 Navy that was shipped much later in September of 1910, however, I offer another observation for my fellow enthusiasts.
Although the thumbpiece of the mystery gun and my 1899 look very similar, the checking on mine consists of about 13 or 14 rows. The mystery gun has somewhere around 21.
That seems to be a significant difference in the checking pattern, but those with more samples from this era may find this fact irrelevant. I offer it only as another observation. I also note that the tip of the extractor button in the middle of the extractor star is flattish in the mystery gun and mine is more rounded. Seems that rounded would function a little smoother.
Unfortunately, as I have stated it is a little before my area of interest as most of my collection dates from 1910 to 1975. I have looked again at my 1899 Navy that was shipped much later in September of 1910, however, I offer another observation for my fellow enthusiasts.
Although the thumbpiece of the mystery gun and my 1899 look very similar, the checking on mine consists of about 13 or 14 rows. The mystery gun has somewhere around 21.
That seems to be a significant difference in the checking pattern, but those with more samples from this era may find this fact irrelevant. I offer it only as another observation. I also note that the tip of the extractor button in the middle of the extractor star is flattish in the mystery gun and mine is more rounded. Seems that rounded would function a little smoother.
Maybe this post would better fit the Antiques section.
Does any one have any details of the 41 S&W mentioned above and in Roy Jink's book on page 96 as one of the many calibers chambered in the #3?
Does any one have any details of the 41 S&W mentioned above and in Roy Jink's book on page 96 as one of the many calibers chambered in the #3?
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
