Mystery Gun- What is it?

[Oyeboteb]

Yes, nice mentions there dave Nash.


I myself felt strongly from the get-go, that this is an authentic S & W Revolver, representing a one off or one of a small batch possibly, who's purpose at the time, seems hard to fathom now.

Pardon me please for not remembering who, but, a respondant had reminded us, that in the 1890s, some Foreign Accounts ( Japan, and Russia, particularly ) may have been particularly interested in a Revolver ( and I am now elaborating a little in addition - ) which while Single Action, would combine the appeal of the Swing Out Cylinder , roughly exclusive to, and associated with the then still fairly 'new' DA Colt, but with the more renown or at least less frail Lockwork of the S & W, and or, if memory serve, these particular Foreign Accounts had been S & W Accounts anyway, and, not buyers of Colts...so, possibly this Revolver could represent something from such a narrow and brief time period of context.

While I myself felt that a Swing out Cylinder "DA" Lockwork, could always be very easily modified to be "SA" or "DA" only or be both, thus recommending an S & W Swing Out Cylinder 'DA' design, as something which would have served the interest of 'SA' afficionados when set up that way, as well as offering something for those prefering a 'DA', when set up as SA-DA in what we now regard as the usual fashion.

There does appear to me ( at a glance anyway,) to be enough 'meat' in the Cylinder Walls of this .41 ( possibly or probably if not definitely .41 S & W Cartridge ) Revolver, for it to have just as easily been in .44...too.

Anyway, what fun..!

 

[Hondo44]

Varangi measured the Cylinder length - 1.516", but there was no cyl diameter given. However I too believe there is enough meat for a .45 Schofield or .44 Russian of that era; certainly enough length.

 

[sw195611]

Have you tried to call Roy Jinks at Smith & Wesson.? He is a wealth of information. Just a thought.

 

[Varangi]

It was inferred in earlier posts that the who's who of S&W were having their own conversations regarding this gun. I would assume that if anything tangible came from these conversations, we mortals would of been informed. Thanks for re-juvinating this thread-

Mike

 

[sw195611]

Okay. I didn't read all 7 pages of this post. Sorry. Has anyone suggested sending it to Roy to explore and get a letter to confirm it's origin?

 

[Wiregrassguy]

Roy has already weighed in that he didn't have a clue. Besides, he's on vacation until Oct. 25.

 

[Goony]

Okay. I didn't read all 7 pages of this post. Sorry. Has anyone suggested sending it to Roy to explore and get a letter to confirm it's origin?

Letters confirm shipping data based upon logs that reference serial numbers. This gun has no serial or other identifying number, so even if genuine, is unlikely to have been shipped as were production models, so a letter in the normal sense is probably not feasible. I also don't believe it's going to be sent or brought to S&W for authentication anytime in the foreseeable future, and even if that was done, I'm not sure who's there in this day and age who could pronounce judgment upon it solely on a technical basis.

Roy has been kept abreast of developments in this thread, but hasn't recognized this gun as anything he's familiar with from the standpoint of the company's history. If documentation exists, it undoubtedly lies outside the usual shipping and factory floor records. What of that which pertains to the realm of prototypes, experimental models, or capricious one-offs may have survived, I don't know. Perhaps that issue can be taken up with Roy when he gets back.

 

[bullboo1]

I think it might be a custo order revolver for a Military Officer or rich guy...

 

[3rdRRU_PhuBai]

If that's a rampant Colt mark on the right hand side it's not a S&W revolver.

 

[ddixie884]

This is way above my head, and I have read the entire thread at one sitting. I am very interested in further info, and enjoyed all the varied input. THANX.......

 

[kilroy2721]

Tagged for future reference.

 

[twaits]

I'm a johnny come lately on this thread but...
Most foreign S&W knock offs I have seen have been considerably more crude in manufacture than the subject revolver here. This revolver has the same beautiful S&W finish you would expect on the real deal. Also compare this picture of the cylinder markings on my 1896 next to the subject revolver on your computer screen. They look almost identical. And by almost I really only see a slight difference in the "SS" in MASS. But they probably had more than one die to make this mark so I could see that they might not all look exactly alike. But also note the size. Its a little smaller looking on the cylinder of the bigger gun. This leads me to believe it is the same die that was used to stamp the 1896 .32 caliber revolvers. Real S&W in my opinion. Just my 2 cents.
This is a fascinating thread!

 

[Gunz50]

I have been following this very interesting thread for a while now, I have nothing to add, but, I don't remember reading anything about the innards .
Has any one seen what the inner workings look like? any pic of them?

thanks, Bob

 

[Buford57]

I have been following this very interesting thread for a while now, I have nothing to add, but, I don't remember reading anything about the innards .
Has any one seen what the inner workings look like? any pic of them?

thanks, Bob

Mystery SW pictures by gdict - Photobucket

Buried somewhere on page 4.

 

[FBullseye]

a couple of ideas

The museum director mentions several auctions in which Rock Island Arsenal guns were sold. Auction catalogues for those sales may be buried somewhere in their files, or the auctioneer's, or the local library, or area gun collector's files. The caliber in this case should be a tale-tell. That's one lead to explore.

I see no need to assume the gentleman acquired the gun by, uh, alternative means. He'd seen it and liked it, it was up for sale, he bought it. But it need not even come from the the Arsenal itself. He was in the purchasing dept, there. Maybe he got it direct from S&W, who knows.

And the owner should get it lettered, especially, if you will, since it has no serial. Expert opinion is very important but having it in print, from the factory historian, to go with the gun, is essential. No matter what little he ends up being comfortable writing down. It stays. And it won't cost a fortune.

Speaking of which, I believe this gun to be very interesting, be it a prototype or something for some reason made of pieces (with seven pages of facts and factoids before me, I am pretty sure it is not an Eibar copy, which is what fist occured to me), may be worth a cosidereable amount but not a fortune, so things may have to be held in perspective as to the depht of the research. If it were my gun, I'd try to find out no matter what, but I don't think it's been mentioned what the owner's deal is.

At any rate, a fascinating thread indeed! And just when the forum decidedes to send/ISP decides to let through my first weekly update!

 

[Hondo44]

I have been following this very interesting thread for a while now, I have nothing to add, but, I don't remember reading anything about the innards .
Has any one seen what the inner workings look like? any pic of them?

thanks, Bob

Hi Bob,
I see that Buford57 has given you the link for the photos of the innards. One has only to look at the Radiographs (like Xrays) of the internals of S&W revolvers beginning on page 350 of Neal & Jinks, to see the matching lockwork of the Mystery gun in the following models quoted below from my posts #152 pg 4 & #225 on pg 5:

1. NM #3 1st model SA lockwork, frame shape, trigger guard location and hammer spur similarity.
2. Trigger spring shape and anchor of the Mod 3 Russian 2nd & 3rd models, and 1st and 2nd Model Schofields.
3. Higher frame hump than NM #3 [on the mystery gun] required to make room for the thumbpiece/cylinder bolt, plunger and spring.

that these observable facts tell us more about the vintage of its crafting and Smith's design period of the Swinging cyl, thumbpiece and solid frame features as earlier rather than later; especially the absence of the newer DA lockwork of the Mod 1896.

Hope this helps,

 

[Hondo44]

FBullseye,
Welcome to the fourm and in particular to the Mystery Gun thread. Thanks for your thoughts as well.

And the owner should get it lettered, especially, if you will, since it has no serial.

Unfortunately, the information for "letters" is taken from the shipping records which is accessed by serial #. And it is highly doubtful the MG went thru the normal shipping process in any case.

If it were my gun, I'd try to find out no matter what, but I don't think it's been mentioned what the owner's deal is.

Not sure what you mean by "the owner's deal". He knows who he got it from and it's not for sale, at least not until its identity can be pinned down if possible. Is that what you meant?

 

[FBullseye]

Hi there, it's good to be back. Had not been really active since the transition to the new forum. Lots of new names and a few old ones. Are Osprey and Smitnut still around? What about Jim Supica himself? I loved their posts.

I am aware letters are normally a plain statement the date of manufacture according to the serial and to whom/where the gun was originally shipped, but I speculate, perhaps wrongly so, that there being no SN (provided S&W agrees they made the thing at all), given the unusual, to say the least, configuration, and having aroused the interest of the said factory historian extraordinaire on the parallel forum (as we are told it has), they may think it wise to dig a bit deeper than usual (a note accompanying the factory letter request from the forum's powers that be, if one can be obtained, saying this is the very gun that was discussed at some length would not hurt, I guess). And if at all possible I would not send pics, I'd send the gun.

And yes, I meant to say that it was not clear to me what the owner's intentions were when he took it to the gun shop to had it looked at. Usually people do that with a prospect to sell the thing.

If it was brought to me, I'd recommend to have it inspected first hand by an expert (preferably one I consider that than one that calls himself that) and ask him to put his observations in writing (or at least agree to have me quote him on the matter in my own catalogue description).

Another thing about the provenance: is the story corroborated in some way? Sometimes people do not intend to mislead but rather fill in the holes in the story with what they consider evident and you would not necessarily do. For example, great-grandpa West was a known gun guy, the gun was among dad's possessions, and there is no doubt in the grand-granddaughter's mind it's been in the family for ages, even though she didn't even know the gun existed. This may not be the case here, and in fact the story seems to add up, but I'd need some more to validate it (some sort of paperwork, ideally--heck, a pic of old Mr West holding a gun that looks a bit like it at least).

FBullseye,
Welcome to the fourm and in particular to the Mystery Gun thread. Thanks for your thoughts as well.



Unfortunately, the information for "letters" is taken from the shipping records which is accessed by serial #. And it is highly doubtful the MG went thru the normal shipping process in any case.



Not sure what you mean by "the owner's deal". He knows who he got it from and it's not for sale, at least not until its identity can be pinned down if possible. Is that what you meant?

 

[Oyeboteb]

Oh my...had not seen those Photobucket images before now. Very interesting..!

Are we satisfied this Revolver is not .44-40 / .44 WCF /1873 Winchester Chambering?

 

[Hondo44]

Oh my...had not seen those Photobucket images before now. Very interesting..!

Are we satisfied this Revolver is not .44-40 / .44 WCF /1873 Winchester Chambering?

In the photos referenced and linked to above, there appears to be only a square shoulder in the chambers. Of course a bottled neck round would have two; 1st a sloping shoulder then a square shoulder.

So yes, I am at least. In post #157 pg 4, Mike provided the following and I quote:
"Chamber length- 1.055" [to shoulder]
Cylinder bore at recoil shield- .410"- .412"
at forcing cone- .387"- .391"."

And we confirmed with Mike that he means 'chamber mouth' and 'chamber throat' respectively.
That's pretty conclusive that it's chambered for a .41 caliber cartridge but to short for the .41 Long Colt case (1.628"), the modern version with inside lubricated bullet of .386" diameter. The earlier heeled bullet LC (.936" case) would fit but the .401" bullet requires a charge hole and could not be used in a chamber with a shoulder like the mystery gun. The chamber length to shoulder of 1.055" reportedly matches the .41 S&W cartridge (post # 19, pg. 1) which was chambered in the Smith NM #3 albeit rare production caliber.