deadin
US Veteran
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....)
1899 & 1902 US Navy's
- Thread starter DEL56
- Start date
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?
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?
Last edited:
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".
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.
Attachments
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
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.
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.
Attachments
Last edited:
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.
Gratuitous photo:
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 26,096
- Reaction score
- 46,828
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.
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
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.
deadin
US Veteran
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......
AFAIK, #1917 is still in Australia......
Last edited:
Memphis
Member
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
Roger
Navy, wet. Army, dry? Just thinkin'.
deadin
US Veteran
Over the years I've owned only one 1899 Army. I've had two 1902 Navy's. (Still have one of them)
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.
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??
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
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.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 26,096
- Reaction score
- 46,828
OP
DEL56
Member
Check out Page 19 and you'll see more data.
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!
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
Charles W. Pate
“U.S. Handguns of World War II”
[ame="https://www.amazon.com/U-S-Handguns-World-War-II/dp/0917218752/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=charles+pate&qid=1587860115&sr=8-1"]Amazon.com: U.S. Handguns of World War II (9780917218750): Charles W. Pate: Books[/ame]
OP
DEL56
Member
Wouldn't be willing to part with the tool would you?
Similar threads
