Help with differences of opinion on a 1917 S&W

[mdmorrissey]

I recently picked this up as a winning bidder on an on-line auction. The auction stated " has 99% of its blue. All matching including grips. There is a bursting bomb on the left side of the frame and base of the grip is marked U.S. Army 1917. Overall excellent condition." When I received it, I immediately noticed an obvious difference in the bluing on the barrel vs the rest of the gun (the barrel had a darker, more polished blued look to it). Flipping it over, I noticed that there were no "USP" markings on the bottom of the barrel, nor any other military inspector markings. While numbered to the rest of the gun, the serial number on the barrel flat looks like it may have been an overstrike of an earlier number (you can make out one of the earlier digits). Other than that, the gun was as advertised - all matching (including right grip panel).

I went back to the seller stating that this gun has been rebarreled at some point and that I didn't feel the auction desicription was accurate. To me a rebarrel should have been mentioned and/or at least a photograph of the serial number should have been included (yes, my stupidity for not thinking of asking). He came back stating that while not common, the lack of the "USP" markings would be normal for a mid-1918 made gun as S&W was trying to push them out for the war effort. He is sticking by his claim that the gun is 100% original, as made in mid-1918.

IMHO, this gun came home and sometime after the war was rebarreled with a left over, non-military contract barrel. I am not sure that S&W did the work because there are absolutely no rebuild stamps on the left grip frame under the stocks.

Anyway, the seller suggested that we put it forth to this Forum to get their input. If I am wrong, then I will have learned something new from the group and will thank you and apologize to the seller. If I am correct, then I think the seller needs to brush up on his S&W knowledge. Not trying to get anyone on the Forum in the middle of an argument - just wanted to rely on the collective knowledge to possibly help settle a difference of opinion. Thanks in advance!

 

[mdmorrissey]

Here are a couple of more pix. I know not the best, but I snapped them quickly and believe they are sufficient for the question at hand.

 

[mrcvs]

The pictures demonstrate clearly that this revolver does not contain 99% of its original bluing. It's considerably less and the revolver may have sustained an old reblue. The numbers on the underside of the barrel have clearly been restamped and modified at a later date.

 

[Modified]

Obvious replacement barrel.

Even if the Serial Stamping weren't an issue, the bottom of the barrel should say UNITED STATES PROPERTY.

edit: grabbed one of mine and realized they didnt say US, they said the full united states.

 

[Muley Gil]

Please post a picture of the right side of the revolver.

 

[murphydog]

The auction stated "...has 99% of its blue. All matching including grips. There is a bursting bomb on the left side of the frame and base of the grip is marked U.S. Army 1917. Overall excellent condition."

You can debate percentages of finish (loss), but this is within the limits of truth.

"He came back stating that while not common, the lack of the "USP" markings would be normal for a mid-1918 made gun as S&W was trying to push them out for the war effort. He is sticking by his claim that the gun is 100% original, as made in mid-1918."

This is a whopper . Since there are no factory rework stampings, it is possible the barrel was a replacement and stamped at the factory with the frame SN, as the barrel number font and size look factory. WW I was ongoing and they were in a hurry.

But even if so, the absence of the "USP" rollmark means someone removed it and (appears to have) cold blued over the area. So not correct or original.

 

[mdmorrissey]

Here are pix of the right side of the revolver as requested

 

[Muley Gil]

Looks re-blued to me.

 

[StrawHat]

That has a cold blue appearance to me.

The lack of stamping on the bottom of the barrel means it could be a barrel from the commercial series after the war. I am not aware of ANY Model 1917s that were accepted by the military that did not have all of the markings.

After the war, the military caused S&W to purchase back many of the frame and other parts for the Model 1917s. Since they were usable, S&W built commercial revolvers with them, some 45, some 44. You can find them with a variety of acceptance marks on them.

(edit to ad) Commercial 1917s usually had the small S&W logo beneath the cylinder release and I do not see that.

Kevin

 

[mrcvs]

Yes, an old reblue.

The poor fit of the sideplate tells me that for certain. The tone of the blue certainly suggests this as well.

 

[smithra_66]

It's definitely not an original gun. The question is, were these pictures clearly presented? Also, was the gun sold "as 99%" and did you PAY that much?

Surely you'd have to know that a 1917 in original, 99% condition goes for A LOT of money. If you were trying to get something that was too good to be true (i.e. get a 99% 1917 for less than probably 2 grand - 2500+), it looks like you did (if you did!).

The gun looks like a nice shooter, however the lack of the UNITED STATES PROPERTY, for me, would have been an instant no-go (because I'm looking for one that is original). That should have been conspicuous to you as well.

It's a very obvious re-blue / barrel job. When and where that took place, who knows? But the gun overall doesn't look bad in my opinion...just not original, and refinished (decently). He's right that it is "all matching." The barrel is re-numbered to the gun, and it looks like the same type of barrel used on 1917s...but the property mark is either polished off or it was a non-WWI barrel...could have even by done by S&W in a rebuild for WW2, etc. Soldiers took these things home and scratched off the markings too.

If the seller provided all of these pictures then it could just be a learning experience for you. The gun simply looks in too good a shape from pictures to be demanding "vintage" when you get it. You'd have to know it's not. However if the seller said it was vintage original then you'd think he'd simply take it back since you're not happy.

One sale is not worth an unhappy customer. He'll easily sell it if you don't want it. He should have clearly disclosed the lack of a property stamp on the barrel I would think. If he sells these types of guns much at all, he definitely knew it was a rebarrel.

If you don't mind me asking, what did the gavel fall at on it?

 

[murphydog]

The sideplate seam looks pretty thin to me. If the surfaces are clean it may be a reblue or perhaps it just needs a good waxing, if you are keeping it.

 

[mrcvs]

What does the sideplate have to do with the barrel?

The seam of the sideplate should be much less perceptible, suggesting that it may have sustained rebluing as well—in addition to the barrel.

Compare to the fit of the sideplate to this Triple Lock revolver.

 

[smithra_66]

The seam of the sideplate should be much less perceptible, suggesting that it may have sustained rebluing as well—in addition to the barrel.

Compare to the fit of the sideplate to this Triple Lock revolver.

Sorry I deleted my original question because I misread what you wrote...I thought you said the sideplate indicates a REBARREL but you actually said REBLUE.

You're correct on the latter.

 

[walnutred]

Could the barrel have been replaces by a Unit Armorer?

 

[StrawHat]

Could the barrel have been replaces by a Unit Armorer?

If it was, I believe it should have the UNITED STATES PROPERTY marks and the rework numbers.

Kevin

 

[murphydog]

Not to mention he would not have had the means or motivation to stamp a matching number on the barrel.

 

[lestert357]

This is what a 98/99% 1917 Army looks like…..

 

[Retired W4]

This is what a 98/99% 1917 Army looks like…..

SOLD. Where do I send the check?

 

[mrcvs]

Okay, so after all these opinions, most or all of which were sound advice, what was the outcome or resolution?