Walter Roper's 44 Double Action First Model

[Oldmanwesson]

This is apparently Walter Roper's 44 DA First Model, with an 8-inch barrel. Roy Jinks has had a look at it and conjectured that it was rebarelled when it was restored at the factory in 1930. This is based on his research of the original factory shipping ledgers which puts this gun into 1886, and having been shipped with a 6 inch barrel to MW Robinson. Looking at the gun I am wondering however how they managed to get a new barrel with the same serial number in the same font as the original some 44 years later. When you look at the numbers closely you see that the last digit "9" is a peculiar "squiggle" - something I have not seen on any other S&W I own, except a New Model No. 3 which was shipped in 1902. The number "7" is different too, and matches the font on the frame and cylinder. The New Model was available with a 8 inch barrel, so did this barrel come from a New Model, or was the barrel length mis-stated on the original ledger? The cartridge marking on the side of the barrel could be for either a Double Action or a New Model. Since the S&W top break barrels are forged with the hinge integral to the barrel, it's not just a matter of screwing a longer barrel into the frame like you can on a solid frame revolver. This thing had to be custom made, if it did not already exist. Frankly, it has me stumped...
The box it came in is also a bit of a mystery. The label refers to "the man that made the new barrel possible" - does that refer to Roper, or to the gunsmith who matched the 8 inch barrel to the frame? The second label has Walter's address on it and was obviously affixed after the first label. So, did Walter write the first label, and S&W put on the second? Or did Walter put on both labels, the second as his return address in case the gun and box got misplaced? The second label looks like it was cut out of a personalized envelope and the words "Smith & Wesson Springfield Mass." written in pencil underneath. Why would he need to address it to S&W? They already know who they are. According to Roy, the box is a correct 1920's S&W service department return box.
Walter Roper, by the way, was sales manager at S&W in the 1920's, and a renowned firearms designer and author. Walter designed a style of pistol grips which are still produced today. He also authored at least two books, one on pistol shooting and the other on S&W handguns. He also wrote many articles for a variety of gun magazines.
I know there are a lot of S&W experts here, so someone may have an alternative opinion on this theory...
Let's hear it!

 

[Model19man]

I do not claim to be knowledgeable on anything. However I have an early S&W hand ejector target model that was rebarreled in the 1950's despite being shipped in 1902. It has the same font on the barrel stamping and it has been stamped with the same serial number as the butt. My guess is that S&W never threw away anything and had the same stamps used in 1902 as they used in the rebarrelling in the 1950's. Your case may be exactly the same.

 

[BMur]

8” barrel

I’d first like to say: Wonderful piece! I adore the long barrel top breaks.

If it was an original 8” barrel from 1886 it would be the “extremely rare” two piece barrel. It does not look like a two piece barrel and also the barrel has a caliber stamped on the left side.

That did not happen until 1902. So the barrel is later than the frame and was at some point installed by the factory after that date. I have a few antique top breaks that were returned to the factory in the 1920’s and both of them still have barrels lacking caliber stamps. So they kept parts for quite a while I’m sure.

I believe Smith & Wesson kept dies for many years so stamping a replacement barrel after 1902 to match die stamps from 1886 I don’t think would have been an issue. Looks like they replaced or renumbered the cylinder with the refinish/restoration as well.

What is very unusual is what appears to be a long frame? Is this a 44 Russian?

Also, does it have the logo stamp on the frame? Right side?

Murph

 

[Oldmanwesson]

I’d first like to say: Wonderful piece! I adore the long barrel top breaks.

If it was an original 8” barrel from 1886 it would be the “extremely rare” two piece barrel. It does not look like a two piece barrel and also the barrel has a caliber stamped on the left side.

That did not happen until 1902. So the barrel is later than the frame and was at some point installed by the factory after that date. I have a few antique top breaks that were returned to the factory in the 1920’s and both of them still have barrels lacking caliber stamps. So they kept parts for quite a while I’m sure.

I believe Smith & Wesson kept dies for many years so stamping a replacement barrel after 1902 to match die stamps from 1886 I don’t think would have been an issue. Looks like they replaced or renumbered the cylinder with the refinish/restoration as well.

What is very unusual is what appears to be a long frame? Is this a 44 Russian?

Murph

Interesting thought. The barrel also does not have any of the patent dates on it so you are probably right. On the other hand, my 1902 shipped New Model also does not have any of the patent dates on it either. Just "Smith & Wesson, Springfield, Mass. USA" Maybe this is a late New Model barrel fitted to a 44 DA? The frame is the 1 9/16th variety, chambered in 44 Russian. With the serial number at 16xxx it ought to have had the shorter frame. Thank you for your input!

 

[Oldmanwesson]

oh, and yes, it has the logo stamp on the right side of the frame.

 

[BMur]

Logo Stamp

Yeah,
That logo stamp was not used until 1896 at the earliest. So this is a frontier frame. It’s not a first model DA short frame from 1886.

I honestly suspect this gun was assembled later at the factory with remaining parts. He as you mentioned was a sales manager so being an employee he might have had a gun assembled custom when this model was obsolete. That would be my guess. Lucky guy!

With an open mind? If you look closely at the grip frame stamp? It looks very flat to me. I’m just guessing here but that number may have been changed at the factory to assemble a matching gun.

It’s definitely a frontier frame. Only the very late 1st models have the long frame in 44 Russian. That could be the reason for changing the serial number to match.

Murph

 

[Modified]

Do you have some information aside from the label that leads you to believe it was Roper's gun?

My first thought there is that Roper had something to do with the barrel, but getting put on there, but I see nothing indicating it was his gun.

Does the SWHF have anything on the gun? They came up with an amazing document for my factory upgraded Model 3 DA: Updated: Model 3 DA, Factory Modified in '49, The SWHF is awesome!

 

[rct269]

As a complete aside, having nothing to do with this gun or any other gun, the esteemed Walter Roper authored at least three books (and a BUNCH of articles)---------the much maligned McHenry & Roper tomb, Pistol, and Revolver Shooting (1945), and Experiments Of A Handgunner (No date shown). I had all three, and gave away the first after I could no longer stand having it around---which most certainly should be blamed on McHenry; because my all time hero couldn't possibly have had very much to do with it------or so I hope and pray. The other two are LOADED with GOOD STUFF!!

Ralph Tremaine

 

[kwill1911]

What was (is) so horrible about the McHenry and Roper book? (Sorry to the OP for the highjack.)

 

[glowe]

Like any other book ever written on Smith & Wesson, there were errors. Horrible unforgiveable errors according to collectors. Just read about any thread on this Forum and you will see the minutia that collectors get into regarding every detail of model naming, part identification, years made and serial number range, ship dates to just list a few conversations that take place here every day.

Personally, I applaud them for the first complete work on the history of Smith & Wesson, being written 30 years before personal computers and the Internet.

 

[kwill1911]

Yes, there were errors but I don't find any "unforgiveable" mistakes. But it was published before there were many (any?) books for collectors and I still find it useful.

 

[rct269]

What was (is) so horrible about the McHenry and Roper book? (Sorry to the OP for the highjack.)

Nothing---at the time; but the time was when this know everything 17/18/19?? year old kid (now 86) had his very first S&W target gun---a NM #3 in .44 Russian----and target sights. BUT---this know everything kid didn't know beans from apple butter about this gun------and he desperately wanted to learn---lest he, in fact, become known as NOT knowing everything. So he bought this book so as to become an expert-------or not. When, all of a sudden, this know everything kid actually came to know at least more than a little bit, (at least about some of this stuff), one of the things he came to know (mostly thanks to N&J), he came to know that more than a little bit of McHenry & Roper either wasn't so at all----or wildly incomplete----and he got mad. Then, more time having passed, he happened upon a quote from one of our more well known and esteemed associates (which I shouldn't be talking about here because I don't remember the entirety of the quote that went something along these lines): Roper's a (something??), and McHeny's a drunk. Given the reputation of he to whom these disparaging comments were attributed, I took them as gospel----still do---most of the time.

Then, after a whole bunch more time passed-----and a whole bunch more books (and stuff) had come to fill his bookcase and mind, he was still mad----maybe even madder.

Then he came across an inquiry (probably here) about where one might come across a copy of the McHenry & Roper book---and I gave him my copy.

I suspect, without knowing the first fact of the matter, that McHenry (seeking validation of his wisdom) somehow got Roper (one of my all time heros) to sign on as co-author of this book-----so it'd sell----which, of course, is most certainly why the book was written.

It's sort of like fishing tackle, which a lot of folks will tell you is made to catch fish. I will tell you it's made to sell to fishermen.

Ralph Tremaine

 

[Oldmanwesson]

Do you have some information aside from the label that leads you to believe it was Roper's gun?

My first thought there is that Roper had something to do with the barrel, but getting put on there, but I see nothing indicating it was his gun.

Does the SWHF have anything on the gun? They came up with an amazing document for my factory upgraded Model 3 DA: Updated: Model 3 DA, Factory Modified in '49, The SWHF is awesome!

No, just the box and Roy Jink's "musings". Apparently there is no record of this gun having been returned to the factory except for the re-work stamp 4-30. Roper having been sales manager, he would probably have gotten this work done for free, and no invoice or record would have been kept. Hard to say.
Murph, I compared the bottom of the grip strap to my late model 44 Double Action and it, too, is flat and definitely not refinished or restored. I think the frame is unaltered. The grips are also unaltered, and if anything the frame is just a hair proud of the grips on the bottom. The serial number would suggest that the long frame is accurate. Maybe they had unnumbered frames kicking around and put the number of the barrel onto the frame to match it. Maybe it's not a matter of them fitting a new barrel to a frame, but a new frame to an existing barrel?? The barrel couldn't be from an existing New Model because that would put the number into about 1884/85, and the barrel markings are definitely post-1900 it would seem... Looks like we may never know.

 

[Oldmanwesson]

Interesting thought. The barrel also does not have any of the patent dates on it so you are probably right. On the other hand, my 1902 shipped New Model also does not have any of the patent dates on it either. Just "Smith & Wesson, Springfield, Mass. USA" Maybe this is a late New Model barrel fitted to a 44 DA? The frame is the 1 9/16th variety, chambered in 44 Russian. With the serial number at 16xxx it ought to have had the shorter frame. Thank you for your input!

My bad. The book says the long frame started at 15340...

 

[iby]

Such a unique and fine gun deserves a better picture

 

[BMur]

Long frame

My bad. The book says the long frame started at 15340...

The long frame was introduced for the Frontier cartridge. Longer cartridge, longer frame and cylinder. I’ve seen a few late long frame 44 Russian DA’s in the high serial number range over 40,000.
The real issue that I see is that post 1896 logo on the right side frame.

Does the grip have a 1930 return to factory stamp? If not this gun was likely assembled late from remaining parts leftover at the factory.

Where did the 1930 date come from? Obviously that date has been recorded at the factory for this gun?

Murph

 

[glowe]

The long cylinder did not exist until the introduction of the 44 DA Frontier in 44 Winchester. The date of the Frontier's introduction was 1886, and the serial number range for the 44 Russian DA in 1886 was approximately 15,000, so that was the earliest that you would find a long cylinder in 44 Russian. Reality was that the short cylinder was also used until all the inventoried cylinders and frames were used up, so a lot of overlap. Roy Jinks states that long cylinder 44 Russians were used late in production, so there is some discrepancy in the actual date and serial number when the first long cylilnder was used on a 44 Russian DA.

 

[Model19man]

Maybe they had unnumbered frames kicking around and put the number of the barrel onto the frame to match it. Maybe it's not a matter of them fitting a new barrel to a frame, but a new frame to an existing barrel?? The barrel couldn't be from an existing New Model because that would put the number into about 1884/85, and the barrel markings are definitely post-1900 it would seem... Looks like we may never know.

No it isn't. We do know that S&W stamped the revolver's serial number onto a new barrel if one was fitted at the factory. My revolver and many others are like that. Yours is not unique in that regard.

 

[BMur]

Rework stamp

Sorry,
I missed your post regarding the 4-30 rework stamp. Can you post a photo of that stamp?
I think all the issues can be filled in by that rework stamp. To me that stamp says it all.
They could have stamped the frame with the logo at the time of the rework. Any Serial number alterations were definitely applied at the time of the rework and factory refinishing as well. It’s all factory work so as a collector I think it’s a great long barrel example that was applied at the factory. That’s all that matters in my book.

The only real mystery to me is their choice of serial number. This frame actually may have been a 44 WCF Frontier frame that was never assembled. It’s very close to the highest number produced. They may have had a lot of Frontier frames leftover.

That rework stamp could actually represent a factory assembly stamp. In other words, this gun wasn’t returned in 1930, it was assembled in 1930 as a special order.


Murph

 

[rct269]

"--------------it was assembled in 1930------------."

Now there's a thought that makes a lot of sense!!

Roper's S&W career began in 1920---thereabouts. I don't know when he left, but whether he was still there in 1930 or not; he most certainly had the contacts necessary to get a "government job" done------such as getting this gun put together.

Ralph Tremaine