RM Vivas
US Veteran
One of the things I observed in the recent SWCA article “The First 500” was that S&W/DBW would, upon request and submission of the old Registration Certificate, issue a new Registration Certificate if the subject RM changed hands.
The procedure for doing this was that one party would contact S&W/DBW and provide the ‘old’(seller’s) certificate with a notation that the gun was changing hands, and provide the new name and address for the ‘new’ (buyer’s) certificate.
In this way, there would never be more than one certificate in circulation for any given gun.
My observations have been that this generally held true, although there were a few instances where anew certificate was issued without the old one being returned. Typically, the seller would attest that the old certificate was lost or destroyed.
History requiring documentation for theories, I have attached some correspondence that reflects such a transaction for --just one gun--, RM#46, s/n 45894. These particular documents are from the SWHF and identified as: D:\Customers\Smith_Wesson\Records\DVD1_11-19-2009\0\1\1691.tif
This is not a 'one off'; there were multiple instances of Registration Certificates being re-issued subsequent to a revolvers changing of hands.
Note that the seller:
Identifies himself as the purchaser
Identifies the name and address of the seller
Note that the ‘old’ Registration Certificate was ‘endorsed’ by the seller
It’s worth noting as well that this particular transaction reinforces the proviso that I placed in the article that all the information in the article was based upon the records generated --at the time of the gun being ordered--. The information in the article --did not-- address subsequent work done by the factory at a later date that might have changed the subject RM from its original configuration, or in this case, where the gun ultimately wound up. This is where a SWHF Deep Dive pays off!
Anyway, the take-way from this should be thus:
1) The factory would, under specific circumstances, issue a new Registration Certificate when a revolver changed hands
2) A Registration Certificate should NOT be considered unimpeachable proof of an RM’s configuration without checking to see what the -original- shipping data/invoice/order said.
There is a great deal of info on the RM’s that is in the SWHF archives that is under the radar; it lies unseen and undisturbed mainly because it is labelled in such a way that it’s true value/content is masked.
I’m working on fixing that.
Best,
RM Vivas
The procedure for doing this was that one party would contact S&W/DBW and provide the ‘old’(seller’s) certificate with a notation that the gun was changing hands, and provide the new name and address for the ‘new’ (buyer’s) certificate.
In this way, there would never be more than one certificate in circulation for any given gun.
My observations have been that this generally held true, although there were a few instances where anew certificate was issued without the old one being returned. Typically, the seller would attest that the old certificate was lost or destroyed.
History requiring documentation for theories, I have attached some correspondence that reflects such a transaction for --just one gun--, RM#46, s/n 45894. These particular documents are from the SWHF and identified as: D:\Customers\Smith_Wesson\Records\DVD1_11-19-2009\0\1\1691.tif
This is not a 'one off'; there were multiple instances of Registration Certificates being re-issued subsequent to a revolvers changing of hands.
Note that the seller:
Identifies himself as the purchaser
Identifies the name and address of the seller
Note that the ‘old’ Registration Certificate was ‘endorsed’ by the seller
It’s worth noting as well that this particular transaction reinforces the proviso that I placed in the article that all the information in the article was based upon the records generated --at the time of the gun being ordered--. The information in the article --did not-- address subsequent work done by the factory at a later date that might have changed the subject RM from its original configuration, or in this case, where the gun ultimately wound up. This is where a SWHF Deep Dive pays off!
Anyway, the take-way from this should be thus:
1) The factory would, under specific circumstances, issue a new Registration Certificate when a revolver changed hands
2) A Registration Certificate should NOT be considered unimpeachable proof of an RM’s configuration without checking to see what the -original- shipping data/invoice/order said.
There is a great deal of info on the RM’s that is in the SWHF archives that is under the radar; it lies unseen and undisturbed mainly because it is labelled in such a way that it’s true value/content is masked.
I’m working on fixing that.
Best,
RM Vivas
Last edited:
