Need to ID k frame pistol for criminal case

[Jim Watson]

No.
Clearly identified above, it is a WWII era British Service Revolver converted to .22 after being declared redundant.

It has many physical characteristics inconsistent with manufacture before 1905 and Smith & Wesson can put a date to it from existing company records... if asked.

Good luck with your 1899 bafflegab and be sure to strike anybody who knows anything about guns from the jury.

 

[DWalt]

No.
Clearly identified above, it is a WWII era British Service Revolver converted to .22 after being declared redundant.

It has many physical characteristics inconsistent with manufacture before 1905 and Smith & Wesson can put a date to it from existing company records... if asked.

Good luck with your 1899 bafflegab and be sure to strike anybody who knows anything about guns from the jury.

Heartily agree. The .22 M&P conversion differs in many internal mechanical respects from a superficially similar S&W revolver first made in 1899. Under Federal law, guns made PRiOR TO 1/1/1899 are classified as “antiques.” That S&W K-frame revolver design was made only after that date. MA law may differ from Federal law on that point, but it would be surprising if it did. In any event, it will not be possible to successfully argue that the specific pre-conversion revolver was made any earlier than around 1940 based on its serial number. Unless the prosecutor is totally clueless about guns.

 

[AudieMurphy]

You might try the manufacturer.

what manufacter??....there isnt any listed on the gun

 

[DWalt]

what manufacter??....there isnt any listed on the gun

The side plate should have the S&W logo stamped on it.

 

[Wiregrassguy]

The serial number has no letters starts with 7xX956. 6 round cylendar that spins left. 1 stamp on the cylinder is British military police. There’s a second stamp we can’t make out from the photos but hopefully going to inspect in person next week. No stamps on the barrel.

What you describe is a Smith & Wesson .38 Military & Police hand ejector made for the British Commonwealth in 1940/41. The stamp you call British Military Police is likely a Birmingham Nitro Proof (BNP) stamp that is a required safety test under UK law before a former military weapon can be sold to the general public. Typically, each chamber on the cylinder was tested and stamped. Some of these stamps may have been removed when the gun was modified. The original barrel would have also been proofed and stamped. But, as someone else pointed out, the barrel was likely replaced as part of the modification.


The .38 M&P hand ejector was first produced in 1899. However, the engineering design changed multiple times before this particular gun was made. The engineering characteristics of this gun are obviously much newer than 1899 to a knowledgeable person.


If you want an authoritarian source for this gun, buy a copy of the Standard Catalog of S&W, 4th Edition by Supica and Nahas. The design of the gun is pointed out in detail along with its production dates. BTW, the 5th Edition should be on sale shortly.

 

[BostonGunlawyer]

I do very much appreciate the feedback and information. As suggested the prosecutor in this case, much like the lawyers who right the gun laws of this state, is absolutely clueless about firearms. Which is why they are looking to put a 60 year old man in jail for 18 months because of this gun he found in a shoebox when his father died. Can’t make it up.

But it seems like in total you’ve have solved most of my question - that if I dig enough or present competent witnesses I’m eventually going to find proof it’s not pre 1900. So now the plan is to put in enough evidence and make the government have to do that….

Are there any known pre-1900 models of S&Ws that share similiar characteristics with this pistol?

 

[Gun Relics]

Hy thanks for all the quick response. Gonna try to answer some questions.

First off I can’t tell if the pics are coming out clear through the forum. I’ll post some more shortly cause it appears some people are able to see them.

How it helps the case is that the government can’t ID when it was manufactured.in MA a firearm manufacture before 1900 is exempt from requiring a license. There are some modelconsistent with that began being manufactured in 1899. Keep in mind that I don’t have to prove this specific gun was made in 1899, they have to prove it wasn’t, which they can’t. So long as I can tie it one one of the models that started production in 1899.



The serial number has no letters starts with 7xX956. 6 round cylendar that spins left. 1 stamp on the cylinder is British military police. There’s a second stamp we can’t make out from the photos but hopefully going to inspect in person next week. No stamps on the barrel.

Pics to come.

I don't think it's worth pursuing this angle. Since it's been modified it doesn't matter if it's made prior to 1899.

Firearms - Guides - Importation & Verification of Firearms - National Firearms Act Definitions - Antique Firearm | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

 

[Gun Relics]

I do very much appreciate the feedback and information. As suggested the prosecutor in this case, much like the lawyers who right the gun laws of this state, is absolutely clueless about firearms. Which is why they are looking to put a 60 year old man in jail for 18 months because of this gun he found in a shoebox when his father died. Can’t make it up.

But it seems like in total you’ve have solved most of my question - that if I dig enough or present competent witnesses I’m eventually going to find proof it’s not pre 1900. So now the plan is to put in enough evidence and make the government have to do that….

Are there any known pre-1900 models of S&Ws that share similiar characteristics with this pistol?

In CA even with our strict laws, if a firearm is handed down from a family member and all other legalities are met, that is considered a private transfer. It is not illegal to not register the gun while possesing it, however, there is a means to do so and it is recommended to avoid this situation. I registered 4 family handguns on a private basis like this through the CA CFARS system before I obtained my FFL's.

I'm sure you've already pursued this route. Unfortunately, my assumption is your client is not allowed to legally posses a handgun.

 

[handejector]

Are there any known pre-1900 models of S&Ws that share similiar characteristics with this pistol?

Basically, NO. The internal mechanism of that gun did not exist till the Model of 1905- 1st Change which first appeared in 1906. Any expert witness with a copy of Smith And Wesson 1857-1945 by Neal and Jinks and a screwdriver could show the Court that the gun contains a rebound slide. That part had never been seen before 1906.

 

[BostonGunlawyer]

I appreciate everyone’s trying to walk me away from this route, but this is what makes me good at what I do.

You are all looking at from the perspective of gun owners and what they are held to be in compliance, which make sense. You want to know exactly what you have so you don’t run into this.

I don’t care if this gun was made pre-1900, I care if they can prove it wasn’t.

Currently the only ballistics expert they have is prepared to testify at trial might as well be looking at a boot because he has no idea what this is, or when it was manufactured. His primary job is to see if it can fire or not and then he moves on to the next one. He’s not very invested in what this is.

So for example, if there are models that are consistent with this, made pre-1900, their expert even with a screw driver is not going to open it up and look at the internal mechanisms of the firearm.


Keep in mind this is not some Netflix Movie murder case, it’s a possession case that under our obscene gun laws require a mandatory 18 months in jail. Their expert, who likely agrees how ridiculous the laws are, is not going to invest much time into putting this 60 year old doing nothing wrong with gun in jail.

That’s a long winded way of saying, I need evidence other models existed, and then it’s up to them to open it up to say it’s not, and the can’t/wont.

 

[jb28]

I'm not a collector, or have the knowledge of probably almost everyone here. But the 38 hand ejector, model 1899 looks like the same frame. I guess you could argue it was converted to .22 with a more modern barrel having the locking lug etc.
It wouldn't hold water if they opened it up, but you said they wouldn't do that. That leave the serial number to get around if it has one.
Pic at the bottom of page 56/17 here.
https://americansocietyofarmscollec...7-B56-Smith-amp-Wesson-Rarities-1854-1900.pdf

 

[DWalt]

The first cosmetically similar S&W handgun is the K-frame Model of 1899, sometimes referred to as the First Model M&P. It was chambered for two calibers, .38 Special and .32-20. As noted previously, there are recognizable mechanical design differences between the Model of 1899 and subsequent K-frame models, namely the Models of 1902 and 1905. While many on this forum know about all of this K-frame minutiae, it is not likely that many others do. Even gun dealers whose level of historical gun knowledge is seldom very high. So it might well be possible to force the prosecution to find an expert to establish and testify to the evidence gun’s manufacture date if they want to continue the pursuit of your defendant.

 

[steelslaver]

Here is a point. You have came to the place where a portion of the members have expert knowledge of S&W revolvers. Some like Handejector have few peers. Yet, I would bet that only maybe 10% of the members here would know when the rebound slide he mentioned came into being. I fail to see how 99.999% of the population would have a clue as to when the old revolver they found in their parents effects was manufactured and I doubt the majority of your states residents would not be aware of the need to register such a relic. Doesn't lack of criminal intent register on the prosecutor???

But the first swing out cylinder S&W with that frame size was made in 1896 and while possibly the top 10% of the members here can point out the small differences between its frame and the frame in your case, it is unlikely that very many of them, if any, would be inclined to point them out to the prosecution in such a case.

 

[handejector]

But the first swing out cylinder S&W with that frame size was made in 1896 ..........

That was an I frame.
The K frame appeared in 1899.

 

[Jim Watson]

You don't even have to take the sideplate off.
An 1899 MP lacks the extractor rod tip latch lug under the barrel.
That was added ca 1902.

Your best bet is to state that the M&P came out in 1899 and not elaborate.

 

[DWalt]

The frame size (I) and caliber (.32 Long) of the S&W Model of 1896 (the first S&W of that type) are somewhat smaller than that of the K-frame. And all 1896 revolvers were made prior to 1899. But as stated, unless you are a collector or fancier of early S&W double action revolvers, you would not know that.

 

[Wiregrassguy]

That’s a long winded way of saying, I need evidence other models existed, and then it’s up to them to open it up to say it’s not, and the can’t/wont.

Ok. Your contention is the gun was made before 1899 and is therefore not a modern gun and because there is no way the prosecution can refute that. Thus, your client can't be convicted of violating a gun law. I looked at the pictures again and I can't see a trademark stamp on the sideplate. If there is no way to ID it as a S&W product, maybe it is a .22 revolver made by another manufacturer before 1899...like US Revolver Company or Colt's Manufacturing. It would have to be a US company because you say the "Made in USA" stamp is present. The prosecution would have to ID the manufacturer and refute it was made before 1899. Tough if they are as ignorant as you say.

 

[Frailer]

I appreciate everyone’s trying to walk me away from this route, but this is what makes me good at what I do..

I don’t care if this gun was made pre-1900, I care if they can prove it wasn’t…

That’s a long winded way of saying, I need evidence other models existed, and then it’s up to them to open it up to say it’s not, and the can’t/wont.

I understand what you’re saying, and I wish you and your client luck with your case. Based on what you are looking for, my recommendation would be to ask this question somewhere else.

You came to a site populated by people with detailed knowledge on Smith & Wesson revolvers and their history. We *know* this is not a 19th century firearm. A site of more general firearms interest might be able to provide what you seek.

 

[hkcavalier]

"All input is greatly appreciated"

Well I think we're past that...

As much as anything that far in the past is provable, it was made after 1899. The serial number alone is enough for that. I'm not an attorney, but it seems very easy to prove it was made in the early 1940s. But if the prosecutor doesn't care...what's the issue?

 

[Gun Relics]

I looked up some of the gun laws in Massachusetts. They make California look easy. All guns need permits, even in the home. Violations are severe. Even something like this, an old, inherited rusty .22 goes unregistered and 18 months in the slammer, mandatory? Wow! And that's where the American Revolution began!