Exceptional 1st. Mod. DA, .44 Russian

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

I haven't seen 4-1/2" as a 'standard' length barrel in the literature
but it is within the barrel lengths the Factory offered (standard barrel
lengths were: 4", 5", 6" and 6-1/2". My recently acquired one (pics
above) has a 6-1/2" barrel and my nickel .44-40 "Frontier" model
has a 5" barrel.

You might want to 'letter' your revolver.

Cheers!
Webb

 

[Exmilcop]

Hi There,

I haven't seen 4-1/2" as a 'standard' length barrel in the literature
but it is within the barrel lengths the Factory offered (standard barrel
lengths were: 4", 5", 6" and 6-1/2". My recently acquired one (pics
above) has a 6-1/2" barrel and my nickel .44-40 "Frontier" model
has a 5" barrel.

You might want to 'letter' your revolver.

Cheers!
Webb

Thank you. In my research I found the same info regarding standard barrel lengths that you so thoughtfully provided. Of note, if this was initially made as a longer barreled model, I don't think the barrel stamps would be where they are. I've seen cut down barrels before and those barrel stamps are no longer centered like mine. I've downloaded the letter request form. I've got to use PayPal as the payment method. US banks seem reluctant to accept cheques, bank money orders, and postal money orders drawn on Canadian institutions. Visa works for payments as does Western Union and PayPal.

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

Your description of the barrel stamp being centered on the
rib is a very good indication your 4-1/2" barrel is original.
So, this looks like a special order and there might be ad-
ditional info to be gleaned from a Factory Letter.

Cheers!
Webb

 

[mmaher94087]

Anyone notice the dingbat (maltase cross?) is missing from the breach end of the roll stamp? My bet is that this revolver is a special order. I'll also add that I have a 2 1/4" Safety Hammerless that lettered as 2". The records may not be 100% accurate but it's worth a shot as 4 1/2" is not a catalogued barrel length.

 

[H Richard]

Getting to the original question, then looking at the photo in post #5 of the top rib. The inscription is clear and centered on the rib. Would appear to be factory to me.

 

[Exmilcop]

Hi There,

Your description of the barrel stamp being centered on the
rib is a very good indication your 4-1/2" barrel is original.
So, this looks like a special order and there might be ad-
ditional info to be gleaned from a Factory Letter.

Cheers!
Webb

As has been suggested, I've started the process of obtaining a letter from the Smith & Wesson Historical Foundation. When it arrives, I will scan it into the computer and share it with you all.

 

[Exmilcop]

Anyone notice the dingbat (maltase cross?) is missing from the breach end of the roll stamp? My bet is that this revolver is a special order. I'll also add that I have a 2 1/4" Safety Hammerless that lettered as 2". The records may not be 100% accurate but it's worth a shot as 4 1/2" is not a catalogued barrel length.

We seem to be in the same boat! I just received the S&W letter and you'll note it lists barrel length as 4". The attached pic with a machinists rule clearly shows 4-1/2". Worth mentioning, the serial number on the barrel matches the rest of the pistol. If it has been sent back to S&W for that slightly longer barrel (and why would anyone do that!), there would be the star indicating such. I must admit, I'm a little confused.

 

[Sevens]

Fantastic revolver!

 

[Dan W. Cady]

Not quite accurate. The 1-9/16" cylinders were used on all the later model no.1's for ease of manufacturing so though the cylinders were the same length, the chamberings were caliber specific. The way I knew that beautiful frontier model was restricted was when I dropped in a .44-40 round and it chambered perfectly. Though it may not be very obvious on worn chambers there is a slight halo just back of the case mouth stop. That's a pretty good indicator. I managed to get a not bad pic of that.

That double step in the chambers sure looks like a 44-40.

 

[Masterpiece]

Exmilcop,

Sorry to see Your Letter didn't turn out very well...Even so...I would contact Don to see if he can reissue you a Letter with at least the Correct Shipping Date!! Hard to believe it shipped in Dec.1880 when this Model supposedly wasn't even put into production until 1881...Besides the fact is has that high of a Ser. No. unless that Markt & Co. Order was one "Big" Order...Ha!!-Ha!! That said...Given the 24,000 Range Ser. No...I'd think it likely didn't ship until at least 1890-possibly even Early 1891!!

One other thing I'd like to add...Why in all this discussion didn't anyone realize this "Wasn't" going to "Letter" as a Frontier Model with a Ser. No. as high as it has...Even though everything noted so far indicates it should have?? All in...Something's not kosher with this Revolver...Hmmm??

 

[Exmilcop]

Exmilcop,

Sorry to see Your Letter didn't turn out very well...Even so...I would contact Don to see if he can reissue you a Letter with at least the Correct Shipping Date!! Hard to believe it shipped in Dec.1880 when this Model supposedly wasn't even put into production until 1881...Besides the fact is has that high of a Ser. No. unless that Markt & Co. Order was one "Big" Order...Ha!!-Ha!! That said...Given the 24,000 Range Ser. No...I'd think it likely didn't ship until at least 1890-possibly even Early 1891!!

One other thing I'd like to add...Why in all this discussion didn't anyone realize this "Wasn't" going to "Letter" as a Frontier Model with a Ser. No. as high as it has...Even though everything noted so far indicates it should have?? All in...Something's not kosher with this Revolver...Hmmm??

Your response has me confused. This is a first mod. DA in .44 Russian. It has the 1-7/16" cylinder, not the 1-9/16" of the Frontier model and it won't chamber a .44-40 round. I'm assuming from what you've written that you assumed it to be a Frontier model?

 

[Masterpiece]

Your response has me confused. This is a first mod. DA in .44 Russian. It has the 1-7/16" cylinder, not the 1-9/16" of the Frontier model and it won't chamber a .44-40 round. I'm assuming from what you've written that you assumed it to be a Frontier model?

Exmilcop,

Confused...Yes I suppose you could say so!! My main reasoning I thought it to be a Frontier mainly stemmed by the Photo You posted of the Cyl. Chambers which I assumed was from the Revolver of this discussion!! Plus there was never any mention earlier as to it's Cyl. Length even though I believed it to be chambered for a .44 Russian Cartridge...Or that you had tried a .44-40 Cartridge & it wouldn't fit!! I see now that wasn't the case & I do apologize for adding more confusion!!

All that aside...As I stated earlier...I would definitely contact Don at least to get him to send you an Amended Letter with the Correct Shipping Date even if the Date in the Letter is a typo...Meaning it to be Dec.4,1890 which is much more easily believed!!