Received my Regulation Police today

I posted a few auction pics of this gun a week or so ago. I received it today and wanted to post some much better photos, ask a few questions, and welcome comments and feedback. This is my first RP and my first .38 S&W. I have one other I-frame, a .32 Hand Ejector. So, I am learning as I go.

Comments: The gun appears to be in decent condition. Operation is good, if stiff. I imagine it is dry as a bone inside, and may even have rust. Lock-up is good on all chambers. I haven't measured it yet, but the BC gap seems pretty large (compared to my other larger frames) and the end gap is definitely too much. The thumblatch actually moves back and forth with the cylinder, so that may have to be dealt with. There is a very prominent turn line, but it appears to be just the bluing worn and the steel doesn't seem gouged. The bluing is pretty good except for the right side of the barrel. I'm guessing this gun spent many years laying on it's right side on something that absorbed moisture. I'm thinking some boiling and carding will do it a world of good. A little touch-up bluing might be called for, but it will never look new (nor should it). I will get it apart in the next few days and find out what I have to work with.

Questions: The stocks received lots of comments on my previous post. It seems the checkering may have been recut, but if so it was a long time ago. The estechuons seem to be octagonal and the screw is installed from the right side. Has anyone ever seen this in original stocks? I'm guessing the grips were reconditioned at one time (thank goodness they didn't heavily sand them because they are a good fit for the frame) and the estecheuons were replaced with a non-factory type, and backwards. Am I guessing right?

The serial number is stamped on the bottom of the grips along with the registration stamp. Everyone says that the S/N was NEVER stamped on the bottom of the stocks by S&W. However, the font style matches the reg. stamp, it is the same depth, and it looks as though it's been there just as long. I will get the stocks off soon, and see if there is a number inside, but this stamp on the bottom looks like it is from the factory. Has anyone ever seen this?

Someone commented on my previous post (with poor quality photos) that the gun was refinished. I see no evidence of that. What do you say?

What is an "acceptable" BC gap and endshake on these old guns? Same as any S&W revolver, or was more "slop" okay in these lower-powered guns?

Thanks for any answers and comments. I could only post four photos here, but I added more as a reply. Enjoy the photos.

More photos:

I think the patent date for the RP stocks was June, 5 1917...Yours appear to me to have been crudely overstamped in an attempt to match the S/N...And not a very successful job either... ...Ben

Truckman said:

I think the patent date for the RP stocks was June, 5 1917...Yours appear to me to have been crudely overstamped in an attempt to match the S/N...And not a very successful job either... ...Ben

Click to expand...

I think you are correct about it being overstamped. However, it doesn't look so crude to the naked eye. It appears that it has been there for quite some time. Any idea why someone would do that? What would be the advantage to having the S/N on the bottom of the stock? I plan to get the stocks off it today, and am curious if the number is also marked inside, assuming S&W was doing that back then.

daveboy said:

I plan to get the stocks off it today, and am curious if the number is also marked inside, assuming S&W was doing that back then.

Click to expand...

They were, and they did, possibly in pencil which may be faded away and may take a strong light at the right angle to read...I have found that I can take a high resolution photo, then adjust the light in post processing which sometimes brings the number to the surface......Ben

Truckman said:

They were, and they did, possibly in pencil which may be faded away and may take a strong light at the right angle to read...I have found that I can take a high resolution photo, then adjust the light in post processing which sometimes brings the number to the surface......Ben

Click to expand...

I got the stocks off a bit ago along with the sideplate. Based on the amount of gunk, it's been awhile since the insides have seen the light of day. I didn't see any numbers inside the stock, but didn't take a really close look. Do you have any idea why someone would have stamped the numbers on the bottom? Doesn't make any sense to me.

daveboy said:

Do you have any idea why someone would have stamped the numbers on the bottom?

Click to expand...

None...My only guess would be someone thought the cool quotient might have gone up a few points if he (or she) could alter the date on the stock to match the similar looking S/N of the gun...Either way the idea was a failure, and too bad on one of my favorite guns - the RP......Ben

Truckman said:

None...My only guess would be someone thought the cool quotient might have gone up a few points if he (or she) could alter the date on the stock to match the similar looking S/N of the gun...Either way the idea was a failure, and too bad on one of my favorite guns - the RP......Ben

Click to expand...

It's just weird that it appears to have been done so long ago. I'd think a collector would know that the stocks would be numbered inside and not on the bottom. And, no one but a collector would care. Oh, well. There's no trying to get in the minds of previous owners. I'm just glad they weren't carved in!

The octagonal escutcheons in the stocks with the screw coming from the wrong side disturb me as much as the bogus patent date plus serial number combination on the butt. The poor fit of yoke to frame is bothersome. The small logo on the left side imitates the factory stamp for the 1930s factory products, but it is crude and unbalanced in its execution. The serial number on the forestrap is consistent with production around 1930-31, but the number dies imprinted larger sans-serif characters similar to the ones S&W used in the 1950s in place of the smaller serif fonts used during the 1920s and 1930s.

I'm sorry to say that even if a couple of parts should prove to be original, the gun in its current configuration shows characteristics seen on Khyber Pass or SE Asian knockoffs. I would encourage the OP to look into a return on grounds of inauthenticity.

It gives me no pleasure to say this, and I welcome observations by others who can undercut what I think I see.

Tough Crowd this morning but I agree with DC something Fishy about this one.
The barrel is cut for a Mushroom? I think.
The Rod tip is "chewed on"
The font the yoke fit,, serial number?
AND the hammer patent marks ( 1926??) 27? Nice.

Very interesting,, still
Great pictures btw

Why ? Definitely "The COOL FACTOR"

Do I ALSO see a Bit of Hand Checking on the Hammer?? More COOL . This one is full of
The trigger????
Thanks for sharing

Thanks for all the inputs. I'd probably be upset if I paid for a genuine collectible. The stocks got my attention in the auction photos. I couldn't put my finger on it, but they didn't look right. I noticed the yoke/frame fit as soon as I got it. I also wondered about the extractor knob. I was thinking it should be the barrel-type. Like I said, I'm certainly not up-to-snuff on these little guns.

Based on the seller's description, I don't think they knew what this was. So, I don't believe there was any intent to deceive. I paid about what I'd expect to pay for something that wasn't genuine (fact is that I threw a low bid out fully expecting that I wouldn't win). I actually wanted it for a wintertime project to clean-up, repair, restore, etc.., like I've done with several K-frames. Now that I know it is not very valuable, I won't be afraid to screw something up.

Well, as bad as I hate to admit it, you guys are right. This little gun is obviously some kind of slapped together fakery.

I wondered why anyone would stamp the s/n on the buttplate, but I couldn't figure why they would do that on a genuine S&W revolver. Well, it appears that this ain't genuine! I got it apart today and made a few observations. As you can see in the photo, the sideplate has a groove for some kind of hammer block. In fact, there was some kind of convulted, broken thing in that groove, held in by a pin. Whatever it was, it served no purpose. I didn't think that S&W began installing hammer blocks until mid-40s. Right? Also, the cylinder does not have the normal notch that fits into the groove on the extractor. As you can see in the photo, the cylinder is simply peened into the groove, and it has so much slop that you have to assist the extractor back into its place. The S&W logo, which looked okay to me from a distance, is apparently a fake. I compared it to the logo on my other I-frame...a late twenties (I think) HE, and it's not even close. Also, as the picture shows, the "Made in USA" is actually more "Made in U2A". The rebound spring is out of a new Jeep Wrangler! It is much stronger than most genuine rebound springs. I guess that is to ensure the trigger always returns to battery, even with all the bad machining and clearances.

I could live with all of this, because I wasn't buying a collector's piece anyway. I'm not a serious shooter, nor a serious collector. But, I don't own guns I can't shoot. I measured the BC gap, and with the cylinder held to the rear, the gap is .041". I'd think that is a bit excessive, even for an old, lower pressure gun. The kicker was that I thought I'd check the condition of the forcing cone. Well, there isn't one. As you can see in the photo, all that's there is a slight chamfer. With a BC gap like that, and no forcing cone, I sure wouldn't want to stand beside this when firing it.

I'm not upset, because I didn't pay this much for the gun. I honestly don't believe the seller knew it was a forgery. Honestly, I never knew anyone forged these, since they aren't super-expensive, anyway. So, I'm not going to address it with the seller. I will chalk it up to a learner's tax. I'm still going to proceed with my plan when I purchased it. It will be my wintertime project to at least make it as attractive as I can, remove the rust, refinish the stocks, etc.. If I can't have a nice, genuine S&W to shoot, maybe I can at least make it a little prettier.

Thanks for your honesty to this guy who knows nothing about these, and didn't know anyone was faking them. You guys are knowledgeable, and thanks for sharing it.

Notice also when looking at the butt:
The right side grip is much thicker than the left grip. The grips are copies.

The sideplate slot does look hinky, but it actually reproduces a S&W safety design from the early 20th century that prevailed until near the end of WWII. Under this design, the hammer block protruded from the side and was pressed out of the hammer's way by the action of the hammer and trigger before the sear (SA or DA) released it. It stayed back in the slot until the trigger was released for the next shot. This design was recognized as defective when it was found that internal fouling could gum up the movement and keep the block locked back out of path of hammer travel when the action was at rest. In this condition, a dropped revolver that landed on its hammer could result in a strike on the primer of a live round. But I am not sure that a counterfeit revolver would ever have received this safety despite the slot that was cut for it in imitation of the manufacturer's design.

I believe that counterfeits have a tendency to remain (or be lost) in the lands where they are assembled, so they are not often encountered in the ebb and flow of normal arms transfers in the US. I applaud the attitude you express about this experience. I have bought more than a few guns expecting little more than a chance to see if I can make an old specimen right. Sometimes I have found a gun can't be fixed at all, or can't be made reliable with a simple repair. In these cases I haven't bought an eventually functional revolver, but rather knowledge about a particular model that I hadn't had before. I always get value for my money, but sometimes not the exact value I had anticipated.

Your photos of the weak elements of this counterfeit's features are excellent. Thank you. The new images make me feel more strongly that this is a Khyber Pass gun. I have seen a couple of those, and this one feels quite similar.

daveboy said:

Well, as bad as I hate to admit it,
I'm not upset, because I didn't pay this much for the gun. I honestly don't believe the seller knew it was a forgery. Honestly, I never knew anyone forged these, since they aren't super-expensive, anyway.
View attachment 785577View attachment 785579View attachment 785580

Click to expand...

Khyber Pass ? another rabbit hole? omg

I've never seen such a gun and i Thank you for sharing this one. It was mentioned as a Favorite model and I agree,, but this one is a Hell of a copy!!
The cylinder photo (all of them) AND the pins !
And that "hammer pin strike" are awesome.

A True Saturday Night Special

The fonts are all over the map,,
I'm adding a photo of a hammer stamping for comparison.

This was quite the learning experience. It makes me appreciate the surviving originals so much more.

Hondo44 said:

Notice also when looking at the butt:
The right side grip is much thicker than the left grip. The grips are copies.

Click to expand...

I can't tell that they are different thickness. However, I have no doubt now that they are forgeries. Still, the grips are about the nicest part of the gun.

DCWilson said:

The sideplate slot does look hinky, but it actually reproduces a S&W safety design from the early 20th century that prevailed until near the end of WWII. Under this design, the hammer block protruded from the side and was pressed out of the hammer's way by the action of the hammer and trigger before the sear (SA or DA) released it. It stayed back in the slot until the trigger was released for the next shot. This design was recognized as defective when it was found that internal fouling could gum up the movement and keep the block locked back out of path of hammer travel when the action was at rest. In this condition, a dropped revolver that landed on its hammer could result in a strike on the primer of a live round. But I am not sure that a counterfeit revolver would ever have received this safety despite the slot that was cut for it in imitation of the manufacturer's design.

I believe that counterfeits have a tendency to remain (or be lost) in the lands where they are assembled, so they are not often encountered in the ebb and flow of normal arms transfers in the US. I applaud the attitude you express about this experience. I have bought more than a few guns expecting little more than a chance to see if I can make an old specimen right. Sometimes I have found a gun can't be fixed at all, or can't be made reliable with a simple repair. In these cases I haven't bought an eventually functional revolver, but rather knowledge about a particular model that I hadn't had before. I always get value for my money, but sometimes not the exact value I had anticipated.

Your photos of the weak elements of this counterfeit's features are excellent. Thank you. The new images make me feel more strongly that this is a Khyber Pass gun. I have seen a couple of those, and this one feels quite similar.

Click to expand...

Yes, I call things like this "learner's tax" or "stupid tax". It's just a tax you pay when you are learning. Fortunately, I didn't spend much on it. In fact, that's why I bid on it. I thought I'd roll the dice on a probably beat-up old Smith that I could do some recovery work on. I rolled the dice and got something else. The older I get, the less I worry about things like this. As a young man, I would have been fighting mad, but not I realize it's not worth it.