S&W Model 3 looking for info

[SYT]

looking for information on Model 3 S&W and a value please.

8" barrel, blued, .44 cal, engraved, ivory grip, SN#22XX

thanks in advance

[Mikebiker]

I am going to offer my 2 cents worth and it may be disagreed with but to me the engraving looks to be of poor quality and recently added. Engraving that is period is usually not elaborate but high quality work even on the cheap spur trigger guns. If this is the case the value has been diminished over an original non engraved gun.

[glowe]

Welcome to the Forum. That is a one of the most historically important revolvers ever produced by S&W. A Model 3, First Model is a rare find in any condition, but yours looks far above the average condition seen. There were only 8000 made from 1870 to 1872 and yours is most likely the first year production gun. The ivory stocks only add to the appeal.

There are three caliber possibilities; 44 American, 44 Russian, and 44 Rimfire. My guess is that you have a 44 American, but if you check the chambers and firing pin, you will know for sure. The 44 American had a straight bored through cylinder, the 44 RF had a different style firing pin. The 44 Russian should have a Russian stamping on the barrel rib that differs from the standard S&W address and patent lines.

We have a few experts on engraving that will be along, but my vote is for a low grade original factory engraving. Maybe a #1 or #2 level engraving, where the coverage was lower and the background was simple. If factory engraving, with factory ivory stocks, you have a very valuable gun there. Estimating this particular gun needs some professional hands on appraising done. Spend the money to get is documented and properly identified. Value range: $5000 to over $10,000 possible.

[mmaher94087]

I doubt that the engraving is factory. Period perhaps but not factory. The skill/quality of the executed lines is not up to the level of work done by the factory or their contract engravers. Only a factory letter will tell. Include photos if a factory letter is requested.

[opoefc]

Engraving quality is poor, as noted above, and when it was done is questionable. The S&W factory did not have in house engravers when these first model Americans were made, and used outside engravers, like Nimschke and Gustav Young for special order guns or presentations. If a S&W was engraved on order of the factory, the gun will letter as "Factory Engraved" in most cases. Other guns, period engraved, by distributers, will only letter as shipped to the distributer, but can still be interesting examples of gun embellishment. The poster's gun will fall in the latter category, if it's a S&W and not a copy. Ed.

[jleiper]

The shape of the butt is different? Doesn't look like what I am used to seeing. Could we please see a photo of the marking on the top of the barrel rib?
SAA1654B.jpgSAA1654H copy.jpg
Here is what I usually see.
Joe

[glowe]

Originally Posted by opoefc

Engraving quality is poor, as noted above, and when it was done is questionable . . .

I am glad I do not buy engraved guns! Looks good to me, but in reality, I can hardly see the engraving in those pictures anyway.

Originally Posted by jleiper

The shape of the butt is different . . .

I do see a flare at the lower rear butt-grip area that does not exist on any Model 3 revolvers that I have owned or seen. Are you thinking foreign copy?

[jleiper]

Originally Posted by glowe

I do see a flare at the lower rear butt-grip area that does not exist on any Model 3 revolvers that I have owned or seen. Are you thinking foreign copy?

Yes, it just doesn't look right. The marks on top of the barrel would help. I'm thinking Liege copy - the engraving looks right for that as well.
Joe

[SYT]

thank you for the previous input so far. including additional photographs to further assist.

Engraving on the rib reads:
Smith & Wesson Springfield Mass, U.S.A. PAT. JULY 10.60 JAN.17. FEB. 17. JULY 11.65 & AUG. 24. 69 (there is a small stamp at the end that has a 6 inside that is not easily seen in the photograph due to size compression)

[jleiper]

I don't like the revolver, the stamping is correct but doesn't look right. I have seen Russian fakes like this (but they weren't as good). The shape of the hammer spur and the ratchet spring retainer are wrong (I cannot remember the name, but it is the part beneath the hinge retaining the ejector star spring). The rear sight shape is also wrong. The screw for the latch also just doesn't look right.

DSCN6976a.jpgDSCN6976b.jpgSAA1654D.jpg
Pictures from my library of revolvers that are contemporary with this piece, at least by serial number.

Joe

[glowe]

There are just too many thing right for this not to be a S&W for me. The design and construction of this example are perfect and some of the things mentioned could have been replaced of modified. The extractor/ratchet pawl could have been replaced, the rear sight slot could have been widened. To me the hammer looks OK as well as the top rib stamping.

What bothers me is the butt-frame, but I suppose that it could have been reshaped when fitting the ivory stocks?? I have never seen a foreign copy built as well as the OPs gun and now suspect a worked over Model 3 that was brought back to life and engraved some time later than its manufacture.

[SYT]

What is the best way to get this revolver authenticated? Factory, independent expert or other.

[glowe]

Originally Posted by SYT

What is the best way to get this revolver authenticated? Factory, independent expert or other.

There are ta couple things you can do. First, find an expert that can do a hands on appraisal of authenticity, since photos are never as good as a visual examination. Depending on where you live, there may be people close to you. If not, it can be mailed to an expert. I hesitate to give names, but there is one author who has spent years researching the Model 3 and wrote a book titled Smith & Wesson American Model by Charles Pate.

Second, you can request a factory letter from Roy Jinks, S&W Historian, but the wait is long right now and the factory may be holding off on new requests for awhile since there is a large backlog. Roy is the preeminent expert on everything S&W, but not sure if he has the time to do an appraisal.

There are others here that might offer their expertise as well if they see this post.

[model3sw]

I'll weigh in, tipping my hat to my Dad ... Ed, to guess likely shipped to M.W. Robinson. Most likely NY engraved (could have been one of many NYC engraving studios ). Everyone would like to affiliate an older engraved gun with Nimschke but few are factually proved to be.

Not having the gun, in hand, for closer inspection and magnification hampers an accurate determination but with what we have here, this is the best I can do. If the pictures are all we have, I would have to lean towards the impression the engraving was added much more recently than the period of the gun.

If period engraved (which looks not) ... most were engraved by one of the many engraving studios in business in NYC at that time which was the hub of the gun industry at that time. It is likely chambered in .44 American. Whether the engraving is period or not ... I have several in similar patterns, some well worn-in that the engraving is blurred. Toss a coin as to when it was done, either period or sometime later.

I have seen an epidemic over the past 20 years of taking older, lesser condition guns (many are Colt SAAs) having them engraved with older style engraving. Much to my surprise (shock) Colt collectors don't seem to mind while amongst purist collectors ... adding engraving to an older gun is one of many major taboos. Determining if the engraving is period or newer is essential to determine an accurate, approximate, value.

Other than the gun being brown, which gives me the preliminary impression that this was a blued gun, usually ... most engraved guns of this period were nickel-ed thus should have traces of nickel somewhere. The screws and side plate fit are excellent. That's usually where an indication of condition or tampering over the years will start ... at a bad sideplate fit and booger-ed screws.

The position of the trigger in the trigger guard and the traces of case color remaining on the hammer, lead me to believe this gun has not been boogered. It will very likely index and lock up nicely.

There's my two-cents worth of input.

[glowe]

Good of you to drop by Sal. Just for the record, you are stating this is an original S&W, right?

[model3sw]

Originally Posted by glowe

Good of you to drop by Sal. Just for the record, you are stating this is an original S&W, right?

Thanks, Gary. Based upon the picture of the the barrel rib ... I'll buy that roll stamp as authentic. I'd be curious to see the shape of the grip frame with the grips removed. That extension shape you note may in the grips.

[model3sw]

Originally Posted by jleiper

I don't like the revolver, the stamping is correct but doesn't look right. I have seen Russian fakes like this (but they weren't as good). The shape of the hammer spur and the ratchet spring retainer are wrong (I cannot remember the name, but it is the part beneath the hinge retaining the ejector star spring). The rear sight shape is also wrong. The screw for the latch also just doesn't look right.

Joe

Joe, much confusion over the year on these models and the cross-over Russian model. At that time, this revolver was "the" cutting edge of technology and a work in progress. Changed and revised many times.

I surely don't know it all ... nobody does, but I study and research very diligently, dismissing all hearsay immediately.

The beauty of this forum is to bring like minded collectors together to pool our information and database. I appreciate all logically presented controversy ... ( and I never argue with Ed Cornett ...LOL )

There are time I still crack open the books to determine if I have an American or a Russian or a mixed parts gun ... which is not at all unusual to find so many of them with mixed parts. Some were to preserve function where as I believe most are intended to fool a prospective buyer when the Model 3's started accelerating in value about 20 years ago.

I knew an old collector that kept all his Model 3s in a wooden box, covered in a heavy coat of whale oil (a smell that your will NEVER forget after first smelling it) each in an old army type sock. None of them were in perfect condition, most in average and many were unusable. (Dr. John Parker,M.D, Perry, FL ... RIP)

At one time these were cutting edge, then antiquated, then junk but we lived through many times where a gun was used only for it's functional purpose without any intent for it to be part of an investment portfolio.

We (all Americans) lived through many bad economic times from the 1870s on up till today. Not as many of these old guns (as people would like to believe ) survived unscathed by time and progress.

With respect to Russian copies. Copies are not "fakes". Copies are copies. Fakes would be those stamped to appear as if S&W had manufactured them. The Russians were quite proud of copying the Model 3 (and that they nearly bankrupted S&W by not paying for the last few large orders) and, after all, if not for the Russians we might still be firing a .44 with a heeled projectile.

It was Russian Ordnance inspector that specified the changes and revisions including the ammo which revolutionized firearms and we still use till type ammo this day. A .44 Russian (later adapted as .44 S&W) is a short .44 Special or a very short .44 Magnum.

For the most part I have found Russian copies of the Model 3 to be of high quality. I have a Tula Aesenal and I have had a Ludwig and Lowe ... honestly ... very high grade copies, with the Tula putting the S&W model to shame. Tula Arsenal has a bushing pressed in around the firing pin hole on the flashplate, sturdy extractor gearing, extremely tight and fit after what was apparently a long service life whereas I would expect to find the similar model S&W with similar service life to be loose and worn and basically could be used solely as a door stop.

It was the later Spanish copies (and some others) that were terrible and almost cartoon-ish attempts to make a S&W. I have 2 Spanish copies of the .44 DA 1st which I "acquired" by no intentional virtue. I wouldn't let my worst enemy fire either one of them whereas I have shot the Tula arsenal (and examined many more) to say ... I am impressed with the Russian copies (or at least the Tula) where as Ludwig & Lowe was German IIRC.

Here is an interesting thread you all might like:

Ludwig Lowe 3rd model with a C on it what is it?? NOW PICTURES

[model3sw]

Originally Posted by SYT

looking for information on Model 3 S&W and a value please.

8" barrel, blued, .44 cal, engraved, ivory grip, SN#22XX

thanks in advance

Can you carefully remove the grips, then post pictures of both sides of the grip frames and pictures of the grips, themselves, including the underside of the grips. Thank you.

[jleiper]

I would also like to see pictures of the frame without grip plates as well as pictures of the face of the cylinder, bottom of the latch and back of the barrel extension.
I know quite a bit about the Russian copies as I have one of the larger collections of Russian revolvers and quite a few Smith & Wessons as well as Tulas, Ludwig Loewes and even Liege copies in my collection.

There are examples that have been faked with correct but not quite perfect roll stampings but all seem to have small problems, that is why I have learned to question the validity of these revolvers when there are problems. Any time you have a revolver worth money in 4 figures and up there is a reason to be cautious about fakes. I have seen correct Russian barrel stampings that were made with a laser that look to be almost correct.
Last, I am unaware that the "Russians didn't pay for their last few large orders," what is the source for that information?
Joe

[SYT]

thank you again for the interesting input ~

Photos as requests:

[jleiper]

Originally Posted by model3sw

Joe, much confusion over the year on these models and the cross-over Russian model. At that time, this revolver was "the" cutting edge of technology and a work in progress. Changed and revised many times.

I surely don't know it all ... nobody does, but I study and research very diligently, dismissing all hearsay immediately.

The beauty of this forum is to bring like minded collectors together to pool our information and database. I appreciate all logically presented controversy ... ( and I never argue with Ed Cornett ...LOL )

There are time I still crack open the books to determine if I have an American or a Russian or a mixed parts gun ... which is not at all unusual to find so many of them with mixed parts. Some were to preserve function where as I believe most are intended to fool a prospective buyer when the Model 3's started accelerating in value about 20 years ago.

I knew an old collector that kept all his Model 3s in a wooden box, covered in a heavy coat of whale oil (a smell that your will NEVER forget after first smelling it) each in an old army type sock. None of them were in perfect condition, most in average and many were unusable. (Dr. John Parker,M.D, Perry, FL ... RIP)

At one time these were cutting edge, then antiquated, then junk but we lived through many times where a gun was used only for it's functional purpose without any intent for it to be part of an investment portfolio.

We (all Americans) lived through many bad economic times from the 1870s on up till today. Not as many of these old guns (as people would like to believe ) survived unscathed by time and progress.

With respect to Russian copies. Copies are not "fakes". Copies are copies. Fakes would be those stamped to appear as if S&W had manufactured them. The Russians were quite proud of copying the Model 3 (and that they nearly bankrupted S&W by not paying for the last few large orders) and, after all, if not for the Russians we might still be firing a .44 with a heeled projectile.

It was Russian Ordnance inspector that specified the changes and revisions including the ammo which revolutionized firearms and we still use till type ammo this day. A .44 Russian (later adapted as .44 S&W) is a short .44 Special or a very short .44 Magnum.

For the most part I have found Russian copies of the Model 3 to be of high quality. I have a Tula Aesenal and I have had a Ludwig and Lowe ... honestly ... very high grade copies, with the Tula putting the S&W model to shame. Tula Arsenal has a bushing pressed in around the firing pin hole on the flashplate, sturdy extractor gearing, extremely tight and fit after what was apparently a long service life whereas I would expect to find the similar model S&W with similar service life to be loose and worn and basically could be used solely as a door stop.

It was the later Spanish copies (and some others) that were terrible and almost cartoon-ish attempts to make a S&W. I have 2 Spanish copies of the .44 DA 1st which I "acquired" by no intentional virtue. I wouldn't let my worst enemy fire either one of them whereas I have shot the Tula arsenal (and examined many more) to say ... I am impressed with the Russian copies (or at least the Tula) where as Ludwig & Lowe was German IIRC.

Here is an interesting thread you all might like:

Ludwig Lowe 3rd model with a C on it what is it?? NOW PICTURES

Several things: First, please reread the post you referenced and note who provided the historical information in it.
Second, ALL Russians contract revolvers had the pressed firing pin bushing, the improved extractor gear and hammer latch, they were incorporated at the beginning of the very first contract at the insistence of Gorloff and Ordinetz.
The Ludwig Loewe and Tula revolvers were actually made to inspection gauges purchased from Smith & Wesson and the tooling used at Tula was the same tooling used at Ludwig Loewe in Berlin (probably purchased from Greenwood and Bately in England) and then purchased by the Russians from Ludwig Loewe.
The Russians themselves regarded the Springfield manufactured revolvers to be superior to both the Berlin and Tula revolvers.
Joe

[glowe]

More inconsistencies. It looks as if there were drill holes and slotted in the corners of the butt-frame to enable it to be reshaped?? . . . but I can find no marks on the frame. Another picture please? Need another close-up of the bottom of the butt showing lanyard screw and serial number.

A photo comparison of the hammer compared with Joe's gun shows it looks original, but when we enlarge the butt-frame, it raises more questions than it answers.

[model3sw]

Originally Posted by glowe

More inconsistencies. It looks as if there were drill holes and slotted in the corners of the butt-frame to enable it to be reshaped?? . . . but I can find no marks on the frame. Another picture please? Need another close-up of the bottom of the butt showing lanyard screw and serial number.

A photo comparison of the hammer compared with Joe's gun shows it looks original, but when we enlarge the butt-frame, it raises more questions than it answers.

I agree. Seems the grip frame was customized. It seems, someone loved this revolver, customizing the grip frame or the frame may be of a different manufacture (or copy). I'm content with the barrel being genuine S&W.

[model3sw]

Originally Posted by jleiper

Several things: First, please reread the post you referenced and note who provided the historical information in it.
Second, ALL Russians contract revolvers had the pressed firing pin bushing, the improved extractor gear and hammer latch, they were incorporated at the beginning of the very first contract at the insistence of Gorloff and Ordinetz.
The Ludwig Loewe and Tula revolvers were actually made to inspection gauges purchased from Smith & Wesson and the tooling used at Tula was the same tooling used at Ludwig Loewe in Berlin (probably purchased from Greenwood and Bately in England) and then purchased by the Russians from Ludwig Loewe.
The Russians themselves regarded the Springfield manufactured revolvers to be superior to both the Berlin and Tula revolvers.
Joe

Joe, The objective of my commentary was to try to persuade everyone to open their eyes and think for themselves.

I don't see either Tula or L&L as "fakes". Remember, just because something is in print doesn't make it a fact. Like my "opinion" here. You are open to your own.

What I suggest is that before you stand solely on what you've read, that perhaps you should personally compare and disassemble the S&W OEM and the Tula and L&L. These copies are finely made. Further, I never examined or have seen a Tula that became loose and shaky.

At one time you could not find a L&L or a Tula in the USA. After Reagan's term as President and what is called the end of the cold war, some of those Tulas & L&Ls made it back to the USA. The one Tula I kept has no import markings and I've had it for decades. I surmise it was a WWII take home trophy from WWII as it still has what I believe to be a hand painted "rack number" on it.

I would like to see the original Ordnance Inspectors assessment comparing the finished products of his original specs to S&W (S&W redesigned the American model for them) to the Russian contracted "copies".

Neither the Tula nor the L&L are poor quality. That's my opinion and I'll stick to it. When you have physically compared several equally service-lived examples, you'd likely amend your position, too.

Being the son of a WWII decorated war veteran, we did not purchase anything Japanese or German for many years after. But, all the finest optics were German. Nikon is Japanese and at that time all the finest audio equipment came from Japan.

I refused to repair Japanese or German cars for many years until a day came where I had no choice, reluctantly agreeing to repair a new stolen / recovered ZX and shortly after a 320I BMW (my brother-in-law in college needing a clutch with no funds). It was then that I chose to lay aside the discrimination against anything foreign manufactured to give it a fair comparison aside from my "American is best" foundation.

After collecting only S&W for many years, becoming an appraiser and Auction House owner, I decided to remove the blinders and evaluate each item, individually. When first I was introduced to a 1930s genre luger by a friend and collector I had to sit down to seriously re-think my pre-conceived prejudices.

There is a significant level of engineering and machining that went into those German guns. When comparing a 1911 (for example) to a Luger, there really is no comparison. The same era 1911 was primitive compared to the Lugers.

I am NOT knocking or bad mouthing any American made product but there came a time when America got fat and lazy and the foreign products were being built better and cheaper. This one of the major reasons, I feel, we owe Trillions to China ... a 3rd world Country, who's labor forces work for bowl of rice.

In summation, I am only suggesting that you compare and weigh each different item without any input or preconceived thoughts or prejudices.

Those L&L and Tula copies are very finely made and durable. The Spanish copies and some others are just awful.

This commentary ... in no way ... removes my opinion that the Russians were unscrupulous in their business dealings with S&W, nearly bankrupting the Company by not paying for the last few orders that S&W delivered.

It is my opinion that Russia was brought into WWII on the Allied side only because we could not risk the casualties if Russia sided with the Axis, but, there is enough in WWII ex-post-facto strategy from Americans who were not alive to experience the affects (at that time) for a whole other thread or blog, all by itself.

Controversy, commentary and logically presented opinion is NOT argument nor any cause for anyone to become angry.

I have presented my opinions in a logical and polite manner. I appreciate that you have done the same.

[model3sw]

Originally Posted by jleiper

I would also like to see pictures of the frame without grip plates as well as pictures of the face of the cylinder, bottom of the latch and back of the barrel extension.
I know quite a bit about the Russian copies as I have one of the larger collections of Russian revolvers and quite a few Smith & Wessons as well as Tulas, Ludwig Loewes and even Liege copies in my collection.

There are examples that have been faked with correct but not quite perfect roll stampings but all seem to have small problems, that is why I have learned to question the validity of these revolvers when there are problems. Any time you have a revolver worth money in 4 figures and up there is a reason to be cautious about fakes. I have seen correct Russian barrel stampings that were made with a laser that look to be almost correct.
Last, I am unaware that the "Russians didn't pay for their last few large orders," what is the source for that information?
Joe

Joe,

I agree that when anything is worth higher $$ the fakes start showing up.
If you're as old as me you know about a master artisan (and I won't say anything bad) Tom Haas (RIP). I was witness to a collector who is a member of my local club had purchased his 1873 Colt SAA from Tom Haas way back (over 20 years prior) to find out only shortly after Tom Haas' passing that his 1873 was a fake. A GOOD fake, rather and EXCELLENT fake, but a fake none the less.

This person who found out he had purchased and worshiped a fake (with his background and experience) was very embarrassed over it.

He was a major, fine, antique show promoter and collector of higher end antique firearms. To save him any embarrassment (although he is nearing his 90's now) I will not post his name. This is one of my major reasons for not collecting SAAs. That and my old American Rifleman magazines form the 1950s and 1960s have many ads to purchase Colt SSA barrels and cylinders for a very small amount of money, thus, a Colt SAA collector may be able to get by with a replaced barrel and cylinder whereas S&W collectors of the same period had to make sure all the numbers on the barrel & cylinder matched.

I'm very interested in the S&W fakes you have come by. If you've kept a photographic record of those bad and / or fake (or suspicious) roll stamps and / or markings, can you share that with me?

If you lock on to my public ID on this forum the link to my email is live. Please contact me via email. I am VERY interested in your research.

[jleiper]

I was at the Tulsa Arms show this week end and didn't get the chance to answer until now:

Originally Posted by model3sw

Joe, The objective of my commentary was to try to persuade everyone to open their eyes and think for themselves.

I don't see either Tula or L&L as "fakes". Remember, just because something is in print doesn't make it a fact. Like my "opinion" here. You are open to your own.

I have never said that the Tulas or Ludwig Loewes were fakes. They were Smith & Wessons made (without license) under contract by the Russian Government just like all of the 1851 Navy Colts that were made (under license) in Russia.

Originally Posted by model3sw

What I suggest is that before you stand solely on what you've read, that perhaps you should personally compare and disassemble the S&W OEM and the Tula and L&L.
These copies are finely made. Further, I never examined or have seen a Tula that became loose and shaky.

You don't seem to be aware that I have assembled one of the largest collections of Russian revolvers in the world, and certainly the largest in the United States. I have in my collection examples of all of the models of the Smith No 3 as manufactured at Springfield (including some prototypes), Ludwig Loewe, and Tula. I also have Russian made Colts, Goltyakov manufactured Lefauchieux pin fires, Galands (both Russian manufacture and Belgian manufacture), as well as well over 300 Nagant revolvers. I also have for comparison several Belgian and Spainsh copies of Smith & Wessons and Nagants. I have been studying Russian weapons since I worked as a Russian "translator" in the Air Force during the Viet Nam War. This is the basis for my opinions.

I have seen almost every variety of each of these revolvers used to destruction. Tulas and Ludwig Loewes had less chance than Springfield manufacturd Smith & Wessons to get used to destruction because they weren't even manufactured until 1878 and 1886, after many Smiths fought their way to destruction in the Russo-Turkish War.

Originally Posted by model3sw

At one time you could not find a L&L or a Tula in the USA. After Reagan's term as President and what is called the end of the cold war, some of those Tulas & L&Ls made it back to the USA. The one Tula I kept has no import markings and I've had it for decades. I surmise it was a WWII take home
trophy from WWII as it still has what I believe to be a hand painted "rack number" on it.

I would like to see the original Ordnance Inspectors assessment comparing the finished products of his original specs to S&W (S&W redesigned the American model for them) to the Russian contracted "copies".

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, but S&W did not redesign the American for the Russians.
The Russians took the existing design and requested changes. Smith would have been happy to fill the contract with the existing production design, but it needed improvements in the eyes of Gorloff and Ordinetz so S&W made the changes to get contracts for the No 3.
S&W also made changes to the First Model first contract design at the request of Ordinetz to develop the Second Model, Smith & Wesson did not make changes just because they wanted to. This is well documented.

Originally Posted by model3sw

Neither the Tula nor the L&L are poor quality. That's my opinion and I'll stick to it. When you have physically compared several equally service-lived examples, you'd likely amend your position, too.

I certainly never said they were poor quality. I have personally examined the products of all of the arsenals that made these and I find very little difference other than the fact that the Russians themselves believed the American product was slightly superior - their words not mine. Remember, I can examine every production variation of the Russian contract revolvers from all of the arsenals by simply going into my gun room!

Originally Posted by model3sw

Being the son of a WWII decorated war veteran, we did not purchase anything Japanese or German for many years after. But, all the finest optics were German. Nikon is Japanese and at that time all the finest audio equipment came from Japan.

I refused to repair Japanese or German cars for many years until a day came where I had no choice, reluctantly agreeing to repair a new stolen / recovered ZX and shortly after a 320I BMW (my brother-in-law in college needing a clutch with no funds). It was then that I chose to lay aside the discrimination against anything foreign manufactured to give it a fair comparison aside from my "American is best" foundation.

After collecting only S&W for many years, becoming an appraiser and Auction House owner,
I decided to remove the blinders and evaluate each item, individually. When first I was introduced to a 1930s genre luger by a friend and collector I had to sit down to seriously re-think my pre-conceived prejudices.

There is a significant level of engineering and machining that went into those German guns.
When comparing a 1911 (for example) to a Luger, there really is no comparison. The same era 1911 was primitive compared to the Lugers.

I am NOT knocking or bad mouthing any American made product but there came a time when America got fat and lazy and the foreign products were being built better and cheaper. This one of the major reasons, I feel, we owe Trillions to China ... a 3rd world Country, who's labor forces work for bowl of rice.

In summation, I am only suggesting that you compare and weigh each different item without any input or preconceived thoughts or prejudices.

Those L&L and Tula copies are very finely made and durable. The Spanish copies and some others are just awful.

This commentary ... in no way ... removes my opinion that the Russians were unscrupulous in their business dealings with S&W, nearly bankrupting the Company by not paying for
the last few orders that S&W delivered.

Documentation for this last statement, please?
I have studied Russian weapons for almost 50 years and I don't believe in prejudice in evaluating weapons, only personal experience examining them and verifiable historical documentation. And Yes, I speak and read Russian and am able to examine the sources in the original language.

Originally Posted by model3sw

It is my opinion that Russia was brought into WWII on the Allied side only because we could not
risk the casualties if Russia sided with the Axis, but, there is enough in WWII ex-post-facto strategy from Americans who were not alive to experience the affects (at that time) for a whole other thread or blog, all by itself.

Controversy, commentary and logically presented opinion is NOT argument nor any cause for anyone to become angry.

I have presented my opinions in a logical and polite manner. I appreciate that you have done the same.

My opinion from what I can see in the pictures is that this revolver is a copy made to look like a First American. After examining Russian and domestic No 3s for many years and many foreign made copies I see too many problems with this revolver to believe it to be original S&W.
The top strap marking just doesn't look quite right to my eye and I have seen laser copies of address lines on Russian made fakes that were very good (NOT TULAS but Russian forgeries made to deceive and yes I have pictures!).
The butt area is obviously wrong and other parts just don't look right. The ejector spring retainer (gotta look up the right name for this part when I get home! - I'm in Tulsa) is the wrong shape and should be checkered instead of simply serrated. The hammer also looks wrong to my eye and there are other problems with both the front and rear sights.

Pictures of the cylinder face, etc would be helpful.
Joe

BTW as a service I am going to start another post with Fake Russian Smiths as a title to show what is out there.

[model3sw]

BTW as a service I am going to start another post with Fake Russian Smiths as a title to show what is out there.

WOW !!! I guess you put me in MY place. This started out as a friendly blog and now it's dripping blood.

I anxiously await to learn more from your experience and vast collection of Russians !

You are member. If there is something other than Russians and fakes you need to discuss, personally, I'm listed in the Roster. I don't speak Russian, just English.

[SYT]

Requested photos are attached

[jleiper]

Curiouser and couriouser! Some observations:
1. The numbers on the butt look to be absolutely correct comparing them to other period No 3s.
The size of the numbers seems right and the face of the numbers also seems to be correct. On the other side, the number only contains 2 different digits making it easier to make a phony stamp.

Butt211c.jpgIMG_8455.JPG


2. The bottom strap of the butt is a "build up" made by extending the rear strap and welding and doweling in a new piece on the botton. This is a really good thing if you want to believe this an original S&W piece because this method of attaching pieces together has been observed on at least 2 other prototypes that were definitely made in the "tool room" at S&W.
IMG_8455.JPG PROTOW.jpg

3. The number on the cylinder face looks to be an assy number which would be correct, also note the early narrow cylinder retainer, also correct.
It would be interesting to know if there are numbers on the bottom of the latch and on the rear barrel face.
IMG_8451.JPG

4. The hammer checkering is too coarse, the extractor pawl (yes, I looked it up) is shaped wrong and serrated instead of checkered, and the front sight is the wrong shape.

5. Why was the job on the base of the butt not finished by polishing it out? The numbers look to be added to the bottom of the butt after the rough job with a sander - like it was never intended to be finished. Likewise the bottom of the grips which don't appear to fit that well and were likely not original.

6. The shape of the butt is very European and I wonder if this could have been another, or maybe even the first, attempt to appease the Russians on the issue of the shape of the grips which they seriously wanted changed.
DSCN0358a copy.jpg
Russian manufactured 51 Navy

I would still like to see pictures of the bottom of the latch and the rear barrel face but what I am beginning to think is that this could be a Smith & Wesson test piece, probably for the Russians, but there is really no evidence of that. The engraving and grips would likely be done after the revolver left the factory.
The biggest reason I am leaning toward it being a prototype is the way the butt is put together and comparing it to other known prototypes.
Joe

[opoefc]

Joe, Very interesting sleuthing ! I've always thought that unraveling the clues you may, or may not, find when examining older S&Ws, that leads one to an almost opposite conclusion from first impressions, is the the most interesting of the steps to a Smith & Wesson learning curve. Many years ago , when myself & others, where assisting Roy Double in his research on the American Model, we always seemed to run into more questions than answers. In the 50s I had acquired numerous jigs, gauges, and dies for the American & Russian Models from scrap sold by S&W when they moved the factory to it's current location. In testing these items on guns in my collection, there were some items that did not fit known guns, but were marked as American or Russian models, so must have been made for prototypes or models, which if so, means that a given prototype was not a "one off" gun, but probably several had been made using the unknown jig or tool. Ed.

[jleiper]

Originally Posted by opoefc

Joe, Very interesting sleuthing ! I've always thought that unraveling the clues you may, or may not, find when examining older S&Ws, that leads one to an almost opposite conclusion from first impressions, is the the most interesting of the steps to a Smith & Wesson learning curve. Many years ago , when myself & others, where assisting Roy Double in his research on the American Model, we always seemed to run into more questions than answers. In the 50s I had acquired numerous jigs, gauges, and dies for the American & Russian Models from scrap sold by S&W when they moved the factory to it's current location. In testing these items on guns in my collection, there were some items that did not fit known guns, but were marked as American or Russian models, so must have been made for prototypes or models, which if so, means a given prototype was not a "one off" gun, but probably several had been made using the unknown jig or tool. Ed.

A good tool maker will almost always make a jig or fixture for a change because if the change is successful there will be more examples needed for testing. Additionally, tweeking a change to make it better can be based on the new tooling without rebuilding everything.

I don't think that we understand what a pain the Russians were about perfection and changes. The enlarged trigger pin is a good example. We also need to remember and understand that the Russian contracts were the lifeblood of S&W at the time - over 140,000 revolvers in 7 years important! So changes requested by their biggest customer were undertaken as quickly as possible.

I currently know of 3 different revolvers that fall into the area of development of the 2nd Model Russian. There could be many more, you just don't know because nobody has brought them to light and allowed them to be examined. The revolver in question in this thread could easily be an early attempt to change the grip shape. Since Americans liked the existing design, the change would have likely been for the Russians but there is no definitive proof of that.

Fascinating stuff!
Joe

[SYT]

Thank you again for your comments and knowledgeable insight. Is there a way to find someone to authenticate and appraise this S&W 3 in vicinity of southwest Oklahoma? The S&W factory is unable to due to a backlog as per their website. Any suggestions or other options would be appreciated. SYT

[DesmoEd]

Originally Posted by glowe

I am glad I do not buy engraved guns! Looks good to me, but in reality, I can hardly see the engraving in those pictures anyway.

Then maybe you should consider not passing judgement on subjects of which you have no knowledge?

[jleiper]

I was working on the portion of my book on the development of the Second Model No. 3 and was looking at the photos from this thread and realized something that I missed before. This revolver appears to have stepped chambers in the cylinder, i.e. it is in 44 Russian. I have never heard of an American this early in that caliber.
IMG_8451.JPG
All the mechanical features of this revolver indicate it is pre First Contract. Any thoughts?
Joe

[Penmon]

Dear Forum Members,
I read through this chain with great interest as this is one of my last grail guns.Great insight and a very intriguing mystery. I truly appericate the knowledge of the collectors on this fine forum.
One thing, with a new collector presenting a very interesting and early gun, it might be a good idea for us as a group to be a little more kind to one another.
As my sainted Mother once said, if you don't have anything nice to say, then shut up.

Penmon aka Jim Rouse

[opoefc]

Joe, The D9 assembly code on the cylinder face should appear elsewhere on the gun if the cylinder is original to the gun, and if it does, then your astute observation that the caliber is .44 Russian, does make this gun the earliest .44 Russian I know of. Having said that, then there's the possibility that this gun is a "sample" from the tool room, made up to show the Russians, etc. and a cylinder from another gun with a D9 code, in caliber .44 Russian was installed. ( You can convert a .44 Russian chamber to .44 American, but not the other way around) . Perhaps SYT can bring this gun to the next Tulsa show in Apr. 2016 and show it to you? When will your book be out ? Ed.