3rd model 38 S&W hammer-less

A

akaLoneStar

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2024
Messages
9
Reaction score
7
Location
TEXAS
Was hoping to get more information on my top break revolver.
gHv1VV6.jpeg
XX1d5gO.jpeg
mA7E7zN.jpeg
NFGYTRL.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
Probably made late 1890's. Pre 1899
Pics are very shiny. May be original nickel
 
Thanks iby. I appreciate the timeframe. Is there a list that can be viewed that shows serial numbers vs timelines? Also, I feel like I'm on the right track model wise, but I'm new to these. Would this be called a Smith & Wesson 3rd model hammer-less safety DA 4" 38 S&W (or how should it be referred to)?
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the Forum. Your serial number indicates a 38 Safety, 3rd Model made from 1890 to 1898 so all are antiques. I question the finish for a couple or reasons. First the gun has been polished to a very high shine, which original 130 year old guns are never that bright. Second, your picture seems to show some pitting on the rear of the cylinder that would not appear if 100% original??? The holes in the sideplate are dished and the trigger guard seems not polished and deep blue as is found on originals. I have a cut barrel 38 3rd Model that still has what I believe is original.

attachment.php

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • P1010001.jpg
    P1010001.jpg
    90.3 KB · Views: 172
  • P1010005.jpg
    P1010005.jpg
    111.2 KB · Views: 167
Not sure on the finish, but the rest of the gun's condition seems to match pretty well. Lighting is tough to get right to truly represent the finishes. The finish is not flawless, but good. I took a few close ups and tried harder on the lighting. I also, cleaned the ol' pistol which seemed to make a pretty good difference. Note* Ammo box shown is not the for this pistol. Just happen to be handy to use when taking pictures.

yGiR3ZW.jpeg
qWhUH45.jpeg

p54n8z9.jpeg

1C3KuBL.jpeg

k2DNYJm.jpeg

bkVXEGO.jpeg

Ksf88RC.jpeg
 
Hi There,


This last set of pics show clearly that this revolver has been re-
finished. The most telling is the pic showing the S&W logo on
the right-hand frame. One can see the "pull-out" from buffing
on the top of the logo (where it says "Trade").


Good Luck!
Webb
 
Also I'm adding this photo of side plate. I think it was just bad lighting making for a bad photo before. There is no dished out areas. As mentioned before, I don't really know much about these top breaks and appreciate learning more about them and what I have. I always wanted one and kind of happened into this one. Being a hammerless safety, would this still warrant the nickname 'Lemon Squeezer"

UhS7bJ3.jpeg
 
I see what you are saying, but I can't see any divoting in person. With this finish it is almost impossible to get good shots of it especially using my phone. I noticed I could kind of replicate what we see in that picture with what is reflecting off the ceiling. See how I can move the divot look by changing the angle of the camera? In these 2 photos, I believe I was seeing the dark spot off the ceiling where the can light was out.

frFCLfL.jpeg

OR0GMtY.jpeg
 
Hi There,


Those additional photos definitely look better and the logo is a
lot sharper. It just goes to show how much a pic can mislead
as well as inform and sometimes an in-person inspection is the
only way to make an accurate appraisal.


Cheers!
Webb
 
Hello to all and Happy New Year. I was hoping to learn more about this Smith & Wesson model. Here is my list of questions:

What is the proper model name?
Would a hammerless safety be nicknamed a "Lemmon Squeezer"?
Is there a list of serial numbers and date ranges?
 
akaLoneStar said:
Hello to all and Happy New Year. I was hoping to learn more about this Smith & Wesson model. Here is my list of questions:

What is the proper model name?
Would a hammerless safety be nicknamed a "Lemmon Squeezer"?
Is there a list of serial numbers and date ranges?
Click to expand...

See Post #4. The serial number range for this model was from 42,484 to 116,00, so around 70,000 made in the 8 years of production. Lemon squeezer should be reserved for lesser quality hammerless revolvers since S&W collectors consider it a derogatory term. The factory never used the term in any printed materials available.
 
Last edited:
glowe said:
Lemon squeezer should be reserved for lesser quality hammerless revolvers since S&W collectors consider it a derogatory term. The factory never used the term in any printed materials available.
Click to expand...

Thanks for setting me straight. I meant no offense, and now that I know it will change the way I view the term being used by others.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
.38 S&W Safety Hammerless 3rd Model Question
Replies
4
Views
454
Boulder350
Boulder350
M
S&W 38
Replies
3
Views
95
lihpster
lihpster
T
S&W DA.38 Second Model Questions
Replies
2
Views
306
thomask
T
mm93
S&W Model 1 3rd variation
Replies
9
Views
476
iby
I
D
38 S&W Top Break Identification
Replies
3
Views
558
glowe
glowe

Latest posts

Back
Top