Mystery Gun- What is it?

Varangi

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
295
Reaction score
267
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
A mystery for the Collective:

No numbers- Single action- caliber not specified but 41 long colt fits into chamber-

Speculation- prototype for army review pre-WW1.

Check out the pics for subtle details- interesting specimen...

GO TO POST 233 FOR STORY BEHIND THIS GUN!!!
 

Attachments

  • 006.JPG
    006.JPG
    106.8 KB · Views: 6,836
  • 007.JPG
    007.JPG
    122.1 KB · Views: 6,312
  • 134.JPG
    134.JPG
    147.9 KB · Views: 6,172
  • 135.JPG
    135.JPG
    118.4 KB · Views: 5,738
  • 136.JPG
    136.JPG
    118.3 KB · Views: 4,322
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
I am really keen to hear peoples views about this...... I hope its some uber rare thing and worth Gazillions !!! Me, I have no idea but it looks great and is clearly in pretty god condition.
 
I will trust the markings that it is really a S&W and suggest that it is a test-bed or concept N-frame hand ejector that dates to the 1890s. It should date before 1902, because that is when S&W made the commitment to front locking lugs to hold the front of the ejector rod.

I would guess this might even predate 1896, the date of the first production hand ejector in .32 Long. I doubt it was intended as a serious production prototype because the future of revolvers lay with double action mechanisms.

The back-leaning lettering on the cylinder even hints at the 1880s to me.

It feels like an early design response to where Colt was heading with its DA revolvers.

Fascinating beast. I have never seen anything exactly like it.

Why .41 Colt instead of .44 Russian?

When did S&W first put the TRADE and MARK stamps above and below its company logo?

I'm pretty much at sea and waiting for further observations.
 
Oh, crud

You mean I was supposed to know what old worn down insignia is ????
NO WAY, I couldn't see if it I had it in my hands....
 
I will trust the markings that it is really a S&W and suggest that it is a test-bed or concept N-frame hand ejector that dates to the 1890s.

I'm going to sit this one out for the time being, but seems to me I've also heard tell that a Prototype or Test-Bed Revolver like this existed!!

It does have the look of an Over-Sized Model of 1896 except Single Action in 41 Caliber!! The Cylinder Markings & Hammer are near identical to a Model of 1896 as well with the exception of No Patent Information on the Cylinder that it wouldn't have had if it were Prototype or Experimental!!

It's going to be interesting to see how this thread evolves!!
 
This has the look of a Belgian trademark infringement revolver.

Sebago,

Sorry I didn't notice your post until after I put in my two cents worth, but even with what you suggested being a very good possibility, I'm still leaning towards it being S&W!!

Like I said earlier, it's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out!!
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking that it's a copy because the shape of the frame is wrong for a S&W Hand Ejector. It would be nice to see in layed out parallel to a later N frame, if that were done the extra depth of the frame behind the hammer would be obvious. It also looks like the grip is more vertical than any Hand Ejector, if fact that grip looks a lot like a Webley.
 
????????

Sebago,

Sorry I didn't notice your post until after I put in my two cents worth, but even with that being a very good possibility, I'm still leaning towards it being S&W!!

Like I said earlier, it's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out!!

Not a problem at all! This is an interesting exploration and I am just as curious as anyone! I have a copy of an old European gun catalog around here someplace that dates to 1906. It's thick and fairly comprehensive. I'll see if I can find it and see if it can shed anymore light.

A second examination of the photos also suggests the Winchester / Wetmore-Wood pattern.

Drew
 
My vote is for a foreign reproduction. The hump at the back of the frame is reminiscent of a top break and does not have the pronounced hump and reverse curve of most of the early S&W hand ejectors. The upper sideplate screw is actually above the sideplate and I can not recall any S&W hand ejector where the extractor was flying free like a Colt.:rolleyes:

Also most S&W HE trigger guards at the front are almost in line with the front of the cylinder window and the one pictured lands closer to the middle. There is also the extra screw forward the the front side plate screw.
 
Last edited:
I agree it's an odd duck, but since it may have been from the "transitional" period between top breaks and hand ejectors who knows what might have been prototyped. The sideplate certainly doesn't look like one from any other HE, but the 1896 .32 and 1899 .38 didn't have the front ejector locking point either.

If it is a foreign copy, how odd they went through the trouble of using S & W logos (especially on the cylinder, which was also on the 1896 but not on any larger caliber).
 
It appears to be a quality revolver and the workmanship appears on par with early S&Ws of that period. Also the S&W logo looks like factory period work.
The frame is some what like the old Colt 41 revolver but more exaggerated.
Could it be a prototype? Never say never.
The cylinder release is unlike any S&W I have ever seen and S&W never left a serial number off a gun that I know of.
I'll be following this post closely.
 
Not even a 1899 Military & Police????

Or the 1896 .32???

as I said, I can't recall, not that there aren't any. My collection tends to be hand ejectors from 1910 on. I had to go look at my one 1899 M&P first model to verify the no lug. I still stand by my observations regarding the trigger guard and the forward screw. :D
 
If anyone has a copy of "American Cartridges and Their Handguns" by Charles Suydam refer to pp. 192-3 for the.41 Smith & Wesson cartridge. Very little is known about it and at the time the book was written (Original (C) 1977) only two revolvers chambered for this cartridge were known to exist. These were a NM#3 Single Action and NM#3 Double Action. This may be a 3rd example. All the visual queues are there for an experimental revolver between the late 1880s and ca. 1896, before the first Hand Ejector was introduced, before they had decided on all future revolvers being double-action. Had this been built after the M&P, is there any doubt it would have looked just like the 1899 and been double-action? Definitely a candidate for a letter from Roy, there has to be something about it in the archives.

Reportedly an experimental cartridge sometime around the turn of the century. Per dimensions in Suydam the case is the came diameter as the .41 LC, slightly larger rim and length in-between the heel-based and inside lubricated variations of the .41 LC. The .41 S&W was one of several experimental cartridges S&W worked on between 1890-1910. Possibly the .38 Special was one too, and the only one to see production! Or, maybe, the .44 Special also.

And, yes, S&W did build pistols with no serial number. Tool room models and guns intended strictly for in-house testing that were never intended to see the light of day outside the factory fall in this group. I have seen one in 1974, a Model 39 used for test-firing spare magazines. When magazines needed to be shipped and there were no M-39s in production they shot every magazine through this gun. How is that for QC, test-firing magazines! Betcha you didn't know that!
 
Last edited:
If it is a foreign copy, the brazen reproduction of the S&W trade mark suggests an origin such as China or the Khyber Pass region, where such infringement was profitable rather than punished. Some in that part of the world were capable of remarkable workmanship despite having nothing but hand tools to use.

I do think that there will have to be a company record dug up before it can be accepted as a genuine S&W.
 
Back
Top