Mystery Gun- What is it?

The most enjoyable aspect of this thread for myself is the
intelligent and knowledgeable discussion leading to interesting
and logical conclusions about the current status of the mystery.

There are some very good thinkers who engage in fruitful exchange.

I my life, this is somewhat rare. ;)

I hope some pertinent documentation will emerge.

Thank you.

John
 
I'm nobody from nowhere, but if a home-brewed gun smith in Pakistan or Afghanistan were making a one of kind gun and trying to pass it off as a S&W product might he not include internal markings that matched the genuine article and copy the the thread dimensions when he made the screws? Or maybe he used the screws from a donor S&W? Perhaps I am completely kooky but I still think it may be from a smith operating out of a cave in the mountains, somewhere. I just can't see S&W making a SA design this late.

OK, I'll go back under my rock, now.

In order to understand why the Revolver in question is not 'from a cave in Afganistan or Pakistan', you would have to actually look at Revolvers which are, or were, from that provenance, and to compare them to any Colt or Smith & Wesson of that or an earlier time period.

There are no examples of 'Cave Guns' or their kin, which would fool anyone who has actually looked at them closely or had them in Hand to examine, even as one who examines them closely and notes actual comparisons of structure design and detail, is not going to be fooled by early 20th Century Spanish Revolvers which in some instances may resemble superficially, the Colts or Smith & Wessons they sought to emulate.
 
Last edited:
I'm not so sure. I have seen such knock-off guns that included stampings and other features intended to fool the casual observer.

I'm just making an uneducated guess, here.

You changed what you said. The post I replied to was you saying that if someone was making a phony S&W (whether or not it was based on something S&W made) that they would mark the INSIDE of the gun and use the same screw pitches that S&W uses in an effort to fool someone. To that specifically, I say very doubtful.

Your reply (the second reply) above says that knockoffs include stampings, which I assume you mean on the outside of the gun. That's a well known fact.

On the other hand, its hard to believe they went as far as to use S&W screws (once again, why?) or to use the same type of assembly numbers and other various markings that S&W used during manufacture as you suggested. As I said, I could see someone doing that to fool a collector into paying big bucks for a fake or a one-off prototype that isn't real, but not some guy in Europe or Asia who wasn't interested in fooling a collector.

**I am not saying this gun was a foreign make or not. I don't know. I don't have an opinion after this thread lol. I would like to know what the truth is however.
 
....
PS... my opinion: nothing yet precludes it from the OP's stated belief that it's most likely a S&W prototype. I cannot imagine that all of Dan and Horace's designs were immediately put into production without some trial editions; a few of which (perhaps like this one), didn't pass corporate acceptance for whatever reason. -S2

PS PS: If indeed it is a S&W prototype, somewhere, sometime there must be at least a few drawings and/or documentation. -S2

I'm nobodier and nowherer than Saxon Pig, but the statement above rings true to me. I highly doubt that each model of S&W sprang forth fully formed from the factory - there must surely have been any number of prototypes, one-ofs and dead ends that were built during the company's long history. And I would expect the late 19th century to be a hotbed of this kind of activity when the only practical way to see if something worked, would be to build it and try it.

With that in mind, perhaps some of the keepers of S&W history could post some pics and descriptions of similar items. The kind of thing that, if it were presented today without any kind of provenance, would provoke the same kind of discussion we're having now. Surely there are documented S&W prototypes that are just as odd as this item is?
 
Dwayne W. Charron spent almost 50 years in the employment of Smith & Wesson. Many of those years were as the Director of Research and Development and in his fascinating new book, MY LIFE JOURNEY WITH SMITH & WESSON, Mr. Charron makes the following statement: "Over the years, I received many requests for a design, which for one reason or another, never went beyond a one-of-a-kind prototype."

I can think of no reason why Mr. Charron's predecessors in his position, during the time of manufacture of this "Mystery Gun", wouldn't make the same statement.

Bob
 
I wasn't familiar with Mr. Charron before reading that post.
I wish it wasn't so hard to rule out an elaborate, albeit odd copy of a real S&W.
This conversation was over my head to begin with but now it's too deep for me to swim.
I think I'll watch from the sidelines and see if any brainiacs come up with the answer.
 
Dwayne W. Charron spent almost 50 years in the employment of Smith & Wesson. Many of those years were as the Director of Research and Development and in his fascinating new book, MY LIFE JOURNEY WITH SMITH & WESSON, Mr. Charron makes the following statement: "Over the years, I received many requests for a design, which for one reason or another, never went beyond a one-of-a-kind prototype."

I can think of no reason why Mr. Charron's predecessors in his position, during the time of manufacture of this "Mystery Gun", wouldn't make the same statement.

Bob


Yes...and for every Model S & W came out with, there were the developmental stages, and, whatever 'Branches' of the developmental stages as did not become the final design or configuration, as well as Models, finished to whatever degree or purpose, which were never produced.

We know approximately the number of specific Models and to a large extent, the variaitons of those Models, which S & W made over the years, or, maybe we know exactly, but likely there are some not-so-clear areas here and there also.

But, we have no way to know how many distinct or particular Models or variaitons of a Model, S & W considered to produce, had finished In-House examples of to handle and discuss evaluate and or show prospective Buyers...and, then, never produced them.

And, over time, unless given to friends or favored employees otto design asociates or Shop Personel who had been involved, or put in Storage which continued to be managed and cared for, where they may come to Light at some point or other, the disposition of these 'never made it to production' examples, will be unknown, as would be their very existence in the first place.
 
Oyeboteb and bettis1,

Exactly...so to state the obvious, what became of these myriad prototypes w/o proper authenticating documentation when they 'show up' or are found by relatives of former owners of them, may well be illustrated by this current MG dilema.
 
The other fact that we must not forget is that things were done a lot differently in 1900 than they are done in 2000. It is very possible that one or more of the "mechanics" (for lack of a better term) that worked at S&W heard through the grapevine that the company was looking to produce X. So before work or during lunch hour or even after hours, it is highly possible that frankenguns were put together using parts of existing models including unseen or unused modifications to existing models. Designs that never made it into production could easily have gone home and stored in a sock drawer.

In the book by Dwayne Charron, mentioned in several posts, his son Dean comments about going to the factory with his father on Saturdays while dad worked on projects and even built him a go kart out of scrap metal.

It is therefore not a very far stretch to think that prototypes were put together during these off hours.

The biggest problem that I can see for the owner is proving that claim. With documentation or drawings, the gun becomes a one of a kind that many collectors would like to acquire. Without that paperwork, you are just buying a possible story.

The old addage states: Buy the gun, not the story.
 
James Redfield: I agree with the concept you offer. I worked in factory process and new product R&D and technical service for the last 20 years before I retired in 1999. Not all "prototypes" or "models" get documented. Many get built before the design is put on paper, or at least officially put on paper. Many get shelved and the documentation gets put off and lurks in the "to do" stack on someone's desk (sometimes until they retire). The guys I worked with did not have the time to spend officially documenting many of the things that did not work out or got shot down. Even though our VP of Engineering and the VP of R&D both wanted that documentation for possible future use (patent protection, etc.).
 
Oyeboteb and bettis1,

Exactly...so to state the obvious, what became of these myriad prototypes w/o proper authenticating documentation when they 'show up' or are found by relatives of former owners of them, may well be illustrated by this current MG dilema.


Let alone what happened/happens to old, unusual, possibly even In-the-White Prototypes of whatever make, where no Maker's Name or Emblem is present to cue the naive pilgrim...especially in those pre-internet-days.

Found among Grandpa's odds-n-ends, dad removed the Firing Pin with 'pliers', given to 'The Kids' to play with in the 1920s...thrown around, eventually tossed into the basement 'Holloween Costume Trunk' with all those High Button Shjoes with the curled up toes...after the basement flood, gets thrown away since now it is badly rusted, forgotten by all but for a dim memory of something they never understood in the first place, etc, or...
 
All of this scholarly discussion brings to mind Lucian Cary's story "The World's Greatest Webley Collector" A wonderful tale about a hoax that Webley & Scott perpetrated on a German spy during WWI. He was an employee in the pistol development shop and they kept feeding him one-off ridiculously designed pistols that he supposedly was smuggling back to the high command in Germany. At the end of the war the spy disappeared and was not heard from until about three years later when he made the papers after selling a collection of super rare Webley prototypes for over a half million pounds sterling.
 
What a great read for a newcomer to Smith collecting.. A prototype, salemans sample, employee project, Spanish copy or a parts gun it sure has recieved lots of consideration... Thanks guys.
 
If anyone can cite any known examples, of unique Frame, non-Production Model, Smith & Wesson Revolvers, made by Employees in off hours, as 'Lunch Box Specials', please, Post the Links or other references or relay the anecdote?
 
Last edited:
That's a great idea. I'd like to see some.

Call me a cynic though, I'm afraid most are in basements and the back rooms of gun shops in boxes marked 'knock off' or 'S&W copy' or maybe even in toy boxes since their provenance was probably no easier to establish then our mystery gun. Except we do occasionally see them in museums, apparently when they made the trip directly to the museum from the factory and from factory personnel. They seem like only a pittance of what must have existed.
 
Mystery Gun Musings

My schedule has not allowed me to participate in this thread before now but now that I do have a moment, I am glad to see that some people have finally begun to talk about the fact that the R&D process is not always as "structured" as everyone would like to believe ("bobsdad" in their insightful Post #291) and that all kinds of breadboards (generally pre-prototype proof-of-concept models), prototypes, show samples and salesmen samples, and more can be made on and off the books.

And by "off the books" I don't mean anything shady or illegal but merely something that was done "unofficially" during regular working hours, or something that someone did on their own time, and/or something that represented somebody's own ideas or perhaps ideas that were offered up independently of the "company line" at the time.

Some of this was suggested by several of the more recent posters to this thread (including "JRS III's" Post #290 comparing the period around 1900 to today) as well as at least one earlier one ("opoefc's" Post #129 that focuses on the actual time frame in question). But for those of you who might doubt their remarks and/or dismiss them as conjecture passed down over time or maybe just "remembered" to sell books, I would tell you to read my post concerning the non-Engineering Department development of the Full Lug Model 14 in the early 1990's (http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/235452-origins-model-14-full-lug-introduction-swca.html) that was written here merely to set the story straight. It shows how the gun that led to the reintroduction of the venerated .38 Masterpiece was made up outside of the Engineering Department and from parts and by people found in numerous unrelated job roles throughout the company.

In a similar manner but not yet documented by me on this Forum, is how the first three "samples" of the now well respected 3954 DAO pistol were made well before any of the others were even considered by a man who will go unnamed (because he is still with the company) at the "request" of someone else (who is not) by welding up the frames of several unfinished mini-39's to match the length of already-in-production DAO 6900 Series slides and hammers and it was felt that the darker color of the 54's would better hide that work in the photos needed for a what turned into a cover article introducing the gun to the public, than would have the lighter toned 53's if we had chosen them. The Engineering Department was not part of that work.

Revolvers and revolver concepts were not immune from such approaches either for the first large scale, modern day test of the .357 magnum J-Frame was done on a batch of reintroduced (no grip safety) Centennial models in the early 1990's (at a time long before anything like this was sold to the public) by someone who is now no longer with the company and who wasn't with either Product or Manufacturing Engineering when he was.

Finally, in the days before Photoshop or even digital photography as we know it now, the 3" Full Lug Model 60 that graces the front of the company's Single Sheet Product Release (of the type that Smith used for just about everything back then) was actually an already-completed 3" Full Lug Model 36 that had been "reworked" by the Customer Service Repair Shop, the skilled craftsmen of the Polishing Department, several others in the Finishing Department as a whole, and the company's then-Master Engraver to look like the stainless steel gun that it was supposed to be. All of that being necessary because "real" guns weren't scheduled to be "run" until some weeks after their announcement had to be made to the dealer network and there were no prototypes yet constructed.

Furthermore, along the same lines and also with all due respect to "Sebago Son" who stated in his Post #59 (and somewhat reiterated in his Post #140) that "…The tool room work ups that I've seen were rarely finely finished to commercial standards such as the mystery gun is…", while I am sure that this is the case in his experience, the .22-to-.38 caliber barrel modification to a .32 caliber frame that I mentioned in that other thread about the making of the first Full Lug Model 14, those first three 3954 DAO 9mm pistols mentioned here, and the "faux" 3" Model 60 Full Lug that I discussed above were all basically "tool room" and "repair shop" workups that were finished well enough to both photograph and put into people's hands.

I mention these examples only to show you that such things were done routinely like that in regard to all products and involving the unwritten work of many departments within the company. And this wasn't just peculiar to the 1990's, for in my work, I have been lucky enough to have been shown all kinds of factory "one-offs" that if seen on a table at a gun show, would certainly raise both the eyebrows and the suspicions of those passing by.

In regard to earlier-than-the-1990's-timeframes, let's (again with no disrespect intended) look at "Handejector's" remark in his Post #60, which raises the question "Why would they take time to put the logo and cyl engraving on a prototype if they did not even take time to put assembly numbers on it?" Approaching it from the viewpoint of "DC Wilson's" remark in his Post #69 about "Handejector" (Lee Jarrett) where he states that "Lee knows as much about S&Ws as the dead engineers", I wonder what a few dead or not maybe not yet dead, later-generation engineers might think about a .22 Pistol I was shown in regard to a project that I was working on while at the factory that had obviously been created years (probably decades) earlier in an effort to compete with the Ruger .22 Auto.

That gun (and to be honest, I don't remember if it bore any assembly numbers), had a large round knob fitted to the rear of the slide/bolt (I don't remember which) in the manner of the Ruger but it was perhaps a bit bigger in diameter and it was truly circular in nature; lacking the flats employed on the gun from its competitor. However, one thing it didn't lack was an exquisitely engraved, large S&W logo that not only filled most of that knob's surface but presented itself directly toward the eye of the user every time they picked the gun up to look through its sights; obviously reminding any such handler who it was that built it.

And as to features seen on the "Mystery" gun that is the topic of this thread that are unexplainable (and therefore, logically call into question the gun's validity), another gun shown to me on that same day, was what I remember as a long-barreled M&P revolver that was fitted to, or at least associated with, a very early Armalite (not Charter Arms) synthetic Survival Rifle stock on to which it could be attached or possibly, into which it could be stored. But what struck me the most about that gun was the typical, flip-up, ladder-type rifle or carbine rear sight that was nicely machined into it with the thought (I suppose) that this stocked revolver would be shot like a rifle so a rifle-type sight was warranted. I am sure that with this being America, with its Winchester "Gun That Won The West" view of things, that this overly-optimistic approach to the matter was chosen to accomplish the task rather than the kind of equally overly-optimistic, sliding wedge arrangements that had long been applied to the stocked Broomhandles and Hi-Powers of Asia, Europe and Canada.

Those two guns might have been sold off when part of the company collection was auctioned some years back (I apologize but my library is not available to me at the moment and I don't have access to the sale catalog) so everybody here might already be aware of them but if you are not and this is the first that you have heard of them, can you imagine if either one merely showed up somewhere someday? Hopefully, they had a serial numbers or better yet an "X" number so that they might be linked to the work performed on them. But I would think that unless they did, they too would receive, what at times has not been merely a skeptical but almost a scornful reception by some in this thread.

Further supporting my belief that both recorded and non-recorded experiments and aberrations took place all the time are things like the following.

One relates to the matter raised early on in this thread about the Pull-Type ejector rod and the Thumb Release both being present on the gun. "Alk8944" referred to a similar anomaly in their Post #49 that existed (for different reasons) in the .38 "Perfected" series of medium bore breaktop revolvers: guns that "Alk8944" points out used "both a side thumbpiece and a "T" latch". Yes, I know the Marketing arguments offered up for this "belt-and suspenders" approach on those guns but I also agree fully with "Alk8944" that "If only one or two Perfected Models…existed I would venture the same arguments, that they couldn't be real S&Ws, and for similar reasons, would be made against them also!"

Another that is along those same lines but from a later (in fact, relatively recent) period of time, is a tangential example where the Performance Center at S&W offered an "L" frame barrel that was cut open on the right side of the barrel shroud (allowing for several things; one of them being the ability to address the tip of the rod from both sides and move it forward if necessary), which could further serve to indicate that duplication of effort is something not unknown to Smith & Wesson. While I think this barrel might have been mentioned elsewhere on this site (and "leftover" examples of it were sold by Gun Parts Corporation), two photos of a 7-shot Model 681 built at Smith for a friend of mine that used that barrel are included below.

By the way, without the paperwork that accompanied it, how many people one-hundred years from today would believe that gun to be legit; especially when the barrel (originally designed and utilized on another series of guns altogether) was included as a favor and is not indicated on anything except the eMails where it was "discussed".

As to all the questions regarding the lines per inch seen on the dished face of the Thumb Release being different than in later (verifiable) production versions, who knows what people experimented with back then (or, in this particular case, perhaps modified) to save money or, maybe, to improve performance?

The early (pre-Novak sight) 5906 slide pictured below was made for me at Smith in what at the time was called the Model Shop by some and "Experimental" by others, in order to gauge the response from an ongoing group of known users as to the effectiveness of its full-length but conventionally-patterned serrations during the performance of stoppage (immediate action) drills. Everybody liked them (they gave the user a better purchase and it prompted them to not put their hands near the muzzle like additional front serrations can do) but the company merely chose not to implement the concept. Happens all the time. I liked the idea (and a few other "experiments" the gun contained) so ultimately, I bought it from the company. But if I ever put that pistol out, unexplained at a gun show, I believe that just like they would with that rifle-sighted M&P or the 7-shot, oddly-barreled 681, most people would simply walk by and assume that is was something that a local gunsmith merely "butchered" and not something the factory did "for real".

With the almost constant reminders by many of the more wizened individuals on both sides of this Forum that one can never say "never" when it comes to Smith & Wesson in regard to complete guns, options and accessories, as well as to shipping dates and, separately, the use of leftover parts, I was saddened by the almost steadfast beliefs espoused early on in this thread by a number people (people who I look up to a great deal) who believed in the case of this "Mystery" revolver that such a detailed and unusual firearm could not be legitimate.

Therefore, while I firmly believe that gun could also be something as simple as a homebuilt experiment made ages ago by someone who didn't even work for the factory or as dastardly as an outright attempt by someone, who, in later years, saw money to be made by creating a forgery (or, in fact, just about anything in between those two extremes), I also think that very possibly, it could be something that came out of the factory, came out of the Arsenal or even came about through the efforts of both entities.

While a collector (or even a researcher) always has to be careful and on their guard against fakery (I am also in agreement with "JSR III" here in his Post 290 in that you "Buy the gun, not the story"), it also has to be recognized that every day that goes by, we lose more and more of our links to the past, making not only real stories forgotten (again "JSR III" in Post 290 and also "Oyeboteb" in their Post 292) but the potential for false ones (and false guns) all the more possible.

Therefore I also believe that the resurrection and, more importantly, the documentation of the kinds of guns mentioned by "opoefc" early-on in this thread in his Post #129, then more recently by "Tom K" (Post #285) and "Oyeboteb" (Posts 288 and 297) and also called for by "Hondo44" in his Posts #132, #289 and the one immediately preceding mine here (Post #298), are worth reaching out for and studying with an open mind. Granted, there will be tons of guns that won't even be close to being the "real thing" (let alone, in many cases, even close to being "real S&W's") but just as people still stumble across rare guns and accessories all the time, there is a very good chance that items that were set aside, thrown out, given away, forgotten about, or "procured" might turn up and enlighten us all. And isn't the advancement of knowledge, as well as the sharing of it, a big part of what this Forum is all about?
 

Attachments

  • 01 Factory 7Shot 681 wPC Barrel Lt Sd.jpg
    01 Factory 7Shot 681 wPC Barrel Lt Sd.jpg
    62.2 KB · Views: 281
  • 02 Factory 7Shot 681 wPC Barrel Rt Sd.jpg
    02 Factory 7Shot 681 wPC Barrel Rt Sd.jpg
    63.4 KB · Views: 276
  • 03a Factory Modified 5906.jpg
    03a Factory Modified 5906.jpg
    170.1 KB · Views: 270
  • 04a Factory Modified 5906.jpg
    04a Factory Modified 5906.jpg
    174.2 KB · Views: 246
  • 05a Factory Modified 5906.jpg
    05a Factory Modified 5906.jpg
    178 KB · Views: 217
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top