Pate photo error?

BibleronKJV · Aug 25, 2015

On page 106 of Pate's book is a photo of a supposed preVictory. If my eyes are not failing me that ejector rod head does not look like a preVictory. What think ye? I am not trying to be critical of Pate's book.....it is a great resource. Just asking for clarification. Thanks, Ron

Absalom · Aug 25, 2015

For a better discussion, I think this is the one Ron is referring to.

Ron, correct me if not.

mikepriwer · Aug 25, 2015

That nob is a Model of 1899 nob. One would have a very difficult time trying to fit
that extractor rod to anything with a serial number that high. There would be all kinds
of issues, not to mention major dimensional changes.

Maybe the serial number is wrong.

Mike Priwer

2152hq · Aug 25, 2015

Looks like the style that goes on the very early (first type?) M&P,,the one w/o the front lockup (Army & Navy issue some of them?).
Wouldn't make sense with this 900k ser#,,but then we can't see the rest of the bbl to see if it's been cut back & lost it's front locking pin arrangement in a post war surplus sale pitch.

Just my guess,,

>>I type way too slow,,Mike answered the question all ready!

Absalom · Aug 25, 2015

My first snip cut off the caption, so here's the complete one. Since it's from Pate's collection, wrong serial seems unlikely.

I found the reference in the second snip elsewhere in the book. This might explain the origin of the knob; maybe someone was improvising repairs by cannibalizing. Pure conjecture, of course.

On a side note, this is so far the only reference I've found in Pate where he uses the "pre-Victory" nomenclature on a British-contract gun. We had a disagreement over the appropriateness of applying this to the BSR in another thread recently.

BibleronKJV · Aug 26, 2015

I was attracted to Pate's photo because I have a Canadian marked PreVictory from the same shipment as the one in the photo. That's when I noted to ejector rod head. I suspect that the wrong photo may have been used, but that the caption is appropriate for a different revolver. Only Charlie Pate can resolve the problem I guess. Thanks for input, Ron

mikepriwer · Aug 26, 2015

Absalom

The yellow high-lighted comment explains the picture. The gun is an obsolete 1899 Navy. There is no way that any kind of parts-swapping would have worked. 500 1899's, on the other hand, is significant firepower ! To the extent the guns came from Navy stock, I seriously doubt they would have changed the serial numbers. Therefore, I continue to think that the serial number is wrong. It should have been something in the 5000 to 6000 range, as I recall.

As far as I know, however, no 1899 Navies with those markings have ever been observed.

Regards, Mike Priwer

opoefc · Aug 26, 2015

Any of the Model 1899 Navy guns sent to the Brits that survived the war and then were sold as surplus to British Arms Dealers for sale in Britain will have the proof marks, as proofing was required on all small arms sold in Britain. Pate's picture is obviously one of the Model 1899s. The error is in the serial number. Ed.

Absalom · Aug 26, 2015

Ed and Mike:

Your expertise far exceeds mine, so I'm sure you're correct. I've not owned an 1899, so I'm not familiar with the details of the knob assembly.

Since Pate seems to have lettered information on the gun with the serial number he references, and labels the pictured gun as "Author's collection", which would indicate he has the gun in his possession (unless it's just the picture that's in his collection), it's just a bit odd that he'd make such an elementary mistake bringing the two together. Apart from the ejector rod, AFAIK the 1899's were all round butt, but the pre-Victory BSR's all square butt, so this is rather obvious and a hard mistake to make. Maybe the picture just got swapped in the editing process and proofing didn't catch it.

opoefc · Aug 26, 2015

Pate tells me it must be an error in the new edition of the book, by Mowbray Publishers. He hasn't seen the new edition yet. The old book shows the Model 1899 on page 19 and info. is correct there. Ed.
( Edit. Mystery solved. The photo is an enlarged photo of the same gun ( Model 1899 ) as shown in 1st edit, page 19. However, caption was from another gun, a pre-Victory and the error was not caught before printing. )

Absalom · Aug 26, 2015

Aha. Thanks for checking up on this, Ed.

I don't have the older edition. Below is the gun on page 19 in the new edition and a close-up of the area (as close as my phone would let me). Obviously the same gun. Different photo though, at least based on the appearance of the shading in the one on p. 106.

Does anybody have an old edition to compare pictures?

EDIT: We apparently crossed keyboards time-wise, Ed. Thanks for the solution.

Pate photo error?

BibleronKJV

Member

Absalom

SWCA Member, Absent Comrade

Attachments

mikepriwer

2152hq

Member

Absalom

SWCA Member, Absent Comrade

Attachments

BibleronKJV

Member

mikepriwer

opoefc

US Veteran

Absalom

SWCA Member, Absent Comrade

opoefc

US Veteran

Absalom

SWCA Member, Absent Comrade

Attachments

Similar threads

Latest posts