I had posted a thread last month after reading that all 32 Hand Ejector, 1st Models were antique and it generated lots of great posts, but no definitive answer.

Are all 32 HE, 1st Model Revolvers Classified as Antique?

Continuing my research, I was led to various sources that ended at Jim Supica, who could only remember reading an early SWCA Journal with information that he recalled stated 32 HE, 1st were all antique. He also remembered the author was a very credible expert in S&Ws. As it turned out, Jim has a great memory. I ordered Book 1 collection of the early years of the Journals and not only found the entry, but also found proof that the BATF considers all 32 HE 1st antiques!

It seems that in 1972, S&W sent a letter to Treasury Department, BATF with a list of all S&Ws that were to be considered as antiques. On that list was ".32 H.E. first Model (M1896)" and all were listed as antiques. The very credible expert was Roy Jinks, S&W Historian.

On August 30, 1972, the BATF replied and acknowledged the receipt of the list of all S&W antiques guns as classified by Roy's letter. No questions or exceptions were noted in that letter, so it was obvious that the BATF accepted the antique status of all on the list.

I have printed out the 2 letters below and intend to place them in my FFL Log Book for any inspector to see and have moved and listed my Model 1896s in my book of antique guns.

Great news for Model 1896 owners, and I thank Jim for taking time from his busy schedule to give me that important lead.

I hope that the SWCA will understand that this is an important piece of information to disseminate to the members and that I only reproduced what was relevant to the discussion.

Attached Images

	Model 1896 ATF Letter 1.jpg (53.0 KB, 288 views)
	Model 1896 ATF Letter 2.jpg (60.0 KB, 238 views)
	Model 1896 ATF Letter 3.jpg (70.6 KB, 223 views)

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Gary, Good to post this and bring the newer collectors up to date. I guess I hadn't been following your postings on this subject close enough as i could have told you where to find the info. etc. Sorry about that ! As a side issue on this subject I was recently going over the subject with Roy and inquired where in the archives of the factory was he able to find the manufacturing records to verify frame production of models prior to Dec. 31, 1898, as the production logs for these models list "made" dates going up to WW1 era. ( Earlier made frame stockpiles could have been used to make the guns, of course) . Roy was of the opinion that if he had to reverify that letter today, the old records he used were long gone and he would not be able to do so, Now, put yourself at D.B.Wesson's desk in the 1890s and think to yourself " Should I make a pile of frames for some models and store them in anticipation of the government some day placing a "drop dead" date on guns it will require collectors to register vs. no registration? Not likely. So why do it? The only reason I can think of from a management perspective would be to use vacant time on the drop forge to make and stockpile parts and frames, etc.,rather than have it sit idle. S&W had the only operating drop forge in the Conn. Valley for most of that time period and to keep it working, and making revenue, when S&W didn't need it, they leased it out to other gun makers, like Marlin, to make their gun parts. Anybody have a better idea? Ed.

My guess would be simple efficiency. Economies of scale. Once a production process for a part, in this case the frame, was set up, it made economic sense to produce a substantial amount. This was at the peak of the mechanical industrial age. There was no CNC, and re-tooling for a different frame size or other parts was not just a matter of reprogramming the system. As long as the company was reasonably confident it had a winner, from an economic point of view, turning out a few hundred at a time would appear considerably less efficient.

The hunt for information is the fun part. Glad I could find the exact documents that a few of the experts thought existed, but could not put a finger on it. Even Roy did not recall that exact letter when I asked him about how the Model 1896 was classified as antique by Rawles. I suspect that the antique status of S&Ws will not be revisited again by the BATF, as they have lots of more important things to do.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

There is a concept called the economic production quantity, i.e., the minimum quantity required to justify tooling, setup, etc. I sort of mentioned this in the earlier discussion, that S&W may have decided to make up a large number of 1896 frames and other components against future sales estimates for the next 5 years all at one time, and store them away for assembly into finished revolvers periodically during subsequent years, rather than setting up and tearing down tooling multiple times at greater cost. Remember, the Model 1896 being the very first of its type, did require special tooling and dies to produce, unlike anything earlier manufactured.

It may be possible that the folks at S&W were afraid that when 1900 came around that all of the computers they were using wouldn't be able to understand the change over from 1899 to 1900 and the world would come to an end. I think that I read about that on the internet.

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

How do you know that didn't happen? With revisionist history and the Matrix and all, maybe that's what really happened.

Neo

__________________
NRA Benefactor