Smith & wesson 1905 4th change, year and usage?

A

arthur2647

Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Messages
35
Reaction score
5
Hi I recently won a 4th change revolver off of gunbroker for around 250. I was wondering if the year could be estimated without sending in a request for history. Also I was curious how the markings on the bottom wood stock got there? Any ideas? Thanks
Serial # - 538096


http://pics.gunbroker.com/GB/534591000/534591574/pix659446959.jpg


http://pics.gunbroker.com/GB/534591000/534591574/pix975780126.jpg

http://pics.gunbroker.com/GB/534591000/534591574/pix504349378.jpg


http://pics.gunbroker.com/GB/534591000/534591574/pix268716498.jpg
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
I looked at the other pics on the auction page and based on a few observations, the year can be narrowed down. The "Made in USA" roll mark on the right side began around 1922 and the mushroom shaped ejector knob was changed in about 1927. So somewhere between 1922 and 1927.

The grips would also be correct for that era.
 
Last edited:
The marks on the bottom of the grips got there from hammering up wanted posters at the post office. Collectors and safety experts advise against this because when hammering, the business end of the barrel is sweeping you from top to bottom. ;)

Looks like a nice M&P otherwise. Enjoy shooting it.
 
I agree with Gary on the year. I have lettered serial number 5315xx and it shipped in February, 1926.

Here's a picture:
jp-ak-albums-miscellaneous-revolvers-picture8451-38-m-p-2-26-right.jpg
 
Thanks for all the info guys. And that looks like a really nice m&p JP. I'm just wondering, why did s&w change the mushroom ejector? It seems more convienent to use.
 
Also I wanted to know what kind of ammo is okay to shoot? I know this gun was intended for lead bullets so should I only use standard pressure lead rounds or are some jacketed rounds ok? Thanks again
 
My guess on the mushroom ejector rod knob switch was the company found that the barrel shaped knob cost less. It only required a single cut in the barrel, it was smaller and easier to make.

All standard 38 Special ammunition for sale today will be just fine for your revolver assuming the action functions correctly. Stay away from jacketed bullets and +P and you should be just fine.
 
glowe said:
My guess on the mushroom ejector rod knob switch was the company found that the barrel shaped knob cost less. It only required a single cut in the barrel
Click to expand...

That has always been my assumption too. The two stage cut takes additional machining that was thought to be unnecessary.
 
would assume that the mushroomed head on the ejector rod would be the hardest to set up and make ,not the 2 step cuts in the barrel.That would be the time consuming and the costliest thing to make .
 
Just my opinion but I think many of the changes to S&W revolvers - deletion of the barrel pin, no recessed charge holes, change to MIM parts, etc. were all motivated by reduced cost and the bottom line.
 
Inusuit said:
Just my opinion but I think many of the changes to S&W revolvers - deletion of the barrel pin, no recessed charge holes, change to MIM parts, etc. were all motivated by reduced cost and the bottom line.
Click to expand...

Just my opinion, but you're right---and that practice really burns my butt!!

On the other hand, they (S&W) once built the finest revolver known to man---before or since. We call it the Triplelock. It did poorly in the marketplace (See "bottom line"). Apparently it did poorly in the marketplace because of the price. I say that because it's replacement did better. Apparently the replacement did better because it cost less-----$2. (That was slightly less than 10%----and it cost less because it was worth less----something to think about next time you buy a "new and improved" something that costs less.)

So, it seems the marketplace---that would be our ancestors then---and us now are the force that drives this disgusting behavior. That would seem to speak volumes about our sense of value.

My motto: It only costs a little more to go first class.

Damn shame so few agree with me. Just think of all the really GOOD stuff we'd have otherwise. And lest there be any misunderstanding, "GOOD stuff" means top quality----stuff we keep and use forever---rather than stuff we use for awhile, and throw it away when it malfunctions and buy another one----and then another one----and then another one.

Kind'a makes your teeth hurt, doesn't it?!

Oh, well.

Ralph Tremaine
 
Last edited:
The history of manufacturing is one of increasing production and lowering costs through design and materials change. If you don't do it, some competitor will, and then you're out of business. That's just how the world works. And just what is so bad about eliminating barrel pins and chamber recesses? I can see no loss whatsoever, as those features long ago lost any necessity.
 
Thanks for all the replies guys, I was thinking on similar basis about the manufacturing changes. But I do agree with rct. I just wanted to ask another question about the ammo. I found several 158grain lead ammo but it varies from around 755fps to around 900. As long as it does not say +p, it is ok to use right ? Thx
 
arthur2647 said:
Thanks for all the replies guys, I was thinking on similar basis about the manufacturing changes. But I do agree with rct. I just wanted to ask another question about the ammo. I found several 158grain lead ammo but it varies from around 755fps to around 900. As long as it does not say +p, it is ok to use right ? Thx
Click to expand...
Use it. You can even use +P safely, but it is not recommended.
 
I was just wondering why is it bad to shoot jacketed ammo in these older guns. Besides the extra wear on the barrel and rifling, I thought that in the 30's - not too long after this gun was made- that they had jacketed ammo already or did I read something wrong ? And seeing as how I wouldn't be able to shoot very much anyway, what kind of impact does a box of standard fmj ammo do every couple months? I'm not really asking this in order to save money. But instead I'm just curious since I've read various opinions on this. A part of me feels like it's a very bad thing to do but another says it should be ok. I'm just trying to figure out what's allowed, since the dealer who transferred the gun over to me said its fine to shoot jacketed ammo occasionally. But of course my main goal is to stick to loads that would have been used in the time my revolver existed. Thanks
 
arthur2647 said:
I was just wondering why is it bad to shoot jacketed ammo in these older guns. Besides the extra wear on the barrel and rifling, I thought that in the 30's - not too long after this gun was made- that they had jacketed ammo already or did I read something wrong ? And seeing as how I wouldn't be able to shoot very much anyway, what kind of impact does a box of standard fmj ammo do every couple months? I'm not really asking this in order to save money. But instead I'm just curious since I've read various opinions on this. A part of me feels like it's a very bad thing to do but another says it should be ok. I'm just trying to figure out what's allowed, since the dealer who transferred the gun over to me said its fine to shoot jacketed ammo occasionally. But of course my main goal is to stick to loads that would have been used in the time my revolver existed. Thanks
Click to expand...

I would say that 99% of all revolver ammo produced in the 1930s was soft lead. 1917 revolvers, both Colt and S&W, were designed for jacketed .45 ACP ammo. Steels were softer back then and the friction level is less with lead ammo.

It wasn't until the late 1960s & early 1970s that factory jacketed handgun ammo was common.
 
Last edited:
I once had a Victory model that lettered as having shipped to the OSS. The bottom side of the forcing cone was cracked. Since these were designed to be used with jacketed bullets (hardball), I don't believe that was the cause. I think it was from firing +P ammo in it. Though it was still safe to shoot standard lead loads in it, it's a shame that had to happen to such a nice collectible piece. So, I would caution on the use of +P in it. It just isn't worth the risk. By the way, nice one! ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top