I have found mention by an exhibition shooter (for Peters)who professes to have used a Model'95 S&W target model to do some 300 yard pistol shooting. This was back in early 1911, which I am thinking predated the Model '05 Hand Ejector. I am not an expert, but from hanging around here a bit have come to the conclusion that the 1905 Model is fairly common, but the '95 Model is news to me. Can anyone give me a background on the '95 and otherwise straighten me out? Has anyone a picture of the '95 Target model?
The ammunition is described as being Peters factory cartridges loaded with 3.5 grains of Bullseye and a 165 grain bullet. Evidently this was a new load at the time, and varied a little bit from the standard black powder 38 Special factory load with the mae (weight) bullet. The bp load was slightly more powerful.

I have found mention by an exhibition shooter (for Peters)who professes to have used a Model'95 S&W target model to do some 300 yard pistol shooting. This was back in early 1911, which I am thinking predated the Model '05 Hand Ejector. I am not an expert, but from hanging around here a bit have come to the conclusion that the 1905 Model is fairly common, but the '95 Model is news to me. Can anyone give me a background on the '95 and otherwise straighten me out? Has anyone a picture of the '95 Target model?
The ammunition is described as being Peters factory cartridges loaded with 3.5 grains of Bullseye and a 165 grain bullet. Evidently this was a new load at the time, and varied a little bit from the standard black powder 38 Special factory load with the mae (weight) bullet. The bp load was slightly more powerful.

Model numbers were not used until 1957 so I am not sure how a Model 95 could exist in 1911.

I have also never heard of a Model 95.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

Krag

We need some further information. Is the gun a top break, or is it a side-swing
cylinder ?

'95 is presumably referring to 1895. I'm not aware of any S&W being described as
the model of 1895. There is a model of 1896, but those are in .32 caliber.

The first K-frame, in .38 caliber, is the model of 1899. The first large-frame
.44 is the model of 1907, better known as the triplelock.

Any pictures would give us further insight. Even if its a copy of something in a
book, that would help.

Later, Mike Priwer

I guess I do have a picture, of sorts, showing the guy shooting the gun off hand. It is from a 1911 issue of Outdoor Life. Anyway, the revolver looks like a standard K-frame gun, but the grips look like they extend below the line of the bottom of the revolver by about a half inch or so. It is tough to tell.
Anyway, this is the second time I have read of a period 1910 revolver referred to as a '95 Model. Maybe this was a period reference to an existing gun that we now name something else???? Anyway, I have no way of reproducing the picture here, and it would do little good anyhow; the gun itself is distant and ill defined. It takes a magnifying glass. How does the Model 1899 contrast to the 1905 or Model 10 K-frame in general outline?

If it has extension stocks, then it might be a 22/32, or it could even be a 32. But
these look similar to a K-frame, but are the I-frame , which are a bit smaller.

It might also be an early single-shot, but those are typically top-break.

The question is - is the gun a top-break ? I suspect it is. I don't know as much about
those as I ought to.

Generally, 1899's, 1905's and model 10 K-frames are the evolution of the same gun.

Later, Mike Priwer

It doesn't look like a top break. I have considered that it is a Model of 1905, and the '95, unlikely as it must be, is a misprint.
I know for sure that it is a 38 Special and an adjustably sighted model. I know that this is akin to asking who is buried in Grant's tomb, but when was the target model of the 1905 introduced?

Are you sure it isn't a Colt?

__________________
Chris
SWCA #2243 SWHF #292

K-frames were introduced in 1899, with the Model of 1899. Target sights were available
from day one. The 1899 has no extractor lug under the barrel. The Model of 1902
has an extractor lug, but is other wise identical to the 1895.

The "true" Model of 1905 was introduced in 1904, and it is identical to the 1902
except that it has a square butt. If the picture is not very good, you would
probably be unable to distinguish between a 1902 and a 1905 - unless it has a
square butt.

In 1905, an engineering change introduced the 5th frame screw, in the front of
the trigger guard. The collectors have designated that engineering change as the
defining point for the model of 1905 - but that is not consistent with the factories
definitions.

The square-butt so-called 1905 was manufactured all the way up to 1940-ish, with
optional target sights. Round-butt guns were also available during that period.

If the gun has extension stocks, that extend below the bottom of the butt, then this
discussion might get interesting. The catalog of 1905 has a one-sentence note that
extension stocks are available for K-frames. There appears to be only one known pair,
and they look like this :



In this picture, they are contrasted against a pair for an I-frame :



If, in fact, this gun in question is a K-frame with factor-extension stocks, there are
several collectors , including myself, that would love to see that picture !

Again, it would help us to see a picture - no matter how bad.

Later, Mike Priwer

The gun looks like the revolver Mike pictures. The extended grips appear to project into the firer's sleeve, as he is shooting offhand. The ejector rod is very short, again, like Mike's photo.
This exhibition shooter is posed with another Smith and Wesson 38 in a 1913 photo, which would be clear as to model in an original illustration, but all I have is another xerox.
Smiths seemed to be his gun of choice, at least revolver of choice. I know he had an eight inch nickeled K-frame rebarreled by Harry Pope.
This is how Hardy describes his Smith and Wesson in 1911: "The revolver used in the test at the turkey profile was the '95 model S&W Special, with 6 1/2 inch barrel, just as it came from the factory". He describes the ammunition as distinctly .38 Special.
I'm leaving tomorrow for a week of deer hunting. Someone send me their address via PM, and I'll send you the xerox I have and maybe we can all learn something. There is a slim chance that I can get an original issue of the magazine and lay this question to rest.

Did the 1899s have a 1895 patent date on the barrel by any chance?

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

Krag

My address is Mike Priwer 333 NW 9th #607 Portland, OR 97209

I don't have my 1899's with me, so I don't know if the 1899 barrels have
a 1895 patent date. Its seems remotely possible - perhaps anyone who has
an 1899 can check. Some of the early 1899's have no roll markings on the
barrels (!) .

The gun I pictured is an 8" blue 1899, and the barrel has no roll markings.

I know where there is an 1899 8" nickel 1899. I think it is the only
nickel 8" 1899. I can call, and see if that is the same gun as being
described in the story. I did call, and that gun is a zero gun. I'm trying to get
more information on it.

There was a wellknown shooter named Carlin, and another named Gould, who did a lot of
experimental shooting at distances up to 300 yards. They also wrote for various
publications.

Muley - I checked with a knowledgeable source, and the 1899's do have 1895 patent dates
on the barrel. I think the dates start at 1889, one in 1894, two in 1895, and one in
1896. There is no model of 1895, however. So, maybe the '95 is a reference to one of the
dates on the barrel of this gun.

Later, Mike Priwer

per Neal & Jinks the patent date markings on the M&P First Model:
July 1, 1884, Apr.9,1889, May 21, 1895, July 16, 1895, Aug.4, 1896, Dec.22, 1896, Oct.4, 1898

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

Dean

Yes - that is what they are !

Whatever it was that was patented in 1884, and 1889, must have been used
on the earlier top-breaks. I wonder if it was used on the 1899's ?!

For me, the interesting story here would be to see a picture of extension
stocks on an early K-frame. They are documented only in the 1905 catalog -
not earlier, and not later.

Later, Mike Priwer