1902 1st Change "Square" Estimate?

[Hondo44]

Lee, I have a 1914 catalog identifying both models. Also, a 1906 price list shows Model 1902 for $15 and a Model 1905 w/square handle for $16.00 in both 32 WCF and 38 Special.

I don't get passionate about this debate, it just adds fun and thinking to collecting. There appears to be merit on both sides of the controversy.

If the 1914 catalog text in Smith advertising for the 1902 model can be believed that; "This model is identical with Model 1905, shown on the opposite page, except in the shape of the handle.", meaning it has the 5th screw and cyl stop changes of the M1905, this might make a case for a "Model of 1902 - 2nd Change" or no change from the "Model of 1902 – 1st Change", just a new grip shape option that began before the Model 1905.

Or is the quoted text above just marketing hype to sell off "Model of 1902 - 1st Change" inventory?

I know that Smith didn't like to be very transparent in their marketing, they preferred not to bring attention to the changes with different model names. We collectors have done that for our purposes until Smith changed and started using the engineering change dash #s following model #s post 1957.

Hence the debate ensues that if the 1902 - round butt or sq butt has "identical" lockwork to the 1905, it can be considered a round or sq butt 1905. But as Mikepriwer indicates, advertising continues to market the 38 M&P as two separate models, long after old inventory of the 1902 - 1st change was exhausted, and with 1905 changes (5th screw, et.al.), which they do have, there's the case that the round but is a M1902 - 2nd Change. At least until the 1919 catalog, when the 1902 and 1905 designations are dropped and replaced with 38 M&P for both models, therefore in my mind making them one and the same model with a grip shape option like many other post war models.

It's a conundrum.

But regarding the original part of the debate: IMHO, if a model 38 M&P SQUARE BUTT still only has 4 screws, single extractor star alignment pin, w/o the 1905 cyl stop/cut out changes, then I would consider it a Model 1902 - 1st Change because not having the 5th screw, et.al. changes, differentiates it from the Model 1905 introduced in May 2, 1905.

 

[Wiregrassguy]

Jeb, when you pull the cylinder and yoke from the frame, put the gun inside a plastic (ziplock) bag in case the spring launches the detent. Most of the time, you'll find the detent and spring missing...or the spring will still be caught inside the well with the detent missing. The detents are fairly easy to replicate with the shaft of a small drill bit.

 

[mikepriwer]

Jim

I don't see how there can be any doubt in anyones mind about the introduction of the
Model of 1905. It was not an option of the Model of 1902 - the factory considered it to
be a new model, and gave it a new name. At the time, they were not concerned about
engineering changes being a part of the collector methodology. They simply introduced
a new model, in an existing serial number series, that is identical to an existing model except for the butt configuration. The new model, and the existing model, both have
the same engineering changes, which is what you'd expect if the two are otherwise identical.

Then along comes the collectors, and they are faced with an insoluble problem. How does the old model with one significant engineering change, relate to the new model that has no engineering changes (because its a new model) ? And yet the guns are identical.

In other words, the Model of 1905 is identical to the Model of 1902 1st change. That, in a few words, is the crux of the problem - if one tries to include engineering changes in the name of the model.

Regards, Mike Priwer

 

[Hondo44]

Jim

1. I don't see how there can be any doubt in anyones mind about the introduction of the Model of 1905. It was not an option of the Model of 1902 - the factory considered it to be a new model, and gave it a new name. At the time, they were not concerned about engineering changes being a part of the collector methodology.

2. They simply introduced a new model, in an existing serial number series, that is identical to an existing model except for the butt configuration. The new model, and the existing model, both have the same engineering changes, which is what you'd expect if the two are otherwise identical.

Then along comes the collectors, and they are faced with an insoluble problem. How does the old model with one significant engineering change, relate to the new model that has no engineering changes (because its a new model) ? And yet the guns are identical.

In other words, the That, in a few words, is the crux of the problem - if one tries to include engineering changes in the name of the model.

Regards, Mike Priwer

Hi Mike,

1. But why would Smith give the 4 screw sq butt change the new name of Model 1905 prior to the other Model 1905 changes being incorporated?

Here's the catch; calling the 4 screw sq butts M1905s ignores the difference between the early 4 screw sq butts with serial #s that precede the 5 screws sq butts with the other slightly later changes of the Model 1905. To be consistent, you'd have to make the May 2,1905 M1905 the M1905 - 1st Change, and update the subsequent numbered changes.

And one would have to make the assumption that Smith 'jumped the gun' with the sq butt feature introducing it before all the Model 1905 changes were incorporated, hence delaying the M1905 introduction until the other changes; 5th screw, et. al., were incorporated. And that Smith then decided on the Model 1905 new model name and retroactively applied the name to the 4 screw sq butt Model 1902s. Catalogs support that assumption up to 1919.


2. I agree, at first the sq butts were identical to the existing model, the Model 1902 - 1st Change. But to call it a Model 1905, one has to dispute the May 2, 1905 introduction date of the Model 1905. So where did the SCSW get that date? It's not in Jinks' books. And what new date do you propose?



For me to make a conclusion, the key here is probably to know:

the manufactured (not shipping) dates of the earliest 4 screw sq butts and if they preceded the Model 1905 introduction date of May 2, 1905, which I believe we have evidence of. But then come up with a new M1905 intro date.

Also, are there M1905s, i.e., with the changes, 5th cyl stop screw, trigger cuts, chafing bushings, and cyl pin, with manufactured dates that preceded the May 2, 1905 date? If there are, that too supports an earlier date for the intro of the M1905.

Ed, "opoefc" has the daily production logs of the S&W Floor Foreman for some models. I wonder if they show any 1902s and 1905s.

 

[jebstuart]

Jeb, when you pull the cylinder and yoke from the frame, put the gun inside a plastic (ziplock) bag in case the spring launches the detent. Most of the time, you'll find the detent and spring missing...or the spring will still be caught inside the well with the detent missing. The detents are fairly easy to replicate with the shaft of a small drill bit.

Thank you. That's a good trick. I've actually used it a couple of times with Ruger DA trigger groups. Spent an hour looking for one of those little bottle rockets one time. A one gallon Zip-Lock works dandy.
Jeb

 

[DWalt]

"BTW, I don't have an opinion about what to call the square butts made prior to Jan 1, 1905"

At one time, I proposed that they should be called by collectors the "Model of 1904 Square Butt." Of course, S&W never did that.

 

[glowe]

There is always a fly in the ointment and here it is for your debating pleasure.

The SWCA database has an entry for serial number 29,9XX, shipped in May, 1903 that is listed as a square butt target gun. Now I would normally assume an error in entering the data, BUT the source of data was from David Gooch and Roy Jinks.

The next square butt listed is 58,2XX shipped in 1906.

 

[mikepriwer]

Several points

Gary

I can only speculate about that 29XXX guns with a square butt. I would guess that the source of the information was the shipping records, and that Roy wrote a letter based on that. I have seen the shipping ledger for the page that has s/n 58000, and there is a note on that line talking about the square butt. That is supposed to be the first one. Its possible that 29XXX was an experimental, or maybe a prototype square butt, built a year earlier.

Jim

You are getting the cart before the horse. s/n 58000 was shipped Nov 18 1904. That is the starting date for the square butt frame, and from everything I know, that is the defining date for the Model of 1905. At its introduction, it has no engineering changes. Its just whatever changes had already been incorporated into the K-frame series.

In other words, the defining feature of the Model of 1905 is the square butt - it is not the 5th frame screw for the new cylinder stop.

s/n 62449 is, to the best of my knowledge, not the starting date for the 1905. 62449 is just the first frame to have the 5th frame screw, for the redesigned cylinder stop. It was shipped on 5/2/1905, but this is not the starting date for the model of 1905. This is not a new model - it is only an engineering change, that affected both the 1902 and the 1905.

Neal & Jinks, for reasons I've talked about earlier, choose this date for the introduction of the new Model of 1905, and also for the elimination of the Model of 1902. This is erroneous, but they had their reasons for doing this.

You are right in noting that the 5th frame screw engineering change is, in fact, the first engineering change for the Model of 1905, and the second engineering change for the Model of 1902. This is the nomenclature problem that Neal & Jinks was trying to avoid, because the two models are otherwise identical.

In reality, the two models co-existed for decades after May 2, 1905, and their engineering change designations should be different by one change number. This is a difficult problem, and I know of no good solution.

I should add that Neal & Jinks is an excellent reference source for learning about, and understanding, K-frames. Its nomenclature does not match what the factory was selling via the catalogs and flyers, but it does enable and support the educational understanding of engineering changes.

Regards, Mike Priwer

 

[Hondo44]

Mike,

Your logic does follow the practice of S&W of that era for model designations based on grip frame shape or other visible major design changes. And w/o consideration for internal engineering changes, which as I mentioned Smith did not appear to want their customers to know or care about.

Parallels include:
M 1899 to M1902 .38 M&P
M1896 .32 1st Model to M1903 .32 2nd Model
.32 and .38 S&W I frames; .32 rd butts were Hand Ejectors, .38 S&W were Terriers and the sq butt adaptation models for both were the Regulation Police Model (albeit, was probably for marketing reasons).
.44s 1st, 2nd, and M1926 based on cyl lock and or barrel shroud design
.22/32 Kit Gun barrel length change from the HFT, 1935.
Model 17 vs. M18 and M14 vs M15 due to barrel length differences.

Contradictions exist as well:
44s, 38/44s and 357s were all designated the same models w/o regard for barrel length.

I have an open mind so you're winning me over. I do think it important to know/use S&W "official" model names as they were intended and keeping them distinct from, but using them in conjunction with, collector terms for more specific descriptions of detailed changes within model categories. And knowing the difference between the two to avoid contradictions; the M1902 vs. M1905 issue being a prime example.

As an additional data point, I'd like to know how the box labels read for the serial numbered examples you posted and similar vintage examples.

The 1950s I frames is another case of somewhat muddled collector naming IMHO.

Changing "fixed" mindsets from what is read in the books is a bigger problem then explaining the logic. As an analogy, Colt collectors have had some rude awakenings. M1871 Open Top revolvers were once thought to be converted percussion models. Much more recently M1862 Pocket Navys were proved to actually be M1864 Pocket Navys.

So I can see # 58000 sq butt, 4 screw shipped in Nov 1904 being "officially"a "38 M&P Mod 1905 "; and in collector terms, a Mod 1905 - 3rd Model.

And #62449 sq butt 5 screw frame with other changes shipped on 5/2/1905 still being "officially" a ".38 M&P Mod 1905"; but in collector terms, a Mod 1905 - 1st Change.

In 1906 it's "officially" a ".38 M&P Mod 1905"; collector terms, a Mod 1905 2nd Change.

In 1915 it's "officially" a ".38 M&P Mod 1905"; collector terms a Mod 1905 5th Change.

After 1919 "officially" it would be a "38 M&P" (sq butt); in collector terms, a Mod 1905 - 5th Change.

 

[mikepriwer]

Jim

In a sense, its like the auto industry, to this day. I bought a new 2015 model-year Lexus two years ago, on about June 28 2014. It was the first 2015 car to be delivered to the dealer-ship. Generally, most of the new model cars come out in Sept or Oct of the previous year.

So - its certainly reasonable that the model of 1905 was brought into production in late 1904. They only had two choices - do it then, or wait until Jan of 1905. I doubt they cared one way or the other.

As a general question, does anyone have a catalog that they know to be either 1904 or 1905? Lee Jarrett might have one, and if he see's this post, perhaps he can respond. My interest is- how was the square-butt model first described in the catalogs ? Was there any mention about it being a new model, in its first catalog appearance ?

I have one that I believe to be 1905. It has a black cover, with black letters outlined in gold. It also has black thread as a decorative binding. The stronger binding is one heavy-duty staple. On page 40, it features the .38 Military Revolvers, and has pictures of the round-butt Model of 1902 and the square-butt model of 1905.

The descriptive text on the next page says
"These models are identical except in the shape of the handle, ... "
There is no mention of the 5th frame screw, and from the picture, it looks like neither
gun has that feature. There is no further discussion about the difference between the two models.

Regards, Mike Priwer

 

[glowe]

Mike, what model 22 HE does you catalog show? I have a string bound maroon catalog that has the exact image you show, but on page 36. I know it is later than 1905, but not sure what year it was published? My catalog shows 3rd Model 22 HE,meaning it has to be at least 1910. It also has the same paragraph you note on the facing page.

 

[mikepriwer]

Gary

The 22HE is on pages 38 & 39, and it looks to be a 2nd model. Here is a scan of the two pages.

I've not seen a maroon catalog, but if it has the 3rd model, it must be about 1910 - 1912. I think 1913 is the 3 Pirates catalog.

Regards, Mike

 

[glowe]

Given the fact that the 2nd Model 22 was manufactured from 1906 to 1910, would you think it was a 1906 or later catalog?? I was told the catalog was 1912, but do not know for sure.

 

[jebstuart]

Given the fact that the 2nd Model 22 was manufactured from 1906 to 1910, would you think it was a 1906 or later catalog?? I was told the catalog was 1912, but do not know for sure.

Perhaps its a 1906 "First Engineering Change" catalog?

 

[mikepriwer]

Gary

There are no dates on/in the catalog - the year of the catalog is generally determined by the color of the cover, and by the color of the outline around the name on the front cover. There is a yellow sticky note on the front of mine, and it has 1905, 1906, and 1907! I think there was some uncertainty about the date.

Regarding your maroon catalog, I would think that some of our members, maybe Lee Jarrett, would know the date of that catalog. It seemed to me that, since it had the 3rd model 22 HE, it had to be 1910 or later. The Three pirates catalog is generally described as being 1913 - 1915, so I guessed your catalog would be 1910 - 1912. If you were told that it was 1912, that seems reasonable.

Jeb

No chance that the catalog is a 1906 1st change ! That nomenclature was invented by Neal & Jinks, many decades later.

Regards, Mike

 

[jebstuart]

Jeb

No chance that the catalog is a 1906 1st change ! That nomenclature was invented by Neal & Jinks, many decades later.

Regards, Mike

Touché Mike! Its nice to know this parrying business can be carried off with a sense of humor.
Jeb

 

[Hondo44]

Jeb,

We may not have met all members face to face, but that's no reason that we can't be friendly and civil with one another.

Most of us realize we just can't know it all, but because of the pieces of knowledge we each bring to the table along with some mutually determined logic, we can all gain.

 

[jebstuart]

Agreed. This is a great place to visit, reminds me of an old gun/gunsmith shop I remember frequenting with my Dad when I was a kid. I was too young to properly appreciate it at the time. But I'm old now too, and I do appreciate this place and you guys; I learn much and chuckle often. Thanks.