gkitch
Member
Well, I bought this gun from JRM this morning, thus taking charge of the detective work from here. I will send off for a letter and get back here with the answers.
Got hold of a S&W marked U.S.N. !!?
- Thread starter J.R.M.
- Start date
gkitch
Member
off to Roy
I sent in the form to Roy Jinks along with the check and several good photos.
Now, Is there anybody who can help me with a replacement ejector head for this 1st Model?
I sent in the form to Roy Jinks along with the check and several good photos.
Now, Is there anybody who can help me with a replacement ejector head for this 1st Model?
This gun is not in the range of the Navy contract, which was 1000
guns in the range of 5000 to 6000.. That is, those guns
took the whole block of 1000 serial numbers. Its hard to say what
this is, exactly. My first thought was that it was an extra frame from
the Navy contract, made up later into a standard .38 M&P . But,
I doubt the factory would have made up and shipped a commercial
gun with USN stamped on the butt.
I don't think that there is any way that such a late serial number
found it way into that early Navy contract. This almost looks like
a Navy contract frame that had its serial number changed, and then
received the cylinder and barrel from a gun that originally bore that
serial number.
That gun that Muddyboot is showing is the second Navy contract, for
the 1902 model.
Mike Priwer
guns in the range of 5000 to 6000.. That is, those guns
took the whole block of 1000 serial numbers. Its hard to say what
this is, exactly. My first thought was that it was an extra frame from
the Navy contract, made up later into a standard .38 M&P . But,
I doubt the factory would have made up and shipped a commercial
gun with USN stamped on the butt.
I don't think that there is any way that such a late serial number
found it way into that early Navy contract. This almost looks like
a Navy contract frame that had its serial number changed, and then
received the cylinder and barrel from a gun that originally bore that
serial number.
That gun that Muddyboot is showing is the second Navy contract, for
the 1902 model.
Mike Priwer
Last edited:
Mike
Did the second Navy contract have the same type of lettering on the revolvers butt?
gkitch
Member
Here's a hopeful theory: perhaps a naval Officer special ordered it as a personal gun. It would have been so identical to the issue version that he could carry it without noticeably violating regulation...or perhaps a retirement gift. I guess the S&W liason officer could have presented it to the officer who helped them land the previous contract as a small token of the company's appreciation.
This is one historical letter that I sure am hoping comes through with some clues.
This is one historical letter that I sure am hoping comes through with some clues.
Do we know at what point in the mfg process the USN markings would be put on, and/or the S/N put on? Could it have been one that was USN marked, and lost in the shuffle for a time and when found S/N marked and processed?
MB
The markings are slightly different. Here is a 1902 Navy butt-marking:
The 1899 that is posted above does not have the complete Navy
marking on the butt. Below the 38 DA, there should be a line with
a triangle with a B inside of it. That is missing from this gun, as
is the Navy serial number following the No . The triange on the
1899 is replaced by the arrow on the 1902.
Also, the Navy inspector for the 1899 was Lt Charles A Brand, and his
initials C A B would be the last line of marking on the butt of a
1899 Navy. For the 1902 Navy, the inspector was Lt John A Bell,
and his initials J A B are the last line of a 1902 Navy Butt.
Its also worthwhile to note that the 1899 Navy serial numbers are
1 - 1000 , in the S&W range of 5000 to 6000, whereas the 1902
Navy serial numbers are 1001 - 2000 , in the S&W range of 25001 -
26000.
Regards, Mike Priwer
The markings are slightly different. Here is a 1902 Navy butt-marking:
The 1899 that is posted above does not have the complete Navy
marking on the butt. Below the 38 DA, there should be a line with
a triangle with a B inside of it. That is missing from this gun, as
is the Navy serial number following the No . The triange on the
1899 is replaced by the arrow on the 1902.
Also, the Navy inspector for the 1899 was Lt Charles A Brand, and his
initials C A B would be the last line of marking on the butt of a
1899 Navy. For the 1902 Navy, the inspector was Lt John A Bell,
and his initials J A B are the last line of a 1902 Navy Butt.
Its also worthwhile to note that the 1899 Navy serial numbers are
1 - 1000 , in the S&W range of 5000 to 6000, whereas the 1902
Navy serial numbers are 1001 - 2000 , in the S&W range of 25001 -
26000.
Regards, Mike Priwer
There are two other things that concern me about this gun. One is the
finish. These first-contract Navy guns were stored in barrels aboard
ship. They were just randomly tossed in. Every one that I have
ever seen had not more than 10% finish. At one time there were
bunches of them sold at several RIA auctions, and they all had the
same finish - as did the one I owned. The condition on this one
is too good . I think its been refinished, based on what I know they
should look like. Also, the forward side-plate screw hole looks dished.
Second, the serial number stamped on the front grip strap does not
look right. The "4" is tilted slightly, as though it was stamped by
hand. Also, the bottom of the "4" is not right. And, the last digit,
the "9" , looks very strange. I agree with an earlier posting - it
looks like "@", and not a 9.
Finally, there should be a star stamped on the barrel, crane, and
the rear of the cylinder. I assume it would be on the underside of
the barrel.
Mike Priwer
finish. These first-contract Navy guns were stored in barrels aboard
ship. They were just randomly tossed in. Every one that I have
ever seen had not more than 10% finish. At one time there were
bunches of them sold at several RIA auctions, and they all had the
same finish - as did the one I owned. The condition on this one
is too good . I think its been refinished, based on what I know they
should look like. Also, the forward side-plate screw hole looks dished.
Second, the serial number stamped on the front grip strap does not
look right. The "4" is tilted slightly, as though it was stamped by
hand. Also, the bottom of the "4" is not right. And, the last digit,
the "9" , looks very strange. I agree with an earlier posting - it
looks like "@", and not a 9.
Finally, there should be a star stamped on the barrel, crane, and
the rear of the cylinder. I assume it would be on the underside of
the barrel.
Mike Priwer
gkitch
Member
Mike, was the star stamp a Navy mark or something that originated at S&W?
If it was ever refinished, it was at the factory and a long, long time ago. The blueing is worn but the markings are crisp.
Last edited:
Greg
As I read Roy's book, the star was stamped at the factory, before the
guns were shipped. There was a Navy inspector present at the factory,
and its possible that he applied the star.
Does your gun have the star marking ?
Regards, Mike
As I read Roy's book, the star was stamped at the factory, before the
guns were shipped. There was a Navy inspector present at the factory,
and its possible that he applied the star.
Does your gun have the star marking ?
Regards, Mike
gkitch
Member
No, not a star on it. With no star and no Navy number, it is doubtful that this revolver was sold to the Navy/US Govt. It would still make sense, however, as a private sale/gift to a Navy VIP.
Guess we'll just have to wait, and see what the letter says.
Another possibility is that someone inside the factory made the gun
up - sometimes called lunch-box guns. They could have found an
overrun Navy frame, and maybe some parts from a rejected production
gun, and made up something for themselves. In such a case, the
gun would never have been shipped, and would be open on the books.
Mike Priwer
Another possibility is that someone inside the factory made the gun
up - sometimes called lunch-box guns. They could have found an
overrun Navy frame, and maybe some parts from a rejected production
gun, and made up something for themselves. In such a case, the
gun would never have been shipped, and would be open on the books.
Mike Priwer
gkitch
Member
I had not thought of the lunch box possibility! If the records are missing, this would be the most likely scenario would it not?
IF the gun was a lunch-box creation, then its entry on the shipping
records would be open, meaning it was not shipped from the
shipping department. Someone would have carried it out in their
lunch box.
This is just one possibility, based on my presumption that its not
one of the 1000 1899 Navy contract guns, at this serial number.
Regards, Mike
records would be open, meaning it was not shipped from the
shipping department. Someone would have carried it out in their
lunch box.
This is just one possibility, based on my presumption that its not
one of the 1000 1899 Navy contract guns, at this serial number.
Regards, Mike
This one peeks my intrest.
gkitch
Member
in standby
Well, the form and $50 were launched several days ago. What is the typical turn-around on a factory historical letter?
Of course, the letter is unlikely to provide concrete answers. It will, at the very least, provide us with more clues and eliminate some of our theories.
I feel we already have enough clues to presume this gun was not sold and transferred directly to the Navy as part of the known contract. No Navy number, wrong serial range, no star proofs...no way. Yet it is identical in every other way to those revolvers.
Well, the form and $50 were launched several days ago. What is the typical turn-around on a factory historical letter?
Of course, the letter is unlikely to provide concrete answers. It will, at the very least, provide us with more clues and eliminate some of our theories.
I feel we already have enough clues to presume this gun was not sold and transferred directly to the Navy as part of the known contract. No Navy number, wrong serial range, no star proofs...no way. Yet it is identical in every other way to those revolvers.
gkitch
Member
Now - that is a whole lot better. What a difference a nob makes !
Regards, Mike Priwer
Regards, Mike Priwer
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 27,669
- Reaction score
- 21,363
.
The letters I requested in mid-February arrived shortly after the first of April. So currently the waiting period is running six-seven weeks. That includes first-class travel both ways, of course.
mduncan915
Member
This is like a great action movie. I can't wait now either. I just picked up a 32 hand ejector, and that is how I found this thread. Wow very interesting. 
gkitch
Member
update
Nothing yet. I guess it is time to anticipate the daily mail.
Nothing yet. I guess it is time to anticipate the daily mail.
Nothing mysterious about that "9" - it is a number stamp that the factory used on some guns at the turn of the century. I had a .32 Safety from 1896 with that curlycue "9" and have a .32 Bicycle Gun from 1901 which has the same number stamp. I tried to take a photo but couldn't get it clear enough - trust me.
gkitch
Member
Well....got the letter from Roy Jinks today! Here's the scoop:
This revolver was the low serial number of ten units prepared for a Navy shipment but sold commercially. It is in original configuaration still and was shipped on 1 August, 1901 to A.B. Myers in Toledo, Ohio.
The letter states "It is a very interesting revolver". I believe the we, here on the forum, concur.
This revolver was the low serial number of ten units prepared for a Navy shipment but sold commercially. It is in original configuaration still and was shipped on 1 August, 1901 to A.B. Myers in Toledo, Ohio.
The letter states "It is a very interesting revolver". I believe the we, here on the forum, concur.
Definately a very interesting S&W!!
Ohio State University Alumni records show an A.B. Myers, College of Engineering, Class of 1900, employed by the U.S. Gypsum Company as a Chemical Engineer at Arden, Wisconsin as of 1923.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
