M1899 Followed Me Home...
- Thread starter .455_Hunter
- Start date
Ed
And you know whats even better - they did that for 40 years ! Imagine that !
You are almost as good of a story-teller as someone I know in Alabama. I'm sure your grand-kids and
great grand-kids must love it, when you get them on your knee and start spinning a yarn !
Mike
That catalog - no good ! Thats not what they really made. They had a whole bunch trained
chimpanzee's sitting in the back, decoding the orders as they came in. Never mind that the order
said model of 1899 - what they really want is a 32-20 1st model. Wonder how long it took the
sales people, to train those monkeys ?
Anyway, pitch those catalogs. They can't be relevant.
Ed - again
And you know whats even better ? Every time I call Roy, and ask a question about model features, etc -
do you know where he looks first ? At his sets of old catalogs. Imagine that ! The writer of all
those well-written books that properly categorize things - using those erroneous catalogs.
Regards, Mike Priwer
Bell Charter Oak Holsters
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2005
- Messages
- 1,880
- Reaction score
- 1,571
Casey Jones....steamin' and a rollin' LOL
Is this is a private fight or can anybody throw a slug down the tube?
1. It's a hand ejector.
2. It's chambered in .32-20 WCF.
3. Has all the features of a Model 1899 .38 Military .
4. The only distinction is caliber.
Damn monkeys must have gotten into the rum barrel again! LMAO....again!
Is this is a private fight or can anybody throw a slug down the tube?
1. It's a hand ejector.
2. It's chambered in .32-20 WCF.
3. Has all the features of a Model 1899 .38 Military .
4. The only distinction is caliber.
Damn monkeys must have gotten into the rum barrel again! LMAO....again!
Lefty
Anyone can join - its still a free country !
In 1900, the catalog is very clear - there is only a Model of 1899, with three different
chamberings. Retrospectively, the collectors have rewriten history, and in doing so,
made some things very messy. This is but one of those examples.
The biggest confusion , in this rewrite of history, is the Model of 1902 vs the Model of
1905. There is absolutely no doubt, in all of the factory literature, that round-butt
and squre-butt M&P's are two different models. For the first 40 years, the distinction
was 1902 vs 1905 . For the next 25 to 30 years , the distinction was round-butt vs
square-butt.
But because of trying to capture engineering changes, the 1902 is always one change ahead
of the 1905, yet they are identical guns. So - the answer was to rewrite history, and
call everything a model of 1905. This is just plain wrong, but they did it anyway !
Regards, Mike Priwer
Anyone can join - its still a free country !
In 1900, the catalog is very clear - there is only a Model of 1899, with three different
chamberings. Retrospectively, the collectors have rewriten history, and in doing so,
made some things very messy. This is but one of those examples.
The biggest confusion , in this rewrite of history, is the Model of 1902 vs the Model of
1905. There is absolutely no doubt, in all of the factory literature, that round-butt
and squre-butt M&P's are two different models. For the first 40 years, the distinction
was 1902 vs 1905 . For the next 25 to 30 years , the distinction was round-butt vs
square-butt.
But because of trying to capture engineering changes, the 1902 is always one change ahead
of the 1905, yet they are identical guns. So - the answer was to rewrite history, and
call everything a model of 1905. This is just plain wrong, but they did it anyway !
Regards, Mike Priwer
opoefc
US Veteran
Mike, & Group. I think we have proved that what's in the catalogs isn't all they made at S&W . As you said, Mike " That catalogs - no good- That's not what they really made" . When Roy calls me to get my opinion about about a S&W question, part of my answer is always not to rely to heavily on what an old catalog might show. As is common in writings about antiques firearms, authors will provide classifications for apparent anomalies between observed guns and old catalogs, sales info., etc. so that there can be a better method of describing guns among collectors. As you cite, the square butt K frames vs. the round butt K frames has changed over the years, whether for the better, I'm not sure! (Group, There's no "fight" between Mike & I. We have been friends for many years. He is a student par excellance of S&Ws and his accumulated knowledge of Target S&Ws is unmatched. You can take his comments to the bank, except of course where I have a differnt explanation! ) Ed.
Ed
While I have always believed that there is only one model of 1899, I do wonder why
the 32 Winchesters have a separate serial number series. If I had to guess, I would
say it was just to keep track of which was the more popular caliber: 38 or 32 Winchester.
I don't think the factory was anywhere near as well organized , as some like to
think. I think a lot of "stuff" was done without good reason.
Certainly, the existence of a separate serial number series is not - surely always -
the definition of a model. Take the K-22's ; they are clearly a separate model, but
done in the .38 M&P series. There are several different models in the I-frame line,
all in the same serial-number series. Or, the .357 Mags - clearly a new model - done
in the N-frame series.
So - no, I don't buy the argument that 32 Winchesters are a separate model, because of
the serial number separation.
Curiously, the first mention of K-32's is the 1940 All-Model Circular. No mention
at all in the circulars of the 1930's . Admittedly they did not make many, but it
never seems to have made the advertising.
Also, somewhere in the early 1930's, the optional 32-20 chambering for the M&P is
dropped. On the other hand, in the 1939 parts catalog, a 1902 frame is a separate
line item from the 1905 frame. In 1939 .
I think we, as collectors, have not yet decoded the meaning of "model" , insofar as
what the factory thought, certainly prior to WW2 .
Regards, Mike Priwer
While I have always believed that there is only one model of 1899, I do wonder why
the 32 Winchesters have a separate serial number series. If I had to guess, I would
say it was just to keep track of which was the more popular caliber: 38 or 32 Winchester.
I don't think the factory was anywhere near as well organized , as some like to
think. I think a lot of "stuff" was done without good reason.
Certainly, the existence of a separate serial number series is not - surely always -
the definition of a model. Take the K-22's ; they are clearly a separate model, but
done in the .38 M&P series. There are several different models in the I-frame line,
all in the same serial-number series. Or, the .357 Mags - clearly a new model - done
in the N-frame series.
So - no, I don't buy the argument that 32 Winchesters are a separate model, because of
the serial number separation.
Curiously, the first mention of K-32's is the 1940 All-Model Circular. No mention
at all in the circulars of the 1930's . Admittedly they did not make many, but it
never seems to have made the advertising.
Also, somewhere in the early 1930's, the optional 32-20 chambering for the M&P is
dropped. On the other hand, in the 1939 parts catalog, a 1902 frame is a separate
line item from the 1905 frame. In 1939 .
I think we, as collectors, have not yet decoded the meaning of "model" , insofar as
what the factory thought, certainly prior to WW2 .
Regards, Mike Priwer
opoefc
US Veteran
Group, Mike says above " I think we collectors have not yet decoded the meaning of "model", insofar as what the factory thought..." I disagree and factory records disagree. Mike has moved this discussion over to the S&W Collectors Assoc. Yahoo group site and it has continued there, with Roy Jinks posting his views on the subject ( which happen to agree with mine,and makes Roy a very smart guy!). Score now is "Ed & Roy 2, Mike 0" Now, Mike is also a very smart person and knows his S&Ws, and has brought up some more points to support his views. So tune in over there to contnue the saga! If you are not a member, join up! Ed.
Bell Charter Oak Holsters
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2005
- Messages
- 1,880
- Reaction score
- 1,571
I believe these clarifications or attempts at making a single and distinct identification, are moot points for the majority of enthusiasts.
However, I always enjoy these threads. Good natured disagreement on fundamentals. It's so much like attending a seminar of scholars, all experts in a particular concentration, who debate the origin of the species.
Mike;
I agree entirely that people re write history. Some of that is intepretation, some of it is pure literary license, much of it is plain old BS.
Ed;
I don't know how your keeping score on this one? Seems to me it should be Ed=1 Roy=1 Mike=1, an even score. Let us know the results of the tie breaker.
However, I always enjoy these threads. Good natured disagreement on fundamentals. It's so much like attending a seminar of scholars, all experts in a particular concentration, who debate the origin of the species.
Mike;
I agree entirely that people re write history. Some of that is intepretation, some of it is pure literary license, much of it is plain old BS.
Ed;
I don't know how your keeping score on this one? Seems to me it should be Ed=1 Roy=1 Mike=1, an even score. Let us know the results of the tie breaker.
opoefc
US Veteran
Lefty, Since Roy agreed with me that the .32-20 Hand Ejector, first Model, is a separate model from the Model 1899 models in the eyes of the factory, I was assigning 2 points to my side of the discussion, and zero to Mike's side. Granted, this "seminar" is like the old cliche - Who came first, the Chicken or the Egg? However, everybody learns something from these threads, I think. Ed.
Well - if the score is 2 to 0 , then apparently we only have two live bodies on the other forum.
David Carroll wrote me, to say the score was 4 1/2 to 1. So now we have 5 1/2 people who
read this stuff ! Maybe this topic is not so important, after all .
I did come across the 1906 price list, and cut out this section:
Here we see that, in 1906, the W C F caliber revolver is noted as a model. Needless to say,
this does weaken my position.
On the other forum, I did note that, in the 1900 catalog, the factory is taking a different
approach to the model of 1899, than to their earlier models. For example, the safety hammerless
guns are described on three separate pages as three different models. The distinction is
caliber and barrel length. With the model of 1899, caliber and barrel length are descibed as
options to one unique model.
The question then becomes: why the divergence between what the catalogs describes for the
model of 1899, versus how they kept their records for it ?
Regards, Mike Priwer
David Carroll wrote me, to say the score was 4 1/2 to 1. So now we have 5 1/2 people who
read this stuff ! Maybe this topic is not so important, after all .
I did come across the 1906 price list, and cut out this section:
Here we see that, in 1906, the W C F caliber revolver is noted as a model. Needless to say,
this does weaken my position.
On the other forum, I did note that, in the 1900 catalog, the factory is taking a different
approach to the model of 1899, than to their earlier models. For example, the safety hammerless
guns are described on three separate pages as three different models. The distinction is
caliber and barrel length. With the model of 1899, caliber and barrel length are descibed as
options to one unique model.
The question then becomes: why the divergence between what the catalogs describes for the
model of 1899, versus how they kept their records for it ?
Regards, Mike Priwer
Fast forward 5 years, interesting............
Great thread, I have a couple of thoughts(usually only happens about the middle of the month)
1) The factory, in 1900, didn't give a RA about what dilema collectors would be in a century later trying to distinguish model designation, hence, the contradictions between catalogs, price lists, and parts catalogs of the era. If they did, it wouldn't have taken them until 1957 to put model numbers on the guns.
2) If I called the factory Monday, placed an order for a custom, non-model marked L frame
32-20 and followed with a certified blank check. You think I'd get it?
I guess the bottom line is this stuff only matters to us masochistic collectors. What mattered to the factory was the bottom line.
P.S. > clearly indicates the 1902 vs 1905 distinction though, Mike.
Great thread, I have a couple of thoughts(usually only happens about the middle of the month)
1) The factory, in 1900, didn't give a RA about what dilema collectors would be in a century later trying to distinguish model designation, hence, the contradictions between catalogs, price lists, and parts catalogs of the era. If they did, it wouldn't have taken them until 1957 to put model numbers on the guns.
2) If I called the factory Monday, placed an order for a custom, non-model marked L frame
32-20 and followed with a certified blank check. You think I'd get it?
I guess the bottom line is this stuff only matters to us masochistic collectors. What mattered to the factory was the bottom line.
P.S. > clearly indicates the 1902 vs 1905 distinction though, Mike.
Mike
You ought to post these two pictures to the thread on the S&WCA site - just to show that the 1902
designation outlived the 32-20 round butt model ! In fact, the separation of round-butt from square-butt
models lasted almost until 1970 . Then, a decade or so later, they dropped the square butt frame, and
went back to the good old days of 1899, when they only had round butts !
The 32-20 never really did well, and ultimately got dropped from all the literature, several years
before WW2. At the end, the factory had a yard-sale, and was pratically giving the 32-20's away.
Thanks for pitching in, Mike Priwer
You ought to post these two pictures to the thread on the S&WCA site - just to show that the 1902
designation outlived the 32-20 round butt model ! In fact, the separation of round-butt from square-butt
models lasted almost until 1970 . Then, a decade or so later, they dropped the square butt frame, and
went back to the good old days of 1899, when they only had round butts !
The 32-20 never really did well, and ultimately got dropped from all the literature, several years
before WW2. At the end, the factory had a yard-sale, and was pratically giving the 32-20's away.
Thanks for pitching in, Mike Priwer
OP
.455_Hunter
Member
Is there any way that non-member of the S&WCA can view their message board?
Bell Charter Oak Holsters
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2005
- Messages
- 1,880
- Reaction score
- 1,571
Lefty 4, on the scoreboard!
Rob Spence
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi! .455-hunter, Thanks for the great pictures and wheel gun. I have a 4" HE Model 1 .32-20 in the 52XX range and a 6" HE Model 1 .38 marked ".38 special and U.S Service cartridge. They are identical inside and out. I use light loads for both with Trailboss and lead bullets.
It will be interesting when you hear back from Roy about the model designation. Over the years I have heard both were referred to as M1899. Then I have heard only the Military marked ones were M1899. Thanks
It will be interesting when you hear back from Roy about the model designation. Over the years I have heard both were referred to as M1899. Then I have heard only the Military marked ones were M1899. Thanks
Lefty
Thanks for stuffing the ballot box - that puts me ahead by maybe 1 vote. Looks like the
real moral of the story is that no one cares very much !
Rob
According to the catalogs, there is only a .38 Military Model of 1899, with optional
calibers of .38 and .32 Winchester. That is what the catalog says. However, for some yet
still unknown reason, the 32 Winchester guns are serial numbered in a separate series,
and Roy Jinks feels that because of the separate serial number series, it is a separate
model. Furthermore,if you look back in this thread, you will see some segments cut from
period price lists, and they do identify the 32 Winchester variants as a separate model.
If there is a remaining question, which I believe there is, it is: why do the catalogs
show one model with optional calibers, while the record-keeping indicates two models ?
No answer has yet been forthcoming.
Later, Mike Priwer
Thanks for stuffing the ballot box - that puts me ahead by maybe 1 vote. Looks like the
real moral of the story is that no one cares very much !
Rob
According to the catalogs, there is only a .38 Military Model of 1899, with optional
calibers of .38 and .32 Winchester. That is what the catalog says. However, for some yet
still unknown reason, the 32 Winchester guns are serial numbered in a separate series,
and Roy Jinks feels that because of the separate serial number series, it is a separate
model. Furthermore,if you look back in this thread, you will see some segments cut from
period price lists, and they do identify the 32 Winchester variants as a separate model.
If there is a remaining question, which I believe there is, it is: why do the catalogs
show one model with optional calibers, while the record-keeping indicates two models ?
No answer has yet been forthcoming.
Later, Mike Priwer
Andy Griffith
Member
...and is still the same way today.
AMEN BROTHER!!!
Give the man a cigar!
Similar threads
