M1899 Followed Me Home...

[.455_Hunter]

I found this old timer at Gunsport Colorado in Boulder. The serial number is "32XX" with the 6 1/2" barrel and matching number grips. I thought $370 was a fair deal, so it came home with me. Much more fun than putting money into the stock market... It's kinda of neat to think that all of those K-frames produced are descendants of this model. I plan to hit the range as soon as I can- I am sure it will shoot very well with period correct loads. The bore is mirror shiny with just a couple of fine pits, and the mechanical action is perfect. Of course, a letter from Roy is in the near future- who knows what interesting facts could be revealed?

What do you guys think?

 

[.455_Hunter]

I found this old timer at Gunsport Colorado in Boulder. The serial number is "32XX" with the 6 1/2" barrel and matching number grips. I thought $370 was a fair deal, so it came home with me. Much more fun than putting money into the stock market... It's kinda of neat to think that all of those K-frames produced are descendants of this model. I plan to hit the range as soon as I can- I am sure it will shoot very well with period correct loads. The bore is mirror shiny with just a couple of fine pits, and the mechanical action is perfect. Of course, a letter from Roy is in the near future- who knows what interesting facts could be revealed?

What do you guys think?

 

[opoefc]

That's not a Model 1899. It's a .32-20 Hand Ejector, 1st Model, made about 1901. mechanically very similar to the Model 1899, however it's a different gun in a different caliber. Model 1899s are in caliber .38 S&W Special, aka. U.S.Service cartridge.

 

[Bell Charter Oak Holsters]

Yup....it's a .32-20 HE allright, but for the price I think you did ok. Now your gonna have to buy "another" 1899 M&P (.38) and then a 1902 M&P (.38) and a c.1902 .32-20 HE. See how this disease sneaks up on ya? Good luck, nice gun, fair price. Good looking grips too!

 

[.455_Hunter]

Oh well...

I thought the M1899 Hand Ejector, First Model, encompassed both .38 and .32/20 production from 1899-1901, but I am not a subject matter expert. When did the first .32/20's roll out of Springfield?

How do you remove the yoke/cylinder assembly on this model?

I have a 1906 production .32/20 to keep it company already!

Thanks!

 

[H Richard]

You would remove the yoke/cylinder assembly the same way you do all HE's, by removing the front side-plate screw and gently pulling the (opened) cylinder forward. Be very careful, as there is a spring loaded pin in the yoke assembly that will fly out as you slide it forward. The cylinder would be removed from the ejector rod by unscrewing it (right hand thread) and will probably be tight. Do not use pliers on it you will damage it.

 

[mikepriwer]

Ed

You forgot to take your meds this morning . That is as much a model of 1899 as you are a
member of the S&WCA.

The Military and Police Model of 1899 was offered in two optional calibers. One model -
two calibers. In .38 special / U S Military , and in 32 Winchester. Each in its own
serial number series, but one model. Not two models.

The yoke/cylinder are removed just like any other M&P ; remove the front side plate screw,
and with the cylinder open, slide it forward and off.

Regards, Mike Priwer

 

[jjones33]

Originally posted by opoefc:
That's not a Model 1899. It's a .32-20 Hand Ejector, 1st Model, made about 1901. mechanically very similar to the Model 1899, however it's a different gun in a different caliber. Model 1899s are in caliber .38 S&W Special, aka. U.S.Service cartridge.

Hold on. A 38 spl is not the US Service Cartridge. the US Service Cartridge is a 38 Long Colt. The model 1899 was manufactured in both.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Be very careful, as there is a spring loaded pin in the yoke assembly that will fly out as you slide it forward.

I knew there was something different about this model.

Thanks.

 

[mikepriwer]

Ted

A lot of the 1899's and 1902's , in .38 caliber, are roll-marked for both cartridges.
An example is

First line: 38 S & W SPECIAL
Second line: & U.S. SERVICE CTG'S

There was a discussion a few years back, and I think it was on the old S&WCA site,
about what this really meant. I think it was Ed Cornett who explained what this
US Service Ctg actually was, and I don't think it was .38 Long Colt.

Whatever it is, these early guns chamber both - that is what is stamped on their barrels.

Regards, Mike Priwer

 

[jjones33]

Originally posted by mikepriwer:
Ted

A lot of the 1899's and 1902's , in .38 caliber, are roll-marked for both cartridges.
An example is

First line: 38 S & W SPECIAL
Second line: & U.S. SERVICE CTG'S

There was a discussion a few years back, and I think it was on the old S&WCA site,
about what this really meant. I think it was Ed Cornett who explained what this
US Service Ctg actually was, and I don't think it was .38 Long Colt.

Whatever it is, these early guns chamber both - that is what is stamped on their barrels.

Regards, Mike Priwer

The US Service cartridge used by S&W in their 1899s is the same as used by Colt in their 1901, 1902s, etc. It is an anemic cartridge that did little good. A 38 spl will not even chamber in a 38 mil marked gun but you can chamber a 38 mil in a 38 spl. The first 1899s were chambered in both but for a while the 38 spl had dual designation but they are two different cartridges. by saying in your post 38 spl aka 38 service cartridge it implied they were the same.

38 mil or service cartridge with a 38 spl

rollmark

38 spl 1899 with no cartridge designation but letters as a 38 spl shipped Aug. 1899

 

[mikepriwer]

Ted

That gun in your picture, with the 38 Mil rollmarking, is one of the thousand
guns done for the Army contract. I think they are the only ones with the slot in
the end of the extractor nob. The chambering is different on this contract, than
the ones that are dual-cartridge, as in the example I gave.

Later, Mike Priwer

 

[jjones33]

My point that they were not one in the same cartridge. Perhaps I got confused when you stated 38 special also known as 38 service cartridge. They are two different cartridges and the later is also known as the 38 long colt.

 

[opoefc]

Mike, You and I are going to agree to disagree on this one! That gun is not a Model 1899, it's a .32-20 Hand Ejector, First Model. That's my story and I'm sticking to it! Granted the two guns are identical mechanically, in most respects, however if the factory decided to assign a separate set of serial numbers for each model, then in my humble opinion, that means they are separate models. The fact that the factory may have said to customers that they could order the Model 1899 in a different caliber (.32-20) didn't mean they got a Model 1899, they got a .32-20 Hand Ejector, 1st Model.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Do anybody shoot their early S&W's like this on a regular basis?

The gun has a rebounding hammer, but you can push it back forward (against spring tension) enough that the hammer nose just protrudes from the frame. I am not sure that it would be enough to fire a primer, but it would be concerning to carry it with all chambers loaded. My 1906 production .32/20 does not do this.

Any thoughts on this matter?

Just as a point of reference, David Chicoine lists the following in his Hand Ejector serial/model number look-up table:

.32/20 Hand Ejector First Model (1899), manufactured 1899-1902, serial numbers 1-5,331.

.38 Hand Ejector First Model (1899), manufactured 1899-1902, serial numbers 1-20,975.

 

[Dr.-d]

.455-hunter- I have the Model of 1902 in 32/20 and I shoot it once in awhile with light handloads and I take it in the woods occasionaly in a full flap holster to protect it on walks. I haven't figured how to post pics yet but mine looks like yours younger brother. mine is in the 7*** ser # range.

 

[dewidmt]

I had a Model 1905 4th change in 32.20. I shot it with a mild handload of 2.5 gr of Bullseye under a 115gr cast LRN.

 

[mikepriwer]

Ed

Thanks for clarifying all of this. I guess all my catalogs are wrong - I'll just
pitch them all out. If you would be so kind, would you sell me one of your catalogs
that lists the 32-20 model ? Price is not an object - I want to own - even a copy -
of the docment that spells all this out.

As I'm tossing out all this wrong literature, this is what my - obviously wrong -
1900 catalog says.

.38 Military Model 1899
The ammunition adapted to this arm is the .38 Smith & Wesson Special ,
United States Service Cartridge (listed as 38 Long Colt ) and the .32
Winchester Repeating Rifle Cartidge.

I've scoured every page, with a magnifying glass, but just can not find anything
remotely resembling a 32-20 Model of anything.

Gosh - what a wasted 20 years of collecting catalogs. Imagine - all of them wrong !

Wonder what the odds are, of that ?

Regards, Mike Priwer

 

[opoefc]

Mike, "Touche!" I know your belief that the early catalogs are the Bible when it comes to describing S&Ws, and that is sometimes the case, however catalogs are marketing tools prepared by the sales dep't to get peple to buy S&Ws. So why confuse all those potential buyers by having two models? Why not just say that a customer can order any caliber he wants in any model we make (within reason) and if we get an order for a .32-20 at S&W (circa 1900) we will fill it with a Model 1899 frame and a .32-20 cylinder and barrel and call it a .32-20 Hand Ejector, 1st model, and give it a separate serial number range for it alone, and that way we can track it's popularity with the public for marketing purposes,etc. 100 yrs ago Catalogs were tools to sell guns, just like today. Not to keep track of models or engineering variations, that's why when later on, well written & researched books on S&WS ( Neal & Jinks, Supica & Nahas, etc.) properly realized that the old catalogs were not the Bible of S&Ws when it came to proper classification of differences in guns produced. For example, S&W Model Ones, first issue, have 6 different variations recognized by collectors, Model One, 2nd & 3rd issues have two variations each, however no S&W flyer advertising the Model One ever mentioned that. They didn't have to, they were only a method of telling the public that S&W had a .22RF Model One revolver for sale. Also, don't forget the 100s of S&W that collectors have in their collections that are guns that were never cataloged, but 100% genuine, usually rare, S&Ws, like the Model 45s or the Pre-Triple Locks in .45S&W Special caliber. Please don't throw away all those great turn of the century catalogs, they are what they are - Great marketing tools and masterpieces of printing - just not the last word in what S&W would build for you! Ed.

 

[Bell Charter Oak Holsters]

Originally posted by oldflatfoot:
Yup....it's a .32-20 HE allright, but for the price I think you did ok. Now your gonna have to buy "another" 1899 M&P (.38) and then a 1902 M&P (.38) and a c.1902 .32-20 HE. See how this disease sneaks up on ya? Good luck, nice gun, fair price. Good looking grips too!

LMAO.....I saw this train wreck coming a mile away!

 

[pace40]

No opinion here guys. Just a couple of pages from 1900 and a bag of popcorn

 

[mikepriwer]

Catalogs are marketing tools prepared by the sales dep't to get peple to buy S&Ws.

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]

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!

 

[mikepriwer]

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

 

[opoefc]

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.

 

[mikepriwer]

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

 

[opoefc]

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]

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.

 

[opoefc]

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.

 

[mikepriwer]

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