Mystery Gun- What is it?
- Thread starter Varangi
- Start date
handejector
Staff member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 26,134
- Reaction score
- 47,042
I do not know if anyone ever patented the side swing cyl. If they did, I would assume it was done by 1876, when Winchester was getting a patent on something in this revolver. That patent may or may not have included the side swing, but I doubt it.
As I've already said, Colt was making side swings 5 years before this patent. I doubt they would have neglected to patent the side swing if it could still be done. Colt spent a miserable 16 years when they could not make cartridge guns because of the Rollin White patent which S&W controlled!
Below this quoted patent is the last page of it with what is actually being patented outlined in red.
What DB is actually getting the patent for is outlined in red. These are IMPROVEMENTS to the side swing cylinder, NOT the side swing concept itself.
He is patenting 2 items described in 8 numbered paragraphs which would be improvements to the side swing mechanism:
1-5 and 8 are about a safety mechanism which will block the trigger when the yoke is open. I do not believe it was ever used, and it is not in the Mystery Gun.
6 and 7 refer to the spring loaded center pin which snaps into the recoil shield. This IS in the Mystery Gun, and still in use today.
So, we're back to WHY was this gun built?
What could it be testing?
It is certainly not the lockwork because they had the SA down pat before they would have built this.
It is certainly not the side swing- already been proven possible years before.
It is certainly not the ratchet or hand- they'd been turning cylinders a LONG time.
These are possibilities:
Perhaps it is merely a working platform to test whatever cartridge it is chambered for.
Perhaps it a platform to test that cartridge AND the following features. Perhaps it is just for testing these features:
>The spring loaded center pin and ejector combination covered by the above patent.
>The thumb latch and bolt combination to see if it will reliably and smoothly push the center pin out of the recoil shield.
>I also see the yoke detent which holds the yoke open. I do not believe it was built to test that feature alone.
Now, we get back to timing and a logical sequence of events-
With the spring loaded center pin, the above patent dates the gun to about 1894, or LATER.
If it was built before the Model 1896, WHY doesn't the 1896 have a thumb latch?
It was probably not built after 1902 because it has no forward lock.
If it was built after 1899, why is it a SA? If it WAS built after 1899, I must assume it was built only as a cartridge test platform. With the Mod 1899, everything mechanical on this gun has already been proven. But, if it was built as a cartridge test platform, WHY? They had #3 frames in both DA and SA laying around everywhere (it took till 1913-1914 to sell them all!), and those frames were large enough and strong enough for the 44/40. I think it is safe to assume they could handle a 1 inch 41.
So, I'm still puzzled about why this gun exists.
PERHAPS it is merely for testing the true functionality of the thumb latch and the ability of the HE to eject six large, gritty cartridges????
As I've already said, Colt was making side swings 5 years before this patent. I doubt they would have neglected to patent the side swing if it could still be done. Colt spent a miserable 16 years when they could not make cartridge guns because of the Rollin White patent which S&W controlled!
Below this quoted patent is the last page of it with what is actually being patented outlined in red.
As promised.
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
What DB is actually getting the patent for is outlined in red. These are IMPROVEMENTS to the side swing cylinder, NOT the side swing concept itself.
He is patenting 2 items described in 8 numbered paragraphs which would be improvements to the side swing mechanism:
1-5 and 8 are about a safety mechanism which will block the trigger when the yoke is open. I do not believe it was ever used, and it is not in the Mystery Gun.
6 and 7 refer to the spring loaded center pin which snaps into the recoil shield. This IS in the Mystery Gun, and still in use today.
So, we're back to WHY was this gun built?
What could it be testing?
It is certainly not the lockwork because they had the SA down pat before they would have built this.
It is certainly not the side swing- already been proven possible years before.
It is certainly not the ratchet or hand- they'd been turning cylinders a LONG time.
These are possibilities:
Perhaps it is merely a working platform to test whatever cartridge it is chambered for.
Perhaps it a platform to test that cartridge AND the following features. Perhaps it is just for testing these features:
>The spring loaded center pin and ejector combination covered by the above patent.
>The thumb latch and bolt combination to see if it will reliably and smoothly push the center pin out of the recoil shield.
>I also see the yoke detent which holds the yoke open. I do not believe it was built to test that feature alone.
Now, we get back to timing and a logical sequence of events-
With the spring loaded center pin, the above patent dates the gun to about 1894, or LATER.
If it was built before the Model 1896, WHY doesn't the 1896 have a thumb latch?
It was probably not built after 1902 because it has no forward lock.
If it was built after 1899, why is it a SA? If it WAS built after 1899, I must assume it was built only as a cartridge test platform. With the Mod 1899, everything mechanical on this gun has already been proven. But, if it was built as a cartridge test platform, WHY? They had #3 frames in both DA and SA laying around everywhere (it took till 1913-1914 to sell them all!), and those frames were large enough and strong enough for the 44/40. I think it is safe to assume they could handle a 1 inch 41.
So, I'm still puzzled about why this gun exists.
PERHAPS it is merely for testing the true functionality of the thumb latch and the ability of the HE to eject six large, gritty cartridges????
It is a little puzzling!
Do we have any references as for when the Thumb Latch aspect or feature of the HE design was Patented?
It may well have been Patented or represented in Prototypes prior to the design or production of the m1896.
Just because the m1896 did not have that feature, does not mean the feature was not already in existence otherwise, in S&W's resources or anticipations or prototypes. Working Models or well fashioned Prototypes can exist prior to an application for a Patent, also of course.
I almost have to suspect, that the example we are contemplating, would date from a brief time window, when a Single Action design was still being thought viable...and, by 1896, I doubt anyone would have really seriously bothered with wishing to consider to bring out a new SA platform, even if Colt was still doing alright-enough with the continueing run of their circa 1873 Model P.
I would have to guess that by the mid 1890s, the writing was on the Wall so to speak on that.
Which is to say, I would have to suspect that the exemplar at hand, would date to the early 1890s, or even the late 1880s, ( whether finished up then, or later, final finish and emblem-stamp wise and Blueing wise,) rather than to the mid or latter part of that decade.
Do we have any references as for when the Thumb Latch aspect or feature of the HE design was Patented?
It may well have been Patented or represented in Prototypes prior to the design or production of the m1896.
Just because the m1896 did not have that feature, does not mean the feature was not already in existence otherwise, in S&W's resources or anticipations or prototypes. Working Models or well fashioned Prototypes can exist prior to an application for a Patent, also of course.
I almost have to suspect, that the example we are contemplating, would date from a brief time window, when a Single Action design was still being thought viable...and, by 1896, I doubt anyone would have really seriously bothered with wishing to consider to bring out a new SA platform, even if Colt was still doing alright-enough with the continueing run of their circa 1873 Model P.
I would have to guess that by the mid 1890s, the writing was on the Wall so to speak on that.
Which is to say, I would have to suspect that the exemplar at hand, would date to the early 1890s, or even the late 1880s, ( whether finished up then, or later, final finish and emblem-stamp wise and Blueing wise,) rather than to the mid or latter part of that decade.
Last edited:
Oyeboteb,
I was thinking along the same lines (my previous post above). So I've accepted the patent title, it is what it is but no longer seems relevant once we saw that the example gun looks like and the screw measurement is Smith, I've moved on.
NOTE on screws: I wondered about the slight screw measurement discrepency. (Mike measured .120" sideplate screws, Roy's book quotes the pre 1942 eng change diameter at .122".) That is until I pulled 15 screws, 3 sideplate screws from each of 5 early and late pre war guns (bug screw being of different size and pitch of course) and measuerd each with two different calipers. The result; NOT a single screw measured .122"! They all are .120"-.1205" across the threads or across the shoulder under the cap. That published .122" number is just not accurate.
Not that by itself, this proves the gun is an S&W factory made product by any certainty, but it didn't disprove it either. So all we know is what it isn't.
We have the 1st piece of a puzzle but only one and need more pieces to prove what it seems it could be and what we would like it to be. But all we truly have beyond that is much speculation albeit tempered with logic, still only that, speculation. Only documented provenance can ever get us any further. I believe it is what we want it to be but sure can't prove it. And that will be the hardest part. Mike is working on it. All we can do for now is sit tight.
Last edited:
Thumb Latch Patents
There were two such patents:
U.S. Patent No.539,497 granted to Daniel B. & Joseph H. Wesson, May 21, 1895. Application No.537,750 filed February 9, 1895. A simple push-pin device to release the cylinder. Also covered by this patent is the spring-loaded detent pin between the yoke and frame.
U.S. Patent No.573,736 granted to Daniel B. & Joseph H. Wesson, December 22, 1896. Application No.586,339 filed April 6, 1896. This patent is for a more familiar sliding-type thumb latch, with the addition of the attached hammer-block device.
Features of both of these patents appear in the mechanism of the revolver in question.
TL
There were two such patents:
U.S. Patent No.539,497 granted to Daniel B. & Joseph H. Wesson, May 21, 1895. Application No.537,750 filed February 9, 1895. A simple push-pin device to release the cylinder. Also covered by this patent is the spring-loaded detent pin between the yoke and frame.
U.S. Patent No.573,736 granted to Daniel B. & Joseph H. Wesson, December 22, 1896. Application No.586,339 filed April 6, 1896. This patent is for a more familiar sliding-type thumb latch, with the addition of the attached hammer-block device.
Features of both of these patents appear in the mechanism of the revolver in question.
TL
The .122 number is probably a max size. If you check a machinist handbook or Thread specs like AS 8879 and check the size specifications of threads you will see that the Diameter part of a thread call-out normally references the upper limit. Example .250-28 UNF thread The major dia (or O.D.) would be something like 0.246 - 0.250 per spec and I would expect to find actual measuremant near the middle of the tolerance. I would fully ecpect to fine 0.122-40 screws running about 0.120 in diameter.
giddyupsut
Member
I haven't slept in days!
Who doesn't enjoy a good mystery.
Who doesn't enjoy a good mystery.
Model19man
Member
I wonder if it was a specimen made to meet a specific contract requirement. For example, maybe as a replacement for all the 44 Russian single action pistols? I can picture a contract for 10,000 single action pistols in .41 caliber single action that would have been followed to the letter if the customer asked for it, regardless of whether the single action feature was outdated for military use by the time this revolver was made.
Again, just conjecture, but what else would make sense? It is not a target revolver.
Again, just conjecture, but what else would make sense? It is not a target revolver.
BUFF
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
I think it is not likely a part of a contract for anybody. 10,000 is a fair number of guns and if any big quantity of this revolver had been made, SOMEBODY here would have been able to tell us what it is and show us either an example or a bokk with it in it.
I certainly hope it is a mystery that we can resolve. So far it is a mystery concealed in a conumdrum wrapped in a corn tortilla.
I certainly hope it is a mystery that we can resolve. So far it is a mystery concealed in a conumdrum wrapped in a corn tortilla.
Model19man
Member
I didn't say it was part of any contract - I mean to say it might be a specimen to show a proposal for such a contract, one that - obviously - for what ever reason never came to pass.
I am picturing a telegram from the Russians asking for an updated weapon with the new swing out cylinder, and could Smith make a sample in .41 Kaliber to show our Kommissar what we want to order? Again, just a conjecture, but it is the best explanation I can imagine?
I am picturing a telegram from the Russians asking for an updated weapon with the new swing out cylinder, and could Smith make a sample in .41 Kaliber to show our Kommissar what we want to order? Again, just a conjecture, but it is the best explanation I can imagine?
and, topped with sour cream and guacamole with a side of refried beans.
handejector
Staff member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 26,134
- Reaction score
- 47,042
THANKS.
Very interesting that the paramount point in the bolt design is to keep the gun from firing out of battery. The bolt also keeps an open gun from being cocked, and keeps a cocked gun from being opened.
Note also that while 573,736 ALMOST gets us to the checkered thumb latch, we still haven't gotten there yet. The latch is shown operated by a slotted round head screw!
Exactly.
This is actually very close tolerance for a screw. The male threads can never be full diameter, or you'll need a pipe wrench to put them in. There has to be some "slop". If you measure the tap (which cuts female threads), I'm sure it would measure at least .122". Try running a large bolt threaded with a really worn die into a hole threaded with a really worn tap sometime. It's misery all the way down! Just for giggles, I just grabbed an 8-32 tap and miked it at .165", and the 8-32 screw I grabbed mikes at .159". Again, 1-1/2 to 2 thou is very close tolerance.
The Frame-
This gun also has the very Colt-like profile of the prototype HE's. Roy's book shows the K frame proto which was made from a Colt 1892 model in 1895. page 143
The Colts had square butts.
S&W had not made square butts since the earliest versions of the #3 TB frame.
They did not get back to a square butt till 05. Page 144 shows a K frame drawing from June, 96, and it shows a round butt.
This gun has a SB, and the obvious shape of the Colt frame they were trying to knockoff.
With the Colt shape, copied in 95, combined with the bolt patent of 96, and the yoke detent patent of 95, I think this revolver has to date to this mid 1890's develepment period.
Perhaps it is a proto to test the true functionality of those features we've just been shown in 539,497 and 573,736, which is what I said here-
I have been wondering along the same lines. Even though the self-cocking (i.e., DA) revolvers were on the march in the 1880s and 1890s, there could easily have been countries in the world that wanted a more traditional single action revolver for their militaries or police forces. Russia? Japan? Argentina? I could see this as a concept specimen for a model that was never ordered by the prospective customer. But I'm definitely thinking foreign. I just don't see a US market for this model.
I have been on both sides of the question in my previous posts, but I'm now almost completely back to my original position -- almost certainly a company-built prototype and not an imitation.
9.75 mm bore? 10mm? Are there any known European cartridges from this era that would suggest a customer? Even with the English system screws, I still get a European or colonial vibe from this gun.
How complete are company records for the late 1880s and 1890s?
Masterpiece
Member
Lee,
You also have to remember that features seen in these Early Patent Drawings are rarely "Exactly" what you'll see if the design was put into production!! Given that, I seriously doubt it was D.B. Wesson's intent to use a Screw as the Final Production Release Latch, but only shown as the Release Latch in the drawing for filing purposes as it serves the same function...Just not as *Pretty*!! No worries, I haven't been able to find the Patent for the Thumb Latch as yet (if there even is such a Patent), but I'm still searching!!
********************************************
By the way Triplelock,
I found these Patents early this morning myself, but you beat me to the punch!! Good Job!!
Masterpiece
Member
Let's Go!!
C'mon, they're probably all laid out ready for us to get busy searchin'!!.....Why don't you hop a plane & we'll go see!! Ha!~Ha!
David,
C'mon, they're probably all laid out ready for us to get busy searchin'!!.....Why don't you hop a plane & we'll go see!! Ha!~Ha!
I think the myth of lunch box guns is way overblown, the apparent way features are blended and the obvious quality work points directly to this gun having been built following an order being given. The machinery that existed from the beginning of Smith & Wesson to maybe as late as the 1960s would not lend itself to a one off anything being made. The equipment was set up for single operations, horizontal mills, shapers, lathes, drills, broaching equipment, all of it would have been run for a specific cut or feature. Even the cutters were made in house and were things of beauty, made by very skilled toolmakers. I can't imagine that anyone on the floor running production had the skill let alone the equipment to make a one off revolver. Experimental or prototype I'm sure the gun was know about at the time, perhaps buried in the yet to be scanned records a clue exists. The 5-44 thread and the change from .120 to .122 is not significant from a production standpoint, I would imagine someone was bringing a variety of prints and specs into common alignment. The threads when produced would have a production tolerance greater that the noted difference. Sceva is correct with is .120 diameter, that is exactly where I would have run that thread, any more would not increase the strength but will increase the load and wear on tooling. Depending on the exact machine used those screws were produced at a rate of maybe a 1000 to as many as 5000 per 8 hour shift, believe me there was variation. Not much I know, but it's all I got.
handejector
Staff member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 26,134
- Reaction score
- 47,042
I am well aware of that.
However, if a dished, checkered thumb latch had been created before that drawing was drawn, I'd bet a ton it would have been in that drawing.
Contract Requirement?
No.
The Russians were responsible for the development of the 44 DA in 1880-81. They certainly were not going to adopt a SA this late in the game. Since 3rd world countries always want to copy the major powers, there would never have been any major market for the gun.
The DA revolver saw use in the Civil War in the LeMat form. They were built in Paris during the War, so Europe knew about them.
The Borchhardt auto hit the market in 93, proving the auto a viable bullet slinger. (albeit a bit clumsy)
So, DA's had seen combat 35 years earlier, and autos have appeared on the market.
You really think a frugal ol' Yankee like D.B. is going to throw money at a SA revolver? This cracker knows he was smarter 'n that.
It has to be a test platform.
Masterpiece
Member
Lee,
I'm sure what you say is true, "If", there would have been!! The point I'm trying to make is the fact that I've been unable to find "Anything", as yet, concerning a (S&W Configuration) Thumb Latch and/or Patent for one "At All", let alone in this time-frame!! Not even for the Thumb Latch that first came to be used on the 1899's!!
I have my Search Dates set between 1880-1910 which I believe are the earliest & latest possible periods that this Revolver could have been built in considering the features it has from those periods!! And no, I'm not saying it couldn't have been built later than that, only that I believe they are the most feasible periods to consider!! I thought I had better make that perfectly clear so there was no confusion!!
Last edited:
handejector
Staff member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 26,134
- Reaction score
- 47,042
I really doubt the thumb latch was patented.
What could you patent?
Checkering? (we know that's a NO)
The shape? (doubt that)
The key part is the patented BOLT. How you move it is just a matter of what 'handle' or 'button' you attach to it.
What could you patent?
Checkering? (we know that's a NO)
The shape? (doubt that)
The key part is the patented BOLT. How you move it is just a matter of what 'handle' or 'button' you attach to it.
Similar threads
- Locked
