Mystery Gun- What is it?

[Hondo44]

I looked through the posts again but maybe I missed it. Has it been established the gun was at or is from Rock Island? I know one of the first owners worked there but do we know if the gun was there and is from there?

No. Just another lead to try to establish and document provenance. Post #233 only covers ownership referencing "original owner" (maybe original, maybe not, no one knows if he got it from S&W) as having worked there. And all this only from heresay.

 

[Goony]

Thread size also verified above as S&W without doubt.

I don't see the evidence quite in that light. What's been established is subtly different - compatibility, that the thread size isn't blatantly non-S&W (which would have established it as a copy). For all we know, S&W screws may fit a Orbea y Hermanos (or some other Spanish or Belgian manufacturer's products) and vice versa. That S&W screws fit is a point in favor of its being genuine, but it's not conclusive proof, unless you can show that the S&W thread specification is so proprietary and unique that nothing else could interchange. I realize that's sort of a convoluted lawyer's argument, but that's how I view the situation.

 

[baldeagle8888]

Caliber verification is in post #157. Thread size also verified above as S&W without doubt.

Jim
Maybe I wasn't clear with my statement. I was aware of both post's and was in fact thinking this was very important and leading me to think the Revolver is in fact a S&W. As for the Caliber, it's been stated to be a .41cal. or permit a .41 cartridge insertion into a cylinder. The previous post refer to a .42cal in the museum, again not known if this info. was stamped on guns, measured from gun and/or a best guess on someones part. Afterall we have .38 caliber guns but are in fact .357 caliber. .23" is a large difference. Maybe .41 caliber versus .42 caliber isn't, but. As to screw size, again, this is leading me to believe it's a S&W and not a copy or made by somebody else.

baldeagle8888

 

[Hondo44]

Caliber verification is in post #157. Thread size also verified above as S&W without doubt.

I don't see the evidence quite in that light. What's been established is subtly different - compatibility, that the thread size isn't blatantly non-S&W (which would have established it as a copy). For all we know, S&W screws may fit a Orbea y Hermanos (or some other Spanish or Belgian manufacturer's products) and vice versa. That S&W screws fit is a point in favor of its being genuine, but it's not conclusive proof, unless you can show that the S&W thread specification is so proprietary and unique that nothing else could interchange. I realize that's sort of a convoluted lawyer's argument, but that's how I view the situation.

Hi Goony,

The MG screws were verified as matching exactly S&W measuered screws, and both within the S&W published upper tolerance standard of .122" x 44 screw size as their proprietary and sufficiently unique S&W size, not becoming a standard .125" x 44 (#5-44 NF) until beginning in 1942.

So I don't know how that can be interpreted as "not conclusive proof" that the "Thread size also verified above as S&W without doubt." as I stated. Am I reading you correctly?

European thread sizes are decidedly metric. All of which proves what the MG is not.

 

[Sebago Son]

So was the screw diameter and pitch patented? I bet that some screws from a Ford would interchange with those on a Yugo....

 

[Goony]

I'll stand by my statement, conceding that the screw compatibility is an indicator of authenticity, but in and of itself not absolute proof. Other factors that tend to show this gun is genuine are the well rendered markings, the quality of the workmanship, certain aspects of its construction, and the chain of ownership, albeit unverified.

In opposition to accepting it as genuine are some discrepancies in its construction (among these being the unpinned barrel, the nonstandard (for S&W) caliber, the antiquated single action lockwork), and the lack of any documentation.

I think I'm fairly stating the state of the investigation as it presently stands. I don't believe anyone would say I haven't put some effort into advancing the inquiry, but I'll admit to some healthy skepticism, and this is based upon the history in our hobby of some very convincing guns, complete with compelling backstories, that nevertheless turned out to be chimeras.

 

[Hondo44]

Jim
Maybe I wasn't clear with my statement. I was aware of both post's and was in fact thinking this was very important and leading me to think the Revolver is in fact a S&W. As for the Caliber, it's been stated to be a .41cal. or permit a .41 cartridge insertion into a cylinder. The previous post refer to a .42cal in the museum, again not known if this info. was stamped on guns, measured from gun and/or a best guess on someones part. Afterall we have .38 caliber guns but are in fact .357 caliber. .23" is a large difference. Maybe .41 caliber versus .42 caliber isn't, but. As to screw size, again, this is leading me to believe it's a S&W and not a copy or made by somebody else.

baldeagle8888

Hi baldeagle,

I think it was clear to me. And I agree it does lead us in the direction of an S&W with little doubt of it being a .41 S&W chambering. The indicated bullet of the MG is an inside lubricated bullet as used in the (modern version) of the 41 Long Colt the bullet diameter of which is .386"-.387". The chambering of the MG for the case matches the .41 S&W better than the Colt which was a production cartridge of the period chambered in the #3 SA and DA top break, albeit not very popular. So not really at all 'unlikely' for the era that I think the MG is from.

besides a .42 caliber bullet would have a difference of .034" diameter. That's a substantial difference. So even if allowing for a MM designation, the closest being 10MM which translates to a .401" diameter bullet, we're still out of the ballpark with a difference of .015".

So for that reason and the others already mentioned, I don't see a potential for the MG to match up with anything on the arsenal list without a biiiiig looong stretch of the imagination.

Now having said that, it's a fact that early on Colt refered to the S&W 44 American as the .42 Stetson by measuring between the lands instead of the groove diameter. And if someone back then at the arsenal measured the lands and called it a .42, that translates to a .44; way off in the wrong direction from our MG.

 

[Hondo44]

I'll stand by my statement, conceding that the screw compatibility is an indicator of authenticity, but in and of itself not absolute proof. Other factors that tend to show this gun is genuine are the well rendered markings, the quality of the workmanship, certain aspects of its construction, and the chain of ownership, albeit unverified.

In opposition to accepting it as genuine are some discrepancies in its construction (among these being the unpinned barrel, the nonstandard (for S&W) caliber, the antiquated single action lockwork), and the lack of any documentation.

I think I'm fairly stating the state of the investigation as it presently stands. I don't believe anyone would say I haven't put some effort into advancing the inquiry, but I'll admit to some healthy skepticism, and this is based upon the history in our hobby of some very convincing guns, complete with compelling backstories, that nevertheless turned out to be chimeras.

Goony,
Yes you are correct but we're not in disagreement!

Look closely, I didn't claim the screw size proves the MG as an authentic S&W, only that we have proved the THREAD SIZE as authentic S&W. I said: "Thread size also verified above as S&W without doubt."

I think you inadvertantly read it out of context with baldeagles observations that I was responding to:

I believe that the Caliber, .41?? being of a critical issue as to lead me to think this selection would be very unlikely, unless you consider a pre production model. With the gun in hand, this should/could be verified as to the exact caliber. Another very important detail in my mind, is the screw size/threads. Just my 2 1/2 cents.
baldeagle8888

 

[Hondo44]

So was the screw diameter and pitch patented? I bet that some screws from a Ford would interchange with those on a Yugo....

Even if they were patented, its protection have long run out. I'm sure if you mean a modern Ford, any Ford metric screws definitely would, but not a Model T. In the era of the Model T and the MG there was no use of metric in this country except in very rare circumstances.

 

[Sebago Son]

My point was that fasteners are fasteners. The diameter, pitch, head and tip pattern no more identifies this gun as a S&W then a screw from a Yugo would ID that car as a Crown Victoria.

 

[Hondo44]

My point was that fasteners are fasteners. The diameter, pitch, head and tip pattern no more identifies this gun as a S&W then a screw from a Yugo would ID that car as a Crown Victoria.

Yes your point was understood. But please understand that no one has claimed that, least of all me. See response to Goony in a previous post #268. No offense meant but both of you must have just read out of context.

 

[baldeagle8888]

Hi Hondo44,

Another couple of points that I find that are interesting and alluded to in some varying degrees by different posters.
1) This revolver does not have a brother or sister that anyone is aware of which would/could indicate more then a one of a kind. IF that is true, and because of the machining and finish that went into it's manufacturing points toward a factory gun.
2) As to being a copy, knock off or whatever term /terms used previously. I believe ALL the poster's would agree that the revolver is UNIQUE in that the combination of features all have roots but appear unusal in the total package and if copied by someone other then a factory manufactured gun defy "our" logic. Because the features have roots and dates that cover a stretched out time frame, no known copies, but all S&W features put togather in one package is, further indications of a factory made gun. My guess, this will not be solved until/or when unless S&W documents are found. So, I guess I'll get to keep reading more posted comments, conjectures, opinions and Guesstimates. Let the story continue.
baldeagle8888

 

[Hondo44]

Hi Hondo44,

Another couple of points that I find that are interesting and alluded to in some varying degrees by different posters.
1) This revolver does not have a brother or sister that anyone is aware of which would/could indicate more then a one of a kind. IF that is true, and because of the machining and finish that went into it's manufacturing points toward a factory gun.
2) As to being a copy, knock off or whatever term /terms used previously. I believe ALL the poster's would agree that the revolver is UNIQUE in that the combination of features all have roots but appear unusal in the total package and if copied by someone other then a factory manufactured gun defy "our" logic. Because the features have roots and dates that cover a stretched out time frame, no known copies, but all S&W features put togather in one package is, further indications of a factory made gun. My guess, this will not be solved until/or when unless S&W documents are found. So, I guess I'll get to keep reading more posted comments, conjectures, opinions and Guesstimates. Let the story continue.
baldeagle8888

Hi baldeagle,

I agree with both of your observations 1 & 2. As I posted on two occasions earlier, the marriage of the old seemingly (to us looking into the past)antiquated #3 lockwork with innovative features of the turn of the century appears to be an anomoly but only if we assume the innovations are from the turn of the century! I think a safer assumption is that factory technolgy improvements exist long before we see them in production; then the anomoly of the marriage is no longer an anomoly.

My best speculation, and it's only speculation, as to the finishing is the salesman's sample scenario.

 

[baldeagle8888]

Jim, I'm in full agreement based upon what we have to work with and the fact that I would assume improvements or changes in design have to percolate for some period of time, sometimes years, inside a factory setting before becoming a product. In fact, i'm sure that some very good idea's sit and languish and become forgotten.
baldeagle8888

 

[Oyeboteb]

Hi baldeagle,

I agree with both of your observations 1 & 2. As I posted on two occasions earlier, the marriage of the old seemingly (to us looking into the past)antiquated #3 lockwork with innovative features of the turn of the century appears to be an anomoly but only if we assume the innovations are from the turn of the century! I think a safer assumption is that factory technolgy improvements exist long before we see them in production; then the anomoly of the marriage is no longer an anomoly.

My best speculation, and it's only speculation, as to the finishing is the salesman's sample scenario.

Yes...exactly.


And Factory innovations, improvements, design changes and so on, when substantial anyway, in any kind of Manufacturing, always preclude an appearance in Production examples ( where all the Jogs, Fixtures, Set-Ups, new or dedicated Machines for certain operations, Machine settings and callibrations, Gauges and Test devices for managing toleraances of items being produced, etc, are created and formalized and arranged in the actual Assembly Line process )...it is simply how things go.

 

[amazingflapjack]

So what's going on with the mystery gun? Update? Thanks, Flapjack.

 

[Art Doc]

I'm nobody from nowhere, but if a home-brewed gun smith in Pakistan or Afghanistan were making a one of kind gun and trying to pass it off as a S&W product might he not include internal markings that matched the genuine article and copy the the thread dimensions when he made the screws? Or maybe he used the screws from a donor S&W? Perhaps I am completely kooky but I still think it may be from a smith operating out of a cave in the mountains, somewhere. I just can't see S&W making a SA design this late.

OK, I'll go back under my rock, now.

 

[Göring's S&W]

but if a home-brewed gun smith in Pakistan or Afghanistan were making a one of kind gun and trying to pass it off as a S&W product might he not include internal markings that matched the genuine article and copy the the thread dimensions when he made the screws?

I think its hard to believe that the builder of this pistol would have enough foresight to anticipate someone looking over his revolver this closely 100 years or so after he made it. I doubt anyone making a copy would care about such things. The only reason would be to pass it off to a collector as a S&W, not to pass it off as a S&W revolver to someone who wanted to carry or use a S&W revolver.

 

[Art Doc]

I'm not so sure. I have seen such knock-off guns that included stampings and other features intended to fool the casual observer.

I'm just making an uneducated guess, here.

 

[Hondo44]

So what's going on with the mystery gun? Update? Thanks, Flapjack.

So what's going on with the mystery gun? Update? Thanks, Flapjack.

Flapjack,

That's a good question and probably one on many member's minds.
I don't think there's anymore anyone can add at this point and any further updates would almost have to be earthshattering to be newsworthy.

The beliefs run from: appears that it could be authentic based on technical evaluation & merit, to a fake of an S&W one-off, to a copy or knockoff of something that never existed. Some have even stated their convinction for one extreme or the other.

The speculation runs from mild to wild including construction in a later period implausibility to construction in an earlier period as more plausible.

There's no documentation of proof currently discovered for any of the above.
Obtaining proof of provenance seems at best improbable, at worst impossible. From the owner there's some heresay provenance so far but only for part of its existence. Even if it was documented provenance, it does not extend far enough back to any actual source, whether it be the S&W factory or some non-authentic 'birthplace'.

The S&W Hist. Foundation is possibly the only potential source of proof which could be as simple as a factory drawing, spec sheet or communication matching/describing the gun if anything like that exists. Their entry of documents is less than half done and they are far from the era needed. Even if they do exist, who has the access and/or time to search the old factory records boxes now in the possession of the CVH Museum? If personal written documentation exists, it hasn't come forward and can be much more problematic if it did. It would almost have to be in Daniel B. Wesson's own hand over his verified signature and have to contain a great deal of detail about the gun; not even being able to describe it by serial #!

The gun is not for sale before positive authentication which makes its value nebulous and only as a conversation piece. If it's authenticated it still may not be for sale and it's value perhaps almost unimaginable.

Well there may be a lot more going on behind the scenes but that seems to be where it stands and only as I see it from here.