Mystery Gun- What is it?

[DCWilson]

Have you guys noticed that Lee knows a lot more about Belgian stuff than your average Georgian?

Have you noticed that no one ever saw Lee Jarrett and Hercule Poirot in the same room at the same time? And that no one has seen Hercule at all for some time?

I'm just sayin' ...

 

[handejector]

ain'tchewguys got no books?

 

[Sebago Son]

Winchester Revolver.

A second examination of the photos also suggests the Winchester / Wetmore-Wood pattern.

Drew

This Winchester revolver is at the Cody Museum. (photo from the inter-web).

Here's a link to another view in Herb Houze's book.

Winchester Repeating Arms Company - Herb Houze - Google Books

 

[handejector]

Have you guys noticed that Lee knows a lot more about Belgian stuff than your average Georgian?

Have you noticed that no one ever saw Lee Jarrett and Hercule Poirot in the same room at the same time? And that no one has seen Hercule at all for some time?

I'm just sayin' ...

Puh-leeeze-
I could go for Sherlock maybe, but not Poirot.
I'd rather be Miss Marple. I bet she could take 'im!

 

[Eddy's Shooting Sports]

Hi everyone!

So, I am the LGS that took the pictures and sent them to the OP! I have a little more history for you regarding the provenance of this S&W revolver. My customer told me that he obtained it from a close relative of his that received it as a gift from a little old lady in Rock Island, Illinois. This little old lady received it from her father-in-law, who worked at the Rock Island Arsenal from 1890-1920......

From my assessment and from the quality of workmanship, it appears to be 100% S&W. I was baffled when he showed it to me, as I have been in the gun trade since childhood and had never seen anything quite like it.

As for centerfire or rimfire, he indicated it is definitely a centerfire and chambers a 41 Long Colt.

If you give me specific details of what you would like to see photographed and posted, he or I will take some more pictures and post them here. He is willing to take off the grips, but is not interested in dismantling the gun further.

Cheers!

 

[Goony]

This is "Cave Gun". So named as it was found by a friend of mine in a mountian cave in Laos. Origion unknown, could be Durrah or maybe Eibar. It is a copy of a 1905. Note the strain screw. At one time it had a flat mainspring...Note the S&W Logo...

Drew has pretty much brought down this house of cards, becuase here we have a gun with a convincing Smith & Wesson trademark applied, but which nevetheless is clearly not an S&W product, nor would anyone reasonably argue that it was. The marking is obviously spurious and meant to deceive.

If the revolver with which this discussion started did not bear the S&W trademark, the "Springfield, Mass." marking, and so forth, would anyone then be contending it was a Smith & Wesson "prototype"? Of course not. The probability is overwhelming that the markings on this gun are as phony as that which the "Cave Gun" bears. It's a shaky foundation on which to base a theory as to the gun's provenance, and for those here championing the authenticity of this piece, they need to recognize it's ulimately really the only shred of "evidence" they have in support of their position.

 

[Masterpiece]

(1)~ If you look closely, you will notice that we have a star very similar to an asterisk * at 3 and 9 o'clock. The S&W logo has diamonds in those spots.


(2)~WHY did I build the checkered ejector knob designed for PULLING and then put the thumb latch on the gun. I forgot.....

Lee,

First off, I want to let you know I hold what you say in my highest regard as far as what all you have seen over the years!! And also to let you know that I'm not directly agreeing "or" disagreeing with any of the observations you've made because by now we all know this Revolver has more that it's share of maybe's & maybe-not's as to whether or not S&W built this!! More than likely the outcome is not going to be in their favor, but I'd have to believe there's always a slim chance!!

Given that, I would like to ask how you came to your conclusions on Two Points if you don't mind!! Not to spark more debate, but just asking!!

First Question~ How, from the photo the OP's posted of it, were you able to tell with any certainty that the markings in the Logo at 3 & 9 o'clock were Stars or Asterisks rather than Diamonds?? I know I've looked that Logo over pretty well more than a few times since this Thread's started & I still can't make out exactly what I'm seeing in those locations without seeing a clearer photo!!

Second Question~ When you made the statement as to why someone would Checker the Ejector Knob, did you think to ask yourself why S&W did it to the 1899's if it wasn't needed?? Because they surely are!!

Like I said, I'm not arguing any points you've made, just asking!!

 

[Eddy's Shooting Sports]

My, my, you boys are excitable.
Slow down, and think a bit.

Knockoff.
KNOCKOFF.

First, look at the logo closely. Francois the engraver either did not have a logo close by, or he intentionally varied it, perhaps to avoid a Belgian prison for forgery. If you look closely, you will notice that we have a star very similar to an asterisk * at 3 and 9 o'clock. The S&W logo has diamonds in those spots. I have never seen or heard of stars.

BTW-
Why would they take time to put the logo and cyl engraving on a prototype if they did not even take time to put assembly numbers on it?

Don't the grips look amazingly like french walnut? They are not circassian, and I do not believe they are american. That's the two walnuts we know S&W used.

Help me out here-
WHY did I build the checkered ejector knob designed for PULLING and then put the thumb latch on the gun. I forgot.....

What is all the room behind the hammer for? Spare parts, or a place to carry a lunch?
We do know that the first prototype Hand Ejectors were built on modified Colt Mod 1892 frames! OK, so they already had DA Hand Ejectors in the works. Why build a SA?

The gun is an odd conglomeration of cosmetic touches from both Colt and S&W. English was not its native tongue.

Wow, negative Nancy.

My picture of the right sideplate is lousy. I think they are diamonds...

Maybe the cylinder was a production cylinder from something else?

Who knows what kind of walnut it is? Can yuo really tell from a picture?

As for ejector rods, why does my 340PD in my front pocket have a knurled ejector rod? To spin it! (duh)

As for the long frame? Who knows? Maybe you should ask the S&W engineers.... Oh wait, they're dead....

Cheers!

Greg

 

[DCWilson]

Greg, Lee knows as much about S&Ws as the dead engineers. If he sees problems with the gun you should take him seriously.

One of the photos I would like to see is a much better screen-filling macro shot of the trademark stamp on the sideplate. That will not only address the star/diamond question, but give us a better look at the intertwined S and W as well.

Can you and the customer put a micrometer on different parts of the gun and see if the measurement system looks more English or Metric?

 

[Eddy's Shooting Sports]

Greg, Lee knows as much about S&Ws as the dead engineers. If he sees problems with the gun you should take him seriously.

One of the photos I would like to see is a much better screen-filling macro shot of the trademark stamp on the sideplate. That will not only address the star/diamond question, but give us a better look at the intertwined S and W as well.

Can you and the customer put a micrometer on different parts of the gun and see if the measurement system looks more English or Metric?

I don't doubt his knowledge, it's just that all the evidence so far points to a military trial gun.

Patience is needed. I will get better pictures as soon as I can. The gun had been out of circulation for over a hundred years. a few days won't kill anyone...

 

[Sebago Son]

If wishes were fishes this thread would be Sea World...

I don't doubt his knowledge, it's just that all the evidence so far points to a military trial gun.

And what "Evidence" is that? Do you have any paper documentation or independant provanance? What Ordanaince Trial Board tests were being conducted during the time when the technology that this arm represents was current?

BTW, "Negative Nancy" is the owner of this board, a man of proven repute and all of us here, including you, are his guests.

Drew

 

[Goony]

One of the photos I would like to see is a much better screen-filling macro shot of the trademark stamp on the sideplate. That will not only address the star/diamond question, but give us a better look at the intertwined S and W as well.

I think this is really beside the point. An imperfectly executed S&W trade mark stamping would point to the gun's being a phony, but a well rendered trade mark would not establish its being genuine (again, see the "Cave Gun" above). Counterfeiters have long been able to add convincing but fake markings - it's the engineering details that trip them up in their efforts to deceive.

 

[handejector]

First Question~ How, from the photo the OP's posted of it, where you able to tell with any certainty that the markings in the Logo at 3 & 9 o'clock were Stars or Asterisks rather than Diamonds?? I know I've looked that Logo over pretty well more than a few times since this Thread's started & I still can't make out exactly what I'm seeing in those locations without seeing a clearer photo!!

Scroll over and enlarge it.
Then, save to your computer. Use whatever program you have to enlarge or magnify.

Second Question~ When you made the statement as to why someone would Checker the Ejector Knob, did you think to ask yourself why S&W did it to the 1899's if it wasn't needed?? Because they surely are!!

An excellent point, and semi-faulty logic on my part by not explaining fully.
See below.

___________________________
Examine this gun using three criteria-
Logic
A sequence of events
Timing

Logic-
Examine what we do know.
This gun has to fit into the sequence of events we are certain about which are indisputable.
Why is this gun a SA?

Sequence of events-
S&W Mod 1896.
First HE.
Has a funky cyl stop in the top strap because they could not get one to work in the bottom. THIS has always puzzled me because they had been working in the bottom for the DA top breaks!
Has the PULL to open latch.

S&W Mod 1899
cures the cyl stop and moves it to the bottom.
Has a THUMB latch.

1902
Front ejector rod lock

1905
First ever square butt frame for S&W appears.
Roy says this is the year the first N frames were built.

Timing-
Where could this gun fit into the above sequence?
If it was built before the 1896, why doesn't the 1896 have a thumb latch?

If it was built between 96 and 99, why are square butts still 6 to 9 years away?
Why digress to SA? The Army had accepted Colt DA's years before. Do you think a SA digression is going to be real appealing?
Why 41 cal?

If it was built after 99, why? Any engineer would have pursued enlarging the Mod 1899 rather than going off on that hulky SA tangent.
By 1905, we have the true N frame in the works. If you just look at the guts and forget all the Triple Lock parts, the N is about like the 1905-1st internally, which came to us in 1906.

This gun fits nowhere in the known sequence of events with any logic.

I still believe it to be a european knockoff showing many aesthetic and cosmetic features of many different guns.

 

[handejector]

If you give me specific details of what you would like to see photographed and posted, he or I will take some more pictures and post them here. He is willing to take off the grips, but is not interested in dismantling the gun further.

Cheers!

1. a REALLY good pic of the logo
2. a pic of the hammer cocked.
3. a pic of the recoil shield
4. definitely a pic of the grips off. both sides. any marks?

A description of the rifling might be helpful.
Style, number of lands, right or left.

 

[Eddy's Shooting Sports]

And what "Evidence" is that? Do you have any paper documentation or independant provanance? What Ordanaince Trial Board tests were being conducted during the time when the technology that this arm represents was current?

BTW, "Negative Nancy" is the owner of this board, a man of proven repute and all of us here, including you, are his guests.

Drew

This is potentially a very significant, as yet undocumented chapter in S&W history and a few of you are already convinced that this is some sort of hoax or fake euro copy. If you want, I'll advise my client that he should just deal directly with Jinks and leave all you speculators out of the picture. Seriously. Chill out and keep an open mind that this is a very major discovery and important segment of S&W history.

Cheers!

Greg

 

[gaucho1]

No offense Greg

You are on new ground and evidently do not have any idea of the
amount of deep interest and knowledge embodied in the members here.

Mr. Jinks is indeed a completely credible and worthy person to to present
this to. He is a vital and authoritative source for all things S&W.

Please be respectful of the interest taken here and use your listening skills.

This will help you and the clarification process of what is presented.

Respectfully

John

 

[Sebago Son]

This is potentially a very significant, as yet undocumented chapter in S&W history and a few of you are already convinced that this is some sort of hoax or fake euro copy. If you want, I'll advise my client that he should just deal directly with Jinks and leave all you speculators out of the picture. Seriously. Chill out and keep an open mind that this is a very major discovery and important segment of S&W history.

Cheers!

Greg

By the way... you probably don't know this either, but "Jinks" and the S&WCA crew are also attached to the other side of this board.

Good Luck.

 

[Hondo44]

Greg,

Thanks for joining this discussion. A couple of things I'd be interested in:

1. Are the chambers actually charge holes without shoulders as in for a cartridge using a heeled bullet instead of an inside lubricated bullet, and the dimension of the cylinder throats?
2. If the owner would allow you to slug the bore and get a bore diameter; .401", .386" or something else entirely?

Just a couple of observations:

I'm asking myself why a knockoff would be made in such caliber as the .41 either S&W or Colt with so many other prevailing more popular cartridges and especially if in a foriegn country?
In Neal & Jinks, pg 96 it's stated: "S&W furnished the Winchester Arms Co. a 16" barrel model [320 Revolving Rifle from the last batch assembled in 1886-7] for testing ammunition. This rifle has no serial #."
The small significance being, it's a precedent for a specimen w/o a serial that even left the factory.

Thank you,

 

[lowhog]

Question,Is it legal to have in your posession without a serial number?I think S&W would have destroyed a prototype without a sn# after testing.

 

[Babalooie]

Question,Is it legal to have in your posession without a serial number?I think S&W would have destroyed a prototype without a sn# after testing.

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that serial numbers were not required on guns until the firearms control act of 1968.

Before that, it was fairly common for certain brand models of rifles and shotguns to have no serial number.