Mystery Gun- What is it?

[Masterpiece]

Update!! Found Your Modelo 1916!!

My best guess at this point is that this is a Spanish Copy, loosely patterned after the S&W 1899, and including clear cut S&W copyright infringements. I suspect it was built in Eibar, Spain by the Orbea Brothers as the ALPHA ARMERO and chambered in the 10.35 rimmed revolver round.

Drew,

Well, believe it or not, I found the Modelo 1916 Revolver you were referring to & if we were comparing the OP's Revolver to an Early S&W 44 Dbl.-Action Top-Break we might have had some luck, but as you'll see in the attached photo this is not the case!!

You did hit the nail on the head though as far as the Orbea Brothers producing it, right down to the 10.35mm Italian Caliber, even though it wasn't patterned after a Model of 1899 or referred to as an ALPHA ARMERO!! They were produced by them in 1916 for the Italian firm F.Tettoni-Brescia!! Take a look!!

I guess we're going to have to wait to find out what the OP can find out over the weekend or see if we can stumble onto something while poking around!!

 

[Sebago Son]

Interesting... so the Modelo 1916 shown is not as described in Zhuk's work. Unless I misread it, he suggests that it was a Swing-Out Cylinder and Hand Ejector....

 

[alaskavett]

If it turns out to be "real" (and I'm leaning that way for sure) I have to wonder what the story is behind it and where it has been all this time. Any one care to guess what it will bring at auction? Very interesting and educational post. Thanks for sharing this with all of us. Kyle

 

[PALADIN85020]

VERY interesting revolver. My guess is that it's an experimental single action from S&W, pre-dating the Model 1902 Hand Ejector, when the forward lock was initiated. Similar enough to the Model 1899 Hand Ejector in that respect. Toolroom guns were probably not serial numbered, and that S&W logo sure looks genuine. If it's made in Spain as an experiment, why put a spurious S&W logo on it?

This is one that Roy should definitely see and comment on.

John

 

[Sebago Son]

Comparision Photos... 1899.

Goony has a very good point about standard component usage....

Here are a few snapshots of an 1899 in my collection....

Serial No. 785, which should date from this same aproximate era....

Note the differences between the cylinder release, ejector rod and hammer.

Close copies maybe, but just not the same....

Drew

 

[Masterpiece]

Interesting... so the Modelo 1916 shown is not as described in Zhuk's work. Unless I misread it, he suggests that it was a Swing-Out Cylinder and Hand Ejector....

Drew,

You might want to hold off for the time being thinking his description was incorrect!! I know my thoughts were that I'd really hit on something with the 44 Dbl.-Action, but I'm coming to see there very well may be one of these Modelo 1916 Single-Action Hand-Ejectors out there I haven't found as yet like Zhuk's Book suggests!!

Reason being, it seems there were more Pistols produced in these Foreign Countries that they marketed as Modelo or Model 1916's than you can imagine!! Plenty of Dbl.-Action Top-Breaks, Automatics & even a few Colt Single-Action Copies though, but no Single-Action Hand-Ejectors just yet!! I just wanted to let you know before I continued any further to see what else I can find!!

Right now though, I believe I'm going to take a well-deserved break & relax for a while as I'm starting to see things I don't think are really there!! Ha!~Ha!

 

[Sebago Son]

Right now though, I believe I'm going to take a well-deserved break & relax for a while as I'm starting to see things I don't think are really there!! Ha!~Ha!

Yep... me too.

I've done enough heavy lifting... gonna let someone else take a shot at this... Time for a Saturday afternoon nap..

Drew

 

[Masterpiece]

One thing does scream "fake" to me. It appears that the barrel isn't pinned.

Goony,

I fully agree that most all of the points you brought up would and/or could very well solve this mystery, "But" as the OP isn't the actual Owner of this Revolver, would Owner agree to having these comparisons done?? I'd say that's the "Big" question at the moment!! If he's agreeable, I'd say that's the way to proceed!!

The only point you mentioned as screaming "Fake" was that the Barrel wasn't Pinned!! I first thought that myself, but why would the Barrel necessarily have to have been pinned if this was a Prototype or the like if this wasn't actually a Production Revolver?? Just a thought!!

Another thing that may tell the tale is removing the Side-Plate & looking inside to compare the lock-work to what one would expect to see with an Authentic S&W!! Reason being, there are quite a few copies out there that "Very" closely resemble actual S&W Revolvers, but when they're opened up to compare their inner parts to Original S&W's the resemblance stops abruptly!!

 

[Alk8944]

There are several points which are being missed when several of you are trying to make this NOT a S&W:

Thumbpiece style. If this was a toolroom prototype built before the Model 1896, there was no "Standard thumbpiece" to use, it would be the predecessor to all other hand Ejector models to follow.

Barrel not pinned. Same as the thumbpiece. If this was the first of all hand ejector prototypes all of the basics which we now believe all early S&Ws simply have to have would not necessarily have been developed yet. Who knows what other prototypes before the 1896 was finalized may, or not, have had which are typical for later models.

Strain screw. One thing which stands against the argument that it may be Belgian or Spanish is the fact this gun has a strain screw and, thus, a flat mainspring unlike the Peiper style of the typical Belgian of Spanish revolver.

If this was built before the 1896 it was obviously a project in development. It does very closely mimic the NM#3 Single action lines except for the trigger guard being integral. The hammer closely resembles the 1st Model .32 HE. How about the 1st, 2nd and 3rd model M "Ladysmith" revolvers that used a round thumbpiece or a locking bolt that was pulled forward? Was this logical when they were introduced after the Model 1902 M&P? Or the .38 "Perfected Model", top break that looks like an M&P frame cut for the earlier hinged barrel and using both a side thumbpiece and a "T" latch? Typical S&W, hardly. If only one or two Perfected Models or Ladysmiths existed I would venture the same arguments, that they couldn't be real S&Ws, and for similar reasons, would be made against them also!

Why not simply call this thread to Roy's attention and see what he has to say? Or maybe he already knows and is getting too good a laugh out if it to kill it with facts!!!!

 

[Masterpiece]

Note the differences between the cylinder release, ejector rod and hammer. Close copies maybe, but just not the same....

Drew,

I have no doubt you could very well be correct as I do agree on a couple of your points, but in the end I wouldn't think we could even use these as an absolute indication as we all know some variances are seen from time to time & also the fact that we have no any idea, as yet, if the 1899's even existed at the time this was built!! So who's to say what's-what until we find that out?? I'll post a few of my thoughts below with reasons I believe could be factors if the 1899 parts weren't available at the time!!

(No.1) Hammer!! I do agree the Hammer being the most obvious is a possibility, but I believe I stated in an earlier post, it more closely resembles a Model of 1896 Hammer than an 1899 anyway & as this Revolver looks to be a larger frame I'm sure a larger scale one would have to have been made to fit in any case!! So if the 1899's didn't exist yet whose to know!!

(No.2) Thumbpiece!! Granted the checkering pattern is quite a bit finer than seen on your 1899!! Although if this was built before the 1899 existed, it wouldn't necessarily had the exact checkering pattern anyway if there wasn't a current part to use & had one to be machined to fit!!

(No.3) Ejector Rod Knob!! Also another part that I feel more closely resembles a Model of 1896 part than an 1899 & possibly would have to have been a one off if the current Model of 1896 Knob couldn't be used for reasons such as a larger diameter shaft or the like!!

All in all, the only way we'd know for sure is to have a couple of these Revolvers to experiment with to see what Original S&W Parts interchanged & which didn't!! And of course we all know that's not an option!!

I thought I was done earlier, but like yourself, I am taking a break now for sure!!

(By the way ALK8944),
I just wanted you to know I started my Post even before yours, but as I'm not a very fast typist it's taken me quite a while to get all these thoughts put down & I wasn't about to stop after I noticed yours with all the time I had in!! The reason I'm aware of this is I've got Two Forums running at the same time!! Ha!~Ha!

I "Am" glad to hear that there are some others out there that are starting to think out of the box as we are!!

 

[Texas Star]

In the words of Commander Spock... "Most interesting!"

It quickly put me in mind of the experimental Winchester revolvers that alarmed Colt and caused them to quit making the Burgess lever action rifle in exchange for Winchester agreeing not to make revolvers.

The proportions are odd, the frame being 'way too long for a practical handgun. That seems "un-S&W".

Please keep us posted.

 

[JSR III]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSR III
There appears to be a notch cut in the trigger near the frame.

James,

Are you referring to the Notch that's located at the Upper Rear of the Trigger??

Sorry, my bad. I was thinking hammer and wrote trigger.

That thumb latch very closely mimics the thin blade of the thumb latch on my 1899 Navy. Several folks have brought this thread to Roy's attention and he did not have any explanation as to its existence.

 

[Texas Star]

I think it may be a transition piece when S&W was vacillating between the swingout cylinder and top -break guns and wasn't yet set on DA triggers.

I doubt it was meant for US military consideration, if the Colt DA was in use.

 

[Masterpiece]

I was thinking hammer and wrote trigger.

James,

No, you're not bad, just confused like myself sometimes!! I'm finding myself thinking one thing and typing another more & more as time goes by!! Ha!~Ha! Did you notice in my latest post I did make mention to the Hammer Issue??

By the way, didn't I say twice now I was taking a break?? Guess I better go now before someone else changes my mind by posting something new!! Bye....see ya' in a bit!!

James,

I just noticed you also mentioned in your post that Roy is aware of this discussion!! Do you know if he made any comments at all when asked of it's existence, other than what you mentioned, such as Maybe, No, Positively Not or he just plain didn't know?? Just curious!!

 

[DWalt]

"It quickly put me in mind of the experimental Winchester revolvers that alarmed Colt and caused them to quit making the Burgess lever action rifle in exchange for Winchester agreeing not to make revolvers."

I mentioned that possibility earlier, and had understood there was only one of those ever made. I did an unsuccessful internet search for a picture. I know I have seen pictures of it in the past, but I don't know where. It had the same odd elongated frame, as I remember. If anyone can locate a picture of the Winchester revolver, please post it.

 

[Masterpiece]

If anyone can locate a picture of the Winchester revolver, please post it.

DWalt,

Tried for quite a while myself after you jogged my memory that the Winchester Revolver existed as I forgot all about!! Sorry to say my searching was as fruitless as yours was!!

 

[Varangi]

Mike,

Please ask if it's a rim or centerfire. Also, it would be good if you can get an actual measurement of the cylinder length.

Drew

If I can get my hands on it, i'll measure bore and cylinder length and at least get pics of the open action and trigger group- maybe he'll let me pull the stocks- leaf or coil spring??
As I referred earlier- this citizen was being very coy while the LGS folks were trying to figure it out- He, for one thinks he's got a treasure gun there...

Mike

Mike

 

[Babalooie]

Looks like a Smith & Western to me.

 

[Sebago Son]

Strain screw. One thing which stands against the argument that it may be Belgian or Spanish is the fact this gun has a strain screw and, thus, a flat mainspring unlike the Peiper style of the typical Belgian of Spanish revolver.

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...

Another point that no one has mentioned is the finish on this model. The tool room work ups that I've seen were rarely finely finished to commercial standards such as the mystery gun is....

Drew

 

[handejector]

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.
WRONG- More on this in post #92

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.