Mystery Gun- What is it?

[PALADIN85020]

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.

I'll second that. I have numerous Winchester 69As and 72s and Remington Nylon 22s that are not serial numbered. And I rather like their anonymity, in spite of the fact it makes establishing their manufacture dates a bit more esoteric. People were not so anal about the "need" for serial numbers back in the good old days, and such guns were quite common.

John

 

[handejector]

I saw Lee's enlarged photo of the logo and it appears double stamped (or a doubled image) which could explain why they look like asterisks instead of diamonds.

I do think I was wrong about the diamonds.
I caught that this morning when I was blowing it up and looking at it again, but I did not have time to make the crude drawing below that shows what we mean.
I think it is simply a ghost image, not double stamped.
More pics will tell us a lot.......

 

[Göring's S&W]

A lot to digest in this thread, and a lot of great info. Its interesting to have a gun that is somewhat baffling to even the most experienced collectors / historians.

If the gun IS S&W, why SA and why 41 Colt? If the gun is NOT S&W, wow does it appear well made.

Here is my question which really hasn't been discussed yet:

We have a gun that "41 long colt fits inside" without wiggle ? We have to assume the OP would also try a 44 S&W or the like to verify its at least 41 cal but smaller than 44. Given that, how do we explain why it was made in the caliber 41 colt (assuming that IS the cal) if in fact a S&W prototype? We have to assume the idea was to possibly make a larger number in the same caliber.

If you look at US sidearm development, in 1889 Colt churns out one of the first successful DA cartridge revolvers which was adopted by the US military (army and navy IIRC). Why would S&W make a revolver SA, which has traits in common with circa late 1890s S&Ws, when Colt already had a DA? Why would the US army or any other military consider a SA when the DA exists? Also, why the 41 colt? 45 cal was a proven man stopper and was well thought of, and later on we find out that the 38 colt was a little too weak for a military sidearm. The solution was then logically to marry the 45 (in this case 45 Colt) stopping power to a DA design, not a SA, hence the Colt 1909 army revolver. If the idea was the to split the difference, the prototype, if made by S&W, should have been an early DA IMO NOT a more primitive revolver type. In addition, as Lee said, why would they make this "prototype" when logically, it was made either right with a 1896 prototype, or perhaps made after the 1896 production began?

Also, in S&Ws history, you have S&W famously refuse to make any revolvers in 45 colt which the Army considered to be the best of both worlds, in most respects. Take the better design for military use (schofield or a model 3 derivatives) with the better cal, 45 colt. Why would S&W make anything in 41 colt AFTER that? Also, the 41 colt was never really that successful or well thought of (compared to 45 colt) for S&W to bother even making one prototype in that cal. The same is true if the intention was commercial. Its an older design coupled with a lack luster cartridge - what is the motive? I can't think of one.

Now of course, I am only saying this IF the gun is in fact 41 colt. It could be a cal that is close in width and length, but I don't know of any other one off the top of my head. A key to this puzzle is to 100% positively identify the cal, if it can be done.

Speculation- prototype for army review pre-WW1.

There is little reason this is possible for many reasons in this thread and my post regarding the cal, if 41 colt.

 

[Göring's S&W]

How about this for a possibility:

A "lunch box" gun made from parts found at a tool room at S&W, where the inventor fabricated only the parts that don't fit in with what we've seen / know, such as the frame. This would explain the odd time period, odd features, odd cal, SA when DA had been around, etc. This guy then would have been able to have it blued at S&W before it was completed. He could have did it with a few other guys, just for fun, or maybe did it on lunch breaks for years. Because he was not well known, and not a braggart, the gun disappeared after he brought it home to never been seen again, until now!

 

[Göring's S&W]

I missed the post suggesting "41 S&W" which could be unverifiable, although that possibility makes more sense than 41 colt.

 

[Masterpiece]

I do think I was wrong about the diamonds.
I caught that this morning when I was blowing it up and looking at it again, but I did not have time to make the crude drawing below that shows what we mean.
I think it is simply a ghost image, not double stamped.
More pics will tell us a lot.......

Lee,

That was my most logical observation right from the start, given the photo posted, & is why I asked how you came to the conclusions that it was incorrect as you did at first!! Hoping to view a clearer photo myself!!

 

[Eddy's Shooting Sports]

Sit tight guys. Probably won't be until Thursday for more pics.

As for the existing logo close up, I took it hand held with no flash so it is a very bad image.

Greg

 

[Hondo44]

When I think of this as a knockoff the 1st question that comes to mind is, a knockoff of what? What S&W existing model like this was there to knockoff?

When I think of S&W timeline, starting a comparison with the 1896 HE DA seems way to late. This mystery gun seems to have roots in the SA New Model #3 era. I ponder if Smith was considering a side swing cylinder as far back as that but needed to move forward with their breaktop DAs in 1880 to keep up with the market? Did a whole chapter of SA side swing cyl technology get bypassed and end up in the dust bin of history only to reincarnate in the 1896 32 HE and 1903 2nd Model in a new DA form?

Mystery gun indeed!

 

[JSR III]

This is a very interesting study of a very interesting revolver regardless of country of origin. And it definitely beats whats on TV or responding to another "What's my model 10 worth?"

Unfortunately, as I have stated it is a little before my area of interest as most of my collection dates from 1910 to 1975. I have looked again at my 1899 Navy that was shipped much later in September of 1910, however, I offer another observation for my fellow enthusiasts.

Although the thumbpiece of the mystery gun and my 1899 look very similar, the checking on mine consists of about 13 or 14 rows. The mystery gun has somewhere around 21.

That seems to be a significant difference in the checking pattern, but those with more samples from this era may find this fact irrelevant. I offer it only as another observation. I also note that the tip of the extractor button in the middle of the extractor star is flattish in the mystery gun and mine is more rounded. Seems that rounded would function a little smoother.

 

[Hondo44]

Maybe this post would better fit the Antiques section.

Does any one have any details of the 41 S&W mentioned above and in Roy Jink's book on page 96 as one of the many calibers chambered in the #3?

 

[Hondo44]

I have looked again at my 1899 Navy that was shipped much later in September of 1910, however, I offer another observation for my fellow enthusiasts.

Although the thumbpiece of the mystery gun and my 1899 look very similar, the checking on mine consists of about 13 or 14 rows. The mystery gun has somewhere around 21.

That seems to be a significant difference in the checking pattern, but those with more samples from this era may find this fact irrelevant. I offer it only as another observation.

Yes the production thumbpiece of the turn of the century certainly has observable 'genes' in the mystery gun thumbpiece that one sees in prototypes even though these two may be separated by 20 years or more.

 

[JSR III]

Here is a photo of a first model sideplate for comparrison. It does have the forward screw but the trigger guard is not as far back as the mystery gun.

 

[Art Doc]

There are numerous serious collectors and S&W scholars engaged in this discussion and when such giants cross swords mere mortals such as I are best advised to stay clear. But I do want to mention a couple of thoughts I had.

My impression of the shape of the revolver is that it reminds me of the 44 Russian (#3?). As that was also a SA design the comparison is a bit thought provoking. Possibly it was made by a smith in some mountain region of a far off land where such things were known to happen? Perhaps the home-based gun maker had a 44 Russian as a model and tried to update it to a slightly more modern appearance?

Would S&W eschew the caliber stamping? Apparently this pistol is not so marked and I find that odd... even on an experimental piece. Also, would S&W be making a SA revolver? Seems to me S&W put all it's eggs in the DA basket well before the end of the 19th century.

I am no expert and anything I offer is pure speculation and conjecture. But just on the "sense" I have looking at it, I believe it to be the product of a smith working in a hut, somewhere. I agree with Mr. Jarrett that it just doesn't seem to logically fit the S&W design timeline. It would be great for the owner if it proved to be a long lost prototype, but I doubt that is the case. A prototype does not usually go backwards in design technology.

 

[A10]

I completely concur with SP. I had a first impression looking at it, and it reminded me greatly of my chinese Rolex. Well made, no doubt, but not the real deal.

JMHO

 

[Hondo44]

I don't have an opinion on whether or not the gun is a genuine Smith yet. I do know the patent date of March 27, 1894 on the .32 HE Model 1896 is Daniel B. Wesson's "...in which the cylinder is held to be rotated, supported on a yoke swinging on the lower part of frame laterally out of and into said [frame] opening..." obviously in preparation for production of that model and not made public heretofore. But we don't know when he actually invented the design.

For a smith in a hut with a #3 Russian to come up with Smith's seemingly exact HE cylinder technology and form of Smith & Wesson's regular production Hand Ejectors still 20 odd years in the future is a bit beyond belief. Not to mention the similarity of features of the 5 screw pattern on the right side of frame, non-pinned barrel, hammer, and extractor rod that eventually showed up on the Model of 1896 and then the HE bottom frame cyl stop and thumbpiece of the 32 HE Model of 1903 (2nd Model) would be pure clairvoyance!
Or did Smith reverse engineer these features from a gun made by a smith in a hut who copied a Russian model or NM #3?
Post #98:

When I think of this as a knockoff the 1st question that comes to mind is, a knockoff of what? What S&W existing model like this was there to knockoff?

When I think of the S&W timeline, starting a comparison with the 1896 HE DA seems way to late. This mystery gun seems to have roots in the SA New Model #3 era. I ponder if Smith was considering a side swing cylinder as far back as that but needed to move forward with their breaktop DAs in 1880 to keep up with the market? Did a whole chapter of SA side swing cyl technology get bypassed and end up in the dust bin of history only to reincarnate in the 1896 32 HE and 1903 2nd Model in a new DA form?

Mystery gun indeed!

 

[Art Doc]

I have seen examples of "knock off" guns made by smiths in Pakistan and Afghanistan that were fairly amazing in detail. They vaguely resemble the original product, even down to having stampings copied, but incorporate the smith's own personal touches.

Again, I'm no expert, but I would not be too quick to dismiss the possibility that this gun was made by a rural smith up on a mountain, somewhere.

 

[bmcgilvray]

I too would love to know more about the .41 Smith & Wesson cartridge's dimensions and if the subject example's chambers conform to it.

I have a couple of Colt .41s around here and am kind of intrigued to play with the old .41 Long Colt. I don't recall that the cartridge ever appeared in a non-Colt product so this one is interesting even if I don't much think it's ever seen the inside of the Smith & Wesson factory.

 

[deadin]

Well, I wasn't going to weigh in on this, but I have an observation that asks another question. Looking at the roll marks on the cylinder and comparing them to the 1896 example shown in a previous post: Assuming that the cylinders are different sizes (32 vs. 41), the markings seem to be proportionate to their respective cylinders. Would this mean that the roll dies for the OP's gun be of a larger type size that the '96? Why would S&W go to the time and expense to make up a set of dies for a one off prototype that they didn't even bother to number? Also it appears that the '96 is marked on each chamber where the gun in question isn't........

I'm afraid that, being a sceptic, I'm going to go with some kind of a foreign "knock-off" that is marked as S&W in an attempt to deceive. Unless someone can come up with solid proof (i.e. Factory documentation) that this is actually a S&W prototype, I will remain unconvinced....

 

[da gimp]

If you get it, put it in Roy's, Ed's or Jimmy Supica's hands, giving them permission to strip it down & we'll have a better idea.I'm leaning to it being a foreign copy.

 

[da gimp]

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

I'm sorry guy,
But my old daddy used to tell me to buy the gun (or horse) on it's own merits & not the story................I'm going with Lee's assessment. The story is unverifiable at this point, and the longer & more complicated the story is, the less certain it becomes. Have you tried for an SRS seach?

 

[Masterpiece]

Also it appears that the '96 is marked on each chamber where the gun in question isn't........

Dean,

My thoughts on this were, taking for granted the Cyl. "Would" have to be made size-proportionate to the .32 vs .41 Caliber, the markings on the Cyl. would have to be size-proportionate as well as the Revolver exhibits!! Given that, my thoughts are on the missing Cyl. information is that on the 1896's this information is Patent Date related & wouldn't expect to see it marked as such unless this would have been put into production!!

Now before everyone gets all riled up again!! Please understand I'm still not saying this is a Factory-Produced Revolver, but only if it "Were" to have been, that I'd only have expected to see those "Missing" Patent Date markings present if it were put into production!!

 

[Hondo44]

I still can't get by the question: how does one counterfeit something that was supposedly never made in the first place?

 

[deadin]

Not calling it "counterfeit" as such. Just that the markings were meant to trap someone who wasn't familiar with just what a real S&W looked like. (And maybe it's still working...)
How many Belgian and Spanish guns have you seen with "Smith & Wesson" marked on them somewhere. Usually, in the small print they will say something like "for Smith & Wesson cartridges" or something similarly disingenuous,but not always. Same with the logo, sometimes close but not exact. It's only a small step to move to outright fakery with markings. (Think Wells Fargo on guns that never even used by them.)

 

[Masterpiece]

I still can't get by the question: how does one counterfeit something that was supposedly never made in the first place?

Jim,

My thoughts exactly, but we'd better not dwell on it or you know what's gonna' happen again!! Ha!~Ha!

 

[Hondo44]

Not calling it "counterfeit" as such. Just that the markings were meant to trap someone who wasn't familiar with just what a real S&W looked like. (And maybe it's still working...)
How many Belgian and Spanish guns have you seen with "Smith & Wesson" marked on them somewhere. Usually, in the small print they will say something like "for Smith & Wesson cartridges" or something similarly disingenuous,but not always. Same with the logo, sometimes close but not exact. It's only a small step to move to outright fakery with markings. (Think Wells Fargo on guns that never even used by them.)

Dean,
I don't disagree with you at all on that point. However, notice that I have not and am not giving the logo one iota of consideration as evidence.

A knockoff is one thing but designing and building a one of a kind hybrid of 1878 S&W design and technolgy with 1894 design and technology just belies all logic.

 

[deadin]

building a one of a kind hybrid of 1878 S&W design and technolgy with 1894 design and technology just belies all logic

Maybe, maybe not. All depends on just how far up in the mountains of Basque country or Pakistan you are and what you have handy as examples.......

 

[Hondo44]

Maybe, maybe not. All depends on just how far up in the mountains of Basque country or Pakistan you are and what you have handy as examples.......

Yeah, maybe even above our atmosphere, heh, heh.

 

[handejector]

Here we go with "The Semantics Game"......

Knockoff
Fake
Imitation
Counterfeit
Copy
Facsimile

I'm sure more words could be put in the list.
I forget we have to play this game and therefore forget to exactly define every word I use.
In my first post, I almost called it a "fake", but I did not want the OP to think I was accusing him OR the owner of faking a gun. Actually, "fake" or "imitation" is the best word. The gun obviously appears to be a high quality gun on the outside, beautifully machined and finished. I just don't happen to think S&W made it, even though it bears that name. So, it is a fake. Probably made in Belgium. We don't know if it is one of a kind, or one of 1000 furtively loaded onto a ship and sold to some chinese warlord or Congolese chief in the 20's as the real deal.

I chose the word "knockoff"
I thought everybody would get what I meant.
Online Merriam-Webster:
Definition of KNOCKOFF: a copy that sells for less than the original; broadly: a copy or imitation of someone or something popular

As I said, I've seen many guns over the years that claimed to be a Colt or S&W that were not made in the US. Drew shows one above. They were not intended for the US market. Some are very crude. Some are very high quality. Most are not exact copies of any gun ever made by the big companies, but instead seem to be mixtures of notable features seen on different models or even different brands. This makes me think they were almost always intended for third world markets where real examples were not readily available for comparison and catalogs were nonexistant. These "imitations" often lag far behind state of the art technology, perhaps by a few years, perhaps by decades.
If I'm correct and the gun is an imitation, it was made after the appearance of the 1899, and maybe even in the 20's or 30's. It is obviously a very simple SA action with a rocker type, hammer actuated cyl stop riding the stud right behind the frame lug. Such an action requires very little precise fitting and would be child's play for a second year Belgian gunmaking apprentice used to working on double shotgun actions.

Pulling the grips alone might solve this mystery.
Seeing the rifling might solve it.
Removing the sideplate might solve it.

S&W already had a very functional SA- the New Model #3. It would have been quite easy to make a NM3 frame that did not break on top with a square butt and swing the cyl out of that. Why build that elongated hulk and have to redesign everything that went inside?

So, I think the gun is an imitation, made in europe. Call it a fake if that word suits you better.

 

[2152hq]

I can only offer this observation.
Looking at the photo side by side comparison of the cylinder markings on the OP revolver and the M1896 1st Model,,they were not done with the same die. Nor was the OP revolver done with a die cut to the same spec as the M1896.

It's possible the OP revolver cylinder is handcut lettering,,but it's very hard to tell from that angle. If it is, it's very well cut.

If marked w/a roll die, they were hand cut in 'those days' but still done to spec from a blueprint drawing for production work.

I would guess a roll die imprint on the cylinder like this would be applied around it's circumference and not it's length to do the imprint.
That way the die is easier to make (no imbedded flats for each line,,5 for this die) and it could be used on any diameter cylinder.


The S&W side plate emblem appears to be a single point hand stamping,,not the familiar factory style roll die stamp.
To me it shows a double strike from the plate bounce back during the application.
Not uncommon with such a large imprint onto a thin lightweight part.
Poor support/backing of the part during the 'hit' also causes it as well as the stamp and/or the hammer itself being too light weight to transfer a dead blow during the process.
The die must be extremely sharp for this size and that makes them fragile as well.

That's a very large complicated image to imprint completely and uniformly in one strike by hand.
Roll dies are often used for such. They have much less chance of deforming parts as they only imprint on the tangent of the die edge.,,Not that you can't get into trouble with them though!

I have no idea if S&W used single strike stamps of this type for any reason.

Just my observations of the markings themselves .
..interesting thread.

 

[handejector]

The S&W side plate emblem appears to be a single point hand stamping

Interesting!
I assumed that if the gun is a belgian imitationfakekncokoff, that they probably just hand engraved it.
I know a guy good enough to sign my name in steel and make me think I did it.......