Mystery Gun- What is it?

[PALADIN85020]

I've been following this thread, like many others, for some time. The additional pictures are rather conclusive evidence that this is a genuine S&W product.

I know I don't have the credentials of many of my more learned compatriots regarding S&W esoterica, but let me quote from my previous post:

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.

I feel vindicated!!! It's an exceptional piece, and may be one of a kind, making it extremely valuable. This needs to go into the next SCSW. I'll start the bidding at $100!

John

 

[Masterpiece]

It's an exceptional piece, and may be one of a kind, making it extremely valuable. I'll start the bidding at $100!

Cheez-Wiz John, now it's got to be worth at least $250...wouldn't-cha' think??!! Ha!~Ha!

 

[Masterpiece]

Lee,

Point taken!! I will have to agree that the Patent does state "Improvements" in the text!! So I suppose my question should be, if that isn't a True Patent for a Side-Swinging Cylinder, how was one able to improve on a Patent that wasn't originally issued to them?? Or is the addition of features that weren't specified in the Original Patent the way Early Firearms Manufacturers circumvented pre-existing Patents for their own use to prevent Patent Infringement problems??

 

[bettis1]

Cheez-Wiz John, now it's got to be worth at least $250...wouldn't-cha' think??!! Ha!~Ha!

Masterpiece,

It's guys like you and Paladin that drive the price of these things up 'fore us little guys never get a chance at 'em

Bob

 

[Masterpiece]

It's guys like you and Paladin that drive the price of these things up 'fore us little guys never get a chance at 'em

Bob,

I suppose you figured to steal it for $200, didn't cha'??..."Not a Chance"!! I'm stickin' to $250!! Ha!~Ha!

 

[Mike McLellan]

Wow. What an amazing adventure. If that thing ever goes on the auction block, I hope somebody lets us know. That's sure to be another great story.

 

[Goony]

Goony,

With regards to your statement above, I do agree that more information needs to be found to document this Revolver in the company's history!! The point I'm trying to make is that I believe the newest information has, within a reasonable doubt, certainly assured us it is a (*~S&W~*)!!

All that needs to be done now is find that documentation,etc!! I know I've made it out to sound fairly simple, but my point was, or is, that I would suspect there's information that must, or should have, been documented to it's Design!! Possibly it still exists, maybe it's lost to time!! That's the New Mystery!!

I absolutely concede that the commonalities established between components of this gun and the specifications and engineering practices of known Smith & Wesson products has made for a greatly increased probability (which is not the same thing as certainty) that it is somehow a part of S&W history. But that role would be at best very ill-defined and speculative at this point, and there are still some nagging discrepancies. This is a process and we will all be well served in realizing that just a few "baby steps" have been taken so far, too few to form a firm foundation upon which any conclusions can be drawn.

Take a deep breath and a step back, compartmentalize your enthusiasm, and, most of all, stay objective.

So, who's volunteering to go to Springfield and begin scouring the company archives?

 

[Hondo44]

"Hondo44":

517,152 is a six page patent (for "A Swinging Cylinder and Trigger Lock for Revolvers" ) with two of those pages containing drawings and a front page that specifically states "No model".

It should be noted that a "Trigger Lock" in those days is what we would call the "Lockwork" or the "Action" today and not a "Trigger Lock" used to secure a firearm.

A fast look at 565,245 that you mention (it is for "A Revolver") also reveals the "No model" declaration.

I don't know where 565,385 was referenced but it was filed on January 10th 1896 and granted on August 4th 1896 (those were not only the good old days but the efficient good old days) and it has nothing to do with firearms that I can see in my fast look-see.

Hey, I went back and looked more closely at 565,245 and its front page lists the Serial Number under which it (the application) was filed as 565,385. That is how the application for what became 565,245 was entered into the system and tracked through the patent process before it was granted under Patent Number 565,245. It is not another (here third) patent.

Doug,
565385 must be a typo in my post carried into your post above, it should read 568385; at least that's the app# referenced in Patent 565245.

To recap key statements from my posts all in one place for the sake of clarity:

1. Patent #565245 Aug 4, 1896 is a patent for "Revolver"; the patent drawing shows clearly a 32 1st model, Model 1896. (I have this one in hard copy form).
2. Patent application (typo in post #171) #568385 is listed in the heading of #1 above as filed Nov. 9, 1895 and states: "No model".
3. Patent #517152 granted to Daniel B. Wesson March 27 1894 is a previous patent referenced in #1 above, in essence described thusly and I quote in part:

"...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..."

Thanks Masterpiece, I edited the dates in post #171, but geeze...I was only off 100 years...and only twice...(roll eyes).

Hope that helps,

 

[VaRecon]

Whatever it is, I'd love to shoot it.
This is probably a stupid question, but it will help to quell my ignorance.
Without serial numbers or model stampings is it possible to get this gun a factory letter?

 

[Hondo44]

Our two major questions now are:
When?
Why?
The answer to either may well answer the other.

Any chance of a few more pics-
top of hammer spur and fouling cups in the topstrap??

As to the when and why: The owner has a story-- I told him lets vet the gun then we'll get the story...

As to the pics- attached

Hi Mike,

I think most are on board with, not certainty, but "most probable" authenticity of the gun as an S&W. Now the back story may be timely to help pin down the when and why everyone is clamoring for!

 

[Hondo44]

Whatever it is, I'd love to shoot it.
This is probably a stupid question, but it will help to quell my ignorance.
Without serial numbers or model stampings is it possible to get this gun a factory letter?

VaRecon,
Good question? But I believe IIRC after reading a description of the project at their link in this forum, that data can be searched for by other search criteria. It may be as easy as using "protoypes", "patent models" or the like.
I sure hope so!

 

[bobsdad]

For what it's worth, I did visit the Rock Island Arsenal Museum today. I did not find anything relevant to this discussion in their display of military revolvers.
The closest in outward appearance was the Colt U.S. Army model 1903 DA. And of course their are significant differences with that one.

 

[Goony]

As to the when and why: The owner has a story-- I told him lets vet the gun then we'll get the story...

It's probably at the point that we should hear the "story" the current owner has to tell. As to this gun's connection with S&W, the lack of certainty arises from alternate plausible explanations that may account for its existence.

For example, in the 1950's and 1960's, there were highly skilled machinists and smiths who altered and fabricated firearms to suit their own or any paying customer's tastes. Their work could be first-rate. Some might even have been retired S&W employees (or Colt, Remington, et cetera). Call these "fantasy" guns if you will. This wasn't necessarily done with intent to defraud, but later such pieces (particularly in the field of war souvenirs, but also often with frontier era pieces) confounded and fooled many experts, especially if they utilized factory components. This could be one of those, for which a half century later, the creator no longer is alive to step forward and say, "Oh, that thing? I made that up out in my shop." Likewise, the original owner's not around anymore to say, "Oh, I had so and so make that up for me."

Up to now, we've very probably eliminated that the gun was produced by a foreign maker. That's all, and that doesn't automatically sweep away every other possibility.

Just keep an open mind, folks. But that "story" might well put us on the track of supporting documentation that right now is so sorely lacking.

 

[Varangi]

Hi Mike,

I think most are on board with, not certainty, but "most probable" authenticity of the gun as an S&W. Now the back story may be timely to help pin down the when and why everyone is clamoring for!

incoming---give me a couple of days-

The short version is the present owner got it from his mother-in-law who got it from her grandmother who's husband was an employee of Rock Island Arsenal from 1890-1920. I understand that there is an obituary somewhere that shows the employment status of the earliest known owner. The current owner and his family hail from the Illinois area. I will interview the owner at greater length asap.

Mike

 

[Hondo44]

(might want to edit your dates above)

I keep seeing you refer to the "side swing" patent. I have no clue what that pat covers, but it can't be for the side swing cyl!

Lee,
Thanks on the dates. Had another problem in there as well; too late at nite/early in the morning.

Side swing patent was stated in my post #105. (I guess the source is clear now, detailed again above for clarity and context.)

 

[Buford57]

Gentlemen, I am too ignorant to offer anything else to this discussion, but if I can get them into a format I can post I will Provide copies of the drawings and description for 517,152 that I obtained from the patent office site. The cylinder release is a lever on the top strap. The cylinder pictured is 7-shot.

 

[Goony]

The short version is the present owner got it from his mother-in-law who got it from her grandmother who's husband was an employee of Rock Island Arsenal from 1890-1920.

Someone who worked at the Rock Island Arsenal conceivably could have been just the sort of person skilled enough to build this revolver per the scenario I laid out in post #193, albeit in an earlier time frame. Such a person might have worked at Smith & Wesson in the course of his career, too (remember, the government appropriated S&W during WWI). Or, he might have been a janitor and the information is irrelevant. Still a lot of ways this could turn out in play, I'd say.

 

[Oyeboteb]

http://photobucket.com/mysterysw

Mike will follow up with measurements and observations.

A quicker teaser though. The sideplate screws are .120 44 pitch.....

What a pleasure to see these additional images!


Looks like "S & W" all through to me.


Also, at-a-glance, the Cylinder probably has enough room or 'meat' for .44 Russian, even if being Chambered for .41 SW C'tg.

 

[Buford57]

Patent # 517,152

As promised.

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

 

[A10]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone talked to Mr. Jinks yet?

 

[Goony]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone talked to Mr. Jinks yet?

I've brought this thread to his attention. There's a much less detailed discussion ongoing with his involvement over on the SWCA members' side of the forum, where there continues to be considerable skepticism as to this gun's origin.

 

[Hondo44]

As promised.

Buford,
Thank you.

 

[handejector]

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.

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????

 

[Oyeboteb]

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.

 

[Hondo44]

Post #98
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?

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.

 

[TripleLock]

Thumb Latch Patents

Do we have any references as for when the Thumb Latch aspect or feature of the HE design was Patented?

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

 

[sceva]

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.
.

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]

I haven't slept in days!
Who doesn't enjoy a good mystery.

 

[Model19man]

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.

 

[BUFF]

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.