Mystery Gun- What is it?

[Model19man]

I didn't say it was part of any contract - I mean to say it might be a specimen to show a proposal for such a contract, one that - obviously - for what ever reason never came to pass.

I am picturing a telegram from the Russians asking for an updated weapon with the new swing out cylinder, and could Smith make a sample in .41 Kaliber to show our Kommissar what we want to order? Again, just a conjecture, but it is the best explanation I can imagine?

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.

 

[Wiregrassguy]

So far it is a mystery concealed in a conumdrum wrapped in a corn tortilla.

and, topped with sour cream and guacamole with a side of refried beans.

 

[handejector]

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

THANKS.
Very interesting that the paramount point in the bolt design is to keep the gun from firing out of battery. The bolt also keeps an open gun from being cocked, and keeps a cocked gun from being opened.
Note also that while 573,736 ALMOST gets us to the checkered thumb latch, we still haven't gotten there yet. The latch is shown operated by a slotted round head screw!

I would fully ecpect to fine 0.122-40 screws running about 0.120 in diameter.

Exactly.
This is actually very close tolerance for a screw. The male threads can never be full diameter, or you'll need a pipe wrench to put them in. There has to be some "slop". If you measure the tap (which cuts female threads), I'm sure it would measure at least .122". Try running a large bolt threaded with a really worn die into a hole threaded with a really worn tap sometime. It's misery all the way down! Just for giggles, I just grabbed an 8-32 tap and miked it at .165", and the 8-32 screw I grabbed mikes at .159". Again, 1-1/2 to 2 thou is very close tolerance.


The Frame-
This gun also has the very Colt-like profile of the prototype HE's. Roy's book shows the K frame proto which was made from a Colt 1892 model in 1895. page 143
The Colts had square butts.
S&W had not made square butts since the earliest versions of the #3 TB frame.
They did not get back to a square butt till 05. Page 144 shows a K frame drawing from June, 96, and it shows a round butt.
This gun has a SB, and the obvious shape of the Colt frame they were trying to knockoff.
With the Colt shape, copied in 95, combined with the bolt patent of 96, and the yoke detent patent of 95, I think this revolver has to date to this mid 1890's develepment period.
Perhaps it is a proto to test the true functionality of those features we've just been shown in 539,497 and 573,736, which is what I said here-

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.

 

[DCWilson]

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.

I have been wondering along the same lines. Even though the self-cocking (i.e., DA) revolvers were on the march in the 1880s and 1890s, there could easily have been countries in the world that wanted a more traditional single action revolver for their militaries or police forces. Russia? Japan? Argentina? I could see this as a concept specimen for a model that was never ordered by the prospective customer. But I'm definitely thinking foreign. I just don't see a US market for this model.

I have been on both sides of the question in my previous posts, but I'm now almost completely back to my original position -- almost certainly a company-built prototype and not an imitation.

9.75 mm bore? 10mm? Are there any known European cartridges from this era that would suggest a customer? Even with the English system screws, I still get a European or colonial vibe from this gun.

How complete are company records for the late 1880s and 1890s?

 

[Masterpiece]

Note also that while 573,736 ALMOST gets us to the checkered thumb latch, we still haven't gotten there yet. The latch is shown operated by a slotted round head screw!

Lee,

You also have to remember that features seen in these Early Patent Drawings are rarely "Exactly" what you'll see if the design was put into production!! Given that, I seriously doubt it was D.B. Wesson's intent to use a Screw as the Final Production Release Latch, but only shown as the Release Latch in the drawing for filing purposes as it serves the same function...Just not as *Pretty*!! No worries, I haven't been able to find the Patent for the Thumb Latch as yet (if there even is such a Patent), but I'm still searching!!

********************************************
By the way Triplelock,

I found these Patents early this morning myself, but you beat me to the punch!! Good Job!!

 

[Masterpiece]

Let's Go!!

How complete are company records for the late 1880s and 1890s?

David,

C'mon, they're probably all laid out ready for us to get busy searchin'!!.....Why don't you hop a plane & we'll go see!! Ha!~Ha!

 

[Keith Brown]

I think the myth of lunch box guns is way overblown, the apparent way features are blended and the obvious quality work points directly to this gun having been built following an order being given. The machinery that existed from the beginning of Smith & Wesson to maybe as late as the 1960s would not lend itself to a one off anything being made. The equipment was set up for single operations, horizontal mills, shapers, lathes, drills, broaching equipment, all of it would have been run for a specific cut or feature. Even the cutters were made in house and were things of beauty, made by very skilled toolmakers. I can't imagine that anyone on the floor running production had the skill let alone the equipment to make a one off revolver. Experimental or prototype I'm sure the gun was know about at the time, perhaps buried in the yet to be scanned records a clue exists. The 5-44 thread and the change from .120 to .122 is not significant from a production standpoint, I would imagine someone was bringing a variety of prints and specs into common alignment. The threads when produced would have a production tolerance greater that the noted difference. Sceva is correct with is .120 diameter, that is exactly where I would have run that thread, any more would not increase the strength but will increase the load and wear on tooling. Depending on the exact machine used those screws were produced at a rate of maybe a 1000 to as many as 5000 per 8 hour shift, believe me there was variation. Not much I know, but it's all I got.

 

[handejector]

Lee,

You also have to remember that features seen in these Early Patent Drawings are rarely "Exactly" what you'll see if the design was put into production!!

I am well aware of that.
However, if a dished, checkered thumb latch had been created before that drawing was drawn, I'd bet a ton it would have been in that drawing.

Contract Requirement?
No.
The Russians were responsible for the development of the 44 DA in 1880-81. They certainly were not going to adopt a SA this late in the game. Since 3rd world countries always want to copy the major powers, there would never have been any major market for the gun.
The DA revolver saw use in the Civil War in the LeMat form. They were built in Paris during the War, so Europe knew about them.
The Borchhardt auto hit the market in 93, proving the auto a viable bullet slinger. (albeit a bit clumsy)
So, DA's had seen combat 35 years earlier, and autos have appeared on the market.
You really think a frugal ol' Yankee like D.B. is going to throw money at a SA revolver? This cracker knows he was smarter 'n that.








It has to be a test platform.

 

[Masterpiece]

However, if a dished, checkered thumb latch had been created before that drawing was drawn, I'd bet a ton it would have been in that drawing.

Lee,

I'm sure what you say is true, "If", there would have been!! The point I'm trying to make is the fact that I've been unable to find "Anything", as yet, concerning a (S&W Configuration) Thumb Latch and/or Patent for one "At All", let alone in this time-frame!! Not even for the Thumb Latch that first came to be used on the 1899's!!

I have my Search Dates set between 1880-1910 which I believe are the earliest & latest possible periods that this Revolver could have been built in considering the features it has from those periods!! And no, I'm not saying it couldn't have been built later than that, only that I believe they are the most feasible periods to consider!! I thought I had better make that perfectly clear so there was no confusion!!

 

[handejector]

I really doubt the thumb latch was patented.
What could you patent?
Checkering? (we know that's a NO)
The shape? (doubt that)

The key part is the patented BOLT. How you move it is just a matter of what 'handle' or 'button' you attach to it.

 

[Masterpiece]

Yes There Is One!!

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.

Lee,

Just so you know I'm not in this just for the sake of argument, I'll throw a bone your way!! I forgot to mention this the other day when I found it because I was tied up trying to track down any of the S&W related Patents that were associated with this Revolver!!

Anyway, Yes, there is a Patent on a Side-Swing or Swing-Out Cylinder, whichever you'd prefer!! Yes, it is associated with Colt & it was issued to Carl Ebhets Aug.5,1884!! The Patent No. is US303135 if you'd like to look it over!! It also states in the Patent

~"This invention relates to an Improvement in revolvers, with special reference to the revolver known as the "Colts' revolver"~[End Quote] and is a Side or Swing-Out Design!!

Now given that, this why I asked, beings the Revolver we're discussing basically has a Cylinder supported by a Swing-Down Yoke, I asked if one held a Patent for the First Design, why would that have stopped anyone from submitting a Patent for a Swing-Down Cylinder for the simple fact that the designs are, in fact, not the same as one Swings "Out" & the other Swings "Down"?? Not saying there isn't one, but only why someone couldn't have submitted one for the Swing-Down design!! By the way, I have yet to find one specifically issued for a Swing-Down Cylinder either!! Only the one D.B.Wesson was issued on Mar. 27,1894 for the Swinging Cylinder which the design of, as we all know, went on to be used on Model of 1896 Revolvers!!

 

[ParadiseRoad]

...could this just be a prototype for a possible line of revolvers with the simplicity and reliability of a single action lockwork...and the speed and ease of loading and ejection offered by the swing out cylinder?

...it seems logical to me because double action revolvers always seem to be used more in the single action mode...unless rate of fire is of the essence in a particular situation...

 

[Hondo44]

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.

Sceva,

Excellent point and thank you for that clarification, it's important! So now we know the published S&W standard of .122" x 44 (not 40) and the actual measurements .120" x 44 are consistant.

 

[handejector]

Anyway, Yes, there is a Patent on a Side-Swing or Swing-Out Cylinder, whichever you'd prefer!! Yes, it is associated with Colt & it was issued to Carl Ebhets Aug.5,1884!! The Patent No. is US303135 if you'd like to look it over!! It also states in the Patent

~"This invention relates to an Improvement in revolvers, with special reference to the revolver known as the "Colts' revolver"~

and is a Side or Swing-Out Design!!

Now given that, this why I asked, beings the Revolver we're discussing basically has a Cylinder supported by a Swing-Down Yoke, I asked if one held a Patent for the First Design, why would that have stopped anyone from submitting a Patent for a Swing-Down Cylinder for the simple fact that the designs are, in fact, not the same as one Swings "Out" & the other Swings "Down"?? Not saying there isn't one, but only why someone couldn't have submitted one for the Swing-Down design!! By the way, I have yet to find one specifically issued for a Swing-Down Cylinder either!! Only the one D.B.Wesson was issued on Mar. 27,1894 for the Swinging Cylinder which the design of, as we all know, went on to be used on Model of 1896 Revolvers!!

Please-
let's stick with the term "swing out" for HE's and not start playing a semantics game.
I looked at 303135, and I doubt it was ever produced beyond a tool room copy.
That patent would not have prevented anyone from patenting a yoke which swings out.
Did you see the Winchester revolver from 1876 in Post #203 with a swing out cyl? If the yoke was ever patented, I would have to assume it was patented in 76 or before.

Only the one D.B.Wesson was issued on Mar. 27,1894 for the Swinging Cylinder which the design of, as we all know, went on to be used on Model of 1896 Revolvers!!

Has anyone heard me say that Patent # 517,152 of Mar. 27,1894 does NOT cover the yoke NOR the fact that the cyl swings out?
Again, see Post # 203.

I do NOT believe S&W ever had a patent on the yoke which swings out. They produced their first HE Model in 1895, 19 years after the Winchester revolver shown above. Patents only last 16 years.

 

[Hondo44]

Lee,

I think all know what's meant whether sematically consistent or not, but if you must have a term why not Smith's own "swinging cylinder"? I don't really care what's used, it's minutia.

Whether or not Smith actually patented their swinging cyl or when, and that they didn't use it in production until the .32 Mod 1896 seems not in the least to bear on our mystery gun's vintage (again, presuming it's an authentic Smith creation). It could have been designed and built before Colt's patent, concurrent with or after (but likely before 1896).

I now feel based on the construction observations I make:

1. NM #3 1st model SA lockwork, frame shape, trigger guard location and hammer spur similarity.
2. Trigger spring shape and anchor of the Mod 3 Russian 2nd & 3rd models, and 1st and 2nd Model Schofields.
3. Higher frame hump than NM #3 required to make room for the cylinder bolt, plunger and spring.

that the observable facts tell us more about the vintage of its crafting and Smith's design period of the Swinging cyl, thumbpiece and solid frame features as earlier rather than later; especially the absence of the newer DA lockwork of the Mod 1896.

 

[Masterpiece]

Hi Lee,

Well, I see that last Post of mine didn't get interpreted as it was intended to be!!

First, I was actually trying to let you know that I "Did" find an Actual Patent that has direct relation to a Swing-Out Cylinder!!

Secondly, I was trying to get some feedback that if there was a Patent issued for a Swing "Type" Cylinder already could another have been applied for if the design itself was not exactly the same as the one that had already been issued!! I asked this same question way back in Post #183, but got no responses, so I thought I'd bring it up again!! Granted it may have been worded slightly different, but the inquiry was still the same!!

Lastly, It also was not my intent to spark a debate as to whether or not a Swing-Out, Swing-Down, Side-Swing or even a Swinging Cylinder were considered to be the same design!! The only reason I referenced them as such is those are the names they were given it the Patent Information I had been researching!!

Sorry you took all of the above the wrong way as all I'm trying to do is figure out when & why this Revolver exists just like everyone else!! Maybe we will, maybe we won't!!

 

[handejector]

Hi Lee,

Well, I see that last Post of mine didn't get interpreted as it was intended to be!!

First, I was actually trying to let you know that I "Did" find an Actual Patent that has direct relation to a Swing-Out Cylinder!!

Secondly, I was trying to get some feedback that if there was a Patent issued for a Swing "Type" Cylinder already could another have been applied for if the design itself was not exactly the same as the one that had already been issued!!

I did understand your post.

I thought this answered First and Second points above:

I looked at 303135(Colt/Carl Ebhets), and I doubt it was ever produced beyond a tool room copy.
That patent would not have prevented anyone from patenting a yoke which swings out.
Did you see the Winchester revolver from 1876 in Post #203 with a swing out cyl? If the yoke was ever patented, I would have to assume it was patented in 76 or before.

To be more verbose-
The Colt/Carl Ebhets 303135 patent would not prevent someone from patenting a YOKE mount which swings out of the frame because that patent has nothing resembling a yoke. You cannot patent the movement.
The Colt patent moves the cyl via a sliding and hingd center pin. No yoke involved.

My point has always been that IF the swinging cyl yoke had ever been patented, logic would dictate that it was patented in 1876 or before because of the Winchester patent model. IF it was ever patented, that patent had expired by the time of the S&W HE's, and was in the public domain.

 

[Oyeboteb]

I really doubt the thumb latch was patented.
What could you patent?
Checkering? (we know that's a NO)
The shape? (doubt that)

The key part is the patented BOLT. How you move it is just a matter of what 'handle' or 'button' you attach to it.

Yup...

And, Patent Drawings often neglected to represent details already intended to be present by a Manufacturer...there was never any point in giving away too much of a product's overall 'design' or details, when one is merely asserting a formality for obtaining a proprietary clause for a specific element of a design, or, for a specific engineering concept.

Either of which may well be intended already to be made with a particular style, while being shown in a simplified form in the Patent Drawings.

 

[Oyeboteb]

I think the myth of lunch box guns is way overblown, the apparent way features are blended and the obvious quality work points directly to this gun having been built following an order being given. The machinery that existed from the beginning of Smith & Wesson to maybe as late as the 1960s would not lend itself to a one off anything being made. The equipment was set up for single operations, horizontal mills, shapers, lathes, drills, broaching equipment, all of it would have been run for a specific cut or feature. Even the cutters were made in house and were things of beauty, made by very skilled toolmakers. I can't imagine that anyone on the floor running production had the skill let alone the equipment to make a one off revolver. Experimental or prototype I'm sure the gun was know about at the time, perhaps buried in the yet to be scanned records a clue exists. The 5-44 thread and the change from .120 to .122 is not significant from a production standpoint, I would imagine someone was bringing a variety of prints and specs into common alignment. The threads when produced would have a production tolerance greater that the noted difference. Sceva is correct with is .120 diameter, that is exactly where I would have run that thread, any more would not increase the strength but will increase the load and wear on tooling. Depending on the exact machine used those screws were produced at a rate of maybe a 1000 to as many as 5000 per 8 hour shift, believe me there was variation. Not much I know, but it's all I got.

I quite agree.


Modifications or variations to suit, of an already in production item, or a 'custom' version of an existing in-production item, or making some feature to be unique or different, as an Employee or the likes may have been permitted to do, or may have been able to do how-ever so, is one thing.

Making a whole other non-production Frame and non-production Lockwork, quite another!

The example at hand is as finely fit and finished as a regular S & W Production Revolver of the time and has the "S&W" emblem ( or, seems so from the images, anyway ) and this also suggests to me, some form of 'Blessings' ( or a "Work Order" ) from above.

 

[Oyeboteb]

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.

My friendly Wager from the get-go, is that we are contemplating an authentic ( albeit unusual and unexpected ) S & W Revolver, and, that is shall hold up to all further investigations in that regard.

I sure wish it were mine! I really LIKE the old thing!!

Lol...


I was pleased to read the news about the Screws. That is an interesting aspect here, and, as others have mentioned, Screw Tolerances will run just as they have turned out to do with these, too...even if the official data mentioned a couple thousandths more on the Screw Thread diameter.

Screw Threads ought not be over 'sharp' on the Screw itself, whether or not they lean that way in the Tap...lest, just as others have said, the Screw then has too much resistence going in, especially as the Taps will wear or 'round' a litle at the apex of the Thread edge, so, the Screw should anticipate that.

So, all that is as it should be.

 

[Oyeboteb]

I think it is also possible, that this Revolver could have been made at some point, without being so-to-speak 'finished', and, modified or finished up and so on, sometime later.

Or, that what we see, could represent more than one period or stage of completion - where, it may have been in the White, had fine Grinding lines and so on, had whatever form of exterior Cylinder release feature to satisfy proof of concept...and, layed around a while, where, someone high enough up or someone favored anyway,or someone able to find favor, anyway, took a liking to it, and, got permission to acquire it and for it to be 'finished' so to speak, in the usual way of being Plished and Stamped and Blues and so on, even if sans the usual Patent info for the Barrel Top.

Where-upon, they had it as their own, went shooting with it now and then ( using .41 Colt Ammunition I would have to think ), ejoyed and even carried it sometimes, and...no one ever thought anything much about it, till...now.

So, the attributable circa of the S&W 'Stamp', and, of the actual form and detail of the Cylinder Release or Thumb-Latch feature, might not necessarily date from when the Revolver was actually made, even if they likely DO date from pretty early on in the HE evolution.

Is the Thumb-Latch a little larger than those of the early K-Frames? ( Seemed like it is...)

Is it any larger than those of the first N-Frames? ( granted the Checking is different, or finer...)

 

[Hondo44]

Something more significant then what the patents include is becoming quite apparent from the applications for patents and patent granted dates. It's that patents were applied for just soon enough before actual production commencement of patented features. Which of course is perfectly intuitive. Why give away your trade secrets any sooner than needed.

My point being, we therefore don't know how long these patented design inventions existed before being patented. However our mystery gun seems to give us clear evidence that it was actually several years earlier.

At least that appears to be the case for the swinging cyl, cyl lock/hammer block, cyl detent, improved bottom frame window cyl bolt, etc., all represented on the mystery gun but mated, to seemingly to us now, obsolete NM #3 lockwork. When in actuality the NM #3 lockwork was probably contemporary to those design innovations.

So this to me just continues to support an earlier point on Smith's revolver evolution timeline for the MG's creation as a test bed.

 

[Varangi]

AND THE PLOT THICKENS!!

I met with the owner yesterday- Details below::

Download, print and read the obit several times- What I would give to sit in the same room with this man and have a conversation...

Original Owner:
Russell West- DOB: 1AUG1855- Born San Francisco
-Son of Brigadier General/ U.S. Senator
Joseph Rodman West-
-Graduated Georgetown University- major unknown-
-Member of USGS Survey Team- Yellowstone NP-
-1880-Federal Employee, War Department-
Clerk- Ordinance Department-
-1890- Transfered to Rock Island Arsenal-
Property Clerk-
-1918/1919- Re-orginized Arsenal Museum-
-1927- OIC* Purchasing Dept.-
-1AUG1930- Retired-
-DIED 1935-

Mystery gun given to son, Joseph West-DOB: 19MAR1893
DOD: JAN1974
-Interred Rock Island National Cemetery-
-Married Jessie L. Jan1918-

Jessie L. West- Joseph's widow, gave mystery gun to current owner's In-Laws- Then to current owner 20years ago.

Cheers;

Mike

PS: The owner told me that he would submit the revolver for inspection by qualified persons if necessary- West Coast Preferred...

***OIC- Officer In Charge..

 

[TAROMAN]

Provenance!

 

[410bore]

This is getting very interesting!

 

[Wiregrassguy]

Since he was there during the Spanish-American War, is it possible this gun was a Spanish knockoff mod. that was captured and sent to the armory?

 

[A10]

And, since he reorganized the museum, the possibilities of "obtaining" an interesting historical firearm exist, particularly if it had been something evaluated and discarded by the military.

 

[deadin]

Ever been to Rock Island? I don't think they've ever thrown anything away.....

 

[Varangi]

I tried searching for Russell West w/ no joy. If someone has access to Rock Island Armory Archives or maybe did a face to face with the current curator- bring the obit and see what is available???

Mike

 

[Masterpiece]

I tried searching for Russell West w/ no joy.

Mike,

The house He & His wife Marie built in 1900 when he worked there as the Property Clerk was on the Rock Island "Broadway Historic District" Tour in 2002 so there's no doubt he lived there!! Still searching!!
********************************************
By the way Mike,
Thanks for another great job attaining additional info for us!! It's greatly appreciated!!