(not so) AWESOME detailed (occasionally inaccurate) history of S&W pistol models

[drno4]

Found this gem of a site today, as I was doing some research on 3rd gen pieces. Wow! What a treasure trove of knowledge. Enjoy!

ETA: given the comments in the thread that follow, this site actually sucks. (sorry, I got excited!)

As probably everyone on this forum owns (including me), Smith's standard catalog is still the better resource, along with the pooled knowledge of all the well-experienced guys on this forum.

US Pistols - Smith & Wesson

 

[RShaw]

Thank you!! Very detailed.... great source of info

 

[Sevens]

I have seen this site before and there is a lot of interesting details in it, it appears to have been written by a hardcore and very dedicated video game player and I applaud the amount of time and energy he or she has put in to it.

At the same time, at least while discussing it on the S&W forum (), it does seem to be appropriate to mention that there are numerous smallish errors here and there that might only be noticeable to the most dedicated fans of these pistols. Or, in other words... the kinds of folks on the forums. If it were a Wikipedia page, I believe many edits would be made.

Even still, very cool body of work.

 

[ab4ka]

Very cool!

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[drno4]

I have seen this site before and there is a lot of interesting details in it, it appears to have been written by a hardcore and very dedicated video game player and I applaud the amount of time and energy he or she has put in to it.

At the same time, at least while discussing it on the S&W forum (), it does seem to be appropriate to mention that there are numerous smallish errors here and there that might only be noticeable to the most dedicated fans of these pistols. Or, in other words... the kinds of folks on the forums. If it were a Wikipedia page, I believe many edits would be made.

Even still, very cool body of work.

As detail-oriented as the author seems to be, I am sure he would welcome your editorial corrections, if/as you spot them. (By the way, "Or in other words...the kinds of folks on the forums." is an incomplete sentence.)

Thanks for your post!

 

[BLUEDOT37]

I have seen this site before... it does seem to be appropriate to mention that there are numerous smallish errors here and there that might only be noticeable to the most dedicated fans of these pistols.

I have to agree. I remember reading it before too & only spot reading it now but saw several incorrect statements. ex:

The Model 4516... In 1992, the trigger guard was squared, and it was then known as the 4516-1.

Not trying to bad mouth the author, admittedly S&W 3rd Gen's history & revisions are sometimes inconsistent & confusing, even to those more familiar with them.

Heck, even the new SCSW has errors.

.

 

[GaryS]

It should be noted that this is a reference game for "Twilight 2000". Which is a role playing game (RPG). It was originally designed in 1991 and has been computer based for some time.

The descriptions are for reference use in the game. Hence the cheap prices on the guns described. It's not meant as a reference for REAL 3rd Gen guns.

It has some interesting information, but I noticed a large number of small, but relevant errors.

Take due notice thereof.

 

[Shadow1006]

Yes as I read over the 10mm 1000 series there seem to be many things that are inconsistent as to the production and development.

As I recall S&W developed the 1006 first, based on the Model 4506, but retooled for the new caliber. Then, with a contract for a 10mm from the FBI, they produced the 1076 to fit and meet those needs.

The 1046 DAO was only in Stainless Steel, have never seen or heard of any that were blue or black finish??? The S&W info says that 151 1046's were made. He only listed 148.

There are differences in the 1046 vs. 1006 and 1o86 vs. the 1066. The slide and frames are different. The tang of the frame is milled to meet the longer slide on the 46/86 the rear of the slide is longer on both.

Look at the differences in these two pictures...

 

[DCW]

I jumped on the link and realized it was something I'd seen previously but discounted alone on the strength, er, or the lack thereof found in the "Smith & Wesson 39 Series."

Too many "smallish" errors equal one large one, in my feeble mind - me having done enough in life to recognize such.

Some of the errors seemed like leaps of faith, or supposition, rather than that derived through substantive, qualitative research.

When this consultant first delves into ad hoc research it is usually because a subject catches his eye or heart . . . until research (anywhere from a sentence to many pages) leads to another paragraph and/or many more pages and still more sentences and pages, ad infinitum. Heck, this collector still is working on S&W 39 research began years ago, which not only has consumed volumes of information via the greatest research tool yet known to man, The 'Net, but also to taking flights to research multiple libraries in far flung places like Connecticut, Massachusetts and Illinois.

Pointedly, there were more than a few times I'd throw my hands into air, cuss a few words, swear it off altogether and then return to it, all the while muttering things like, ". . . but it keeps dragging me back in . . ."

Sincerely so, I hope the author pursues additional work if nothing else but to clean up around the edges. Admittedly, though, the effort is considerable.

In the meantime, let's hope he begs, borrows or buys the four Standard Catalogs of Smith and Wesson (Nahas and Supica, authors)(and I do, indeed, have all four) as well as at least some of the numerous other S&W tomes in the market; me being of he mind that should one spend much time and money (no one is fronting me either in my work) pursuing knowledge for the sake of others learning from it, then compensation in some form should follow.

Later.

DC