Prototype S&W No. 3

[357magster]

Ian just posted another cool S&W video.

Interesting design ...


[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vFbD3teN3c"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vFbD3teN3c[/ame]

 

[BMur]

Patent conflict

Often times a prototype or new design is never developed due to a " Patent design conflict". Hopkins & Allen patented the Swinging link initially in 1862ish. Modified and approved in March Of 1871. This prototype and patent design looks a lot like their pivoting barrel that is based on this early patent and found on a huge number of their single action and double action revolvers. Often patents are applied for but never actually reach approval status due to legal challenges from other active firms.

I haven't done any research on this specific patent of Smith & Wesson but I'm sure Hopkins & Allen along with their partners Merwin & Hulbert weren't too happy about this design.

Lots of politics regarding patents and designs. The research is eye opening. I can only imagine the legal squabbles that took place " Prior" to patent approval. I've documented several. It ain't pretty.

Murph

 

[RoyS]

This was a great video by Ian.

And the gun was fascinating, I love old mechanics like this.

Cheerio,

Roy

 

[Oyeboteb]

The usual ordinary Model 3 was fine as is...excellent even, if not pretty well perfect.

Hard to understand why this idea was worked on, it has no advantages at all, while having disadvantages.

It is very easy to open a Model 3 or a New Model 3 or the DAs, to remove a spent Shell and replace it with a live Round, with no need to fully eject or spill all the Cartridges.

So, at least for me, I do not see or understand what this design was meant to accomplish.

 

[crossv]

I agree that the antique experimental models I have seen have a low bar for putting in the effort without a lot of obvious gain. In the attached image are two examples of a split cylinder instead of just the ejector star. The tip up might have something going versus the ejector pin only but the Model 3, not so much. The model 3 from this old catalog is in our collection while the tip up barrel is location unknown, but would be nice to find it.

CB

 

[BMur]

Patent challenge

I don't know.
This design sure looks a lot like the Hopkins & Allen/Merwin & Hulbert design that was quite successful during the later 1870's and 1880's. Based initially on the active 1871 "swinging Link" patent where the cylinder tips out of the frame from a lower frame link. That's exactly what I'm seeing on this design. I think patent attorneys could have easily and effectively challenged this design. Notice also the frame to barrel rear lock looks identical to Hopkins and Allen/Merwin and Hulbert.

I haven't done the research but it could have been initially a simple "Legal challenge" that stopped production. The proof is historical fact when we look at the thousands and thousands of Merwins produced in large and small frame revolvers having this same basic type of frame break. The design did succeed. It's proven.

It could also have been initially a slick legal threat to stop production only to actually steal the design after this patent expired 7 years after application. That's very possible if we cross reference patent applications from Hopkins and Allen. So, That's just as likely. Basing the initial legal challenge on an infringement of the swinging link patent. Most of us stop in our tracks if we receive a letter in the mail threating legal action unless we cease and desist. Sometimes it might be a bluff? but often its about legal fees. Most of the time its not worth fighting it.

Just from memory, without access to my patent data base? I don't think there were "any" revolvers manufactured with a swing out cylinder until "after" the swinging link patent expired in about 1878. In fact, Shattuck jumped on it in November 1879 and came out with a new "patented" variation of swing out cylinder that also "owned" the market until it expired. So, legal Patents basically are the boss card! Until they expire.

I personally think this is a very exceptional example of a prototype that was created 7 years "before it's time".


Murph

 

[Oyeboteb]

The prototype is a marvel of highest craftsmanship and machining..!

But I expect it would have been no fun trying to re-load while on Horseback, especially compared to the straightforward easy simplicity of the Model 3 of usual configuration.

It really does not do anything like what the Merwin Hulbert .44s did, even if it has one joint which is based on a rotating front assembly and is thus similar.

The M H rotated on the Cylinder Axle Pin, while this rotates on a Pin which is lower front in the bottom of the Frame.

The M H would dump spent shells, while keeping live Rounds...this of course does not.

I remember some years back a prototype S & W in I think .41 S & W , which seemed to have dated to the 1890s, which had a Swing Out Cylinder, a Thumb push release for the Cylinder like unto the K Frame of 1899, and oddly, was Single Action.

It was quite mysterious in it's way..!

They really ought to have launched the .41 S & W way back when, I am sure it would have been very well received by everyone and been very popular and eclipsed the .41 Long Colt ( and all it's faults ) right out of the Barn...to where Colt would have started chambering for it even, by popular demand!

 

[mtd1960]

Thought that this gun looked familiar - Neal & Jinks page 228
Seems like it was a bargian at 12,650

 

[Tadeus67]

Great information and of course excellent video. Thank you so much for sharing