S&W .44 Hand Ejector 1st Model #15

[CptCurl]

Here are images of my .44 Hand Ejector 1st Model, S/N 15.

There has been some discussion of this revolver on this thread:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-hand-ejectors-1896-1961/228867-they-placed-1st-2nd.html

 

[everReady Rob]

REMARKABLE.
(and you take outstanding pictures)

 

[Marksman]

Outstanding 1st Model HE, every aspect of that grand old S&W is remarkable especially the grips. Shame our British cousins felt the need to cover it with so many stamps.

 

[TSQUARED]

Magnificent photos. It intriges me that such an early serial numbered model would have made it to the UK. I wish that gun could talk.

 

[kennethg]

That is one FINE revolver! Ditto on the Magnificent photos.

 

[DCWilson]

Documentary photos don't get much better than those. Guns don't get much better either. What a spectacular piece of art. Every ton of ore that was crushed to retrieve the steel from which that gun was made deserves our undying thanks for guarding its cargo so well since the formation of the solar system. Well, OK, that's a little overboard, but I am really pleased to see that gun in such detail.

I look forward to hearing further reports on this fine revolver as you learn more about it.

 

[j38]

What a beautiful revolver - and photos to match. Thanks much,

Jerry

 

[Hondo44]

That TL is simply stunning and your photography makes observing the gun as good as handling it in person! TLs have always been the holy grail of Smiths for me.

I'm surprised to see the front locking bolt plug proud to its recess.

Thank you for showing your acquisition and in such detail,

 

[Texas Star]

The grips sure seem well matched, and nicely figured, but did they shrink at the top, or what?

The UK proofs may indicate a gun sent to Britain in 1940...or not. Can anyone here tell by the stamps when it was proofed?

I note that this is a .44, not a .455, and the early serial number MAY suggest that it was indeed sent to Britain soon after being made.

 

[CptCurl]

Thanks to all for you comments. Please keep them coming.

The grips sure seem well matched, and nicely figured, but did they shrink at the top, or what?

You have lost me on that question. The grips fit perfectly to my observation.

The UK proofs may indicate a gun sent to Britain in 1940...or not. Can anyone here tell by the stamps when it was proofed?

Yes, there is a ready answer. This revolver was submitted to the Birmingham Proof House for commercial proof in 1952. Stamped just behind the trigger on the left side is the Birmingham private viewer's date mark:

A close-up of the stamp:

This mark, with the "B" on left, the "C" on right, and "5" below tells us that the revolver was inspected by the 5th ranked viewer of the Birmingham Proof House in 1952.

There are no martial marks on the revolver at all. It never was in the hands of the British military, as it would have the "broad arrow" and a military acceptance mark in that event.

I note that this is a .44, not a .455, and the early serial number MAY suggest that it was indeed sent to Britain soon after being made.

Now I'm at the edge of my understanding of British proof laws. I believe their laws would require the firearm to undergo proof upon importation. This would mean either military acceptance or civilian proof. If I am correct in this belief, then the stamps attest the fact that the revolver was imported to Britain in 1952.

As a corollary, we see many S&W revolvers that went to England for WW1. They bear British military acceptance stamps that were applied upon receipt and inspection by the military. When discharged from military service (generally after 1945) they were again stamped with the "broad arrow" (but backward, tip to tip) indicating release. Those that were privately sold in England then went to the commercial proof houses where they received their array of commercial proof stamps, including the "NOT ENGLISH MAKE" stamp. That latter stamp brackets the date of commercial proof to the period of 1925 (when that stamp was introduced) through 1954 (when it was discontinued). So the stamps on those revolvers were applied in three occasions: military acceptance, military discharge, and civilian proof.

So in conclusion, this revolver tells us it was privately imported to England in 1952. At some point in time it made it back to the U.S.; certainly before 1968, as it bears no U.S. import marks mandated in 1968.

There very well may be others who are better versed in British proofing. If so, please speak up.

 

[CptCurl]

Now I'm at the edge of my understanding of British proof laws. I believe their laws would require the firearm to undergo proof upon importation. This would mean either military acceptance or civilian proof. If I am correct in this belief, then the stamps attest the fact that the revolver was imported to Britain in 1952.

I my earlier post I expressed a tentative opinion of the British law as regards importation of un-proofed firearms. I went back to the books in an effort to solidify my understanding of the obligation. Here is an excerpt from Nigel Brown, British Gunmakers, Volume One, page 260:

From this passage I conclude: (1) if imported commercially the firearm must be submitted for proof within 28 days; and (2) if imported privately (i.e. an individual immigrates to G.B., bringing the firearm) there is no direct requirement for immediate proof, but the owner is under restrictions as to its use, and certainly cannot sell or transfer it without first submitting it for proof.

Undoubtedly this revolver was manufactured at the earliest date of production; probably in the first batch in 1907. It was proofed in Birmingham in 1952. Certainly it didn't stay in S&W's inventory until 1952. I deduce it arrived in England either by sale on the secondary market or under the personal ownership of an immigrant. That leaves only a very slim possibility (immigration) that its first appearance in Britain was prior to 1952. As an aside, I'm not convinced that British customs would release an un-proved firearm to an arriving immigrant without first requiring proof.

We always say we wish these guns could talk. This one does have a few words to say if we listen.

 

[handejector]

The grips sure seem well matched, and nicely figured, but did they shrink at the top, or what?

Look at the pics of the gun laying on its side, and note the bevel at top of grips.
You are taking the shadowline which appears in the side shots as a gap. The grips fit superbly.

A marvelous gun. I'm sure it could tell an interesting story. God only knows how it made it to Britain in the 50's and back, but I'm glad it came home!

Judging by your avatar and knowledge of Brit proofs, I surmise that you are interested in and knowledgeable about English weapons?

 

[deadin]

It's my understanding that firearms have to be commercially proofed before that can be sold commercially.
Military guns are occasionally found that do not have commercial proofs because the owner bought it while in the military and never sold it through a commercial shop. (I have a .455 TL that was purchased/issued (officers had to purchase their own sidearms from the Army/Navy store)by a Captain in the Medical Corps. When discharged he went back to Australia and took the gun with him, so no Comm/ proofs.

I might guess that your .44 found its way to Britain in private hands (or a direct order to S&W) so it wasn't proofed upon arrival. It stayed in private hands until 1952, when someone decided to sell/export it and had it proofed.

This gun really needs a letter!!

 

[fat tom]

Minutiae be damned. Beautiful revolver,beautiful stocks,beautiful pics! That does it for me. Thanks for posting!
f.t.

 

[CptCurl]

Judging by your avatar and knowledge of Brit proofs, I surmise that you are interested in and knowledgeable about English weapons?

My greatest passion, and the one that's most demanding on my wallet, is the collecting, loading ammo for, and shooting double rifles, primarily British. One cannot fully engage in that endeavor without studying the British proof laws over the past 150 years. Those laws are complex and archane. I know of no single reference source that fully explains them. Usually reference must be made to several sources of information. There are two references that stay within reach. One is Nigel Brown's work from which I quoted above; the other is Gerhard Wirnsberger, The Standard Directory of Proof Marks. To a much lesser degree there is some material in S. P. Fjestad, Blue Book of Gun Values.

I have been a long time participant, and I enjoy Administrator privileges, on NitroExpress.com. That is an international forum centered on guns and hunting, with a particular focus on double rifles. Most of that board has gone private now, so unfortunately one doesn't get the flavor of it by simply dropping in. The avatar I'm using here, as well as the moniker, are the same as I use on NE.com. The avatar is a photo of the business end of a very nice Alexander Henry .577 BPE double in my collection.

This is not a thread about double rifles, but here's a peek at five nice British double rifles in my custody (the Henry .577 is on top):

Now back to the matter at hand. We were talking about British proof marks in the context of my Triple Lock. I posted an excerpt from Nigel Brown in my earlier thread. Here's an excerpt from the same source, page 267, showing the chart for the Birmingham viewers' date code stamps. A lot of S&W revolvers bear Birmingham proofs, so some members might find this interesting:

Now to put them on the same page, here again is the close-up of the date stamp on my Triple Lock ("BC5" = 1952, 5th ranking viewer):

 

[DGNY]

Most excellent post, gun, grips and photographs. Thanks! One wonders if a possible reason for the trip to England would have been to keep it from the hands of our honored compatriot, Mr. Elmer K., who might on his own have submitted it to certain exquisite 'proofing' procedures.

Seriously, much appreciation for sharing this nonpareil example of a Triple Lock.

Regards,

Dyson

 

[Waidmann]

First, it was a priviledge to view this magnificent piece! I concur with the comments regarding proof and entry into commerce. I have seen several and own an S&W that escaped proof. Interestingly I own a New Zealand Victory that passed the proofhouse in Ulm in 1983. These things happen.

Again thanks.

 

[zywina]

Great info. on British Proofing, by Texas Star and CptCurl, much appreciated by this commonwealth country member, called Canada, cheers Dale Z!

 

[handejector]

My greatest passion, and the one that's most demanding on my wallet, is the collecting, loading ammo for, and shooting double rifles, primarily British.

Splendid stuff.
Beginning as a teenager, I became an avid reader/collector of African hunting books. That led to an interest in doubles. I've never had the means to pursue it deeply, having only owned two. Collecting ammo for them can be an expensive hobby! If time ever permits, I'll check out NitroExpress.com, having only glanced around a few minutes since you mentioned it.

Back to #15-
What do you know of the gun?
I assume you bought it in the US and did not import it. Is any history available, even recent?
I was hoping someone else might broach the subject, not wishing to be indelicate. No one has, and it is such a significant gun, I have to raise the discussion-
I'm reasonably sure the gun is reblued, and I wondered if you knew it. Being familiar as you are with Brit sporting arms, I'm sure you're aware of their fetish for 'freshening' guns when they show wear. Do you think one of the English houses did it? I think that may be the most likely possibility since it is such a high quality job.
No offense intended, and I hope you were already aware of it.

 

[mbliss57]

Beautiful pics and a maginficant revolver. Thanks