Smith & Wesson .46 Rimfire revolver

[BMur]

Quick history;
In 1867 Remington approached Smith & Wesson with a request to alter their 44 New Model cap&Ball Civil War leftover revolvers to .46 Rimfire cartridge.
Long story short it became a partnership of sorts.

Remington sent thousands to Smith & Wesson to inspect and after completion stamped on the cylinder the Rollin White patent date.

I just read in military records that the U.S. Army issued the Remington Smith and Wesson Army revolver 46rf to Artillery units beginning in 1868 and continuing until 1871.

Those pre-1869 examples apparently actually have the Rollin White patent stamp since the patent did not expire until 1869.

So I’m wondering now if these will letter?
Does the historical department have records on these? Where they were sent? How many? Also if Smith & Wesson was actually involved in the conversion process? Did Smith & Wesson actually number them with conversion numbers?

There is a lot more to this co-partnership that seems to be ignored by collectors and historians for some reason.

These revolvers are often period titled as Smith & Wesson Army revolvers. I’m thinking Smith & Wesson was more involved than we know.

The U.S. Army may have actually sent several to Smith & Wesson for alteration to 46 Rimfire while the Rollin White patent was still active since the Army owned the guns! A lot of these 46 rimfires are actually military inspected.

Murph

 

[BMur]

FYI:
Prior to the communications between Remington and Smith & Wesson in 1867 a letter was drafted by Remington to the Chief of Ordnance Department pushing the conversion concept.

The response to Remington in early 1867 from the Ordnance Dept included this P.S.

“We are led to address you in this regard to the above subject, understanding that Messrs. Smith & Wesson of Worcester Mass. had Been requested to alter samples of the Army Revolver for cartridges, with reference to converting a “LARGE” number of them for the Govt.”

Murph

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

I do believe you are mistaken. The Army did not purchase, issued or owned
any Remington in .46 RF caliber. They did accept for testing Both Colt and
Remington converted cap-n-ball revolvers in .44 CF.

The Remington .46 RF revolvers were ones B. Kittredge owned and wanted
converted. They approached S&W about a limited license to have approx.
5,000 to 6,000 converted and S&W agreed so long as R. White would agree.

Initially, Rollin White wasn't interested but about a year later, he became more
retractable and allowed the work to proceed. Remington did the conversion
and S&W inspected them. Remington received $2.3625 per revolver for the
conversion, S&W received $1.00 for the limited license and Rollin White
got $.25 royalty.

Ammo boxes from the time period are labeled: "Remington's Smith & Wesson
Army Pistol" for these .46 cal. revolvers. In this case, the term "Army" referred
to the size of the revolver and not that it was an adopted sidearm of the U.S.
Army.

Cheers!
Webb

 

[BMur]

Webb,
It’s much more involved than the Kittridge/Storrs contract. I’ve been researching this subject for a while now in the records.
I’m hoping the Historical Department has records of these early pre-1869 expiration examples. Smith & Wesson was definitely involved “prior” to the kittridge contract.
I’ve also documented conversion numbers higher than that contract having the Rollin White patent.
Parsons book also claims the 46rf Remington was the first cartridge revolver in the hands of Army personnel.
I agree with that statement.
The information I posted is from records not my opinion. The US Army did issue 46 Rf Remington Smith & Wesson revolvers to the Artillery.

Murph

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

I am sure there is more to be learned about these early days
of conversions. So far, you haven't provided any proof.

Cheers!
Webb

 

[Patbar]

Well, I can say that I have learned some pretty interesting facts today with these "Smith & Wesson Remington revolvers" !! Thanks a lot !

Is there any existing picture of these "Remington's Smith & Wesson Army Pistol" marked cartridge boxes ?

 

[444 Magnum]

Not sure who's history is correct, but you've both peaked my interest. This looks to be a pretty nice example of the pistol in question.

Remington New Model Army - converted to .46 Rimfire by S&W in 1868

Remington New Model Army - converted to .46 Rimfire by S&W in 1868 for sale online.

www.gunsinternational.com

 

[BMur]

I agree with that listing.
The first documented communication between Remington/Kittridge Co and Smith & Wesson regarding the Remington 44New Model 46 Conversion is February 1867.

In that communication Smith & Wesson clearly states that they are at present negotiating with the U.S. Army to convert a large number of their cap and ball revolvers to 5 shot cartridge!

Also, the money that Smith & Wesson was paid regarding the Kittridge/Storrs contract is NOT documented as a royalty.

It is listed as a fee! It is listed as $3.36 per gun. That amount of money fits the cost to manufacture a 5 shot bored through cylinder. Not to allow Remington to use the patent.

Remington provided a cap & ball cylinder altered to function in the conversion frame for a $1 fee. That was essentially the partnership between the firms. These fees were paid by Kittridge and Storrs. Sales profits would go to Kittridge and Storrs. See ad and read closely.

The guns in the Kittridge/Storrs contract came with 2 cylinders each.
A 6 shot cap and ball modified slightly by Remington and a 5 shot 46 rimfire manufactured and fit by Smith & Wesson.

In addition to this commercial contract, Smith and Wesson was converting US Army Remingtons still in the Army’s possession as cap & ball to 5 shot 46 rf for the Artillery units. (Unknown amount) These guns in outward appearance would be identical to the Kittridge/Storrs contract guns. They were all military inspected since they were all Civil War military guns.

I’m still searching for more information but the pieces fit extremely well.

I have also confirmed the continuation of artillery issuance after the Rollin White expiration in 1869. So those guns post 1869 were obviously provided by Remington no longer needing permission from the patent holder, having Remington factory ejectors mounted on the frames.

What seems to be the point of confusion for researchers is the multiple communications between Kittridge/Storrs, Remington and Smith & Wesson. It was a very lengthy negotiation that took over a year and included 3rd party negotiators to finalize. That included money amounts, who got what, who did what, who paid for what, and how much they would ultimately pay.

Murph

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

Here is a pic of the .46 cartridge box.

Cheers!
Webb

 

[BMur]

My notes on this research are still in a pile. I haven’t yet organized them into a quick reference format.
Here is yet another communication listed in the Parsons book on page 63(Smith & Wesson revolvers).
“Smith & Wesson notified Wexel & De Gress in Mexico City on January 22,1869”

“We have lately adapted the Remington 46/100 calibre Revolver to a breach loader, and it can now be used for either metallic cartridge or powder & ball”.

Strong documentation that Supports Smith & Wesson actually altering these Remingtons to cartridge while the patent was still owned by the Company.

Murph

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

First off, S&W did Not "own" the Rollin White patent. They had an "exclusive
right of use" of that patent. That is the reason S&W needed Rollin White's
accent to allow Remington to make any conversions.

And yes, S&W sent the above mentioned letter. What you failed to mention is
that S&W's daybook shows one of these revolvers being sent to Wexel & De Gress
the day before. These were the Remington altered guns. S&W apparently con-
trolled the distribution because the distribution is recorded in S&W's daybook.
The letter you mention is just S&W's way of announcing the availability of these
revolvers to one of their major distributors. Most of these were sent to Kittregde
and Storrs but there were several others.

Cheers!
Webb

 

[BMur]

Well so far you haven’t provided any proof that Smith and Wesson did not alter these Remingtons.

Your post of dollar amounts fails to mention and is also in error as that was an early communication and not the final agreed upon amount shared between Smith & Wesson and Remington.

The letter clearly states “We meaning Smith and Wesson” recently adapted Remingtons revolver to breach loading cartridge. I see no mention of Remington in that communication.

To state that Smith & Wesson had control of Remington requires proof.

Let me understand this. You are saying Smith and Wesson told Remington to convert say 500 guns for us so we can sell them to Wexel & De Gress? That’s ridiculous. Proof please in writing!

In fact the opposite is true. Smith & Wesson converted them because they owned the patent. Exclusive rights is the same thing!

Murph

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

See, you are falling apart when anybody questions your results. I have questioned
you on numerous occasions you claim to have "proof" and you never produce it.

As to who did the conversion work, I will go with the record of the prices paid to
have them converted. As mentioned earlier, Remington received $2.3625 per revolver.
When this conversion deal was proposed by Remington, S&W asked for a fee of $1.25
(this included Rollin White's Royalty).

The revolvers, as I understand it, were the property of Kittredge and Storrs but were
still in the possession of E. Remington and Sons. I will agree that there is a lack of
documentation but I am using the information published in Smith & Wesson
American Model In U.S. and Foreign Service by C. W. Pate pp. 44 - 46. He at
least publishes his sources (whether you agree with them or not). So, there is the
written, published information. I find it rich that you insist on written proof when
you refuse to provide the same. The hypocrisy is palpable.

Now there was a great deal of interest in the conversion of Service revolvers. There
were literally dozens of examples submitted for converting the Remington cap-n-ball
revolvers. These came from individuals and major manufacturers starting around
1867 but nothing was going to be done until the question of the renewal of the
Rollin White patent had been decided.

And again, you do not understand the situation between S&W and Rollin White.
To re-iterate, S&W had an exclusive right to use the famous Rollin White patent.
If they owned the patent, they could have given anybody a "license" to produce
breach loading revolvers. But they couldn't.

Because the agreement between Rollin White and S&W gave S&W exclusive use
rights, it meant that No Other Company could manufacture using that patent. In
order for someone like Remington to manufacturer under that patent legally, the
original patent owner has to okay the change to the patent agreement. That is
the reason S&W and Remington needed Rollin White's permission for this endeavor
to go forward.

Of course the opposite was true too. At this time, Rolling White was interested in
performing this conversion work and formed a company to do the work. In order
for Rollin White to do this work, he would need S&W's permission to manufacture
under his own patent.

Cheers!
Webb

 

[BMur]

Falling apart? Maybe with laughter. Your references are incomplete, inaccurate, non sequential, and for the most part obsolete.

Most of the information that I am posting is, as I have posted several times in writing, from Military records. Again, not my opinion. You can contest military records if you’d like but that would be sort of belligerent wouldn’t it?

Some is published and I have referred to the authors of same.

Most are unpublished as far as I know. Some records actually are published but heavily abbreviated when compared to the actual records. An excellent example is your reference.

I have access to the National archive records. Unfortunately.

The records are available on line but extremely lengthy and disorganized. Work in progress. Most published references are plagiarized with edit from early authors on site research of original military records. Even those records on line are incomplete because they have not yet been put to on line file format.
So you would still have to visit the archives and spend weeks if not months going through the original records.

I’m assuming that the Smith & Wesson Historical Department has no records on the 46 Rimfire contract or someone would have chimed in by now that actually has written information.

This always happens when I get tired and try to find easy information.

Back to the grind.

Murph

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

Just because you say the information is in "Army Records" that isn't proof.
Anyone can say they have proof and it is in the Army's records but with-
out the record to view and scrutinize, your assertions are just that. Asser-
tions and for the most part, are non sequitur.

Don't say you have proof unless you are willing to show it.

Cheers!
Webb

 

[BMur]

Some folks were raised demanding free information.
This thread isn’t about you.
It’s about requesting information to support ongoing research.
Results?
Only typical demands by the entitled.

 

[Patbar]

wlw-19958, Thanks a lot for the catridge box picture !

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

What does that mean? Throwing pejoratives around isn't constructive.
You made a claim and said you had proof of it. It is up to You to show
your evidence of your claim. This is a scenario you have repeated more
than once. And most of us are from Missouri.

Cheers!
Webb

 

[Giorgio Italy]

Hello

I am following up on the discussion about the Rollin White patent. I don't know if this particular detail has already been discussed in the past. It seems to me that the patent was not extended due to a veto from the President and expired after the natural 14-year term. Was there actually a Presidential veto? Did the President have this power? If so, was it placed directly on the extension request? Or was there a bill being discussed in Parliament that was blocked by the President for reasons of national interest?

I would be very curious to know these details

Thank you to anyone who wishes to respond

G​

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

Not completely accurate. For some reason, Rollin White delayed filing his
application for and extension to his patent. Elisa Foote, Commissioner of
Patents, refused his application.

Rollin White applied to Congress for another hearing on his application
and a bill was passed authorizing it but President Grant vetoed the bill
and Congress failed to over-ride the veto.

Cheers!
Webb