Some 1902 'M&P' Questions

[DWalt]

The standard references say that the 1902-first change began at SN 33804. So yours should be a first change.

 

[jebstuart]

So, does your Revolver then have the "5th Screw" as they say? Or...not?

No, my SB 1902 has no 5th screw (cylinder bolt stop screw) at the trigger guard. That's what the folks on our team (there are SB 1902's team) use to distinguish the 1905. The TG screw was an engineering change that created the 1905, to us. The other team uses the butt shape relying on S&W sales department nomenclature. I believe those are the two teams differing positions. The 1902 1st change includes the barrel shape or enlargement at the frame.

 

[Oyeboteb]

The standard references say that the 1902-first change began at SN 33804. So yours should be a first change.

Indeed it is..!

Has the Barrel Bolster...

Thank you DWalt!

 

[Absalom]

No, my SB 1902 has no 5th screw (cylinder bolt stop screw) at the trigger guard. That's what the folks on our team (there are SB 1902's team) use to distinguish the 1905. The TG screw was an engineering change that created the 1905, to us. The other team uses the butt shape relying on S&W sales department nomenclature. I believe those are the two teams differing positions. The 1902 1st change includes the barrel shape or enlargement at the frame.

I don't see this as much of a team thing, as if this were a competition.

Using anachronistic collector terminology based on technicalities can have certain advantages in specific circumstances. That's why the whole "change" thing was invented in the first place, long after the fact.

But calling the guns what they were called by the people who made them, sold them, and bought and used them is more practical in most situations. Reducing this to the "sales dept." to give it less weight is a sleigh of hand unsupported by any record.

Absent proof to the contrary, the company, not just the sales department, used the butt shape to distinguish the 1902 from the 1905, until the end of WW I, when it all went away. So did the retailers who sold the guns. And therefore most likely the customers. In other words, pretty much everybody who mattered. And that's what matters most.

 

[DWalt]

This sort of discussion comes up with great frequency. It just won't die. I think using S&W's own well-documented terminology makes a great deal more sense than using an arbitrary and artificial nomenclature system developed by some early collectors which came into being 20 years after the last M1902s and M1905s came off the assembly line. But this is America - and everyone is entitled to use whatever identification system they are more comfortable with.

 

[Oyeboteb]

I don't see this as much of a team thing, as if this were a competition.

Using anachronistic collector terminology based on technicalities can have certain advantages in specific circumstances. That's why the whole "change" thing was invented in the first place, long after the fact.

But calling the guns what they were called by the people who made them, sold them, and bought and used them is more practical in most situations. Reducing this to the "sales dept." to give it less weight is a sleigh of hand unsupported by any record.

Absent proof to the contrary, the company, not just the sales department, used the butt shape to distinguish the 1902 from the 1905, until the end of WW I, when it all went away. So did the retailers who sold the guns. And therefore most likely the customers. In other words, pretty much everybody who mattered. And that's what matters most.

Thanks Absalom for these further in depth elaborations..!

What an interesting conflict!

I can see both side's orders of reasoning, and, I can not imagine a mutually agreeable solution, or a 'twain shall meet', which would satisfy both sides.

However...to my own mind anyway, if the distinction between 1902 and 1905 were to be based solely on the Round Butt verses Square Butt, I have to wonder - how would one respect and state the 'changes' position or status ( 3rd change, 4th change, 5th change, etc ) represented in an example of a Round Butt K Frame made in 1914, 1921 or 1939?

Eeeeek!

 

[jebstuart]

...Reducing this to the "sales dept." to give it less weight is a sleigh of hand unsupported by any record.

I honestly wasn't using the term "sales department nomenclature" to degrade the butt shape position. But I think we can agree that the two models are not "identical". The 1902 is a pre 5 screw, 4 screw, there are SB 1902's, RB 1905's and your attachments are in fact "sales" advertising literature. But, I respect the RB/SB opinion. Using 1902 SB is just my choice.

 

[DWalt]

Thanks Absalom for these further in depth elaborations..!

What an interesting conflict!

I can see both side's orders of reasoning, and, I can not imagine a mutually agreeable solution, or a 'twain shall meet', which would satisfy both sides.

However...to my own mind anyway, if the distinction between 1902 and 1905 were to be based solely on the Round Butt verses Square Butt, I have to wonder - how would one respect and state the 'changes' position or status ( 3rd change, 4th change, 5th change, etc ) represented in an example of a Round Butt K Frame made in 1914, 1921 or 1939?

Eeeeek!

Very simple. Don't use the "changes" - They are also inventions of collectors done long after the fact, and never used originally by S&W. Go by just the SN. That will date the gun and by reference tell you all you need to know. I detest using "changes" precisely because they are so arbitrary. I am particularly irritated by calling an M&P made in 1921 or 1939 a "Model of 1905, 4th Change" when it is no such thing. It is an M&P made in 1921 or 1939. However, many collectors continue to use the Model of 1905, 4th Change nomenclature in reference to any M&P made from WWI until WWII began. Another of my detestations is the term "Transition" (which I refuse to use) but I won't go into that now.

 

[Bacon]

jebstuart - Have you confirmed what date your square butt '02 shipped? That would help identifying it, or am I missing something.

 

[Oyeboteb]

Very simple. Don't use the "changes" - They are also inventions of collectors done long after the fact, and never used originally by S&W. Go by just the SN. That will date the gun and by reference tell you all you need to know. I detest using "changes" precisely because they are so arbitrary. Another of my detestations is the term "Transition" (which I refuse to use) but I won't go into that now.

Okay...I can understand that, and it makes sense.

Indeed, in any area of collecting, Old Automobiles, Guns, Metallic Wood Working Planes, almost anything where a given basic "model" changed in various ways over it's production Life, among Collectors, there does tend to evolve a vocabulary which endeavors to distinguish various 'changes' throughout a given item's continuity of production, and these terms of course do not always, or necessarily, or even sometimes at all, co-respond to anything the Manufacturer had used term wise, in describing the products.

I myself do not find these collecting terms to in any way ignore or disrespect the original nomenclature of the Manufacturer, I just see them as being a means for collectors to narrowly identify a given example with respect to it's position in the continuity of the evolution from whatever the initial first Model details had been, through whatever that Model evolved in to, over time.

Because the erstwhile K Frame has enjoyed such a long production life, I can not imagine what, by now, the 'change' terminology would be for the offerings of Today. Lol...it's be a mouthfull I bet..!

Thank you!

This has been a really fun Thread for me, and really good for my learning and understanding.

 

[jebstuart]

jebstuart - Have you confirmed what date your square butt '02 shipped? That would help identifying it, or am I missing something.

I don't think you're missing anything. The SN is 59xxx, well within the 1902 1st change serial renge. According to SCSW 3rd & 4th editions, 1903 - 1904, but who knows? Its a pre 5 screw, 4 screw w/dual caliber barrel. The model is established and the date range documented so I wouldn't "letter" it, I don't think the revolvers value justifies the cost.

 

[Absalom]

There is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

There is a good case to be made that the technical distinctions, as well as the numbered changes, can be helpful and clarify things in certain circumstances, particularly where repairs and parts are concerned. Lee has argued that case convincingly in past discussions about the topic.

However, for most owners and even collectors, and especially new members coming here to ask questions, it's not only irrelevant, but adds the impression of esoteric knowledge understandable only to initiates.

I believe simple and clear in such circumstances is the more appropriate approach, especially if it's also more historically correct.

 

[gordonrick]

I can see referring to specific "changes" when it means something in a specific context, like to denote the relative production timeline of the OP's 1902 in this case. However, it always seems weird to me that S&W goes silent on numbered changes for the .38 M&P after 1915. So when exactly does a Model of 1905 4th change become just a .38 Military & Police model? I would think that the change of the hammer block in the mid-twenties would be significant enough to be marked in nomenclature somehow due to the non-compatibility between triggers and hands (5th change?). Or what about the long/short action change (8th or 9th change)? Of course, then we would have "Model of 1905 M&P umpteenth change" which would be completely ridiculous.

For me the change nomenclature is only useful as timeline markers for dating guns and not so much for describing them anyway. I'm good with ".38 Military & Police model from 1941" or whatever. Maybe that's why they came up with the "dash" model number system. The ".38 M&P Hand Ejector dash 6" just doesn't sound right. But that might eliminate some of the other debates about "transitional" and "Pre-model" this or that. But then we would still have the oddball mix and match overlap guns to deal with and probably just invent something else to argue about. I give up.

The whole 1902/05 SB/RB debate makes my head hurt. Some day may we all grok it in fullness. Waiting is.

 

[bracebeemer]

Oyeboten , I have an identical revolver to yours only a little later 59Xxx. This revolver was shipped in 1905. This is a 1902 1st change, 4 screw, dual caliber .38 special. Bill

 

[Absalom]

....., it always seems weird to me that S&W goes silent on numbered changes for the .38 M&P after 1915. So when exactly does a Model of 1905 4th change become just a .38 Military & Police model? ....

Just to reiterate, S&W as a manufacturer is completely innocent of any involvement in the numbered changes, unless you attach Roy to corporate management; his writings are indeed part of the discussion.

By the way, while S&W catalogs, as has been mentioned, stop using the 1902 and 1905 designations at the end of WW I, Roy uses the Model of 1905, 4th Change, for M&Ps until mid-1942 and the beginning of the Victory's V-prefix in the history letters, not to resume post-war.

 

[Oyeboteb]

Oyeboten , I have an identical revolver to yours only a little later 59Xxx. This revolver was shipped in 1905. This is a 1902 1st change, 4 screw, dual caliber .38 special. Bill

What a nice example!

Yours looks so fresh, and about 'mint' condition too.

I like this 4 inch Barrel length, it has a nice way about it...perfect for IWB or other rigs I'd expect back when ( or today, if one wanted ).

 

[Oyeboteb]

I can see referring to specific "changes" when it means something in a specific context, like to denote the relative production timeline of the OP's 1902 in this case. However, it always seems weird to me that S&W goes silent on numbered changes for the .38 M&P after 1915. So when exactly does a Model of 1905 4th change become just a .38 Military & Police model? I would think that the change of the hammer block in the mid-twenties would be significant enough to be marked in nomenclature somehow due to the non-compatibility between triggers and hands (5th change?). Or what about the long/short action change (8th or 9th change)? Of course, then we would have "Model of 1905 M&P umpteenth change" which would be completely ridiculous.

I was musing on this today also.

Changes continued of course through out the entire Life so far, of the erstwhile "K Frame" offerings.

Nor am I sure at what point, one would politely stop calling a too recently made S&W .38 Special Chambered K Frame Revolver, a "Military & Police", as S & W of course elected to re-use that name for an entirely different Arm at some point along the way...and or had long since ceased using "M & P" anyway, a long long time ago, in referencing their .38 Special K Frame Revolver offerings.

Is a "Model 10-6" still a "Military & Police"?

And if it is a Round Butt example, is it a "Model 1902"?

Hmmmmm...

While S & W of course had the "Model 10" and then "10 - 1" etc, ( and likewise for other enumerated 'Models',) these tended at least to co-respond I think, to changes in various parts dimensions or engineering details or other small features.

For me the change nomenclature is only useful as timeline markers for dating guns and not so much for describing them anyway. I'm good with ".38 Military & Police model from 1941" or whatever. Maybe that's why they came up with the "dash" model number system. The ".38 M&P Hand Ejector dash 6" just doesn't sound right. But that might eliminate some of the other debates about "transitional" and "Pre-model" this or that. But then we would still have the oddball mix and match overlap guns to deal with and probably just invent something else to argue about. I give up.

The whole 1902/05 SB/RB debate makes my head hurt. Some day may we all grok it in fullness. Waiting is.

I suspect that to grok it in it's fullness WOULD guarantee a Headache! Lol...at least for a little while, till one can get used to reconciling the conflicting elements of just how is one to make sense of it all and how to talk about it with appropriate terms.

I really enjoy knowing about the successions of 'changes' which had occurred, and I am glad that those changes were kept track of, so that they may be recognized, read about, and or discussed today, without one having to figure them out empirically and in isolation, by studying actual examples in person...which at Gun Shows, would tend to alienate or upset dealers/sellers, especially if removing Side Plates and Stocks to see the internals fully.

At least my '1902 First Change' as it were, is a simple example of the 'change' thing, and the change co-responds to a feature which is easy to see and understand at a glance...and is fun to know about, and which is potentially meaningful and interesting to some people ( me for one ), and seeing PALADIN85020's images of his '1902' ( as such ) vis a vie, the images of my '1902 - first change' it is a clear comparison which allows one to appreciate both Revolvers all the more I think, to realize their differences.

Anyway, I just sent off for a copy of the "SCSW" Book, so I will have plenty of good reading to be doing..!

 

[PALADIN85020]

Does yours have the tiny little Patent dates on the bottom rounded outside edge of the left Hard Rubber Stock?

( Mine does...I'll post a picture further down, I was surprised it has them. )

I dunno. I do not have access to the gun at this time - however, I do not recall seeing anything like that.

John