Terminology

[DARE]

I have heard different opinions on how a particular gun should be referred to. The division seems to be what the collecting community called things, or "collector speak" as opposed to what S&W called them. There may also be difference of opinion on what S&W called them.

Let's use the .38 M&P as an example.
SCS&W 4th Edition breaks them down like this.

.38 M&P 1st Model (Model of 1899 Army Navy Revolver)
Round butt K frame 4 screws.

.38 M&P, Model of 1902 (.38 M&P 2nd Model)
Round butt K frame 4 screws.

.38 M&P Model of 1902, 1st Change
Round butt K frame 4 screws.

.38 M&P Model of 1905 (.38 M&P 3rd Model)
Round or square butt K frame 5 screws.

.38 M&P Model of 1905, 1st Change, 2nd Change, 3rd Change, 4th Change.
Round or square butt K frame 5 screws.

Have heard that after about 1915 S&W called the guns .38 M&P without the model year. Have also heard people say that round butt guns should be called Model of 1902 and square butt guns should be Model of 1905 even though SCSW says Model of 1905 was round butt or square butt. SCSW uses the Model of 1905 terminology for guns that were built as late as 1942.

The only old catalog I have is from 1941. It says M&P (not .38 M&P) for the fixed sight guns with round or square butt. Says .38 M&P Target for the adjustable sight gun.

I'm sure I will get some differences of opinion on this.

 

[Sevens]

I’ve come to learn and to accept that some terms that we use, maybe that we even rely on… were perhaps NEVER used by Smith & Wesson themselves, either now or when the guns were actually in production and offered.

 

[Truckman]

I’ve come to learn and to accept that some terms that we use, maybe that we even rely on… were perhaps NEVER used by Smith & Wesson themselves, either now or when the guns were actually in production and offered.

I can also accept and use most of them, including the ones David listed in his opening post...But what sets my teeth on edge is the "pre-anything"...As mentioned in another thread, S&W would only have used that designation if a time machine had been available!......Ben

 

[gmborkovic]

Hey Truckman, what does "lemon squeezer" do to your teeth? Just funnin you. Or pencil barrel? How about "yolk".

 

[rct269]

Let's just do one this time around---only because it seems to arouse the most fussing and fuming--and God help me if I screw anything up!

I had two Model of 1902 M&P Targets in my collection. Model of 1902 M&P Targets is what I called them. These are the "pre 5 screw 4 screws"---with the monkey motion action (some levers instead of a rebound slide to tend to trigger control). Jinks called the first (earliest) one "the .38 Hand Ejector, Military & Police Second Model or Model of 1902".) As an aside, it had a round butt.

The second (later) one was exactly the same to look at it, except it had a square butt. Jinks called that one a ".38 Military & Police Model of 1902 First Change Target".

All that was now. I don't know exactly what S&W called the later gun in its entirety, but they called it a Model of 1905 in their catalogs of the time. As noted, it's exactly the same as the earlier gun to look at it---except for the butt.

As another aside, I'm told all this first/second/etc. "change" business is collector speak as opposed to factory terminology---and identifies picayune changes---from one "change" to another. I never paid a whole lot of attention to these changes, because I was told it could cause me to go blind! That said, there are folks who DO pay attention to them, and you'd be ill advised to argue with them about it----because you'd end up on the losing end of such debates. Just nod, and keep smiling.

As yet another aside, if you ever have one of these things, and are inclined to take it apart, Mike Priwer invented a special tool to save you from yourself and eternal damnation---for both disassembly and reassembly. It is simplicity itself, and will save your bacon!

Ralph Tremaine

As yet one more aside, this special tool will also save you from using Dave Chicoine's favorite tool when disassembling one of these things---his "reverse pliers". He recommends using them to control the trigger spring----a great, stout, leaf spring pinned in place on the inside of the front strap of the grip frame. It's been awhile since I've read his instructions, and I may have misunderstood them in the first place, but it seemed as though I was to have my hammer in one hand, my punch in the other hand, and my "reverse pliers" in my third hand. Blessed with the knowledge Mike Priwer had very likely forgotten more about these things than anybody else knows, I picked up the phone. It was "a piece of cake" from then on!!

 

[Truckman]

Hey Truckman, what does "lemon squeezer" do to your teeth? Just funnin you. Or pencil barrel? How about "yolk".

Those don't bother me much, except maybe "yolk" which makes me hungry...I look at two of them every morning...But if I have to "crane" my neck to stir up those yolks, I might get a little cranky...

Hey these are the yokes, folks...I'm here all week...Try the veal......Ben

 

[gmborkovic]

Ben, have a Mary! You have a head start.

 

[Sevens]

Though I definitely understand how & why the term can be annoying… I find the “pre-Model” terms to be extremely helpful. I suspect others do also.

They may not be correct, per se, but they go directly to the point and paint a picture quickly. For folks that are trying to identify or refer to something specific, the pre-Model term we often use not only works, but it works quickly and it’s fairly specific.

 

[DARE]

I had two guns that I asked Roy Jinks to give a ship date on. In his response Roy referred to them as pre-models.
A Model of 1955 .22/32 Airweight Kit Gun that Roy called a Pre-43.
A S&W 9mm Auto that Roy called a Pre-39.
The term is also used in SCS&W 4th quite often.

 

[rct269]

Though I definitely understand how & why the term can be annoying… I find the “pre-Model” terms to be extremely helpful. I suspect others do also.

They may not be correct, per se, but they go directly to the point and paint a picture quickly. For folks that are trying to identify or refer to something specific, the pre-Model term we often use not only works, but it works quickly and it’s fairly specific.

Yeah, BUT!!

While it very well may work quickly and fairly specifically for the youngsters, for some of the old farts like me who can't abide model numbers in the first place, it's a pain in the butt!! More often than not, given an identifier of "pre-model" whatever, I have to go look up what a Model whatever is to begin with! I'm given to suppose those who use the "pre-model" terminology do so, because they don't know what the proper name is---and I'm irritated!

Viva la difference!

Then again, I'm more irritated with the fact the use of model numbers rather than names speaks volumes about the changing philosophy of those who make the product in the first place. There was a time, from 1857 to the mid 1950's, when S&W's philosophy very clearly was "We will be successful if we make the best possible product for the price." (That's one of only two such philosophies extant among the world's manufacturers.)

The other philosophy goes like this: "We will be successful if we make the product at the lowest possible cost." Operating a business at the lowest possible cost calls for many sacrifices. One among them is not being willing to hire folks with enough savvy and imagination to come up with names rather than numbers. Another is not being willing to hire Customer Service folks who are able to serve the customers. Talking to Customer Service folks back in the day was a treat---they knew what YOU were talking about---AND what they were talking about! Today's mental midgets are a poor substitute!

Sad but true!

Ralph Tremaine

 

[spin132]

As yet another aside, if you ever have one of these things, and are inclined to take it apart, Mike Priwer invented a special tool to save you from yourself and eternal damnation---for both disassembly and reassembly. It is simplicity itself, and will save your bacon!



Ralph Tremaine

Ralph speaks truth here! Ralph was kind enough to advise me of the Priwer Tool and Mike graciously walked me through the process on this 1902. Many thanks and Merry Christmas to both of these great gents! Here is a picture of the simple tool in action. Not sure I would have attempted without their help. The tool made the job quite manageable.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[rct269]

Ralph speaks truth here! Ralph was kind enough to advise me of the Priwer Tool and Mike graciously walked me through the process on this 1902. Many thanks and Merry Christmas to both of these great gents! Here is a picture of the simple tool in action. Not sure I would have attempted without their help. The tool made the job quite manageable.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

And spin's installation differs from mine, in that mine is against the top end of the spring, and the interior frame piece with the screw hole in it. I'm thinking spin's is more secure, given the placement at the top-----which allows for no movement whatsoever---not that mine's ever moved, but the possibility exists----and then some bad words might be called for!

Ralph Tremaine

The bottom line is whatever's out of the way works.

 

[steelslaver]

The main and most important function of language is to convey ones thoughts to another. The more precisely that can be done with the least amount of words the better. Everything else is just fluff. BUT, THE MAIN THING WILL ALWAYS BE GET YOUR MEANING ACROSS

Some of the "purist" make me laugh.

They get upset over things like "long" colt, when at one time there actual was a need for adjective. Then they turn around and use the name "Triple Lock" when S&W never marketed any such animal, they sold "New Centuries"

Stocks -Grips, who cares that is a silly thing to worry about

Yoke, Crane about the same. Using yolk will just egg them on

I really get barrel extension vs forcing cone, the forcing cone is the taper that has been reamed into the beginning of the bore itself. The extension is what sticks through the frame.

 

[lestert357]

13 posts and nobody has mentioned “Transitional”! Merry Christmas!

 

[Retired W4]

There have been many times I wished I had a third hand.
Pre-model MARKED requires only one more syllable when referring to post war guns. but there is always a quick synapse that sparks...which war? Don't worry. Just assume it's WW II. So many terms to sort out and so little time, technically speaking that is. I do love the work, now that I don't have anything else to do.

 

[glowe]

Though I definitely understand how & why the term can be annoying… I find the “pre-Model” terms to be extremely helpful. I suspect others do also.

They may not be correct, per se, but they go directly to the point and paint a picture quickly. For folks that are trying to identify or refer to something specific, the pre-Model term we often use not only works, but it works quickly and it’s fairly specific.

. . . and it is TOTALLY wrong! SCSW4 offers a designation of 38 Military & police (postwar) "Pre-Model 10". My first question is how did S&W know that they were going to be changing the name to Model 10 back in 1946? One thing the company NEVER did was advertise their K frame revolvers as Pre-anything. It is just plain wrong to use the term pre-Model 10, over 10 years before the company invented the model numbering system. They were, and are simply Military & Police revolvers until 1957. Cannot be easier to remember.

There is also the issue of many people using the term Pre-Model 10 for every K frame fixed sight revolver. How many times have you read the term used on guns that actually date to pre-WWI?? The post-WWII gun was the exact same gun as the pre-WWII guns and so both should be the same model name.

 

[22hipower]

I hesitate to weigh in on this worthy debate but will anyway. When someone tells me they have a 357 Magnum for sale, or perhaps a 44 Magnum, I really don't know much about what they may actually have. If they know enough to include a model/dash number then I know much more. If they can state that it is a "pre-model" then I know much more. And if they can confirm it is "pre-war" I know even more.

So no, the "pre-model" terminology doesn't bother me a bit. If the user knows enough to use that description I'll be able to figure out what he/she has. If all they can tell me is that they have a 357 Magnum or 44 Magnum, even though they are correct in their terminology, I really have little information as to what it actually is.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

 

[Retired W4]

I'm still on the hunt for a pre-war 44 Magnum.

 

[22hipower]

I'm still on the hunt for a pre-war 44 Magnum.

Me too, but if a guy tells me he has one, I know more, much more, than I did when he just said it was a 44 Magnum.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

clips--magazines........stocks --grips.........pigs--hogs.......cats--felines
Never been a grammer nazi and don't like those who are

 

[Truckman]

I'm still on the hunt for a pre-war 44 Magnum.

Depending on which war, it may letter somewhat disappointingly......Ben

 

[Retired W4]

Depending on which war, it may letter somewhat disappointingly......Ben

OK, pre- Desert Storm 44 Mag.

 

[DWalt]

With no doubt whatsoever, to me the most useless, meaningless, and confusing word in the entire lexicography of gun collecting is "Transitional." I hesitate to mention it even here, as I took a vow that I will never use it. It is a repulsive abomination. It seems that it is no longer used on this forum to nearly the extent it formerly was, so I guess others have come to believe the same as I.

 

[22hipower]

With no doubt whatsoever, to me the most useless, meaningless, and confusing word in the entire lexicography of gun collecting is "Transitional." I hesitate to mention it even here, as I took a vow that I will never use it. It is a repulsive abomination. It seems that it is no longer used on this forum to nearly the extent it formerly was, so I guess others have come to believe the same as I.

I don't use the term but what terminology do you use to describe a gun with a mix of pre and post war features? As with "pre," if it helps identify the item for the parties discussing it, isn't it useful?

The only real objection to the term I have is that those using it usually want to "transition" a large number of dollars away from me, to them, in order to acquire whatever "transitional" it is.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

 

[rct269]

You know, if you stop and think about it for a spell, the term "pre-war .44 Magnum" could perhaps be used to describe pretty much any .44 Special that used to live at Elmer Keith's house---where powder measurement was done in accord with the saying, "Some's good, more's better, and too much is just right!"

I can see him now--sitting there thinking, "Well, that worked; maybe it'd work better with just a wee tad more."

Them there was the "good old days"!

Ralph Tremaine

 

[lestert357]

I don't use the term but what terminology do you use to describe a gun with a mix of pre and post war features? As with "pre," if it helps identify the item for the parties discussing it, isn't it useful?

Jeff
SWCA #1457

Absolutely! I have and will continue to use the term “Transitional” here on the Forum and elsewhere.

According to Merriam-Webster the definition of transitional is: involving, providing, or consisting of a passage, movement, or change from one state, condition, subject, place, etc., to another.

The very early long action Post War .357 Magnums carried over many configuration characteristics of the Pre-War .357 Magnums, but also introduced several of the configuration characteristics that became standard on the later short action models, and thus fit the definition of "transitional" perfectly.

 

[Sevens]

Transitional is definitely a term used in the semiautomatic area of the site and it describes a short run of very early 3rd Gen pistols that were made up using 2nd Gen parts & pieces, some of which got model numbers assigned to them on the box end label that didn’t exactly match the gun itself.

As to the larger discussion at hand, I might suggest a few items:

First is that if something upsets you and you take vows in/around the use of same, it might benefit you to take a step back and catch a breath. When visiting the S&W Forum causes you pain and grief, you might be doing it wrong.

Next up is that it might make sense to determine the goal in some of these discussions. Being correct and accurate has tremendous value for sure, but there’s also value in not trying to build a private old boy’s club where the unwashed masses that don’t have the knowledge or experience are seemingly not welcome.

I’m not here to police that, but a quick double read before submitting a strong opinion is rarely a bad idea.

 

[rct269]

I think the term transitional is not meant so much to describe a mix of pre and post war features as it is to recognize a significant advance, if I can use that word, in some one or more aspects of a given item/product---from before to after. That said, I'm hard pressed at the moment to think of a transitional gun.

There is, I believe, a transitional sight. That would be design #14 in Neal's article (The Evolution of Smith & Wesson Target Sights)---to be found here on this forum (somewhere), and in a SWCA Journal (of unknown, but more or less recent vintage). We know it as the "two screw" sight.

It came along in the early 1930's. It is the first S&W sight that absolutely, positively will not shoot loose (when properly adjusted and locked)-----the very first since their first target sight in the late 1870's. That has to be a transition worthy of the name!

As an aside, it is quite possibly the very best sight S&W ever made, considering the fact it is also infinitely adjustable-----whereas it's successor (the so-called Micrometer sight) still with us today, is not.

Ralph Tremaine

After a brief search, that SWCA Journal of recent vintage is Summer 2022.

 

[lestert357]

In the case of the .357 Magnum, the factory did not go from the “old” pre-war long action trigger and hammer configuration with pre-war adjustable rear sights (before 1941) DIRECTLY to the “new” post war short action with micrometer click rear sights (after October 1949); rather they TRANSITIONED from the old configuration to the new configuration by manufacturing approximately 142 “interim” or “transitional” guns (from December 1946 to March 1949) that carried over some of the old features and introduced some of the new features.

 

[mikepriwer]

First, a big THANK YOU to Ralph for your kind words!

Second, in trying to address the comments of the original post in this thread, I note that "Standard Catalog" and "Smith & Wesson 1857 to 1945" make use of the notion of engineering changes, that were developed in the service department for making repairs. These collector-nomenclature concepts were never used in the factory catalogs, flyers, All-Model Circulars, etc, whose primary purpose was for selling guns.

It turns out that the factory advertising documents do not have the problems that collectors experience with the nomenclature being used. Specifically, factory letters describe early 4-screw square-butt revolvers as a model of 1902, and a 5-screw round-butt revolvers as a model of 1905, when in fact, square-butt models are always a model of 1905, and round-butt models are always a model of 1902.

Another problem with the collector nomenclature is that is violates the factory distinction between 1902's and 1905's. The following image is pages 38 & 39 of the 1912 catalog.

The first line of the last paragraph clearly states that 1902's and 1905's are identical except for the butt configuration. This statement, using the factory nomenclature, is always true, for contemporary models. The collector nomenclature denies the existence of a model of 1902 in about 1905, which voids the factory distinction, when in fact, the two models were always produced side by side (except for a period during WW2).

This confusion about two models vs one model did not have to happen. Instead of denying the existence of the round-butt model, it should have continued to exist. For example, the addition of the 5th frame screw in a round butt frame would simply be a 1902 2nd change. To maintain the factory distinction, the square butt model with the 5th frame screw should be a 1905 2nd change.

This implies that, at its introduction, collector nomenclature should have called it a 1905 1st change, which makes it compatible with the factory rule that, except for butt configuration, contemporary models are identical - which means that they have the same name structure.

This would clear up some of the confusion caused by the collector nomenclature. It may not address all the problems, but it does address one of them.

Regards, Mike Priwer