Understanding the problem with1905 vs 1902 naming and engineering changes

[mikepriwer]

This is a topic that keeps coming up, over and over. It occurs to me that there is a relatively easy way to understand it, and I may, or may not, have talked about it. First, however, there are a few points that need to be presented.

First, if it weren't for adding an engineering change number to the model, and instead just used round butt or square butt, there would be no problem - none at all. This is a clue that an important piece of the puzzle is including the engineering change.

Second, engineering change are never used in the catalogs. And, there was no way to order a revolver via engineering change number. 1902 and 1905 are not engineering change - they are simply model identifications, that distinguish between the butt configuration - round or square.

Finally, the catalogs always say that the two models are identical - except for the butt configuration.

The models 1902 and 1905 are both in the same serial number series; 32-20's are in one series, and 38's (and later 22's and a handful of 32's) are all mixed together in another serial number series. Of course, they all don't start at the same time; 1902's start at 20976 and 1905's start at 58000. A major engineering changes occurs at 33804, effecting only the 1902, because the 1905 has not started yet. If engineering changes are to be used, the 1902 becomes a 1902 1st change.

At 58000, both models are being made, and in the same serial number series. Here is now the birth of the problem: What engineering change should be associated with new square butt model? Remember that the catalogs say that the models are the same, except for the butt configuration. They both have the same change that occurred at 33804, so a 1902 1st change implies a 1905 1st change. But, there never was a 1905 no-change.

We are caught between a rock and a hard place.

The engineering change advocates punted, and simply called the early square-butts a model of 1902, effectively waiting until the next engineering change. At the next engineering change, at 62450, engineering change advocates drop - forever - the name 1902, and both models are called 1905 (no change). One model is lost, and the notion of engineering changes are restarted at no-change.

Indeed, the use of engineering change brings this dilemma upon us, and there is only one way out. Both model names have to survive , and both have to have the same engineering change number. At serial 58000, the square butt model would be a 1905 1st change, and at serial 62450, both models would be 2nd change.

Regards, Mike Priwer

 

[raylesworth]

Good Job, Mike, and a needed clarification for newby's like me.

 

[DWalt]

I have noticed that there are no longer as many postings here that are argumentative about the distinction between the Model of 1902 and the Model of 1905 as were formerly seen. Perhaps most have finally recognized that the only significant difference between the two is the shape of the butt. Now, if we could only get to the point where everyone understands that the Model of 1902/1905 nomenclature was dropped by S&W around 1915, when both became designated as the M&P, round butt and square butt.

 

[handejector]

I have noticed that there are no longer as many postings here that are argumentative about the distinction between the Model of 1902 and the Model of 1905 as were formerly seen.

True that.
I no longer argue about it. I accept either system. I can usually classify a gun by the serial number, but sometimes need pics or a close exam. I'm too old to argue if I can avoid it. I'd rather spend my time doing something else.

 

[Sevens]

I think it is at least somewhat interesting and worthy of mentioning that I believe random casual S&W fans and others would pick up a masterpiece such as the Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson and simply go forth assuming that this work is the ultimate authority with regards to names and classifications.

Of course, we around these parts (mostly) understand that the SCSW reflects the work of the authors obviously, but far more to the point, the authors have compiled their massive knowledge and database on the backs of the hardcore, life long, driven collectors.

And surely, we know who those folks are. They are the folks we know by their handle right here in these pages.

The SCSW may be the finest printed reference in book form on the subject, but the real knowledge comes from the people who live and breathe this hobby/lifestyle. Those folks can be found right here.

To that end, if it seems like a name or classification makes the most sense to assist in identifying particular examples of S&W hardware, I think the hobby is best served to get Jim Supica on board with steering things specifically in that direction.