Why no Caliber designation on Model 3s prior to appx 1902

[model3sw]

Did you ever wonder WHY Smith & Wesson did not roll stamp the calibers on the Model 3s until the post 1900 time frame ?

I had jokingly stated, in the past, that if you were too dumb to know what calibers it was, go buy a Colt, but now ... it seems likely it might have been true.

What is your opinion on this subject ?

 

[jleiper]

Why would you buy a Colt?
Joe

 

[mrcvs]

I have often wondered this as well. I am guessing that, back in the day, when someone ordered a Model 3, they had their own personal reason as to why they ordered a specific calibre. Since the original purchaser would obviously know what calibre they purchased, marking it would be unnecessary. I think that marking the barrels was an obvious afterthought, necessitated by confusion created at resale and/or by clients who owned a vast array of these, folks like Walter Winans.

You have to remember, at the time the Model 3 came out, owning one revolver was a stretch for most folks. Hence, having multiple guns in multiple calibers was unusual except for competitive target shooters.

Also, at the time of introduction, no other Smith & Wesson had been produced that was available in such an array of calibers. Therefore, marking a barrel with the calibre would have been unnecessary up until this point and, obviously, at the time of introduction of the Model 3, Smith & Wesson decided it wasn't worth the effort to expend time and expense marking barrels as such.

My guess...and nothing more than just that.

 

[JSR III]

My guess is that at the time the reason behind the real situation was carefully chosen so as not to alter the path that was already being taken.

 

[rct269]

UH OH!!

I have often wondered this as well. I am guessing that, back in the day, when someone ordered a Model 3, they had their own personal reason as to why they ordered a specific calibre. Since the original purchaser would obviously know what calibre they purchased, marking it would be unnecessary. I think that marking the barrels was an obvious afterthought, necessitated by confusion created at resale and/or by clients who owned a vast array of these, folks like Walter Winans.

You have to remember, at the time the Model 3 came out, owning one revolver was a stretch for most folks. Hence, having multiple guns in multiple calibers was unusual except for competitive target shooters.

Also, at the time of introduction, no other Smith & Wesson had been produced that was available in such an array of calibers. Therefore, marking a barrel with the calibre would have been unnecessary up until this point and, obviously, at the time of introduction of the Model 3, Smith & Wesson decided it wasn't worth the effort to expend time and expense marking barrels as such.

My guess...and nothing more than just that.

I was going to say "just because they didn't", but he said it better.

As an aside, you want to be careful about thinking about stuff like this because it can become an obsession. And then you're looking at doctor bills---and other folks are looking at you----with a quizzical look on their face---as if to say, "What in the world is the matter with that guy?!!!"

Ralph Tremaine

 

[model3sw]

Come on, guys. Especially in the .44 American to .44 Russian caliber revisions. Yes, the "Russian" Revolver was chambered in .44 R and the American was chambered in .44 "American", but 1873-75 the Schofield ( a big issue here with no caliber markings and proprietary round that led to their downfall ) then 1878 with the New Model 3 available in several calibers.

I feel, one of the biggest mistakes S&W made. How much more could it have cost to stamp the barrel with the correct caliber ?

 

[mrcvs]

Come on, guys. Especially in the .44 American to .44 Russian caliber revisions. Yes, the "Russian" Revolver was chambered in .44 R and the American was chambered in .44 "American", but 1873-75 the Schofield ( a big issue here with no caliber markings and proprietary round that led to their downfall ) then 1878 with the New Model 3 available in several calibers.

I feel, one of the biggest mistakes S&W made. How much more could it have cost to stamp the barrel with the correct caliber ?

Excellent points! This might be a good question to ask Roy Jinks.

 

[rct269]

Come on, guys. Especially in the .44 American to .44 Russian caliber revisions. Yes, the "Russian" Revolver was chambered in .44 R and the American was chambered in .44 "American", but 1873-75 the Schofield ( a big issue here with no caliber markings and proprietary round that led to their downfall ) then 1878 with the New Model 3 available in several calibers.

I feel, one of the biggest mistakes S&W made. How much more could it have cost to stamp the barrel with the correct caliber ?

Okay---I don't really have an opinion as to the whys. I accept the result as one of S&W's stumbles along the way---some of which really burn my butt---and I'd like to think I'd have done it different----as in "20/20 hindsight".

That said, while I have no opinion on this matter, I do have a box-----green----came along with NM #3 #30261, which is a .44 Russian with target sights----and I just went upstairs and got that box out of the box box. Now I say the gun's a .44 Russian, but I've never checked it----until now. It's a .44 Russian---which is to say a Russian fits, and a Special doesn't----and it has a centerfire hammer (of the "RB" variety). And besides that, this gun is pictured in N&J (page 190, Revised Edition), and IT SAYS it's a .44 Russian----right in THE BOOK---never mind it's a sorry picture. Back to the box: It has a label---says SMITH & WESSON on the top line, SINGLE 44 ACTION on the next line, and BLUED. 6 1/2 INCH. on the last line----so they at least thought about the caliber---never mind they didn't say which 44.

So---if you had enough sense to keep the box, you at least had a clue about the ammo. Of course, if you were so unwise as to buy a used gun without the box (That would be most of us.), you were pretty well screwed; so you were left with trial and error. I reckon most folks got it right---sooner or later.

And by the by, this caliber marking business doesn't even come close to the biggest mistakes S&W ever made---in my (sometimes humble) opinion.

Ralph Tremaine

 

[model3sw]

Okay---I don't really have an opinion as to the whys. I accept the result as one of S&W's stumbles along the way---some of which really burn my butt---and I'd like to think I'd have done it different----as in "20/20 hindsight".

And by the by, this caliber marking business doesn't even come close to the biggest mistakes S&W ever made---in my (sometimes humble) opinion.

Ralph Tremaine

Then, if so, what else could we banter about here ? Sal Raimondi

 

[rct269]

Then, if so, what else could we banter about here ? Sal Raimondi

Well, given the rules of this hive, I'll at least start off obeying them---and talk about a single shot---one that perhaps should never have been. (That won't take very long, so I'll finish with one of those hand ejector things------that doesn't belong here.)

First things first, I give you the Straight Line Single Shot Pistol----ostensibly the worlds' greatest (or so I'm told that's what the questionnaire asked for-----------If you could have the world's greatest single shot pistol, what would it be?). I'm told the results of this survey of the country's finest shooters were boiled down, double distilled, and out came the Straight Line (arguably the, or one of very few commercial disasters in the history of the company----so bad they wouldn't even talk about it for years afterwards----if a, could'a, would'a, should'a).

So what was the problem? The problem was they asked for input on a single shot. They asked for it at a time when the NRA's slow/timed/rapid course of fire was gaining favor, and the shooters wanted to try it----and doing timed and rapid fire with a single shot just isn't the name of the game----rather akin to the world's greatest dog food----the one with just one problem: The dogs wouldn't eat it!!

Speaking of dogs, now I give you the very first K-22 Outdoorsman---what could have been---very likely should have been: The time is 1910-1912---thereabouts. The place is Springfield, Massachusetts. A group of Army officers wanted some heavyweight .22 caliber target revolvers. I imagine the S&W folks sang the praises of the "Heavy Frame Target" revolver long and loud, but the Army folks must have replied along the lines of "No man, HEAVY!!"---and 20 .38 caliber M&P Targets were transformed---into heavyweight .22 caliber target revolvers. Mr. Roper, the fellow that told this story the first time around, said they were things of beauty.

The Army guys said they didn't work worth a damn, and returned them---every one. And S&W destroyed them---all but one. That one found its way to Roper (by way of his then new boss-----about ten years later). The Boss Man suggested Roper might like to fiddle around with it some---and see if he could figure out why it didn't work. Then, of course, the Boss Man told him they'd already decided it was because the throats were too long. Undaunted, Roper fiddled with it some. He found out the throats may very well have contributed to the difficulties, but they weren't the answer. The answer came one day when Walter noticed his cleaning rod was turning too fast. And that's because the barrel was rifled with one turn in ten inches---instead of one turn in fifteen or sixteen inches.

I reckon maybe someone was asleep at the switch---again.

Ralph Tremaine

 

[gmborkovic]

I dont like that bantering stuff! Sometimes people get their feathers
ruffled. Im PC all the way. Man, that was hard to type and keep a straight face.

 

[BMur]

What was it really like back then?

I honestly think it’s impossible for us to really imagine life in the old West when these antique Smiths were manufactured?
Let’s try for a minute to imagine an ERA that has;
• NO TV
• NO cell phones
• NO radio
• NO computers
• NO Cars
• NO AC
• NO Versatel machines
• NO running water
• NO deodorant
• Almost half the folks you know can’t read or write?
• Water was Brown and tasted like dirt
• The streets smelt like manure ( Smells the same in SF)
So when you went to purchase a firearm for whatever reason I would imagine that you basically relied on word of mouth as to what cartridge it chambered. Not too complicated really. I don’t think most folks owned a lot of guns like collectors so they would know what cartridge fit their gun.
The real confusion would apply to loose rounds that weren’t head stamped or not being able to find the same “ Color” box of ammo cause you couldn’t read the label?

 

[mike from st pete]

LGS owners knew which cartridge to sell the owner?

 

[Kinman]

My grandad told me that when he a youngster EVERYTHING was considered expensive. There were things that you needed and things that you wanted. Which is the problem with today is people have difficulty separating wants from needs. My daughter in law needs a vehicle, she wants a big gas guzzling SUV but needs something smaller and fuel efficient. You cannot explain that to her in any manner that makes sense because she feels her needs fit her wants and there is no way around that.
Back in the days were talking about concerning firearms granddad told me that when he bought a brand new Winchester .32 Special he bought enough ammunition to get by for years. He did not use a box or more to sight the rifle in and in fact told me that he was still using the ammunition he bought for the rifle 50 years later. People that bought handguns probably went about it the same way, bought the revolver and a couple boxes of ammunition and because of the high cost did not "waste" many target practicing.
A story passed down through my family refers to "Grandpa's Forty-Four." It was referred to that by my mother and grandmother. It was referred to that when my mother was an infant in 1929. It was not purchased by my grandfather or his father which puts it back into the 1800's. The only thing my mother remembers was that it was not a Colt SAA, you could shoot it by simply pulling the trigger double action. This leads me to believe that it was more than likely a Smith and Wesson...but was it a .44 Double Action 1st Model in 44 Russian or .44 Double Action Frontier in .44-40. I know there were Colt revolvers but my family did not care for Colts for some reason.
I've done the best I can to not get obsessed with this particular firearm, its just always been a curiosity and led me to purchasing a .44 Double Action 1st Model in .44 Russian so that I can tell the family story and show what most likely was the firearm in question. My grandmother remembered it being hard to pull back to cock, that it was blue not nickel, and had black grips and that it was a "Forty-Four" that came down the family from Grandpa. My mother remembers the same and that as far as she knew nobody every shot it and my thinking there is that it was probably hard to find ammunition in the north Idaho for a .44 Russian. They reloaded everything they owned with a Lee Loader including my grandmother's Brno .22 Hornet.
I hope I'm not obsessing over this thing but your thread got me to thinking about the many Forty-Fours that were out there in that time frame. Of course people may have remembered if it was stamped on the barrel like a Colt SAA.
Think Smith and Wesson built the 1st Model and chambered it in .44 Russian and didn't see any need to go to the trouble of marking it, when the .44 Frontier came out in .44-40 same story. I'd be willing to bet that from what grandad said about hard times and spending money on cartridges that many people bought a box or two to go with the revolver and never bought any more. My grandfather did tell me once when my cousin and I "wasted" the better part of a box of .22 shorts on a porcupine that "we eat everything we shoot boys, we can't afford to waste bullets, let me show you how to skin this critter out." My mother told me that when she went out with a rifle during hard times that if she fired a shot, she was expected to bring something to eat. Three shots in succession was a call for help, nobody ever needed three shots in succession to kill an animal.

 

[Kurusu]

Did you ever wonder WHY Smith & Wesson did not roll stamp the calibers on the Model 3s until the post 1900 time frame ?

I had jokingly stated, in the past, that if you were too dumb to know what calibers it was, go buy a Colt, but now ... it seems likely it might have been true.

What is your opinion on this subject ?

Probably the same reason Mauser didn't stamp any caliber on their C96 pistols I guess.

1910 made and 1911 made (the one with the new grip panels is the 1910) .

Oh! You want to know the reason?

Beats me.

On both accounts.

 

[desi2358]

Just reading through these and Kinman's post about the old 44 that was in his family got me to thinking... this being a S&W forum it is natural to think it might have been a S&W or perhaps a Colt as we tend to associate these guns with the old west. I have to wonder though... what about one of the other double action guns of the era? A Merwin & Hulbert for instance or even one of the long barreled Bulldogs perhaps. From what he wrote I am guessing that the old gun was lost to the family somewhere along the way, a shame really. I have three old guns that were family items, there were more but they have been dispersed to others or were sold or otherwise lost...