Help Identifying WWII S&W
- Thread starter Deano9
- Start date
You said that you live in New York State. You cannot own a handgun in NY without a permit. You are in a funny legal situation. Does anyone in your family have a permit? Before you march into a police station to register the revolver you need to talk to someone who knows the situation in your locale, there is a difference between NYC and some rural county. Be cautious.
An interesting entry at AuctionArms: http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=5293084
On another site, in Spanish, they have a comparison of the .38 RP with the Colt Police Positive: http://www.fullaventura.com.ar/elrincon/nota115104.asp There are some great pics, and it's somewhat informative.
With this picture:
On another site, in Spanish, they have a comparison of the .38 RP with the Colt Police Positive: http://www.fullaventura.com.ar/elrincon/nota115104.asp There are some great pics, and it's somewhat informative.
Attachments
Gentlemen,
Before I lost the interest of some of the people involved, let me respond to the newest posts.
I am glad to see more people getting involved. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond, and as promised, I will have pictures up by the end of this week, and I’m sure a lot of you are just waiting for that.
Ron: Thanks for the advice, but my father has a pistol permit, so no major problems with that. However, without a serial number we’re up the creek, so they say.
As far as it being an R & P model, your guess is as sure as mine. I mean, sure, my gun resembles the pictures, but I have said that about nearly every other theory and picture people have posted. So, since my lack of revolver expertise is greatly hindering my hypothesis, I guess I’ll have to wait to post the pictures to get your opinion.
The bullets found with the gun were .38 specials. When my father loaded them into the chamber, he noticed that did not lay perfectly flat. Flat enough to close the chamber, but not totally flush. However, it doesn’t appear that ANY bullet could lay flush, simply because he can’t seem to find a bevel there that would accommodate the lip of the cartridge. I will also include a picture of how a regulation .38 Special bullet fits into the chamber.
Long Path: I guess I would say that if you took the grips off of your first picture and put them on the gun that is up for auction, you would have a fairly accurate depiction. Like I said, I’m going from memory, having not seen the gun in a week and a half. However, there are slight discrepancies, like the bead that is on the bottom of the barrel. But the one thing I am sure of is that this cylinder holds 5 shots.
Hopefully I can provide much better assistance with the pictures. Until then, however, I’m afraid I’m not much help with my own gun!
Thanks,
Deano
Before I lost the interest of some of the people involved, let me respond to the newest posts.
I am glad to see more people getting involved. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond, and as promised, I will have pictures up by the end of this week, and I’m sure a lot of you are just waiting for that.
Ron: Thanks for the advice, but my father has a pistol permit, so no major problems with that. However, without a serial number we’re up the creek, so they say.
As far as it being an R & P model, your guess is as sure as mine. I mean, sure, my gun resembles the pictures, but I have said that about nearly every other theory and picture people have posted. So, since my lack of revolver expertise is greatly hindering my hypothesis, I guess I’ll have to wait to post the pictures to get your opinion.
The bullets found with the gun were .38 specials. When my father loaded them into the chamber, he noticed that did not lay perfectly flat. Flat enough to close the chamber, but not totally flush. However, it doesn’t appear that ANY bullet could lay flush, simply because he can’t seem to find a bevel there that would accommodate the lip of the cartridge. I will also include a picture of how a regulation .38 Special bullet fits into the chamber.
Long Path: I guess I would say that if you took the grips off of your first picture and put them on the gun that is up for auction, you would have a fairly accurate depiction. Like I said, I’m going from memory, having not seen the gun in a week and a half. However, there are slight discrepancies, like the bead that is on the bottom of the barrel. But the one thing I am sure of is that this cylinder holds 5 shots.
Hopefully I can provide much better assistance with the pictures. Until then, however, I’m afraid I’m not much help with my own gun!
Thanks,
Deano
It's a .38 Regulation Police (which are 5 shot). Nothing particular rare about them, but neat little guns. They are in .38 S&W, not .38 Special. If a .38 Special will chamber and the cylinder will close and rotate, somebody's been dinking with it. This model was made pre-war, post-war and finally became the Model 33.
BTW, there is a .32 Regulation Police also.
Dean
BTW, there is a .32 Regulation Police also.
Dean
Now, I'm just thinking out loud so don't mind me. I have seen this writing style twice prior. Diffrent guns,diffrent forums but same type of questions and poor me, I don't know what I've got so and so on. Once on a super rare Walther PP that strangely enought it had a few markings that threw every out of kilter. Every time someone throught they had an answer the poster would throw something else into the fire. It got so bad that every one knew something was wrong.
The second time was in reference to an impossable rifle and chambeing. He led the forum on for over 20 posting before a couple of the guys told him off. Same type comments, question. odd markings, swearing he had the gun in front of him. Same sentence structure, same style.
Now heres a poster who uses the same wording style and question style who has a gun that at first seems run of the mill but as in the other previous postings, odditys are start to come to light. As in the other postings he's even consulting his father about the gun. Now mind you I'm just talking to myself, and I might be wrong, been wrong before more than once. I took a note pad and made a long list, from every time this novice used a techical term to every little odd thing on his gun, He already made one slip about the grips, They are wrap around but he stated that in referece to the photos, if you took one set of service grips and put them on the other gun it would look like his gun? Only Wesson on the barrel? Made in USA and Made in France? Yes indeed a very rare gun. Now I know this poster is on the up and up, There's no one who likes to make fools out of people for what ever reason, There's no one out there in never never land that has some type of problem and just wants to communiacate with people, of course not. As for myself I know not what others may do, but I'm going to pass, I can do a good job of making a fool out of myself with out help. Vaya con Dios
The second time was in reference to an impossable rifle and chambeing. He led the forum on for over 20 posting before a couple of the guys told him off. Same type comments, question. odd markings, swearing he had the gun in front of him. Same sentence structure, same style.
Now heres a poster who uses the same wording style and question style who has a gun that at first seems run of the mill but as in the other previous postings, odditys are start to come to light. As in the other postings he's even consulting his father about the gun. Now mind you I'm just talking to myself, and I might be wrong, been wrong before more than once. I took a note pad and made a long list, from every time this novice used a techical term to every little odd thing on his gun, He already made one slip about the grips, They are wrap around but he stated that in referece to the photos, if you took one set of service grips and put them on the other gun it would look like his gun? Only Wesson on the barrel? Made in USA and Made in France? Yes indeed a very rare gun. Now I know this poster is on the up and up, There's no one who likes to make fools out of people for what ever reason, There's no one out there in never never land that has some type of problem and just wants to communiacate with people, of course not. As for myself I know not what others may do, but I'm going to pass, I can do a good job of making a fool out of myself with out help. Vaya con Dios
RJay,
I-frame service stocks wrap under the gripframe. At least they do on my '28 .38 Regulation Police, as well as my '18 .32 Regulation Police...
So maybe the kid has one of eleventeen jillion village gunsmithery S&W clones that grandpa brought home from the war; what's to get spun up about that?
Not as exciting as a good conspiracy, granted, but then I don't go looking for those. Vaya con Tacos.
I-frame service stocks wrap under the gripframe. At least they do on my '28 .38 Regulation Police, as well as my '18 .32 Regulation Police...
So maybe the kid has one of eleventeen jillion village gunsmithery S&W clones that grandpa brought home from the war; what's to get spun up about that?
Not as exciting as a good conspiracy, granted, but then I don't go looking for those. Vaya con Tacos.
Johnny Guest
Moderator in Memoriam
Anxiously awaiting images/further information . . . .
Deano9 - - Are you home for Christmas break yet? You have several of us pretty curious and we hope to see some photographs soon.
Please see my post (number 19 above) and requests for specific images, if possible.
That's an excellent illustration that Long Path posted - - It shows how the stocks meet beneath the bottom of the grip frame, giving a service-style profile to the small framed revolver. This configuration would cover the serial number if it were placed in the usual location, hence the move to the front of the gripstrap. The serial number can barely be seen in the photo, just immediately above the mainspring strain screw.
And I just noticed something I had missed previously:
Later - -
Johnny
Deano9 - - Are you home for Christmas break yet? You have several of us pretty curious and we hope to see some photographs soon.
Please see my post (number 19 above) and requests for specific images, if possible.That's an excellent illustration that Long Path posted - - It shows how the stocks meet beneath the bottom of the grip frame, giving a service-style profile to the small framed revolver. This configuration would cover the serial number if it were placed in the usual location, hence the move to the front of the gripstrap. The serial number can barely be seen in the photo, just immediately above the mainspring strain screw.
And I just noticed something I had missed previously:
Does his mean the barrel latch, at the forward end of the ejector rod, or something else?
Later - -
Johnny
Pictures
Gentlemen,
Enjoy the pictures. They are not sharp, simply because I had to shrink them down in order to be the right size to upload them. So, if anyone wants pictures of higher quality, or other pictures that I took (I have ones, although they are not great ones, of where I think the serial number is, the top of the barrel, one looking down the gun, and some pictures of the holster, etc.) just email me and I can send them to you.
So, what do you think?
After seeing the pictures, was my nontechnical description of the gun that far off? Thanks for all of the help fellas. I look forward to reading your responses.
Gentlemen,
Enjoy the pictures. They are not sharp, simply because I had to shrink them down in order to be the right size to upload them. So, if anyone wants pictures of higher quality, or other pictures that I took (I have ones, although they are not great ones, of where I think the serial number is, the top of the barrel, one looking down the gun, and some pictures of the holster, etc.) just email me and I can send them to you.
So, what do you think?
After seeing the pictures, was my nontechnical description of the gun that far off? Thanks for all of the help fellas. I look forward to reading your responses.
Attachments
Let me apologize for taking so long to post the pictures. A number of things came up, and I couldn't get them up until this morning. But, like I said, I have a few more pictures (I don't know if I got the ones you specifically asked for Johnny, because my digital camera couldn't take those pictures up that close), so just send me an email or indicate that you want them somehow and I can send them to you.
As for RJay's post...I guess I stopped reading them when he first doubted me, simply because I wouldn't waste my time, and so I haven't really had the opportunity to absorb his posts. I guess he thought it was logical that a 21 year old college student would rather spend his Friday nights writing a convoluted open ended story on a Revolver Forum online to get his kicks than go out and enjoy himself. I'm not going to let it concern me that much, especially since although he feels "embarrassed" for doubting the poster, he hasn't issued any apology. (Maybe it's because I'm a "junior member"?)
I want to personally thank everyone who has helped on this project. For you people to take time out of your busy lives to help solve this problem is indicative of how kind you all are. I also want to assure you that any misleading information on my part is entirely due to, as I have already conceded, my lack of knowledge of handguns. I also issue a promise that the gun in the above pictures is in fact the one I wrote about, and is in my hand at the time of the photos.
Happy Holidays, and I look forward to reading your responses.
As for RJay's post...I guess I stopped reading them when he first doubted me, simply because I wouldn't waste my time, and so I haven't really had the opportunity to absorb his posts. I guess he thought it was logical that a 21 year old college student would rather spend his Friday nights writing a convoluted open ended story on a Revolver Forum online to get his kicks than go out and enjoy himself. I'm not going to let it concern me that much, especially since although he feels "embarrassed" for doubting the poster, he hasn't issued any apology. (Maybe it's because I'm a "junior member"?)
I want to personally thank everyone who has helped on this project. For you people to take time out of your busy lives to help solve this problem is indicative of how kind you all are. I also want to assure you that any misleading information on my part is entirely due to, as I have already conceded, my lack of knowledge of handguns. I also issue a promise that the gun in the above pictures is in fact the one I wrote about, and is in my hand at the time of the photos.
Happy Holidays, and I look forward to reading your responses.
Johnny Guest
Moderator in Memoriam
E-mail sent
deano - -
I sent you a message requesting the additional images today. Hope it went through.
Merry Christmas (or other appropriate holiday) to All.
Johnny
deano - -
I sent you a message requesting the additional images today. Hope it went through.
Merry Christmas (or other appropriate holiday) to All.
Johnny
It appears to me that there are about four possibilities here.
1. It is a late pre-war Smith & Wesson Regulation Police that has been poorly described by a novice.
2. It is a late pre-war Smith & Wesson Regulation Police that has been
unbelievably screwed with.
3. It is a foreign copy of a Regulation Police. (I would guess Spanish as they did a pretty good job of copying the "look and fell" of S&W markings.)
4. It is an intentionally misrepresented troll.
I have documented my findings, point by point, in the following:
(My comments are in italics)
As described:
1st post.
Model 10?
I know it is a 38 Special
Number "inside the butt" 1177 (manufacturing floor code?)
Wrap around stocks.
(No problems here, just a good start at a description)
_____________________________________________________________________
2nd post.
Pre-model-10?
Grips off, no serial number
(Hmm… Flags raised.)____________________________________________________________
3rd post.
Looks like display M&P except for the grips.
Also "think" it has a 5" barrel.
Has S&W logo on left below latch (Good)
Has silver medallions (Good)
Does say Smith & Wesson "in a number of places"
(Never later explained where)_____________________________________________________________
4th post. (This is where things start getting interesting)
Barrel does not list caliber. (Unusual, but could have been buffed out)
Thinks it's 38 Spl because of shells found with it. (Regulation Police cylinder is too short to take a loaded 38 Spl. )
Barrel marked "Made in USA" of left side.(Left side of barrel is usually marked "Smith & Wesson")
"Wesson" only on right side. (Right side carries the chambering, if marked. "Wesson" only is unexplainable. Rebarreled?)
"Made in France" marked 4 times on top of barrel. (Poorer grade of marking) (Unexplainable unless rebarreled, but "left" side says "Made in USA".This is an incongruity that has to involve fakery)
"Made in USA" on right front of frame. (This is correct)
Posts that it is 5 shot. (Uh oh..)
Still no serial numbers anywhere suggested. (All normal places were suggested, and still, no numbers? Must be foreign or filed off. Filers usually miss the cylinder and barrel numbers)_____________________________________________________________
5th post.
Says 38 Spl fits and the gun will close. (Loaded or empty case?)
_____________________________________________________________
6th post.
3 low quality photos of what appears to be a late pre-war Reg. Police
(Small button on ejector rod and standard latch.)
Solicits for email addresses so he can send "better" pictures.
(Go to Kinko and have them scanned and post for all to see)
_____________________________________________________________
7th post.
Disses RJ for not posting apology on doubting him.
(There are too many incongruities here to not have this thought cross one's mind)
Plays the innocent "junior member" card.
(Junior Member/Senior Member don't mean jack. It's nothing but post count.
Just keep hammering away, you too can be a "senior member" and still not know anything.)
Talks about people "wasting" his time.
_____________________________________________________________
Conclusions:
After following this thread and reading all posts (including RJ's) I'm leaning toward possibilities # 3 and #4.
(I put this last so Deano would have to read the whole thing and "waste" some more of his valuable time.)
1. It is a late pre-war Smith & Wesson Regulation Police that has been poorly described by a novice.
2. It is a late pre-war Smith & Wesson Regulation Police that has been
unbelievably screwed with.
3. It is a foreign copy of a Regulation Police. (I would guess Spanish as they did a pretty good job of copying the "look and fell" of S&W markings.)
4. It is an intentionally misrepresented troll.
I have documented my findings, point by point, in the following:
(My comments are in italics)
As described:
1st post.
Model 10?
I know it is a 38 Special
Number "inside the butt" 1177 (manufacturing floor code?)
Wrap around stocks.
(No problems here, just a good start at a description)
_____________________________________________________________________
2nd post.
Pre-model-10?
Grips off, no serial number
(Hmm… Flags raised.)____________________________________________________________
3rd post.
Looks like display M&P except for the grips.
Also "think" it has a 5" barrel.
Has S&W logo on left below latch (Good)
Has silver medallions (Good)
Does say Smith & Wesson "in a number of places"
(Never later explained where)_____________________________________________________________
4th post. (This is where things start getting interesting)
Barrel does not list caliber. (Unusual, but could have been buffed out)
Thinks it's 38 Spl because of shells found with it. (Regulation Police cylinder is too short to take a loaded 38 Spl. )
Barrel marked "Made in USA" of left side.(Left side of barrel is usually marked "Smith & Wesson")
"Wesson" only on right side. (Right side carries the chambering, if marked. "Wesson" only is unexplainable. Rebarreled?)
"Made in France" marked 4 times on top of barrel. (Poorer grade of marking) (Unexplainable unless rebarreled, but "left" side says "Made in USA".This is an incongruity that has to involve fakery)
"Made in USA" on right front of frame. (This is correct)
Posts that it is 5 shot. (Uh oh..)
Still no serial numbers anywhere suggested. (All normal places were suggested, and still, no numbers? Must be foreign or filed off. Filers usually miss the cylinder and barrel numbers)_____________________________________________________________
5th post.
Says 38 Spl fits and the gun will close. (Loaded or empty case?)
_____________________________________________________________
6th post.
3 low quality photos of what appears to be a late pre-war Reg. Police
(Small button on ejector rod and standard latch.)
Solicits for email addresses so he can send "better" pictures.
(Go to Kinko and have them scanned and post for all to see)
_____________________________________________________________
7th post.
Disses RJ for not posting apology on doubting him.
(There are too many incongruities here to not have this thought cross one's mind)
Plays the innocent "junior member" card.
(Junior Member/Senior Member don't mean jack. It's nothing but post count.
Just keep hammering away, you too can be a "senior member" and still not know anything.)
Talks about people "wasting" his time.
_____________________________________________________________
Conclusions:
After following this thread and reading all posts (including RJ's) I'm leaning toward possibilities # 3 and #4.
(I put this last so Deano would have to read the whole thing and "waste" some more of his valuable time.)
XavierBreath
New member
I'm not going to jump to conclusions here, but I will say that some decent photographs of specific areas of the revolver will get you better results. Without those photos, all you are going to get is speculation.
For $30 you can get a letter from Roy Jinks telling you all about your Smith & Wesson handgun. He is the S&W historian, and his letters are considered absolute authentication.
Your's is a interesting revolver, with what appears to be a round butt frame and a 5 chamber cylinder.
Good luck.
For $30 you can get a letter from Roy Jinks telling you all about your Smith & Wesson handgun. He is the S&W historian, and his letters are considered absolute authentication.
Your's is a interesting revolver, with what appears to be a round butt frame and a 5 chamber cylinder.
Good luck.
A couple things, let me try and dodge a few of deadin's bullets:
1) IN response to his 3rd comment: It says Smith and Wesson below and to the right of the cylinder ejector (which you can see even on my poor photos), on both of the silver emblems on the stocks, and Wesson on the barrel (I thought I provided this information before but no problem).
2) In response to his 4th and 5th comments: It takes, to the best of my vision, a .38 special LOADED case.
3) In response to his 7th and final comments: You have misinterpreted my comments. "Wasting my time" would have meant reading your long post only to fake another one. But, since I am not faking them, it's not wasting my time. However you have the right, as did RJ, to believe I am a forgery. If that is the case, you can walk away, as no one will ask what happened. I explained nearly every "incongruity" either before or immediately after they have happened, including being a novice, mistaking the gun for an older model, not understanding the cartridges, and the lower quality pictures. In response to those, I will take your advice to scan them or go to Kinko's. Not a problem. Hopefully at that point, that is if I haven't lost everyone, people can make their judgements.
A few things are true, in spite of the incongruities and the poor quality photos: that gun is the one described, it is in my possession, and I still don't have a serial number for it (to my knowledge). For those of you who accept those three clauses as true, any help you could offer would be great.
1) IN response to his 3rd comment: It says Smith and Wesson below and to the right of the cylinder ejector (which you can see even on my poor photos), on both of the silver emblems on the stocks, and Wesson on the barrel (I thought I provided this information before but no problem).
2) In response to his 4th and 5th comments: It takes, to the best of my vision, a .38 special LOADED case.
3) In response to his 7th and final comments: You have misinterpreted my comments. "Wasting my time" would have meant reading your long post only to fake another one. But, since I am not faking them, it's not wasting my time. However you have the right, as did RJ, to believe I am a forgery. If that is the case, you can walk away, as no one will ask what happened. I explained nearly every "incongruity" either before or immediately after they have happened, including being a novice, mistaking the gun for an older model, not understanding the cartridges, and the lower quality pictures. In response to those, I will take your advice to scan them or go to Kinko's. Not a problem. Hopefully at that point, that is if I haven't lost everyone, people can make their judgements.
A few things are true, in spite of the incongruities and the poor quality photos: that gun is the one described, it is in my possession, and I still don't have a serial number for it (to my knowledge). For those of you who accept those three clauses as true, any help you could offer would be great.
PM'd for better digital images.
I'm starting to think this is a copy of an S&W. After enhancing the available images it appears that the chamber holes are unevenly sized (could be lighting effect though) and there appears to be a flat spot on the left side of the barrel (about where markings would be).
The side plate screws appear to be incorrect for an S&W too, even a pre-war I-Frame.
I'm starting to think this is a copy of an S&W. After enhancing the available images it appears that the chamber holes are unevenly sized (could be lighting effect though) and there appears to be a flat spot on the left side of the barrel (about where markings would be).
The side plate screws appear to be incorrect for an S&W too, even a pre-war I-Frame.
Deano,
I think we are all misunderstanding each other. I called the gun a possible "forgery", not you.
The additional markings are where they should be, but I continue to have great difficulty with the barrel markings. They are unlike anything I have ever seen on a S&W. Of course the barrel could be a replacement. The biggest problem I have is that it will chamber a 38 Spl. (Unless you are talking about a wadcutter which has the bullet loaded flush with the mouth of the case. i.e. no bullet showing from the side.)
Let me explain myself. The only 5 shot, swing-out cylinder .38 Smith & Wesson made, other than the Chief's Special, was the Regulation Police. The Chiefs Special was in 38 Special and was built on a "J" frame which came into being in about 1950. The Regulation Police was built on the "I" frame and the "Improved I" frame. neither of which would accomodate the oveall length of the 38 Special. The cylinder length if the "I" and the modified I is too short for a 38 Spl. Production of the Reg. Police on the J frame started in 1961 and would be marked 33-1 in the crane cut-out. (The part of the frame that is exposed when the cylinder is swung out.)
Can you get a pair of calipers and measure the length of the cylinder? Measure to the nearest 100th of an inch.
A rebarrel of a J frame could explain the weird markings on the barrel and the fact that it will chamber 38 Spl. It does not explain the total lack of serial numbers unless they were deliberately removed. In which case you may have a problem.
As asked before, what was the era of your grandfathers military service? This would help in the investigation.
Dean
I think we are all misunderstanding each other. I called the gun a possible "forgery", not you.
The additional markings are where they should be, but I continue to have great difficulty with the barrel markings. They are unlike anything I have ever seen on a S&W. Of course the barrel could be a replacement. The biggest problem I have is that it will chamber a 38 Spl. (Unless you are talking about a wadcutter which has the bullet loaded flush with the mouth of the case. i.e. no bullet showing from the side.)
Let me explain myself. The only 5 shot, swing-out cylinder .38 Smith & Wesson made, other than the Chief's Special, was the Regulation Police. The Chiefs Special was in 38 Special and was built on a "J" frame which came into being in about 1950. The Regulation Police was built on the "I" frame and the "Improved I" frame. neither of which would accomodate the oveall length of the 38 Special. The cylinder length if the "I" and the modified I is too short for a 38 Spl. Production of the Reg. Police on the J frame started in 1961 and would be marked 33-1 in the crane cut-out. (The part of the frame that is exposed when the cylinder is swung out.)
Can you get a pair of calipers and measure the length of the cylinder? Measure to the nearest 100th of an inch.
A rebarrel of a J frame could explain the weird markings on the barrel and the fact that it will chamber 38 Spl. It does not explain the total lack of serial numbers unless they were deliberately removed. In which case you may have a problem.
As asked before, what was the era of your grandfathers military service? This would help in the investigation.
Dean
Johnny Guest
Moderator in Memoriam
deano, I'll stick by my post #19
The serial number of your revolver is 1177. It is in the proper location for the Regulation Police model revolver. This location was chosen, no doubt, because the larger stocks would cover the "normal" s/n location, the bottom of the grip frame.
I am still curious about the "Made in France" markings. Are they stamped into the metal, scribed onto the surface as with an electric pencil, or just scratched through the blue finish? Might they be painted on?
I received the images in your first e-mail, but there are none of the top strap or top of the barrel.
I agree the images you have are rather blurred. Do you have access to a camera that will focus in to a few inches?
Best,
Johnny
The serial number of your revolver is 1177. It is in the proper location for the Regulation Police model revolver. This location was chosen, no doubt, because the larger stocks would cover the "normal" s/n location, the bottom of the grip frame.
I am still curious about the "Made in France" markings. Are they stamped into the metal, scribed onto the surface as with an electric pencil, or just scratched through the blue finish? Might they be painted on?
I received the images in your first e-mail, but there are none of the top strap or top of the barrel.
I agree the images you have are rather blurred. Do you have access to a camera that will focus in to a few inches?
Best,
Johnny
From holding my '28-vintage .38 Regulation Police up to the screen of my 19" monitor, I note that this is probably not an S&W Regulation Police.
The cylinder is too long, the exposed forcing cone in the frame window is too short, and the grip flares to too great a width towards the bottom. Based on the information given thus far, I'd assume it's one of the many copies of the I-frame Smith turned out by small local gun manufacturies in interwar Europe. Given that the cylinder-to-frame dimensions look much more J-frame than I-frame, I have no trouble believing that it'll swallow a .38 Spl (rather than a .38 S&W.) Of course, given the vagaries of heat-treat and whatnot, I'd counsel against using such a gun to fire any modern factory ammunition. Like my Filipino(?) Regulation Police knockoff, I think it's best viewed as a mechanically-interesting paperweight with a fascinating story behind it.
The cylinder is too long, the exposed forcing cone in the frame window is too short, and the grip flares to too great a width towards the bottom. Based on the information given thus far, I'd assume it's one of the many copies of the I-frame Smith turned out by small local gun manufacturies in interwar Europe. Given that the cylinder-to-frame dimensions look much more J-frame than I-frame, I have no trouble believing that it'll swallow a .38 Spl (rather than a .38 S&W.) Of course, given the vagaries of heat-treat and whatnot, I'd counsel against using such a gun to fire any modern factory ammunition. Like my Filipino(?) Regulation Police knockoff, I think it's best viewed as a mechanically-interesting paperweight with a fascinating story behind it.