Revo ID- Now with decent pics

Winchester 73, he was saying that his education went far beyond math, in that he learned basic manners and courtesy.

In other words, his education included both the quantitative and the qualitative, and he thinks treating others courteously may be more important than math.

He implied that you had not been paying attention to those portions of your education that may have dealt with courtesy.

Your initial reply gave him some reason to think that; your follow-on justification of your initial reply seems to bear him out still more.

Edit: One last thought - based on his location (Caracas, Venezuela), it's possible or even likely that for micromontenegro, English is a second language. Faulting him for inexact terminology may be just a bit silly, on the part of a native English speaker.
 
Winchester 73, he was saying that his education went far beyond math, in that he learned basic manners and courtesy.

In other words, his education included both the quantitative and the qualitative, and he thinks treating others courteously may be more important than math.

He implied that you had not been paying attention to those portions of your education that may have dealt with courtesy.

Your initial reply gave him some reason to think that; your follow-on justification of your initial reply seems to bear him out still more.
Click to expand...

I see, and you are right, I did not understand it that way, probably for a combination of reasons. The chief reason was most likely he misunderstood my math analogy. My math analogy was intended to be a copy of the old adage "crawl before walk, walk before run". I was not trying to tie math into the discussion nor was I attempting to discuss education here. So when he brought up education, and said "far beyond math", I didn't see the tie there. I didn't think I was rude in the first post, but I was edgy in the second one.

I lost my cool a little in this thread, because I would expect someone who knows revolvers good enough to insist on XYZ being the best, would be able to identify an obvious S&W. I suppose I shouldn't care about such things. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I didn't get into this hobby to change anyone. I love guns, esp pistols and revolvers, and thats why I do what I do and know what I know. I think most people here could say the same thing.

I've got a lot criticism for criticizing Pythons in the past. Rather than jump on the Python bandwagon, without first owning (or have much experience) with many other revolvers, I think people should look at my words and claims and think about it, rather than automatically dismiss them because Cunningham, or Hawkes, or some other "God" says they're the greatest. Its best to form an opinion with your own knowledge, rather than using someone else's knowledge to form your own opinion. I also acknowledge that some people do actually think on their own that an XYZ is the best, and thats fine. I think the critical difference here is the difference between saying "XYZ is the best" vs "I think XYZ is the best."

And.....I was not trying to change the subject of the thread here! It all tied together, in my mind :p
 
The identification of the S&W Perfected (that is S&W's name for the revolver, not a commentary on its qualities) is not all that "obvious". It is an odd duck, and its raison d'etre has puzzled many collectors. Some experts have written that it was a transition model, but it was not introduced until 1909, ten years after the M&P, and 13 after the first S&W hand ejector. Some have felt that it was intended to keep S&W in the top-break revolver market with a better internal design than their older guns.

I have no way of reading the minds of S&W's management 104 years ago, but I suspect there were quite a few people who thought the top break design had merit. Even today, on this and other gun sites, there will be an occasional post questioning why top breaks can't be made today, so it is likely that in 1909 there was some support for the idea of a modern style top break revolver. And S&W was prepared to respond to customer demand, even if it meant producing what amounted to a "dead end" hybrid.

Jim
 
Good points JK. I know in those days, I would have rather been armed with a S&W 38 top break pocket revolver than any other pocket pistol, and for a standard sidearm a top break model 3 over a SAA. That quick reload undoubtedly saved many lives.
 
You may be able to get a better read on the serial number by looking at one of the other locations S&W was known for putting them; in your case, if you can't get the sideplate off, you might be able to see if the number is stamped on the back of the extractor star, or maybe even written in pencil on the inside of the grips.
 
other locations S&W was known for putting them; in your case, if you can't get the sideplate off, you might be able to see if the number is stamped on the back of the extractor star, or maybe even written in pencil on the inside of the grips.
Click to expand...

The star was not always numbered and if it was, they were numbered inside the extractor star, the side not visible when when the extractor is retracted into the cylinder. The side plates did not have the SN in them IIRC but they may have had an assembly number since they were fitted. The grips are often changed, so using a grip SN number for an actual SN is seldom a good idea.

On the majority of the S&W top break revolvers, the SNs were: on the bottom of the latch, the back of the barrel between the ears, the rear face of the cylinder, the butt, and the right grip panel. The inner side of the extractor was sometimes numbered and sometimes not, esp in these 32 S&w and 38 S&W top break revolvers. For early model 3s, sometimes matching parts matched an assembly number rather than the actual SN. Colt SAAs were the same way, with there being an assembly number on the loading gate and the grip frame of the gun, which always differs from the actual SN of the gun.
 
You may be able to get a better read on the serial number by looking at one of the other locations S&W was known for putting them; in your case, if you can't get the sideplate off, you might be able to see if the number is stamped on the back of the extractor star, or maybe even written in pencil on the inside of the
Click to expand...

And right you are! There's 50684 on the back of the star. Nothing on the grips.

The sideplate is proving to be a tough cookie. I broke two of my best scredrivers trying, and as now, with a custom ground strong tip, I have been unable to break those two screws loose.

Thanks for all the kind answers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top