Smith wesson : 38 S and W special ctg
- Thread starter Ken 72
- Start date
RUN2424, we were talking about a gun made in the 1920's and at that time the numbers on the crane and on the frame under the crane were assembly numbers. S&W did not use model numbers until 1957. If you actually have a Model 36 with all that under the crane, you have a very unusual gun.
The Model 1899 was not called that by S&W; they called it the .38 Hand Ejector (as distinguished from the "automatic" ejecting top breaks) Military and Police Model. It was designed as the platform for the new .38 S&W Special cartridge and that cartridge was introduced with the gun. Some early revolvers made for service tests were chambered for the .38 service cartridge (only). One source seems to indicate that the commercial gun was made for either the .38 LC or the .38 Special, but that point is confusing, since any gun chambered for the .38 Special will accept and fire the .38 Long Colt, the U.S. Service Cartridge from 1892 to 1909.
Some later commercial guns were marked for .38 S&W Special/U.S. Service Cartridge, but they were chambered for .38 Special. That marking was dropped in 1909 when the .38 Long Colt was no longer the U.S. service cartridge.
Uncle Ed, a gun made in the early 1920's would have been the Model 1905 Fourth Change, and would have had a hammer block, though it would have been the first type, which was both prone to problems and was not positive in function. (Colt's was, which was why Colt inserted the word "positive" in the names of some of their guns.) The second type was introduced in 1926, and the last, and current, in December, 1944.
Jim
The Model 1899 was not called that by S&W; they called it the .38 Hand Ejector (as distinguished from the "automatic" ejecting top breaks) Military and Police Model. It was designed as the platform for the new .38 S&W Special cartridge and that cartridge was introduced with the gun. Some early revolvers made for service tests were chambered for the .38 service cartridge (only). One source seems to indicate that the commercial gun was made for either the .38 LC or the .38 Special, but that point is confusing, since any gun chambered for the .38 Special will accept and fire the .38 Long Colt, the U.S. Service Cartridge from 1892 to 1909.
Some later commercial guns were marked for .38 S&W Special/U.S. Service Cartridge, but they were chambered for .38 Special. That marking was dropped in 1909 when the .38 Long Colt was no longer the U.S. service cartridge.
Uncle Ed, a gun made in the early 1920's would have been the Model 1905 Fourth Change, and would have had a hammer block, though it would have been the first type, which was both prone to problems and was not positive in function. (Colt's was, which was why Colt inserted the word "positive" in the names of some of their guns.) The second type was introduced in 1926, and the last, and current, in December, 1944.
Jim
Last edited:
Driftwood Johnson
New member
I agree.
And it's not terribly difficult to learn to take one apart so all the crud can be cleaned off all the parts. It's easier to clean everything when it is out of the gun, rather than still in place.
And this book will explain everything you need to know to take one apart.
http://www.gunbooks.com/sw.html
FWIW, the gun Driftwood pictured has the second type of hammer block, the kind that failed during WWII. Both it and the first type are their own springs and depend on that spring to move into the path of the hammer. If grease or crud stop that movement, or the spring breaks, the gun can fire if dropped hard enough on the hammer to either crush the rebound slide or shear the hammer stud.
Jim
Jim
It was always my understanding that S&W developed the 38special with the 1899. There were some made for the military in the then standard service cartridge, the 38 colt, and some were marked for both rounds. My 1899 shipped in December of 1900 and is marked 38 S&W Special ctg.
Mike Irwin
Staff
They called it the .38 Military and Police 1st Model.
The 1899 was appended later to differentiate it, and provide more concrete variant information, from the Model of 1902 (2nd Model) and Model of 1905 (3rd Model) and their variants.
Earliest variants of the Model 1899 were marked only for the US Service Cartridge.
Actual introduction of the .38 Special is rather confusing, as I noted above.
The supposed purpose for development of the round was to provide more power based on the .38 Long Colt's failings in dealing with Moro tribesmen -- however, the US only came into conflict with the Moros near the end of 1899.
That alone would seem to put development and introduction of the .38 Special cartridge beyond 1899 and into 1900.
That alone seems to jibe with early production of the 1899 model, as none of the guns seem to have been marked with .38 Special cartridge designation until sometime in late 1901 or early 1902.
Commercially the cartridge doesn't appear to have been offered commercially until 1902, but unfortunately catalogs and advertising from this time are rarer than hen's teeth.
The earliest I've been able to find has been a 1904 McClung's catalog. They were apparently a fairly large midwestern all purpose store.
The 1899 was appended later to differentiate it, and provide more concrete variant information, from the Model of 1902 (2nd Model) and Model of 1905 (3rd Model) and their variants.
Earliest variants of the Model 1899 were marked only for the US Service Cartridge.
Actual introduction of the .38 Special is rather confusing, as I noted above.
The supposed purpose for development of the round was to provide more power based on the .38 Long Colt's failings in dealing with Moro tribesmen -- however, the US only came into conflict with the Moros near the end of 1899.
That alone would seem to put development and introduction of the .38 Special cartridge beyond 1899 and into 1900.
That alone seems to jibe with early production of the 1899 model, as none of the guns seem to have been marked with .38 Special cartridge designation until sometime in late 1901 or early 1902.
Commercially the cartridge doesn't appear to have been offered commercially until 1902, but unfortunately catalogs and advertising from this time are rarer than hen's teeth.
The earliest I've been able to find has been a 1904 McClung's catalog. They were apparently a fairly large midwestern all purpose store.
Last edited:
That is interesting, Mike. Do you have any pictures of a commercial M&P with ONLY the Service Cartridge marking? If so, does it accept .38 Special or only .38 LC? (I am familiar with the dual marking.) The first 50 or so Model 1899's had no caliber marking at all.
As far as I can determine, the Navy ordered 1000 of the "Model 1899" in .38 LC (only) on June 25, 1900. The guns were S&W serial numbered 5001-6000. Navy serial numbers 1-1000 were put on the butt instead of the S&W serial numbers. The Army ordered 1000 guns on Feb. 18, 1901; they were delivered on April 20, 1901. Those were also in .38 LC (only); .38 Special won't fit. S&W serial numbers were 13,001-14,000. The Army did not use its own serial numbers.
So those early guns and later guns made for the military were made specifically for the .38 LC because that was the service cartridge. I could find nothing indicating that any guns were made for the commercial market that .38 Special won't fit.
Obviously, those military guns were not the first. S&W must have made 5000 guns before filling the Navy order, and 7000 more before beginning on the Army order. Clearly, S&W was proud of the new gun and hopeful of a large military contract so much so that they dropped civilian production when they got a military order. Still, they had made 25,000 by Aug. 8, 1902 (including the 2000 for the services) and had made the first upgrades.
Whether they made any M&P's for the commercial market in .38 LC ONLY appears to be in question. Certainly they could have, on special order at least, but did they? That is not clear, and perhaps you can clear up the question.
Jim
As far as I can determine, the Navy ordered 1000 of the "Model 1899" in .38 LC (only) on June 25, 1900. The guns were S&W serial numbered 5001-6000. Navy serial numbers 1-1000 were put on the butt instead of the S&W serial numbers. The Army ordered 1000 guns on Feb. 18, 1901; they were delivered on April 20, 1901. Those were also in .38 LC (only); .38 Special won't fit. S&W serial numbers were 13,001-14,000. The Army did not use its own serial numbers.
So those early guns and later guns made for the military were made specifically for the .38 LC because that was the service cartridge. I could find nothing indicating that any guns were made for the commercial market that .38 Special won't fit.
Obviously, those military guns were not the first. S&W must have made 5000 guns before filling the Navy order, and 7000 more before beginning on the Army order. Clearly, S&W was proud of the new gun and hopeful of a large military contract so much so that they dropped civilian production when they got a military order. Still, they had made 25,000 by Aug. 8, 1902 (including the 2000 for the services) and had made the first upgrades.
Whether they made any M&P's for the commercial market in .38 LC ONLY appears to be in question. Certainly they could have, on special order at least, but did they? That is not clear, and perhaps you can clear up the question.
Jim
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Do you have any pictures of a commercial M&P with ONLY the Service Cartridge marking?"
Unfortunately no, but I have seen two in private collections. Both were low (can't remember if they were 3 or 4 digit) serial number guns without military markings.
But, once again, I'm quite dubious about the timing of the introduction of the .38 Special cartridge compared to the introduction of the gun because of the reasons I've put forward.
If the rational is true, that S&W developed the .38 Special because of the reported failings of the .38 Long Colt in the Philippines, it would be kind of hard to do so BEFORE the US engaged in combat with the Philippino tribes.
And, because we know that the Model of 1899 was hitting the bricks in mid to late 1899, and the US didn't engage in any meaningful combat with the Moros until late summer of 1899....
See my problems with the time line?
Unfortunately no, but I have seen two in private collections. Both were low (can't remember if they were 3 or 4 digit) serial number guns without military markings.
But, once again, I'm quite dubious about the timing of the introduction of the .38 Special cartridge compared to the introduction of the gun because of the reasons I've put forward.
If the rational is true, that S&W developed the .38 Special because of the reported failings of the .38 Long Colt in the Philippines, it would be kind of hard to do so BEFORE the US engaged in combat with the Philippino tribes.
And, because we know that the Model of 1899 was hitting the bricks in mid to late 1899, and the US didn't engage in any meaningful combat with the Moros until late summer of 1899....
See my problems with the time line?
Mike Irwin
Staff
This statement from Wikipedia is what I'm talking about...
"The .38 Special was introduced in 1898 as an improvement over the .38 Long Colt which, as a military service cartridge, was found to have inadequate stopping power against the frenzied charges of Moro warriors during the Philippine-American War.[9]"
How in the holy hell can you develop a cartridge and introduce it in 1898 when the stated reason for its deveopment happened in 1899, and mid to LATE 1899, at a minimum?
Edited to add: In reading through some online resources on the Moros, it doesn't appear that there was any significant combat between the Moros and US troops until 1901.
There's only two possible rationals to explain this:
1. Smith & Wesson was working on the cartridge BEFORE the Moro insurrection, and the rational for its development is nothing more than urban legend.
2. The rational for the .38 Special's development is true, so it must have been introduced later than conventional wisdom dictates.
Given that Roy Jinks has thrown his weight behind the cartridge being a response to the .38 Long Colt's failings during the Moro Insurrection, I feel that it's simply impossible for the .38 Special to have been introduced before 1900..
I know that S&W has been capable of many things over the years, but rewriting the fabric of time simply isn't one of them.
"The .38 Special was introduced in 1898 as an improvement over the .38 Long Colt which, as a military service cartridge, was found to have inadequate stopping power against the frenzied charges of Moro warriors during the Philippine-American War.[9]"
How in the holy hell can you develop a cartridge and introduce it in 1898 when the stated reason for its deveopment happened in 1899, and mid to LATE 1899, at a minimum?
Edited to add: In reading through some online resources on the Moros, it doesn't appear that there was any significant combat between the Moros and US troops until 1901.
There's only two possible rationals to explain this:
1. Smith & Wesson was working on the cartridge BEFORE the Moro insurrection, and the rational for its development is nothing more than urban legend.
2. The rational for the .38 Special's development is true, so it must have been introduced later than conventional wisdom dictates.
Given that Roy Jinks has thrown his weight behind the cartridge being a response to the .38 Long Colt's failings during the Moro Insurrection, I feel that it's simply impossible for the .38 Special to have been introduced before 1900..
I know that S&W has been capable of many things over the years, but rewriting the fabric of time simply isn't one of them.
Last edited:
I have found Wiki to very reliably get some things right. But I think Wiki should only be considered a reliable source for information printed in Wikipedia.
Mike, it could also possibly be a mixture of your #1 and #2?
Might it not have been S&W was working on the Special (in some manner) earlier, and the reports of what wasn't working on the Moros were the push that said "bring it out now"? Which resulted in it being introduced to the general public around the 1902 date used by many sources?
Or, since we are pretty sure it was the unhappiness with their .38 that led to the military insisting on the .45 caliber for their next gun, might not someone in the past have applied this to the .38Special, as well, and it just "stuck" in the story, because there is no real proof it wasn't a possible reason?
Roy Jinks is an authority I would trust, over Wiki any day.
Mike, it could also possibly be a mixture of your #1 and #2?
Might it not have been S&W was working on the Special (in some manner) earlier, and the reports of what wasn't working on the Moros were the push that said "bring it out now"? Which resulted in it being introduced to the general public around the 1902 date used by many sources?
Or, since we are pretty sure it was the unhappiness with their .38 that led to the military insisting on the .45 caliber for their next gun, might not someone in the past have applied this to the .38Special, as well, and it just "stuck" in the story, because there is no real proof it wasn't a possible reason?
Roy Jinks is an authority I would trust, over Wiki any day.
I was in Deming, NM asking questions about two S&W model 10 looking pistol I purchased from New York. The question was all about condition. I did not expect the answer, there was evidence the two pistols had been carried, there was little to no evidence the pistols had been fired.
I ordered a barrel for one JIC from Numich Arms. It arrived as a 38 S&W cartridge stamp on the side of the barrel.
F. Guffey
Last edited:
Since I own a 1899 marked 38 special and lettered as being delivered in late 1900, I tend to believe the special was around before 1902. I am inclined to believe S&W was developing the 38 special for the intro of it's new revolver, and a lot of the Philippine stuff is lore. As pointed out, it doesn't add up. Hey, marketing is marketing, then and now.
The "Moros" story is myth*. The deficiencies of the .38 Long Colt cartridge had been recognized as early as combat in Cuba, and even before that by astute Ordnance officers who felt it was much inferior in power to the .45 government cartridge which was standard issue in the SAA. So it did not take knowledge of the future for S&W to conclude that a swing cylinder revolver that was both more powerful and more reliable than the current DA Colt might be looked on favorably by the services.
But for better or worse, the .38 was the U.S. service cartridge and a revolver that would also fire that round would reduce the problems of ammunition supply. That is why S&W choose to lengthen the service cartridge rather than lengthen the .38 S&W, which was larger in diameter.
There are many early Model 1899's that are marked ".38 S&W SPECIAL CTG" and I see no reason to think that the gun and cartridge were not made for each other and introduced together. (S&W followed the same practice later with the .44 HE and the .44 Special cartridge.) Why some M&P's were marked with ".38 S&W SPECIAL & U.S. SERVICE CTGS" I don't know. I suspect that those barrels were made up while S&W still had hopes of a miltary contract and were simply used at random while they lasted. The dual marking did not appear after 1909 when the .38 was supplanted as the service cartridge by the .45 caliber Model 1909 cartridge.
As we know, the S&W M&P was never formally adopted and not purchased in quantity by the military until WWII, so the .38 DA Colts soldiered on, some being in service through WWI. The gun that actually was developed in response to the "Moro" problem was the .45 Model 1909, which was adopted in desperation due to the seemingly unending search for a suitable automatic pistol.
*Revolvers actually sent to the Philippines c. 1902 were SAA's taken from storage, and 5000 .45 DAA's purchased in 1902 and called the Model 1902, but not formally adopted. (The DAA is usually called the Model 1878 and it is an absolutely awful pistol; the long trigger was not for Philippinos or Alaskans, it was for general issue; the original DAA was simply unusable in DA for anyone without the strength of Hercules.)
Jim
But for better or worse, the .38 was the U.S. service cartridge and a revolver that would also fire that round would reduce the problems of ammunition supply. That is why S&W choose to lengthen the service cartridge rather than lengthen the .38 S&W, which was larger in diameter.
There are many early Model 1899's that are marked ".38 S&W SPECIAL CTG" and I see no reason to think that the gun and cartridge were not made for each other and introduced together. (S&W followed the same practice later with the .44 HE and the .44 Special cartridge.) Why some M&P's were marked with ".38 S&W SPECIAL & U.S. SERVICE CTGS" I don't know. I suspect that those barrels were made up while S&W still had hopes of a miltary contract and were simply used at random while they lasted. The dual marking did not appear after 1909 when the .38 was supplanted as the service cartridge by the .45 caliber Model 1909 cartridge.
As we know, the S&W M&P was never formally adopted and not purchased in quantity by the military until WWII, so the .38 DA Colts soldiered on, some being in service through WWI. The gun that actually was developed in response to the "Moro" problem was the .45 Model 1909, which was adopted in desperation due to the seemingly unending search for a suitable automatic pistol.
*Revolvers actually sent to the Philippines c. 1902 were SAA's taken from storage, and 5000 .45 DAA's purchased in 1902 and called the Model 1902, but not formally adopted. (The DAA is usually called the Model 1878 and it is an absolutely awful pistol; the long trigger was not for Philippinos or Alaskans, it was for general issue; the original DAA was simply unusable in DA for anyone without the strength of Hercules.)
Jim
Mike Irwin
Staff
OK, I was wrong about Jinks' book and the .38 Special regards to the Moros.
"With the mechanical design completed, D.B. Wesson discussed the merits of this gun with this son, Joseph. The revolver was originally designed to fire the .38 United States Service cartridge (.38 Long Colt) but this cartridge had developed a reputation for lack of power. D.B. Wesson suggested the cartridge case be lengthened to allow the powder charge to be increased from 18 grains of black powder to 21.5 grains. The bullet weight was changed from 150 grains to 158 grains, this new cartridge was called the .38 S&W Special..."
"With the development of the new cartridge, the factory introduced the .38 Military and Police Model."
History of Smith & Wesson, Roy Jinks, 1977
While Jinks does not come out specifically and say it, he certainly alludes to the gun being chambered for .38 Special from day one, and development of the cartridge beginning in the 1898/1899 time frame.
However, I have seen two early production 1899s that were marked only US Service Cartridge...
"With the mechanical design completed, D.B. Wesson discussed the merits of this gun with this son, Joseph. The revolver was originally designed to fire the .38 United States Service cartridge (.38 Long Colt) but this cartridge had developed a reputation for lack of power. D.B. Wesson suggested the cartridge case be lengthened to allow the powder charge to be increased from 18 grains of black powder to 21.5 grains. The bullet weight was changed from 150 grains to 158 grains, this new cartridge was called the .38 S&W Special..."
"With the development of the new cartridge, the factory introduced the .38 Military and Police Model."
History of Smith & Wesson, Roy Jinks, 1977
While Jinks does not come out specifically and say it, he certainly alludes to the gun being chambered for .38 Special from day one, and development of the cartridge beginning in the 1898/1899 time frame.
However, I have seen two early production 1899s that were marked only US Service Cartridge...
Last edited:
FWIW, I consider Wikipedia a good secondary source, but it is wrong often enough that I never rely on it, especially when it contradicts common sense as in this case. It is written by various contributors, many of whom have no special expertise or knowledge and are only repeating what they have seen or read elsewhere. There is no central editing or review to verify the "facts" given, so a lot of it is opinion and bias.
Jinks' book is good, but a better one on the guns is the old Smith & Wesson, 1857-1945, which he co-wrote with Robert J. Neal. The invaluable part of that book is the section with x-ray photos of almost every model, so it is easy to see many of the changes made internally. (S&W kept the external appearance of its revolvers unchanged for many years, to the extent that grips from a 1980 J Frame will fit an 1880 breaktop with only shortening.)
Jim
Jinks' book is good, but a better one on the guns is the old Smith & Wesson, 1857-1945, which he co-wrote with Robert J. Neal. The invaluable part of that book is the section with x-ray photos of almost every model, so it is easy to see many of the changes made internally. (S&W kept the external appearance of its revolvers unchanged for many years, to the extent that grips from a 1980 J Frame will fit an 1880 breaktop with only shortening.)
Jim
Obviously can't trust Wikipedia TOO far, I'm listed as a reference on something there. 
That's sorta the Internet "Can't trust any source that would cite me" version of the old Groucho Marx "I wouldn't want to be a member of any organization that would allow somebody like me to be in it!"
Denis
That's sorta the Internet "Can't trust any source that would cite me" version of the old Groucho Marx "I wouldn't want to be a member of any organization that would allow somebody like me to be in it!"
Denis