Revo ID- Now with decent pics

[micromontenegro]

Anyone can tell anything from this lousy picture? It is the only one I have.

[PetahW]

IMO, it looks like a H&R Defender, but of course could be an obscure Spanish copy.

The markings/stampings would usually tell the tale.


.

[micromontenegro]

Thanks a lot! I'll hopefully get to see it in person later, and post better pics.

[Jim Watson]

I believe it to be a Smith & Wesson Perfected Model .38 S&W that has been savagely mutilated by sawing off the barrel and the hammer spur.

[micromontenegro]

That was exactly my thoughts. Now I have it at hand, and I am quite sure it is a copy of the Perfected without the cylinder release. I had never seen the like of it- but I am a top break doofus. Will post better pics in a minute,

PS: There`s a big W on the right hand sideplate.

[micromontenegro]

Well, decent is a misnomer. My camera gave up the ghost, but these cell phone pics are better than the previous one.





By all means, please do speak your minds. I know this is a POS-I just would like to know what it is :-)

38 SW, five shots, numbers on the butt and on cylinder (508684 on cylinder and 78902 on butt), big W on right sideplate, and nothing else I can see now- xcept for caliber marking. Thanks in advance!

[micromontenegro]

PS: This thing is DAO, unless something is very wrong with it- and I can't get the sideplate off. Look at the pictures and you will see why.

[Jim Watson]

I think it is a real Perfected. There is a rare variant without the side latch and you have found one. Is the serial number near 52,000? That is where Flayderman says they show up.

If I were making a DAO, I would cut the hammer spur clear off. I suspect it was dropped and broke the hammer and sear.

But why would you stake the side plate screws?

Barrel is sawn off, there is no sign of a Perfected that short.

[micromontenegro]

Looking with a loupe, serial number seems to be 50902. But it is very hard to make out.

Crossing fingers!

[MLeake]

The big W definitely looks to be part of a badly worn S&W logo.

[micromontenegro]

I am still trying to get the stocks screw off- but I frame grips superimposed seem to be a perfect fit.

[micromontenegro]

Underneath the cylinder latch, I can see clearly a 50684. After seeing that, the butt serial also seems to be the same.

[Carmady]

I think it's an S&W too. I had one in .32 S&W, but I think the hammer was enclosed, not sure. Check Gunbroker for old S&W revolvers; you'll probably see a few like it.

Edit: Here's a similar one.
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=330909307

[Winchester_73]

It was clearly a S&W, the logo is still partly there, and as others have said, and there was a rare variant "perfected" that did not have the side latch. Even in the first photo, it appeared to be a S&W, although it was hard to tell for sure. The cylinder notches are S&W, the latch is S&W, the contour of the barrel rib is S&W, the trigger, the trigger guard, the grip shape, the type of automatic extractor, I mean, worn or not, its definitely a S&W. Even the caliber marking on the barrel is in the correct place.

Did anyone notice how the gun has has an exact S&W side plate? A copy could be that good? Well I've yet to see one.

The cylinder could be from a 38 DA or a 38 new departure, as this model SN did not run that high.

H&Rs do not have those lines.

This kind of stuff is why I don't want to be told what the best revolver is of all time. Know math 101 before you attempt trigonometry.

[micromontenegro]

Even in the first photo, it appeared to be a S&W, although it was hard to tell for sure. The cylinder notches are S&W, the latch is S&W, the contour of the barrel rib is S&W, the trigger, the trigger guard, the grip shape, the type of automatic extractor, I mean, worn or not, its definitely a S&W. Even the caliber marking on the barrel is in the correct place.

I guess you now know how it went from the first pic to my hands,

The cylinder could be from a 38 DA or a 38 new departure, as this model SN did not run that high.

I guessed that any expercienced person would catch the typo. But...

This kind of stuff is why I don't want to be told what the best revolver is of all time.

Why? Is this a candidate in your book?

Know math 101 before you attempt trigonometry.

I am a PhD candidate where I sit. But far beyond Math or revolevrs, I learned some manners along the way. Not everybody shares that privilege.

[James K]

IMHO, Jim Watson has hit it. The gun is an S&W Perfected Model without the side thumb latch. The only known serial number for that rare gun is 52108, per Neal and Jinks. It was not intended to be DAO; the hammer spur is broken or ground off.

The total production for the Perfected Model was only 59,400, from 1909 to 1920. Only a handful were made without the side latch. Neal and Jinks speculate that they might have been made during WWI when shortcuts were taken with other production so as to increase production of the Model 1917.

I have no idea what such a gun would be worth, but unfortunately the condition of that one reduces the value by a lot. Still, an advanced S&W collector might like to have it even in that condition if the price were right.

The history of that revolver is a bit obscure, since it is a top break yet has the center lock and thumb latch of the hand ejector models. One story is that there was a report of a police officer who was killed when a criminal grabbed the top latch of his break top revolver and broke it open, making the gun useless. Supposedly, S&W decided to prevent that from happening again and the Perfected came into being.

Doubt is cast on the story because, contrary to one gunzine story, the Perfected was not a transition model between the top breaks and the hand ejectors. S&W had been making hand ejector models for 15 years before the Perfected was produced. Could it have been an attempt to answer those who thought the hand ejector was too slow to eject empty cases? Maybe. I doubt at this stage we will ever know.

P.S. Neal and Jinks list the Perfected as being available with barrels of 3 1/4". 4", 5" and 6". It would be reasoable to think that any of the standard barrel lengths might be put on that variation as well. I do not have a Perfected, but again it seems reasonable that the barrels might have been regular .38 DA Fourth Model barrels, perhaps with some minor modifications.

Jim

[Carmady]

If it was a guitar some people would say it has mojo.

[HKGuns]

This kind of stuff is why I don't want to be told what the best revolver is of all time. Know math 101 before you attempt trigonometry.

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Lighten up a bit there guy.

[Winchester_73]

I guessed that any expercienced person would catch the typo. But...

Experience has nothing to do with it, I would assume you would be sure to proofread your post, so I took it verbatim. Judging by the condition, the gun being mismatched was feasible IMO.

Why? Is this a candidate in your book?

No, not at all. My point was that if someone cannot identify the gun, when its borderline obvious, then IMO, that person cannot discuss the best revolver of all time. In other words, unless you know a ton about revolvers, I don't think its appropriate to put one revolver ahead of the other. It comes off as a guess, or a pompous assumption instead of a reasonable theory or opinion.

I am a PhD candidate where I sit. But far beyond Math or revolevrs, I learned some manners along the way. Not everybody shares that privilege.

A PHD in what? Its far beyond math? That's hard to believe, because math is endless, and math can be very complicated and difficult. Math can be as hard as you want it to be. A PHD in ____ does not mean someone understands firearms. Furthermore, a degree often (not always) indicates ambition and diligence more so than actual intelligence. I'm not saying that you're stupid, but on the other hand, if you want to offer a rebuttal, at least stay on topic.

[James K]

Can a certain two guys go to your corners and take a break?

The OP asked a question. Jim Watson answered it, Winchester 73 and I contributed. The identification appears complete and correct. Unless the OP has further information I think the discussion is complete.

I have no idea how or why "the best revolver" got into the discussion, but the Perfected really wasn't it, so that is as irrelevant as someone's current or future academic qualifications.

Jim

[MLeake]

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]

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.

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

[James K]

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

[Winchester_73]

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.

[SDC]

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.