Military markings & grip panels numbered

[karu]

Hi Guys,
I hope you’re doing well.
I have something interesting for you and a question too.

A Remington NMA revolver was sold a few days ago in France and this transitionnal model, #19272, has some interesting feature on the grip.

103_58-1618x1080.jpg (195.08 KiB) Viewed 3914 times

The left grip panel has a cartouche from, I believe, Benjamin Hannis (BH) and on the bottom of the grip panels, there are some dual inspectors’ marks.

103_65.jpg (526 KiB) Viewed 3914 times

103_64.jpg (296.71 KiB) Viewed 3914 times

This is not a common practice to have so many inspection’s marks, so I was wondering if you Guys have please, any idea of what it could be ?
« EWD » ? May be an US Army/Navy officer commanding an arsenal or a navy yard..
I hope it would help someone.

Another thing..
Here in Europe, we can find a large number of Remington NM Belt SA revolvers wich is surprising in comparaison with the small quantity produced (not so much when you know that Samuel Remington was the purveyor of arms for the French War Ministry in 1870-1871).
But more surprising is that most of the Belt SA revolvers, has a number stamped on the grip panels (left or right).
It may be a French military marking but I don't think.. Belt SA revolvers can also be found in the US, with a number on the grip.

https://www.collectorsfirearms.com/prod ... h5407.html

Have you ever heard of a special contract for an insurance/transport company or a bank who could explain this?
What else..

I thank you in advance,
Cheers from the Caribbean !
Karu

[aardq]

Hi Karu,

That is a very interesting marking on the butt. There are no US inspectors marks on grips, since they were a disposable item, and no inspection was necessary. Also, the US sub- inspectors used only the first letter of their last name, and the actual acceptance stamp was the cartouche in the left grip.

.My guess is that it is a company stamp. In the US, the initials written that way is a fancy way to write initials that would normally be written as E D W. The large W in the center would be for the last name. For example, The fancy way for JFK would be: jKf. I would think that it would be unusual for an individual to have a marking stamp, thus my presumption that it is a company marking.

The 50 stamped in the upper left grip may be an inventory number, or a Dept. number, or it could mean just about anything. This also makes me think that it si a company marking.

The Belt model aren’t rare at all. Over the years many have estimated the number made, usually 2000 to 2500 of each version, SA, and DA. An RSA member started a survey a number of years ago and found that all Belt models are sequentially numbered, as a single group, with the highest number 10, 022, so more than 10,000 were made. The survey of the Belt Models shows 57% are DA, while 42% are SA. The DA models were not listed in the 1877 or later Rem catalogs.

It’s interesting to note that while the 77, and 80 catalogs list only the SA, the catalog illustration is a DA model.

If the Belt models in Europe are mostly percussion, we can guess that Samuel sold a lot of them for the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71.

As to the number in the grip of the Belt models in Europe, could they be from a French contract? Another guess is that a company ordered a group of Belts and stamped the number in the grip. There are just too many possibilities to know with finding some documents.

If you’d like, I can send a little more info on the Belt Models.

Daniel

[karu]

Hi Daniel,
Thank you for your answer, for all your informations.
It’s always a pleasure to share new and unknown stamps especially when they are hard to identified.
EDW is apparently not the abbreviation of a famous Company.. too bad !
May be from a dealer or a retailer (gunsmith)..?
I also had in mind and I don’t know why, that it could have a link with the delivery of the last lot of Army revolvers (from Remington’s first revolver contract), the serial number being very close.

« The Belt model aren’t rare at all. »
I did believe the Belt model was scarce.. and that’s why I urged myself to buy a specimen a few days ago..
I wish I had the information sooner.. lol
I’m glad to see that the survey comes from a RSA Member.
Those new informations are priceless and very helpful ! Thanks to him.
If I can, I will tried to post as many informations as possible.

The survey is visibly progressing well since you already know the distribution between SA and DA revolvers !
Bravo !
Is it true to say that DA revolvers were not very popular at that time ? It may be the cause for the early cessation of the DA production..

Questions ;
SA and DA were both issued with a spare part cylinder for metallic cartridges ?
Why there is a hole in the handle on some specimen (where the main spring is located)?

As to the number in the grip of the Belt models in Europe, could they be from a French contract?
There is a possibility because I have a Starr 1863 Army, with a number (28) on the right side of the grip.
That revolver is one of the 20.000 revolvers purchased by the French governement when the war started in 1870.
The way the number is located, on the right side or the left side of the grips, is may be a clue.
Belt models seems to have a number on the left side of the grip while the others (US percussion revolvers - all brands combined) have a number on the right side..
A french member, Patbar owns some SA and DA specimen and he wrote an interesting post on a french forum.
He is also registred as a RSA member, so I hope he will share some informations with us.

DLN, your help couldn’t have come at a better time, so I thank you very much for all the informations you could provide to me.
Sorry to be so long..
Thanks again,
Karu

[aardq]

Hi Karu,

No one knows why Remington stopped making the DAs, but poor sales is the most likely reason. Another reason may be the production cost was more than the SAs, or that the DAs had problems requiring repair. But they still made about 5,000 DAs (we think), and of the guns reported so far (250), 57% were DAs.

I have to stress that the reported number is about 250 out of 10,000, which is only 2.5% of the total production. It is generally believed that no real conclusions can be made until a minimum sample of 10% is reached. This means that any conclusions made before the sample is 1,000 guns, is only a guess.

Spare cylinders were available with any model, at any time, but they had to be ordered, and they were an extra cost item. After 1873, when the guns were made in 38rf, the percussion cylinder could still be used, so the cylinders were available, but not usually included with the gun unless it was cased.

You didn’t specify where in the grip frame the hole is located. The DA has a main spring screw that entered from the outside of the backstrap, about 1/3 or the way from the bottom of the grip frame. If you see a hole, then the screw is missing. This should be the only hole in the Belt frame.

Could you send us a copy of the article that Patbar wrote, even if it's in French.? We can get an on line translation.

Interesting Belt Model sidelights:

The last fluted cylinder is 2655, but it is an outlier from the next last number, 844.
The last DA is 9794, but it is an outlier from the next last DA, number 5806.
The highest reported serial is 16948 which is an outlier from the next highest number, 10 022.

No, I can't explain any of the outliers.

Daniel

[karu]

Hi Daniel,
A good survey asks more questions than it solves !
So you’re on the good way and I hope you will reach the 10% or more.
The huge gap in the serial number range is very interesting.
It looks like a whole lot has disappear or was never manufactured..

I don’t know for the DAs and my ask was for the SAs.
Where the main spring screw is supposed to enter on the SAs ?
From inside or outside, that’s the question..
Normally from inside and that’s why I can’t explain the hole in the backstrap for some SA revolvers.

I did have a SA (#6012) and as you can see there is no « hole » in the backstrap.
The main spring screw then entering from inside.

#6012.jpg (925.9 KiB) Viewed 3848 times

On SA #3089, the main spring screw enters from inside although there is a hole in the backstrap.

#3089.jpg (133.33 KiB) Viewed 3848 times

Do the 2 models have the same frame ?
If so, may be, the SAs with a hole in backstrap were originally manufactured to be marketed as DAs.. ? ?
Pure supposition..

You can find KAISERKILLER’s article on the web ;
https://www.passionmilitaria.com/t15865 ... -francaise

« KAISERKILLER ne m’en voudra pas j’espère, je l’ai trouvé en me baladant sur le net et je lui tire mon chapeau pour sa collection et son bel article d’ailleurs ».

Thank you very much Daniel, I really hope that the survey will be successful.
karu

[aardq]

Hi Karu,

First let me say that the Belt Model survey is not mine, it is the project of Jim Skelly, I only helped him gather serial numbers and info.

There are no real gaps in the Belt serials, there are enough through the full range from 4 to 10,022. The large gaps only exist between the highest number of a type, and the second highest number in that same type. The gaps are an oddity and we know of no explanation for the huge gaps.

The frames of Remington guns were cast, and the mainspring holder is part of the frame. The SA spring was attached at the lower front of the frame, and the DA spring was attached at the lower rear of the frame. Moldenhauer noted that some SA were made on DA frames. In the photo, the arrow points to the mainspring screw in the DA backstrap.

[attachment=1]DA Belt spring screw-2.jpg[/attachment]

Most collectors believe that there were different frames made for the SA, and the DA. Looking at the frames that I have, and without taking any dimensions, it may be that there was only one frame made. It is possible that the frames were made with metal in the front and rear of the lower inside of the frame. The frames were machined with a slot for one style, and the “excess” metal on the other side of the frame machined away.

Your questions:
1) There is no mainspring screw on the SAs, but Moldenhauer’s drawing shows a small spring screw, on the inside of a SA that was made on a DA frame.

2) The frames of the SA and DA are the same size, and as above, most think that each had it’s own frame. It is possible that only one frame was made as I said above. Moldenhauer did find at least one SA that was made on a DA frame, and there likely could have been more. The hole would have been drilled into the frame after the initial machining had been done. Take off the grips of the gun in question and you can tell if the frame was machined as a SA, or a DA. Your photo doesn’t clearly show if the hole has one diameter, or if it is a two diameter hole to allow the screw head to be recessed. If it is a two diameter hole, then as you suspect, it may have been drilled for a DA, but made as a SA.

[karu]

Hi Daniel,
I thank you and will answer you tomorrow.

Just to say..
A DA Model will be in auction in 2 days in Paris.
That DA #57 is interesting!
Could you please take a look at the pictures (on the survey).
I will contact the seller tomorrow so if you have any questions about it, do not hesitate!

Thanks,
Karu

[karu]

Hi Daniel,
Thanks to Mr. Moldenhauer and you, I better understand now.
I sold my SA #6012 and unfortunately I don’t have any picture of the grip frame.

My presumption is that Remington made logically and economically only one frame.
The 2 revolvers are « 6 shooters » and the frame is the main component of the gun.
The fact that they share the same serial number range seems to go in that way.
I believe that the early Belt revolvers (DA & SA) were made, with a mainspring holder in a different location, as you’re already said ;
- at the lower rear of the grip frame for the DA,
- at the lower front of the grip frame for the SA.

The mainspring holder of the SA is deep and makes a good angle for the mainspring and then no screw is necessary.
I don’t know much about the DA but it looks to me that the mainspring holder was placed at the rear because of its mechanism.. The mainspring tension is good enough and not too hard for a DA.
After a while, Remington decided to save cost and to placed the mainspring holder at the same place for both.
For the SA, a new screw was added inside to? ... secure the mainspring position??

It’s likely that a change during manufacturing appears ?
It could explain why most of the SAs I’ve seen, in the middle serial number range, has the mainspring holder at the rear.

SA #1557

img_2210.jpg (166.87 KiB) Viewed 3822 times

img_2203.jpg (59.15 KiB) Viewed 3822 times

#3089

#3089 2.jpg (255.01 KiB) Viewed 3822 times

From top to bottom (et merci beaucoup à KAISERKILLER)
SA #4297
SA #4230
DA #1890

SA frame.jpg (240.35 KiB) Viewed 3822 times

The most important point is to determine once for all if the 2 models has the same frame.
The shape of the grip frame is sometimes surprising and seems to be different..
Otherwise I found only minor differences.

Thanks once again Daniel, Mr. Moldenhauer.
It’s very interesting to learn and communicate on the story of those beauties !
Karu

[aardq]

Hi Karu,

Karl Moldenhauer was a well known collector, and student of Remington guns. He died many years ago.

It would seem logical that Rem would use the same frames for the SA and the DA, and just machined the spring slot where it was needed for either a SA, or a DA. When replacing the grips after taking the photos, I discovered that the grips are NOT interchangeable! Without checking the frame dimensions, the only reason that comes to mind is that the frames are slightly different, as you believe.

The importance of the spring location was never known, so it was not asked in the Belt Survey. And there is no way now to get that info for more than a few of the 300+ guns that have been recorded. Hopefully, any future survey will include the spring slot location. It would be interesting to see how many of each style were made.

We don’t know if only the early guns were made with the spring slot in different locations. You are correct that the SA spring location in the front of the frame is enough to keep the spring in place, and provide the needed tension. The DA spring does need the spring screw to keep the correct tension on the spring.

Your idea that Rem may have gone to a uniform spring location makes sense. It would be nice to know if Rem did do this, but does the spring location really mean anything? To get answers would need a further survey of the spring location.

“For the SA, a new screw was added inside to? ... secure the mainspring position?”
The screw may be needed to help keep proper spring tension. From the photos I can’t tell if the springs are the same size or it they are interchangeable. The DA spring has a greater bend than the SA springs, but why? Is it because they are different, or is it because of their location in the frames?

This is an interesting conversation and I have learned from it. I have saved patbar’s post and am translating it, but the translation program is not 100% accurate. Hopefully he is following this discussion and will send us hit thoughts.

Daniel

[karu]

Hi Daniel,
It’s a sad news. I’m sorry and confused, I didn't know he has died.
I really hope his survey will continue and progress thanks to the enthusiasm he has aroused.

I thank you very much for your answer, it’s a great pleasure for me !
Unfortunately, I can’t anwser you any further at the moment but I'll do it as soon as possible.

Karu

[Patbar]

...............................................................................................
This is an interesting conversation and I have learned from it. I have saved patbar’s post and am translating it, but the translation program is not 100% accurate. Hopefully he is following this discussion and will send us hit thoughts.
Daniel

Hi Daniel,
I am following this discussion, but I don't know which of my posts you mean. Can you tell me more ?

[aardq]

Hi Karu, and Patbar,

Karl Moldenhauer died about 20 years ago. He sold off his Remington collection in October, 1980. His collection was photographed for the auction catalog, and a book, "The Karl F Moldenhauer Collection of Remington Arms was published in 1980. The first edition was 2,500 copies, and copies of this book are still floating around. Do a Google search for him and you find a lot of references to his collection and this book.

The Belt survey is by RSA member James Skelly. I know that Jim has had some age related health issues, and I haven't heard from him in several months. I just sent him an email telling him about this discussion.

Jim is interested in the Belt Models and began his survey about 2017 to get information about them. His goal was to learn more about them, and to write one of two articles about his findings on the Belt Models. As yet, he has not written the articles.

Patbar, the reference to your post was about a post you have on another web site. Karu was kind enough to send me the link to the post. I have a lot going on right now and haven't finished translating that post. Either of you may contact me at: aardqe5@gmail.com. I will post here about the short barreled Belt models shortly.

Thank you both for an informative and interesting discussion.
Daniel