It never fails to tickle me that White got screwed in the Rollin White Patent Deal himself. Whoever inked that license contract on the Smith & Wesson side must have laughed himself to sleep that night.
@@romajimamulo It was part of the deal, S&W got to keep all the money they made off the license they acquired from White to make the through bore cylinder patent and HE was to fight all the cases in their stead...Basically White was required to spend the money he got from royalties fighting each case and that left him less well off then he should have been had S&W got off their asses and helped fight the cases a lot more than they actually did. However, White could have easily pulled the license from them and S&W weren't about to let that happen so they did pull "some" weight in the courtroom but the majority of the work was done by White...I still think that S&W should have paid at least 1/3-1/2 of the profits they made off the guns that were "sold" to them to White but iv'e never found any info mentioning that they did hand over any money to him.
@@romajimamulo Essentially yes, while they made the money from the patent he was obligated to fight all cases mostly by himself....It's something i like to call "Maximizing profits and let the others deal with it" S&W were maximizing the amount of money they made from selling revolvers with Whites patent cylinder while spending as little as possible for the court things.
I really like the overall design of this pistol. The hidden turnscrew/shell ejector was also a neat touch. The rimfire blade on the hammer looks like it could have been easily converted to centerfire. Also the recoil shield that encapsulates the cylinder intrigues me.
I love the aesthetics of firearms from this era; mid 19th to early 20th century. They're just so elegant and well-proportioned -- things of beauty as well as function; which you just don't see with modern firearms design at all; no matter how expensive or how nice the fit & finish are. Modern (or rather, post modern) aesthetics are dull, bland and boring. Architecture is exactly the same way, and vehicle design.... Really most things. Aesthetics peaked in the Victorian era.
Svelte little revolver, I like that the top of the grip- the brass portion of it- looks like a rifle's wrist. Pretty nice sights for the time as well, looks like a nice shooter.
I have a 22lr revolver where the rims are not recessed in the cylinder. What I do to carry it safely is to rest the firing pin in between the rims. That way the cylinder cannot rotate and the hammer isn't over a primer. It looks like that would work with this revolver as well.
Hey Ian, have you ever thought about doing a long form video on Rollin White's patent ? It would make a great introduction since the topic comes up very often.
Could you not rest the firing pin between cartridges? Pulling the hammer back slightly would release the cylinder and you can turn it halfway between. The mechanics make sense in my hand, though I do not have the revolver in my hand.
You would think the hinge location that Mr Pond used would be obvious for strength. I wonder why S&W didn't think of it? Or was Pond's patent in their way?
technically you don't get chain fires with 'cartridge guns" although one overloaded cartridge exploding, would damage the gun and maybe set off the rounds in the adjacent chambers
This whole patent infringement issue was absolutely ridiculous. Pinfires had been using bored-through cylinders for a couple of decades by the time of the lawsuits. Imagine if Union troops could have been armed with Ponds, or even better - Prescott or Bacon Navy revolvers in .38 Rimfire. It's really hard to believe that the US court system upheld the Rollin White patent, especially during wartime. Shame on them. Bacons and Prescotts were solid frames and weren't surpassed until about five years after the war. Pond's .44 Henry revolvers would have been just the tip of the iceberg,
I'm surprised nobody at this time didn't make a gun were you could switch out different cylinders and barrels for a revolver, that would have gotten around the patten and would have been a pretty cool design. And by switching out cylinders I mean individual chambers that are dovetailed connected to the central spindle, so the different rounds would line up with the barrel and the firing pin. So you could have one in 38 and 357 and 9 mm and 380. Or different 44/45 calibers or 32 and 7.65 ect even down to .22 long rifle and 22 magnum. I think that gun would still be popular today.
Also if it isn't patented no one's steall my idea, without at least giving me credit and a kick back. Obviously I don't have the capability to manufacture a prototype myself or I would.
I have a pond pistol with lever cylinder release not a button. No smith and Wesson marks only L W Pond 1860 mass with no serial number . Where can I find more info?
I've read that a top break revolver, as convenient as it is (and as cool looking as it is) puts too much strain on the hinge, which is why it has largely gone out of favor. I think a bottom break revolver like this would still suffer from strain to the hinge. Not as much as a top break, but still enough. Plus its not really convenient (and looks silly) so I see can why it never took off. I agree that the patent office should never have approved such a basic physical feature as straight bored through chambers. It certainly wasn't the last time the patent office rubber stamped something that shouldn't have been approved, only to see it abused by a patent troll later.
i would like to see one of those on here with it being my favourite sniper rifle ashame they had to stop production because they were to expensive to make
this Rollin White pops up now and then here. It would be interesting to have a close look at one of his own guns also. So please put it on the wish list.
SgtKOnyx Nope, look at the definition. S&W was just the company that bought the patent to preclude challenges, which is/ was common practice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
farmerboy916 Their agreement with White meant that they got almost all the money and he had to sue people who violated the patent. Sounds trolly to me.
Was it impossible to drop the hammer in-between cartridge rims and carry fully loaded? Since the hammer was already down, a blow to the hammer wouldn't matter and it would probably take considerable force to rotate the hammer and force it to override a cartridge rim.
It expired in 1870, and the SAA was introduced in 1873. Colt introduced the Open Top and sold it from 1870-1872 as an intermediary using cartridges but built largely on 1860 Army parts.
I love the aesthetics of firearms from this era; mid 19th to early 20th century. They're just so elegant and well-proportioned -- things of beauty as well as function; which you just don't see with modern firearms design at all; no matter how expensive or how nice the fit & finish are. Modern (or rather, post modern) aesthetics are dull, bland and boring. Architecture is exactly the same way, and vehicle design.... Really most things. Aesthetics peaked in the Victorian era.
I wonder if anyone made a revolver that as built complied with the patent, but allowed the user to easily modify it to be a bored through cylinder and thus be able to infringe on the patent.
Not really. In order not to infringe the patent the only way was to make revolvers that load from the front of the cylinders. Such a revolver could only be convertible if it was a cilinder that comes out sideways like a typical modern revolver, and that wasn't invented yet.
+Jack Mcslay Why do you say that? You can easily remove cylinders in muzzleloading revolvers, and it's something which would be done today considering how easily it could be done (considering how widespread and relatively inexpensive power tools are; it isn't really done today, because of laws which make specifically this... impractical, so we still only have cartridge conversion cylinders). It wasn't done because it'd be beyond the vast majority of people's ability at the time; not much of a market.
farmerboy916 By muzzleloading revolvers I assume you mean percussion revolvers, yes but it would be really impractical because you'd have to disassemble it to reload
Jack Mcslay Yeah, but it was done with old percussion revolvers. Often (especially when it was a revolver that didn't have a very easily removable cylinder; revolvers like the Remington 1858 had quick change cylinder capability) a loading gate and so on was installed. There were a wide variety of this sort of cartridge conversion, which also bridged the gap between black powder and purpose built cartridge revolvers. Still easier than loading a percussion revolver, and cheaper than buying a new one. I believe Ian has a video on some. There would have been nothing at the time preventing a person from manufacturing a percussion revolver which could be easily converted, other than steel quality, the concept not really being there, and the lack of machining which the common man could do. Today, it's something that has been considered a loophole in firearms law as muzzle-loading weapons have relatively few laws applied to them, and therefore shut off excepting more traditional cartridge conversions as described above. Essentially, you'd never get permission to have them manufactured or imported. Like being shot with a percussion revolver is somehow much better.
The Rollin White patent is a case where patenting an obvious feature (such as drilling a hole clean through) simply costs both sides money. Were there any successful attempts around this? For instance, since you could have bored-through barrels, having groups of shorter rotating "barrels" with a single fixed "barrel extension" in front of them....or other ridiculous ideas like that.
toomanyaccounts yea, I have seen them. I meant more of a case of working around the definition of such a ridiculous patent to achieve a bored-through cylinder (rather than avoid it) without actually infringing the patent.
I suppose a metallic cartridge pepperbox pistol wouldn't have infringed on the patent, it would just be very front heavy in any sort of military calibre. Think of something like the R.I.P.D. pistols without the stubby barrel. cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/ripd-ryan-reynolds.jpg
Jeff NME yes, that's the kind of definitional workarounds. They might as well add a barrel in front of the pepperbox and claim it is valid. "it's not a cylinder, they are all barrels!"
Are you sure you would have to remove the cylinder first to push out a stuck case you couldn't just rotate it to where the stuck case is and push it out with that little screwdriver tool on the side where you can get to the round.
I really would like to see this goofy workaround, it sounds quite interesting (not very practical, but I couldn't care less if the workaround simply is crazy enough to make up for that ^^).
From a video game. It is a gun with the barrel curved backwards, aiming at the user. When used with The Bullet that can Kill the Past, it gives the user a seconds try on a past event.
Design the pistol so that drilling out the firing pin hole in the cylinder it'll take the cartridge of your choice but sell it in a silly proprietary cartridge with the performance of say Henry .44 rimfire.
Many patents of the time were really bad. I am not sure what the patent office was up too, but you see many patents of the time on things that were patent in the past and long since expired, or patents on things like holding something on with a screw, not innovative in any way.
This is a really sweet looking gun- for whatever shortcomings it has, like the tipping mechanism for this barrel assembly. Sure, he copied and infringed upon patents by S&W, as well as its inventor. HOWEVER, it’s sleek, dangerous, and an impressive, vintage pistol.
what screwed White was his legal agreement with S&W it required him to defend the patent if they had been spending their money (as sole licensee) White would have died a wealthy man from the royalties as it was he spent all his money fighting and S&W reaped the benefit
Mr_Wizard Then they probably wouldn't have bothered to use the patent to try and control the market, just get it ruled that White's patent did not cover such cylinders (which it really, really shouldn't have in the first place). The reason S&W bothered at all was to create a legal monopoly to prevent a challenge in the market. Don't make White out to be a poor guy who was ripped off; he used a broken system to hold back technological development by forcing everyone within a set geographical area to not use an idea which had already been around for a while. A design which he didn't even come up with that was only covered because he was shit at designing guns and there wasn't much pinfire interest in the US at the time; even then it was a stretch that probably only was upheld because it benefited his wealthy manufacturing backers. He did so by using and abusing the law, thereby using the force and power of the government to coerce others into complying with his will. He was a prick opportunist who got what he deserved; a bank account which matched his morality.
farmerboy916 The man died destitute because he had to spend his own money fighting the court cases. He is not the bad guy. The person who gave him the patent in the first place is.
In reality I am thinking that this is only a 5 shot as only someone with a death wish would carry the 6th shot in the chamber the hammer was sitting on.
It never fails to tickle me that White got screwed in the Rollin White Patent Deal himself. Whoever inked that license contract on the Smith & Wesson side must have laughed himself to sleep that night.
ZGryphon
Ha ha
I seriously wonder: Was he contractually obligated to sue everyone they wanted him to?
@@romajimamulo It was part of the deal, S&W got to keep all the money they made off the license they acquired from White to make the through bore cylinder patent and HE was to fight all the cases in their stead...Basically White was required to spend the money he got from royalties fighting each case and that left him less well off then he should have been had S&W got off their asses and helped fight the cases a lot more than they actually did.
However, White could have easily pulled the license from them and S&W weren't about to let that happen so they did pull "some" weight in the courtroom but the majority of the work was done by White...I still think that S&W should have paid at least 1/3-1/2 of the profits they made off the guns that were "sold" to them to White but iv'e never found any info mentioning that they did hand over any money to him.
@@MegaRazorback so effectively: As long as he gave S&W the license, he basically was contractually obligated to deal with all lawsuits
@@romajimamulo Essentially yes, while they made the money from the patent he was obligated to fight all cases mostly by himself....It's something i like to call "Maximizing profits and let the others deal with it" S&W were maximizing the amount of money they made from selling revolvers with Whites patent cylinder while spending as little as possible for the court things.
SO COOL! Especially the wee Screwdriver! Thank you GunGuru Ian!
I really like the overall design of this pistol. The hidden turnscrew/shell ejector was also a neat touch. The rimfire blade on the hammer looks like it could have been easily converted to centerfire. Also the recoil shield that encapsulates the cylinder intrigues me.
I love the aesthetics of firearms from this era; mid 19th to early 20th century. They're just so elegant and well-proportioned -- things of beauty as well as function; which you just don't see with modern firearms design at all; no matter how expensive or how nice the fit & finish are. Modern (or rather, post modern) aesthetics are dull, bland and boring. Architecture is exactly the same way, and vehicle design.... Really most things. Aesthetics peaked in the Victorian era.
That's a graceful little gun. A replica in .32 short would be a nice plinker.
NAA really should add 32s to their revolver line.
Svelte little revolver, I like that the top of the grip- the brass portion of it- looks like a rifle's wrist. Pretty nice sights for the time as well, looks like a nice shooter.
not going to lie, after looking at the thumbnail I thought it was a backwards pistol that would shoot the user in the face for about 5 seconds
Ha, just saw your comment, thought the same thing.
Tehe, you were not the only one. ;D
I saw it too. That's some loony toons shit right there.
the french suicide pistol of 1867, a classic
+Anhk94 Brings new meaning to "dropped once" eh🍻
The Pond is truly an elegant design!
I still love the S&W 1½ new model tip up, which I am lucky to own an example of.
I really appreciate the history you highlight in these.
This was one of the cases of patent laws being abused by the corrupt industrialist!
100% This is the reason I will never buy a Smith & Wesson.
Seems like the hinge design would be more easily scaleable for more powerful cartridges than one forward of the cylinder as well.
But that barrel catch looks feeble in the extreme - it's tiny!
This is a really cool revolver.
The video's thumbnail made me think of the "if internet explorer was a gun" meme.
The table, logo and Ian's Goatee are all centered and symmetrical! The promised land indeed!
I have a 22lr revolver where the rims are not recessed in the cylinder. What I do to carry it safely is to rest the firing pin in between the rims. That way the cylinder cannot rotate and the hammer isn't over a primer. It looks like that would work with this revolver as well.
What a beautiful, elegant revolver
Nice simple looking design . . . a gentleman's pistol.
Hey Ian, have you ever thought about doing a long form video on Rollin White's patent ? It would make a great introduction since the topic comes up very often.
Would have love to seen the .44 rim fire.
This page has it.
sportsmansvintagepress.com/read-free/smith-wesson-hand-guns/rollin-white-patent/
Could you not rest the firing pin between cartridges? Pulling the hammer back slightly would release the cylinder and you can turn it halfway between. The mechanics make sense in my hand, though I do not have the revolver in my hand.
You would think the hinge location that Mr Pond used would be obvious for strength. I wonder why S&W didn't think of it? Or was Pond's patent in their way?
That would have been ironic🍻
I just get this image, with a catastrophic chainfire accident, the whole hinged bit just flying up.
technically you don't get chain fires with 'cartridge guns"
although one overloaded cartridge exploding, would damage the gun and maybe set off the rounds in the adjacent chambers
Ian, you have clearly spent some time in New England. Not too many people pronounce Worcester correctly.
Could also be old England.
@@MrAwawe And how Worcester, the county town of Worcestershire is pronounced by them
I'm not really into old revolvers, but I really like that one for some reason.
I hate to say this but.....
first.
second lol
My name says it all.
epic
Its great to see all of these historic firearms. Thanks for continuing to work with Ian!
This whole patent infringement issue was absolutely ridiculous. Pinfires had been using bored-through cylinders for a couple of decades by the time of the lawsuits. Imagine if Union troops could have been armed with Ponds, or even better - Prescott or Bacon Navy revolvers in .38 Rimfire. It's really hard to believe that the US court system upheld the Rollin White patent, especially during wartime. Shame on them. Bacons and Prescotts were solid frames and weren't surpassed until about five years after the war. Pond's .44 Henry revolvers would have been just the tip of the iceberg,
I'm surprised nobody at this time didn't make a gun were you could switch out different cylinders and barrels for a revolver, that would have gotten around the patten and would have been a pretty cool design. And by switching out cylinders I mean individual chambers that are dovetailed connected to the central spindle, so the different rounds would line up with the barrel and the firing pin. So you could have one in 38 and 357 and 9 mm and 380. Or different 44/45 calibers or 32 and 7.65 ect even down to .22 long rifle and 22 magnum. I think that gun would still be popular today.
Also if it isn't patented no one's steall my idea, without at least giving me credit and a kick back. Obviously I don't have the capability to manufacture a prototype myself or I would.
professional videos and interesting content you deserve more subs :)
I have a pond pistol with lever cylinder release not a button. No smith and Wesson marks only L W Pond 1860 mass with no serial number . Where can I find more info?
I've read that a top break revolver, as convenient as it is (and as cool looking as it is) puts too much strain on the hinge, which is why it has largely gone out of favor.
I think a bottom break revolver like this would still suffer from strain to the hinge. Not as much as a top break, but still enough. Plus its not really convenient (and looks silly) so I see can why it never took off.
I agree that the patent office should never have approved such a basic physical feature as straight bored through chambers. It certainly wasn't the last time the patent office rubber stamped something that shouldn't have been approved, only to see it abused by a patent troll later.
Hey Ian (cool name right?) do you think you will ever come across an elusive WA 2000?
Eventually, yes.
i would like to see one of those on here with it being my favourite sniper rifle ashame they had to stop production because they were to expensive to make
That would be amazing!
@Graham Lol holy shit this is an old post. Yea I've seen the videos within the past 4 years.
@Graham *grabs Seige mask and plate carrier and heads to nearest riots
Interest revolver in small caliber.
But I don't understand how we eject empty cartridges after firing.
NB. Nice collection videos, thanks
Ejector rod underneath the barrel. Remove the cylinder and reverse it. Bacons also worked this way, as did early S&Ws.
trying to figure out why youd need to remove the cylinder to extract a cartidge.. clearly that would be unnecessary.
S&W should have worked with Pond on the .44. There would have been some large amount of private sales during the war for both of them.
this Rollin White pops up now and then here. It would be interesting to have a close look at one of his own guns also. So please put it on the wish list.
His gun was never manufactured.
+Forgotten Weapons Which is part of what makes Rollin White essentially a patent troll.
+farmerboy916 I think S&W were the actual trolls
SgtKOnyx Nope, look at the definition. S&W was just the company that bought the patent to preclude challenges, which is/ was common practice.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
farmerboy916 Their agreement with White meant that they got almost all the money and he had to sue people who violated the patent. Sounds trolly to me.
Looks like a crack in the recoil shield?
We need more guns like this in FPS games.
Was it impossible to drop the hammer in-between cartridge rims and carry fully loaded? Since the hammer was already down, a blow to the hammer wouldn't matter and it would probably take considerable force to rotate the hammer and force it to override a cartridge rim.
Yes. It was meant to be carried the way you describe.
So Colt had the patent on cocking the hammer and Smith and Wesson had the bore through cylinder...
When did that patent run out. What did colt do when they designed their single action army?
It expired in 1870, and the SAA was introduced in 1873. Colt introduced the Open Top and sold it from 1870-1872 as an intermediary using cartridges but built largely on 1860 Army parts.
Is this the same lucius Pond the machine tool maker? That became Niles, Bement, and Pond (aka Pratt & whitney)?
Did the Prescott that's with this in the lot befall a similar fate?
I love the aesthetics of firearms from this era; mid 19th to early 20th century. They're just so elegant and well-proportioned -- things of beauty as well as function; which you just don't see with modern firearms design at all; no matter how expensive or how nice the fit & finish are. Modern (or rather, post modern) aesthetics are dull, bland and boring. Architecture is exactly the same way, and vehicle design.... Really most things. Aesthetics peaked in the Victorian era.
How much would a carbine have cost back then? And what would that be in today's currency?
This looks like a heckuva lot better handgun than the S&W Model 1 1/2.
Is that a repaired fracture to the left of the hammer?
I wonder how many people clicked this thinking that it was a gun made by the band Pond.
Is it safe to fire, provided one can get the ammo?
From the thumbnail of the video, for a second I thought it was about a suicide gun
Anyone know how I could message ian or forgotten weapons channel about a firearm I need some info on?
Cracked frame?
I wonder if anyone made a revolver that as built complied with the patent, but allowed the user to easily modify it to be a bored through cylinder and thus be able to infringe on the patent.
Not really. In order not to infringe the patent the only way was to make revolvers that load from the front of the cylinders. Such a revolver could only be convertible if it was a cilinder that comes out sideways like a typical modern revolver, and that wasn't invented yet.
+Jack Mcslay Why do you say that? You can easily remove cylinders in muzzleloading revolvers, and it's something which would be done today considering how easily it could be done (considering how widespread and relatively inexpensive power tools are; it isn't really done today, because of laws which make specifically this... impractical, so we still only have cartridge conversion cylinders). It wasn't done because it'd be beyond the vast majority of people's ability at the time; not much of a market.
farmerboy916
By muzzleloading revolvers I assume you mean percussion revolvers, yes but it would be really impractical because you'd have to disassemble it to reload
Jack Mcslay Yeah, but it was done with old percussion revolvers. Often (especially when it was a revolver that didn't have a very easily removable cylinder; revolvers like the Remington 1858 had quick change cylinder capability) a loading gate and so on was installed. There were a wide variety of this sort of cartridge conversion, which also bridged the gap between black powder and purpose built cartridge revolvers. Still easier than loading a percussion revolver, and cheaper than buying a new one. I believe Ian has a video on some.
There would have been nothing at the time preventing a person from manufacturing a percussion revolver which could be easily converted, other than steel quality, the concept not really being there, and the lack of machining which the common man could do.
Today, it's something that has been considered a loophole in firearms law as muzzle-loading weapons have relatively few laws applied to them, and therefore shut off excepting more traditional cartridge conversions as described above. Essentially, you'd never get permission to have them manufactured or imported. Like being shot with a percussion revolver is somehow much better.
The 80% revolver?
Why dont they reproduce these?
That tip up break action annoys the hell outa my brain.
6:53 ...I heard you make that bweeoop sound :p
Lol! A little water drip. Ian has a very talented voice.
The Rollin White patent is a case where patenting an obvious feature (such as drilling a hole clean through) simply costs both sides money.
Were there any successful attempts around this?
For instance, since you could have bored-through barrels, having groups of shorter rotating "barrels" with a single fixed "barrel extension" in front of them....or other ridiculous ideas like that.
toomanyaccounts yea, I have seen them. I meant more of a case of working around the definition of such a ridiculous patent to achieve a bored-through cylinder (rather than avoid it) without actually infringing the patent.
I suppose a metallic cartridge pepperbox pistol wouldn't have infringed on the patent, it would just be very front heavy in any sort of military calibre. Think of something like the R.I.P.D. pistols without the stubby barrel.
cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/ripd-ryan-reynolds.jpg
Jeff NME yes, that's the kind of definitional workarounds. They might as well add a barrel in front of the pepperbox and claim it is valid.
"it's not a cylinder, they are all barrels!"
The number of people who thought this was a suicide gun is disturbing
Are you sure you would have to remove the cylinder first to push out a stuck case you couldn't just rotate it to where the stuck case is and push it out with that little screwdriver tool on the side where you can get to the round.
"I'm Ian, and I'm an ammoholic"
Hi Ian
From the thumbnail I had a half second when I thought you were reviewing the Darwin pistol. Oh well, maybe next time....
That screwdriver looks like the base of a cartridge to me, is it something a previous owner might have done himself?
I really would like to see this goofy workaround, it sounds quite interesting (not very practical, but I couldn't care less if the workaround simply is crazy enough to make up for that ^^).
He actually did a video on it I think.
+SgtKOnyx he at least did a video on a removable chamber revolver
SgtKOnyx
I know, the Slocum revolver. Got it on my playlist. ;)
toomanyaccounts nothing that succeeded, what with modern revolvers using the bored through barrel.
The Moore revolver also seems to be quite good
Great ad for the legal profession - Take all of someone's money in exchange for proving that it's theirs.
Interesting video though !
how could I get to contact you on some help with some Gun related questions ?
Can this gun kill the past?
From a video game. It is a gun with the barrel curved backwards, aiming at the user. When used with The Bullet that can Kill the Past, it gives the user a seconds try on a past event.
Do you have the jury rig version? Sounds interesting.
Not yet, but when I find one I will do a video on it.
It is a neat little gun, and looks like a target pistol.
Is there any kind of extractor case in the cylinder?
Make a centerfire .32 with modern metals for the cowboy action crowd.!
Design the pistol so that drilling out the firing pin hole in the cylinder it'll take the cartridge of your choice but sell it in a silly proprietary cartridge with the performance of say Henry .44 rimfire.
The name's Pond, Lucius Pond.
Ultimate No U gun.
a .44 cal rim fire....I'll believe it when I see it
Many patents of the time were really bad. I am not sure what the patent office was up too, but you see many patents of the time on things that were patent in the past and long since expired, or patents on things like holding something on with a screw, not innovative in any way.
This is a really sweet looking gun- for whatever shortcomings it has, like the tipping mechanism for this barrel assembly. Sure, he copied and infringed upon patents by S&W, as well as its inventor. HOWEVER, it’s sleek, dangerous, and an impressive, vintage pistol.
The name's Pond, James Pond...
So really, If _every_ gun manufacturer at the time just ignored White's patent, they could have put him in serious financial trouble
Even just the ones that did so, did.
White died destitute, S&W screwed everyone over
what screwed White was his legal agreement with S&W
it required him to defend the patent
if they had been spending their money (as sole licensee) White would have died a wealthy man from the royalties
as it was he spent all his money fighting and S&W reaped the benefit
Mr_Wizard Then they probably wouldn't have bothered to use the patent to try and control the market, just get it ruled that White's patent did not cover such cylinders (which it really, really shouldn't have in the first place). The reason S&W bothered at all was to create a legal monopoly to prevent a challenge in the market.
Don't make White out to be a poor guy who was ripped off; he used a broken system to hold back technological development by forcing everyone within a set geographical area to not use an idea which had already been around for a while. A design which he didn't even come up with that was only covered because he was shit at designing guns and there wasn't much pinfire interest in the US at the time; even then it was a stretch that probably only was upheld because it benefited his wealthy manufacturing backers. He did so by using and abusing the law, thereby using the force and power of the government to coerce others into complying with his will.
He was a prick opportunist who got what he deserved; a bank account which matched his morality.
farmerboy916 The man died destitute because he had to spend his own money fighting the court cases. He is not the bad guy. The person who gave him the patent in the first place is.
On the thumbnail it looked like a gun designed for suicides, LoL!
In reality I am thinking that this is only a 5 shot as only someone with a death wish would carry the 6th shot in the chamber the hammer was sitting on.
US patent law is dumb, you have to bankrupt yourself trying to defend your patent. What good is that?
I've never seen patent law that isn't dumb. Never seen it actually protect the little guys, just allow for easy product monopolies.
Yep that's pretty much it
Hold it in the holster with a leather strap under the hammer.
Did anyone else find the thumbnail hilarious...?
... Anyone?
Raindrop
Drop top
Revolver flip top
I was like, 12-13 dollars? That's chea---Oh wait. This is ye olden days dollars. So that's probably closer to what? 50-60-100 todays dollars?
5peciesunkn0wn way off. About 350$
ESTE LAS TIENE Y LAS DISPARA COMO SE DEBE ua-cam.com/video/aUJEeVK9PSs/v-deo.html
1000 likes.
BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA
I didt watch the vid but from the thumbnail it appears to be a weapon used for suicide.