S&W 103

I'm probably going to set off a firestorm with this, but I have to ask.

Does anyone out there recall any details on the change Smith & Wesson made to the 103 and why? The differences between the first ones and later ones were:

Serial Number: Early ones had an alphabet letter at the beginning of the serial number, later ones were all numerical.

Ratchet Bow: Early ones had the "cross-hatch" strike across the bow, about 2/3 the way up on the tooth side with the teeth facing to the right. Later ones lacked this. Also, the early ones had a full tooth at the top of the ratchet, later ones had a half-tooth at the top.

Bow Dimple: Early ones had the rectangular dimple, later ones had the round one.

Swivel: On early ones, the double bow housing was slightly pressed out and the swivel operated inside. On later ones, the area was completely stamped out and a wide washer installed in which the swivel operated.

Links: Early models had "short" links that made the overall length of the cuffs about 3/8" shorter than the later ones.

Lastly, has anyone ever seen a 103 with (i) the Springfield address, (ii) stamped patent pending on the single bow and/or (iii) with a single double locking slot on the keyway side only?

Atame has a pair of single-slot "PAT'S PENDING" Model 103 handcuffs.

There are photos of them in this thread:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/261154/thread/1129396660

I'm probably going to set off a firestorm with this, but I have to ask.

Does anyone out there recall any details on the change Smith & Wesson made to the 103 and why? The differences between the first ones and later ones were:

Serial Number: Early ones had an alphabet letter at the beginning of the serial number, later ones were all numerical.

Ratchet Bow: Early ones had the "cross-hatch" strike across the bow, about 2/3 the way up on the tooth side with the teeth facing to the right. Later ones lacked this. Also, the early ones had a full tooth at the top of the ratchet, later ones had a half-tooth at the top.

Bow Dimple: Early ones had the rectangular dimple, later ones had the round one.

Swivel: On early ones, the double bow housing was slightly pressed out and the swivel operated inside. On later ones, the area was completely stamped out and a wide washer installed in which the swivel operated.

Links: Early models had "short" links that made the overall length of the cuffs about 3/8" shorter than the later ones.

Lastly, has anyone ever seen a 103 with (i) the Springfield address, (ii) stamped patent pending on the single bow and/or (iii) with a single double locking slot on the keyway side only?

Click to expand...

BFW,
I had a pair of stainless steel 103's that had the Springfield address, not marked as 103's in fact no model number marked on them. They had both slots for the double lock and they were riveted with the round heads. I don't recall how the serial number went on it. unfortunately there were stolen from the vehicle along with my laptop......

-Dorson

I'm probably going to set off a firestorm with this, but I have to ask.

Does anyone out there recall any details on the change Smith & Wesson made to the 103 and why? The differences between the first ones and later ones were:

Serial Number: Early ones had an alphabet letter at the beginning of the serial number, later ones were all numerical.

Ratchet Bow: Early ones had the "cross-hatch" strike across the bow, about 2/3 the way up on the tooth side with the teeth facing to the right. Later ones lacked this. Also, the early ones had a full tooth at the top of the ratchet, later ones had a half-tooth at the top.

Bow Dimple: Early ones had the rectangular dimple, later ones had the round one.

Swivel: On early ones, the double bow housing was slightly pressed out and the swivel operated inside. On later ones, the area was completely stamped out and a wide washer installed in which the swivel operated.

Links: Early models had "short" links that made the overall length of the cuffs about 3/8" shorter than the later ones.

Lastly, has anyone ever seen a 103 with (i) the Springfield address, (ii) stamped patent pending on the single bow and/or (iii) with a single double locking slot on the keyway side only?

Click to expand...

Thanks Terry & Dorson. The link to the photo was very helpful, although I'm now even more curious about the serial number thing.

So you'll know, I spent quite a few years in the procurement section of a police department. I got to play around with all the new stuff when it came out, which was always fun.

When S&W came out with the 100 series, the samples we got were of the nickel 100 only; none of the stainless steel or high security ones. I do remember they originally only had one double-lock slot; when they came out with two slots, I was sold on those rascals and bought myself a set of 100's (Springfield address, square dimple, patent pending, no model number, etc.).

A year or so later, I decided to get some stainless steel ones (103). What surprised me when they came in were the extruded rivet heads, which the nickel model (100) didn't have. In comparing these with 100's that other cops had, I then noticed the change from Springfield to Houlton. What also struck me as odd at the time was that mine had a serial number with an alphabet letter and five digits (F72473) while the 100's I saw all had six digit serial numbers. I knew S&W used alpha numeric serial numbers on their handguns and figured at the time they were starting to do a similar thing on handcuffs.

A while later, satisfying myself that the stainless steel cuffs were easier to maintain, I bought a second set. I immediately saw that this newer set had a six digit all numerical serial number; after messing with them some, I began to see all the other stuff (round dimple, longer links with a different type of weld, cross hatch on the bows gone, change in the last ratchet tooth and the stamped out swivel housing).

Around this time, the NIJ standards came out. For liability reasons, everybody thereafter had to have NIJ approved cuffs, which really ticked off the guys with Model 90's since, no longer being in production, S&W hadn't submitted them for testing, so all those guys had to buy new cuffs.

I've long wondered if the reason for the changes S&W made had something to do with the (then) new NIJ standards and testing, particularly the change to the swivel housing. Stamping out the swivel slots and adding a retaining washer to the swivel would increase manufacturing cost, but would probably be less likely to fail as opposed to the earlier pressed out housing with no washer. I'll admit that I'm too cheap to tear apart any old cuffs to see what's going on inside with respect to the swivel, and am relying only upon external looks.

Okay, now what has really got my curiousity up is the serial number, particularly after looking at the variety of photos and such of early 100's and 103's throughout the Forum. Other than the extruded rivet heads on the 103's it seems the changes in the 103 mirrored those of the 100. In the picture of Atame's 103's, which are clearly older than my first set, they have a six digit all numerical serial number (347507), which is a higher serial number than my second set(318414) which are undoubtedly much newer than his. Since NIJ standards require a serial number, common sense tells you that they would be sequential. On the 100's I've seen the numbers (all numeric) start out low (six digits with zeroes at the beginning in old cuffs) and get higher. On the 103's the number starts out really high (Atame's cuffs), changes to alpha numeric (my first set) then go to all numeric in a lower serial number range (my second set). That is just plain weird.

I do recall a guy in the evidence section one time griping that S&W was of no help in helping trace handcuff serial numbers (unlike Peerless). What's really been bugging me is that the alpha numeric serial numbers S&W used on their handguns, while a little complicated, had a logic to them whereby you could track different models and changes within a model over time.

Oh, well. Even if I never get this figured out, the sun will still come up in the morning.

Thanks again guys.

I'm probably going to set off a firestorm with this, but I have to ask.

Does anyone out there recall any details on the change Smith & Wesson made to the 103 and why? The differences between the first ones and later ones were:

Serial Number: Early ones had an alphabet letter at the beginning of the serial number, later ones were all numerical.

Ratchet Bow: Early ones had the "cross-hatch" strike across the bow, about 2/3 the way up on the tooth side with the teeth facing to the right. Later ones lacked this. Also, the early ones had a full tooth at the top of the ratchet, later ones had a half-tooth at the top.

Bow Dimple: Early ones had the rectangular dimple, later ones had the round one.

Swivel: On early ones, the double bow housing was slightly pressed out and the swivel operated inside. On later ones, the area was completely stamped out and a wide washer installed in which the swivel operated.

Links: Early models had "short" links that made the overall length of the cuffs about 3/8" shorter than the later ones.

Lastly, has anyone ever seen a 103 with (i) the Springfield address, (ii) stamped patent pending on the single bow and/or (iii) with a single double locking slot on the keyway side only?

Click to expand...

BFW,
I have seen the inside of the old model 90's and there is no doubt that they would pass NIJ Standards. I suspect the reason S&W did not submit the old model 90's for testing is that they were not longer going to be made. And why spend money to have something you are discontinueing and you are in business to sell new stuff. Personally, I like the old model 90's even if the spring tension is high on them. They were a much higher quality cuff and better craftsmanship then the new stuff.

-Dorson

I'm probably going to set off a firestorm with this, but I have to ask.

Does anyone out there recall any details on the change Smith & Wesson made to the 103 and why? The differences between the first ones and later ones were:

Serial Number: Early ones had an alphabet letter at the beginning of the serial number, later ones were all numerical.

Ratchet Bow: Early ones had the "cross-hatch" strike across the bow, about 2/3 the way up on the tooth side with the teeth facing to the right. Later ones lacked this. Also, the early ones had a full tooth at the top of the ratchet, later ones had a half-tooth at the top.

Bow Dimple: Early ones had the rectangular dimple, later ones had the round one.

Swivel: On early ones, the double bow housing was slightly pressed out and the swivel operated inside. On later ones, the area was completely stamped out and a wide washer installed in which the swivel operated.

Links: Early models had "short" links that made the overall length of the cuffs about 3/8" shorter than the later ones.

Lastly, has anyone ever seen a 103 with (i) the Springfield address, (ii) stamped patent pending on the single bow and/or (iii) with a single double locking slot on the keyway side only?

Click to expand...

"Okay, now what has really got my curiousity up is the serial number, particularly after looking at the variety of photos and such of early 100's and 103's throughout the Forum. Other than the extruded rivet heads on the 103's it seems the changes in the 103 mirrored those of the 100."


BFW,

I was also puzzled by the apparently recent inclusion of the large protruding rivet just above the cheek plate on the new 103s. While I don’t currently own the 103s, I have a fairly late model (about 2 years old) set of 104 (max security) cuffs that -- aside from the lock -- have the same features. Back when the 104 came out, the shop that we bought our cuffs from always charged a hefty premium for the 104s. These essentially looked like the model 100s of the day: elongated indents to match the ditched jaws as opposed to the circular indents, smaller a fewer protruding rivets, etc. Being that I haven’t professionally cuffed anybody in many years, I hadn’t actually planned on adding the 104s to my collection. While ordering a tactical flashlight that was on sale, I noticed that the 104s were also on sale for $30 – much less than our shop sold them for back in the 80’s, so I added them to the order on impulse. My initial guess was that the extra reinforcement on the 103 was meant to compensate for the inherently weaker stainless as opposed to the more common carbon steel construction.

Since reading your topic on NIJ certification, I now remember when our supply shop was selling their remaining model 90 series (various finishes) @ 40% off. I’m still kicking myself for not buying their entire inventory.

As far as the serial numbers go, I wouldn’t even hazard a guess.

Dorson,

I must concur with your assessment of the model 90s. I have both an early 1950’s version and a late 70’s version. They were extremely well made -- with the only slight flaw that I could see was that the ratchet was attached to an external lever that could be jimmied if the cuff was not tightened beyond about 6 notches. That withstanding, I would never trade them for anything.

Jason

I'm probably going to set off a firestorm with this, but I have to ask.

Does anyone out there recall any details on the change Smith & Wesson made to the 103 and why? The differences between the first ones and later ones were:

Serial Number: Early ones had an alphabet letter at the beginning of the serial number, later ones were all numerical.

Ratchet Bow: Early ones had the "cross-hatch" strike across the bow, about 2/3 the way up on the tooth side with the teeth facing to the right. Later ones lacked this. Also, the early ones had a full tooth at the top of the ratchet, later ones had a half-tooth at the top.

Bow Dimple: Early ones had the rectangular dimple, later ones had the round one.

Swivel: On early ones, the double bow housing was slightly pressed out and the swivel operated inside. On later ones, the area was completely stamped out and a wide washer installed in which the swivel operated.

Links: Early models had "short" links that made the overall length of the cuffs about 3/8" shorter than the later ones.

Lastly, has anyone ever seen a 103 with (i) the Springfield address, (ii) stamped patent pending on the single bow and/or (iii) with a single double locking slot on the keyway side only?

Click to expand...

I don't wish to sully the name or reputation of any individual or company, but the whole NIJ thing on handcuffs has bugged me for years, particularly the timing of it.

It's been a long time ago, so I can't recall exact dates. Forty years ago (at least in Texas) the majority of cops carried Peerless 300's or S&W 90's. The advantage of Peerless was that you didn't need the key to double lock them; you could do it with a ball point pen, so they were more popular.

S&W and Colt had been slugging it out in the cop revolver market for years, with S&W having the upper hand because their handguns were cheaper than Colt's, although the finish wasn't as nice. I remember that some of my predecessors carried handcuffs that they had acquired on some type of "buy a Colt/S&W revolver, get a pair of handcuffs for a buck" marketing program or something like that. Only federal officers carried Americans, because they had the federal contract; while Americans were good cuffs, they were klunky looking by comparison.

Okay, S&W comes out with their new 100 series, which you can double lock with a ball point pen, just like Peerless. The quality had dropped from the 90, but they were cheaper than Peerless. Then, they came up with the bright idea of drilling a locking slot on both sides, so now they've got a little advantage over Peerless. That's when I decided to sacrifice quality of finish to ease of operation and switched from Peerless.

And while all this is going on, here come the NIJ standards. American passes the test. Peerless 300's (that had been made for years) pass. And so does the new S&W 100 series.

But my question is: Which version of the S&W 100 series?

I can understand why S&W would not want to stamp a number on the things until after the patent had been granted, and from what I've seen, there are no "patent pending" 100's with a model number stamped on them.

The NIJ standards, while dealing a bit with finishes and stuff, are mainly all about torque and stresses (not one darned word about the locking mechanism and how easy/hard it is to pick or shim). So, did S&W make the later changes to the 100 series (dimples, swivels, links, etc.) to be able to pass the NIJ tests?

I'm probably going to set off a firestorm with this, but I have to ask.

Does anyone out there recall any details on the change Smith & Wesson made to the 103 and why? The differences between the first ones and later ones were:

Serial Number: Early ones had an alphabet letter at the beginning of the serial number, later ones were all numerical.

Ratchet Bow: Early ones had the "cross-hatch" strike across the bow, about 2/3 the way up on the tooth side with the teeth facing to the right. Later ones lacked this. Also, the early ones had a full tooth at the top of the ratchet, later ones had a half-tooth at the top.

Bow Dimple: Early ones had the rectangular dimple, later ones had the round one.

Swivel: On early ones, the double bow housing was slightly pressed out and the swivel operated inside. On later ones, the area was completely stamped out and a wide washer installed in which the swivel operated.

Links: Early models had "short" links that made the overall length of the cuffs about 3/8" shorter than the later ones.

Lastly, has anyone ever seen a 103 with (i) the Springfield address, (ii) stamped patent pending on the single bow and/or (iii) with a single double locking slot on the keyway side only?

Click to expand...

BFW et al,
Patent Pending means a patent has been applied for but not granted. I believe the reason S&W is uses patent pending is as they go along improvements are made to the cuffs. This means more patent numbers become applicable to that one base design. Some of the improvements are strenght related while others are to keep production costs down. Every bit of money they save helps them with profit and being competitive.

Back to patent pending for a moment... In the past couple of years, I was asked to look at a padlock that was different than your common padlock. I looked at the design which was quite simple, nothing I considered new as far as the mechanism went. They had patent pending, and I went got the a copy of the patent application and status of the application. Seems the Patent Office agreed with me, not once but several times that it was not patentable. But the product is still being sold with patent pending on it. In this case, since the likelyhood of the Patent Office changing it's mind and issueing one. It clears the way for anyone to make it. But if a patent was to be issued, then they might be able to collect some compensation, sueing, etc. This is when you need a good lawyer....

-Dorson

I'm probably going to set off a firestorm with this, but I have to ask.

Does anyone out there recall any details on the change Smith & Wesson made to the 103 and why? The differences between the first ones and later ones were:

Serial Number: Early ones had an alphabet letter at the beginning of the serial number, later ones were all numerical.

Ratchet Bow: Early ones had the "cross-hatch" strike across the bow, about 2/3 the way up on the tooth side with the teeth facing to the right. Later ones lacked this. Also, the early ones had a full tooth at the top of the ratchet, later ones had a half-tooth at the top.

Bow Dimple: Early ones had the rectangular dimple, later ones had the round one.

Swivel: On early ones, the double bow housing was slightly pressed out and the swivel operated inside. On later ones, the area was completely stamped out and a wide washer installed in which the swivel operated.

Links: Early models had "short" links that made the overall length of the cuffs about 3/8" shorter than the later ones.

Lastly, has anyone ever seen a 103 with (i) the Springfield address, (ii) stamped patent pending on the single bow and/or (iii) with a single double locking slot on the keyway side only?

Click to expand...

Dorson:

Your observations about patent pending are indeed correct.

Some years ago I came up with the most super fantastic idea of all times. I was going to make millions off of it. So I went to a patent lawyer, swore him to secrecy, showed him what I had and asked him what I needed to do to protect my legal rights.

Essentially, what he told me was:

"Pay me a few thousand to do your patent application. If it's denied, pay me more money to fight it, but you'll almost certainly lose since you're fighting the government. If it's granted, it will be worthless unless you can find someone with the bucks to manufacture and market it for you. If you manage to get that done, and it's truly a great item, some guy will buy one, take it to Taiwan and then flood the market with knock-offs. Then, you can pay me tens of thousands of dollars to have a patent fight with the guy in court; after a few years, I'll eventually get a judgment for you, but you'll never be able to collect it since the guy is in Taiwan. And, in the meantime, the guy will have set up another company in China and will be doing it all over again. But, the good news is, you won't waste any more money on legal fees suing the guy in China because by that time, your patent will have expired."

That was the best fifty bucks I ever spent on a lawyer.

I'm probably going to set off a firestorm with this, but I have to ask.

Does anyone out there recall any details on the change Smith & Wesson made to the 103 and why? The differences between the first ones and later ones were:

Serial Number: Early ones had an alphabet letter at the beginning of the serial number, later ones were all numerical.

Ratchet Bow: Early ones had the "cross-hatch" strike across the bow, about 2/3 the way up on the tooth side with the teeth facing to the right. Later ones lacked this. Also, the early ones had a full tooth at the top of the ratchet, later ones had a half-tooth at the top.

Bow Dimple: Early ones had the rectangular dimple, later ones had the round one.

Swivel: On early ones, the double bow housing was slightly pressed out and the swivel operated inside. On later ones, the area was completely stamped out and a wide washer installed in which the swivel operated.

Links: Early models had "short" links that made the overall length of the cuffs about 3/8" shorter than the later ones.

Lastly, has anyone ever seen a 103 with (i) the Springfield address, (ii) stamped patent pending on the single bow and/or (iii) with a single double locking slot on the keyway side only?

Click to expand...

The term "patent pending" neither confers nor provides any legal protection or advantage. It may create a psychological effect, yet patent rights begin only upon the actual patent grant.

Three criteria are applied in determining whether to grant a patent to an applicant: The device, method or process for which the patent is sought must be original; it must work; and it must be useful.

The patent process indeed is expensive. The potential rewards from a patent are correspondingly lucrative. Look at the pharmaceutical industry if you want examples.

Patent infringement is prosecuted in civil court actions, and lawyers are expensive. This no more qualifies as noteworthy than does the fact that many parties routinely infringe patents and copyrights. If you go to a lounge to listen to the house band, that band is breaking the law every times it plays a copyrighted song without remitting royalties to the composer and the publisher. House bands are not worth suing because they typically have no pockets. When it comes to patent infringement, large corporations or foreign governments typically have deep enough pockets to drag out a civil prosecution for a veritable eternity, making them not worth suing, either.