I found this on eBay. It is from a 1943 catalog listing some other H&R and Bean Cobb cuffs and LI's.
The twister, H&R Model 126 has the swivel joints, and nickel plating. Sales price is 75c.
The page also has the H&R Super cuffs $12.80
Bean Cobb Leg Irons $9.40
Bean Cobb Cuffs $7.80
Hopefully more info can be found in the future.
Ron
Hello,
Whilst "chain twisters are no longer officially condoned by any modern police force", there is no uniform policy prohibiting them. Their use or disuse is determined by each individual department. They never were banned as such, as they were in Britain in the 19th Century.
As to their brutality, the damage they can inflict, rigid or even hinged handcuffs can cause far more harm to a wrist, with far less effort required, than can any chain twister. Substantially before handcuffs were required police equipment, chain twisters were. For instance, the New York City Police Rules and Regulations required patrol officers to be equipped with a revolver and with nippers, with no mention -- and therefore no requirement -- of handcuffs -- in both the 1913 and the 1924 editions.
In time, technology and resource advances made nippers, e.g., chain twisters, obsolete -- this and no other reason.
Ron, many equipment suppliers had their names stamped on equipment they did not manufacture themselves. John Jovino and S. A. French come to mind in the US. In the UK, there is little if any doubt Hiatt never made a whistle; whistles bearing the Hiatt imprint were made by Hudson. Hiatt claims it made all Dowler's handcuffs. The practise was common, and for a number of reasons. The difference in the T-handle between your Scully-marked twister and the H&R design pretty much rules out H&R as the manufacturer.
Below is a chain twister more similar to than different from the H&R one.
Note the chain is not connected to the handles with clevises, as on the H&R twister. The trough in the master handle also is somewhat wider. These are minor points, though. Clearly, both patterns are related closely. The notion each was designed independently, their overall resemblance being purely co-incidental, is absurd.
I hope this clarifies more than it confuses.
Cheers,
Jack
http://www.editing.org.uk/tanis/collectibles.htm