OK its not an Outdoorsman but someone must have wanted one. Really sharp old Heavy Duty with "Micro" front and Rear sights. The Blueing is amazing and probably a reblue but I have a hard time seeing too many signs. Serial # 60375, Bore is mint and it looks like it was hardly fired. I put the grips on it as it had fake Stag grips on it. $375 I couldnt walk away

Dan

Wow, thats a real nice gun. I would have bought it also. It has a cool look to it. Larry

Wow brother, you did great. $375 for that is something I could take all day. I'll bet its a tack driver.
I just picked up a pre war Outdoorsman and am sitting tilted to one side right now because I had to give my left nut for it. You did good.

A neat and unique old gun! I would have jumped on that for $375 in a heartbeat. I like oddities - especially well-cared for ones like you have there.

Jerry

Dan:

Nice find and great photos.

Dan,
I love it! You got a great deal and it looks good! Good job! Send it to me when you get tired of it.
Bill

I think I see a screw on the right side of that front sight. Is it adjustable?
Looks like some fine gunsmithing was done on that revolver.

I'd have jumped on that in a heartbeat!

thanks guys,

moosedog,
Micro Sights are adjustable for both Windage and elevation. Ruger Early Centerfire guns were all issued with Micro sights.

Dan

quote:

Originally posted by moosedog:
I think I see a screw on the right side of that front sight. Is it adjustable?
Looks like some fine gunsmithing was done on that revolver.

The screw is just to hold the front blade, a la King. Micro is a descendant of King. It was started by a former King employee, as I recall. This is basically like a King conversion, done by Micro with their parts. I've seen quite a few King conv done the same way.

The front sight blade is mounted into that base by a screw. It is not adujsutable.
Its the rear sight that is fully adjustable for windage and elevation.

I'm not aware that, in 1940, the guns were available with that high-polish finish.
The sideplate logo looks a bit thin, as well.

It certainly is bright and shiny now ! Those large sights do change the appearance
of the gun.

Regards, Mike Priwer

I missed the word "front" on moosedogs question. you are of course correct only the rear sight is adjustable. The gun is definately a reblue. I removed the rear sight last night and the area that was milled to take the rear sight base is all blued. Just need to take it out and see how accurate I can make it

thanks

Dan

I also found this small info on a lawsuit against Micro from King

Dan


King Gun Sight Company v. Micro Sight Company, 218 F.2d 825 (9th Cir., 1955)



218 F.2d 825


KING GUN SIGHT COMPANY, Inc., a corporation, Appellant,
v.
MICRO SIGHT COMPANY, Inc., a corporation, John V. McKenna, Rene Goudy, Eugene F. Padel, George K. Thannisch, and Marion Galloway, Appellees.


No. 13470.


United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.


January 13, 1955.


Rehearing Denied March 1, 1955.

Townsend & Townsend, Charles Townsend, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

White & Riaboff, George B. White, Alexander Riaboff, Dudley Harkelroad, San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.

Before HEALY and ORR, Circuit Judges, and WIIG, District Judge.

WIIG, District Judge.

King Gun Sight Company, Inc. (hereinafter "King"), on behalf of itself and its predecessors, sought damages and injunctive relief against Micro Sight Company, Inc. (hereinafter "Micro") and five persons who were or had been connected with Micro, alleging four causes of action: patent infringement; trade-mark infringement; unlawful palming off of firearm hammers under the trade-mark; and unfair competition, by virtue of Micro's and the individual defendants' acts in establishing and maintaining a competing business while still in King's employ, and thereafter continuing to solicit and sell to King's customers, using confidential trade information learned by them during such employment.

On the basis of findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court adjudged that King have judgment against Micro (the corporation) for the sum of $250 as nominal damages and injunctive relief under the third cause of action, that the patent was invalid and void as anticipated, that the trade-mark was invalid and void, that King take nothing under the fourth cause of action, and that each party bear its own costs.

Satisfaction of judgment was entered under the third cause of action. King appeals from the judgment as to the first, second and fourth causes of action and the order that each party bear its own costs.

Dean W. King, a predecessor of the King corporation, was the holder of Patent No. 2,159,527, for asymmetrical hammers for firearms, particularly pistol and revolver hammers. The King hammer consisted of a lug or spur welded on laterally to one or both sides of the thumb piece of the hammer, projecting outwardly as an integral extension of the checkered or knurled thumb piece, intended to facilitate the cocking action without the necessity for slipping the thumb over the hammer surface or "rolling" of the firearm, thereby enabling the marksman to maintain his sight on the target. On January 11, 1938, Dean W. King registered the name "Cockeyed" as the trade-mark denoting his pistol hammers, the certificate of registration being No. 353691.

The trial court found that the patent was invalid on the ground that it was anticipated by an earlier firearm hammer, the Diefendorf-O'Toole hammer, as well as by six prior patents,

if you want to read it all you need to subscribe here at this link
https://www.fastcase.com/Google/Start.aspx?C=f4219732d2...0c11d0d7e0fc0a33cc6c

Dan

That's an excellent find, congrats. If I ever see one like that it'll be adopted on the spot.

Nice old gun there! Got those famous $700 (at least once, anyway!) prewar magnas on it, too.

I appreciate the research, as well: "The trial court found that the patent was invalid on the ground that it was anticipated by an earlier firearm hammer, the Diefendorf-O'Toole hammer, as well as by six prior patents..."

I think King hammers are so marked. I was wondering why we haven't seen more non-King hammers? I think it is because King must have dominated the market in the 1930s, the market for after market target conversions, so that there are a whole lot more King hammers than not on Colts and S&Ws of the period.

I do have a nice 1938, I think it was, 38 OMT with what Joe Miller told me he thought to be a Roper hammer. One of our well-informed members mentioned that he has never been able to document any evidence that Roper hammers in fact existed. Either way, a nice hammer! Not cockeyed, but very nice workmanship. Posted before, but again: