What can I expect to pay for a good functioning 35 cal.semi auto. Local shop has one and it keeps calling my name when I visit the shop.

I saw one just this past week... it sold yesterday for $475.00.

It was in very nice condition, about 95%, no box.

__________________
Linda
SWCA #1965, SWHF #245

Assuming the gun is a blued gun, and not a low serial number, $500- $600 for a 98% gun as about right. More for nickel or pintos. Less for a "Good functioning one', which I take to mean it's a shooter grade, not a collectable. If it's well worn finishwise, about $350 is tops.

I may have overpaid but i bought a 98 % last week for $717 including tax. Ser.# 193X. By the title i thought this was in the right place, 35 auto is in the title.

__________________
Roger

I thought this was the right forum area also..

The one I saw was a 4 digit, 54xx (can't remember the s/n). I passed on it and a good friend of mine bought it. I think he got a good deal.

__________________
Linda
SWCA #1965, SWHF #245

Is 35 auto ammo available? Post some pictures, I have never seen one.

.35 S&W Auto ammo hasn't been loaded since the beginning of WWII. The pistols themselves were only made and sold from May, 1913 to June, 1922, with a total of 8,350 pistols produced.

Over the years, I have located only one partial box of 35 S&W Auto cartridges and a few strays at gun shows to go with my first year production, three digit serial pistol. The box is marked ".35 SMITH & WESSON AUTOMATIC SMOKELESS" over 50 CENTRAL FIRE CARTRIDGES". "REMINGTON ARMS-UNION METALLIC CARTRIDGE CO." They are jacketed softpoint bullets, which Jinks describes (in his book HISTORY OF SMITH & WESSON", published in 1977) as "half-mantle" bullets, with a very round lead tip. The cupro-nickel jacket is almost the same color as the exposed lead and for years, before really looking, I thought the entire bullet was lead and the ammo books were wrong. The base of the bullet, practically the entire bearing surface of it, is lead "for a good bearing surface and a long barrel life." (Jinks) The primer is copper-colored with "U" embossed on it. The head stamp is "35 S&W" on one side and "REM-UMC" on the other side. There is a solid cannelure turned in the case about 3/16" below the case mouth, probably at the base of the bullets.

The cartridges are rimless and look just about like a .32 ACP cartridge. Dimensionally they are quite close, the .32 being just a smidge larger in most measurements. Dave (I forget his last name) who ran "The Old Western Scrounger" advised those of us who inquired about buying .35 S&W Auto ammo to just shoot .32 ACP in our pistols.

Incidentally, I did, a magazine full of .32 ACP's, and they shot just like the .35 S&W rounds were probably supposed to.

I think that if S&W had initially chambered this pistol for the .32 ACP cartridge in 1913 instead of their own proprietary round, it may have sold well. The guns are very well engineered and work well, considering how early a semiautomatic pistol design they were.

Someday I will take one of the .35 S&W cartridges apart and see what the bullet weighs and looks like inside the case.

Buffalo Arms lists ammo. It's a bit pricey at $92 for 50.

__________________
Roger

An early .35 S&W auto round was "self lubricating" in that the bullet had a hollow base filled with gun grease. Small holes were drilled in the bullet's side and when the round was fired, the pressure forced the grease through the holes as the bullet travelled down the barrel, lubricating the lands & grooves, at least in theory. The S&W self lubricating bullet cartridges were exhibited in the 1893 Columbian Exposition factory display. It was patented by Daniel B. Wesson on Nov. 18,1890 and June 13, 1893. Their are examples extant is several calibers. Boxes can be had from antique cartridge dealers for big bucks. .32 S&W auto rounds shoot just fine in .35 autos, but discard any cracked or split cases. If the cases are OK, they can be reloaded as the are now fire formed to Smith & Wesson's .35 caliber ( which is actually .32 cal.) Ed.

I've got some loose .35 rounds... here are a couple of pics...

__________________
Linda
SWCA #1965, SWHF #245

My friend has a Savage auto loader in 35 S&W and we shot 32 acp just fine threw it, to bad they didn't make it a true 35 cal. as I love anything with a .357 bore, Dale in Canada

That is a very interesting way of providing lubrication. I wonder how this worked out in practice since it would seem the lubricant might contaminate the powder charge. By the way, what is the bullet diameter? Thanks to everybody who has provided information on this unique S&W!

Local shop has one of these for sale, $850. Ouch!

you are asking for trouble shooting .32 in a .35 auto. You had better do some research before you damage the gun or yourself.
shame the ammo couldn't have been offered to a member on the forum. I would have loved to have added it to my ammo collection.

I just bought an unopened box of .35 S&W Automatic ammo by Remington for a hundred bucks. Thought it was a pretty good deal.

I just bought on of these pistols last Sunday, with the prices of the ammo being so high I don't think I'll be shooting it much. If I could even ever find any.

Thanks for the picture, post one of the other side please. It appears to have a squeeze safety under the trigger guard, is that right?

Even though this is a resurrection of an old thread, I'll provide a little technical information on the .35 S&W cartridge. As earlier noted, it used a partially jacketed bullet with a lead base to engage the rifling. Apparently at that time, someone at S&W was averse to FMJ bullets because of suspected bore wear. The bullet diameter is 0.309", the same as the .32 ACP. The nominal case length and diameter are, respectively 0.670" and 0.346" as compared to 0.680" and 0.336" for the .32 ACP. Ballistically, they are very close. Due to the very minor dimensional differences, if the .32 ACP cartridge chambers, it should be fine to shoot in the .35 S&W.

Should one desire to actually make .35 S&W brass, it can be done by turning the rim of a .32-20 case down, cutting an extractor groove, and cutting and trimming to length. Why anyone would go to tht much trouble when a .32 ACP case would work just as well, I cannot imagine.

I had never heard the story about the .35 S&W bullet having the extruding lubricant, and frankly do not believe that story at all without any further evidence in support of it. To my knowledge, that type of extruding lubricant bullet design was used only to a very limited extent for certain target bullets in a few of the old black powder cartridges, and never in smokeless loads of any kind.

Pipewrench, I may be interested in your .35, PM me if you want to discuss.

please send photos. thank you

Just picked up a complete box of .35 "AS&WP" ammo, and a pistol to go along with said box, but the bore on the Model 1913 slugs out at 0.322". Whilst the exposed portion of the bullet measures the published 0.309"-0.310", I can't help but think that, unless the case walls of the cartridge are unusually thick, the unjacketed portion of the bullet hidden in the case should measure somewhere around 0.319"+, given that the OD of the cases are indeed about 0.010" larger than the .32 ACP.

If I had a spare cartridge or two I'd cut them open and measure the actual hidden diameter. But that's not going to happen with any in the box on hand!

I disagree with Armyphotog's post that it is asking for trouble to shoot .32 ACP rounds in a Model 1913 S&W .35 auto. I have fired 1,000s or rounds of .32 cartridges in these .35 Autos and never had a problem, irrespective of the factory opinion that the power of the .32 acp was more than the .35 S&W round. The .32 is 0.011 in. smaller and of course the case expands slightly when used in the Model 1913. This has never caused problem in my experience, however I can agrees with the old warning of never fire a round in any gun that is not the round for which the gun was designed, is an appropriate safety caution. The barrels in these guns are .32 cal. and the exact same barrels were used to manufacture the .32 S&W pistols that followed the .35s. The original design of the .35 pistol was as a .30 Cal ( yes, Thirty Caliber) based on the Clement patent, and tooling was made to produce both .30 cal., .32 cal., and a .45 cal. pistol, but only the .32 was put into final production, and called a .35 cal. Joe Wesson, the designer of the Model 1913, felt that a half mantel jacketed bullet would lessen barrel wear, etc. Chuck Suydam's book "US Cartridges & Their handguns" gives all the dimensions of the .32 and .35 cal cartridges on pages 260-267, if you want to study those rounds. Ed.

You must have been a very wealthy man to be able to afford to shoot "thousands" of rounds of .32 ACP.

The reason that shooting .32 ACP in a .35 is not a good idea is that the .35 relies on a very light recoiling bolt, supposedly slowed down by a very heavy spring, thus having no significant mass to counteract the forces of recoil other than that spring. A heavy spring does nothing to actually counteract the recoiling forces; It's only function is to store kinetic energy to return that bolt to battery. A person versed in physics could probably explain it better than I, but that's the general gist of the matter. If you did, in fact, fire "thousands" of rounds as you state, my guess is that you have battered that poor little gun into oblivion.

I have both .35s and .32s, and the .32 is a competely different design. In fact, I don't think any significant parts interchange, and certainly not the barrels. In the case of the .32, the recoiling mass includes not only the breechblock, but the forward slide assembly as well coupled to a rather stiff recoil spring.

I don't know where you got the idea that the barrels were the same, but it's certainly not the case.

At any case, to use a simple analogy, firing .32 ACP in a .35 is akin to firing 9mm Parabellum in a 9mm Glisenti.

I would advise anyone who wants to shoot their .35 that they handload .32 auto with a reduced load.

The .30 and .380 pistols were only experimentals and never made it into production.

If any one is looking to buy a Smith & Wesson Auto .35cal Model 1913 eighth variation I was going to post one on Gunbroker later this week but I would like to give the forum a shot first.

This pistol is often referred to as the Model 1913, since it was introduced in that year. It was S&W's first attempt at making an auto pistol. Production lasted until about 1921, and only 8,350 examples were produced. It used a unique cartridge which was fairly expensive and there were no adequate substitutes. This almost certainly accounted for the lack of popularity of the gun and caused its replacement by the S&W .32 Automatic Pistol. Going back to the .35 these appeared in eight different variations. This example is one of the eighth variation guns.
This gun, however, is quite rare, since fewer than 1,000 were ever produced. The last one left the factory in November, 1936. The serial number is 7391, rather close to the end of production. But the best indication of an eighth variation is the markings on the side of the barrel. This was the only variation that had the company name on the left side and the caliber designation on the right. This example is in very good condition, so it should definitely interest collectors.


Photobucket album with couple more pictures: IMG_1874_zps7111130b.jpg Photo by ern1911 | Photobucket

Both "Cartridges of the World" and Donnelley's "Manual of Cartridge Conversions" give a bullet diameter of 0.309" for both .35 S&W and .32 ACP cartridges. The only significant dimensional difference in the cases is that the .35 S&W has a slightly larger OD, probably because its case wall thickness is a little greater. Regarding the bullets, the weight of the .35 S&W factory bullet is given as 76 grains, while the standard bullet for the .32 ACP is 71 grains. The .32 ACP MV is slightly greater, but the muzzle energies are very similar. I imagine the .35 S&W semiauto pistols have collectively fired far more .32 ACP rounds in them than the .35 S&W, as virtually everything that I have seen written about the .35 S&W mentions that it was an extremely common practice to do so.

It is not possible to conclude that there is anything harmful or dangerous in firing .32 ACP ammunition in the .35 S&W pistol.

Back in the 40s, 50s & 60s, .32 acp caliber rounds were very common, especially foreign ammo. intended for the Walthers and other semi autos made in Europe. I had cases of that ammo., bought very cheaply at the time, which gave me the opportunity to fire 1,000s of rounds in various .32 cal auto pistols, including the Model 1913 S&W. Most of it was FMJ and probably didn't help the bore in those guns, but did help the ammo to feed nicely. None of the various makes of the ammo. gave me any problems in the S&Ws, that I recall, and it was common knowledge among shooters to use .32 cap in the .35 auto Model 1913s. Ed.

Buffalo Arms sells 35SW ammo, it's a bit pricey(67-73 a box of 50) but we are talking about obsolete ammo here. It is loaded with 78gn lead bullets and they have plenty in stock, I just looked at it today.

What I would do were I the current owner of a .35 S&W (I did have one long ago, but didn't shoot it much, and I used .32 ACP ammo), is to handload lead bullets in .32 ACP cases to a level not much beyond that required to get positive functioning. But I already have the reloading dies to do that. At one time I had an extensive collection of .32 and .380 US pocket pistols, and reloaded about everything I fired in them. My two favorites were the Remington 51 and the Savage M1905. They sure don't make them like that anymore.

As this seems to be most recently active thread on SW 1913's, I thought I'd share a few comments.

I just acquired a very nice condition Model 1913, s/n 5xxx. I also bought 150 rounds of custom made .35 SW ammo from Buffalo Arms (not cheap). Interestingly, this ammo uses cut-down brass marked "25-20 Win" which research shows was a rifle cartridge based on a necked-down .32-20 Win cartridge. Have not fired it yet though. I also was lucky to buy a full box of Rem/UMC original .35 SW for around $100 with very clean shells (and an OK, but original, box). That is just for collector purposes of course! Another site is asking $295 (!!) for the same thing!

Although I have not yet fired it, upon racking and dry-firing, I am VERY impressed by the crispness and precision of the trigger break. It is not a light break by any means, but it is very crisp with very little creep and no grittiness or mushiness, in contrast to my Savage 1917 and JP Sauer M1913, which I still love anyway...

I have been trying to find the user's manual (if one exists) for the gun, even a repro, but without luck. One site that posts free pdf's of old gun manuals has a note that S&W lawyers told them not to post S&W materials, so no luck there. I am corresponding with S&W customer service about this, but they have been slow and stupid in their responses so far.

There are 2 decent articles on this gun, from the June 1956 and October 1963 issues of American Rifleman, and I bought originals of each issue on EBay for about $7.00 each. One of them has decent take-down instructions and a diagram.

The asking prices of these guns varies ridiculously on the auction sites, ranging from around $400 for real beaters (the grips seem especially prone to drying out and splintering), to over $1,500 for examples that are really not much better, but of course these never get any bids and are simply re-posted ad-nauseum. I got lucky on mine for the price and condition. The BlueBook values for these guns are: $875 (98%), $775 (95%), $625 (90%), $525 (80%), and down to $185 (10%).

There are also a very few nickel plated versions, but oddly these have blued slides and trigger guards that to me make them look like they were cobbled together from parts. A recent very nice example went for $705 on GunBroker in Jan. 2015.

I'll try posting a few pics of my new toy, and if there is any interest I'll post a range report (although I almost feel this is too pretty a gun to soil by shooting it!).
Screen Shot 2015-01-27 at 9.40.39 PM.jpg

Regarding the.35 S&W cases made from .25-20 brass, Donnelley's "Manual of Cartridge Conversions" recommends using .32-20 cases for a starting point. Of course, below the shoulder, the .25-20 and .32-20 cases are dimensionally identical. But I'd think .32-20 brass would be easier to come by. Most who reload the .25-20 simply neck down .32-20 cases.

But it is surprising that anyone would want to undertake the considerable labor of making .35 S&W brass from .32-20 cases, when .32 ACP cases work just fine in the .35 pistol. Especially so when the likelihood of finding .35 S&W reloading dies (other than by having a set custom-made) is essentially zero.

By the way, Donnelley's manual is a valuable reference for almost anyone, even those who have no desire to custom-make odd cartridges. It is an absolute treasure trove of data on just about any cartridge ever made anywhere at any time, including metrics. It is one of my most-used reference books.

So I took my new (very old) model 1913 to the range with the Buffalo Ammo I mentioned. Gun cycled flawlessly and with a beautiful clean trigger break. The ammo cycled perfectly as well. but about half or more of the shots left keyhole holes in the target at 25 feet. Not sure why...maybe the bullets are not really the full proper diameter (the bore looks very clean and rifling is distinct), or the bullet construction is off balance. Accuracy is pretty variable. I can easily hit a sub-1 inch group of 5 with most modern guns, but this had about a 4 inch group. Recoil is very mild, and the ammo is fairly smoky.

But all in all, who cares! This is a cool collector pistol that does work, but I probably won't shoot 100 more rounds over the next 10 years.

Did you pull a bullet to see what its diameter at the base was? Or to see if it was a FMJ ullet? Even though the given bullet diameter for the .35 is .308, the factory bullets used for the .35 S&W were not full metal jacketed. Only the ogive area was metal-capped. The base (in contact with the bore) was soft lead. I suspect that upon firing, the lead cylindrical portion of the original factory bullet probably upset to fill the bore. My limited experiences with my .35 pistol was with cast lead .309 bullets in .32 ACP brass. I do not remember any bullet keyholes with those.

i have a 1913 35 S&W Auto cts very rare gun its in a 100% complete very nice condition.

Welcome to the forum. And please post pics!

These early S&W semiautos are fascinating compact firearms.

__________________
David Wilson

This S&W 1913 pistol is an almost exact copy of 1908 model .32 calibre Clement pistol..whom S&W bought the rights to manufacture..looks kinda like S&W model 61 Escort also...just saying.

I inherited one of these from my grandfather. Serial # 8112, one of the last. Funny looking gun, but I've never fired it. Ordered some ammo from Buffalo Arms even though it was pricey.

Despite all the anecdotes about it being 'no problem', I'm not sure about shooting .32 ACP ammo in it. Ballistics for .35 Auto with a 76gr round is reported as 830 fps with 116 ft-lb energy. Some factory .32 ACP loads seem reasonably close to that (e.g. Winchester 71gr @ 905 fps, 129 ft-lb), while others seem too hot (e.g. S&B 73gr @ 1043 fps, 176 ft-lb).

I'll shoot the Buffalo ammo just to experience this gun and satisfy my curiosity. I could try loading my own .32 ACP ammo, but I will have to really really love it to go through the trouble (I don't load for .32 ACP currently).

Welcome to the Forum,
Please post some pic's of your little treasure.

I had never heard the story about the .35 S&W bullet having the extruding lubricant, and frankly do not believe that story at all without any further evidence in support of it. To my knowledge, that type of extruding lubricant bullet design was used only to a very limited extent for certain target bullets in a few of the old black powder cartridges, and never in smokeless loads of any kind.

Once again our "Expert" is proven wrong. Here are two examples of Smith & Wesson Self Lubed bullets.

Attached Images

	self lube cut away.jpg (20.0 KB, 259 views)
	self lube 1.jpg (19.3 KB, 211 views)

__________________
Don Mundell

Don, I think I stand corrected. You may be correct that .35 S&W ammo. was never intended by S&W to be produced in the self lubricating style, as patented in the 1890s era. My recollection of such ammo. goes back to the 1950s and I was probably looking at boxes of the self lubricating ammo. mixed up with boxes of .32 S&W auto &.35 S&W auto. The original self lubricating cartridges, as patented by S&W, were revolver cartridges, not auto pistol rounds, of course. Having said all that, the odds are that the next collector cartridge show I attend, I will find a box of self lubricating rounds in .35 caliber. Never fails! I'll buy it and send it to you for Christmas, Don. Ed.

Ed
I quoted one of or expert commentators to prove him wrong. As usual, he hasn't replied. A very good friend of mine was a huge Smith & Wesson ammunition collector. After he passed away I bought his collection from his family. He had a lot of self lubed S&W ammo. The two I pictured are fro that collection.

__________________
Don Mundell

Here is your reply. A self-lubricating bullet would serve no purpose in the .35 S&W, which was always loaded with smokeless powder, and in fact it would be impossible in a practical sense to use the principle with a metal-capped bullet, which was the standard for this cartridge. The first listing of the .35 S&W Automatic cartridge was made in the Remington-UMC catalog of 1915-1916, and it mentions nothing about its availability with a self-lubricating bullet, nor do any subsequent catalogs through the Remington catalog of 1923. Here is a site which discusses the S&W self-lubricating bullet which should improve understanding of its history and purpose. I welcome any proof you might have which demonstrates that the .35 S&W cartridge was offered as a factory load with a self-lubricating bullet.
Firearms History, Technology & Development: Self Lubricating Bullets

While I agree that the .35 S&W was probably never loaded with a self lubricating bullet of the design under consideration here, it would have needed some means of lubrication, as the bearing surface of the bullet was all lead. The only purpose of the metal cap was to improve feeding from the magazine into the chamber of an autoloader. Lead bullets require lubrication regardless of whether they are loaded with black or smokeless powder to prevent leading in the barrel

__________________
Tom
1560

Although I have never pulled a .35 S&W bullet to see, I imagine there was probably a lubricant groove provided in the bore bearing section. The earlier .357 Magnum loads used the same style of metal capped bullets, and I am certain that they would also have needed some provision for inside lubrication. I've never pulled a .357 bullet either, so I don't know.

I was lucky enough to talk down a dealer who had a 35 sitting in the shop for about half a year -- paid $550 for a very clean pistol with 8 rounds of original .35 S&W ammo. It's a nice addition to my other vintage Smiths.

It came with an extra Model 35 barrel, in the white, with sharp markings and bore, apparently unused. The barrel is for sale or trade if anyone is interested.

How about some pic's?

I have a 1913 but the safety plunger tab is detached (before I bought it)... any idea where I could find the part for replacement? It looks like a pretty simple fix, once the grip is out of the way.

I was contacted by my sister who found some old ammo that was her father-in-law's. There is a full unopened box of .35 S&W auto ammo.
She wants to know if it is worth anything as a collectors item.
TIA

Here is my Model 1913 (shipped in October 1916) and a full box of .35 ammo for it. Yes, the ammo does fall into the collector category. I paid a pretty penny for this full box, which dates to October of 1913 per the date on the label.

I devoted a chapter to the Model 1913 in my book 101 Classic Firearms. For those who already have a copy of the book, it begins on page 60. For those who don't have one, call Dillon Precision at 1-800-223-4570 - it makes great reading for those who choose to or are forced to shelter in place during the current mess.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

"I paid a pretty penny for this full box, which dates to October of 1913 per the date on the label."

Generally the date on those early Winchester box labels designates the date that the specific label style was adopted. If there is some lot code stamped on the box, I can probably provide the loading date.

Thanks for this information! I examined the box all over, and there appears to be no lot number anywhere on it.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -