Pictured below is an example of the ultimate in "Bekeartness" in a .22/.32 Hand Ejector, being that it's from the inaugural batch made in 1911 and also one of those actually shipped to the Phil. B. Bekeart Co. in San Francisco.

A fresh examination of Smith & Wesson records has revealed that a previous and supposedly authoritative list of the original .22/.32's consigned to the Phil. B. Bekeart Co. had mistakenly included a handful of serial numbers that actually went elsewhere, an error compounded by also omitting a few more than that which could in fact be documented as being delivered to Bekeart.

It has now been definitively established that of the 1,044 made in that initial 1911 production run (serial numbers 138226 through 139275), 294 were actually received by Bekeart in that same year. There were six separate shipments, four in June, the first of these numbering 30, and then in quick succession three more of 60 each, another in August of 50 more, with a final group of 34 going out in October.

There are still some unresolved questions surrounding these earliest .22/.32's. The total quantity logged does not quite match up with what the serial number range implies, with six serial numbers being unaccounted for. This discrepancy could be due to their not being completed and possibly scrapped, or perhaps those six numbers ended up being ordinary .32 caliber Hand Ejectors. Maybe it just reflects a bookkeeping lapse. But all that's conjecture.

Another curiosity is that the left stock of each revolver had a number stamped on its bottom, starting at "1". The progression of these stock numbers only roughly corresponds with the serial number sequence, so it's not possible to deduce what stock number ought to be associated with any particular serial number. It certainly wasn't a normal Smith & Wesson procedure to apply these additional numbers, and one can't help but wonder if it was especially done at Bekeart's behest. That the practice continued for some subsequent production of the model, however, tends to undermine that argument.

A last mystery would be how many of the 1,044 and/or the 294 are extant. This likely will never be known with any certainty, although someone may be able to make a statistical case for a certain percentage of them surviving.

Attached Images

numbered stock.jpg (56.0 KB, 275 views)

__________________
SWCA #590
"Colligo ergo sum"

hi
Here are pictures of the 22/32 Bekeart First Shipment and a Orginal Box from the first shipment. The Grip number on this one is 294
Jim





Here are 4 of the 22/32 Bekeart models two are original shipment.

One thing to be gleaned from the label on that box is that the "Heavy Frame" nomenclature was evidently utilized from the very beginning, which I hadn't realized.

__________________
SWCA #590
"Colligo ergo sum"

This is very interesting data! I have three 22/32's but only 1 of them is early, serial 138727 with grip number 369. It was shipped to Hibbard, Spencer ...etc... in Chicago on 7 July 1911. (Jinks letter from 1994) It is in reasonable condition but has one or two small spots of pitting from storage issues i would guess.

Great thread Goony!

There's a 'Phil B. Bekeart Co.' April 1912 ad posted in a thread that jives with your box label referring to it as a 'Heavy Frame'. The Target Revolver is in smaller font. Also interesting that it's referred to as the Model 1911 in the ad. IIRC they became the 'Heavy Frame Target' in 1915 when introduced as a regular catalog item.

Another realization to me is that apparently, the end label was damaged the first time the box was open unless someone had the foresight to slice it with a knife. Probably everone already knew that but me.

My earliest gun with one of the few boxes I have is a 1913 vintage 32 Hand Ejector. The end label is completely on the bottom half of the box.

Thanks for the edjacashun Goony and for sharing those facts and great pics.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

One interesting factoid that came from the research into the "Bekeart" .22/32 HFT's that was conducted with the tremendous assistance of our fearless leader Mr. Roy Jinks is that the originally published total of guns shipped to Bekeart was 292, not 294 as has been now correctly determined. The first 6 shipments were for 30, 60, 60 ,60, 50 and 34. There are additional guns shipped to Bekeart after these initial 6 shipments but the purist considers the first 294 to be the "true Bekearts".

Sorry Jim, but you need to redo a bunch of your labels.

PS: and to take it one step further in the world of Bekeartness, the first 6 shipments to Bekeart were on June 7, June 22, June 28, June 30, August 31 and October 13. So actually a real "first" shipment gun would have had to be in the June 7 shipment of 30 pieces.

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

The grip numbers of the 1st 294 shipped would be very interesting. Jim's # 294, in the 4th June shipment, not surprisingly shows they were not shipped in grip numerical order. And we already know Smiths were almost never shipped in serial numerical order.

And yes, one from the 1st June shipment would be the pinnacle of Bekeartness!

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Well, as I calculate, by serial number Jim's gun would've been the 314th, so the 294 grip number clearly is not in direct correrelation.

As to the serial numbers in each of the six shipments to Bekeart, in every instance, the lowest number of the succeeding shipment is below the highest number of the preceding one; in other words, in each case there's serial number overlap. The most striking example of this involves the last two shipments - the highest number of the August 31 shipment is 139248, while the lowest number of the October 13 shipment is 138265, or almost a thousand earlier in the serial number sequence!

__________________
SWCA #590
"Colligo ergo sum"

Excellent thread Goony! Yours, grip #1016, is certainly in excellent shape, especially being one of the ultimate very 1st 30 shipped.

The 1st 100 Colt SAAs produced according to serial #s (not 1st shipped necessarily) had a few early features like the 'pinched frame' rear sight as an example. Makes me wonder if some of the lowest #'d Bekearts exhibit any similar quirks that were changed/improved early on as S&W got into full production.

Do you know of any? Other than the changes common to all Smith models; stock medallions, extractor knob, 'Made in USA' rollmark etc.

One we've observed is the standard front bead sight changed to a Patridge but that was over 10 years later.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

My gun actually was in the October 13 (final) shipment to Bekeart in 1911. I wouldn't think there'd be any premium on which of the six shipments a partcular gun was in, as long as it was one of the 294.

As to your question, I don't believe there are any discernable production variations within that first batch of 1,044.

__________________
SWCA #590
"Colligo ergo sum"

Questions:
1. Were the numbers stamped on the grip by Bekeart or by Smith and Wesson?
2. Were the box stickers applied by Bekeart or at the factory by Smith and Wesson?

Great thread and very educational.

The grips were definitely numbered by Smith & Wesson. All of the first production run, whether shipped to Bekeart or not, have them.

As to the label, I've not seen the box for any non-Bekeart shipped gun to compare. It certainly wouldn't have been out of the question for Bekeart to have his own self-promotional labels printed up to supplant the factory ones. It is interesting that the label on Jim's box states, "Manufactured for and for sale only by Phil. B. Bekeart Co." If that's a factory label, it clearly indicates S&W's expectation that Bekeart was to take the entire initial batch. If it's a Bekeart commissioned replacement, well, it turned out to be a bit short of what came to pass.

__________________
SWCA #590
"Colligo ergo sum"

hi
I have only seen One more box like mine and it had the same label.
I think the factory put the labels on when they shipped the guns to Bekeart.
Jim
In Roys letter for my gun he said at the end of the letter A really great gun and a greater box.
Jim

Was the other box you saw associated with a specifc serial number? If the "Bekeart" labels were factory applied, the question also could be asked whether there was one label used for those guns actually shipped to Bekeart and another "non-Bekeart" label used for the others. But if all the labels that left the factory were the "Bekeart" type, I'd expect to sooner or later see a box with a label that had that "advertising" cut out or otherwise redacted.

__________________
SWCA #590
"Colligo ergo sum"

Hi
It was about 4 years ago and it was on a auction with out a revolver and I did not get the serial number.
jim
Sorry.
jim

I just received my latest 22/32 HFT and it bears serial number 138289. The left stock panel has the number 289 stamped into it and just happens to be the last 3 digits of the serial number. Probably just a coincidence, but neat none the less.

I will try to get pictures up later tonight when I get home with the camera.

Roy indicated that the stock number indicates the number of the place in sequence that the gun was assembled. Or in other words, my gun was the 289th gun assembled. It is the second gun numerically by serial number in the 4th Bekeart shipment so it is evident as with most things S&W, there was no rhyme or reason as to how things were shipped by S&W.

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

By serial number though, it's merely the 65th gun. That's a pretty big discrepancy.

__________________
SWCA #590
"Colligo ergo sum"

Very interesting posts,
Interesting how no shipments went to PB in July,
I noticed there is a July 1911 gun posted above that did not ship to PB and my .22/32 Heavy Frame Target serial number 138437 (grip # 567) also shipped in July 1911 and also did not go to PB .

By serial number, the 212th gun. Another large variance from the number on the stock. The correlation between the two would seem to be even more tenuous than imagined.

__________________
SWCA #590
"Colligo ergo sum"

I have been asked to post the following info. by a member who is a serious student of the Bekeart .22-32. Target models, so for the benefit of the membership, here goes: " The initial order to the Floor Foreman for production of the .22-32 Targets ( in the .32 HE series ) was for 1050 guns. Serial numbers 138226 through 139275. All in blue, no skipped numbers. 138226 was made April 25, 1911 and 139275 on July 10, 1911." Various sources have reported 1,000 guns, 1044 guns, etc. I don't dispute those numbers as they were based on information available at the time, however I believe the best information is the actual daily production records of the Floor Foreman responsible for making the guns, that lists them by dates and serial number and the total is 1050 guns, I'm going with that. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it! Ed.

Ed, thank you for adding to our cummulative education on these very unique little guns. It is always fascinating to me to hear anything that comes from the factory floor.

My understanding of the story was that Bekeart came up with the idea of producing a .22 on a larger .32 frame. Seeing that (IIRC) the .22's of the era were the very small lady smiths, it would seem plausible that a man might be looking for something a little larger to do target work.

Bekeart approached S&W and requested them to make this configuration but with the tooling necessary to bring a gun like this to production, they needed a large order. Bekeart responded by ordering 1,000 of this new model assuming that they would sell like hotcakes. With an order of this size, S&W agreed to begin production and set up to produce 1,000 of this new configuration. As with most of the factory runs, a small number of guns were produced beyond the ordered amount to take into consideration frames that might not make the final cut. Hence the over run to 1050 guns. Like the childs game of telephone, that number has been reported as 1044 or 1050 over time and hence the confusion.

On another Bekeart side note, regarding the discussion about the Bekeart boxes. There is another example shown on page 117 of the SC of S&W 3rd edition. The label clearly states that the guns were manufactured for and for sale only by Phil P. Bekeart Co. It would be really interesting to see how guns that did not ship to Bekeart were boxed. Does anyone have a non Bekeart shipped gun in the original box????

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

Thank you, Ed. That seems to be a definitive determination, and advances our collective knowledge. If there are only 1,044 of these logged in the shipping records (which I believe is the basis for that number having been the accepted figure up to this point), then this strongly suggests that six guns were diverted before ever being placed in the vault (possibly executive and/or presentation pieces). In that event, if you attempted to letter one of those (a process which, of course, draws upon the shipping records), it shouldn't even come back as "open on the books" but rather "no record in the books." A (tedious) audit of the shipping records ought to yield the six missing serial numbers, but I'm not sure how enlightening that would really be, unless someday one of them turns up with a provenance that's already been otherwise established.

__________________
SWCA #590
"Colligo ergo sum"

James, Stephen, etc. You're welcome. History tells us that it was S&Ws custom to provide company brass and VIPs with early examples of new models, therefore I'm a believer that the 6 guns over the 1044 listed as shipped, went to said individuals and did not show up in the shipping records. As said above, only a letter request that shows up as "Not in the shipping ledger" can indicate a possible VIP gun, unless Roy can unearth a memo account, or other info., to identify the VIP guns. Ed

I think that this could also just be a matter of a mis count. Remember that for many years it was thought that there were 292 "Bekeart" shipped guns and as we now know, it was actually 294. It is very possible that the difference between the 1044 and the 1050 was merely a counting error or an addition error. This is very easy to do with such a large number.

If you take the first serial number produced, 138226, and add 1050, you come up with 138276. One number higher than the highest known serial number. This is merely a mathmatical error because 138226 is part of the 1050 so you should only add 1049 to 138226 to arrive at the correct number of 139275.

To add to how interesting these numbers can be, as shown above 138437 did not go to Bekeart, however, 138430, 431, 432,434,435,436 and 439 did. So 7 out of these 10 numbers did go to Bekeart but 3 did not.

As has been said a million times, S&W was trying to make money, not wrap up serial numbers in neat little packages for future collectors.

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

That's about an 11 week span. Presuming the first and last serial numbers fairly well delineate the beginning and end of production of the first batch, that would average out to just a bit under 100 guns completed per week. Depending on whether a century ago the standard work week at Smith & Wesson was 5 or 6 days, the daily average works out to be in the 16 to 19 range, more or less.

Now I realize production might not have proceeded at a constant rate, that maybe some days none were finished with personnel being assigned to getting other models made up, and that on other days when .22/.32 manufacture was addressed, the daily total could have been a lot more than that average figure. Maybe, Ed, your records can shed light on that. But I was wondering how many guns a trained assembler (or team of them) could fit and make ready for logging into the vault in a working day of that era (how many hours that represented back then I also wouldn't know).

__________________
SWCA #590
"Colligo ergo sum"

Stephen, It is my understanding that "wages" paid to workers at S&W in the period of the Bekeart production, and earlier, was generally by a piece rate formula. The Foreman kept track of production and was paid by the factory for each gun produced , and he then paid his crew a share of the money. For easy "bookkeeping" daily production records were recorded by him in blocks of 25, 50 & 100, etc. guns, as that was the way he received orders from the factory. The order came in denominations of those amounts , example: " 100 blue, 300 plated and the date of the order." The guns were made in blocks equal to the number ordered, according to the finish. Finishes were not mixed. If the order was for 350 plated, then that order was 350 consecutive serial numbers. Same for blue. Sometimes grips were identified in the order as pearl, ivory or rubber. The date the order was received and completed is recorded. I would assume that the actual work effort on the production floor didn't always come out daily to an equal amount as recorded for that days production, as some days 100 guns are shown as produced and other times it could be 200, etc. I think that often orders were anticipated and when time allowed, workers made up parts and guns ahead of time for a stock pile. Other times, shifting from .32 HE production to .32-.22 Targets probably slowed things down a bit, as maybe an order for 50 .22-.32 Targets might be the only guns shown as produced on that date.
If Roy could ever find the payroll records for the monies paid the Foreman, we might be able to coordinate the number to see a better picture of how the guns flowed out and the money came in, etc. Ed.

A very interesting thread about a great old firearm. I would like to know how to pronounce "Bekeart".

__________________
Wayne
Torn & Frayed

I call mine a "Bee'-kurt" but I never have been able to get it to come when called, so what do I know?

Froggie

That's a tough one, considering how foreign surnames were often misspelled at ports of entry and in any case became "Americanized" over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries (and not always consistently at that, often varying by what region an immigrant settled in). Philip Bekeart's father, Jules Francois Bekeart, was born in London but his name suggests French ethnicity (in any event, once here, he went by the nickname "Frank"). I'm not a French speaker so I'm just extrapolating, possibly incorrectly, from an online pronouciation guide, but it may be that "Bekeart" would've originally been pronounced beh-kair with the accent on the second syllable. I think this could've evolved into beh-kart with the accent lightly on the first syllable.

__________________
SWCA #590
"Colligo ergo sum"

I believe the surname originates in either Belgium or The Netherlands. The original spelling is Bekaert. I suspect it was changed to Bekeart in England, which is where Philip's father Julius was born. In my mind I have always pronounced the name with the stress on the second syllable, like buh-KAIRT. Possible the modified spelling was intended to reflect the pronunciation that developed in England, with a last syllable that rhymed with "ear."

Could 138512 have been one of the 294?

I will mention again that in 1910 Colt introduced a .22 target revolver on the Police Positive frame. Whether Phil Bekeart was leaning on S&W or not, the company had reason to think about offering a comparable .22 revolver to keep from abandoning an emerging market segment to the competition. Before 1910 Colt was doing nothing serious in .22 caliber and was not trying to compete with S&W's Ladysmith model. As soon as the PP Target was introduced, S&W introduced a target version of the Ladysmith and seems to have begun thinking about the I-frame HFT. The first target Ladysmith I know about was shipped in 1910, only a few months before the .22/32 Heavy Targets started coming off the assembly floor. Note that compared to the M-frame Ladysmith target revolver, the I-frame .22/32 really was a "heavy" .22.

__________________
David Wilson

David,

According to my information...~*No*~...138512 was not one of the 292-294 that shipped to Bekeart although if the original accounting of these is now wrong I suppose it very well could have been!!

I'm curious, as I've been out of the loop for some time, does anyone know if there has been an amended list of the Original 294 been made available as yet?? Reason being, I'd be very interested in attaining one if there has!! Thanks!!

__________________
Masterpiece

Sorry, David, but the answer is "no" on that - although 138511 and 138513 were....

__________________
SWCA #590
"Colligo ergo sum"

I took a gamble on the old 22/32 below. It’s just barely
among the first 1050, 139123, so I’m sending off a letter
request to see if it went to Bekeart in San Francisco. A fair
amount of wear but it seems to be consistent with wearing
and shooting. Came with the old style holster. Grips are
numbered 860, have a fair amount of wear but no chips or
cracks. I bought it from a California dealer, that and the old
style holster encouraged me to spend too much.

These old 22/32’s are becoming a habit, this is #4 for me.
Rick

Rick,

You'd better go buy a Lottery Ticket because you finally hit the jackpot as far as a Bekeart-Shipped 22/32 HFT!! Your Revolver was indeed shipped to Philip Bekeart in Late August 1911!!

I'd also have to think the Grips with No.860 are also correct as I have an Early Bekeart Range 22/32 HFT with Grip No. 707 that was shipped earlier in Aug.1911 although it went to a dealer in Philadelphia,Pa. not to Philip Bekeart's Shop!! You could also check inside the Right Grip Panel for a Penciled Serial No., but these generally are very hard to read unless you get lucky!!

Great Find!!

__________________
Masterpiece

Hope you are correct, but I think I have to wait for the Jinks letter to know for sure....??... Rick

By all means get the letter, as it will authoritatively establish this gun's special status, but serial number 139123 is definitely listed as one of fifty sent in the penultimate shipment of 1911 (August 31) to Bekeart.

__________________
SWCA #590
"Colligo ergo sum"

I have a line on s/n 138334. I have not seen the gun in person. Gun does not have its original numbered stocks and the front sight has been changed to a 1/2 round service style.

Does anyone know if 138334 was one of those actually shipped to P. Bekeart?

__________________
Dennis
SWCA #2409, SWHF #353

Thank you all for some of the most informative info I think I have ever read in a single thread. I saw my 1st 22/32 HFT last week and another this week at gun shows. Neither had numbered grips. Aside from that I found the stocks to be beautiful and the gun weighted very well for target shooting. I think I have one of these in my future, but hold no illusion that it will be a true Bekeart. Thanks again to all for the wealth of information.

__________________
John 1:17
NRA Life Benefactor

Sorry, but it wasn't - 138335 was, though...

__________________
SWCA #590
"Colligo ergo sum"

Thanks Goony

__________________
Dennis
SWCA #2409, SWHF #353

Nice choice of ammo also.

__________________
Go big or stay home

This thread needs to swim again. To add to the body of knowledge, I just received 138266 that was one of the guns shipped to Bekeart in the first shipment on June 7, 1911. It is interesting to note that numerically by serial number, it is the 22 gun listed in that first shipment. It also bears stock number 22 on the left stock panel.

In the block of serial numbers from 138226 to 139275 that gun would be number 41.

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

Bringing this thread back to life. I am really enjoying these guns and am looking for any more information that anyone has to share. I am closing in on 1,000 guns in my database but need a lot of meat to fill in the bones. Many I just have serial numbers for. Should you own one or two of these, please feel free to supply details and photos if you have them.

Any more Bekeart or .22/32 boxes out there. We have only seen or heard about 2 or 3 so far.

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

I recall giving this information to someone recently, but believe they were from the other side of the country. If I recall incorrectly, it will happen again---apologies all around!

Mine is a non-Bekeart-Bekeart, #444707, shipped March 8, 1927. Condition is "as new in box".

Ralph Tremaine

Thanks Ralph, I have your gun listed having shipped to Chicago. You state "As New In Box". Do you have the box????

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

138334, missing original stocks, not lettered, Missing rear sight
139148, Stocks #817, factory rework in 1/24, not lettered
163538, Stocks #1334, not lettered
295042, shipped 12/14/1919 to Ellery Arms, SanFran
386644, shipped 10/10/1923 to M.S. Mitchell (no address)
441474, not lettered
530245, shipped 2/8/1938 to Adolph Blaich Co. SanFran

__________________
Dennis
SWCA #2409, SWHF #353

James
I know of a .22/32 that shipped a full month before the first shipment to Bekeart. So it would in fact be the first one shipped, upping the count to 293. CLUB GUN 0162 .22/32 H.E. 6" barrel shipped 5/12/1911.

__________________
Don Mundell

Hi
Here is a Flyer from 1912 for the new Model 1911 Heavy Frame Target Model
to be Sold by Phil. B. Bekeart.
Jim Fisher

It is interesting to note that since Bekeart was also such a huge Colt distributor that he used terms like grips and checkered in this advertisment. The norm for every gun company except S&W.

It is also noted that there is no S&W logo on the left frame however the S&W emblem in the stock circle is very pronounced. If the logo is there it is not showing up on my monitor.

The ad also leads one to believe that this is a second thousand gun order sometime in 1912. I only have 3 guns shipped to Bekeart in May and June of 1912 all with serial numbers in the 163,XXX range and one of those bears stock number 1615. At least from a stock sequence number it would appear that these do fall into the second thousand produced.

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

Yes----sort of! Anticipating your question, I went upstairs last night to paw through the box boxes. It wasn't there. Then I pawed through some boxes not in box boxes. Then I went poking around where there shouldn't have been any boxes, and found some more. Alas----no joy----but I did find a 38-44 Outdoorsman picture box I didn't remember having. (Lest anyone think I'm showing off, most of these boxes are Ruger single action boxes----and they came to live here at a time when it was highly unusual to get a Ruger without its box..)

From memory, which has been known to be inaccurate from time to time, the 22/32 box was a one piece affair, maroon in color----at least that's what I was especially looking for last night. I shall continue the search.

Ralph Tremaine

And yes, shipped to Chicago-----Von Lengerke & Antoine.