Earlier this year I found a Registered Magnum listed on Gunbroker. It was listed as a Smith and Wesson Registered Model,it had a 6.5 inch barrel and some buffalo horn handles. The opening bid was $950 with no reserve, I expected it to be bid out of my limited budget very quickly. I watched it until the end of the auction and was surprised to see that it had not been bid on. So I figured why not try, only one other bid and I won the auction for $1095. I was happy that I could at least have a Registered Magnum in my collection,even if it was a shooter. When it arrived, I was very pleased with the condition, worn but very tight, with a perfect bore. I removed the handles and noticed it had been returned to the factory twice. Of course I had to get a letter for it and was very happy when the letter arrived. I lettered a couple of my other Smiths and saved the Registered Magnum letter to read last. I wanted to savor the moment. Here was what Mr. Jinks wrote:


We have researched your Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum Pre-World War II Registered Magnum. caliber .357 Magnum, revolver in company records which indicate that your handgun, serial number 57559 with Reg. No. 4321 was shipped from our factory on December 23, 1938 and delivered to State Highway Commission, J.B. Jenkins, Superintendent State Highway Patrol, Topeka, KS. The records indicate that this revolver was shipped with a 3.5 inch barrel equipped with a Baughman ramp front sight on a plain base, a square notch rear sight, blue finish, and checkered walnut Magna grips. This revolver was sighted in at 25 yards with .357 Magnum ammunition using a 6 o'clock hold. This shipment was for two units the second revolver was registration 4322. This revolver was probably returned for both refinishing and the barrel length change.

According to the small bit of info on the Kansas Highway Patrol that I found. Mr. Jenkins was a veteran lawman from the Kansas City Police and was appointed as the first Superintendent of the Kansas State Highway Patrol. I put some Grashorns on it until I can find some vintage Magnas.If anyone has any more info on J.B. Jenkins I would love to know about it.

Attached Images

	IMG_2747.JPG (58.6 KB, 1013 views)
	IMG_2746.JPG (86.3 KB, 1037 views)
	IMG_2748.JPG (40.0 KB, 788 views)
	IMG_2749.JPG (78.3 KB, 765 views)

Nice score.

I love stories like this. Nice score.

__________________
The American dream is alive

That is a awesome fine grats

Kansas Law Dog!!! Congrats!!!

__________________
I BACK OUR BLUE

Nice score! The law enforcement history is cool.....

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

That's a beaut. Well done. More pics!

__________________
Halfway and one more step

Nice find & great history!

__________________
Only difference Fool/Mule-ears

Congratulations on a fine RM with some well documented history. That's the kind of gun we would all like to find!

__________________
David Wilson

Jack B Jenkins is shown in wikipedia(fwiw) as appointed in '37 as first superintendent of Kansas hiway commission (patrol?) There's a start maybe?

__________________
Halfway and one more step

It would be interesting to find out if it was Jenkins' personal weapon, or if he was just the official recipient for all firearms sent to the Kansas Highway Patrol.

If it were me, I'd try to find out more about the barrel lengths for the Kansas Highway
Patrol. I'm reasonably sure it wasn't 6.5" - if it were, they would have ordered the gun
that way. At this point, my guess is that it was 3.5", although this was only a two
gun shipment. If 6.5" was not their standard, then I'd be inclined to have that barrel
shortened to 3.5", and the front sight remounted. That is one of the beauties of the
registered magnums - they were all cut from some standard manufacturing length, and
with the rib, the front sight was easily mounted.

Normally I would not suggest this, but there must have been some reason for it
being ordered with a short barrel. Who knows - maybe the longer barrel has nothing
to do with the KS Highway Patrol.

Mike Priwer

I have thought about that too. I would be interested in seeing if there are any scanned documents with the S&W historical foundation. The revolver went back to the factory in 42 and 52 according to the stamps on the grip frame. I am sure the barrel change happened on one of those trips.

I reside in Topeka KS, let me know what I can do to help out. I have a few friends in local PD that might be able to help out as well

I was just wondering if there was any history on J.B. Jenkins pictures etc. with either the Kansas City Police or the Kansas Highway Patrol other than what the Wikipedia has.

Really neat.

Enjoy.

__________________
Twogunnes
John 3:16

You should contact the smith&wesson historical association. For a small fee they mite be able to find more information. I think they only charge if the find something.

Very happy for you great find and buy!!!!

__________________
George Jamison

Even in the less than perfect condition you got a super deal on that one. Might have gone much higher if it still wore the shorter barrel. I wonder why someone wanted the longer tube? Is the barrel a correct pre-war version or is it the later style? My RM was returned to S&W in the late 1940s and a post-war hammer was installed as the correct part was not available by then.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

When was the ".357" returned to S&W? The records of the S&WHF cover the period, 1931-1941, and may be useful in researching the gun if it was returned during this timeframe.

Bill

I would NOT shorten that barrel. It is part of the gun's legitimate history, and restoring it to a 3.5-inch bbl. seems to me to be sort of counterfeiting it to be something it once was, but was changed. The bbl. wouldn't be the original one. (An unsophisticated buyer might not know to check the barrel number against the butt number.)

Moreover, 6.5-inch .357 barrels of that era don't grow on trees, and the longer bbl. makes a LOT more sense if you plan to shoot the gun.

I never liked the 3.5-incher and thought it should have been a custom order, with a four-inch bbl. being the shortest in normal production. When I was shooting M-27's, I got a five-inch and a six-inch and a 6.5-inch. Also had a couple of six-inch M-28's, and decided that the best barrel length for that big .44 frame was six inches. It also made it easier to find holsters, as those for five and 6.5-inch barrels were scarce.

I saw no accuracy difference between six and 6.5-inch barrels, and the six-inch was a little handier. I also dislike the wide target hammer and trigger in these guns. They are livlier with the standard hammer and trigger. (The target H&T became std. about 1975.) There WAS a difference in accuracy between the five-inch and the longer barrels. The longer one was easier to shoot really well. We are talking about being able to place all six shots in a single ragged hole at 25 yards from the traditional "offhand" target shooting stance. When I could, the gun would!

I decided that I should keep Combat Magnum/M-19 guns with four-inch barrels and M-27's with six-inch barrels as my .357's. This decision came after also trying Colt guns with four and six-inch barrels, although the Python rivaled M-27 accuracy and recoil comfort. I thought Elmer Keith was wise in recommending .38-44 loads for the M-19 most of the time, with full loads needed only around large animals.
To be sure, his old heavy .38-44 handload reaches modern .357 power.

I'd REALLY think hard before cutting that barrel. For both ballistic and ethical reasons, I think you should leave it as-is.

I was a little shocked that Mike Priwer suggested making the gun look as it originally did. Some dealers might do that and try to pass it off as the original barrel. What I think about that cannot be posted on a family values board. If that is NOT what he suggested, I'd appreciate a clarification. Remember, if you eventually sell this gun, someone else might try to sell it that way, with or without knowledge that this isn't the original barrel. And I just plain think that the 6.5-inch barrel is a better choice on a .44-framed .357. And those 6.5-inch barrels need to be preserved; they aren't cheap or common, themselves.

As to rarity, without looking it up, I suspect that there are fewer 6.5-inch barrels than there are 3.5. Too many liked the shorter barrel for what author Ian Fleming called a "brutal, stumpy" appearance. It just looks mean and powerful, but velocity and balance are a lot better with the longer barrels. They are also easier to shoot well.

If Mike Priwer sees this, I want to explain that I am not accusing him of anything but making a questionable recommendation. I simply think it isn't a good idea to shorten that barrel to make the gun look as it first did. The chances of someone misrepresenting it in future are too great. And the longer barrel just makes more sense and is part of this gun's valid history. Whoever had the gun rebarrelled in the first place probably realized that it was a better choice for a .357.

Finally., gunsmiths qualified to shorten the barrel and do it with the proper degree of fine workmanship aren't common today!

Jim,

There were actually far fewer RM's produced with the 3.5" barrel than with the 6.5" The number of 6.5's" was 1518 and the 3.5" was 408. Almost 4 times as many of the longer barrel. It was the most common barrel length with the Reg. Mags.

Comparing revolvers with those two different lengths is like comparing a sports car and a pick-up. They are both excellent choices but the user chooses one over the other for what he wants to use it for. One would excel when loaded with hay and the other in a road race. You could probably tie a bale of hay on top of your Porche and also attempt to take a hairpin curve at 100mph in your Silverado...but neither outcome would be pretty. Apparently some owner along the history of this gun just decided he needed one that had different characteristics. More often than not, when these barrel changes are made, the movement goes from longer to shorter.

Bob

Mr. Priwer is quite capable of defending himself, but until he comes along, I would like to say that his reputation for integrity is well known here, and I don't think he owes anyone an explanation or a "clarification."

I took is his post for what it was - a personal preference to return the revolver to its original configuration - not to defraud anyone, but for his enjoyment were it his revolver. If he owned it and did shorten it, I know he would disclose same if he were to part with the revolver.

Anyone who knows him or his reputation would realize he would not do or be party to the scenario you suggest as a possibility, even though you say you are not accusing him, but only asking for clarification. I don't think he needs to clarify that with you or anyone.

Sorry for the disagreement over this point. While there are probably others who might do what you have envisioned, Mr. Priwer is not one of them.

Very nice!
Regardless of refinishing or barrel length change, a revolver of that quality is worth the $1095. They really don’t make them like that anymore, at any price.

Texas Star:

That is what I posted, and I'm sticking to it. It was a recommendation only under the
circumstances that I mentioned. I meant every word of it.

I see nothing wrong with returning a gun to the way that it letters. After all, thats
part of the reason we get letters on registered magnums; there is sufficient information
in the records to document the original configuration. Collectors do this all the time,
particularly with hammers, triggers, the finish, etc. I know of a beautiful 5 1/4 inch
nickel registered magnum that was blue when the current ower acquired it. I'd buy
it in a second, with its nice nickel refinishing.

Mike Priwer

ljspoon,

Is this serial number, 57559, stamped inside of the barrel shroud?

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

I think that is a great catch. There is a reblued, barrel length changed RM listed now on GB for $4199. To me the way the gun is now is a part of it's history of when folks changed them to suit their needs and wants, and would leave it just the way it is. (Unless, it is a cobbled up mess and I had the money to restore it.) It is your gun to do with as you please and you can shoot it all you want, or change it to something that suits you. They are great guns and meant to be used and enjoyed.

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

First of all, great gun. That was a good buy even without the provenance IMO.

All I can say about Mike's recommendations is if you're going to get on the S&W forum and say that you think a 6.5 in RM (a popular standard length, for many years, and many models), is probably more rare than a 3.5 in RM, then your words and your credibility just went down the toilet (to many people). Too bad you had to imagine that barrel rarity comparison to be true, because now most people can't take your recommendation seriously. The thing that you have to realize here Texas star, is that the gun was not an original 6.5 in anyways. From a ballistic standpoint, I don't believe ljspoon bought a 6.5in 357 to get 30 FPS more out of a load vs a 3.5 in. I believe he bought the gun has an affordable RM, and everything else is contrary. I am in a similar position to him regarding RMs, so I know all too well how he looked at this gun. Who really cares that the gun was rebarreled when it has that historical provenance. I would pay about $50 to $100 more if the gun still had the 3.5 in barrel, IE thats how much the original length means to me, ESP when the factory did the barrel change. Its not a big deal in reality. You have to take a step back and see the big picture here. You're blowing out of proportion the value difference between someone "misrepresenting" the gun (when who said its for sale?) and what the gun is now. The gun is a winner for the provenance, not because of its originality or condition. It is however respectable in both condition and originality, considering the mods are factory.

As far as whether to cut it down or not, I would be concerned about the roll marks after a cut back? I would be tempted to leave it alone but then again, I imagine S&W would have cut your barrel down and moved the sight back if you sent back a long barrel gun? As in, I don't think they would have pulled a long barrel and placed a 3.5 in?

__________________
}-----Jim----->
~SWCA #2732~

I really don't think that I will mess with the barrel on it. I thought that was interesting that the longer replacement barrel is the correct prewar style and has the serial number stamped in the ejector rod housing. I will take some more pictures and add them

I think thats a wise choice. The good thing about that decision is that its always reversible, but cutting the barrel down is not a reversible choice.

__________________
}-----Jim----->
~SWCA #2732~

Here are some more pics it looks like I was wrong on the dates it was sent back. The date stamps are 5-49 and one year later at 5-50. The serial number is stamped both on the butt and in the ejector rod housing, both with a star at the end of the number.

Attached Images

	IMG_2752.JPG (94.7 KB, 194 views)
	IMG_2753.JPG (48.5 KB, 180 views)
	IMG_2754.JPG (90.2 KB, 167 views)
	IMG_2755.JPG (90.6 KB, 170 views)

Well regardless of the barrel you got a neat one there. Congratulations.

__________________
I type. Therefore I am.

Actually, I was speaking in terms of the overall production of the .357 Magnum, including the M-27. not just RM versions. Probably I should have narrowed it down to RM's, because that is what the OP has. I did say that I made the comment offhand and specifically without looking up the production figures. I do not pretend to be an advanced collector or specialty dealer. Personally, I have seen more 3.5-inch barrelled examples, again speaking of the overall production of the .357 Magnum/M-27 included. And just because fewer short barrels were made on RM examples does not alter what I said about the 6.5-inch barrel also not growing on trees.

And going from a 3.5-inch bbl. to a 6.5-inch one will net a lot more than 30 FPS of velocity. The figure is more like 125-150 feet, depending on the load. And the longer barrel is easier for most to shoot really well. Not that many do shoot a RM now, but the principle applies to later .357 Magnums/M-27s that ARE likely to be carried and shot.

It is ethical to change out parts in older guns, and owners have done that as preferred for decades. Many were shooters, not collectors, in any event. But it does make it exceedingly difficult to know whether a gun is all original, especially if a prospective buyer isn't a very sophisticated diviner of such changes. Altering a gun to seem as if it was the same as shipped when in fact the barrel is not the original one does bother me. If others here disagree, I guess it's their right. But it is also my right to regard such things as being potentially confusing to some subsequent purchaser. Even if the person altering the gun discloses the changes, two or three sales down the line, a seller may not be aware of that and think he's selling the gun as it was shipped. After all, it has the right barrel length as on the factory letter, and some don't know to check for the barrel number, even assuming that some dishonest seller hasn't altered it to appear original. If the barrel is longer than described in the Jinks letter, all concerned realize that the barrel on the gun is not the first to be there.

And I think the longer barrel just balances the gun better and is more ballistically efficient. That's probably why it was changed in the first place.

The bottom line for the advanced collector of very expensive guns like RM's is to study them very carefully and to be aware that many have been altered. Anyone who hasn't made an intensive study of older S&W's probably shouldn't buy them without truly expert counsel. And water is wet! I guess both issues should be obvious. But some have more money and enthusiasm than experience, and they need to tread very carefully. This thread makes that evident. Perhaps that information will prove helpful to some who read this and who are not yet familiar with gun collecting. Remember, we have many "new" people on this board.

Find of the century, Lorne! Congrats; can't wait to see it in person.

__________________
Cheers, Charles
SWCA #2442

I will bring it in to work next week, maybe we can get out to the range and try it out

yay! I'll bring some ammo

__________________
Cheers, Charles
SWCA #2442

damn .... this thread is raising some bristles on a few backs ...
The O.P ripped a R.M for a song and some folks are naturally jealous - I know I am ! I am just enjoying the pix and history of the gun

Hi, Thought I'd chime in and say what a great deal the OP got on the revolver, very nice. I bought my RM about 4 years ago. It was a New Hampshire State Police gun and it made several trips back to the factory over it's life. Of interest, the barrel on mine was originally a 6.5 inch, but was changed at the factory to a five inch. The serial number on the barrel matches the rest of the gun, with a diamond mark to signify a replacement part. I think the OP's barrel shows the same mark, indicating a factory replacement. As such, I think I would leave it as is, but then again it woud be kind of neat to have it in the original configuration. In any event, the diamond will always show it as a replacement part, regardless of length.

The OP is in a unique position because he can shorten it to meet the original configuration. I, on the other hand, have not been able to figure out how to make mine grow an inch and half!

Randy

As to the location of the roll markings on the side of the barrel, here is a 3 1/2"
registered magnum vs a 6 1/2" registered magnum, side by side. Both guns letter
with these barrel lengths.



The following two pictures are closer-up shots of each barrel. In both cases, the
"n" in the word "Magnum" is positioned almost directly above the extractor housing
pin .





(The first of these latter two pictures is the short barrel; the last one is the long barrel.)

This roll marking is virtually in exactly the same position on both barrels.

Mike Priwer

Nice find - congrats.

Good for you! One of my most cherished guns is a S&W registered. Mine is REG # 1522 and shoots very well. It's really cool for you to know that you own one of the first 4,500 .357 magnums ever made...
I have a letter on mine as well. 6.5" with all original equipment (stocks, etc.) and also one of those "Sure Grip" clip-on stock attachments. Mine does not have the original registered certificate; if it had, it would have cost a lot more (folks pay a LOT of money for those with their certificates). I paid $700 for mine when I found her 7 years ago (don't want to steal your thunder) but I think we should be quiet about it 'cuz there are still some good deals out there.
Last, I also found a pre-29 (circa 1956, 6.5" Bbl) which I highly value (letter, of course) all completely original. A guy bought the gun at a pawn shop and didn't even fire the thing before he wanted to sell. I paid him $360.00. I gave the guy the $400 he was asking but he gave me $40 of it back since he had paid only $300 for the gun. I had a call from a pawn shop owner about a year later. He was asked by the woman who pawned the gun if I would be willing to sell as it had been in her family since new. While I feel for her, he also told me of her alcohol problems and all I could think of was how my father used to pawn every gun I owned in order to buy booze. I never saw any of those guns again and I don't believe such fine works of art should be so mistreated. So she ain't gettin' the gun back.
I have five model 29s and this one outshoots them all.
Cool stuff! I hope people continue to go nuts over the semi-autos so we might find more good deals - I LOVE these older guns!

Welcome to the Forum, Bohonkie.

Great first post!!

Now, all you HAVE to do is post pictures of your goodies!!!!!!

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

OK, Muley Gil -

I need to correct one thing: The pre-29 was shipped in 1958. The REG was shipped in 1936.

Attached Images

	S&W REG 2.jpg (8.0 KB, 57 views)
	S&W PRE 29 2.jpg (7.9 KB, 52 views)

Great snag, I often look for those items on GB that are not clearly listed. So when do we get a range report??

I hope to take it out to the range soon, looks like Malpasowildlifer is going to bring the ammo.

I'd leave it exactly like it is, maybe find a set of grips or have a nice set made. The gun has history and that history includes two trips back to the factory for work and a new barrel. I think is was an outright steal for $1100 bucks.

If you really want a 3.5 inch bbl gun, I have a lovely mid-50's 5 pre-27 I'll swap you straight across. Seriously, it is a great deal for both of us. I like 6.5 inch guns, my Dad had one for 60 years and now it is mine.