Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > >


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-12-2014, 08:41 PM
dakotamar dakotamar is offline
Member
Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify  
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default Hand ejector to identify

I recently picked up this hand ejector and I would be interested in knowing the manufacture date. Any info would be great to know as to what market it was for etc.
Thanks for any help.
Dak.

The serial number on this is 842599 with a P on the right side of the loop. marked 38 S&W CTG and a barrel length of 5" with hand ejector fixed sites. there is a Strain Screw in the front gripstrap and a Butt Swivel. 5 screw model.



Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #2  
Old 01-12-2014, 08:47 PM
SaxonPig's Avatar
SaxonPig SaxonPig is offline
Member
Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify  
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The kidney of Dixie.
Posts: 8,783
Likes: 35
Liked 8,259 Times in 2,191 Posts
Default

I believe that is what is known as a "Pre-Victory Model" or "Lend Lease" model (I think they are the same) made 1939-41 for Great Britain. Basically a commercial gun in the 38 S&W caliber popular in GB. When the U.S. got into the war the pretense came off and S&W openly supplied guns to allies. The most common version is a 5" barrel in 38 S&W with a lanyard ring on the butt. Your gun is configured the same way except it may have come in a polished blue finish rather than the later "parkerized" models
__________________
I chose the name.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #3  
Old 01-12-2014, 08:48 PM
murphydog's Avatar
murphydog murphydog is online now
SWCA Member
Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify  
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 15,853
Likes: 23
Liked 5,288 Times in 3,313 Posts
Default

Welcome! This is a .38/200 British Service revolver from 1941 (I think - someone here will have a more exact ship date). A very similar gun except for the finish was named the Victory Model, so many collectors call this a pre-Victory model. These went to England and other Commonwealth countries, so yours might have went to Canada and stayed there. Hope this is helpful.
__________________
Alan
SWCA 2023, SWHF 220
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-13-2014, 09:10 AM
dakotamar dakotamar is offline
Member
Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify  
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Thanks for the info so far. It nice to know a little more about this one. I have to do a bit of work on it. The hammer is a bit rough felling going down and is sometimes giving me light primer strikes. I believe it is rubbing the frame.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-13-2014, 10:45 AM
glowe's Avatar
glowe glowe is offline
US Veteran

Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify  
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Michigan Western UP
Posts: 6,516
Likes: 370
Liked 2,689 Times in 1,518 Posts
Default

Welcome to the Forum. Before we put this one to bed, could you tell me what caliber is stamped on the barrel? Also, do the wood stocks have a serial number stamped on the right one that matches the gun? There were still some 38 Special guns made for civilian use during the timeframe your revolver was manufactured. Those revolvers were called 38 Military & Police, Fourth Change (Model 1905), but had checkered walnut diamond stocks.
__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515 Grip is a verb

Last edited by glowe; 01-13-2014 at 10:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-13-2014, 07:55 PM
dakotamar dakotamar is offline
Member
Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify  
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glowe View Post
Welcome to the Forum. Before we put this one to bed, could you tell me what caliber is stamped on the barrel? Also, do the wood stocks have a serial number stamped on the right one that matches the gun? There were still some 38 Special guns made for civilian use during the timeframe your revolver was manufactured. Those revolvers were called 38 Military & Police, Fourth Change (Model 1905), but had checkered walnut diamond stocks.
Yes the wood stock on the right side has a matching serial number and the caliber was marked 38S&W. cylinder is not reamed all the way thru; 38spl will not chamber.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-13-2014, 08:34 PM
glowe's Avatar
glowe glowe is offline
US Veteran

Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify  
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Michigan Western UP
Posts: 6,516
Likes: 370
Liked 2,689 Times in 1,518 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dakotamar View Post
Yes the wood stock on the right side has a matching serial number and the caliber was marked 38S&W. cylinder is not reamed all the way thru; 38spl will not chamber.
Thanks for checking. I am now in total agreement with others who posted your answers. As for the hammer, I would take the sideplate off and see how dirty the mechanism is. Many times, sluggish actions can be remedied by using carb and choke cleaner or another solvent and compressed air to blow out the debris and dried oils. Oil the interior and blow out the excess oil than try the action.
__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515 Grip is a verb
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-13-2014, 08:46 PM
jimmyj's Avatar
jimmyj jimmyj is offline
Member
Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify  
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DUNNELLON, FLORIDA USA
Posts: 7,694
Likes: 793
Liked 6,560 Times in 2,065 Posts
Default

Hi, Guys:
I have often wondered why the "Brits" liked the .38 S&W (.38/200) so much ?
Jimmy
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-13-2014, 08:50 PM
DWalt's Avatar
DWalt DWalt is offline
Member
Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Texas
Posts: 18,079
Likes: 2
Liked 8,916 Times in 5,173 Posts
Default

That SN would put the shipping date in late 1941, probably some time between September and November. It would be a pre-Victory. At that time it might have had the so-called Brush Blue or Bead Blast Blue "Black Magic" oxide finish, but it could also be the pre-war Carbonia bright blue finish, as things were in transition in late 1941. It's generally accepted that the changeover from Carbonia to Black Magic happened at around SN 860000. In early to mid-1942, the finish was changed to a dull phosphate, like Parkerizing. It's a little surprising that the smooth grips seem original. The changeover from checkered wood grips to smooth wood grips is usually given as January 1942. But anything is possible. A nice un-messed-with pre-Victory example from that period is good to find.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-13-2014, 08:57 PM
DWalt's Avatar
DWalt DWalt is offline
Member
Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Texas
Posts: 18,079
Likes: 2
Liked 8,916 Times in 5,173 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyj View Post
Hi, Guys:
I have often wondered why the "Brits" liked the .38 S&W (.38/200) so much ?
Jimmy
That's a good question. The answer usually given is that after their experience in WWI, the British decided that a lighter gun was better, and the best way to get that was to go to a smaller caliber with a heavy bullet. But why they chose an obsolescent under-powered cartridge dating from the black powder era, when much better cartridges (like the .38 Special) were readily available, remains a mystery.

One must remember that like most European armies, the British considered revolvers as secondary weapons, and were more of a badge of rank for officers than anything else. Therefore, caliber was relatively unimportant.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-13-2014, 09:14 PM
dakotamar dakotamar is offline
Member
Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify  
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DWalt View Post
That's a good question. The answer usually given is that after their experience in WWI, the British decided that a lighter gun was better, and the best way to get that was to go to a smaller caliber with a heavy bullet. But why they chose an obsolescent under-powered cartridge dating from the black powder era, when much better cartridges (like the .38 Special) were readily available, remains a mystery.

One must remember that like most European armies, the British considered revolvers as secondary weapons, and were more of a badge of rank for officers than anything else. Therefore, caliber was relatively unimportant.
I think they were likely trying to match ammo for what they already had out there. Was the Webley not 38/200 also depending on model? I have a Webley VI but they were .455 so lots of stopping power there.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-13-2014, 09:15 PM
dakotamar dakotamar is offline
Member
Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify  
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

thanks for all the great info. I will take the side plate off and clean it up inside. The hammer does have a burr on the right side so I will have to file that down a touch to smooth it out.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-13-2014, 11:42 PM
DWalt's Avatar
DWalt DWalt is offline
Member
Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Texas
Posts: 18,079
Likes: 2
Liked 8,916 Times in 5,173 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dakotamar View Post
I think they were likely trying to match ammo for what they already had out there. Was the Webley not 38/200 also depending on model? I have a Webley VI but they were .455 so lots of stopping power there.
Yes, the top-break Webley .380s were chambered in .38 S&W (.380 Revolver Mk2), but built on a smaller and lighter frame than the WWI-era .455 Webley top breaks. And it's also strange that the British military would continue with the also-obsolete top-break revolver design after WWI. I have to believe that the British were the last military power on earth still using a top-break revolver during WWII (and afterward).
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-14-2014, 12:40 AM
Skeetr57 Skeetr57 is offline
SWCA Member
Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify  
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Inman, SC USA
Posts: 1,159
Likes: 80
Liked 493 Times in 297 Posts
Default

The British WWII revolver was an Enfield if I'm not mistaken, but Webley also made some of them. I believe that the design of both the earlier .455 Webley revolvers and the Enfield had more to do with the machinery available to make them than any other design considerations. Except for the cylinders, they could be made from flat stock on simple milling machines. The recoil shields behind the cylinder were flat pieces dovetailed into the frame and retained with one small screw. The holster guides at the front of the cylinder were also separate pieces. The barrel latch design was much stronger than any on a S&W top break, and in the case of the .455 has proven to be strong enough to stand up after conversion to .45 ACP, even those originally chambered and proofed for earlier black powder loads.
__________________
Tom
1560

Last edited by Skeetr57; 01-14-2014 at 09:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-14-2014, 08:21 AM
DWalt's Avatar
DWalt DWalt is offline
Member
Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Texas
Posts: 18,079
Likes: 2
Liked 8,916 Times in 5,173 Posts
Default

I just had Webley on the brain. They were Enfields, but made several places, even Australia. They used to be very cheap on the used gun market, but not now. During the war, black paint finishes were common.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-14-2014, 07:22 PM
gordonrick gordonrick is offline
Member
Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify  
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 402
Likes: 175
Liked 103 Times in 66 Posts
Default

Dak,
Cleaning and light lubrication usually does the trick. If you're not familiar with how to remove the side plate to do a thorough cleaning, there are a ton of videos out there on the proper procedure (hint: it is identical to the model 10 as far as dis-assembly). Most of the older S&W's I've had were bone dry and had some dried out grease and dirt inside.

Also, the hammer and trigger are case-hardened so go easy on the filing.

.38 S&W can be a little hard to find around but the usual mail-order places carry it. I really like shooting this caliber. Reloading is also an option. Whatever you do, resist any urges to convert it to .38 Special. There are plenty of those dogs out there, but relatively few unmolested ones.

Enjoy!
rick
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-14-2014, 08:15 PM
DWalt's Avatar
DWalt DWalt is offline
Member
Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Texas
Posts: 18,079
Likes: 2
Liked 8,916 Times in 5,173 Posts
Default

Using a fine abrasive stone is better than a file. Don't remove any more metal than absolutely necessary. If you plan to shoot it much, you'd better consider reloading.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #18  
Old 01-15-2014, 12:20 PM
rsl's Avatar
rsl rsl is offline
Member
Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify Hand ejector to identify  
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cave Junction, Oregon
Posts: 145
Likes: 1
Liked 40 Times in 25 Posts
Default Pre V

I don't see any British Proof marks on your gun.. I have one in the 790XXX serial number range and mine has London proof marks on the barrel, cylinders and frame... It would be interesting to letter it and see where it was sent...
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-15-2014, 05:31 PM
Texas Star Texas Star is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 12,645
Liked 7,727 Times in 3,849 Posts
Default

I think the .38 S&W was chosen to let them use it in a top-break revolver with a short frame. The Enfield .38 was adopted in 1927. Webley's MK IV .38 was rejected in favor of the government's own design, but many Webley .38's were nevertheless bought during WW II.

The British never intended to use Colt and S&W revolvers; they just had to buy them or get them via Lend-Lease due to wartime needs. Thus, the ability of the S&W M&P to handle the .38 Special ctg. was not a factor in the gun's adoption. It had to be chamberd for the revolver load officially in use.

Enfields with black paint finishes were probably from Third World countries after WW II. The usual British finish was a service-type blue, similar to that on military Webleys. (Commercial Webleys had a nice blue, indeed a very fine blue in the case of some models.)

The top break revolver has some advantages. One can "break" open the gun on his leg while reaching for ammo with the other hand, speeding reloadinng. And they probably wanted the same system as was in use, to simplify training. They wanted about the same velocity as the .455 delivered, but with the 200 grain bullet, to ease recoil for new soldiers.

I think that Churchill KNEW the limitations of those weak .38's, causing him to insist that his new Commando units in 1940 have Colt .45 autos. That also let them share ammo with their Thompson SMG's. There are photos of the Prime Minister holding Thompsons and he looked like he enjoyed them. Remember, in WW I, he pesonally carried a Colt .45 auto, not a Webley or other revolver. In WW II, he often wore this gun under his suit. He got a Colt .45 for his police bodyguard, but the man insisted on wearing his lighter Webley .32 auto, for convenience.

Did you know that his mother had been an American? I don't know if that affected his taste in guns, but when he bought his famous Mauser 7.63mm about 1897, he was among the first to use an auto pistol. Of course, he was thoroughly British. He was the son of Lord Randolph Churchill, and was born in Blenheim Palace, the gift of the nation to his ancestor, Lord John Churchill for his victory at Blenheim. Look it up and see photos. That's a really nice house, although I'd hate to have to cut my own lawn if I lived there!

Last edited by Texas Star; 01-15-2014 at 05:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #20  
Old 01-15-2014, 06:21 PM
Texas Star Texas Star is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,737
Likes: 12,645
Liked 7,727 Times in 3,849 Posts
Default

To the OP:

Make sure the mainspring strain screw is tight. Some people back it off to get a lighter trigger pull. But that produces misfires, esp. with British ammo, which has harder "caps" (primers) than do US and Canadian loads.

Is .38 S&W ammo more common in Canada than in the USA? I know that Domion/CIL is out of business, but US ammo makers may ship some up there, as Canada used the round as a military load.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hand me down hand ejector with history ElkyRacer S&W Hand Ejectors: 1896 to 1961 8 12-13-2013 03:09 AM
please identify my s&w hand ejector k mathis S&W Hand Ejectors: 1896 to 1961 27 08-10-2013 10:04 PM
Please help me identify a .32 Hand Ejector, or if it even is a .32 HE CA357 S&W Hand Ejectors: 1896 to 1961 27 05-04-2012 06:19 PM
Sourcing a hand for a 1905 32-20 hand ejector muskrat man S&W-Smithing 13 07-11-2011 03:39 PM
Trying to identify this 32 Hand Ejector FLMedic S&W Hand Ejectors: 1896 to 1961 8 01-31-2011 11:13 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:40 PM.


S-W Forum, LLC 2000-2015
Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)