UPS delivered this to my door this morning. Before going any further, I first have to thank Mr. Ralph Tremaine for shaking my tree regarding the buying of quality. So, THANKS Ralph!!

I won't bore you with all the minutiae, but I stumbled across this OD on GB. I could not find the same gun from any search I attempted, and am not now certain how I even ran across it. However, after watching one sell a few days before that was only slightly nicer (and it had a correct but non-matching box) for $2250, I ended up "winning" this one with the only bid being made. For those who wish to know, the winning bid was $1450.

It is not perfect, having a mark or two on it, but after inspection I have serious doubts this gun was ever fired outside the factory. There is one blemish on the side plate directly above the center of the trigger. The front sight blade appears to have been "worked" on. The bead seems to have been "sawed" off and the blade is missing a lot of the blue. The base pin has never been removed. There are a number of dings around the serial number on the butt. Lastly, to my dismay, the grips do not match the gun. Correct period grips, but different serial number. Serial number on the gun (matching in all locations) is 674224, which should put it in the 1939 time frame.

So, Ralph, how did I do?

Attached Images

	DSC06699a.jpg (44.7 KB, 242 views)
	DSC06700a.jpg (44.5 KB, 232 views)
	DSC06714a.jpg (41.6 KB, 189 views)
	DSC06720a.jpg (47.7 KB, 192 views)
	DSC06721a.jpg (47.1 KB, 183 views)

__________________
SWCA 3297 SWHF 583

Lucky you. I list a K22 SN 6735xx which shipped in 10/38. What's the grip SN? You may have done well for those also.

The grips are most likely from 1st year of production - 1931. Serial # on grips is 633522. They have a couple of very minor dings on them, but they are very nice.

Edit: This was the most puzzling aspect of the gun. How could a gun this nice not have it's original grips? Unfortunately, we will never know the answer to that. But at some point in time, someone put a very nice set on it.

__________________
SWCA 3297 SWHF 583

"The grips are most likely from 1st year of production - 1931. Serial # on grips is 633522."

Ed McGivern's K22 had SN 633255, close to yours. His shipped in 12/31.

Congratulations!!! That is a beauty.

Now, a word of caution about the K-22 Outdoorsman Revovler. They possess some kind of magic in them, compelling unsuspecting owners to always want one more, regardless of how many they already own.

...so ask me how I know??? Here is part of the answer (I may have added a few since this was taken):



...not the greatest photo, but you get the picture. Now please proceed with caution!!! And don't let the magic of that innocent looking beauty beguile you.

__________________
Richard
Engraved S&W fan

Congratulations.
Ralph is right.
Unfortunately Ralph's may be in a fowl mood for a few days.
I think it will take that long before the swelling goes down and his head fits through the door again. Be aware I'm not a certified doctor.

__________________
Paul
S&WCA #2726

Definitely, good for you. Ralph always warns me against the guns I want to get; "That is pretty scruffy...save up a little more, get a better gun." Maybe you are a better study than I am though.

In all seriousness, using resources on this forum is one of the greatest assets there is. Kudos to you for seeking out help and asking a seasoned veteran for help. I am always doing the same and have yet to have anyone give me bad advice. I have occasionally not listened and wished that I had, but I have always enjoyed my purchases and trades.

I love my LERK K22 and will one day get a 2nd and 1st to accompany it.

Attached Images

0518181728.jpg (66.3 KB, 46 views)

__________________
Matthew Conrad

It appears you did rather well, Charlie; although you had me going some with the litany of faults you rattled off. The blemish on the sideplate may be improved with some bronze wool and oil---depending. It can't hurt. I got a K-22 2nd with a horrible looking mess on the cylinder---an evil looking thing appearing to be a mixture of rust and the crud found on neglected automobile battery terminals. 3-4 minutes with the bronze wool and oil, and it was GONE---leaving three tiny little dark spots you'll have trouble seeing---even after I show you where they are. Given the front sight has been "worked on", it was done for a reason. (??) A sawed off bead suggests either the gun shipped with other than the standard sight (Patridge), or the Patridge was replaced with a too tall something (more likely). The correct height above the base is .181" (+/-). If the "base pin" that's never been removed is the sight blade pin, they can be removed/replaced leaving no evidence whatsoever---given the proper use of the proper tools (cup tip punches from Brownells). George Dye will likely be able to fix you up with the correct blade. (I say "correct"---whatever it shipped with is correct. A letter will likely tell you if it shipped with other than a Patridge---either that, or data from the Historical Foundation. I got NINE pages of stuff from them on one of mine---it was shipped to a nit-picking engineer type (along with a "big Outdoorsman" (38-44)---with "light trigger pulls to match". He wanted to know all about rebound slides, hammer blocks, heat treating, and one thing and another. His questions were answered by D.B. Wesson----HISSELF!!)

George Dye can be reached at [email protected]

Ralph Tremaine

I see I have been properly excoriated while I was hunting and pecking. I saw one of Matthew's guns I told him to pass on (without seeing it) a few days ago---good thing he ignored me---embarrassing, but a good thing.

No excoriating meant Ralph. You have only ever given me great advice! Sometimes it is better to be lucky than a good listener.

__________________
Matthew Conrad

You all need to know what I told Matthew to pass on---and why---so that I might save at least a little face.

I told him to pass on what turned out to be an honest to God .44 HE 3rd TARGET. This, for the benefit of those of you who focus on newer stuff is also known as a Model of 1926 TARGET. Matthew's new toy is, depending upon which expert you listen to, 1 of 50, or 1 of 100, or 1 of 200---all of which is to say nobody knows how many there are, other than damn few,---that will letter as such. (There are (or were) more of them out there than there are those which will letter as such---which is another story for another time.) Getting your grubby little paws on one that letters (a REAL one) is a holy grail in anybody's book!!--and Matthew's letters.

So---why did I tell him to pass? The real answer is because I applied MY values which came to be in MY time---with no thought given to the values of others---in THEIR time!! Short answer, applying MY values, is because it's been messed with. Now, what I call "messed with" most certainly would have been called IMPROVED by the fellow who had it done---a cretin!!!! In other words, he was NUTS---at best. NUTS, AND very likely retarded to boot!! If he were here to defend himself, it's a good bet he would say the same about me---applying his values which came to be in his time.

His time was the better part of 70 years ago. He decided to "improve" the sights---never mind what he had taken off was the best sight S&W ever made (albeit most assuredly NOT the easiest sight to work with--nor to use--yet another story for yet another time). So back to the factory it went, where it was fitted with one of those new fangled "Micrometer" sights---and may or may not have been refinished. (If the channel for the new sight is blue, it was; and if the channel is white, it wasn't. As usual with a factory refinish of the period, you can't tell by looking.) And it has clearly spent it's life in a sock drawer since then.

As it sits right now, it's better than it was when it was a brand spanking new gun-----the best of both worlds---or close enough---even for me.

Ralph Tremaine

Well JEEEZE, RK Mesa. You make me feel most underwhelming!
DSC_3835-15.jpg

Congratulations on the purchase

Very nice find. Here's a couple of mine.

Attached Images

Outdoorsmen.jpg (131.7 KB, 25 views)

__________________
Living a dream - S&WCA #2364

Here are a few pics of the front sight. Definitely is not a Patridge sight. I am assuming it is a Call sight that someone cut the bead off of????? Dang, I wish old guns could talk.

Attached Images

	DSC06730a.jpg (64.7 KB, 40 views)
	DSC06732a.jpg (34.7 KB, 41 views)
	DSC06734a.jpg (52.1 KB, 44 views)
	DSC06739a.jpg (58.4 KB, 44 views)

__________________
SWCA 3297 SWHF 583

Call sights were beads that were flush with the rear surface of the blade. So, that's the way it came from the factory.

Charlie

Love my 1968 K22...this thread def makes me want to track down an old Outdoorsman. Great looking guns in this thread

__________________
Some Might Say.

I believe the front sight is a King Gold Bead, not a Call.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

__________________
Terry Lester

Mine is not an Outdoorsman, but a standard K 22, vintage about 1969. I was a young Lt in the USAF working in a small clinic at McCoy AFB, Fl and one of the NCO's had an interest in a pawn shop and had taken in a K 22. He had heard me talking about my K 38 and brought the 22 out for me to look at, and I grabbed it. No box, but it looked unused. He said the person they took it in from had thought it not exciting enough and only fired a couple of boxes of ammo through it. A year or so later I was up in Ga. and some of the security police guy's gave me two sets of the large S&W target grips which I installed. I was looking the other day and still have the original grips in a bag safely stored away.

__________________
Jeff

---withThe Call sight is a Patridge with a bead---a Patridge with flat sides. The beads were either gold or ivory. The beads were either flush or raised (but both flat). As an aside, a Patridge with a half spherical gold bead is a McGivern Gold Bead. (And don't ask why we should refer to half circles as semi-circles, and semi-spheres as half spheres, because the best I've got is just 'cause.)

This sight appears to be of the Marble/Sheard persuasion. The King bead appears as a Patridge in profile-----with flat sides. It's worth noting both Marble and King sights are always/often/?? marked with the maker's name---if not up top where they're marked if there's room, then down below. The "experts" swear and be damned the front sight on my TLT is a King bead. I swear and be damned it isn't----without being able to say what it is. I swear and be damned because that gun was shipped February 23, 1909---and Mr. King and his wares came along in 1913---as near as I recall. (And while that sight is numbered to the gun, it carries no maker's mark-----and it's big enough to serve as a billboard.(!!)

As another aside, that which is an original front sight on a pre-war S&W H E target revolver SEEMS to be numbered to the gun. I have all of the pre-war K and N frame H E targets (except those K frames of the 1899 persuasion---by design). All of the N frames (with ship dates into the early 40's) have numbered sights. And I say "SEEMS to be numbered to the gun" up there because the latest K frame I KNOW has a numbered sight shipped in 1936. My K-22 2nd Model shipped in 1940, but I did not remove its front sight; so I don't know if it is or not------but I'll bet it is---and I'll pop the sight off if someone makes it worthwhile by taking me up on the bet---and I don't work cheap!!

Ralph Tremaine

Apparently I did not read the below charts (previously provided to me courtesy of Ralph) closely enough. They were contained in a November 1977 Arms Gazette Article by Robert J. Neal entitled “The Evolution of Smith & Wesson Target Sights”. These charts are the best guide I have seen on target sights - short of talking to Ralph directly that is.

__________________
Terry Lester

Based on the chart posted by Lestert357, the front sight blade on my gun does, in fact, appear to be a King Bead sight. It is the only one that shares the rounded over profile at the front of the blade, along with the straight vertical rear. The front part of the blade shows no indication of being tampered with, as the black color is all there and matches the rest of the blade. Unfortunately, as mentioned earlier, the actual bead has been removed on mine, leaving the rear of the sight with only raw metal remaining. (This "raw metal" appears to be a bead in the first closeup pic shown above, but there is no actual bead.) With magnification, I could not find any markings on the part of the blade that is showing.

__________________
SWCA 3297 SWHF 583