Had the same idea at nearly the same time. Keen minds think alike. Most of what we have now are UNICODE ding bats. We need a ledger or pre-unicode dingbats, more specific ... way back toward the 1900s or earlier.

Another member made mention of "type-setter". There is a master's job profession you don't hear of much anymore, but true. Type-setters would have had manuals on all these fonts and basically any formatted design, ding-bat or whatever.


See my #12 post here in DING BATS: Dingbat

__________________
ANTIQUESMITHS
LM1300 SWHF425

The letter seems to be wrong.

Looks like a "Transitional" Model 1926 .44 Military to me. Plain and simple.

The roll marks are identical to my 5" Transitional 38/44 and my 5" Model 1950 .44 military. Neither gun of mine has ding bats and both have the same letter and number style roll marks as the gun in question.

So I know S&W roll marked barrels without dingbats and used that style letters and numbers as the gun in question.

Notice the NON-sharp shouldered magnas - that number to the gun which indicates it is an "awful late" transitional with an early serial number. Not totally uncommon either.

Gold post war Model 1926 Military .44 boxes for these are common. Even some Model 1950 Military .44 guns were shipped in the left over gold Model 1926 Military .44 boxes until all the boxes were used up. S&W simply put a paper label over the 1926 which read "Model 1950"


IMHO - the factory records are just wrong on this one

Having a Transition 1926 Military .44 is MIGHTY nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Starting with the presumption that historical letters are correct more often than not I looked at the pictures for clues to support the letter. Outside the factory revolvers are normally converted to larger calibers by reaming their cylinder without rebluing it. The original poster's, RM220swift's, second picture in reply #2 shows one cylinder throat is bare steel. All his other pictures are too dark to see whether the chambers have bluing. Reaming the chambers leaves all other surfaces aft of the front of the frame unchanged so original factory blueing on them does not discredit the letter. That leaves only the barrel. A new .44 barrel could have been fitted so the lack of dingbats and different font being correct also does not discredit the letter. If an original barrel was not availabe the .38 barrel could have been rebored then rerifled, the .38 roll stamp sanded off, then reblued. The question conspicuously not answered is does the rifling look like S&W's? Excepting .45 ACPs all the broach cut S&W barrels I've seen have five fairly deep grooves that are about the same width as the lands. A rerifleing company's broaches are unlikely to match S&W's. How many grooves does it have and how wide are they?

The bluing could have been worn off the the cylinder throat by metal bore brushes and with no description of the rifling I have not formed an opinion on whether the revolver is original or not. I'm just biased toward believing a historical letter.

I wonder if a close inspection of the barrel stamp by an expert wouldn't reveal the truth.

I can't imagine how you could remove the stamp and not leave an artifact.

If it were mine, I would be staring at the side of the barrel in all different light with magnification.

Roy would say we're trying to make way too much significance of the cartridge roll mark differences.

We all know stamps wear out and are replaced. And we can all safely presume two things:

1. The replacements can be slightly different,
2. and replaced stamps did not coincide with model changes!

For example, regarding a 1950 44 Target: the shroud being cut for a pre war/transitional "barrel" knob but having a straight post war rod, as well as dingbats is a perfect example of how different vintage parts were used randomly at the factory:

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Everyone,
I have emailed a "Request for Firearm Research" to the SWHF and included copies of Mr. Jinks' letters. Hopefully, they will have additional information to offer.
I'll try to take pictures of the bore tonight but I'm using the camera on my phone so I don't know how they will turn out.

I don't think that bore photo project is really necessary right now.

God forbid one of us, with tired and blurry eyes, looking at the rifling thinks he sees a microscopic / holographic shadow of Abraham Lincoln's hairy, "face mole" in a reflection. We'll have another 100 entries on that topic, alone.

Perhaps hold off on that project until you see what supporting documentation the S&WHF has ? That makes sense.

__________________
ANTIQUESMITHS
LM1300 SWHF425

I researched the serial number of the revolver, but did not find anything. Not surprising, since most invoices from 1948 and earlier do not have serial numbers listed. It would help if I had the shipping location. Again, most of the documents from 1942-1946 (war years) are mainly invoices, a few repair records, and very little correspondence. It sounds like Roy has covered all of these bases in his research so I highly doubt there is more to be discovered. I also checked the serial number after 1946 to see if the revolver was returned to S&W for any reason, but again, nothing came up.

I believe the mystery surrounding this revolver is one collectors love to debate, but will never be solved.

Bill
S&WHF

What is the shipping location in the letter?

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

The second of Roy's two initial letters to me identify a .38/44 Heavy Duty revolver with serial number S66322 shipping from the factory on July 29, 1646 to the Adolph Blaich Co. in San Francisco. This letter also states there were a total of 28 units shipped, all of the same model and configuration - 5 inch barrel, blue finish and checkered silver medallion grips. The guns were billed at the wholesale price of $31.60 each.

I received a third letter from Roy which included a copy of the original S&W invoice to Adolph Blaich Inc., dated 7/29/46. The invoice identifies a total of 28 .38/44 revolvers, but with 7 orders numbers and different dates (manufacturing dates?). The price is shown as $31.60 each but there are no serial numbers. Please see the picture of this.

Attached Images

S&W Original Invoice of July 29 1946.jpg (72.7 KB, 78 views)

We will never know for certain how this gun became a 44 Special. I am ready to believe someone in the shipping department grabbed a Gold Box he assumed was a Heavy Duty and included it in the shipment.

What other feasible explanation?

__________________
Bob.
SWCA 1821

Those are orders placed over a period of 3 years and 10 months that finally shipped 8 months after the last order. Roy likely can see the other serial #s in the shipping record since they'll all have the same shipping dates.

I wonder if Adolph Blaich Co. in San Francisco or its successor has old files. You know like their FFL book (smile).

I also wonder if the serial # might have been a duplicated # and there is a 38-44 HD out there with your serial #. Maybe Roy just found the 38-44 with that # first and wasn't looking for another gun of the same #. That's happened before, albeit rarer than just a clerical error.

I still think it's a righteous gun. How about a photo of the cyl #?

There's two more serial # locations to check as well:

Back of the ratchet star (front side against the cyl).
Rear face of the yoke only visible looking thru a chamber with cyl open and using a flashlight.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Jim...I have a .38/44 Outdoorsman converted to 45 Colt caliber. The cylinder and barrel were modified to fire the new caliber. All of the numbers match are in the correct locations. If the gun we are discussing was modified similarly, I would expect to find the same thing.

Also, orders placed during the war years were often filled in 1946 or later as S&W resumed regular production after the war.

Bill

Bill,

Yes in that case they would.

I presume you mean not modified by the factory? And of course wouldn't letter.

And if modified after market, what was the barrel cartridge marking like?

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Errors recording shipments including shipping guns of the wrong caliber do happen. I own a 1990s S&W that lettered open on the books. I also own a .357 Redhawk that was in the box the store received when they bought a .44 Redhawk from a distributor. The distributor's invoice had the correct serial number, only the caliber was wrong. While those sorts of things could explain this 1926 not lettering as a .44, without finding the original retail sales receipt they are unknowable. In contrast, a count of its rifleing's grooves might confirm an after market conversion. Let's get this simple question behind us.

.45 COLT CTG. by Hamilton Bowen. Click on the photo and you can see the caliber marking.

Upon further review:
I have some experience with a 38/44 HD conversion to .44 Special. I own one. Serial 61406, prewar, 5", blue, all matching, humpback hammer, that for all appearances is a genuine 1926 Model Military, *except for missing dingbats*. After a lengthy and contentious thread discussion, hands-on inspection by experts and collectors at a S&WCA Symposium, and a deep dive into the archives, Roy Jinks himself produced the actual invoice. My beloved, and very expensive, 1926 Model 44 was indeed a 38/44HD that had been converted either by the factory or 3rd party.
I have looked at all of the photos provided by the OP, read all the posts in this thread, and looked at every HD, OD, and .44 in my collection. ALL of the prewar/transitional .44's have dingbats. None, zero, of the 38/44's have dingbats.
Based on experience and observation I would consider the OP's revolver to have shipped and lettered as a 38/44HD, and that it made a trip back to S&W or to a 3rd party for conversion to .44. Like I said earlier it's a real nice .44 and one that I would be proud to own. But it appears to have started life as a .38/44HD, just like mine did.

Attached Images

	61406 with letter.jpg (107.1 KB, 93 views)
	61406 barrel remark no dingbats.jpg (206.2 KB, 98 views)
	S&W shipping record to Bozeman MT.jpg (84.7 KB, 67 views)

__________________
Tom in AZ
Respect the Dingbat

I guess then that you are trying to say that all factory original .44 have ding bats. That the lack of dingbats means it has to originally be a 38/44.

Then how do you explain that my 5" 1950 Military .44 has no dingbats?

I'm saying that prewar and transitional .44's have dingbats. The 1950 Model .44 does not have dingbats. Attached photo of a 1950 Model.

Attached Images

.44 Military 1950 Model_c Nov 29 2016.jpg (59.2 KB, 87 views)

__________________
Tom in AZ
Respect the Dingbat

I have a good photo of my 1926 44 Target, S71099, that was shipped in 1947 I believe. I looked at the photo and the caliber marking on the right side of the barrel has the dingbats. By the time the the 1950 44 Targets were being shipped (except for a couple of real early ones), the dingbats disappeared.

I think Tom in AZ and the invoices supplied by Roy have solved the mystery.

Bill

whatever the OPs revolver TRULY is, this has been a genuinely enriching experience with all contributors stepping up in fine humor and Bill Cross, well, he's just the best there is.

Personally, if I owned that gun, I wouldn't sweat it in the very least. It is my "opinion" that no matter what the shipping record indicates, that it either was switched to .44 before it left the factory (most likely) of the supplier had too many .38/44 and not enough to fit the .44 demand so likely sent a few back for the modification.

After WWII, all manufacturing was in a lurch with the machinery just about near worn completely out. It took the auto manufactures between 3 and 4 years after the war to gear back up to produce a new model automobile. e.g. the 1949 Ford released late 1948 IIRC. The auto dealer had it pretty bad because instead of axles and car bodies they were making fuselages and machine guns, so they needed a complete rip-out and re-tooling.

I surmise S&W was in no less a "fix" than any other major war-time contributor. For that reason alone, I'd grant large sections of "grace" on how, how fast and how many were produced to fill the pre-war and wartime need on the home front. And just because it was Smith & Wesson I'd grant that pass times 3.

You have a respectable piece of post war history there. I'd be proud to own it.

And, in the process, I found I have "ding-bats" on my .44 Military 1926 so I am a real HFG. (Happy, friendly, guy).

Your .44 Militiary or .38/44 coverted to .44 Military is a fine specimen of Yankee, post war, "git-er-done" ingenuity in a time before the Cable Guy made the phrase famous.

__________________
ANTIQUESMITHS
LM1300 SWHF425

Doc44 - If that is true than I have to change my opinion and agree :-)

That says it all - UNLESS someone can produce an ORIGINAL post war - pre Model 1950 .44 photo without dingbats? Anybody?

Well, we have all surely learned a lot about Edith Bunker

Several of you have asked about the bore so I took several pictures last evening. Attached are two - not great, but the best I could do.
There are five grooves and I was unable to accurately measure them but they appear to be slightly over 1/8" wide, with the lands looking to be the same width. While definitely obvious, the grooves do not seem to be very deeply cut. The rifling appears to "twist" about 90 degrees over the 5" barrel length.

I also confirmed that the matching serial number is stamped on the rear edge of the yoke. I believe this means the matching serial number is stamped everywhere it should be.

This info may not be much help or change any opinions but I wanted to respond with as much info as possible.

Thanks again to all of you for the expert advice and information, and especially for taking the time to share. I was hoping to document the revolver as original, but was more interested in learning the truth. There has been a fantastic amount of knowledge shared in this thread and I have learned much. "Dingbat" now has an entirely new meaning.

Your help is very much appreciated!

Attached Images

	IMG_2693 - Bore #1.jpg (31.1 KB, 99 views)
	IMG_2692 - Bore #2.jpg (32.2 KB, 77 views)

Thank you for answering my question about the rifling. That appears to be S&W's rifling.

In addition to having no dingbats the font in your revolver's caliber roll stamp matches the font on the 4" Model of 1950 posted by The Gila Bender. He is also know as Tom in AZ. Most obviously the fours on original 1926 barrels have feet and the fours on your barrel do not have feet. Perhaps Hondo44 knows the correct name for a numeral four's feet. The opinion of this dingbat out at the end of the dirt road is that your revolver was converted using a Model of 1950 barrel. While it was S&W's practice to stamp the serial number on a replacement barrel most independent gunsmiths did not do that. The serial number on the bottom of the box also points toward a factory conversion. However, it lacks S&W's rework stamps and their are plenty of gun show wheeler dealers who would fake the box's serial number so I'll leave it to members who are more dingy or batty than me to speculate on whether it was converted inside S&W's factory.

OP's barrel is a transitional HD barrel, IMO. This opinion is based on observation of barrel profile, stampings, and fonts on the following examples in my possession:
S 63104 1926 Military .44 Transitional
S 63838 .38/44 Heavy Duty Transitional
S 66805 1926 Military .44 Transitional
S 142499 1950 Model .44 Military

__________________
Tom in AZ
Respect the Dingbat

And I have an 8" .32 caliber single shot with no caliber marking and no dingbats---no heritage whatsoever. It letters as a 10" .22. I reckon that came to pass when a nice little old lady put it in a 10" .22 box.

Stuff happens!!

Ralph Tremaine

I agree on the rifling.

That's easier than dingbats. The feet are called serifs. And the different cartridge roll mark on the barrel is not unusual as I discussed in post #56.

The part below from my post #27 is the relevant one, especially the last two lines, to the after market conversion part of your above post:

As you posted and also true in my experience, after market gunsmiths do not re-stamp the serial # on replaced parts when doing conversions.

Even if the gunsmith took the time to stamp the #, which I've never seen, the chances of him matching the font and size of the factory # stamps is in the stratosphere.

So although I can entertain your thought of it being an after market gunsmith's conversion, it becomes very difficult without also having your logic for a factory numbers matching barrel stamped 44.

I have several # stamp sets and there's little choice of font styles, while the various fonts just on S&W firearms out there are myriad!

We also need to confirm your observation of a "bare metal chamber". Hopefully RM220Swift will verify for us.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Ironically and coincidentally, the August 2018 issue of the American Rifleman magazine arrived today. The back page "I have this old gun" article discusses the Smith & Wesson "Wolf & Klar" .44 Hand Ejector, Third Model. The discussion explains that W&K enticed S&W to produce the Third Model 44s with extractor shrouds by ordering 3,500 units beginning in 1926. It is stated that only 4,976 Third models were produced from 1926 to 1940. Apparently, various parts of these Third Models existed in inventory during WW II and were utilized to produce post War "Transitionals" which have been discussed at length in this thread.

David Carroll is quoted as saying the W&K guns "are more in demand today than ever before."

__________________
Bob.
SWCA 1821

You beat me to it. I was in the process of typing much the same information about the AR article when yours popped up.

The chambers in the cylinder are not blued, they are a dull metal color. They also are not highly polished or honed, you can see tool marks - not deep, but there. I have a Victory .38 and compared the chambers - they look very similar.
I’ll post a couple of pictures tomorrow.

Pictures of the cylinder chambers are attached. As noted in the prior post, the chambers are not blued and not highly polished to a mirror finish. Slight tooling marks can be seen. Also, just to verify, I inserted a factory .44 Special round and it fit perfectly.

Attached Images

	IMG_2697 - Cylinder #1.jpg (50.1 KB, 132 views)
	IMG_2694 - Cylinder #2.jpg (62.1 KB, 132 views)
	IMG_2696 - Cylinder #3.jpg (43.8 KB, 108 views)

WOW! Those are some mighty crude machining marks in the chambers.
I've never known S&W to do such poor work. - if they did it.

The saga continues

From what I can ascertain from the photos, the cylinder bores look sweet.

What are you seeing that I do not see ?

__________________
ANTIQUESMITHS
LM1300 SWHF425

From what I can see in the photos, the cylinder bores and chamfers look fine. Certainly NOT a hack (if it is proven to be a bored out .38/44).

Is someone stating they do not seem correct or may not be to specs ?

__________________
ANTIQUESMITHS
LM1300 SWHF425

Those chambers look perfectly normal like every Smith I have. Occasionally there is a machining mark like that one throat has.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

On the first and third picture you can clearly see circular grooves in the front of the chambers, possibly from a reamer. Very deep and noticeable in the cylinder at 9:00 in the first picture.


I looked at several of my 38/44s and that area is perfectly smooth and do not show any of those circular grooves.

Perhaps it is just dried oil and swab marks - but then the whole chamber would have them, and they don't.

But there are clearly circular designs there - what ever they are from.

Gentlemen (and ladies too, if any of you are following this), it looks like the thread is winding down. There may not be a final consensus on the history of the revolver but a tremendous amount of knowledge has been shared and the perspective from which I will view S&W revolvers in the future has been enriched. As I've said before, I very much appreciate all of the questions, comments and opinions. Thank you for the warm welcome to the Forum.

Bill,

Everything Hamilton does is first class as shown by that cartridge roll mark!

Another question: what happened to the 4 line address stamp on the front right side of the frame?

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Speaking of dingbats and Maltese crosses, I ran across this interesting Colt marking on an early New Police today:

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Jim, that looks like one of the .32s that Teddy Roosevelt ordered for the NYPD back 1896 or so. Sam Lisker has some great information on his website, Coltautos.com. Here is a link to the correct page:

Colt Pistols and Revolvers for Firearms Collectors - New Police .32

Best Regards, Les

__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064

Just sent request to Roy Jinks for historical data on a pre-war 44 HE3, 5" nickel and the.44 HE 3 transition NIB blue 5" fore mentioned in this thread. Will share data with all when it arrives. Both of these have military sights.

__________________
ANTIQUESMITHS
LM1300 SWHF425

That reference begins "It is reported..."
I do not believe it is correct. Roy says the S perfix was chosen to show incorporation of the new Safety (hammer block) on guns. That hammer block was designed in Dec, 1944, so how would a gun get stamped with an S in May, 1943?
I'll believe it when I see a letter saying it shipped with an S in 1943.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Well you guys sent me to the safe to check and all 3 of my 44 HE, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd models all have dingbats.

__________________
Robert
SWCA #2906, SWHF #760

Yes, pre-1950 model .44's have dingbats.

__________________
Tom in AZ
Respect the Dingbat

Just caught up with this entire Thread. From the top, interesting! But getting complex, then more so. Not susceptible to simple perusing. Conjuring 'decision logic' chart. Then... Jumping to your Post Tom and succinctly... A wrap!
Of course, checking my photo files and all but one (MIA), able to verify mine from First Model 44 Spl Target, low 1K serial number to my Third Model Transition 44 Spl Target, S 71K... Dingbats Ho! And all these years never to suspect, suffering from serious case of Dingbat fever!

Threads like this really do leave me a bit awestruck at the convergence of forensic quality research & expertise here! Thanks to all for sharing!!!
John

I'm going to bet on one of of two things, either of which seems perfectly plausible. First, an error on the books. Stuff happens. We have all seen it, not just with S&W, but pretty much every area of human endeavor.

Second, and maybe more plausible: it was initially made as a .38/44 HD and for some reason before shipping (or maybe returned for it) remade in the factory as a .44. The latter of the two would likely explain why all the fonts and the like match, and if it was at that right time, I could see one of the new M1950 barrels being used. Think of al of the strings in which people who know what they are saying have commented to the effect of "nothing is impossible with S&W".

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

And all my Pre M24s do not. But other 1950 to 1960 models do have dingbats.


Photo credit: okiegtrider

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

This has been an informative, enjoyable thread.

If the OP is still around, I would like him to begin a new thread and tell us about his .220 Swift(s)

I have seen throats that look like a gray color that is from shooting lead bullets and not cleaned thoroughly. Over time, the residue turns a gray color. Could it be?.......

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

I just checked my .44 Specials. Both transition guns have ding bats. My 1950 Military .44 Spl. does not have ding bats.

__________________
Bill Bates