Model of 1926

RM220Swift · #1 07-12-2018, 07:03 AM

This is my first time posting so please be patient as I figure out the process.
I recently acquired a Model of 1926 in .44 Special with a 5" barrel. It came in what I believe to be the original gold box with a matching serial number on the bottom. The revolver is in extremely nice condition and appears to have been fired very little, if at all. There is only the faintest suggestion of a drag line on the cylinder.
The serial numbers on the butt of the frame, the rear face of the cylinder, in the barrel cutout for the ejector rod and on one of the wood grips (no number on the other grip) all match - S66322.
Inside the yoke and on the frame is the number 7518.
The 5" barrel is clearly marked "44 S.&W. Special CTG" and all of the stampings appear to be correctly located.
The bluing appears to be original and matching on all parts with crisp, sharp stampings and little to no indication of wear. There seems to be no evidence of rework or refinish.
Now for the mystery - I requested and received from Mr. Jinks a Letter of Authenticity. However, he found that S&W's records indicate the revolver was shipped on July 29, 1946 as a .38/44 Heavy Duty, not a .44 Special. The records also indicate the revolver is a Post World War II Transition Variation.
I place great trust in Mr. Jinks and his knowledge, and am thankful for the service he provides. I am not a S&W expert but am of the belief the revolver is correct and original in its current configuration. Is it possible the factory records are in error? Or, do I have a very well done rebuild?
Please feel free to offer opinions and insight. Thank you.

RM220Swift · #2 07-13-2018, 05:07 PM

More photos....

s&wchad · #3 07-13-2018, 05:28 PM

Welcome to the forum!

Great gun and it looks right as rain to me. I can see that the barrel is serialized to the frame and I’m sure the cylinder, back of the extractor and back of the yoke arm is too (visible thru a charge hole with a flashlight).

People make mistakes all the time.

S&WIowegan · #4 07-13-2018, 05:50 PM

I believe what you have is a genuine Hamilton Bowen conversion of a 38/44 Heavy Duty to 44 Special. Bowen is a very well-known and talented gunsmith who for a time did a number of these conversions. He preferred to convert the ODs to 45 Colt but would also do them in 44 Special. I am fortunate to own one of his 44 Special conversions. He announced a few years ago he would no longer work on S&Ws.

quinn · #5 07-13-2018, 05:56 PM

Beautiful gun! You might try emailing Mr. Jinks asking for a second look at the records. However, the records in the hand written, pre-computer era contain mistakes as Chad said.

LLOYD17 · #6 07-13-2018, 06:04 PM

Here's the markings on another 1926 post war transitional. S68xxx for reference. Have you shot it? The front sight kind of looks a little lower. but I can't quite tell if it's just the angle.

Looks like a great gun.

S&WIowegan · #7 07-13-2018, 06:49 PM

OK, Lloyd 17 just helped prove my point. Take a very close look at both ends of Lloyd's 44 S&W Special engraving and note the little do-hickeys at both ends of the marking. RM220Swift does not have those marks. I just went and got my Bowen conversion out of the safe and my Bowen barrel also does NOT have the do-hickeys.

I'm sorry.....I know you all want to support RM220 in his quest for a genuine Third Model Hand Ejector. The problem is there aren't many available and that's why Bowen made a business out of doing conversions.

The good news these Bowens are even more rare.

model3sw · #8 07-13-2018, 07:01 PM

I'm not convinced by the absence of the Maltese Crosses (do-hickies) fore and aft of the caliber markings, alone, prove it is a Bowen modification. ESPECIALLY, that the serial numbers on the face of the cylinder and barrel all match. This would logically lead me to believe it left S&W in its current configuration but not completely ruling out the Bowen comparison presented by Bob (S&WIowegan) as I have never seen a Bowen modification up close and personal.

I have S630xx NIB (without even a turn line on the cylinder) in the same configuration as yours, 5" military sights. THIS one, S630xx DOES have the "Do-Hikeys" fore and aft of the .44 S&W SPECIAL CTG roll stamp on the barrel. Ship date was August 1946 from Roy but have not yet "lettered" it for exact shipping data, which I should do to affirm the ship date. Some of these actually shipped DURING World War II.

I have noted in my records: "Some of these N frames in various calibers with LOW S prefix number were produced DURING WWII. Would command a very high premium. See SCSW4 Pg 181 about 38-44 S62589 shipped 5/17/43"

Ask Roy or Don to please take another look at the records.

BETTER YET, now that you have the S&W letter from Jinks go to the S&W HF to have them research the shipping receipt. That will be verified proof of how it shipped.

I have a very early Model 1950 .44 Special (still in the Post-War transition serial number range at S875xx ) with a BRIGHT finish (not the post war matte finish) in 4 inch Target variation, that was in fact a custom order for Emerson Axe.

Emerson Axe married into S&W money. On his own merit, he was one of the most successful investment brokers ever known that made extremely high investment returns for his clients ... all LEGITIMATELY (See link here: THE VIEW FROM AXE CASTLE: OPTIMISTIC - The New York Times ). He was a life long S&W stock holder mostly thought his marriage to his wife, Ruth. He served on the board of directors for many years.

When Hellstrom died in office, Emerson Axe became the new Director / Chairman of the Board of S&W for about 10 months until he, too, died in office.

For many years, this gun lettered as a special order to Emerson Axe but came back as a .45 Caliber until the S&WHF pulled the shipping record to confirm it was, in fact, shipped as a special order to Emerson Axe in .44 Special caliber. This not only verified it was one of very few (about 200) Model of 1950s in 4" .44 Special Target variation, it is one of the first produced still having some pre-war parts.

This one was a GEM when it did not letter correctly but when the shipping receipt was retrieved by the S&WHF, to verify the configuration ... beyond doubt, that increased the value SIGNIFICANTLY and verified the original configuration to be as shipped ... in .44 Special.

Now, I'm an open minded guy ... and had it actually been shipped in .45 Long Colt ... you wouldn't hear a single complaint from me ....

Mistakes happen all the time. No one can be perfect 100% of the time for 50 years running. Contact the S&WHF. Sal Raimondi, Sr.

RM220Swift · #9 07-13-2018, 07:08 PM

Thank you for the responses. Bob is correct about the lack of do-hickeys at both ends of the barrel markings - they are not there. However, the satin bluing does not look as if it has been buffed or touched. The entire gun looks almost new.
If this is a Bowen conversion would all of the serial numbers match, especially inside the ejector rod cut-out in the barrel?
I have been reluctant to shoot the revolver, and was not planning to do so, at least until I learn more. If it is a Bowen conversion, is it more of a collector piece or a shooter?
Thanks again.

Muley Gil · #10 07-13-2018, 07:15 PM

IMNSHO, they are ALL shooters.

rct269 · #11 07-13-2018, 07:32 PM

Mr. Jinks and his knowledge, prodigious though it may be, have nothing to do with the content of a letter. The content of a letter reflects the content of the factory's records. Some of the records are complete and accurate. Some of them are inaccurate. Some of them are incorrect. Some of them are both incomplete and inaccurate. And there's nobody to talk to about fixing them.

Ralph Tremaine

LLOYD17 · #12 07-13-2018, 07:38 PM

Bowen conversions also typically have pinned front sight blades from what I’ve seen. The roll mark font looks correct.

RM220Swift · #13 07-13-2018, 07:44 PM

A couple of more observations - the front sight is not pinned and there is a matching serial number inside the extractor star.

Thanks once more!

murphydog · #14 07-13-2018, 08:20 PM

In addition to contacting Mr. Jinks to confirm the serial number looked up is accurate, a request to the SWHF for a records search may help:

http://www.swhistoricalfoundation.co...%20Request.pdf

You may also contact Bowen Classic Arms to see if they can confirm it is a conversion.

M_conrad_0311 · #15 07-13-2018, 08:26 PM

+ Bowen Classic Arms + Home

S&WIowegan · #16 07-13-2018, 08:28 PM

A gentle correction for Sal: The do-hickeys are NOT Maltese Crosses but I obviously don't know the correct nomenclature. My conversion is serial number S 65767 and this number occurs on the barrel, the cylinder and the extractor star. My gun DOES have a pinned front sight as opposed to RM220's gun.

I agree with going to SWHF for info. Also, it is perfectly feasible to contact Hamilton Bowen and ask him if he did the work. He keeps records and lives and works in eastern Tennessee.

As a side note; our member of the forum 230fmj wanted a Model of 1926 Target 44 Special badly but hadn't found one so he had Bowen make him one using parts supplied by 230fmj.

M_conrad_0311 · #17 07-13-2018, 08:42 PM

I think I have read somewhere that they (Maltese Crosses) are called dingbats, but that may also be another slang term?

Nightowl · #18 07-13-2018, 09:33 PM

I seem to recall, and my memory is always suspect, that the 1926 was not cataloged in .44 Special caliber. But, it was made in .44 Special and was an included caliber in the advertisements. If I am correct, then it could easily have been listed as a Heavy Duty, but not in .44.

I'm not knowledgeable in this area, so may be off base. There are many members here much more knowledgeable that will probably be able to correct me. I hope they chime in here.

That being said, everything I see about your gun looks crisp, clean and original.

Either way, it is a very nice piece and I hope the Historical Foundation can find something to clear this up.

les.b · #19 07-13-2018, 10:03 PM

RM220Swift:

Welcome to the forum!!! You're going to love it here!! You just got a taste of why. Some of the most knowledgeable and helpful experts on the planet are hanging around here, just looking for a conundrum like yours to come along....and then, like superheroes, they spring into action.

Have fun!!! I'll see you around.

Oh, yeah, that is a scrumptious revolver that you have there, whatever the final verdict turns out to be!!

Best Regards, Les

model3sw · #20 07-13-2018, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightowl

I seem to recall, and my memory is always suspect, that the 1926 was not cataloged in .44 Special caliber. But, it was made in .44 Special and was an included caliber in the advertisements. If I am correct, then it could easily have been listed as a Heavy Duty, but not in .44.

I'm not knowledgeable in this area, so may be off base. There are many members here much more knowledgeable that will probably be able to correct me. I hope they chime in here.

That being said, everything I see about your gun looks crisp, clean and original.

Either way, it is a very nice piece and I hope the Historical Foundation can find something to clear this up.

It is also known as a 3rd model .44 Hand Ejector (Model 1926) / post-war. I believe (IIRC) this model would have been listed as a .44 Military for the fixed (military) sights ... or was it the .45 that was listed as a .45 Military model 1926 ??? I get confused at times. LOL.

RM220Swift · #21 07-13-2018, 11:08 PM

Thank you for all the responses and info.

By the way, I first tried to submit this post Thursday morning about 7:00 and did not see it appear as of this afternoon so I tried again. Shortly thereafter the first post appeared. I hope a moderator or editor can insure the second post of about 5:00 this afternoon does not appear. I apologize for any confusion.

rct269 · #22 07-13-2018, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightowl

I seem to recall, and my memory is always suspect, that the 1926 was not cataloged in .44 Special caliber. But, it was made in .44 Special and was an included caliber in the advertisements. If I am correct, then it could easily have been listed as a Heavy Duty, but not in .44.

I'm not knowledgeable in this area, so may be off base. There are many members here much more knowledgeable that will probably be able to correct me. I hope they chime in here.

That being said, everything I see about your gun looks crisp, clean and original.

Either way, it is a very nice piece and I hope the Historical Foundation can find something to clear this up.

Your memory is close enough, especially since I didn't know enough about it to fill a thimble until I got a reprint of the 1941 catalog---and there it was, big as life---a Model of 1926 Target. I had learned previously it was not cataloged (except as a caliber option for the 38/44 Outdoorsman)---and now my lying eyes are seeing it is. So, what's up with that?!! What's up with that is Wolf & Klar had an exclusive (on any/all Model of 1926's) from 1926 to 1936. Given that, it pretty much stands to reason S&W isn't going to be advertising a specific item they can't deliver to just anybody. Come the end of the exclusivity agreement, and it's back to business as usual. I was also told when S&W put it in the catalog---and have forgotten---except that it most certainly was after the expiration of the exclusivity agreement---so sometime between 1936 and 1941---which is (again) close enough.

Ralph Tremaine

jchodur · #23 07-14-2018, 12:28 AM

Were 44 Specials that hard to come by? Recently I lettered a 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model and Roy's letter stated that it started out as a 5" barrel 38 Heavy Duty. Interestingly the frame serial number is 1366 away from the OP's and it shipped within a month of his also. Neither the new 6.50" barrel or cylinder have a serial number on them.

[IMG]C:\Users\Joe\Desktop\TRASH\Hand Ejector[/IMG] [IMG]C:\Users\Joe\Desktop\TRASH\Jink's Letter 1[/IMG]

model3sw · #24 07-14-2018, 01:46 AM

Gents,

NOTE: Photos listed and uploaded in order, then after upload shifted positions.

It correct designation for the OPs revolver is (as I thought)
>>> "the 1926 Model .44 Military" per 12-8-1945 All Model Circular

HERE YOU GO. The December 8, 1945 ALL MODEL CIRCULAR (pardon the quick shot photos)

1st post is the REAR COVER showing. NOTED: "Deliveries expected to start early summer 1946"
1st ... the .38/44 Outdoorsman
2nd ... the 1926 Model .44 Military <<<<<<< Fires .44 S&W Special and .44 S&W Russian
3rd ... the 1926 Model .44 Target
4th ... the 1917 Army (curious it designates only .45 not .45 ACP or anything else, just Caliber: .45 (oh, the S&W vanity) but shows the 1/2 moon clips

ON the COVER, (page 1) 3rd down is the .38/44 Heavy Duty chambers: . 38 SPECIAL MID RANGE, 38 S&W Special, .38 SPECIAL SUPER POLICE, .38 SHORT COLT, .38 COLT SPECIAL and .38 S&W Special Hi-Speed
2, 3, 4, 5 posts are quick photos of the cover, page 2, page 3, and page 4 (rear cover) of this same catalog.

Hondo44 · #25 07-14-2018, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M_conrad_0311

I think I have read somewhere that they (Maltese Crosses) are called dingbats, but that may also be another slang term?

That's correct, The two ornaments used by S&W are more commonly known as Dingbats:

DINGBATS, i.e., Typographical Ornaments: Many wonder what the little iron cross-like marks are at the beginning and end of the cartridge and/or patent date roll mark on the barrel. Typographical ornamentation of many types was used as "feet", in printer vernacular, back in the day to begin and end text to help align printing. The use by S&W, of their ornament choices we're so familiar with, began in the 19th century and used thru and after WW II on many models. It was used on S&W firearms as far back as at least their DA Top-Break in my observation. And long preceded when the use of the 'dingbat' moniker became generic. S&W's use is very inconsistent. Although one consistency seems to be, they aren’t reported to be observed on the Smith & Wesson name barrel stamp.

The only two styles observed, doesn't mean there aren't others, is the 3 legged and occasionally four legged design. Those with four legs are the most similar to the Maltese Cross but the two vertical legs are thicker than the horizontal legs. The rectangular dingbat style with one open side is actually the usual 3 legged style but just deeply stamped.
Both designs can be observed on the same barrel.

My 44 Triple Locks have 4 legged dingbats on the address/patent dates stamping and 3 legged on the cartridge stamp. The little M frame .22 has them on both ends of the cartridge roll stamp.

The term“dingbat” as used for myriad ornamental type designs didn't begin until around 1921 and is almost certainly based on the “dingbat” meaning of “a nameless object.”

When applied to a person "dingbat" came from "dingus" or "dingy" added to "batty" to be used for “a silly, eccentric, somewhat dim person”, i.e., of Archie Bunker fame.

Hondo44 · #26 07-14-2018, 05:39 AM

As posted by others above, this is not an uncommon mystery; an original appearing revolver configuration in variation or conflict with the shipping records.

Roy's opinion as I recall, has to do with a well known factory practice. As we've read on this forum, if a single gun order is received for a configuration not in inventory; a barrel length, lanyard swivel, target sights, etc., S&W did not build a new gun, they pulled the closest configuration in inventory, sent it to the Service Dept, and it was modified. That's why we see swivels drilled thru the butt serial # and re-stamped on the left side grip frame. Also diamonds or an S stamped on parts w/o a rework date or star stamped on the grip frame. Because all work was done or changes were made before the gun ever left the factory and before sale.

However, again according to Roy, this often resulted in contradictory records. In other words, as in this case, if an original 38-44 in inventory on co. records was changed to a 44, there was every possibility that the records and shipping list would not be edited to reflect the change(s).

I agree, the SWHF archives will likely solve the mystery. In the meantime I'd also be looking carefully at the barrel, cyl and grip frame for diamonds, an S, or maybe even an O or R for Outside Repair Dept.

Those stamps assured the parts did not go from the bluing dept to the production floor, but were returned to the dept from whence they came.

Green Frog · #27 07-14-2018, 09:02 AM

RM220Swift,

Welcome, welcome! You have made a grand entrance and stirred up lots of interest with this gun. Something that has not been asked is concerning the box. You mentioned that it is numbered to the gun, but what other markings are present? Is there an end label with any information (like we see on the later, blue boxes?) Of course someone could have gone to considerable effort to falsify the whole package, but I kinda doubt it would have been done to that level.

As for shooting it... I already would have! Unless you try to out-Keith Elmer and magnum-ize your rounds, the 44 Special is pleasant to shoot (as big bores go) and in target or factory equivalent loads will do no harm to it in the numbers most people are likely to shoot. My advice to you is to have fun and enjoy the gun in the way it was designed.

Congratulations and again, welcome to the S&W Forum.
Froggie

Art Doc · #28 07-14-2018, 09:20 AM

Not an expert and not a collector so if I ask something stupid forgive me.

Doesn't Bowen stamp his mark on guns he rebuilds? I can't imagine any shop not doing that.

Yes, humans are fallible and S&W records were maintained by humans. I have a Model 10-5 that letters as shipped to a city that doesn't exist in the state where it went. I have a 15-3 that letters as shipped to a University that doesn't exist.

I think the only difference between the early HD and the 1926 was the caliber, no? I could see a 44 being mistaken for a 38 in the records. We may never know for sure with this one.

wheelgun610 · #29 07-14-2018, 09:52 AM

The front sight on the OP's gun is taller than a front sight on a 5" HD barrel. I say it's a factory original .44. Every Bowen conversion I've seen had a pinned sight blade.

Mark

M_conrad_0311 · #30 07-14-2018, 10:08 AM

I have no doubt that this revolver is going to cause you nothing but torment. You need to package everything up and ship it to me, so I can save you thousands of dollars in therapy. I love it no matter what it is. Very nice.

RM220Swift · #31 07-14-2018, 11:08 AM

You folks are very knowledgeable and helpful. I'll try to provide more info and a few pictures.
Inside the ejector rod shroud on the barrel is the stamping S 66322 which matches the serial number. I don't know if the "S" denotes a shop order or modification or is simply part of the serial #.
On the yoke area of the frame is the number 2 and a separate letter or number O above the number 7518 which matches the number 7518 on the opposing part. Again, I don't know if the "2" and/or "O" denote a shop order.
The gold box has blue lettering. It has some wear on the edges. The top indicates 1926 Model 44 Military Revolver and the end is marked with similar nomenclature but also identifies a "Blue Finish" and 5-INCH BARREL.

Thank you so much - again.

model3sw · #32 07-14-2018, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RM220Swift

You folks are very knowledgeable and helpful. I'll try to provide more info and a few pictures.
Inside the ejector rod shroud on the barrel is the stamping S 66322 which matches the serial number. I don't know if the "S" denotes a shop order or modification or is simply part of the serial #.
On the yoke area of the frame is the number 2 and a separate letter or number O above the number 7518 which matches the number 7518 on the opposing part. Again, I don't know if the "2" and/or "O" denote a shop order.
The gold box has blue lettering. It has some wear on the edges. The top indicates 1926 Model 44 Military Revolver and the end is marked with similar nomenclature but also identifies a "Blue Finish" and 5-INCH BARREL.

Thank you so much - again.

That look correct to me.

S630xx NIB is in a 2-piece, early post-war, dark burgundy / brown box with a pre-war style end-label as at ".44 Military"

Emerson Axe's, 4 inch, 44 Target (special order) SN: S875xx came in a gold picture box, like yours, with writing on the bottom for the full serial number, the word BRIGHT in capital Letter and a few other characters that I cannot quite make out.

Although it is a Target Revolver the box end indicates .44 Military 1926. I suppose S&W didn't manufacture a special box for the 200 appx. 4" target models (which is not unusual) but the legible writing on the bottom of the box match the gun, inside.

Doc44 · #33 07-14-2018, 11:34 AM

S is part of the serial number and indicates the revolver has the new hammer block safety. I am a little out of my area of expertise, but I did not realize gold boxes were in use in the 1940s. I have only owned one "transition" 44 Special and it was a target model shipped in a maroon box (see photo below).

Bill

ABPOS · #34 07-14-2018, 02:28 PM

Wow, that thing is beautiful.

S&WIowegan · #35 07-14-2018, 03:38 PM

I am convinced your gun is all original and some sort of mistake has occurred in the letter process. Does the serial number in the letter match your gun? Is it possibly one number off?

Good luck

RM220Swift · #36 07-14-2018, 04:08 PM

The serial number in the letter does match the number on the gun - no discrepancy there.
Also, I actually received two letters from Mr. Jinks. One informing me that S&W's records indicated the gun was a .38/44 Heavy Duty and not a .44 Special, and the other providing the history of a .38/44 with the same serial number. The second letter is where the shipping date was identified and also mentions this serial number was part of a group of 28 guns (thought to be all .38/44's) shipped to San Francisco in July of 1946.
I did send a follow up letter to Mr. Jinks asking him if there could be a mistake in the S&W records but have not yet received a reply.
I corresponded with Hamilton Bowen who suggested I look for a particular proof mark that would have been applied by his shop if he had performed any work on the gun. I did not see this mark initially but will verify.
A lot of information and very confusing. However, I am becoming more inclined to believe the gun was originally shipped from S&W as a Model of 1926 .44 Military and remains in unaltered condition. I could be wrong and the research will continue.

RM220Swift · #37 07-14-2018, 06:53 PM

Update.....
The revolver does not have the Hamilton Bowen proof mark which makes it highly probable that his shop did not work on it.
Also, I received a follow up letter from Roy Jinks today indicating that they researched again the S&W records, including the production records for the July (1946) time frame. The info shows 3,136 of the Heavy duty revolvers were produced and all were the .38/44’s. The .38/44 is identical to the .44 except for the barrel and cylinder. Roy agreed that the pictures I sent him were of a .44 Military Model of 1926 but could not confirm from the info available to him (from 72 years ago) that a records mistake was made. However, he did state that it was possible. Roy also provided a copy of the original order invoice but it does not identify specific serial numbers.
Does the S&W Historical Foundation have access to the same info as Roy does? If their info is different I will ask them for assistance. If their info is the same, there is probably no reason to contact them.
Thank you for sharing your hard-earned knowledge. This is very interesting.

Hondo44 · #38 07-14-2018, 07:23 PM

We just never know what the SWHF has, neither does Roy, that's why we check with them. If they don't find anything, there's no charge to you.

Muley Gil · #39 07-14-2018, 07:51 PM

"Were 44 Specials that hard to come by?"

Yes, they sure were (and are) hard to come by.

Doc44 · #40 07-14-2018, 07:59 PM

The records Roy accesses are the same as those the S&WHF has access to, but he also has the shipping records, which we do not.

Bill Cross
Chairman, Board of Trustees, S&WHF

model3sw · #41 07-14-2018, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc44

The records Roy accesses are the same as those the S&WHF has access to, but he also has the shipping records, which we do not.

Bill Cross
Chairman, Board of Trustees, S&WHF

Bill, but you (at the S&WHF) also have the actual shipping invoices and any / all correspondence on any given serial number, if within the decades of documents you have converted to digital format, correct ?

I, presume, once digitized the search process is maximized to a lesser effort than Roy, physically, having to search through boxes of old documents on each search request received ? Sal

Hondo44 · #42 07-15-2018, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc44

The records Roy accesses are the same as those the S&WHF has access to, but he also has the shipping records, which we do not.

Bill Cross
Chairman, Board of Trustees, S&WHF

But Roy doesn't/can't possibly access them as Sal says, not for the historical letters, that's why we support SWHF's digitizing them for easy access.

CptCurl · #43 07-15-2018, 08:56 AM

I claim no particular expertise on these. However, I have a .44 HE Military Model of 1926, s/n S63507. All numbers match, and it letters correctly. Shipped July 18, 1946.

A careful comparison of the barrel roll mark on the OPs revolver to the barrel roll mark on my revolver shows that they are actually quite different.

The OPs roll mark (from the first post):

Model of 1926 - Question-img_0715-jpg

The roll mark of S63507:

Below is a full resolution photo from which the above photo was cropped and sized. You can click on it to open this in a new tab or window and look at it full-size:

I really don't think the roll mark on the OPs revolver was applied by Smith & Wesson.

Carefully compare the numeral "4", the letter "E", the letter "A", the letter "G", the ampersand. The stamps are not the same at all. The more closely you look the more different they appear; and of course, no dingbats.

Mine is a 6-1/2" barrel.

Letter specifics of mine:

To me the OP's roll stamp appears to be located too far back on the barrel, even for a 5".

I think the OP has a conversion. It would be interesting to know specifics of the rifling pattern in the barrel: number of grooves, width of grooves, rate of twist, etc.

It would be easy to be fooled by this one. These post-war transitional .44s are very uncommon. You don't get to see one often. My takeaway is this: "Watch for dingbats always."

JMHO, YMMV, etc., etc.

Curl

Art Doc · #44 07-15-2018, 09:52 AM

Either somebody took a 38/44 and converted to a 44 doing a rather fantastic job and people argue over it.

Or...when the gun was shipped a person, who may have been hung over from a party the night before, wrote down the wrong model or caliber.

I'm playing the odds and going with option B.

model3sw · #45 07-15-2018, 11:16 AM

CptCurl,

Nice comparative photos but it seems yours, beside being the 6.5" barrel, appears to have a "bright" finish while the OPs .44 has the standard, post-war, matte finish.

Another point to consider, the 4 and 5 inch barrels were available ONLY in blue, while the 6.5" barrel could be ordered in either blue or nickel.

It would make sense that these 6.5" barrels would be buffed out more meticulously for the nickel or bright finish. COPY and enlarge the back page of the December 1945 All Model Circular I posted. It states exactly this about the finishes available.

I'd also surmise that S&W had box-car loads of the 4 and 5 inch barrels left over from before the war that were likely, first used before any new batches of barrels were manufactured. Being the new, post-war, matte finish did not require near as much metal preparation, yes your barrel appears to be "shiny",

Although mine SN: S 630xx is a 5" the roll stamp on the barrel seems identical to yours. You have the nicer finish, mine has the standard finish.

You may be correct but I'm going with Option B, the entry in the book was incorrect and it shipped from S&W in .44 Special without the Do-Hickeys fore and aft the caliber roll stamp.

Overwhelming support here is that the barrel and cylinder are properly numbered with what appears to be the correct font and size number die.

In my experience ... ONLY the S&W Factory re-numbers a barrel or cylinder so perfectly I have a RM that was sent back to the factory in 1951 to have the barrel changed to a 7". Without the STAR and date stamp on the RM, I do not believe anyone could detect the barrel had been changed as it is stamped and numbered meticulously. So ask yourself ... why not the "do hickeys" ? That may be one of those S&W mysteries we may never resolve but not enough to sweat about, I feel.

model3sw · #46 07-15-2018, 11:41 AM

Here are 2 close up photos of the caliber roll stamp on .44 Military SN: S630XX and a close up of the ... WHATEVER it is, aft of the CTG. The front one is exacly the same flipped over.

It is NOT a Maltese Cross and isn't a Do-Hickey. It looks like a X with a flat cover top and bottom (Like a triangular hour glass figure) with a NAIL pointing to the center of the X.

What is it ? "I don't know, he's on third, and I don't give a darn"

The Gila Bender · #47 07-15-2018, 01:47 PM

I have S 66936, 5" blue, all matching with serial numbered maroon two-piece box, lettered as shipped 9/13/46 to Morey Mercantile in Denver. The barrel has the correct dingbats.

Two observations of the OP's Transitional 1926 Model: It looks correct *except for the missing dingbats* and the gold box. I don't know exactly when gold boxes first appeared, the first number-matching gold box I have is 38/44HD S 72878 shipped in April 1949. I have to wonder if the OP's revolver was either held back from the original shipment or returned to the factory for conversion sometime after 1946 and returned in a spiffy new gold box.

It's a very nice Transitional 1926 Model, nevertheless. I would be proud to own it

old bear · #48 07-15-2018, 02:25 PM

[QUOTE]A lot of information and very confusing. However, I am becoming more inclined to believe the gun was originally shipped from S&W as a Model of 1926 .44 Military and remains in unaltered condition. I could be wrong and the research will continue.
Reply With Quote[/QUOT
Sir. until someone can prove with a doubt you revolver is not what you believe it is. Go with that. To many experts who have to many opinions based on what they want to believe discounting what they see.

S&WIowegan · #49 07-15-2018, 02:55 PM

[quote=old bear;140101668]

Quote:

A lot of information and very confusing. However, I am becoming more inclined to believe the gun was originally shipped from S&W as a Model of 1926 .44 Military and remains in unaltered condition. I could be wrong and the research will continue.
Reply With Quote[/QUOT
Sir. until someone can prove with a doubt you revolver is not what you believe it is. Go with that. To many experts who have to many opinions based on what they want to believe discounting what they see.

I don't know what he said but I agree with it about 78%!

Wiregrassguy · #50 07-15-2018, 03:21 PM

Hey, Sal!

Quote:

In typography, a dingbat (sometimes more formally known as a printer's ornament or printer's character) is an ornament, character, or spacer used in typesetting, often employed for the creation of box frames. The term continues to be used in the computer industry to describe fonts that have symbols and shapes in the positions designated for alphabetical or numeric characters.

Source: Wikipedia