2nd model 44 hand ejector target

steve61 · #1 08-21-2018, 05:27 PM

Found this today. It will be shipped to my FFL this week. I need to find a front sight blade and stocks.

Muley Gil · #2 08-21-2018, 05:57 PM

Can you show a picture of the top strap?

You should shoot it first. It may need that tall front sight.

steve61 · #3 08-21-2018, 06:07 PM

Those are the only pictures I have right now. It is being shipped to my FFL

Muley Gil · #4 08-21-2018, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve61

Those are the only pictures I have right now. It is being shipped to my FFL

Waiting with baited breath.

Oh, I hate the taste of worms in the evening.

Kinman · #5 08-21-2018, 06:32 PM

[IMG]

[/IMG]

I agree with MG, the front sight on my 2nd Model H.E. is tall enough to make it difficult to use in a crosswind....It was installed by the factory along with later model rear sights.

steve61 · #6 08-21-2018, 06:42 PM

Is it possible that the front sight is correct?

Muley Gil · #7 08-21-2018, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve61

Is it possible that the front sight is correct?

Correct in that it shipped thataway from the factory? Maybe. A lot depends on if it is a factory target or possibly a factory conversion from fixed sights to adjustable. If after market, anything is possible.

Hondo44 · #8 08-21-2018, 07:54 PM

Beautiful and looks like the original blue finish!

Since your gun shipped 1928 or later, it's after when S&W sort of standardized their front target sight blade to the Patridge sight like yours, so most likely it's the original sight shipped on the gun.

Once you get it you can determine if the target sights are original by removing the rear sight, rear sight blade, or front sight blade and look for the gun's serial number on any one of them. All three will have the #. And/or request an historical letter.

I don't see a star by the serial # on the butt, so unless there's a rework date under the left grip, the sights are original or added by a gunsmith.

LLOYD17 · #9 08-21-2018, 08:35 PM

Looks great. Here’s a picture of another front sight on a 44 target.

Also, does that tag say $425?...

handejector · #10 08-21-2018, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve61

Is it possible that the front sight is correct?

Very doubtful.
A wide Patridge like that one was a very rare bird in that era.
It was, however, a fairly common alteration because people began to realize what a superior sight picture they gave compared to beads.

A serial number on the front blade won't prove it is original IF the Factory replaced a bead or other blade with that one. They would likely have numbered it when they replaced it.
The gun does appear to be an original Target.

steve61 · #11 08-21-2018, 11:35 PM

Thanks, Lee. Would the original type blade be hard to find?

Hondo44 · #12 08-22-2018, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by handejector

A serial number on the front blade won't prove it is original IF the Factory replaced a bead or other blade with that one. They would likely have numbered it when they replaced it.
The gun does appear to be an original Target.

"I don't see a star by the serial # on the butt, so unless there's a rework date under the left grip, the sights are original...."

rct269 · #13 08-22-2018, 03:06 AM

The front sight on mine stands approximately .330" above the boss. It is as shipped from the factory.

In the for what it's worth department, my 3rd is the same----exactly---and as expected.

Now if you want a real sail, my 1st (7 1/2") is at .385"

Ralph Tremaine

handejector · #14 08-22-2018, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve61

Thanks, Lee. Would the original type blade be hard to find?

Get a letter and see if it tells you how it shipped. I think many were ordered with a specific blade that the shooter wanted. In those cases, there is a good chance the blade is documented on the invoice.
If so, you just have to search for one.

Personally, I'd probably leave it alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hondo44

"I don't see a star by the serial # on the butt, so unless there's a rework date under the left grip, the sights are original...."

Don't expect to see a star and maybe not even a date for every minor bit of work done on a gun.
Fitting/swapping a front blade would be a 10 minute job for a skilled filer.

red9 · #15 08-22-2018, 09:02 AM

The front sight looks good to me. Here is my December, 1926 2nd model target:

Bob

sigp220.45 · #16 08-22-2018, 09:09 AM

I looked at that gun in person last Friday! I went with a Heavy Duty from the same batch because I thought the .44 wasn’t original, but I know almost nothing about that model. It was certainly priced right! Congrats!

model3sw · #17 08-22-2018, 09:10 AM

The 2nd model .44 HE factory Target models are fairly scarce. Determine if yours is a factory target or a conversion.

steve61 · #18 08-22-2018, 10:04 AM

Am I correct in assuming the stocks would have been brass medallion service?

Wiregrassguy · #19 08-22-2018, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve61

Am I correct in assuming the stocks would have been brass medallion service?

No, your gun was made between 1922 and 1928. So, it would have come with convex round top, checkered walnut, diamond grips similar to these:

Tom K · #20 08-22-2018, 11:10 AM

Here's the front sight on my 2nd Model Target serial # 38849 (along with a standard 2nd Model behind it). The factory letter says it shipped with a Paine front sight and checkered walnut silver medallion grips.

Wiregrassguy · #21 08-22-2018, 11:50 AM

BTW, the .38 M&P Target revolver that I posted a picture of its grips came with a tall, thin front sight. I have one if it turns out that is what you need.

2nd model 44 hand ejector target-1303170003-jpg

2nd model 44 hand ejector target-1303170003-jpg

steve61 · #22 08-22-2018, 12:04 PM

Let me know the measurements

Tom K · #23 08-22-2018, 12:07 PM

By the way, is there a thread or post somewhere that defines sight configurations? Just what is a Paine front sight anyway? What's a Sheard? I want to see a bunch of labeled sample pictures.

Wiregrassguy · #24 08-22-2018, 12:36 PM

Here you go.

2nd model 44 hand ejector target-tall-thin-dimensions-jpg

rct269 · #25 08-22-2018, 02:36 PM

The sight blade shown above (post #24) is a "Thin Round Top Blade". It bears no resemblance to any of the sights designed by Ira Paine. This sight was the standard target front on all hand ejector targets from 1905 to 1923, and available on order up to 1942.

The several (but not all) Paine sights: Black Bead, standard on top-break targets from 1878 to 1905, standard on HE targets from 1896 to 1905, and available on order to 1942; Paine Silver Bead, optional, modified Black Bead; Paine Square Bead, optional, modified Black Bead---and on they go.

Tom K asks "What's a Sheard?" It's a sight designed/patented by William Sheard. I opine (but don't know) Sheard never manufactured his sights on a commercial basis. Marble bought some/many/most/?? Sheard patents, and I'm reasonably comfortable saying any thin bodied front sight with a colored bead on top is a Sheard.

The sight on steve61's gun is a Plain Patridge. As should be painfully obvious, they came in both low and high configurations. They were available on order from about 1900 to 1923. From 1923 on to 1942, they were the standard front on HE targets. And of course, any Plain Patridge with a bead on it has a different name---Call, Mc Givern, King----and a Plain Patridge with a notch in the hind end is a King Modified Patridge.

Quittin' time-------------

Ralph Tremaine

lestert357 · #26 08-22-2018, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom K

By the way, is there a thread or post somewhere that defines sight configurations? Just what is a Paine front sight anyway? What's a Sheard? I want to see a bunch of labeled sample pictures.

Ralph Tremaine sent me the below excellent information some time ago:

Muley Gil · #27 08-22-2018, 05:21 PM

I once owned a .32-20 Target that had a Sheard front sight and the front sight blade was marked "SHEARD" on the side.

rct269 · #28 08-22-2018, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muley Gil

I once owned a .32-20 Target that had a Sheard front sight and the front sight blade was marked "SHEARD" on the side.

And that's exactly why I don't know/wonder if Sheard ever manufactured his designs. I continue to opine he did not, but-----------------------???????? I've seen sights stamped SHEARD's PATENT. My knee jerk assumption is those sights were manufactured by Marble-----never mind they don't say Marble.

The good news is I can almost always pick out S&W's----as long as they're revolvers.

Ralph Tremaine

handejector · #29 08-22-2018, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rct269

The sight on steve61's gun is a Plain Patridge. As should be painfully obvious, they came in both low and high configurations. They were available on order from about 1900 to 1923. From 1923 on to 1942, they were the standard front on HE targets.

Ralph Tremaine

Thanks for that, Ralph.
I had forgotten that the Patridge became standard that early.
Looking at a 1925 catalog, it is indeed stated to be the standard, and the target guns are shown with a Patridge.

Oddly, over the years most of the 38 and 44-2nd Target guns I have had that still had mushroom knobs had either the Thin Round Top Blade or the Paine beads. The numbers would be a few dozen 38s, and probably 8 to 10 44s.

I had no idea that Patridge sights existed as early as 1900.
How do you know that, please?

Hondo44 · #30 08-22-2018, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rct269

The sight on steve61's gun is a Plain Patridge. As should be painfully obvious, they came in both low and high configurations. They were available on order from about 1900 to 1923. From 1923 on to 1942, they were the standard front on HE targets. And of course, any Plain Patridge with a bead on it has a different name---Call, Mc Givern, King----and a Plain Patridge with a notch in the hind end is a King Modified Patridge. Ralph Tremaine

Ralph,

Thanks for that!

Although I knew about the 1923 to 1942 standardization of the Patridge (post #8), I too was unaware they were available so much earlier.

I can't recall ever seeing one on a TL. Have you?

Hondo44 · #31 08-22-2018, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by handejector

Don't expect to see a star and maybe not even a date for every minor bit of work done on a gun.
Fitting/swapping a front blade would be a 10 minute job for a skilled filer.

Lee,

Thx for that.

Always a new tidbit to learn from you!

rct269 · #32 08-22-2018, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hondo44

Lee,

Thx for that.

Always a new tidbit to learn from you!

The tid-bits you learn from me are/were almost always simply passed along by me after I learned them from someone else.

When it comes to sights, you can thank Bob Neal---and any and all who helped him with his several years of research. The factory kept virtually no records on sights. Jinks explains this thus: "This is not a surprise as many of what the foreman considered as minor changes is not recorded." I assume "the foreman" as it's used here was the plant manager. I would like to have had a few words with him. At any rate, given no records, Bob researched The Evolution Of Smith & Wesson Target Sights by observation (his own/that of others) over a period of several years). It is the only comprehensive work ever done/published on the subject---and covers it from start to finish--start being the sight used on the NM #3---finish being the so-called Micrometer sight introduced on the 22/40----and to the best of my knowledge, still in use today, albeit perhaps in an altered appearance.

Given it was researched via observation, a few of the more obscure front sights were missed---the Keith Long Range sight being the most notable. Only one rear was omitted, and I stumbled upon that about 20 years ago. My efforts to learn about it led me to Bob and his article. He opined "my" sight was likely a one-off by a gunsmith, but I kept looking. Three years later, here's another---and then another. It wasn't a one-off----but nobody knew the first thing about it----nobody but Jinks who had clearly been tracking them for years-----and had chapter and verse on it---as much chapter and verse as you can have----considering the foreman considered sights as irritating minor details

Ralph Tremaine.

red9 · #33 08-23-2018, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rct269

I've seen sights stamped SHEARD's PATENT. My knee jerk assumption is those sights were manufactured by Marble-----never mind they don't say Marble.

Here is an example of a Sheard gold bead. Marked "SHEARD 32" on one side and "MARBLE" on the other. Both markings would be visible when fitted.

Bob

steve61 · #34 08-24-2018, 11:51 AM

May I use your picture?

model3sw · #35 08-24-2018, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red9

Here is an example of a Sheard gold bead. Marked "SHEARD 32" on one side and "MARBLE" on the other. Both markings would be visible when fitted.

Bob

Love that package. I have a few like that and some in real, old fashion "cellophane" I got from Charles Duffy (RIP) way back when.