A short while back I posted about a registered magnum that I now possess that Has the long barrel and was made in September 1939. I just received the foundation research letters on it. I mentioned that it looked to be all 'correct' except that it had a regular N-frame hammer, and not the RM hammer with concentric circles on the sides.

It looks like the initial purchaser ordered the gun from Paxton and Gallagher Co. without giving specifics on sights, barrel length, stocks and hammer. So the Co. contacted the purchaser about this, then sent this letter to S&W to give details on specifics for this gun. It does say to use the regular hammer. Now I am wondering if that means the regular RM hammer, or the regular N-frame hammer. Since the gun now has the regular N-frame hammer and everything else is 'correct', could it have been assembled this way? Your opinions are welcome.

Attached Images

Reg 5318 Doc A Sized.jpg (52.3 KB, 199 views)

__________________
John
SWCA #3401 SWHF #737

Regular hammer. Not a RM hammer. my two cents. And you have the letter to back it up.

__________________
Charlie

Me too!

I interpret "your regular hammer" to mean the regular, everyday hammer.

That said, it could certainly be interpreted as the regular everyday RM hammer-----and not that Humpback thing.

Any and all who wish to argue the point should find somebody, anybody but me as an opponent.

Thank you for your cooperation!

Ralph Tremaine

I interpret that letter to mean the "regular hammer for a Reg Mag", and NOT the Hump Back hammer.


If a guy did not know enough to specify the sights, grip choice, and barrel length in the initial order, do you REALLY think he knew enough to know the hammers were grooved?
Most likely scenario-
S&W contacted that dealer asking that the customer specify:
1- barrel length
2- sights desired
3- service or magna grips
4- Hump back or "regular" hammer

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Regular hammer was used per instructions instead of the humpback hammer. S&W might have interpreted the instructions as the customer did not want a hammer with the concentric cuts on sides so what you have is completely original as made and put together in 1939. I would be very happy with it and the paperwork that matches the gun perfect.

John, the wording in the Paxton and Gallagher Co. letter could certainly have been interpreted by the factory either way. Also, recalling your pictures of the RM in your earlier thread, the condition of the regular N frame hammer on the gun matches the condition of the gun very well.

If I remember correctly the service stocks on your RM are serial number matching to the gun. Does the Historical Foundation documentation include the shipping invoice? If so, does it show a Wesson Grip Adapter (usually annotated as “G. A.”) included in the shipment and whether it was attached or not? If you have the shipping invoice, could we see a picture of it? Perhaps you should be searching for a Wesson Grip Adapter rather than a RM hammer....or both.😄

__________________
Terry Lester

Further study gives rise to the considered opinion the initial purchaser of this weapon was at least a bit of a flake----apologies to your father/grandfather if you happen to be offspring or offspring's offspring.

Here we have the purchaser of what was at least presented as a custom made to order handgun who neglects to specify a few minor details, such as "sights, barrel length, stocks and hammer". I suspect, had S&W not been so hard up for the cash, they might have seriously considered declining the order for cause----something along the lines of the customer being too damn dumb to be trusted with a weapon of this sort.

Ralph Tremaine

The way the letter is written, it seems to imply regular vs humpback. But it's not a far cry to imagine it could be interpreted as one lacking concentric rings. I suspect the hammer currently on your Registered Magnum is original to your revolver.

So the guy wanted a long-barreled Magnum revolver and had the money to buy one. In 1939, the RM wasn't an object of worship for connoisseurs, but simply an expensive gun. Chances are that if you had asked the customer about concentric rings on the hammer, he would have looked at you as if you had asked him to explain Schrödinger's Cat.

From the letter, it appears to me that Paxton & Gallagher realized that and are telling S&W to put the simplest version of everything on the gun.

Now as for the RM order form, I only have Patton's famous one, and there is no choice of hammer, so unless the form changed by 1939, and somebody has one, we can't tell whether the factory would have considered the regular N-frame hammer a legitimate "basic" option. Lee and others here have old catalogs; if it was, it should be listed somewhere.

If it is, there you go, if not, my guess would be that it shipped with the regular RM hammer.

Attached Images

RM Pattons order form.JPG (90.7 KB, 273 views)

Congrats on a truly great handgun!!!
Plus 1 with the above. I believe the clear implication of the words refers to the hammer normally furnished on that particular model. The idea of generic "regular model" simply doesn't fit the context of the letter in the main. Such or make sense, in generic application of resulting factory "non-original"!

That said, another question might be of how, whomever responsible in the factory shop, to interpret it... Throughout the ages, "S" happens!
I do also agree that almost surely the "customer" would not be aware of such factory large frame nuance as any interpretation to suggest. Suspecting most likely the retailer wouldn't either! The "Humpback" distinction, quite likely and that in reference to "option". To me it all 'fits'. The fact of a non-conforming hammer now, stretching to achieve ambiguity!

I also believe that something of "blind-side liability" of us collectors, is seeing something apparently non-original and trying to explain it in "factory variation" terms. Occam's Razor denial of "simplest answer usually correct". Here specifically, where more often parts failure or "usual suspect" Bubba the source! With hammer or trigger, the "regulating" process too often with parts-affected consequences".
Happy ending if so here, with subsequent "drop-in" parts restoration! Such originality nuance as spoken of here, not even on radar in repair era!

The aside that to me also, restoring the factory correct hammer; essentially 'cosmetic surgery'. Complimentary rather than "doing violence" in originality sense, to the wonderful gun 'package' it is! If we commonly replace grips! Some sort of 'barrier' distinction? Disclosure on future sale; "ethics" as appropriate.

You have a wonderful, unique Smith there! Enjoy and...
Just my take
Best & Stay Safe!
John

Let me add a few more thoughts. I agree that the original person making the purchase request was not completely knowledgeable of how to make the order. And probably the same could be said for the Paxton and Gallagher Co. But there is always the possibility that this gun was ordered as a present or a gift for someone else. This did seem to happen often at that time. Maybe even a raffle prize. The documentation does not mention any of this.

Also, I have seen copies of at least three different order forms. I am talking about the one that is filled out by the originator and I believe is the last page of the brochure. There is the original one, the next has an option for Magna grips, and a third which adds the option for the standard (as illustrated) or humpback hammer. Judging by the dates, this form was filled out by S&W after they received the information from the letter I pictured here. Not to play with semantics, but S&W only refers to a 'standard' hammer, and the Paxton and Gallagher Co. refers to a 'regular' one.

Also, S&W specified the regular stocks, not Magnas, with the Wesson Grip Adapters attached. Since this revolver is more of a shooter grade than a pristine collectible, I will probably leave it as is and use it occasionally at the range. Thank you to all who have contributed to this thread so far.

__________________
John
SWCA #3401 SWHF #737

John...having read all of the documents...the customer wanted a regular hammer for a .357 Magnum and not the new humpback hammer (the factory would have used the standard hammer for a registered magnum). The invoice shows the Magnum shipped with regular stocks with grip adapter attached.

Bill

The good news is if the next purchaser of this RM questions the hammer, point him to this discussion.... Let him figure it out.

__________________
Charlie