A King-Marked McGivern Outdoorsman with Shortened Hammer Throw

[DCWilson]

13 Dec 2020: Damaged image links have been replaced, and pictures are again available to illustrate the narrative.

[NOTE: This post is somewhat modified from its original form. I have edited it for clarity and reorganized some paragraphs. I have also softened my original assertion that the special modifications to this gun were the work of King Gun Sight Company of San Francisco. King may have worked on this gun's action, but further study is needed to confirm that.]

- - - - - - - - - -

THE BASICS

Almost all .38/44 Outdoorsman production left the factory with the standard 6.5 inch barrel, but a small number of prewar guns were manufactured with five inch barrels. These are generally called McGivern Outdoorsman models because the famed exhibition shooter special ordered a few of them with the shorter barrel and a bead front sight of the type that bears his name. Not all five-inch ODs have McGivern front sights; some of these rarely seen guns thus don't follow the original McGivern specification but are still loosely classified as McGivern ODs because of the barrel length. At least one five inch OD is known with a conventional patridge sight, and another one that shipped with a McGivern bead front sight has a patridge sight now. The one that I discuss here has a Call bead front sight.

There seems to be no agreement on how many five-inch ODs may have been produced, though knowledgeable collectors assert the number is quite low and perhaps not more than 50. I'm not sure. At least 20 are known to collectors, which would imply that nearly half of all guns produced have been identified. That is a higher identification rate than usual for uncommon models, and I suspect the number of five inch ODs produced may have been somewhat greater than is usually asserted.

This gun, 46207, letters with the five inch barrel and a Call gold bead front sight (surface of inset bead flush or almost flush with the rear surface of the front sight blade) instead of the domed McGivern bead, which protrudes from the rear surface of the sight. The flat surface of this bead looks abraded to me, and I wonder if an original McGivern gold bead was filed down to create the Call configuration that the letter identifies and which is installed on the revolver now. This gun was shipped November 19, 1935 to Hoffman Hardware in Los Angeles.












THE SHORT-ACTION MODIFICATION

The original configuration for this specimen is interesting enough, but the gun is additionally interesting because the action was modified to create a shorter hammer throw. This modification, which resulted in a faster lock time, involved cutting off the hammer stud inside the frame and filling the hole in the sideplate which received the other end of the original stud. Then new holes were drilled in the frame and sideplate to relocate a hammer stud about one-eighth of an inch to the rear of and slightly above the original position, changing the geometry of the action. As in the case of the company's prewar short-throw action found only in the K-22 Second Model, or K-22/40, this mounting position required the back of the hammer body to be milled down so it would not conflict with the frame of the gun while pivoting back in either SA or DA mode. You can see that milled step in the hammer on this gun. The new stud penetrated the frame on the left side, slightly overlapping the original factory stud end. Note too the small relief cut at the very top of the hammer cutout in the frame; that is to accommodate the hammer nose, which is now positioned higher with reference to the frame than in the factory design. (Note too, though this has nothing to do with the action, that the rear sight notch is quite wide. I would have expected a U-notch sight would be used with a gold bead front sight, but an earlier owner liked this set-up.)










The name of the King Gun Sight Company and the year 1941 are stamped in the inner surface of the sideplate, which initially made me think the short action conversion was necessarily a King modification. But I am informed by a forum member who has a similarly modified .38/44 that the exact modification seen here was introduced by J.D. Buchanan in the mid-1930s. I suppose it is possible that the King shop adopted the Buchanan procedure and stamped their own name on the gun, or Buchanan may have done the modification himself at some other time. If that is the case, the King sideplate markings are associated with some other relationship between the King Company and this revolver.



Regardless of who worked on this gun, the King short-throw conversions were not cheap. In a trifold brochure that seems to date to the late 1940s or early 1950s, the short action modification for prewar S&W revolvers is priced at $20. That would have been a significant percentage of the gun's original purchase price just a few years earlier. I am informed that prewar King brochures priced the short action modification at $10, but it is not clear to me what the process entailed. King offered a short hammer throw conversion that involved a drop-in redesigned hammer and did not involve relocating the hammer stud. I do not know if they ever offered an earlier process that did require them to move the hammer stud.



In a thread from a couple of years ago, forum member keith44spl posted a short-action Outdoorsman conversion about which these same questions were raised. His gun did not have King markings, but it did have the same modification features as this gun. Here's a link to that earlier thread.

Pre-War Outdoorsman Short Action Pics Inside Edition

Some collectors will object to what they will regard as compromised authenticity in this uncommon specimen, but I am not among them. While modifications in general will rarely increase the appeal or value of a particular firearm, I believe that King modifications are among those that can add value to a specific gun -- or at the very least not injure it. While I am hesitant at the moment to assert absolutely that this gun was modified by King, it obviously has some association with the company. I will try to establish with greater certainty what that connection might be.

This uncommon OD is in pretty good condition. I would rate the finish preservation at about 95-96% because a few blemishes push it below the 98-99% range. Bore and chambers are bright. The action is miraculously crisp; whoever worked on it knew what he was doing. The excellent service stocks number to a different gun, 37002, which was probably a Heavy Duty; nearby serial numbers 36997 and 37003 were both HDs. This gun is missing the sideplate-mounted hammer safety block found in the company's 1930s-era revolvers. I wonder if something about the changes to the action made it not function properly. I wouldn't think so, because regardless of the changed radius of motion, the hammer's rest position would be the same (or virtually the same) between the factory and King versions, and the rest position is where the hammer is located when the safety block is protecting against drop-impact discharge.

Experimenting with the action shows that this gun (and presumably the similar short-throw conversions) could benefit from a trigger overtravel stop. After release, the trigger still comes back an unnecessary 1/16" or so while the hammer is falling. That probably wouldn't bother a shooter of Ed McGivern's skills, but wannabe precision shooters might benefit from the restricted trigger travel.

This gun won't get a lot of use, but I will shoot it a few times just to evaluate the experience.

Individuals who have five-inch prewar .38/44 ODs in their collections are invited to post pictures of them in this thread. I would appreciate learning serial numbers either from open posting or in PMs if owners would rather not disclose serial numbers in a public context.

The portion of a King brochure pictured above is from a 1982 reprint, not an original.

[Lee Barner]

David, I totally agree that in this case the value would be increased. you could have a one of a kind there and thanks for sharing those great photos and details about the conversion. lee

[bamabiker]

Thank you for the info and great pictures. Very cool gun.

[Crabtree]

Thanks for taking the time to present the information and pictures. What an outstanding old revolver and history!

This could very well be an article in the journal.

[RKmesa]

Great pic's of and thread on one of my favorite models! I have a couple of King modified guns, but none of them were modified for the short throw hammer.

Thanks for sharing,

[j38]

Very nice gun, David. I've always loved the proportions of the 5" Outdoorsman guns with their tall front sights. Good case colors on yours too.

Jerry

[GLL]

OUTSTANDING !

Jerry

[pace40]

Outstanding gun, David, and thanks for the time spent on the research.

[woreout]

I'm a big fan of King guns and think their mods increase value rather than detract.

I had read about the short action conversion of S&Ws, but this is the first I've seen and am truly impressed by their skill.

I have several Colts with short actions and am going to rush out and pull the side plates of the DA guns to see if they are marked that way. Never thought of taking it off.

There is no way to tell by looking but the job they did on Colt SAAs is truly amazing.

Thanks for the post.

[Russell Cottle]

Appreciate the information and the photos.

[larry21556]

Just for comparison here is a photo of my much later M&P with King's short throw/cockeyed hammer. Still waiting for the letter on it.

[DCWilson]

If I'm reading that photo correctly, it looks like the re-engineered foot of the hammer permits the sear to disengage earlier than in the case of the factory design, which results in a shorter travel for the hammer.

Great illustration. Thank you.

[larry21556]

Also note the much altered double action fly allowing a quicker release timing

[larry21556]

Forgot to mention that the rear of the trigger has also been modified from standard and has a much sharper engagement angle

[TheHobbyist]

I think McGivern may have been just about the best practical pistol shooter of all time!

On topic, that is nothing short of amazing. Congrats!

[DCWilson]

As a thought experiment let's assume for the moment that this gun was NOT modified by King's San Francisco operation.

In Ed McGivern's book, first published in 1938, he mentions that services to shorten hammer falls, smooth actions, and widen hammer spurs could be obtained from J.D. Buchanan, 1280 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles. Given that 46207 was shipped to LA, it's not hard to see how it could have come into Buchanan's hands.

The big question then would be how it came to have the King corporate stamp applied to the inside of the sideplate. Is it an ownership badge? Did King acquire a Buchanan-modified gun for comparison purposes to show customers that their drop-in replacement hammer was a less invasive and therefore superior solution? Is it possible that King would have subcontracted short-action modifications to Buchanan before they developed their own approach?

I would like to know if anyone has ever seen that kind of King stamp on any other gun. I certainly haven't.

[weatherby]

Originally Posted by Russell Cottle

Appreciate the information and the photos.

Exactly what Mr. Cottle said

[keith44spl]

David,

That is one grand revolver!

The short throw hammer conversion is a well thought out design and

the workmanship on mine is a liken to a swiss watch works.

Wish mine had the percentage of finish yours has....But then again,

I wouldn't have her holster'd up and wearing it today.

Su Amigo,
Dave

[bettis1]

David,

Congratulations again on getting that McGivern Outdoorsman. I was standing beside you in KC when you decided to "pull the trigger" on the deal and was pleased to see that you got it.

I first saw that gun in October 2012 at the Texas Gun Collectors Assoc. show in Ft. Worth. I had just purchased my McGivern Model (44687). I was proudly showing it off when another collector/dealer stopped by and said: "I've got one just like it on my table!" What are the chances that two of them would show up at a relatively small show where S&W's are in the distinct minority??

As he and I were walking to his table he said:"You know that if these two guns are consecutive numbers, one of us is going home with both of them!" I had to agree. Unfortunately (or fortunately for my pocketbook), they weren't consecutive so we each left with only one of them.

At the time that I saw your gun, I did not pick up on the fact that it was modified for the King short action. I next saw the gun earlier this month at the large Dallas Arms Collectors show and that was the first that I had seen the inscription inside the side plate. What an authentication that is!!

When I saw it for the third time at the SWCA show in KC I was excited to see that you were considering it and ultimately got it.

A bit ago we had an extended discussion here (can't find the link right now) on the presence or absence of the various sight beads and the grooves on the back/fore straps.

Mine here has no bead and both straps are grooved.

Bob

[Dan M]

Originally Posted by DCWilson

As a thought experiment let's assume for the moment that this gun was NOT modified by King's San Francisco operation.

In Ed McGivern's book, first published in 1938, he mentions that services to shorten hammer falls, smooth actions, and widen hammer spurs could be obtained from J.D. Buchanan, 1280 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles. Given that 46207 was shipped to LA, it's not hard to see how it could have come into Buchanan's hands.

The big question then would be how it came to have the King corporate stamp applied to the inside of the sideplate. Is it an ownership badge? Did King acquire a Buchanan-modified gun for comparison purposes to show customers that their drop-in replacement hammer was a less invasive and therefore superior solution? Is it possible that King would have subcontracted short-action modifications to Buchanan before they developed their own approach?

I would like to know if anyone has ever seen that kind of King stamp on any other gun. I certainly haven't.

Dave,
I love your analytical mind and ability to try and dig out all possible contingencies. I fall into the category of the simplest possible explanation will usually be the right one.
1st time I have seen a side plate stamped by King. My guess is they did the work themselves. they stamped most of their parts with pride for sure.

Dan

[DCWilson]

Bob, thanks for the recent history on this gun and the kind words. I had the feeling it had been kicking around the gun shows for a little bit, and I thought I had better move if I was going to go home with a McGivern OD. Lee Jarrett had one on his table that got away before I made up my mind to talk to him about it.

Your gun is a beauty. Do the stocks number to the gun? If so, they must be among the earliest magnas shipped on a S&W N-frame.

With input from the Colt Forum, where I inquired about Colt revolvers that might be marked this way, I believe the King legend is inscribed with a pantograph instead of being rollmarked or stamped. That seems like a pretty highfalutin way to mark a gun on which a company did some custom work. I am more and more wondering if this legend is actually an assertion of ownership by D.W. King or his company.

With your gun I now have the serial numbers of 13 McGivern Outdoorsman models. There seem to have been three or four more in auctions over the last couple of years whose serial numbers I haven't yet recovered, but which may still be available in archived auction catalogs. I imagine a few more hours of research will possibly turn up half a dozen more serial numbers. We'll see.

[DCWilson]

Dan, you posted while I was composing a reply to Bob. Thanks for calling my mind analytical, but I think I am just flailing about in deep water while waiting for the lifeguards to show up and get me to drop the lunatic notions that are functioning like lead weights on a dive belt.

That King inscription on the interior of the sideplate is just so different that I don't know how to think about it. I do believe that it is a pantograph-assisted inscription rather than a rollmark. Something that big would distort the thin sideplate if it was pressed in, and the sideplate wouldn't fit the gun any more.

[bettis1]

David,

Unfortunately, the grips don't number to the gun.

My gun (44687) shipped to J.E. Haseltine & Co. in Portland, OR on July 31, 1936. As I recall, several of the other McGivern Outdoorsmen were also shipped to the West Coast. Perhaps coincidence or perhaps the "word" was just spread more quickly on the "left side".

I look forward to your analysis of your data on these fascinating guns.

Bob

[linde]

Originally Posted by bettis1

. . . A bit ago we had an extended discussion here (can't find the link right now) on the presence or absence of the various sight beads and the grooves on the back/fore straps . . . Mine here has no bead and both straps are grooved.

Bob,

Not sure we ever reached a conclusion on what feature set qualifies to be called a McGivern Model, but both of these threads offer informed opinions on the subject.
38/44 Outdoorsman question to the Forum
38/44 McGivern Model a.k.a. 5” Outdoorsman

Russ

[bettis1]

Thanks for bringing those links back to the front, Russ.

I don't think that we know enough to definitively nail down everything about the McGivern Outdoorsman/Heavy Duty Target just yet. But, if we continue to follow the scientific method of analyzing these things it is possible that we may be able to draw a conclusion that will stand close scrutiny.

I think that it is altogether possible that there were several lines of evolution in this design.

Bob

[DCWilson]

Russ, your gun from the second thread you linked to and the other 6/18/34 Seattle guns now bring me to 20 observed or documented McGivern ODs, but that's no guarantee that all 20 are visible in the collector community. I think I know the numbers of two existing Seattle guns, and there seems to be another Seattle gun whose number I don't know. The other five are at least temporarily on my "not observed" list.

Do we know the serial numbers of all 8 guns that went to Seattle? Looks like they might be consecutive, or mostly so. Then again they could be scattered and it is just a coincidence that two are numbered within a few digits of each other.

[shouldazagged]

Splendid revolver and your usual fine, thoughtful analysis, David. It's good to see you in your teaching role, or anything else you want to do here.

[chud333]

Very Nice indeed. I would be proud to own that
(modified) gun. Anything done by King is a plus in
my book.
Thanks for sharing and great find.

Chuck

[linde]

Originally Posted by DCWilson

. . . Do we know the serial numbers of all 8 guns that went to Seattle? Looks like they might be consecutive, or mostly so. Then again they could be scattered and it is just a coincidence that two are numbered within a few digits of each other.

Unfortunately we (I) don't know the serial numbers. The Historical Foundation's search of correspondence and shipping records was helpful . . . but not when it came to serial numbers.

Russ

[Peter M. Eick]

Very nice example. I am really impressed by the detailed work internally.

[woreout]

I have two Colt DA revolvers with the short action. Both have King sights and cockeyed hammers so it is reasonable to think the action job is King's too. Took the sideplates off but other than matching serial numbers for the gun there is no King marking on the side plate... dammit.

[DCWilson]

Sending this old thread back to the top with initial-post images restored.

[RKmesa]

Originally Posted by DCWilson

Sending this old thread back to the top with initial-post images restored.

Very fun to re-read this thread and look at the informative photos.

Thanks David for thowing it to the top.

[Green Frog]

I like it all over again! Thanks for the extra effort David.

Froggie

[SAFireman]

David,

As a fan of the King guns, a big thank you! for putting this up again.

I am going to have to pull some side plates and see if any of mine are marked inside.

[usmc2427765]

The most fun you will ever have with your pants on is becoming a part of the S&W Forum. You will not regret it !!