|
|
10-20-2023, 10:02 AM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 1,050
Liked 2,544 Times in 462 Posts
|
|
The Condensed .22/32 HFT Backstory
Most collectors of pre-war target revolvers are familiar with the .22/32 target revolver. Created at the suggestion of Phil Bekeart, a trial run was made in 1911 and the gun was cataloged from 1915 into the 1930's.
Due to the desire for a heavier .22 target revolver, the .22 Outdoorsman (technically Outdoorsman's and also known as the First Model K22) was created as a companion to the M&P target revolver in 1931, evolving into the K22/40 (AKA Second Model K22 or First Model Masterpiece) 1940-41 and post-war K22 (Second Model) Masterpiece.
But why the designation .22/32 HFT? The initial run were .22/32s, referring to a.22(LR) revolver on the .32 caliber I frame. When cataloged in 1915, the gun became the .22/32 Heavy Frame Target revolver. Are you kidding me Heavy Frame? Well yes, in comparison to the still in production Ladysmith (Model M) target the .22/32 was HUMONGOUS, especially the grip frame.
Bob
Last edited by red9; 10-20-2023 at 10:03 AM.
|
The Following 18 Users Like Post:
|
DARE, Dennis2149, Frieda's Boss, huthike, JayCeeNC, kscharlie, long colt frazier, Mister Heavyhand, MNruss, Muley Gil, ol777gunnerz, Papa Lee, quinn, rct269, Retired W4, sweetwilly45, tt66, Wiregrassguy |
10-20-2023, 12:02 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Massachusetts USA
Posts: 9,593
Likes: 3,710
Liked 8,948 Times in 3,555 Posts
|
|
Quote:
But why the designation .22/32 HFT? The initial run were .22/32s, referring to a.22(LR) revolver on the .32 caliber I frame. When cataloged in 1915, the gun became the .22/32 Heavy Frame Target revolver. Are you kidding me Heavy Frame? Well yes, in comparison to the still in production Ladysmith (Model M) target the .22/32 was HUMONGOUS, especially the grip frame
|
.
I think that you have answered your own question....In 1911 it was S&W's heaviest frame .22 revolver. Not so much in the 1930's. The term was dropped when the K frames came out.
__________________
James Redfield
LM #497
|
10-20-2023, 12:43 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,525
Likes: 11,150
Liked 12,127 Times in 1,938 Posts
|
|
Bob, great comparison for those like myself who have little undersanding of the pre 2ar 22's. Thanks.
__________________
Randy
Provenance nerd
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
10-20-2023, 12:59 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Pikeville, Tennessee
Posts: 6,059
Likes: 921
Liked 9,947 Times in 3,657 Posts
|
|
A fine job of work---especially for those of us who, at least, think we know everything!
Ralph Tremaine
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
10-20-2023, 01:58 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Missouri City, Texas
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 2,742
Liked 1,720 Times in 614 Posts
|
|
Thanks from all of us who love our 22’s!
|
10-21-2023, 12:29 AM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Pikeville, Tennessee
Posts: 6,059
Likes: 921
Liked 9,947 Times in 3,657 Posts
|
|
Well, speaking of heavy frame .22's, the Outdoorsman wasn't the first from S&W. It most certainly was the first in mass production---just not their first .22 target on a .38 frame.
Walter Roper tells the story of a predecessor. The severely condensed version goes like this: Along about 1910-1912, S&W was approached by a group of Army officers (presumably a shooting team), and asked to build 20 such revolvers--and that they did. The guns turned out to be totally unsatisfactory in the accuracy department, were returned, and destroyed---all but one.
Roper learned of all this at the time he joined S&W (early 20's), and was given the lone survivor, and asked to see if he could determine the cause. It turned out to be the rifling rate, 1 turn in 10" rather than the 1 in 15-16 generally accepted as correct----simply a mistake.
Ralph Tremaine
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
10-21-2023, 12:49 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,138
Likes: 34
Liked 961 Times in 497 Posts
|
|
Seeing the M and I frame side by side the size difference is striking.
I have always had a soft spot for 22’s, and enjoy them all. I long for the day I trip over a model 35 ( or variant pre post thereof) affordably
|
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|