I've been considering a purchase of a Smith & Wesson MK II second edition in 44 spl. It's advertised and appears in excellent original condition. What would the premium of this S&W be over an equal condition in .455. Both appear excellent and have 6 1/2" barrels.? Any help is appreciated.

Rod

My guessamate would be around $800. BTW, a .44 Special without the ejector rod shroud is a 2nd model. A .455 without the ejector rod shroud is a MK II. The MKs only apply to the military .455s.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

I paid $1150 for this one about five years ago. I was told, at the time, It was a very good deal. I would not entertain a $1500 offer today.

__________________
Bill

Does it have military identification stamps or is it a commercial gun? Is the 44 caliber stamped on the side of the barrel? Can you supply a couple photos and a partial serial number? Need to make sure what gun you have first, since as stated above, only the 455 was associated with the "Mark II" descriptor.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Well thank God and Muley Gil for that!! I'd figured we were talking about a .44 2nd, but if it doesn't have target sights, I don't know the first thing about it-------and now I do!!

Ralph Tremaine

Thanks everyone for the information. Here's two photos of the 44 spl.

There's two that I'm interested in. The first is the 44 spl and the second is a HD 38-44 from 1950. Both are in very good to excellent condition. Tough to decide which one is the best purchase. Both priced the same at $1150. The plum color on the cylinder is a concern but could be the flash??

Rod

That plum color is a bluing or re-bluing flaw. Always check blued guns in sunlight or under a strong flashlight.

Ruger's blued guns often have such problems, esp. on SA loading gates.

Just one reason why I prefer stainless handguns.

I think .44's bring a premium over .455's and ammo is far more available, if you want to shoot the gun.

If I was five years younger I would buy both, looking at the right side picture there is no purple hue, the gentleman selling these is a straight up
guy, maybe email him.
John Claydon, SWCA 348.

Judging by the fine condition of the grips and the closely fitting side plate, I'm inclined to thing that purple hue just maybe lighting.

If you can't examine it in person, I would like a three day inspection. You do realize that if you don't like it, the return shipping would be your cost, not the seller's.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

I concur with John Claydon as I dealt with the seller a number of years back. I sold him a late 1950's M27 and he was great to deal with and lately he's had some very nice S&W revolvers for sale. The reason I asked about the 44 spl and the premium over a .455 is he has one of them for sale as well in the same bundle and it's in equal condition but the 44 spl is priced $400 more. Normally I make a decision without hesitation but thought I'd seek some information from those in the know.

There were a whole lot more MK II .455s built than 2nd model .44 Specials. I personally would go for the .44.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

Not to nit pick, just to clarify:

In S&W parlance the 455 w/o shroud is actually a “.455 Mark II HE - 2nd Model” ; the MKII being part of the cartridge description, i.e., .455 Mark II. Both 1st and 2nd models were .455 Mark IIs.

Only the British referred to the 2nd Model gun itself as the MKII and stamped them as such on the left side of the frame forward of the hammer.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

What is the serial number of that 44-2nd?

Forgive me for the long quote with the pics. That, to me, is normally tacky and unnecessary because it requires viewers to do so much scrolling, but I wanted to be specific about what I am saying here-
IF those grips number to that gun, it is a very early 44-2nd, and they are, dare I use the word- rare.
They are rare because the 44-2nds first appear in 1916 as a result of 455-2nd production. When S&W finished up the 455 production in late 1916, they were already working on development of the Mod 1917. They were also planning on adding a new building because their production of the 455s had severely taxed their capacity, and US involvement in WW I was looking quite likely. The US entered the war in April, 1917, so plans for the Mod 1917 moved ahead. In other words, they were still very busy with other stuff, and production of early 44-2nds was not large. Once 1917 production started at full pace, I doubt any 44-2nds were produced, so we have only intermittent production from the intro of the model in 1916 and the return of control of the Factory to S&W in Jan, 1919. When commercial production began again in 1919, the gold medallions were dropped. So, a 44-2nd with ORIGINAL gold medallion grips is a rare bird. One in high condition is rarer.
So, IF that gun is all original, I'd be all over it.
Again, what is the serial number? If you don't want it, can I buy it? The blue looks righteous to me, but I'm not convinced the grips are original to it. However, not being drilled for a SWIVEL is a good sign that it is an early one since most 1920s 44-2nds are built on leftover 1917 frames and have swivels. Let me know via PM if you don't take it and it is not already spoken for.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

I'd be on that beauty like a duck on a June bug, nothing that nice for that money ever crosses my path and I'm hunting.

I sent the seller a pm that I'd take it but someone beat me to it. Oh well.

Rod

Ah, but you did! I like Roy's description in Neal & Jinks book, 455 Mark II Hand Ejector 1st & 2nd Model as well, but fail to undeerstand your point? Are not all 455s MkIIs?

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

[QUOTE=glowe;140981350]Ah, but you did! I like Roy's description in Neal & Jinks book, 455 Mark II Hand Ejector 1st & 2nd Model as well, but fail to undeerstand your point? Are not all /QUOTE]

No, .455s MkII refers to the cartridge of both models, but only 2nd Models are MkII Model revolvers and only according to the British. You won't see a 1st Model TL stamped MkII by the British or anyone else, only 2nd Models.

Roy's description: ".455 Mark II Hand Ejector 1st & 2nd Model" is the S&W Collector (USA) description. As in .44 Special 1st and 2nd models.

A .455 MkII (2nd Model) box:



Again according to the British, the .455 cartridge is the MkII cartridge, and the 2nd model is the MkII revolver; two different MkII designations.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

OK, even though the 1st Model was designed for the Mark II cartridge that became official in 1914, there was no II stamped on the first model. Correct? So did Roy name it incorrectly? Not sure that we should care what the British named these guns, since they did not manufacture them, and both models were designed for the Mark II cartridge. I assume that no boxes exist for the 1st Model? It would seem that the book has the right idea, not confusing what the British names were used, but rather being consistent about deciding what the Mark II signifies?

Don't mean to argue, but it seems that collectors generally use one of two sources to name models. Of course, Roy and Robert is relied on heavily as the first definitive work to organize and ID S&W models, changes, names, etc. Factory literature would be the second source for naming, consisting of box labels, catalogs, and internal manufacturing logs. Being this was almost exclusively a military contract, I wonder if there is any factory documentations that names the 1st Model?

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Keep in mind there were six marks of .455 Webley cartridge. MK II was standard in WW I until about 1938 when the FMJ MK VI appeared to avoid Hague Accords objections to lead bullets.

Any Mark works fine in .455 revolvers, with Mks. III,IV, and V having wadcutter shapes, and III also a hollow nose. These were the Manstopper loads, the boxes sometimes marked, Not For Use Against Europeans.

While you guys are arguing about this, figure this one out-


All the S&Ws, and all the Colt New Service in 455 that I have seen are designated cal 455 MkII anywhere you see them designated on paper, BUT they all really have the longer MkI chamber. Now, that makes perfect sense because you don't want to get caught in the deepest, darkest wilds of good ol' Mother Earth with only older, longer MkI ammo that won't go in your gun, but why not state the actual chambering accurately?

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

The amount of confusing verbiage on these Mk. guns and cartridges is only exceeded by the amount of confusing stamps, marks, flags and arrows on the guns themselves~
I have one I think I'll sell just so I don't have to research the confusion. I bought it to round out my 2nd Model collection and because it had been reamed to the much preferable .45Colt.~~

Lee, I am almost beyond figuring anything out, but I would speculate that the .455 Mark II designation would reassure those carrying such a revolver that it was "cordite-ready." I envision a soldier with a revolver named the Mark I and a box of ammunition labeled Mark II suffering from temporary brain freeze while trying to assess the risk of using smokeless ammo in a revolver whose name suggested it was designed only for lower-pressure BP ammo.

__________________
David Wilson

Lee,

My friend Gary and I don't argue, we're discussing, questioning and clarifying another confusing aspect of this great hobby.

You pose a good question. You certainly have the British reasoning correct IMHO to be able to use old inventory MkI cartridges in a pinch in case their MkII production wasn't able to keep up with the war. By the looks of some .455 pitted barrel bores, the MkI black powder cartridges did see some use. While most of the .455s have pretty clean bores.

From everything I've been able to find and read, the Brits intended the revolver to use their current-at-the-time, .455 MkII cartridge. Knowing this S&W may have marked it just .455 on the guns they did mark, or the Brits directed them to mark them as just .455 in the contract, with the proviso that the chambers accept the longer MkI cartridges. I don't think S&W would have machined the chambers longer on their own. One more trivial mystery we'll probably never know the full answer to unless someone finds a copy of the contract and studies it to ferret out the answer.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

None of the 1st models of the contract nor the pre contract 1st variation model sent to the Brits: the “44 Hand Ejector-1st Model Triple Lock”, (the 44 Spl # series factory converted to .455), or the “455 Hand Ejector-1st Model Triple Lock” were cartridge roll marked. Also none of them were stamped MKI by the Brits.

And the 2nd models weren’t marked consistently “SMITH & WESSON .455” (the only cartridge mark ever used), until after ~ #29515 with exceptions found with lower #s because they weren’t produced in serial # order. (See my study post #223 for the latest updated database info, on page 5 here:
.455 British Svc Revolver Research Thread )


I don’t have a photo of a 1st Model box, but I suspect it was labeled the same as the 2nd Model box.

I agree and don’t care to use the British designations. I prefer the Roy/Robert/book names because they’re defining, descriptive names. Using the box end label name; “GOVERNMENT MODEL - .455 MARK II CARTRIDGE” helps us understand the MKII is a cartridge designation, but no help in clarifying the 4 variants of these models. In fact at the time, 1st and 2nd Models were only known in the trade as…wait for it…..Old Model and New Model.

As I mentioned in my response to Lee’s post, the only documentation likely to help is a copy of the contract.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

BTW, .455 Colt used MK I length cases.

Fired a 265 grain lead bullet at some 750 FPS instead of 600-625 feet for typical .455 MK II loads.

True, and if I understand correctly, with smokeless powder. They must have taken advantage of the extra case capacity.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

I guess I always side on the "simple" side of debates, knowing that someone who had a lot more experience than me, a huge amount or research documentation available, plus someone who wrote THE BOOK, decided to keep the name given this model by previous authors. Most seasoned collectors now know that the Mark II was a caliber designation for the S&W factory. Whether the British stamp II on the 2nd Models to ID the model or the caliber, does not change the collector name in my mind. Of course, to further muddy the waters, Lee points out that physically the gun was manufactured to shoot Mark I cartridges. I am thinking the same thing as Jim, that bunkers full of Mark I ammo most likely were the reason why the S&W 455 had the longer cylinder. Never mind why the British decided to lower the power of the cartridge, but still had their guns built to accept the old ammo. It does remain a very questionable design feature for the S&W 455. Both the revolver and the Mark II cartridge carry the 1914 introduction date, so the British definitely designed a new cartridge for use in this revolver, but lengthened the chamber for the old Mark I. Makes on wonder why they bothered to come out with the new cartridge in the first place??

I would wonder if the Mark II bullet jumping the gap in the long chamber has something to do with this model's questionable accuracy, but before everyone chimes in that their 455 is a tack driver, let's leave that subject for another thread.

NOTE: I should probably note that Neal & Jinks did not originally name this model. The oldest collector book I have is Martin Rywell's Smith & Wesson The Story of the Revolver in 1953 and it used the same model name. It is also found that in Smith & Wesson Hand Guns by McHenry & Roper. They may have been the first authors to state the Mark II was a caliber marking in the 1958 book.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

There's no doubt more than one reason. But I believe a main reason was modernizing the cartridge with the use of cordite (an early version of smokeless powder.)

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

That's not what I meant. I meant that an officer in 1914 might find himself posted to a remote garrison in India, or Uganda, or Borneo, or Malaya, or the Falklands, or Swaziland, or Guiana, or Somalia, or New Guinea, or the Sudan with his brand new S&W or Colt, only to find that the only ammo around is the old MkI (long case) shipped there 10-15 years earlier. I say! It would be most beneficial to have a revolver that uses the ammo on hand!
Also, Cordite and corrosive primers is a combo that will give BP a run for the money any day.






That is not correct.
Brit revolver evolution is confusing. I dare say they seem to have been confused. Cartridge revolvers started for them with the .450 cartridge in the 1860s. It had a 225 gr bullet at about 650 fps. They decided that was not enough, and went to a cartridge called the .476 Enfield, which was actually virtually identical to the .455 MkI about 1881. From most sources, the bullet in the .476 is actually .455 in diameter, with .476 being the case diameter. About 10 years later, they adopted the .455 MKI, which again, is virtually identical to the .476 Enfield. I guess they got less confused for a moment, but they're confusing the hell outa us.
Both the .476 and the .455 MKI were BP rounds of course, loaded with around 18 or 19 gr., depending on what you read. By the mid 1890s, the Brits had adopted Cordite. The load in the .455 was only 6-7 gr., so there was lots of extra space in the case, sometimes leading to poor ignition. In the late 1890s, they adopted the shorter MkI case to provide better ignition with the small Cordite charge.
The .450, .476, .455 MkI, and .455 MkII can all be inserted into a gun chambered for the .455 MkI.
So, the introduction of the .455 MkII cartridge predates the S&W revolvers by more than 15 years.
The Brits used a new "Mk" designation for every change in bullets-
.455 Mk III is the "Manstopper", a massive hollowpoint
.455 Mk IV is basically a flat point (for more impact)
.455 Mk V is another flat point, harder bullet
.455 Mk VI is the old 265 gr conical shape with a jacket to be in compliance with Hague, adopted in 1939. I have Kynoch .455 ammo dated 1940 in both lead Mk II and jacketed Mk VI, so I suppose that is the year they actually changed.

Confusing, Wot?

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Yup, I read my references incorrectly. It seems that the Brits returned to the Mark II 1914 from the Mark V, but was originally designed in 1897.

Let's try this chronology:

.455 Webley Mk I - Introduced in 1891. 265 grain solid lead round-nosed bullet propelled by black powder.

.455 Webley Mk II - Introduced in 1897. 265 grain solid lead round-nosed bullet propelled by 6.5 gr cordite. With the change to cordite propellant, case lengths were reduced.

.455 Webley Mk III - Introduced in 1898. The famous "Manstopper" bullet intended for police, civilian and colonial use. The Mk III was a 218 grain lead "hollowpoint" design, propelled by cordite.

.455 Webley Mk IV - Introduced in 1912. 220 grain, flat-nosed wadcutter with cordite propellant.

.455 Webley Mk V - Introduced in 1914. Identical to the Mk IV bullet, but cast from a harder lead-alloy containing more antimony with cordite propellant. This cartridge was only in use from April through November 1914.

.455 Mk II (again) - The Mark II cartridge was returned to service in 1914. Remaining stocks of Mk V ammunition were designated for target practice and unloaded cases were loaded with Mark II bullets.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

That explains why the MkII was followed by the MkVI in 1938.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

I sure hope we answered the OPs question? What was it again??

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Rod, I wouldn't be disappointed. I may get push back on this, but in my experience I only see purplish bluing like that cyl on re-blued guns. And I can't say for sure but the stud for the rebound slide sticking thru the left side of the frame just in front of the stock, looks to have been polished flat when I zoom in on the photo. It should be domed, so a flattened stud is a surefire indication the gun is re-blued and not by the factory (at least before WWII). Or maybe just the cyl was re-blued. I'd also want to confirm the grips are matching serial # to the gun. So in my opinion, it's not worth the price asked.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

I like your scenario. However, since the guns that were caliber marked were only marked .455, and whether or not the gun was caliber marked, the Limeys would soon tumble to the fact that MKI ammo fit in the chambers properly. And knowing the fastidious English, it would not surprise me if an "Operating Handbook" was supplied with each revolver!

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Jim: My offer to purchase hinged on a few issues I was concerned about, the plum color on the cylinder and confirmation on the stocks being numbered to the gun. Another issue was the lack of a S&W crest on the sideplate. I have other S&W revolvers with a smaller crest on the left side under the cyl release but this one, from the photos, looked to have neither.

Rod

Rod,

During and after WWI until ~1920 the trademark logo wasn't used. None of the 1917 .45 Armys had them either. It took a couple of years before it was used again.

It confirms the vintage of that gun to be between 1917 and 1920. The medallion grips were likely original during that period.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

You're still missing my point. I'm saying the Brits had the guns chambered for the longer MkI case on purpose, even though it had been obsolete for 17 years, just in case a man found himself stuck with only the longer MkI ammo available in the remote regions of the largest empire ever seen on earth, not because they would not be able to produce enough new MkII ammo.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

I suspect the plum color is mainly a lighting issue in the pic.

Note in the first pic:
The cyl behind and above the flute looks blue, not plum. Also, there is a plum streak on the barrel socket.
In the second pic:
The cyl now looks blue, but there is a plum streak on the barrel and the barrel socket.
It is mainly just the lighting.
The rebound stud pin is CLEARLY DOMED, not flat.


Did you ever get a serial number for the gun? I'm afraid you missed a really nice, very early gun.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Never did get the serial number. There was, I believe, 4 vintage S&W revolvers he had that sold right off the bat.

Rod

I got your point! That's why I said I liked your scenario. And yes I agree, the MKI chambering was certainly on purpose. But was far more likely for backup MKI ammo in the trenches of Europe; the reason for ordering the S&W revolvers. And less likely for a "Gunga Din" scenario, until maybe after the war. Can we agree to disagree on that point?

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

What a fascinating post, the depth of the knowledge base on this forum never ceases to amaze me.

__________________
SWCA#2288
SWHF#407