Looking at a beautiful 1st Model Outdoorsman that will probably get bid up pretty high. My question is basically 'is it worth it?'
I know they were only built in a limited number until 1940 and any pre-war Smith is worth something.
However, if I wanted a nice shooter as opposed to a true collectible that I wouldn't want to shoot all the time, would one look for a Masterpiece? I understand the rear sights were considered an upgrade. Do have a very nice K 22 from 1955 that is a great shooter. I could add an Outdoorsman to the collection later.
Attached a pic of the one in question.

Attached Images

K-22 Outdoorsman 1st Model.jpg (29.9 KB, 236 views)

I'm not one of the resident experts but personally wouldn't pay a ton for a very, very nice example like the one you pictured unless I intended to keep it in as pristine a condition as possible. I can see it as an investment and believe it would be hard to shoot that pretty thing (much anyway).

I buy shooters to shoot and have invested little in "collectable" quality classics like this one appears to be. For me it's rather one way or the other leaning towards acquiring firearms I'm not seriously degrading by using regularly.

Good luck and in the end you're gonna do what you want to do and that's the way it ought to be!

Bryan

__________________
Ordnung muss sein
SWHF #789

Sounds like you got what you need already, unless you’re just looking for a safe Queen. That gun looks very good.

__________________
James
On the Llano Estacado

That is a 1st Model. The K-22 Masterpiece had larger micrometer adjustment screws. That one does not. It is actually a K-22 Outdoorsman's Revolver if one uses the moniker. It is also named a K-22 Hand Ejector, 1st Model. There were 19,500 1st Models made.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Nice piece. As long as screws aren't buggered-up, timing is good and grips match it should go for well north of a grand if it hasn't been attacked by some "kitchen gunsmith" otherwise. Add the red box it originally came with and you're talkin' some serious cash...

When considering these old Smiths, keep in mind two things:
1) They don't make 'em anymore and,
2) If you pass on one where and when will you find another to match or
better the one you just passed up?

Just my two pennies' worth...

The sights on a 22/40 (the Masterpiece), and all later renditions, may be considered an upgrade----------------but!!

The sights on a (later) Outdoorsman, the so-called "two screw" sights are VASTLY superior---------in my opinion. Why? They are infinitely adjustable, whereas the (again) so-called Micrometer sight on the Masterpiece are not---giving a change in point of impact of whatever it is (1/2"? at whatever distance) for each "click"; whereas the "two screw" sight moves point of impact 1" for each FULL TURN of an adjusting screw for each 10 yards of range.

Now if a fixed minimum change in point of impact is compatible with your shooting, all's well and good. If you fancy yourself able to drive nails, light matches, blow out candles, and murder Bumblebees; you're not going to be doing any of that with the Micrometer sight---no way-no how!

The good news is both sights will not "shoot loose" (if/when the "two screw" sight is properly adjusted and locked)---not that shooting loose is much of a concern with .22's.

As an aside, the "two screw" sight is S&W's very first that won't "shoot loose"---------after a mere 50 or so years of trying. I suspect that came about after a brief meeting with D.B. Wesson, where the need for such a sight for the then upcoming 357 Magnum was discussed. I imagine the punch line was something along the lines of "The creator of the wining design gets to keep his job---sorry about the rest of you!!"

"If at first you don't succeed", and so on----------------------

Ralph Tremaine

A belated WHOOPS!!

My attention has been called to an earlier post of mine (M&P Model of 1905 4th Change (Target)) where I said the Large Screw Spring Up sight was the first that wouldn't "shoot loose" (1911 thereabouts). True enough, IF/WHEN the lads got the tempering of the sight tang proper----which was problematic at best (best guess is 1 out of 3 based on a less than statistically valid sample of the three examples in my collection---------AND a letter from Jinks (he being the only human I came to know about when I was trying to learn about this particular abomination.)

One thing to keep in mind is that the smaller rear blade on the OD can be a bit more challenging if your eyesight is getting older

I believe that is one of the reasons the King gun sight company did well when they got in the handgun sight arena.

Shooting outside I find I like the OD just fine. Inside I shoot better with a larger sight.

Super Nice Gun!
Long time believer you usually never hurt guns by shooting them.
It’s carrying them around in holsters that puts on the wear and tear.
Not exactly a once in a lifetime opportunity, but a K22 that old that nice don’t show up everyday!

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

And as to how many Bumblebees I've murdered, I don't know.

I do remember the very first one---vividly!!

It was perched on/in one of those angle iron fence posts---dead center. I fired, the Bumblebee disappeared, and I immediately said OUCH!!---and perhaps a few other less acceptable exclamations.

It seems as I hit both the Bumblebee AND then the interior of the fence post pretty much dead center. That served to split the bullet in half, and send each half back to whence it came---more or less. A not too close examination revealed each half of the bullet stuck about halfway into each upper arm. The other Bumblebees in the area were laughing fit to bust a gut!!

The moral of this story is don't shoot at Bumblebees perched on the inside of angle iron fence posts. They're there as a decoy---ready and willing to sacrifice themselves--------with full knowledge of what's likely to happen to you if you do!

Ralph Tremaine

OP, I'm there with you. I've seen some truly beautiful K-22s on here, but I'm more into shooters. Lucky enough to have found a first year gun with some bluing loss and a healthy turn line, so it gets shot quite a bit for a gun about to celebrate its 92nd birthday in September.

__________________
Psalm 27:2

I recently asked Roy Jinks about this. He says the correct figure is 17,117.

__________________
SWCA #590
"Colligo ergo sum"

Thanks for the inputs, they all make sense. Yes, it's a beautiful revolver. I guess it comes down to how much everyone else wants it, too. I would still shoot it if I had it, just not sure how often. Decisions, decisions....

I've had a 1936 issue Outdoorsman, and it didn't shoot any better (or worse) than any of my newer 1950's and even my 617-6. If you are strictly a shooter, I don't think the money difference is worth it. Spend the difference on ammo.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

From the looks of the ejector rod wear and the turn line, it has had plenty of rounds through it. Buy it as a shooter and shoot it at will.

I own both, Outdoorsmen and Masterpieces, I prefer Outdoorsmen, they are just sleeker, lighter and just look better than Masterpieces. As for shooters and collectibles, I don't think there is much differences. I have Smiths I bought new in 1962 that I've shot a lot over the years and they look as almost as good as new. I've got "shooters" with blue wear that I bought with the wear that are worth more than I paid. I shoot most everything I own, if you take care of it they will look like safe queens 40 years from now. I always say buy what you like, you might be stuck with it.
SWCA 892
PS, as for adjusting rear sights, I don't think I have ever had to adjust the sights on a pre-owned revolver. Most shoot close enough for killing paper.

please don’t shoot it at Will