I've just purchased a 1917 military issue 45acp #139,xxx , target model. Since none were produced as targets originally, it is one of a handful sent back to the factory between WWI & WWII according to Supica and Nahas pg 164 3rd ed. Stand Cat Of S&W. The factory 'package' included a refinish, target front blade, a period S&W adjustable target rear site and new commercial stlye service grips. This gun also includes a .400" checkered wide spur target hammer. It's factory shaped in all ways except for the width and is stamped 'Micro' on the left side. I've seen only one other identical to it installed on a mid-30's era .357 Reg Magnum. It is described as a standard feature of the Reg Magnum in that section on page 133 in the above referenced book. Although I've seen many Reg Magnums of that period with a standard N frame hammer or the humpback optional hammer. The 'Micro' stamping is not mentioned in the book. I believe my gun's hammer to be 'factory'. I have seen only one other factory retrofitted 1917 target model, but it did not have the target hammer. Can anyone share any more insight about these pre-WW II target hammers and their usage? Thanx, Jim

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

I've just purchased a 1917 military issue 45acp #139,xxx , target model. Since none were produced as targets originally, it is one of a handful sent back to the factory between WWI & WWII according to Supica and Nahas pg 164 3rd ed. Stand Cat Of S&W. The factory 'package' included a refinish, target front blade, a period S&W adjustable target rear site and new commercial stlye service grips. This gun also includes a .400" checkered wide spur target hammer. It's factory shaped in all ways except for the width and is stamped 'Micro' on the left side. I've seen only one other identical to it installed on a mid-30's era .357 Reg Magnum. It is described as a standard feature of the Reg Magnum in that section on page 133 in the above referenced book. Although I've seen many Reg Magnums of that period with a standard N frame hammer or the humpback optional hammer. The 'Micro' stamping is not mentioned in the book. I believe my gun's hammer to be 'factory'. I have seen only one other factory retrofitted 1917 target model, but it did not have the target hammer. Can anyone share any more insight about these pre-WW II target hammers and their usage? Thanx, Jim

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Hondo, I don't think there are any pre-war factory target hammers, or not, at least, as we understand them to be today.

The reg mag hammers, humpback or standard, are very nice indeed, but are not what most people consider to be target hammers. There were aftermarket target hammer suppliers at the time, King being the most famous, and he provided what he called his "cockeyed" hammer, with the wide thumb piece, I believe by welding a larger piece onto the existing hammer. He made these for Colts, too.

Micro was the name of a postwar company, long defunct, started by some ex employees of King, and they are best known for their Micro target sights. I had not heard of a Micro hammer, but if your hammer says "Micro" my guess is that it is a postwar product by that company.

I'd love to see a picture of it!

Onomea,
I can't wait to take delivery of the gun and post pictures; 10 day wait you know here in the People's Republic of California! I may just go take some shots in the gun store. Thanks for your comments; I've learned something about Micro. I've seen the KING cockeyed hammers you mention. But Jim Supica describes the hammer I have exactly, (except the stamping of MICRO) as a factory hammer in the REG. Mag section of his book. Did Micro sight make the first Micro-Click site used by S&W on the 1942 pre-war K22 Outdoosman 2nd Model?? I can't imagine a company making a hammer for such an old pre-war gun after the war. Maybe Jim will comment. Thanks!

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

I just went and read that section, since I had not read it before. That would be a misprint, where Jim probably inadverdently carried over data from post-war guns. The Reg Mag's normally had a hammer that had flat sides, whether standard hammer or humpback. Trust us here, we have seen a few of these guns.


No. Micro was formed after that. Micro was a company that made and sold MANY sight, hammer, and trigger variations for MANY different guns.


I hate to go negative on you, but it is FAR more likely that you have a gunsmith conversion, possibly done by Micro. They, like King, did all kinds of work, including refinishing. Many of us have seen MANY converted 1917's over the years- I doubt a strong young athlete could clear the floor with the ones I have seen in all configurations and variations. The odds are NOT with you.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

This has been a fun thread to read !

There is no such thing as a pre-WW2 target hammer for N frames. Or any
frame, for all that matters. All there is are standard hammers, and the
humpback hammer, which is not a target hammer.

If any part is stamped Micro, it is not from Smith & Wesson. It is from
the MicroSight company, formed post-WW2 as noted above.

It would be fun to talk to Jim about this, but fortunately for him, he
appears to be moving to another venture !

Later, Mike Priwer

Hey Dad, Hondo, when Iam back in town tomorrow we can go down and take a bunch of good pics of the gun and hammer and I will post them for ya, see if we all can figure out what the hammer is...Cant wait to see it!
Matt

Onomea, handejector and mikepriwer,

Well I'm sure not dissappointed in the sharing of knowledge from you forum members. You've convinced me what I have is a very nice conversion but not factory nor a factory hammer; for one thing, the gun has no factory star or other factory refinish or date stampings!

Although the rear sight is exactly like all pre-war targets (two screw type) on my other N frames, and installed the same, anyone could obtain it from Smith and have it competently installed. The front blade is of factory target contour with silver spot and stamped Redfield. Definitely factory quality reblue. But I paid no more than a nice military 1917, not $13,000; so that's not an issue.

I agree now, handejector, the book is incorrect about Reg Mag hammers in the text. There are many other typos I've noticed as well. Including Post war target hammers are either .430" or .500" nominally, not .400". The other Reg Mag with wide spur hammer like mine was undoubtedly a Micro hammer as well.

Coincudently there's another recent post; PRE WAR HEAVY DUTY TARGET with some great insight on the former King Gunsight suit against Micro sight and a specific complaint about Micro stamping their name on and using King hammers! And a beautiful factory shaped hammer it is; contoured just like the flat sided hammers. It's not like the Roper pictured in the post referenced above. My pictures to follow and thanks for the detailed insight and opinions! JIM

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Here is a couple pics we just took of my dad's gun, or actually the hammer. I'll post some more pics of the gun later.
Matt

That hammer has a distinct "King" look about it.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Lee, I think you are correct. Here is a pre-war K22 with the King setup along with the Micro rear sight. The hammer looks pretty close to Hondo44's don't you think?
Chuck

__________________
SWCA1517 SWHF256
Rangers LTW!

Those grooves filed in the valley of the hammer helped hide the weld marks. Look on the under side to see if there are any imperfections. I'd go with King also but the Micro stamp makes it very plain "who done it".
DW

__________________
"NUTS"

DWFAN,
My hammer does not show any weld pits or marks under it or even where the grooves are cut. The case colors are also inferior to S&W's. And it's a little different than 29-1's hammer above. If you hold a flat sided factory hammer next to mine, the curve is the same. Also, you can't see it in my photos but it has the factory teardrop or bump under the back edge of the spur; again matching the factory flat side hammer. It's also more squared off than 29-1's.

Yes it's definitely a Micro, but did you notice my post above quoting from another post: "PRE WAR HEAVY DUTY TARGET" which has specific text from the former King Gunsight suit against Micro sight. Quoted on that post is a specific complaint about Micro copying King's hammers, stamping Micro's name on them and selling them as their own!". So I believe as Lee said, it has a King hammer look, albeit King seems to have made several styles. 29-1's above having more rounded, corners and a straight spur style (without the S&W teardrop characteristic) by King or another maker. But even different from the 'beavertail' style in my other post: "REG MAG GROOVED SIDE .....SPUR HAMMERS" which is rounder yet. I'd love to see an old King catalog. Although of all the hammers I've seen, I like mine the most because it has the most factory look to it, IMHO.

Thanks DWFAN and 29-1 for your contributions.

Jim
S&WCA #1994

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Here is on on-line King catalog for you: http://www.histandard.info/King/King..._1280_960.html

When D.W. King died in 1944 his widow hired an unscrupulous manager to run the company. Many of the key employees left to start Micro. They did exactly the same kind of work because they were the guys doing the work in King's shop. They didn't bother trying to do anything differently and consequentely they infringed many of King's patents. Later, two more employees left Kings and started Ricky Gun Sight Co. They bought the patent rights and the King Co. went out of business. Also, there were lots of King parts left over that various employees liberated and continued to use, Bob Chow among them. King made the Cockeyed hammers from the customer's hammer and usually marked the Colt versions while many of the S&W hammers were not marked. This is probably because they were trying to preserve as much of the case color as possible on S&W hammers.

So, "King" type conversions were done by King, Micro and Ricky as well as other gunsmiths that started their own operations after King died (again, Bob Chow falls into this category). There were other pre-war gunsmiths that did similar work, e.g. J.D. Buchanan. That makes it very difficult to know if King actually did the work on a gun unless you have something like an original receipt. I have interviewed one of the founders of Ricky Gun Sight Co. and he sent me a few unused vent ribs, sights, weight tubes and other parts. He said they made a lot of "King Super Target" revolvers well into the 1950s.

Regards,
Kevin Williams

__________________
Kevin Williams SWCA1649 HF208

A most interesting discussion. Two years ago I purchased as Colt Python made in 1959. It had a Partridge front sight, standard Colt adjustable rear sight, and a cockeyed hammer? The trigger was the smoothest I've ever found on a Python.
Did the King Company successors also make cockeyed hammers for Pythons, or did the Colt Custom shop offer this as an option?

__________________
Joseph L. Lyon

I agree, a most interesting thread. Kwill, you mention Bob Chow above as being a King employee. Was that the same Bob Chow of the Olympic Shooting Team fame...and the same one who was noted for tuning all those 1911's out on the left coast?

Roger

__________________
Eph 2:8-9

Roger,

Yes, Chow learned his pistolsmithing craft under King's tutelage.

__________________
Kevin Williams SWCA1649 HF208

Kwill1911,
Your link to the King catalog was a most surprising and appreciated contribution; thank you!
After reading the hammer section, I came away with the impression, at least at the time of this cat., that the only hammer style choices were left or right 'cockeyed' or both. Making a 'giant leap' from that, if they didn't retain the factory curvature of the King 'cockeyed', which I guess pretty clearly identifies them as a King hammer job, they may more likely be another company's custome hammer. But as I say, that's a 'leap', not having seen dozens of these things.

Jim
S&WCA #1994

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Jim,

That's a leap I wouldn't make. King, like others during the depression, was quite responsive to cutomer requests. In other words, everything was a custom job--if a customer wanted a straighter curvature he got it. If you really want to understand the company I suggest you get the back issues of the S&WCA Journal in which Jim King and Jim Wallinger go into great detail about the company. If you want to email me, I can point you to a whole bibliography of articles about King.

Regards,
Kevin

__________________
Kevin Williams SWCA1649 HF208

OK, I leaped back.
And thanks for the offer Kevin. I'm not that interested in the company history as much as information detailing their products.

Thanks!
Jim

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819