My 2" snub-nose I bought used, some time back, from a retired private detective.It came with a black leather TEX SHOEMAKER & SONS belt holster and rubber grips. He had the grips installed and left the wooden ones behind.

The serial number is C381xxx. I would guess the DOM at around 1956. Can someone nail it down a little closer? I'm going to get serious about picking up a correct set of grips. Would the correct grips be diamond magnas?



Regards:
Rod

My 2" snub-nose I bought used, some time back, from a retired private detective.It came with a black leather TEX SHOEMAKER & SONS belt holster and rubber grips. He had the grips installed and left the wooden ones behind.

The serial number is C381xxx. I would guess the DOM at around 1956. Can someone nail it down a little closer? I'm going to get serious about picking up a correct set of grips. Would the correct grips be diamond magnas?



Regards:
Rod

I'd agree on the ship date, around 1956. To really nail it down you would need to send in for a history letter, which might be a good idea anyway with a nice 50's vintage S&W

FWIW the barrel appears to be somewhat earlier as I beleive S&W changed to the ramp front sight around 1952. Might be a left over barrel; S&W has a reputation for using up all the parts they have laying around whether they are current spec or not.

Grips would be diamond magnas.

Bill

__________________
Bill

Thanks Bill.

Does the later hammer and the half nickel front sight raise any eyebrows here?

Was the gun maybe re-hammered?

T-Star

The picture may not show to well, the front site is not nickle but blued steel. When I bought the gun I doubt it had fired a full box of ammo. The ole boy owned it since new and carried very,very seldom. The sideplate did not appear to have been removed, so I doubt the hammer was changed. The C/C on the hammer and the trigger look to be 100%. Also, there's no evidence the barrel has been changed or removed. The gun is in pristine condition, with only a slight finish wear at the muzzle.

Maybe like Bill suggested, get it lettered. Here's a couple more shots. Second picture has a Victory and a M19 as well.




Regards:
Rod

.................

Rod,

The term "half nickel" refers to the shape of the front sight, not the finish

As the serial number, post war hammer and 4 screw frame all point to mid-1950's production I see the barrel/front sight as the component that stands out as being out of character.

Is the barrel marked with the gun's serial number?

It is a nice old gun and worht a letter, IMHO.

Bill

__________________
Bill

Bill:
No serial # on the barrel that I can find. I do understand that the halfmoon front sight were phased out, beginning in 1952 and the 4-screw frame phased in 1954. S&W was a lot like Winchester with "Running Changes"; meaning a style change was not like one door closing and another opening with exact cut-off dates. The changes came when the old parts ran out. 2" snubbies in the K frame were most likely not made to the same numbers as 4,5 and 6 inch barreled revolvers. So it stands to reason that halfmoon sighted barrels would have been in the bins considerably longer than the longer barrels. I haven't seen too many of these K frame snubbies around, compared to the J frame ones. That could also be a factor in a late change.

Usually i can tell if a gun has been monkeyed with and this one does not represent that. Given the condition of the gun it woeld appear unlikely it would have been in need of another barrel. The barrel on this one is like new inside. Most of my other S&W revolvers have b/c gap within the 4 to 10 thou range, except for the Victory (12 thou). The snub nose is a tight 3 thou.with practically no cylinder wobble or forward and backward movement.

Thanks Fellas for the help, very much appreciated.

Regards:
Rod

Wraco, I have a 5" M&P with the late pattern hammer and the half-moon front sight. I figured it for mid-50's or an earlier gun with a replacement hammer. However, when I had it lettered it was shipped in December 1950. I have since seen or heard of two more guns, and now yours, with that same sight/hammer combination. Apparently they began using the late-pattern hammer on K-frames much earlier than I had originally thought.

I'm at work and don't remember my gun's s/n, but I will check and see how close it is to yours. I'm going to guess your gun at about 1951 or so.

Nice one!

Snuffy

Snuffy:
I would sure appreciate knowing how close your serial # is to that one of mine. That'll help to date mine. Thanks.

Regards:
Rod

Interesting gun, the earlier 5 screw models shipped with pre-war style grips. John

__________________
John. SWCA #1586

hsguy:
-- That 5-screw lookes in nice shape. I like those grips.

Regards:
Rod

dont know about your gun besides I like it

but I just had a chance to take my pre 10(1949-ish) SB 2" out to the range.....I was shocked how darn accurate it was....cool guns.

This M&P is C378xxx. Front sight and hammer appear to be the same style.

You need K frame round butt Magnas with the diamond.

Like these:

__________________
No life story has happy end.

Wraco, my 5-inch is C147XXX and shipped December 2, 1950, according to Mr. Jinks. The SCSW says the C277 to C402 range was 1954-1956, so that would put yours a few years later and about right with sabre's date. SCSW also says they changed to the ramp front sight beginnind in 1952, so sabre's comment about that barrel lying around for a while before being put on a frame sounds correct.

In my SCSW, I noticed that all the photos of 2" M&P Airweights had the ramped front sight, but several photos of steel-framed guns made later still had the round sight. Reckon they put the ramped sight barrels on the Airweights from the beginning, and kept putting the older barrels on the steel frames until they ran out? Anybody ever seen a 2" Airweight M&P with a round sight?

Snuffy

I appreciate the help and info; thanks fellas. These discussions are full of enjoyable, interesting, information. The pictures are great as well. I remember in school when we had to read books, I'd always pick the ones that had pictures in'm. . .

Regards:
Rod