While preparing an article for the SWCA Journal on early Remington .44 Magnum ammunition, I thought some of you folks might be interested in some of the pictures and other documentation that I plan to include in the article. The ammunition pictured here will ultimately become part of the 12 revolver display of pre-29s; Jan-Dec 1956, that I am also currently putting together. I'll post a preview of that display when it gets completed, hopefully by April/May and in time to get it all to Michigan for the annual SWCA meeting in June. It is a lot of work, but certainly a labor of love as the expression goes.

As early as September, 1955, Remington had finalized engineering drawings for the new Remington 44 magnum cartridge and 3 months later on 12/15/1955, S&W produced the first .44 Magnum revolver, S130927. Here is a picture of the original engineering drawing:


Once the engineering plan was approved, Remington then proceeded to produce 15,000 experimental rounds for S&W in two lots; the first on Jan 5, 1956 consisting of 5,000 rounds shipped in put-together packaging and a second shipment of 10,000 rounds approximately one week later on Jan 11, 1956 in a more standard, plain white box, that collectors today refer to as the "prototype box." However, in researching the article, it was discovered that the white prototype box was actually the second syle of early 44 Magnum packaging and that the paper label package was the first, albeit only by 6 days.
Here are pictures of the Remington change/production orders for both versions along with pictures of eachtype box.

I have also included a picture of S130938, one of the first .44 Magnums shipped in Jan, 1956. The second version white box .44 Magnum ammo would have been the only ammunition available at that time for these earliest 44 Magnums. The Remington Peters and later Remington Kleanbore ammunition were still on the drawing boards. I'll post more info on S130938 along with it's own interesting history later this month as it gets closer to its 52d birthday.
Enjoy
Chuck










The white box is very special to me as it was once owned by Elmer Keith and acquired recently from Brian Pearce, a noted gunwriter in Idaho who got it from a close friend of the Keith's. This example box is thought to be in the initial batch of .44 Magnum ammo shipped to Elmer right after he received S147220, the 3rd 44 Magnum shipped. Elmer mentions this ammunition several times in his own writings. Here is some documentation to support the claim of an Elmer Keith connection.



And finally, a picture of S130938 which was shipped only a few days after Elmer's gun. More on this gun later.

__________________
SWCA1517 SWHF256
Rangers LTW!

While preparing an article for the SWCA Journal on early Remington .44 Magnum ammunition, I thought some of you folks might be interested in some of the pictures and other documentation that I plan to include in the article. The ammunition pictured here will ultimately become part of the 12 revolver display of pre-29s; Jan-Dec 1956, that I am also currently putting together. I'll post a preview of that display when it gets completed, hopefully by April/May and in time to get it all to Michigan for the annual SWCA meeting in June. It is a lot of work, but certainly a labor of love as the expression goes.

As early as September, 1955, Remington had finalized engineering drawings for the new Remington 44 magnum cartridge and 3 months later on 12/15/1955, S&W produced the first .44 Magnum revolver, S130927. Here is a picture of the original engineering drawing:


Once the engineering plan was approved, Remington then proceeded to produce 15,000 experimental rounds for S&W in two lots; the first on Jan 5, 1956 consisting of 5,000 rounds shipped in put-together packaging and a second shipment of 10,000 rounds approximately one week later on Jan 11, 1956 in a more standard, plain white box, that collectors today refer to as the "prototype box." However, in researching the article, it was discovered that the white prototype box was actually the second syle of early 44 Magnum packaging and that the paper label package was the first, albeit only by 6 days.
Here are pictures of the Remington change/production orders for both versions along with pictures of eachtype box.

I have also included a picture of S130938, one of the first .44 Magnums shipped in Jan, 1956. The second version white box .44 Magnum ammo would have been the only ammunition available at that time for these earliest 44 Magnums. The Remington Peters and later Remington Kleanbore ammunition were still on the drawing boards. I'll post more info on S130938 along with it's own interesting history later this month as it gets closer to its 52d birthday.
Enjoy
Chuck










The white box is very special to me as it was once owned by Elmer Keith and acquired recently from Brian Pearce, a noted gunwriter in Idaho who got it from a close friend of the Keith's. This example box is thought to be in the initial batch of .44 Magnum ammo shipped to Elmer right after he received S147220, the 3rd 44 Magnum shipped. Elmer mentions this ammunition several times in his own writings. Here is some documentation to support the claim of an Elmer Keith connection.



And finally, a picture of S130938 which was shipped only a few days after Elmer's gun. More on this gun later.

__________________
SWCA1517 SWHF256
Rangers LTW!

Chuck!
Again, absolutely "Outstanding". I'll be waiting for my issue of the S&WCA Journal - then mailing it to you for an autograph!
Nice - Nice collection!
Thanks for sharing...

Thanks for the great pics.

I would like to point out two things that are extremely interesting to me concerning the above:

1. Keep in mind the engineering drawing would have been done completely by hand, although it looks like it was spit out of a printer, like all drawings are prodocued today;

2. The left stock on the 29 has an indentation I have yet to see, presumably a thumb rest. Would that be correct?

Thanks a bunch. Looking forward to more and the show that will be held in the South.

TN RAT, thanks for your observations. Yes, the engineering drawings, and I have several others, are all hand drawn by an obviously skilled drafstman. As far as the extra relief cut on the left grip panel, who knows? This gun went to Alaska on an early hunting trip with Lew Bulgrin, owner of Badger Shooters Supply and Jack O'Connor, one of Elmer Keith's friendly gun writing foes in those days. The gun then went to a collector who did not shoot his guns, and remained with him until his death in the 1980s where it was acquired in an estate sale by the collector I got it from. I am the 3rd owner not counting the dealer. Some older collectors have told me that they have seen this type of modification on other target revolvers, but I cannot say with any degree of certainty if it was done by the factory or in someone's kitchen. I do know though that the grips themselves are an early type of target stocks with a noticeable flair in the heel.
Chuck

__________________
SWCA1517 SWHF256
Rangers LTW!

I don't care who you are or what you say, that is very interesting and a true piece of history.

I have been a big fan of the 44 Mag cartridge and ol' Elmer since I started shooting. This is great stuff!!! Love it!!!

WOW, Thanks for sharing this with us.

Outstanding...this is why I enjoy this forum.

Thanks Chuck...
Bimmer

In my carefully considered opinion, the Remington .44 Magnum ammunition and the Model 29 S&W is the single greatest contribution to handgun hunting, EVER!

Thanks for sharing this most interesting account.
Lovely pictures!
Dale53

What an outstanding and facinating article. Thank you sir. It is interesting to me also in the fact that I am a huge follower of Brian Pearces' writings, and to see that he is involved in this is a pleasure. I have correspondence here, from him, received shortly before he came into possesion of the white box.

What would that box be worth as well as the value of the gun?
Where will the SWCA be held at in Michigan (my home state), and do you have to be a member to go. How do you join?

I don't know how friendly Jack O'Connor and Elmer Keith were. I think there was some genuine resentment on Elmer's part about Jack's university degrees. Jack, in turn, seemed a little baffled by Elmer's attitude. But I think he knew the cause. He was no dummy!

Charles Askins disliked O'Connor partly because of his superior education and, especially, because Jack replaced Askins's father at, "Outdoor Life."

I don't know if Jack ever got a Model 29, but he owned a Model 24. I've always wondered whether he got it to see for sure what Keith saw in it. He seemed to think the .22's were the most practical handguns. Used as he used pistols, that may have been so. He wanted mainly a means to shoot blue grouse off a tree without disturbing game with a rifle or shotgun blast.

Jack was not heavily into handguns. He once told me that he was not at all familiar with Safariland when they rivaled Bianchi as one of the leading holster makers! He liked Lawrence leather because he knew the people, and they made his rifle scabbards.

Elmer was much more a handgunner, although he also knew rifles and shotguns VERY well.

I think that Brian Pearce (whom I've never met) is the most practical gun writer of our time, at least unless combat against humans is the deciding criteria. He is surely the most like Elmer, and spells better, too.

Someday, I mean to write to Mr. Pearce and tell him how much I think of his excellent articles.
It was a pleasure to find that he was associated with this ammo box's history.

Thanks for a great piece of history with beautiful pictures.
I'm curious to know if they had leading problems with those rounds back then, did they use gas checks?

THe first that I read of these loads, they did employ gas checks. I'll check, "Sixguns", and see what Elmer said. I do know that he was unhappy that they hadn't used harder cast bullets of his design, but softer lead was easier to swage in the factory.

In any event, the .44 bullets never seem to have gotten the reputation that lead .357's did, for leading a barrel badly, within a few shots.

Well, this is sort of interesting: on pages 310-311 of the 1961 revised edition of, "Sixguns", Keith said that the factory bullet had a sort of jacket on the base, but says that it was not a true base jacket.

He described it as a very thin jacket, necessary for the bullet to hold the rifling well, and still be manufactured in the factory loading machines.

I daresay that it was also meant to defray hot gasses and pressure from deforming the base of the bullet on firing.

I'm pretty sure that some contemporary scribes DID call this a gas check jacket. Apparently, Keith distinguished between it and the heavier gas checks, per se, used by handloaders.

That may be the best answer you'll get. I guess it was SORT of a gas check.

Oh: Keith was very candid in saying that factory ammo was loaded too hot, in some batches being difficult to extract. He cited a published velocity of 1650 FPS for that 240 grain bullet. He would have settled for a duplicate of his 1200 FPS heavy .44 Special load, if in the longer Magnum case. He thought 1400 FPS was about ideal. But even Elmer admitted that sometimes, too much of a good thing could happen.

He did acknowledge the need for the longer, stronger case, to keep the hot ammo out of old Triple Lock and similar .44 Special guns.

While we're at this, Keith told me once that he didn't fire as many of his heavy loads as some supposed. He felt they were mainly intended for hunting or defense, and agreed that excessive use would loosen a gun prematurely. Many readers thought that he shot those loads all the time.

T-Star

Very cool! I would be interested in knowing how fast those puppies would go.

__________________
"I have to return some video tapes"

29-1, very interesting indeed. I look forward to the article. (That photography is great, by the way!)

T-Star, and thank you, for your informative comments, as well.

Very, very neat!

Chuck...Glad to see this post received a good response. The ammunition development is often overlooked in favor of the guns and one is no good without the other.

In developing the 44 Magnum cartridge (1954-1955), Remington tested three different types of powder and nine different bullet designs before deciding on the 240 grain gas-checked lead bullet. Even with the gas check, factory loads by Remington or Winchester leaded the barrel that had be be cleaned thoroughly after each shooting session (This was still true in the late 60s when I started shooting the 44 Magnum. I always shot jacketed soft points when possible).

Also Chuck, great photos. Your article for the S&WCA Journal should be a good one.

Bill

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Texas Star:

THe first that I read of these loads, they did employ gas checks. I'll check, "Sixguns", and see what Elmer said. I do know that he was unhappy that they hadn't used harder cast bullets of his design, but softer lead was easier to swage in the factory.

Texas Star, thanks for your insightful and informative comments. It is from folks like yourself that we can all learn a thing or two about S&W and the individuals asociated with its history. I especially enjoyed your thoughts on the Keith/O'Connor rivalry. I do not personally think either cared for the other on a personal level and professionally, only begrudgingly respected the other's opinions on firearms of any type; Elmer toward O'Connor in particular, if one is to take his writings in his 'Gun Notes" at face value. Thanks again for taking the time to share your knowledge.
Chuck

__________________
SWCA1517 SWHF256
Rangers LTW!

Bill, thanks. I appreciate any bit of knowledge on this subject that you guys/gals can share. You know me better than anyone and understand that I want to be as factual as possible, but being a historian rather than a scientist, it just takes me more effort to get to the point sometimes. I'm going to keep after the Remington guys to see what else they can come up with concerning the development of the .44 magnum. Unfortunately, much of the early paperwork was literally thrown out years ago and I think we're lucky to have left what we do have. I'm still working at the picture taking and still have a ways to go to get caught up with you

__________________
SWCA1517 SWHF256
Rangers LTW!

Gun 4 Fun, Brian is a nice fellow and an excellent writer. T Star hit the nail on the head in characterizing him as the writer most like Elmer Keith that we have today. It is also fortunate that Brian was a personal friend of Keith's and somewhat of an understudy when beginning his own writing career.

I can't really put a price tag on either the gun or the early ammunition. I know what they cost me, but value is in large part based upon how badly someone wants an item and is willing to pay for it. The old laws of supply and demand certainly come into play as well. There are three known boxes of the white box ammo and two of the paper label ammo that have been reported. One would hope that with 15000 rounds between both that were produced in Jan, 1956, which equates to 300 boxes, more than 5 boxes are still out there to be discovered. I never hit a gun show that I don't keep my eyes open for another one. You might get lucky and find one for $50.00; unfortunately, that wasn't the case with my obtaining the ones that I own. First year May-December pre-29s are now running between 3000-4000 depending on condition, condition, condition, and if they have original type box/tools. Expect to pay 500-1000 more for an April gun and 2-3 times this for Feb-March shipped guns. This is simply because fewer guns were manufactured/shipped in the first 4 months than in the last 8. There were only 5 .44 Magnums shipped in January, 1956, and we are aware of the location of 3 of those. I would expect to pay a substantial amount for any one of those guns, regardles condition, especially S130927, the gun sent to Remington in December, 1955, and then resold to Rex Firearms in NYC in late February, 1956. If you look at a June 1956 American Rifleman and Rex's ad in the back, you are probably looking at S130927 after it was engraved. To me, that gun is the Grail 44 Magnum.

The S&WCA meeting this year will be in Troy, Michigan. You either have to be a member or a pre-approved guest of a member to attend. Contact me at my Forum email address and I'll give you further details on how to join the S&WCA. If a person wants to really learn the nuts and bolts about S&W from individuals involved in its history for more than 50 years in some cases, the price of admission is cheap considering what you get in return.
Regards
Chuck

__________________
SWCA1517 SWHF256
Rangers LTW!

I would think that those 5 boxes represent a pretty good survival rate considering that for most of the time it existed it would be just more ammo to most people. It's great that it's well documented and that you have it to keep safe now. As for the stocks pictured I've seen others modified in a similar way, the last were a couple of NIB 19-3s that the owner said were factory and had been done for a PD order, I certainly don't know but it sure is interesting stuff. Thanks for the post and the great "as always" pictures. I look forward to you article.

Keith

__________________
kbgrips.com

I just noticed, on the dust jacket of the SCSW III, the pictured 44 Magnum has a set of similarly relieved stocks. Except these were relieved on the right panel.

__________________
Non illegitimae carborundum

I've been thinking about those stocks. I've seen old S&W target stocks that weren't relieved at all. The "football" relief came later.

So, those early grips may have been relieved experimentally at the factory, or by the guns' owners.

The heavy recoil would have induced owners to get their thumbs down out of the way of the recoiling cylinder release. Don't believe Askins's old crack about anyone not enjoying the kick of a .44 Magnum as having "lace on their panties". I think he aimed that remark at Gen. Hatcher. But many shooters find the .44 Magnum beyond their recoil tolerance. For me, it is at the limit, and I seldom want to fire a whole box at one range session.

It is a very accurate load in skilled hands, and I was astounded to find how well it shoots, to even extended yardage. I once saw Elmer Keith fire one at a target 200 yards distant, and he hit it well, despite being then in his late 70's!

T-Star

Great post and historical research. I can't wait to meet you folks at the Michigan Show.
I would urge anyone who is serious about the historical aspects of the older S&Ws to join the SWCA. You just can't get this kind of knowledge anywhere else.

From the 20's through into the 60's, being Gun Editor at Outdoor Life was THE job that said you were the best, most knowledgeable gun writer around. Keith wanted it very much, and felt that his decades of guiding and writing made him by far the best candidate, in spite of his lack of education and poor grammar. When they gave the job to O'Connor, a college English professor who was by comparison a fairly new part time writer and not very experienced hunter; Keith was EXTREMELY upset and never forgave O'Connor.

Here;s a "taste" of Elmer's thoughts on O'Conner,
http://www.elmerkeithrifle.com/files/Gun%20Notes%20Volu...kU2XGb-lEz-oYOB5wna0

J.C., great example. Did this come from Elmer's Gun Notes? If so, which volume?
Chuck

__________________
SWCA1517 SWHF256
Rangers LTW!

I think this is correct. But Jack had far superior communications skills and a gentleman's slant on hunting that caused even journalists to admit that he was the dean of gun writers. I think he was the ONLY gun writer to ever merit an obituary in the mainstream press!

Let me tell you a little secret that I learned while writing a gun column for a big city newspaper. Even the Outdoor Editor, to whom I sold my work, sneered at "gun writers" and clearly held them in contempt. He had been a football writer, tagged for the Outdoor job for some reason.

Well, one day, Elmer Keith came to town. Made a speech one night at a major hotel and shot for us with a new .44 Magnum on the Winchester range the next day. The Outdoor Editor couldn't be bothered to go cover him, and sent me and my (then) wife. We enjoyed it enormously.

But at the range, a TV station had sent a young black reporter, who had no idea at all who Keith was, or why he should be on TV. Hearing Elmer speak about hunting with a revolver, he expressed amazement that anyone would hunt with a weapon that this fellow knew only from its high crime use in the big city areas of the country. He was in a state of cultural disbelief.

I tried to fill him in on who Elmer was and his accomplishments, but he was lukewarm. I think he shot some footage, but don't recall that it made the evening news. Keith's visit did get a nice article on the Outdoors page of the leading newspaper...written by me. No one else there gave a damn!

The Outdoor Editor was baffled that I should be able to recite Elmer's famed handload for the .44 Magnum. Why would anyone need or want to remember something like that?! That editor occasionally went duck hunting with a shotgun. That was about the extent of his involvement with firearms. I'll leave it to you to guess how much his peers thought about guns in anything but a crime sense...

Now, Outdoor Life was run by a competent professional editor. The man would have had nightmares correcting Elmer's awful prose. Even his personal letters looked like something typed by a child not doing well in English class.

Faced with that choice, Jack was the hands-down winner to be the prestigious shooting editor of a magazine that wanted to be taken seriously, writing for an editor who needed to be able to respect his scribes for their journalism skill. I think Bill Rae and Jack O'Connor clicked together much better than any other applicants for the job, and Jack was writing then about desert game in the SW, a novel twist. He wrote well, had a wry sense of humor, and eventually, became THE gun writer for hunting rifle buffs. He also dealt very well with shotguns. OL was a hunter's magazine. It didn't have much need for handgun coverage.Elmer's material went better in the American Rifleman, which drew more hardcore gun nuts, and later, he did well at Guns, mainly because of his fame from AR and his contributions to the industry.

Bob Petersen liked him, admired him for his very real talents, and hired him at a good rate for the work. And he took care of him, even after he had his stroke and was unable to write.

I think Petersen was being humane, but also harbored a hope that Keith would recover and be able to write again. I'm sure that Petersen knew that Elmer's name sold magazines to real gun buff buyers.

But at Outdoor Life or at Gun Digest, Elmer would have been out of place as a senior editor. He simply never cared to learn good writing and editing skills. And that is as important as having good background knowledge of the subject.

One reason why many conventional sportswriters have ridiculed gun writers is that they tend to be "peacocks" with limited literary skills. There are exceptions, like John Wootters. He knew his way around a typewriter (and a camera!)as well as he knew his facts. He also had a lot of practical experience. Bill Jordan once told me that Wootters was a true wordsmith, while he (Jordan) was just a shooter who wrote some on the side. (He was too modest, unusual in a gun writer. )

Look at today's gun writers. Most are chest-beaters who open many paragraphs with personal pronouns. This is in conflict with what journalism schools teach: the use of the impersonal approach to writing. Recall, they are training reporters and editors, not personal account Johnnies. (Yes, the writer in a gun or hunting magazine does need to be able to relate his personal experiences, to establish his expertise. But that goes over the heads of his more "elite" journalism peers. Most gunnies are vain, somewhat rustic men, often looking for freebies and ad dollars as much as they seek to inform. I understand that one well known shotgun writer was so upset with how he shot with a borrowed gun that he wrapped it around a tree when he was embarrassed that he didn't shoot it well. How would that look to a "professional" journalist?

Some gun writers might say in response, How does it look to the public to slant the news along political lines, or to have affairs with the people whose activities you're covering in, say, Iraq? (Yes, I mean a certain CBS newsbabe whose name you've heard many times.)

Regardless of which is worse, hokey good ol' boyism on one hand, or deliberately manipulating the news to favor a particular candidate or political view? I guarantee you, those in the latter camp disregard the sty in their eye to ridicule the gun writers!

Jack O'Connor at least had been a college prof and had gotten an article or two in "slick" mainstream journals, sometimes to the jealousy of his teaching peers. He founded the Journalism program at his AZ university. He was a socialite of sorts, who hunted with royalty in exotic places. He was the easy choice to be at Outdoor Life. And he could answer reader mail without making his publisher look like a yokel. I'm sure that was an important consideration in selecting him as Outdoor Life's longtime gun editor and in him doing so well at, "Petersen's Hunting" after he retired from OL. His books were literate and droll, often wry. It's easy to see why he was popular across the whole spectrum of those who read gun and hunting magazines.

Askins and Keith had their reasons to resent him, but I think OL made the right choice for that position. This does NOT mean that Keith and Askins, Jr. weren't also great gun writers. But some of their personal qualities (I'm truly trying to be delicate here) did not lend them to that particular job. Askins, at least, could spell, and had a literary style that was full of vitamins. I actually enjoyed his stories, a lot.

I know why he embarrassed some editors later in his career, but he was okay, if a little pompous, in my very limited dealings with him.

By the way, some gun writers have tipped the bottle to their lips a little too often. I won't name any names, but O'Connor held his liquor better than some. That would also have been a consideration for that job, where he had to represent OL at trade and other functions.

T-Star

I'm glad that you posted this. For Keith to assert that he was "better known throughout the English-speaking world" than Jack O'Connor is a hoot to read, athough I've got the book in question.

T-Star

I’ve read both Elmer Keith’s and Jack O’Connor’s autobiographies, Hell, I was There! and Horse and Buggy West - A Boyhood on the Last Frontier, respectively, although I guess the latter only covers O’Connor’s growing up in Arizona, if memory serves.

I like both books a lot, and there is no question that O’Connor is the much – much – more polished writer. But I prefer Keith’s book.

Fractured grammar and all, Keith’s book is a truly wonderful and engaging account of his life, with many, many vignettes that are memorable. I assume that his editors decided not to edit his writing, or, if they did, made a conscious decision not to edit it too much. It is a lively, fun read, fractured language warts and all. Actually, I think the warts add to its charm considerably!

I think my heart just fluttered a bit. What a fitting piece of firearms history.

__________________
Vaya con Dios

Fantastic, Chuck. I look forward to your article in the S&WCA Journal.

In reference to your "Holy Grail" S130927, I became quite excited as a young cub collector when I acquired S130922. My lottery jackpot fizzled out, however, when I learned that serial numbers weren't shipped sequentially, and that my holy grail was shipped on May 17, 1956.

Best regards,

Jim

__________________
STAY ARMED, VIGILANT, SAFE!

Jim, I've had that same feeling each time a S130XXX pre-29 surfaces. I have one, S130948 that didn't ship until the end of August, '56. I thought at the time that it was surely at least a Feb/March shipped gun. However when 'the letter' came back, I was surprised to say the least of it's late shipping date. But, the fun is in the chase they say.
Happy New Year
Chuck

__________________
SWCA1517 SWHF256
Rangers LTW!

Chuck, you probably already know this, but in the 1957 Gun Digest, Col Hatcher spoke briefly of the new revolver. He also stated "The powder charge taken from sample cartridges, weighed 22 grains and had the same grain size and general appearance as Hercules #2400 powder." He earlier referred to the ammo as "the new 44 Remington magnum."

In the same issue Col Askins reviews the gun and the article is titled "A Man's Sixgun." The lace panties quote is in this article.

Max, thanks for the reference. I knew I had read the Hatcher quote before but couldn't remember where.
Chuck

__________________
SWCA1517 SWHF256
Rangers LTW!

Chuck:
While thumbing thru some Amer. Rifleman mags before throwing them out, I came upon one of Wiley Clapp's articles from June '06 about the Ruger .44 Flat Top. He mentions in there that a friend of Bill Ruger had stopped by in '55 with 5 fired cartridge cases picked up from a scrap heap in Bridgeport. Remington with .44 Magnum on the headstamp. Clapp states that Ruger almost beat 'the other company' to the punch of marketing a .44 mag. Probably well-known to you and others but it was the first time I had heard the story.
Ed

Ed, thanks for the reference. I had heard this story before but it came from Herb Glass who lived near me here in NY before he passed away. He told me that Bill Ruger actually brought over a couple of the 44 Ruger prototypes and they both blasted away on Glass' backyard range. He told me they used some of the early Remington ammo that S&W didn't get.
Chuck

__________________
SWCA1517 SWHF256
Rangers LTW!

Chuck,

Great info. I look forward to the Journal.

Regarding the feud between Keith and O'Connor, I really enjoyed them both, but I seemed to relate more to O'Connor for some reason and I think I still have all of his books. I think that his writings had more to do with the popularity of the .270 than any other factor. I also thought it was great that his wife. Eleanor, would go hunting with him. There is no question that Elmer and Jack had enough ego for any ten men!

I suspect that my infatuation with Jack's writings had to do with one single point in my developing firearm knowledge. As a young boy I had just inherited my grandfather's Colt SAA in .38-40. I hungered for knowledge about it and I wrote O'Connor at Outdoor Life with the serial number. He, very graciously, answered me back and told me how to differentiate between the black powder frame and the smokeless powder frame and assured me that it would be safe for me to shoot...which I did for many years. Sure wish I had that letter to keep in my safe with that old Colt.

Bob

Bob, as we both know too well, with some of these guns, the paper is just about as important as the gun.
Regards
Chuck

__________________
SWCA1517 SWHF256
Rangers LTW!

Thanks to all you folks who took an interest in this posting and provided some really great data for the article I am working on. Also, this made me realize once again what a broad spectrum of collectors, shooters, and a little of both, we have here in this diverse forum membership. For those of you who seldom post I would ask that if you see something of interest and have an opinion, thoughts, additional information, please don't hesitate to share that with us. That's how we all learn. None of us know it all and quite frequently the best postings are those from those we seldom hear from. I also am pleased that this particular posting motivated several of you to correspond with me on how to join the S&WCA which will open up a whole new world of S&W to those of you who do make that choice.
Regards
Chuck

__________________
SWCA1517 SWHF256
Rangers LTW!