I recently saw a N framed S&W in 44 Mag with 4" barrel and fixed sights, S/N S255854. It has no Model number, but the owner says that it appears to be a Model 29. I am waiting for a photograph, but in the meantime can anybody identify it for us?

Peter

Should this query be on the post 1961 forum?

Peter

If the original poster doesn't know anything about the 44, including the year it was manufactured, I'm sure posting it here will be just fine.

may have started as a Model 58 in .41 magnum but got modified to .44 (which the ammo would probably be easier to find abroad since you can use .44 Russian, .44 Special or the .44 Mag)

looks like year of production for the frame is 1965...did you notice if the front site on the barrel is the old half nickle (speaking of a coin here - rounded in other words like a half moon) type, or ramp...what about any markings on the barrel (how did they read)...

I shall probably see the gun next Thursday, but I think that the barrel is marked 44 Mag. The cylinder seems to not have a serial number - is this normal?

Peter

I am not finding anything that excludes this from being a possible model pre-29. For this late of serial number it shouldn't have the serial number in the shroud or on the cylinder, just the butt. Looking forward to the pics.

Here are the photos. The serial number S255854 only appears on the bottom of the grip frame. The assembly number is on the bottom LHS of the grip frame and on the crane.

The pink paint on the front sight was put there by the present owner, who does that to all his handguns. What he really needs is a pair of shooting glasses with the correct prescription for his eyes!

Peter

Attached Images

	S&W 44 Mag 4.jpg (41.6 KB, 213 views)
	S&W 44 Mag 3.jpg (34.0 KB, 296 views)
	S&W 44 Mag 2.jpg (30.8 KB, 217 views)
	S&W 44 Mag 1.jpg (32.1 KB, 288 views)

Looks like a model 58 that was converted to .44 magnum. If you look at picture #2, you can see the '1' had been modified to a '4'.

Based upon the photos, my vote goes to a modified Model 58. It looks to me like the "1" in "41" has been changed to a "4" as evidenced by the lack of space between the first "4" and the second "4."

Just my thoughts.

***Lamenting the modification of a model 58*** :>(

I'm no expert, but I am convinced that it's a coverted Model 58. It would nonetheless make an awesome field gun!! If you like it & the price is right, buy it! Like I said before, ammo should be easier to get than that of .41 mag, and it will shoot all the .44's I mentioned above. Plus, .44 mag is better in the bush than .41 mag (IMO).

Let us know what you decide, I'd be happy to hear. Good luck.

p.s. looks like they added a target trigger & hammer, I bet it was a very competent conversion job.

the yellow sight insert was probably an add-on too...

Great carry gun if the price is right for a modified 41 Magnum.

Slug the bore, see what you get.

This is a gun I wish Smith had made thousands of. I agree that it is likely a modified 58, but in 44 mag with fixed sights it is a very versatile handguns....

"This is a gun I wish Smith had made thousands of."

True. S&W should have chambered the Model 58 in .44 Mag, .45 Colt and .45 ACP as well as .41 Magnum. Or, instead of!

I see what you mean about the '44' being questionable, but I find it hard to believe that the bore and rifling has been modified from 41 to 44 (0.410" to 0.429"). Changing the cylinder is straight forward, so surely the barrel would have been changed as well?

I will try and persuade the owner to "letter" the gun. What is the cost these days?

Incidentally, it is not for sale and I don't collect such things (only those with links to British and South African history) although it is interesting. However, the owner is a fellow collector who works in a local gun shop so I want to be on good terms with him!

Peter

"Changing the cylinder is straight forward, so surely the barrel would have been changed as well?"

The barrels used on the Model 58 varied even greatly from the barrel used on the Model 57, also a .41 Magnum. The 58's barrel is heavier and thicker overall and has no ejector rod shroud, just a small lug to house the forward tip of the ejector rod assembly and it's latch. The top rib is thinner and configured differently and the front sight blade has no base.

The Model 58 was the only N frame barrel to use this barrel configuration. There was no production eqivalent gun in .44 Magnum.

It would appear this gun was accomplished by either replacing the Model 58's .41 cylinder with a Model 29's .44 cylinder, or by rechambering the smaller to the larger. Then, the Model 58's barrel was removed and had the bore bored out and re-rifled to .44 Mag dimensions. Changing the markings on the barreel would have been a simple matter.

So, in a nutshell, the cylinders could be swapped out but the barrels would have to be modified.

Another aspect to consider is the location of the firearm. I could understand where it would be as economical for talented gunsmith to re-bore the barrel than go through any steps involving sending the gun back to S&W from Africa. Depends on the time and the place and the opportune presence of someone able and willing to do the work.

I had another look at the gun today. Yes, it has a target trigger and hammer. The 44 Magnum marking on the barrel shows no sign of having been altered in any way. Indeed three of us agreed that the whole marking was rolled at the same time. The two '4' markings are exactly the same, although they do just about touch each other.

The owner has agreed to get a letter from Roy at S&W. How does he go about it and what is the cost?

Thanks
Peter