|
|
04-23-2014, 02:54 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,995
Likes: 5,005
Liked 7,699 Times in 2,623 Posts
|
|
Not to American tastes, probably, but still a nice revolver: the Model 11-4
The end of WWII did not mean the end to production of the S&W Military & Police in .38 S&W; the company continued to produce the model under contracts with Commonwealth countries like the Union of South Africa. When Model numbers were assigned in the 1957/58 time frame, the M&P that chambered the .38 S&W round became known as the Model 11 to differentiate it from the Model 10 in .38 Special. For all practical purposes, the Model 11 is simply a postwar short-action variety of the British Service Revolver.
As with other short-action K-frame revolvers, the guns evolved in the space of a few years. Oddly, the screw-count sequence is jumbled in time. The Model 11 should be a four-screw gun, though I have not seen one to confirm that fact. The 11-1, introduced in 1961, reversed the ejector rod thread. The 11-2 (1962) is said to have widened the front sight from 1/10 inch to 1/8 inch. The 11-3 (also 1962) saw the loss of the trigger guard screw. The 11-4 is a known labeled variety, but the authors of SCSW state that it is not clear what change was involved in the assignment of that designation. The Model 11-4 that I show here is actually a four-screw gun instead of the three-screw variety one would expect from the model numbering pattern. I suspect there are five-screw Pre-11s, but I have not seen one.
An interesting feature of the gun is that the barrel is marked not just with the caliber information, but also the recommended 178 grain Commonwealth loading that became standard after WWII. The 200-grain round that was the standard British military load at the outset of WWII was modified when the heavier bullet was feared to be out of compliance with rules of war. The serial number on this gun is in the range associated with the last South African order of 1965, but the gun is not marked with the S.A.P. seen on guns actually shipped to the South African Police.
The company had some overrun production that it kept in inventory after fulfilling the overseas order. Those few guns, measured perhaps in the low hundreds or several dozens, were sold off slowly in the next few years, mostly in the US and Canada. This gun was sold from retained inventory in December 1970. Whoever bought it never returned the registration card, as that is still with the gun. EDITED TO ADD: This revolver was shipped 7 Dec 1970 to Charles Greenblatt Co., New York.
The box -- a standard blue Bangor Punta container -- contains a Model 10 parts list and the original vapor wrap. Tools are missing. The box is preprinted on one end as a Model 10, but carries a handwritten Model 11-4 sticker on the other
There is an unusual inventory number on the bottom of the box -- B 17486 -- that has nothing to do with the gun's serial number or any other number that would ordinarily be found on a K-frame revolver of the era.
This revolver does not appear to have been fired after leaving the factory.
I invite others with Model 11s and pre-11s to post them here along with comments about their distinguishing characteristics. If anyone knows how many of this model were made between the 1948 introduction of the short action and the 1965 discontinuation of this model (including non-model-marked specimens), I would be pleased to learn the number. I am guessing that perhaps no more than 20,000 to 30,000 were produced under several different contracts. Very few of them are likely to be found in the United States. My count of known specimens, which includes those mentioned on this forum by collectors as well as the ones known to have been auctioned off in 1996, stands at 30 and may grow as research continues. Four more are known from South Africa, where a number of decommisioned or surplused specimens are likely to exist. Chances are scant that any exported Model 11s will be reimported to the US in times to come.
__________________
David Wilson
Last edited by DCWilson; 08-25-2020 at 06:36 PM.
Reason: Replaced two photos.
|
The Following 48 Users Like Post:
|
-db-, arjay, baxtersmith, boatbum101, browningcollector, CH4, CWH44300, damienph, digi-shots, Frank46, gdodgen, ghawke, H Richard, Igiveup, JJEH, JustinL, kframeman, KLYDE, loeman, M3Stuart, m4user, Maximumbob54, medxam, montezumaz, mtgianni, Muley Gil, Nedroe, notsofast, oksws, plvickers, policerevolvercollector, Professor Frink, quinn, raljr1, ralph7, Rpg, rustythread, S-W4EVER, Sandman4delta, servmgr64, shouldazagged, Sistema1927, Skippyjon Jones, usmc2427765, vinny77, vonn, Vulcan Bob, WaMike |
04-23-2014, 03:19 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,202
Likes: 9,079
Liked 1,921 Times in 1,043 Posts
|
|
That is a neat odd duck. I would love to have one of those and would even search out the correct bullet mold and load my own ammo. And once again there is another S&W revolver out there that I had no idea about.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
04-23-2014, 06:19 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 2,556
Likes: 882
Liked 1,719 Times in 549 Posts
|
|
Quote:
The 200-grain round that was the standard British military load at the outset of WWII was modified when the heavier bullet was found to be out of compliance with rules of war.
|
The only explanation for this is the rules of war must have said something about not overtly annoying the enemy's troops. That 200g round was notorious for not stopping well, or at all. I have a good bit of trouble believing its use was some how "inhumane" in time of war.
Dave
__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
04-23-2014, 07:51 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,995
Likes: 5,005
Liked 7,699 Times in 2,623 Posts
|
|
The Hague Convention of 1899 prohibited use of bullets capable of deformation so as to generate enhanced injury to those hit by them. The 200 gr bullet was a lead alloy projectile that could have been considered too soft and would therefore have been out of compliance. The replacement 178 gr bullet was a jacketed projectile that kept its shape better on impact.
Regardless of bullet weight and under any name the .38 S&W had a smaller energy cargo than a .38 Special or 9mm Parabellum round. I still wouldn't want to be hit by any of them in a conflict situation.
__________________
David Wilson
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
04-23-2014, 07:59 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 243
Likes: 33
Liked 142 Times in 56 Posts
|
|
I would love to find one of these for sale.
|
04-23-2014, 08:02 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 173
Likes: 32
Liked 79 Times in 33 Posts
|
|
As a lad (circa 1973) I lived next door to a part-time New Hampshire police officer. He carried such a gun on duty and called the ammo .38 short.
|
04-23-2014, 08:26 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 4,354
Likes: 9,217
Liked 6,390 Times in 2,216 Posts
|
|
Interesting thread, thanks for introducing me to an unknown to me model.
Now I can look for that elusive non model 5 screw.
|
04-23-2014, 10:13 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,024
Likes: 616
Liked 2,433 Times in 873 Posts
|
|
It's a really neat looking revolver Ralph.
Very nice find on your part.
|
04-23-2014, 10:19 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: houston,texas
Posts: 7,198
Likes: 124,841
Liked 23,177 Times in 5,749 Posts
|
|
Nice post on a nice gun. Thanks for taking the time to share.
__________________
Hue 68 noli me tangere
|
04-23-2014, 10:55 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Northeast Texas
Posts: 2,861
Likes: 921
Liked 1,326 Times in 723 Posts
|
|
Very informative! Thanks for taking the time to educate us.
__________________
But then, what do I know?
|
04-24-2014, 08:55 AM
|
|
SWCA Member Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The kidney of Dixie.
Posts: 10,509
Likes: 49
Liked 13,410 Times in 3,290 Posts
|
|
That is so cool. Always wanted a commercial M11. That one is fantastic.
__________________
No life story has happy end.
|
04-24-2014, 02:41 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 2,556
Likes: 882
Liked 1,719 Times in 549 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCWilson
The Hague Convention of 1899 prohibited use of bullets capable of deformation so as to generate enhanced injury to those hit by them. The 200 gr bullet was a lead alloy projectile that could have been considered too soft and would therefore have been out of compliance. The replacement 178 gr bullet was a jacketed projectile that kept its shape better on impact.
Regardless of bullet weight and under any name the .38 S&W had a smaller energy cargo than a .38 Special or 9mm Parabellum round. I still wouldn't to be hit by any of them in a conflict situation.
|
First, I don't want to take away from the point of the post, which is an interesting model variation and a beautiful example of one.
Having researched handgun stopping power for years in my LEO career I still find the Hague Convention opinion silly. At the velocities mentioned the deformation (expansion?) is so unlikely as to not be a real problem.
Oh well, it's history rather than a current argument so again, my apologies for side tracking the thread.
Dave
__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
02-15-2017, 03:28 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Liked 236 Times in 118 Posts
|
|
Originally posted by DC Wilson QUOTE "An interesting feature of the gun is that the barrel is marked not just with the caliber information, but also the recommended 178 grain Commonwealth loading that became standard after WWII. The 200-grain round that was the standard British military load at the outset of WWII was modified when the heavier bullet was feared to be out of compliance with rules of war."QUOTE
The 200 gr lead bullet load was declared obsolescent in mid 1938 when the 178 gr jacketed bullet Mark II round was introduced. So the S&W M&P "British Service Revolver" should not be called the 38/200!
Peter
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
02-15-2017, 04:15 PM
|
|
SWCA Member Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,834
Likes: 10,103
Liked 27,996 Times in 8,452 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJGP
......
The 200 gr lead bullet load was declared obsolescent in mid 1938 when the 178 gr jacketed bullet Mark II round was introduced. So the S&W M&P "British Service Revolver" should not be called the 38/200!
Peter
|
I would be curious to find out what label the British Purchasing Commission used in its correspondence with the manufacturers and other paperwork. The Colts ordered by the BPC in 1940/41 came with that caliber term actually stamped on the barrel.
Last edited by Absalom; 02-15-2017 at 04:18 PM.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
02-15-2017, 05:44 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 5,440
Liked 2,760 Times in 1,259 Posts
|
|
Looks like an interesting OP. Too bad all the pictures are gone.
__________________
Just Say No - To Social Media
|
02-15-2017, 08:46 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,995
Likes: 5,005
Liked 7,699 Times in 2,623 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlHunt
Looks like an interesting OP. Too bad all the pictures are gone.
|
I don't think Photobucket deliberately sets out to misfile or lose their users' images, but I'm just sick about this situation. I've filed a complaint, but who knows if they will get around to addressing the mess they have made. There are many gripes about this situation in the PB support pages, especially from people who sell usage rights to their images and have been deprived of income while this chaos continues.
Just to help me understand, is anybody able to see photos in the original post? My impression is that every Photobucket-hosted image I have posted to this and other forums in the last decade is currently not viewable.
__________________
David Wilson
|
02-15-2017, 09:05 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Death Valley, AZ
Posts: 2,807
Likes: 13,942
Liked 8,975 Times in 1,399 Posts
|
|
Sorry, David - Can't see the images.
__________________
Living a dream - S&WCA #2364
|
02-15-2017, 09:20 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ozarks of Missouri
Posts: 3,329
Likes: 3,009
Liked 2,922 Times in 992 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCWilson
. . .Just to help me understand, is anybody able to see photos in the original post? My impression is that every Photobucket-hosted image I have posted to this and other forums in the last decade is currently not viewable.
|
I haven't checked any of your other thread postings but I'm sorry to say your original post photos are not visible to me in this thread.
Russ
|
02-15-2017, 09:38 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 5,440
Liked 2,760 Times in 1,259 Posts
|
|
Not a one. Hopefully you can recover them.
__________________
Just Say No - To Social Media
|
02-15-2017, 10:28 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,995
Likes: 5,005
Liked 7,699 Times in 2,623 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJGP
Originally posted by DC Wilson QUOTE "An interesting feature of the gun is that the barrel is marked not just with the caliber information, but also the recommended 178 grain Commonwealth loading that became standard after WWII. The 200-grain round that was the standard British military load at the outset of WWII was modified when the heavier bullet was feared to be out of compliance with rules of war."QUOTE
The 200 gr lead bullet load was declared obsolescent in mid 1938 when the 178 gr jacketed bullet Mark II round was introduced. So the S&W M&P "British Service Revolver" should not be called the 38/200!
Peter
|
Peter, thanks for clearing up the timing for me. I had not found a specific date for the adoption of the 178gr projectile but from general sources had formed the opinion it must have occurred in the early to mid '40s. Happy to be corrected.
__________________
David Wilson
|
02-15-2017, 10:41 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: trail's end in ol' Wyo
Posts: 7,237
Likes: 17,448
Liked 18,385 Times in 5,038 Posts
|
|
I, too, would love to see those photos.
Here's one (sn: C350081) to keep you in the hunt....
Cheers,
Bob
__________________
Wrangler of stray Chiefs
Bob
|
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
|
|
02-15-2017, 10:42 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Central TX
Posts: 2,616
Likes: 1,002
Liked 4,500 Times in 1,236 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absalom
I would be curious to find out what label the British Purchasing Commission used in its correspondence with the manufacturers and other paperwork. The Colts ordered by the BPC in 1940/41 came with that caliber term actually stamped on the barrel.
|
See this: .38-200 - Wikipedia
__________________
Kevin Williams SWCA1649 HF208
|
02-16-2017, 12:00 AM
|
|
SWCA Member Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,834
Likes: 10,103
Liked 27,996 Times in 8,452 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwill1911
|
Interesting. To quote:
"After a period of service, it was realized that the 200 gr (13 g) soft lead bullet could arguably contravene the Hague Convention, which outlawed the use of bullets designed so as to "expand or flatten easily in the human body". A new cartridge was therefore adopted into Commonwealth Service as "Cartridge, Pistol, .380" Mk II" or ".380 Mk IIz", firing a 180 gr (11.7 g) full metal jacket bullet."
So the BPC should really have asked for a 380-180 stamping.
I'm sure Colt didn't care; until WW II, Colt revolvers were simply stamped 38 on the barrel, be it an Army 1901 in 38 LC, a PP in 38 New Police, or an Army Special/Official Police in 38 Special, leaving it to the user to know which 38 it was. You can't even get an archive letter from Colt that's more specific than just .38/c for any Colt up to and including the wartime Commando; the factory didn't record anything else. The 38-200 stamping is actually the first more specific barrel stamp used.
|
02-16-2017, 01:13 AM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,352
Likes: 10,447
Liked 6,095 Times in 1,249 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJGP
Originally posted by DC Wilson QUOTE "An interesting feature of the gun is that the barrel is marked not just with the caliber information, but also the recommended 178 grain Commonwealth loading that became standard after WWII. The 200-grain round that was the standard British military load at the outset of WWII was modified when the heavier bullet was feared to be out of compliance with rules of war."QUOTE
The 200 gr lead bullet load was declared obsolescent in mid 1938 when the 178 gr jacketed bullet Mark II round was introduced. So the S&W M&P "British Service Revolver" should not be called the 38/200!
Peter
|
One has to wonder if all the 200 grain lead ammunition was withdrawn from units and stores worldwide by the time Great Britain declared war in September of 1939.
It's probable that supplies of the lead 38/200 ammunition was on hand and was issued throughout Great Britain and the Commonwealth throughout the War.
|
02-16-2017, 08:13 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Rochester, NH USA
Posts: 4,003
Likes: 1,623
Liked 4,911 Times in 1,703 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCWilson
I don't think Photobucket deliberately sets out to misfile or lose their users' images, but I'm just sick about this situation. I've filed a complaint, but who knows if they will get around to addressing the mess they have made. There are many gripes about this situation in the PB support pages, especially from people who sell usage rights to their images and have been deprived of income while this chaos continues.
Just to help me understand, is anybody able to see photos in the original post? My impression is that every Photobucket-hosted image I have posted to this and other forums in the last decade is currently not viewable.
|
When you go over to your Photobucket account are the pics still there in the same album you posted them from? I have pics on posts from many years ago that are still there. But once I inadvertently erased some of the pics and they did disappear off the posts they were posted to...
You can't just post and then erase or even move the pics from your Bucket to an Album without having them disappear from a post. I always make sure I put pics in a permanent Album before posting them...
Bob
|
08-12-2020, 10:55 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,995
Likes: 5,005
Liked 7,699 Times in 2,623 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by two-bit cowboy
I, too, would love to see those photos.
Here's one (sn: C350081) to keep you in the hunt....
Cheers,
Bob
|
A beauty! Low serial number and -- I should have noticed this when this thread was new -- a five-screw model and therefore technically a Pre-11. Other K-frame models with serial numbers near this one were shipping in 1956.
Here's a larger version of the thumbnail in post #21 above.
Target hammer and wide (or semi-wide) trigger. This is the type of unexpected configuration that I would be tempted to letter.
__________________
David Wilson
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
08-13-2020, 04:47 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Sunny Florida, USA
Posts: 1,827
Likes: 124
Liked 4,139 Times in 814 Posts
|
|
Hi David:
Would it be possible for you to edit and re-post the photos of your Model 11? Since the collapse of Photobucket.com many of the pics formerly hosted there have disappeared, to the detriment of collectors who value and rely on older threads like this one.
Thanks.
__________________
Charlie Flick
SWCA 729 HF 215
|
08-13-2020, 07:37 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,995
Likes: 5,005
Liked 7,699 Times in 2,623 Posts
|
|
Charlie,
Great minds think alike. I actually have a plan to go back and restore missing photos for this 11-4 as well some other revolvers that have come into my hands over the years. The whole project may not be completed quickly, but I will be getting set up to rephotograph several items in the next few days. I plan to edit new images and backfill the empty posts as I go.
__________________
David Wilson
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
08-13-2020, 09:31 PM
|
|
SWCA Member Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,834
Likes: 10,103
Liked 27,996 Times in 8,452 Posts
|
|
I didn’t remember the one Bob posted.
I wonder if the barrel has a matching factory serial. It seems to be a left-over BSR barrel, as it has the half-moon front sight, much too late for anything but a 2” barrel at that serial, and at least appears to have the cut for the barrel-shaped knob with the knurled tip, although the photo isn’t crystal-clear there.
Would the factory send out a mis-match like that? I’d expect them to install the matching old-style knob.
|
08-14-2020, 12:04 AM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,995
Likes: 5,005
Liked 7,699 Times in 2,623 Posts
|
|
The more I look, the more I wonder about parts substitutions on C350081.
EDITED TO ADD: From other posts in these forums, it is now clear that C350081 was modified by the factory, apparently in 1978. It is now in many regards what could be considered a "virtual" Pre-11, but it was not originally assembled as one under a Commonwealth contract.
__________________
David Wilson
Last edited by DCWilson; 08-14-2020 at 08:36 PM.
Reason: Fix spacing.
|
08-16-2020, 08:33 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,995
Likes: 5,005
Liked 7,699 Times in 2,623 Posts
|
|
Photos have been reintroduced to the top post, but they are likely to be replaced again. At page display size, the images look unacceptably fuzzy.
TEN DAYS LATER: First two photos replaced again, but still look fuzzy to me in context. On the other hand, when the images are isolated and enlarged, fine details like the stock checking and grooving on the front-sight ramp look sharp to me. I'm thinking I shouldn't trust my own eyes any more, so others will have to tell me if the new photos are adequate.
__________________
David Wilson
Last edited by DCWilson; 08-26-2020 at 01:23 PM.
Reason: Comment on newer new photos.
|
12-17-2020, 09:16 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Northeast FL
Posts: 5,776
Likes: 7,434
Liked 15,131 Times in 3,614 Posts
|
|
I would love to add one of these to my bunch...along with an M&P 32....oh well.
Robert
__________________
Robert
SWCA #2906, SWHF #760
|
12-17-2020, 10:04 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,570
Likes: 5,476
Liked 6,421 Times in 1,863 Posts
|
|
I can see all the pictures just fine on my android smart phone.
|
12-18-2020, 10:52 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Chesterfield, Va.
Posts: 6,288
Likes: 8,848
Liked 13,302 Times in 3,296 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal44
I can see all the pictures just fine on my android smart phone.
|
They show up fine on my chromebook.
I seem to remember seeing Model 11's listed in Shooters Bibles and Gun Digest in the 70's. I about wore those books out "wishin' " Rather they were still being sold or not, I have no idea.
__________________
John 3:16 .
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|