I'm relatively new to owning the 52, got my A774xxx last November and after pulling my jaw back up off the ground at my favorite shooting place, I knew in mere moments that I was experiencing a "first" -- the first time ever that the prevailing emotion was quite simply none other than, "well, okay, it is OBVIOUS to me that I have to go and buy at least one more of these ASAP!"

That's how inspiring I find the 52. And my second one did arrive just a week ago in fact and it's a late model, a TZT-0xxx which I think dates to around 1991.

There are differences between the two (earlier dating to '82 I believe) in that the TZT-gun is not grooved in the frame to accept the factory S&W accessory weight (no dimple either) and the lettering on the slide and frame are different.

I'm curious if we have some kind of a detailed log that points out ALL the tiny details that changed or evolved over the production life of the 52?

You have acquired a very fine firearm. As I am sure you have already learned, these are superbly accurate autoloaders.

Do you have a copy of the Standard Catalog of Smith and Wessons?

That book is a great reference for both the major changes that Smith and Wessons go through, these are engineering revisions or what folks like to refer to as dash numbers, and it also lists many (but not all) of the minor changes that the firearms go through over the years.

I m sure that one or more of the Forums model 52 collectors will be along shortly to list some of the minor changes that are not documented in the SCSW

Take some photos and share them with the rest of the Forum. We all like to look.

I have only the 2nd Edition of the fantastic SCSW, but my 4th Edition is pre-ordered and I await with great anticipation for it's arrival! And I do have pictures of both my 52's but I haven't ventured out looking for picture hosting space and I have no good experiences with photobucket & the like. One day I will rectify that.

I have not been able to get the TZT-Model 52 to the range yet. Scheduled for next weekend. But in celebratory preparation, I did handload ummmm... eighteen boxes of full wadcutter loads over four days last weekend.

Hello,
I have been collecting 52s the past 14 years, ever since I bought my first one, which was a shooter, I then started buying them.
I really never wanted one with the 3 Letter prefix, I always found the finish to be no where near as nice as the early A series, up to A400000. From there, in my opinion, they just didn't look as nice. Similar to the early 41's.
But they all shot the same.
And so with that I never knew they eliminated the slots and dimple for the target weight. That is too bad, because that weight really does improve things. Quicker on target follow up shots. A bit of caution, the weights do not just slip on, one size fit's all does not apply here. Enjoy the 52-2s.

Here ya go, Sevens. From the Third edition.

Google is yer friend!

https://books.google.com/books?id=D8...Supica&f=false

__________________
Ukraine -- now more than ever

In comparing my TZT prefix 52-2 and my A774 SN 52-2 from about 10 years previous, I also find that the barrel lock-up feels a bit more tight and the trigger is a bit more sublime. I do agree that the quality and color of the finish seems to rate behind the older one and my buddy has a TEZ-prefix 52-2 that may have the most plum-colored slide I have ever yet seen on any Model 52, but it shoots absolutely lights-out.

His TEZ, by the way, does have the frame groove and dimple for the accessory weight. Seems pretty odd to have made those cuts that late in production and then by my TZT-prefix, have stopped. Also, both of our 1990's era pistols do not have the lug on the bottom of the mainspring housing where the original 39 pistols had a lanyard loop, but my circa-1982 pistol does. The lug is solid and will not work as a lanyard without a hole in it.

Oh well, no matter really, but I do find it interesting and enjoyable to compare them.

Mine, bought new by me in March 1991 has the weight cut out slots and dimple. Serial# THB5623 SPC.ORD. code of 0316 indicates it was boxed on November 12th, 1990. I agree that the quality of bluing is not the same as earlier models but build quality is still there.

Okay now it makes me curious what your motivation was for purchase of a Model 52 brand new? Was it something you marveled at for years and simply decided you needed to own one? The SCSW says the final MSRP was $908 by the time the pistol was in it's very last days. That was a heap of money in the early 90's. My 1006 was a spring-1992 purchase and it was approaching $600 US$. That was big, big money when I was 21 years old!

Minor, but even still -- directly to the subject:
Just saw an image of an A237xxx Model 52-2 and on the right side of the slide it shows the "PAT'S PENDING" except that it is directly under the ejection port whereas on my A774xxx, it is further back, directly under the extractor.

I suppose if I had to guess, the older ones were under the ejection port simply because the earlier extractor style left little room for it in that area? But it does seem a bit trivial to me that they would move it forward... what, an inch or inch and a half?

As I said, very minor, but still interesting. (to me, anyway! )

My motivation for purchase was shooting a friends Model 52-2 and wanted one from the first press of the trigger. I'm sure you know how that goes....

If you want to talk about expensive purchases at the time, I preceeded the purchase of the Model 52-2 with a new Model 4006 after reading the Gun's and Ammo review of the new pistol and immediately wanted one of these new .40 calibre pistols as well. I immediately ordered a new 4006 with adjustable sights and waited several months to get it. A wopping $901.80 in 1990 and it's mine. I still own this one as well. Wieners and beans for dinner for several months after.......

Got my 52-1 in Feb/1969, used it in bullseye competition for many years....never had a problem...SN:1009xx. Original receipt also says (A2482)...don't know what that means. My loads never exceeded 2.8grs Bulleye w/148gr hollow base. I also purchased an extra extractor which I heard was necessary because of possible breakage. Never needed it because I never exceeded the 2.8 gr load as I had been informed about in later years. Sweetest gun I ever shot next to my M41 of 1967 vintage.

Enjoy yours!

I have serial number TEY7xx1, which I purchased new in the late 90's - yes, late 90's. The gun shop owner was trying to unload it, so I bought for around $600. Anyway, mine has the groves and dimple for the barrel weight. It also has a moderately plum colored slide which I like! It's one of my favorite guns. The only problem I have is the range where I shoot has cracked down on unjacketed bullets, so I can't shoot it there anymore. Guess I need to find a new range....

Does you range allow "plated bullets"? If so, Berry's makes a 148 grain HBWC and Extreme has a 148 grain DEWC. I've used both in my 52-2 with no noticeable change in performance over cast or swagged.

This is a GREAT suggestion to follow up on!
I've asked a couple of ranges around here about the plated bullets and they allow them. It's the uncovered/un-coated lead they worry about.

I'll have to check out the plated bullets - if allowed, I guess I will finally have to start reloading. I've saved my brass for years, thinking that when I retire (in about 5 years) I might start. Well, I might have to start reloading early....

Thanks for the heads up!

KAS

I recently bought a 52-2, serial number A483xxx. I have had them before and keep forgetting they are nice pistols.

__________________
NRA Life Member

All these little differences make the collecting interesting. There are very odd very small differences in a lot of these models made in batches. I have seen one barrel where the roll stamp was wrong way round. The groove could have been missed during production, or dropped considering TZT must be so close to the end of the line.

I suppose I would think "dropped" is more likely than forgotten or missing because both parts are absent. (the groove cuts on both sides of the frame AND the dimple for set screw)

In the range owner's defense, they are worried about the lead for your health. Lead exposure at indoor ranges is a real problem, especially at older ranges who's air circulation equipment isn't up to standards. Beyond that, the plated bullets should make cleaning a bit easier. I've also seen polymer coated wc's available which should also be acceptable to the range.

__________________
So many S&W's, so few funds!!

I would simply have to guess that a dedicated Model 52 shooter (or perhaps a different term here... let's say a FREQUENT shooter of the 52) that doesn't handload would be somewhat of a rare bird! Back in the absolute heyday of the 52, most of the big, known ammo companies were all producing large quantities of factory ammo that would run beautifully in a 52, but here in 2016? I'm not sure many do at all. I believe that one of the Euro producers does... (is it Fiocchi?) but I think some folks have had trouble getting that to run well in a 52.

So I guess I am curious about where you get the ammo you feed your pistol if you are NOT handloading?

And by the way, if you need any help, tips or suggestions on how to get going in the handloading hobby, I'm more than happy to help.

I am not certain where this common misconception comes from.

Federal, Winchester and Remington have always been producing 148 grain Match HBWC ammunition.

There has always been one or more of the major brands available at Midway USA anytime I have looked or ordered it. I go through several cases of factory 38 Special Match HBWC every year with no problems. Additionally I handload more HBWCs for training, teaching and demonstrations through the year.

The Ammo is out there . . . . . . . . .

I agree that the major brand factory packs are getting harder to find, I prefer to load my own as some of the 52s can be very finicky to feed even when factory packed.

I'm sure other hand-loaders will check in on the subject.

The ammo I load feeds and fires perfectly, all the time.

__________________
ANTIQUESMITHS
LM1300 SWHF425

I agree with Mark. The Model 52 is likely the most accurate, out of the box, target pistol ever manufactured. I have never seen an "accurized" Model 52 done by Clark or Giles nor anyone else because you cannot improve on perfection.

__________________
ANTIQUESMITHS
LM1300 SWHF425

What are you guys doing for magazines for these fine guns? I need some.

I genuinely had no idea that American ammo makers still produced a factory loaded .38 Special HBWC. Not hard to see how I would make this mistake -- I don't shop for factory center fire ammo almost ever. Even still, the BIGGEST gun stores in my town, the large ones I frequent out of town, and all the Cabela's and similar I've ventured in to... do not stock this ammo.

Last time I know I saw factory American .38 HBWC would have been in the summer of 1990.

Back when I was living in Phoenix a few years ago an add came up on Craigs list of a model 52 for sale with a serial of TZ and something.
Seller needed cash, bought it for $400, had the grooves in the dust cover but no dimple.
S&W responded by saying that "it must have been missed".
I did not need three M52's at the time and sold it for a good profit

Clarence

__________________
B.E.Master in&outdoor
D.R.#99

Stay away from Fiocchi cause it will not cycle the slide of an M52(single shot pistol is what you get).

Watch for the big three in 148gr HBWC ammo, BUT, you may have issues cause they are loaded for revolvers and they are too long to run in the M52 magazines.(ask me how I know this

I purchased a whole case of Winchester and had to seat them all further into the case to function properly.

Clarence

__________________
B.E.Master in&outdoor
D.R.#99

I have finished early testing of Xtreme 148gr plated wadcutters in two different Model 52 pistols and in function-testing only, 25 rounds in each pistol was flawless in operation. The load was 2.9gr Bullseye.

More testing is necessary to ensure full, proper function and obviously, accuracy. I certainly do expect to give up some accuracy... but the short answer is that the indoor range I frequent in the coldest of the winter months simply will not allow lead bullets. So I'm attempting to make this load work specifically for indoor use, and I will stick to my soft swaged HBWC handloads for the bulk of my 52 shooting.

The bottom line for me is that while the plated wadcutters will likely not return the ultimate accuracy that a 52 is capable of... a 52 on it's worst day runs circles around most of the handguns present at any range on any given day.

Be careful with factory loaded 148 HBWC. As a previous poster had noted some will not fit the magazines and will have to be re-seated. And as has been previously posted they are primarily for revolver loads and are NOT RATED AS MID-RANGE. You can check with the manufacturer or the seller and make sure that the ammo is rated at or near 710 fps or else you can harm your 52 if you don't install a heavier recoil spring (available at Wolffe). If you don't reload stay with the 710 fps ammo as the heavier recoil spring will slightly alter the feel of the 52. As my pappy always said "if it ain't broke - don't fix it". I do believe that Western X still makes 148 HBWC specifically marked Mid-range.

Thread BUMP!

Yeah, old thread that I bumped on purpose because I love this model! Here is a quick addition that I have noticed and I have seen so many of them since my original post that evidence has shown me it's almost to the point of "LAW" and if you have seen otherwise or can show otherwise, I'd find it to be very interesting!

The no-dash 52's are all five digit serial number guns, first one at 50000 and should have run right to 53500 or somewhere very close to that number, according to everything I have ever read. Then we have five digit dash-1 guns leading up to six digit dash-1 guns and then shortly after, A-prefix six digit 52-1 guns.

Here is what I have noticed: all of the 52 no-dash guns have the more upright (modern?) ampersand on the slide. And the 52-1 pistols seem to all have the "LAZY" fatter ampersand. (The ampersand is the "&" between Smith & Wesson.)

It has often been stated (generally) that the "lazy" ampersand is the older ampersand, but in this case, things seem switched around a bit.

The dash-1 pistols ran all the way until 1970 or maybe it was 1971 and then the extractor re-design called for the debut of the 52-2. I don't believe the 52-2 pistols wear the lazy ampersand.

But I'm always looking for oddities!

In one of my old Gun Digests Gil Hebard had an article on the 52's and he said if they did not produce a 2" group at 50 yards from a machine rest they went back for a rework until they would. The gun digest is from the early 60's. My 52-2 is from the mid eighties all my mags have been modified to hold six rounds. Jeff

These auto’s have found a home.

Attached Images

357133B3-5FEF-43B4-BB0B-68A08504BCA2.jpg (108.5 KB, 26 views)