Dave,

Thanks for looking into this question. Actually my gun has a 6.5" barrel, so it won't be a "pure" McGivern model if it turns out to be one that is somehow associated with him. I also note that the profile of the front blade on my gun is a little different from yours -- my blade is essentially rectangular with a fairly tight radius at the top front. Your blade's top surface is sloped slightly downward to the front and has a larger radius on the top front.

I'm getting the sense that there is some variety in the bead sights that are justifiably called McGivern. In his book he says that the McGivern bead sight consists of a 1/10" bead positioned on a 1/10" blade so that the top and two sides of the bead are flush with the corresponding blade surfaces. The blade on my gun is a 1/8" blade and the bead is almost large enough to meet the McGivern principles of tangency. But my bead seems to be a little off center, positioned maybe .01" further left than it should be, and perhaps high enough to rise slightly above the top surface of the blade. This tiny irregularity (plus the atypical shape of the entire blade) made me wonder if this is an experimental or one-off front blade based on McGivern's designs. I think I am going to have to wait for the letter to see what kind of sight was on this gun when it shipped. I am prepared to be surprised either way.

Do we know when the McGivern bead sight was first used on any revolver? His book came out in 1938. The factory offered McGivern bead options from 1937-1942. The .38/44 Outdoorsman was introduced in 1931. The known McGivern Outdoorsman models (five-inch barrel, bead sight) appear to have been leaving the factory in 1933 and 1934, with another spurt in 1938 and 1939 -- perhaps in response to the publication of his book.

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm glad to see there is another protruding gold bead sight that has a small cylindrical component to it behind the hemisphere.

Trivial point: I think you accidentally flipped the last two digits on the date for your gun. I bet it is 1934 rather than 1943.

__________________
David Wilson