.22/.32 Hand Ejector (Heavy Frame Target, "Bekeart" type) Pictures

[Goony]

There are a lot of disconnected posts about these, so I thought maybe there could be a spot where images of various versions of this model (from the earliest 1911 production run to the post-1935 ones with the recessed cylinder) could be perused.

I'll start it off with #5175xx, shipped in 1930. The hammer spur is truncated, but I can't say whether it was broken off and the fracture then smoothed out, or if it was deliberately shortened for some reason.

 

[JP@AK]

Thanks for starting this thread, Goony. I look forward to seeing more pictures of these special .22 Heavy Target revolvers as other members post them. I passed a few months ago on one that I really wanted to buy, but the condition just was not good enough to justify the price the guy wanted and he wasn't willing to come down. I plan to keep looking.
Meanwhile, I thought I would mention that the letter I got from Roy on my .32/20 HE Model of 1902 Target revolver (serial #80xx) says it was shipped to Phillip Bekeart Company on March 15, 1904. If I understand the sequence correctly, that would mean it went to the old store, before the earthquake destroyed it. Good thing for me the gun was sold first, or I probably would not have it today.
Regards,
JP

 

[DCWilson]

A .22/32 thread! How could I not participate.

Here's one of the last .22/32 target revolvers shipped before WWII put an end to commercial production: no. 533038, shipped January 1940.

The later labels don't say anything about "Bekeart" or use the phrase Heavy Frame Target.

It's interesting to see how the company described this offering in its catalogs (1925 in this case).

I don't have a photo of the open cylinder showing the recessed chambers, but you can see from the tiny gap between cylinder and recoil shield that this cylinder enclosed the rims of inserted cartridges.

 

[JP@AK]

Super pictures, David. I especially enjoyed the catalog pages.
On the recessing: Early examples of the .22/32 Heavy Frame Targets that I've seen did not have recessed chambers. Do you know when they started doing that?
Jack

 

[JSR III]

It is reported at serial 525,600 in 1935. These are a 160,XXX, a 270,XXX and a 384,XXX from top to bottom. The 384,XXX has a recessed cylinder and a gold bead front sight and went back to the factory in September of 1940. Apparently, someone thought that the new recessed chamber idea was a good one. The top gun 160,XXX has the smaller or "bobbed" hammer.

 

[Goony]

The top gun 160,XXX has the smaller or "bobbed" hammer.

Is it correct to state, then, that the "bobbed" hammer was a factory variation or option?

I've attached a photo of the hammer on the gun with which I started off this thread. This appears to me to have been "bobbed" one way or another after it was shipped. Although it's not as obvious in the picture as it is when actually handling the gun, this hammer just doesn't have the look of a manufactured part, being uncomfortably sharp edged, and the end neither perfectly smooth or symmertrical. Perhaps it was a deliberate attempt to reproduce the factory shortened style hammer, but I fail to see what advantage was gained.

 

[DCWilson]

I suspect that the gun was dropped and landed on its hammer, leaving a broken tip. Rather than replacing the hammer, the owner just cleaned up the break as well as he could with a file and kept on shooting.

With the patent stamp on it, that's a company hammer.

I have a prewar Kit Gun (same action) with an enlarged hammer spur. I figured it was a repair after the original hammer was broken. Not sure why a shooter would willingly grind down the hammer on a target revolver. Most of the mods made the hammers bigger.

 

[paplinker]

I saw a nice 22/32 at a show which lettered in 1922. The front sight was shaped like a patridge but had a v shaped cutout on the barrel side. Kind of looked like a fish hook sight. Pin looked untouched.I couldn't find reference to it in SSWC.

 

[1blindref]

I saw a nice 22/32 at a show which lettered in 1922. The front sight was shaped like a patridge but had a v shaped cutout on the barrel side. Kind of looked like a fish hook sight. Pin looked untouched.I couldn't find reference to it in SSWC.

IIRC - they are covered on page 117.

Great thread!
Thanks for posting those pictures and copy's of the original literature, David.
I just bought one on Gun Broker. I should have it sometime next week and will post pictures. I didn't really know much about them other than what I read in the SCSW.

It looked to be in very good shooter condition and I thought it would sell for more than it did ($633.00), but I guess these aren't bringing the big dollars yet.

I can't what to get it to the range to see what it (and I) can do.

 

[Wyo]

Guess I better jump in here. This one belonged to my Grandfather. I got it from him in about 1985. I don't have the serial number at hand but will try to post it up later.

 

[Goony]

I got a chuckle out of some of the hyperbole in that 1925 catalog.

"Heavier and lighter arms were tried, but the .22 on a .32 sized frame proved by far the best."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, you K-22 guys! Honestly, they really didn't leave themselves much wiggle room for touting the merits of the .22 Outdoorsman when it was introduced just a few years later, did they?

"The .22/32 is a man's gun, the stock fits the hand, and permits the loose yet firm grip so necessary for good shooting..."

So that's what I've been doing wrong all these years, not gripping the gun loosely and firmly at the same time! And evidently women need not bother considering buying this product. After all, we already have that Ladysmith for those darned suffragettes....

 

[DCWilson]

I just recently learned that S&W experimented with a K-frame .22 about 1910, but that it was a miserable failure because they got the rifling twist all wrong. Twenty years later they got the engineering worked out and the K-22 Outdoorsman was born.

Interesting that they indirectly slag their own M-frame target revolvers. They built them when they thought they could sell them; then when they thought they could sell something better, the M-frames got thrown under the bus.

Those old catalogs do bring a smile. There is a lot of high-mindedness to the prose. I guess you couldn't just say, "Kills things really dead" and expect to get the attention of the entire gun-buying market.

 

[smithcollector]

i got me one, forget the year, but ive had it lettered.

 

[Goony]

i got me one, forget the year, but ive had it lettered.

That looks to be an early one, maybe even from the first production run in 1911. Does it have a number on the bottom of the left side stock?

 

[Hondo44]

Goony, great thread and lotsa' eye candy!

Just a word about 'bobbed' hammers. I've not seen anything in writing about a factory bobbed hammer or ever observed one on dozens of HFTs I've seen. But I won't say Smith never made one, I just don't think so. I too see no advantage for the target shooter.

And I wouldn't say it wasn't done on purpose by an owner that carried it under winter clothing and was tired of snagging the hammer.

I have observed that the cut under the tip of the spur that forms the little bulge on the end occasionally creates a very narrow spot near the tip of the spur. Those seem prone to breakage at the slightest provocation.

As we all know, most revolvers when dropped, due to their weight distribution, will fall hammer down. Hence the reason for Smith's new hammer block safties that started with the Victory Model during the war when a U. S. sailor was killed and Uncle Sam sent them all back to S&W for retrofitting. And the reason so many old Colts and old model Rugers were infamous for shooting their owners when dropped.

 

[handejector]

Is it correct to state, then, that the "bobbed" hammer was a factory variation or option?

..........but I fail to see what advantage was gained.

No, it was not a factory option.
Most of these have nothing to do with being dropped and broken. I think they were shortened because large, meaty hands can get 'bit' in double action and interfere with the hammer when cocked single action.

 

[Goony]

James referring to one of his having "the" bobbed hammer instead of "a" bobbed hammer is what got me to infer that there might be a production variation. Clearly uninformed speculation on my part.

 

[smithcollector]

yes my grips have a number stamped on the bottom, i wanna say #2111, but i could be wrong.

 

[JSR III]

James referring to one of his having "the" bobbed hammer instead of "a" bobbed hammer is what got me to infer that there might be a production variation. Clearly uninformed speculation on my part.

Sorry if my wording confused anyone. I used the term "the" bobbed hammer because I have seen this on multiple .22/32's before, yours included. I would guess that if one did a search for .22/32 Heavy Frame target or just .22/32 that past threads discussing this topic will be found. I know that I have participated in at least one discussion regarding this hammer anomaly since mine suffers from the affliction.

 

[H Richard]

I would tend to think the "Bobbed Hammer" was a Custom enhancement back in the day.

When I got this one it had a very slight bulge in the barrel. I did send it to David Chicoine and have the barrel lined, as well as a couple other minor problems fixed. It's S/N 441727, shipped 9/1926.