Bob B.
Really beautiful grips on that engraved RM - any idea who did the grips and the carving?
Bob
Really beautiful grips on that engraved RM - any idea who did the grips and the carving?
Bob
Show us your King Sighted Guns
- Thread starter bmg60
- Start date
A Few More
K-22 Outdoorsman with Super Target conversion with cockeyed hammer:
Couple of RM's with King Sights:
The last one was shipped from the factory to King and also sports a King cockeyed hammer.
K-22 Outdoorsman with Super Target conversion with cockeyed hammer:
Couple of RM's with King Sights:
The last one was shipped from the factory to King and also sports a King cockeyed hammer.
Last edited:
pokute;(Somebody bought it from King's in 1953 and forgot about it):[/QUOTE said:
The thing is, I bought it to SHOOT it, but all you collector types have made me feel guilty about doing it. When I finally track down the top-break I'm looking for, I'm gonna shoot the hell outta it just to P-O all of you.
Bob R.,
Sorry to be so slow in answering. I overlooked your question.
No, unfortunately, I haven't been able to trace the embellishments. The gun was shipped to Binghamton NY in 1936.
During that period Roy C. McHenry was practicing law in Binghamton following his FBI career. He was also a long time officer in the Binghamton Rifle Club and the formation of the Interstate Revolver League. Of course, shortly thereafter McHenry and Walter Roper wrote their book on Smith & Wesson Hand Guns.
There was no shortage of other very wealthy individuals who might have commissioned the work. In that period Thomas Watson began IBM there; Edwin Link started Link Aviation to make his flight simulators there; Henry Endicott and George Johnson started the Endicott-Johnson Shoe Corporation there with 20,000 employees and produced 52 million pairs of shoes annually. That is to say nothing of the frequent use of Binghamton as a retreat site for the New York Cosa Nostra.
So there are lots of possibilities but all attempts to attribute it to some previous owner have met blank walls.
Bob
DHENRY
Member
Here are a couple that really work well with the King sights:
A 38/44 King Super Target and a Registered Magnum.
Don
A 38/44 King Super Target and a Registered Magnum.
Don
Last edited:
aNyboDDi no hOo mmmmmmaks a drOOlpruf kEboRRRddd?
Here is my very early K22 Outdoorsman:
Here's a less than pristine K-22 Outdoorsman, shipped in mid-1934, that has been fitted with a King reflector front sight (which I believe is period correct) and what looks to be an aftermarket hammer. The rear sight and trigger both appear to be original.
Edit: I'm almost ashamed to post these photos, as everybody else's examples in this thread are so nice, while this one is well used and pretty much a beater in comparison.
Edit: I'm almost ashamed to post these photos, as everybody else's examples in this thread are so nice, while this one is well used and pretty much a beater in comparison.
Attachments
Last edited:
That Pre-Vic conversion has got to be the coolest thing I have seen in days! A prewar Combat Masterpiece prototype...
Goony,
Someone with a King hammer will have to let us both know if they were stamped King. But the only other custom hammers I know of that are exact copies of the King right, left and double cockeyed hammer are the Microsight, and they are stamped Micro on the left side. So if yours is not stamped Micro I'm inclined to think it's a King pending verification of their marking.
Last edited:
Goony and Hondo,
You might find this interesting. In 1955 King Gun Sight Company sued Micro Sights in Federal Court for patent infringement.
Bob
King Gun Sight Company, Inc., a Corporation, Appellant, v. Micro Sight Company, Inc., a Corporation, John v. Mckenna, Rene Goudy, Eugene F. Padel, George K. Thannisch, and Marion Galloway, Appellees., 218 F.2d 825 (9th Cir. 1955) - Federal Circuits -
You might find this interesting. In 1955 King Gun Sight Company sued Micro Sights in Federal Court for patent infringement.
Bob
King Gun Sight Company, Inc., a Corporation, Appellant, v. Micro Sight Company, Inc., a Corporation, John v. Mckenna, Rene Goudy, Eugene F. Padel, George K. Thannisch, and Marion Galloway, Appellees., 218 F.2d 825 (9th Cir. 1955) - Federal Circuits -
Tam 3,
But S&W had no wide spur hammers pre war, in fact not until the early '50s. And they never had the two hashmarks in front of the spur checkering which are indicative of the King and Micro design.
Goony,
In reviewing pace40's photos I now see that his hammer closeup does show the King Patent stamping. And in reviewing your hammer spur photo I noticed it doesn't have the 'teardrop' shape on the spur tip like the King and Micro. But neither do the hammers on pace40's K22 Outdorsman and 38 M&P Super King Target conversions, and it seems highly unlikely that they would have some other smith's custom made wide spur hammers. They don't appear to be stamped King either.
As bettis1 has documented, there was quite a 'brewhaha' over Micro's copy of the King hammer.
So we may be looking at different vintages of King's hammer modification and after the court case King may have no longer stamped them as patented since the patent protection was nill; all my speculation of course. But I think you have a King hammer based on the above observations.
But S&W had no wide spur hammers pre war, in fact not until the early '50s. And they never had the two hashmarks in front of the spur checkering which are indicative of the King and Micro design.
Goony,
In reviewing pace40's photos I now see that his hammer closeup does show the King Patent stamping. And in reviewing your hammer spur photo I noticed it doesn't have the 'teardrop' shape on the spur tip like the King and Micro. But neither do the hammers on pace40's K22 Outdorsman and 38 M&P Super King Target conversions, and it seems highly unlikely that they would have some other smith's custom made wide spur hammers. They don't appear to be stamped King either.
As bettis1 has documented, there was quite a 'brewhaha' over Micro's copy of the King hammer.
So we may be looking at different vintages of King's hammer modification and after the court case King may have no longer stamped them as patented since the patent protection was nill; all my speculation of course. But I think you have a King hammer based on the above observations.
Last edited:
lawandorder
Member
A .44 Special version
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
