Pre-War Outdoorsman Short Action Pics Inside Edition

[mikepriwer]

Larry

You are right. From the King catalog, Page 4 :

King Short Actions
The King system of Short Actions is now available for both
Smith & Wesson and Colt revolvers. Short actions including
adjusting trigger pull without changing position of hammer stud
Smith & Wesson $10
Colt $8.50

And again on page 12:

King Remodeling Department
We are also prepared to change all types of S&W revolvers to
short actions without changing the position of the hammer.

So -unless King had an earlier process ( than 1939 ) for short
actions, someone else did the work.

Regards, Mike Priwer

 

[moosedog]

It is amazing the type of gun smithing involved in that type of conversion.
Thanks for the tread, it is very informative and offers another avenue for collectors.

 

[mikepriwer]

There are a couple of other ideas that occur to me, vis-a-vis this
particular short-throw modification.

One is that the King catalog makes a point about their implementation
not requiring the hammer stud to be relocated. As a gun-smithing
shop, King was well-known for performing all sorts of modifications
to revolvers. It was 24/7 with them. So - here we have a modification
that does not require modification to that stud. This makes me think
that there were either other modifiers that did relocate the stud, or
perhaps King had an earlier modification that required relocation.

Two - anyone who owns a K-22 2nd model - from about 1940 - is
invited to look at the hammer. What you will see, on the rear semi-
circular curvature, is that same "notch" . The factory implementation
of a short-throw hammer did involve a relocation in the position of
the hammer stud. And, rather than redesign the hammer, they
used existing hammers and reground the rear contour.

Maybe the factory was copying the earlier implementations, while King
had come up with a different way to do it. I was also thinking , but
have no way to confirm this, that maybe Kings drop-in hammer also
required a different trigger. His advertising does not say this, but
clearly his modification would have changed something on the lower
end of the hammer, and that might have required a corresponding
change in the trigger.

Regards, Mike Priwer

 

[keith44spl]

Mike,

Very interesting thought...

As time permits, in the next day or two I'll
run this revolver by the shop and have a closer look inside.

Also, maybe a 'moving picture' of the double action cycle w/the side plate off
and the hammer/trigger position at full cock in the SA mode as well...

A closer inspection of the trigger may well be in order, as it has been re-caseharden as wellas the hammer.

What I find unique is the reliability of ignition with this short arc of DA throw.

I've personally fired this revolver a bunch a times, nary a hiccup.

Anyway, whoever did the engineering on this little deal sur' nuf' knew their oats.


Su Amigo,
Dave

 

[50 target]

Anyway, whoever did the engineering on this little deal sur' nuf' knew their oats. (quote)

No CAD system at work here.In looking at the disassembled pieces, it appdears that they relocated the hole for the hammer pin on both the frame and sideplate. Gotta have those two spot on. Also there is no hammer stud as on the original design, but a shaft that goes from frame to sideplate. Think that may be the reason for the "thrust bushing" in the hammer to keep it centered for maybe there was more play after the conversion and this was the solution.Or maybe this was their version of chafing bushings. Wonder what the "scrap hammer" box looked like before they got this right.? Of course, looking at the quality, probably got it right pretty quick. Nice gun whoever did it and was cutting edge in its day. Don'y ya wish you coul've sat on the stool next to the smith and watch him at work and fine tune this puppy and then test it.
Not easy not to covet.




Enjoy that fine piece of hardware and smile every time you pull the trigger on a true work of the gunsmithys art.

 

[DBWesson]

Mike:
You are right on.
I think King did the work before they had a drop in kit.
The kit must have included a trigger.
DBW

 

[Local Hand]

Interesting thread. I did a similar thing to repair a broken hammerstud on a Brazillian 45. The stud had snapped off flush so I eyeballed a center punch mark, chose a drill that just fit the hammer pivot hole and drilled in about .10. Then I cut the shank off the drill bit to use as a pin and dressed it for length until the sideplate would just seat. No change in geometry, no improvements, but got the gun back in action.

 

[DCWilson]

Steve, good to see a post from you again.

That's a really interesting conversion. The overlapping exposed hammer studs under the cylinder release make me want to reach for my stronger eyeglasses.

Thanks for the additional images of early short-action conversions.

 

[smith17]

Good to see you back, Steve.

Ed

 

[Modified]

Resurrecting a great old thread here, it triggered something in the back of my head about a gun that I bought from a fellow member here because I liked the modified hammer. I realized something after watching this, the hammer hadn't just been modified, so had the action.

Here's the innards:



Should get a huge image if you click on it.

Here's a video of the action, compared to my other long action it's very different:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP4NfpTLUng&feature=youtu.be[/ame]

Given the short action work, do these initials mean anything to anyone?

 

[Peter M. Eick]

The effort that folks went to back then amazes me when you consider the machining involved. Just think of what that conversion would costs to day if you went to like Cylinder and Slide to do it. Not cheap!

 

[DCWilson]

Almost two years ago, when this thread was already over two years old, I lucked into a very interesting revolver. It's a five-inch McGivern Outdoorsman with a short-throw conversion. I can't prove that it is the work of J.D. Buchanan, but the gun was shipped to Los Angeles and Buchanan was an LA gunsmith.

You can see the repositioned hammer stud exactly where it is in Dave's gun in the original post.

The hammer sits higher, so you have to ease the rounded rear surface to keep it from colliding with the frame.

It was also necessary to carve a tunnel for the hammer nose so it wouldn't collide with the frame when it fell.

But just to add a further attention-grabbing element to a specimen that was interesting enough already, look what's inscribed on the inner surface of the sideplate:

I don't for a moment believe this was a King conversion job because the King short action improvement seems to have been achieved with a drop-in hammer replacement. I suspect this is a gun that King bought for the business in order to have it around to show potential customers how much more complicated the Buchanan solution was than what they could achieve with a simple part swap. I'm still looking for evidence that would bolster that interpretation. So far, this is the only gun I have ever seen with King's name carved on an inner surface. If anybody knows of another, I would sure like to hear about it.

Here's the whole gun, which is as pretty in its totality as it is interesting in its components.

 

[boykinlp]

Great gun David! Did you know about the King inscription before you bought it or was it a pleasant surprise?

 

[410bore]

Resurrecting a great old thread here, it triggered something in the back of my head about a gun that I bought from a fellow member here because I liked the modified hammer. I realized something after watching this, the hammer hadn't just been modified, so had the action.

Here's the innards:



Should get a huge image if you click on it.

Here's a video of the action, compared to my other long action it's very different:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP4NfpTLUng&feature=youtu.be

Given the short action work, do these initials mean anything to anyone?

Caleb,

I just watched your video. It appears in SA, the action is still "long" but in DA it appears "short" but almost too short. will it fire in DA? It seems like that would not be enough force.

 

[DCWilson]

Great gun David! Did you know about the King inscription before you bought it or was it a pleasant surprise?

Thanks. I knew the gun was marked with King's company ID, but I wasn't sure how to think about it. I currently lean toward the interpretation I mentioned above, but it wouldn't cause me great pain to go in a different direction if contrary evidence turned up.

I'm in particular doubt about the 1941. That could be a year, of course, but it could also be some kind of job number.