K-22/40 found with long action, info for database

[Hoosier45]

So I put a K-22/40 on hold for purchase but wanted to think things over because there were too many red flags for the price in my opinion and I think I'm gonna pass. But I wanted to share the information with you guys and add another serial number to the database.

Basics: serial number 691405, wearing service grips that had a serial number stamped in the 693,xxx range. Serial numbered parts and assembly numbered parts matched

Hammer: had a long-action (outdoorsman) hammer without the notch, marked with Pat Pending on the hammer

Trigger: looked standard, don't recall if it was smooth or grooved, had Pat Pending info on back side of trigger

Rear sight: instead of "Patents Pending" across top of rear sight assembly I believe it said "Pat 2187096"

Front sight: looked correct or same as other second models, but I was too busy looking at other features. Although as I recall, I don't remember seeing a pin through the sight base.

Markings: underside of barrel flat had the "B 691405" then a diamond stamp to the far right. First impression was maybe that would explain the hammer configuration. The gun didn't appear reblued and the grip serial number did not have a star or diamond next to it so I was about to purchase the gun. Then off came the grips and I saw a diamond stamp with an "s" next to it in the lower right corner of the left grip frame, and "160" January 1960 marking where it normally is. The frame didn't appear reblued and the barrel had enough holster wear that I couldn't get a good enough look to determine if it was reblued. But it had all of the standard refinish/reblue markings. I'd say overall blue finish is 75%, barrel is about 60% with wear and the frame is 85%. No rust or corrosion on the gun, just a well used gun with bluing loss on normal wear points.

This gun really reminded me of the gun owned by "Harvester" in a 2011 post "Pre-war K-22 Masterpiece value" in which he has a K-22 with a long action hammer AND a rear sight with different patent address in which I believe this K-22 is similar to his.

As you can tell there were a lot of details to look over and I only have a partial photograph of the rear sight through the glass case. The price was $2,350 after some concession. If it didn't have the reblue/refinish marking but only the diamond stamp, I think I would have bought it. I know how coveted the K-22 masterpiece is but this one was flashing too many caution signs. Thoughts, ideas, opinions?

 

[Engine49guy]

IMO you were wise to pass.
The thing that makes the K22-40 different than a K22 OD is the Micro click rear site (and taller FS blade) and the short action hammer,

The hammer could be replaced but probably going to be hard to find one.
Might have been worthwhile if it had a reasonable price and was in high condition but as described and priced I would have passed as well.

 

[DCWilson]

Thank you for the detailed report. The K-22/40 is one of the models for which I track known serial numbers, and this one has now been added to my data base. The serial number lies in a known prewar Masterpiece production block. I don't think the gun you are looking at is in any way a counterfeit. It was either built that way in the first place, or it may have been reconfigured when it went back to the factory. If the Historical Foundation records reach to 1960, there may be documentary treasure that would speak to this question.

$2350 doesn't seem bad to me for a non-destructively modified specimen of a rarely seen original, but this is a matter of personal psychology. A lot of collectors probably wouldn't touch that one, but I'm not one of those other collectors; some of my most highly prized revolvers are modified rarities. I sense you are leaning away from completing the purchase, but even if you were leaning toward it my advice would be the same: follow your hunch. Whatever your decision, never allow yourself to regret or second-guess the action later. The decisions we make are made on the basis of the best information available to us at the moment, and there is no excuse to feel bad about considered decisions that might have been made differently under a different set of circumstances.

One of these days soon I am going to have to put new batteries in my micrometer and do a complete dimensional comparison between the internals of my K-22/40 and one of the K-22 ODs. I still don't know if the short 1940 action is the consequence of a relocated hammer stud or a repositioned hole in the hammer body itself, with or without shortened SA and DA sears. Shouldn't be too hard to nail that down.

 

[Engine49guy]

David, I keep saying one day I will swap hammers between my OD and K22-40 to see if they function although we have now seen 2 K22-40's with OD hammers so my gut instinct tells me the hammers are most likely going to drop in , Also kinda makes sense the engineers changed the hammer rather than the hammer stud location and associated internals.

 

[cgt4570]

David, I keep saying one day I will swap hammers between my OD and K22-40 to see if they function although we have now seen 2 K22-40's with OD hammers so my gut instinct tells me the hammers are most likely going to drop in , Also kinda makes sense the engineers changed the hammer rather than the hammer stud location and associated internals.

That's something I've wanted to play around with, too. I have a spare K22-40 hammer in my parts stash and I think I have a standard outdoorsman hammer too. I should try swapping things around with one of my two .22 Outoorsmen and my K22-40 Masterpiece revolvers.

 

[Masterpiece]

I still don't know if the short 1940 action is the consequence of a relocated hammer stud or a repositioned hole in the hammer body itself, with or without shortened SA and DA sears. Shouldn't be too hard to nail that down.

Hi David,

I'm sure myself...And others as well...Will be very interested to hear what you find should you decide to delve into this matter!!

Reason being...If you remember back to the observations I made in this Thread you mentioned previously...(http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-hand-ejectors-1896-1961/205251-pre-war-k-22-masterpiece-value.html)...I could find no engineering differences whatsoever (Re:Relocated Hammer Stud, Re-Positioned Hole in the Hammer Body, Etc.) between the Hammers of a K-22 Outdoorsman (Long-Action) & a K-22/40 (Short-Action) other than the "Notch" itself...Which is actually a raised area having nothing to do with the Short-Action of a K-22/40!!

Given that...I'd have to believe the accomplishment of the Short-Action on K-22/40's...Lies within the Trigger & the Associated Lock-Work...Be very interesting to hear what your findings are...Good Luck!!

 

[DCWilson]

Masterpiece, I do recall now that you mention it...

I wonder if that step in the back of hammer was nothing but a feature introduced to permit easy distinction of two different hammers that otherwise differed only by a few thousandths of an inch at the point where hammer and trigger contacted each other in SA operation.

 

[Masterpiece]

I wonder if that step in the back of hammer was nothing but a feature introduced to permit easy distinction of two different hammers that otherwise differed only by a few thousandths of an inch at the point where hammer and trigger contacted each other in SA operation.

David,

What you mentioned above has always been my belief as well...Especially given the "Step" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the function of it being a Short-Action...Cosmetic Only!!

 

[da gimp]

cgt, sir, if you could & would.... would you please post labeled pix of both hammers so that newbies like myself could see the difference between the two hammers from different perspectives... i.e, front, rear, sides etc...including the difference/step David mentioned....

 

[DCWilson]

This isn't the requested hammer comparison, but it is contemporary marketing literature that details the differences in the new second model.

 

[RKmesa]

Also (in the long action, short action, notch, no notch discussion), note that in the 1945 ad for the Masterpiece, the pictured gun has the micrometer sight, BUT there is no notch on the hammer...

 

[cgt4570]

cgt, sir, if you could & would.... would you please post labeled pix of both hammers so that newbies like myself could see the difference between the two hammers from different perspectives... i.e, front, rear, sides etc...including the difference/step David mentioned....

Here's a quick phone pic of the three styles of pre-war K22 hammers. K22-40 short action, standard K22 Outdoorsman and K22 Outoorsman humpback.

 

[Hoosier45]

Interesting discussion here guys. I was wondering the same thing as I debated over this gun and whether or not the hammer really made a difference. David posted the contemporary pamphlet I was going to. It appears that you could install whichever hammer you preferred, but I have no expertise to add.

Thank you for the early replies about this revolver. I'm going to pass at this time. This particular K-22/40 is at our new outfitter store that starts with Cab... I was surprised to see it! When I was looking it over, both parties agreed (realized) that the gun was not original and some level of work had been done. I said I would take it, but upon waiting in the 4473 line over an hour and doing more thinking on the markings, I asked them to put it on hold. Kinda feel bad breaking my handshake that I'd buy it, but no exchange of cash/credit had occurred yet and I left. I think we both knew that at that price and what was present, it was fair to think things over or back out. If someone wants more info, you can message me.

 

[paplinker]

Great thread to revive.

I am wondering what modification really created the short action in these guns. The hammer, the trigger or Pin placement.

The real experiment would be to try a second model hammer with a known standard long action trigger.
I wonder if it would even be possible to find a 22/40 trigger if the need would arise.