Strange Outdoorsman?

[BrianM87]

So I recently bought what appears to be an Outdoorsman, but it's a little bit weird. The obvious one to me was the hammer not being the typical humpback, and the more I dig into this thing the more I realize I really don't know what this gun is. I've talked with another member here a bit about this gun, and he believes it's a 1917 frame used to build the gun. The gun apparently has had a short action job done to it, but he was unable to say much else about it at the time. The "RJ" is very crudely engraved and I believe that might actually be gold inlay in the engraving. Any help or input would be appreciated.

Click the pictures for bigger versions.

 

[OFT II]

The eagle's head suggests that it is a left over 1917 frame. The "Made in the USA" stamp would have been added no earlier than 1922. Is there any marking on the hammer? Nice looking revolver and should be a good shooter.
mo
A second look at the discoloration on hammer makes me think that someone modified the spur of the original.

 

[LEO918]

Pre-War magna drips are a nice bonus.

 

[S&W ucla]

That style hammer brings Christy's Gun works to mind. They did work for Elmer Keith and others back in the 30's. King's and Buchanan also did short action conversions. Neat gun!

 

[BrianM87]

The eagle's head suggests that it is a left over 1917 frame. The "Made in the USA" stamp would have been added no earlier than 1922. Is there any marking on the hammer? Nice looking revolver and should be a good shooter.
mo
A second look at the discoloration on hammer makes me think that someone modified the spur of the original.

I can't find any markings on the hammer, but I haven't taken it out of the frame to look on the left side.

 

[model3sw]

What are the serial numbers on the frame, the barrel and the cylinder.
If i'm looking at this correctly you have a pre-war frame and did I see a S prefix on the barrel serial number ?
By the eagle's head I'm thinking a 1917 frame. Don't yet know what to make of the rest of it.

 

[BrianM87]

What are the serial numbers on the frame, the barrel and the cylinder.
If i'm looking at this correctly you have a pre-war frame and did I see a S prefix on the barrel serial number ?
By the eagle's head I'm thinking a 1917 frame. Don't yes know what to make of the rest of it.

200XX. Numbers on frame, cylinder, and barrel all match, no prefix.

 

[S&W ucla]

I would soak it in Kroil first, then CAREFULLY remove rear sight (with properly fitting screwdriver). The sight would have SN on bottom if done at factory. I would send for a letter and any S&WHF documents available.

 

[RKmesa]

The SN is too early for a 38/44 Outdoorsman. Can you shoot a close up photo of the roll marks on the right side and the top of the barrel?

Does it look like the "38" has been messed with on the right side of the barrel?

Regardless of how it came to be, it looks like a fun gun to me.

 

[BrianM87]

The SN is too early for a 38/44 Outdoorsman. Can you shoot a close up photo of the roll marks on the right side and the top of the barrel?

Does it look like the "38" has been messed with on the right side of the barrel?

Regardless of how it came to be, it looks like a fun gun to me.

None of the stamps look like they were messed with in any way. I'll grab a photo in a few hours. I'm on duty right now but when I head home for dinner I'll get some. And I agree, I think this thing will be a good shooter. The bore is practically pristine.

 

[Modified]

There does appear to be one diamond on the frame, and one inside the barrel.

When we talked about it my best guess is that it's a commercial 1917 frame that went back to the factory after the Outdoorsman was introduced to have the barrel and sights added.

Then had the hammer/action job done to it by someone I don't recognize. The closest I have seen to that hammer is the one that Frank Pachmayr did on Elmer Keith's registered magnum.

 

[kwill1911]

I think it is a King hammer and short action, FWIW.

 

[BrianM87]

Here are the pictures of the top of the barrel and the side.

 

[RKmesa]

Here are the pictures of the top of the barrel and the side.

I wanted to compare the roll marks on the OP's gun to one of my O/D (the best photos I had of the marks were an engraved one). I also cropped the OP's photos to make the comparison easier:

Side:

Top:

The roll marks appear correct to me for the 38/44 O/D, even down to the missing "." after the "S". Quite the mystery? Given what I can see I would have to agree with the direction that Caleb is heading...

...my best guess is that it's a commercial 1917 frame that went back to the factory after the Outdoorsman was introduced to have the barrel and sights added.

Then had the hammer/action job done to it by someone I don't recognize. The closest I have seen to that hammer is the one that Frank Pachmayr did on Elmer Keith's registered magnum.

... or maybe they had the hammer and action job done to a 1917 which they loved dearly and did not want to replace. But something happened to the 45ACP barrel, so they sent the gun back to the factory for the factory to replace the 45 ACP barrel and cylinder with 38 Spl O/D parts. While it was there, they had them fit the frame with target sights (but that too may have been done earlier with the hammer and trigger)? That way they had the same trigger pull and the same short action modified hammer that they loved with a new 38 Spl barrel and cylinder.

 

[murphydog]

It's a mystery!

The SN format on the grip frame is that of a commercial or .455 N frame of the era, but the inspector's mark in the yoke cutout as mentioned above indicates it was a leftover 1917 Army frame. All well and good, as 1917 Commercials were built with this SN orientation...but matching numbers in the half-lug and cylinder? That strongly suggests either a factory rebuild/conversion or a really obsessed gunsmith.

A letter of authenticity would be a good idea, I think.

 

[Tom K]

Looks like it also probably had a screw-on grip adapter at one time. Is the hole in the bottom of the frame between the trigger guard and frontstrap threaded?

 

[BrianM87]

Looks like it also probably had a screw-on grip adapter at one time. Is the hole in the bottom of the frame between the trigger guard and frontstrap threaded?

Didn't catch that before. Yes, it's threaded. I was also able to get the rear sight off and it has a matching serial to everything else.

 

[rct269]

I really hate to add another speculation to the hammer mystery, especially because the origin of mine is also unknown; but the configuration of the spur portion of mine is virtually identical to this one.

Mine is on a Roper Custom----a Colt Officers Model 38. It was shipped off to Walter and his lads, who did their thing---grips/sights/action job (including the hammer). My hammer IS NOT a modified Colt hammer, although we (me and my fleet of gurus) don't know for sure and certain what it is. The very best deduction comes from Jim Carter (HONDO44), who opines it's Roper's design---made for him by Colt---and it's that deduction I accept. I accept it because it makes sense---most particularly when you answer this question: Who is best prepared and qualified to make a hammer for a gun----the maker of the gun, or someone else?

It's perhaps of no moment here, but there is nothing about my hammer except for the business end (and critical dimensions) which bear any resemblance to any Colt hammer (any I was able to find anyway)----and it's so light I swear it would float---and it's not drilled full of holes----nary a one.

SO---maybe your hammer is yet another example of Mr. Jinks' oft repeated explanation of the weird stuff we stumble upon now and then: "They (S&W) would do anything anybody would pay them to do."-----like make a special hammer-----for Walter and his lads-----or anybody else who would pay them to do it.

Ralph Tremaine

 

[Bakebfr480]

RJ.........Perhaps Roy Jinks was thinking about becoming an engraver?

 

[Modified]

Do you know if S&W did any short action conversions like this Ralph?

I can't imagine the hammer modification didn't happen in conjunction with the short action job.

Looking at this gun one of the things with the S/N on the rear sight that I think is worth pondering is that this is a 2 screw sight, which I think was mid 1930s? I forget exactly when those came in, I am sure someone can remind me what year that was.

That should date when the conversion to a "Virtual Outdoorsman" was done. I'm excited to see if the Historical Foundation has some records on this.