Strange Outdoorsman?

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.

I know of no short action conversions done by S&W---so we can add that to the list of what we/I don't know. I believe it was Mr. Redfield (JSRIII?) who spoke these words: "We don't know what we don't know."---and that was a stroke of genius!!

The "2 screw" sight came along in 1932----so close enough.

And the mention of the Historical Foundation is another stroke of genius---or at least sage advice---for they too don't know what they don't know---until they look---and they don't look until you ask them------so----------

And out of order, but has it been determined this is a short action? If so, it pretty much stands to reason Roper would have included that feature in his design that S&W made for him----if it's his design---and if S&W made it----and if----if----if.

Having been there and done that, let me suggest you don't spend a lot of time fussing and worrying about the origin of the hammer--it's hazardous to your health.

Ralph Tremaine
 
Yeah, it's a short action. There's that notch in the hammer and I know in our discussions he confirmed that it is a short action, not sure if he has in this thread yet.
 
Okay, well the mystery continues.

Speaking of mysteries, I have received an inquiry to the effect of what's up with this "short action" business. I reckon if one wants to know, more than one wants to know.

"Short action" refers to the distance the hammer falls when released---more particularly the elapsed time from release to primer strike---and a shorter amount of time is better. I can't speak to the history of the development of short actions, but it figures to have been for the benefit of those few souls who could shoot better than their guns could. And once the benefits became known, it caught on with the many who thought they could shoot better than their guns could.

In S&W land, virtually all pre-war revolvers were long action---so called because their hammers fell a greater distance than the newer short actions---and took longer to do so. And we probably should restrict our comments to revolvers of the hand ejector variety---if for no other reason than I don't have much use for apples and oranges comparisons.

The beginning of the end of long actions came about in 1940 with the introduction of the K-22 2nd Model. It had a short action. I don't know how it compares with post-war models, but it's easy enough to find out----grab a ruler, and measure from a point on the hammer to a point on the frame----at points repeatable on a post-war model.

At this point we have the pre-war long action, the 1940 version of a short action, and the post-war version (which may be the same as the 1940 version--in terms of distance/lock time). And so it was until the introduction of the single action only K-38---known in its early days as a "short action single action". I had one of those, the homemade version consisting of a regular everyday K-38 and a conversion kit supplied by the factory.

Then I got a real one----a Model 14-3, circa 1972. Notably absent was any reference to "short action single action"---at least in the letter. I wondered about that, but not very much. Time passed, and I wondered more.

Then I got out a ruler, and measured a regular K-38, and this Model 14-3. I don't remember what the numbers were, so I did it again---just now. The numbers are: K-38, .8"; K-38 SA, .7" (from identical points on both). So they're both short actions, and one's shorter than the other. As long as I had a ruler out, I measured a K-22 2nd (22/40), 1.1"; and a K-38, 1.1" (from identical points on both---but it's an eyeball comparison because the hammer noses/faces are different). That said, the 1940 short action is very close if not identical to the post-war version.

I also measured an M&P Target (pre-war/long action)---1.1"---compared to a K-38, .8"; so a big difference.

All this (except for comparison with the 22/40) was done from firing pin nose to the front of the frame notch where the base of the rear sight sits. It was done "quick and dirty", which is to say the rear sights were not removed, so the actual numbers are not as precise as one might like; but the error factor is essentially the same with all---so the difference is reasonably valid---and the difference is what counts.

Ralph Tremaine
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's a short action. There's that notch in the hammer and I know in our discussions he confirmed that it is a short action, not sure if he has in this thread yet.

I have a King short action conversion on an MP ST It does not have a notch like a 22/40

Unless King did conversions two ways i might lean away from King work.

This is my Short action King

UviwYao.jpg
 
Also noticed a hammer stop pin in the empty frame. The main spring rides exactly across it so i used to think it was to help keep the mainspring aligned.

FZ3iiuB.jpg
 
I did remove the rear sight, and it is numbered to the gun. I am going to send for a letter on my next days off.
 
Once you have the letter, I agree a Historical Foundation search for repair requests or orders would be a good idea.
 
Are there any markings on the gun to suggest return to the factory for work? I saw no dates or stars. If it is in fact void of said marks, would that not be a possible indicator of work done outside the factory or by someone at the factory that did not feel the need to add factory marks since he did the work himself. Roper?

Ralph, thanks for the mention. To clarify, my statement is "Sometimes we just don't know what we don't know".

Of course I am also known to say things like: "sometimes these changes were made by someone that unknown to us was probably doing things that were done at a time when we probably couldn't or wouldn't know if that was the reason"
 
I have a King short action conversion on an MP ST It does not have a notch like a 22/40

Unless King did conversions two ways i might lean away from King work.

This is my Short action King

UviwYao.jpg

I just now sat and stared at this picture for the first time. Everything I first stared at, thinking it would be different, wasn't.(!!) Actually it was different, but I saw it only with my eyes----and not with my mind. Once my mind caught up, my first and only thought was "SHEER GENIUS!!"------and disgustingly simple---disgusting because I hadn't thought of it as a possibility.

Oh the shame of it all!!

Ralph Tremaine
 
Are there any markings on the gun to suggest return to the factory for work? I saw no dates or stars. If it is in fact void of said marks, would that not be a possible indicator of work done outside the factory or by someone at the factory that did not feel the need to add factory marks since he did the work himself. Roper?

Ralph, thanks for the mention. To clarify, my statement is "Sometimes we just don't know what we don't know".

Of course I am also known to say things like: "sometimes these changes were made by someone that unknown to us was probably doing things that were done at a time when we probably couldn't or wouldn't know if that was the reason"

There is a Diamond on the frame, left side, and a diamond in the barrel shroud. Not sure if there is one on the face of the cylinder, doesn't look like it from the pictures I have seen.

Between the S/N on the rear sight and those diamonds I'd be exceptionally surprised if anyone but the service department added the sights and converted it to .38spl.

I'd be equally if not more surprised if the service department upgraded the hammer and converted it to short action.

I have a King short action conversion on an MP ST It does not have a notch like a 22/40

Unless King did conversions two ways i might lean away from King work.

This is my Short action King

UviwYao.jpg

I'm in total agreement with you. That hammer just doesn't seem like a King job. The era this conversion was most likely done in would have meant that had it been a King conversion it would have been like yours.

I'd be extremely interested if anyone does recognize who did the conversion, its certainly first rate.
 
Last edited:
So life got in the way for a bit and I forgot to post the letter on this. The first page is just general history of the 1917 models, so I left that out.

Here is the second page, which states my serial, if this really was a 1917 originally, shipped in 1918. I still believe it was based on the plugged hole in the bottom of the frame where the lanyard loop would have been.

 
I certainly hope this thread goes away and dies. It seems like every time I look at the picture (in post #36) I take note of something I hadn't before----and it's damned embarrassing!!

Today's revelation is the rear sight. Note the reference marks surrounding the windage adjusting screw. There are NO S&W sights (pre or post-war) with such marks. There ARE such marks (absolutely identical marks) on the rear sight of a King Super Target that lives in my cabinet.

Having said that, and having disassembled/reassembled a (pre-war) King rear sight (and probably 60-80 pre-war S&W sights) I can tell you a S&W sight has two windage screws and nary a spring in sight, while my King sight has one windage screw (with detents)----and a spring (which does the work of the 2nd screw on a S&W sight)----just in case one may wish to remove that screw on this gun----and note the detents----and the spring.

I offer this as a clue as to who did what on this gun-----and anything else you'd care to make of it.

Ralph Tremaine
 
I certainly hope this thread goes away and dies. It seems like every time I look at the picture (in post #36) I take note of something I hadn't before----and it's damned embarrassing!!

Today's revelation is the rear sight. Note the reference marks surrounding the windage adjusting screw. There are NO S&W sights (pre or post-war) with such marks. There ARE such marks (absolutely identical marks) on the rear sight of a King Super Target that lives in my cabinet.

Having said that, and having disassembled/reassembled a (pre-war) King rear sight (and probably 60-80 pre-war S&W sights) I can tell you a S&W sight has two windage screws and nary a spring in sight, while my King sight has one windage screw (with detents)----and a spring (which does the work of the 2nd screw on a S&W sight)----just in case one may wish to remove that screw on this gun----and note the detents----and the spring.

I offer this as a clue as to who did what on this gun-----and anything else you'd care to make of it.

Ralph Tremaine

The picture in post 36 is a different gun, it's a confirmed King short action job.

The original poster's gun is different. He sent me a picture of the internals:

W8DKkgH.jpg
 
Back
Top