In my opinion that is a very special revolver, congrats............
Factory letter on my Second Model 5 inch Target
- Thread starter HeloMt
- Start date
The $2.50 extra charge for the 5-inch barrel was a charge for cutting the barrel.
Bill
Bill
Thanks for sharing that beautiful custom .44 2nd Model Target.
I too believe the $2.50 charge confirms the barrel was cut to 5". The correct placement of the roll mark on top of the barrel merely indicates either the barrel cut by the factory was incomplete, not roll marked yet, or the original roll mark was removed and re-roll marked in the proper location for a shorter 5" barrel.
A digital measurement of the barrel diameter compared to an uncut 5" barrel may reveal it was the second approach; removed and re-roll marked.
OP
Jim, having a 2nd HE target in 6.5 inch, plus a non-target 2nd HE in 5 inch allowed me to measure to see if what you said may be correct. Both of the five inch guns diameter measured identically at the muzzle and at the diameter at the end of the barrel flat under the ejector. The 6.5 target measured the same on the barrel flat and very close at the muzzle. At 1.5 inches from the muzzle the 6.5 was .030 thicker than either of the five inch guns at the muzzle. A significant difference at that point which would represent the diameter if the barrel was cut. So, I'm still thinking a true five inch was installed, not a cut down 6.5 inch barrel. That 5 inch barrels were offered on the 2nd HE, though scare, points to perhaps an available option even though towards the end of prewar HE production. Maybe they had a 5 inch available in inventory and use it. Measurements seem to support that. Interesting speculation for sure!
OP
Doc 44, I didn't see your post before I did my measuring. I value your assessment as $2.50 being the charge for cutting the barrel. I'm not opposed to the idea of a cut barrel done by the factory. In my mind, it still left the factory as a 2nd HE target, 5 inch. It is just that everything about it doesn't feel like a cut barrel. But I'm definitely open to seeing it either way. Thank you for sharing, Bill!
HeloMt,
I agree! However it was done doesn't change the fact that it's a 100% factory gun when sent to King. And as you said they aren't numerous from the factory, but they do exist.
They may have been forged with a 6" forging die because Smith didn't have an N frame 5" barrel forging die. So it had to be cut. Therefore 5" barrels were factory made and properly factory roll marked.
But cutting a barrel sure eliminates the integrally forged front sight base. We know for pre war target models the same barrel forgings were used for fixed sight and target models. For a target gun the 1/2 moon front blade was milled off and a groove milled into the base to accept a target front blade pinned in place.
Obviously you don't want to go knocking out pins to find out how the King sight is attached, but I'm sure curious how the factory attached a sight for King to attach his sight to. Maybe they didn't and King Sight was left to solve that problem????
I agree! However it was done doesn't change the fact that it's a 100% factory gun when sent to King. And as you said they aren't numerous from the factory, but they do exist.
They may have been forged with a 6" forging die because Smith didn't have an N frame 5" barrel forging die. So it had to be cut. Therefore 5" barrels were factory made and properly factory roll marked.
But cutting a barrel sure eliminates the integrally forged front sight base. We know for pre war target models the same barrel forgings were used for fixed sight and target models. For a target gun the 1/2 moon front blade was milled off and a groove milled into the base to accept a target front blade pinned in place.
Obviously you don't want to go knocking out pins to find out how the King sight is attached, but I'm sure curious how the factory attached a sight for King to attach his sight to. Maybe they didn't and King Sight was left to solve that problem????
Last edited:
OP
Okay, we are coming to the end of the evidence. I carefully removed the front sight. Before you all panic I was an LEO S&W armorer so I have the right punches and training. Things went well. What remains of the front sight boss has been ground, most likely by King to accommodate the new sight. I can't detect a solder line that would show attachment of a front sight base by the factory. That doesn't mean much though as the grind/filing done was not cleaned up or polished. The only thing one can say is the remainder of the base has the front and rear radius bevels of a factory forging, not just a block of steel attached to the barrel. The position matches exactly the sight boss location on my non-target 5 inch. That's as much evidence as I can produce. The reason I offer this up it's the best info I can provide you as fellow collectors. So, the factory letter says cut barrel with a $2.50 charge associated with that on the invoice. I'm good with that. Could it be a 5 inch barrel...maybe, is it 6.5 inch barrel cut...probably, except for the muzzle diameter being thinner than a cut barrel perhaps. So...I hope you all have enjoyed this endeavor to know a little bit more. That's what makes this forum fun! Randy
Attachments
OP
By the way, everything went back together perfectly. No slips, no scratches, no errors!
The barrels on the 2 5" targets I've seen were not cut. So somewhere, S&W had 5" barrels for 2nd models. Yours looks right to me. Thanks for the detective work, inquiring minds you know 
HeloMt,
Thank you for that additional evidence and taking the time and risk to produce it! The sight boss clearly appears to be forged integral with the barrel.
I have to say that I'm a little bit baffled about how a barrel can be cut and still have an integral boss. How did they do that?
Since you're a member I think posting the question with your photos and documentation on the member side in "Questions for Roy Jinks" is the only possible way we may get an answer to this mystery.
Thank you for that additional evidence and taking the time and risk to produce it! The sight boss clearly appears to be forged integral with the barrel.
I have to say that I'm a little bit baffled about how a barrel can be cut and still have an integral boss. How did they do that?
Since you're a member I think posting the question with your photos and documentation on the member side in "Questions for Roy Jinks" is the only possible way we may get an answer to this mystery.
HeloMt
Out of interest and this is not related to your revolver, 10 Warren Street, NYC, was the New York headquarters of the American Committee for Defense of British Homes, set-up in late 1940, so after the shipment of your revolver. The building is still there, I took a photo of it on my last visit to NYC.
Regards
AlanD
Out of interest and this is not related to your revolver, 10 Warren Street, NYC, was the New York headquarters of the American Committee for Defense of British Homes, set-up in late 1940, so after the shipment of your revolver. The building is still there, I took a photo of it on my last visit to NYC.
Regards
AlanD
OP
AlanD, Thanks for the insight regarding the building and address. It's always fun learning a little bit more regarding the story. Thanks, Randy
Jim, help me out here. When the book states that 2nd Models came in 4", 5", 6", and 6.5", was the 5" was always cut?
I checked the SWCA database and found the following:
1% were 4"
20% were 5"
<1% were 6"
78% were 6.5"
Of course there are not enough entries to give a high degree of accuracy, but believe the numbers are in the ballpark. The 1925 S&W Catalog stated that the 44 Military was available in 5" and 6.5" barrels. To me that means that 5" was a standard order, at least in 1925?? Was it because of the late manufacture date that it needed to be cut?? Pages from that catalog are below.
Attachments
Last edited:
Gary,
Your additional evidence and the integral sight base on the "cut" barrel Is a real conundrum. This leads me to speculation: the word "cut" in the factory receipt is not literal. It was used as short hand to mean replace or rebarrel with a 5" barrel. Or perhaps the receipt/or quote preceded the work and a 5" barrel was found so cutting a longer barrel was not required after all.
I still think the question should be asked of Roy.
Your additional evidence and the integral sight base on the "cut" barrel Is a real conundrum. This leads me to speculation: the word "cut" in the factory receipt is not literal. It was used as short hand to mean replace or rebarrel with a 5" barrel. Or perhaps the receipt/or quote preceded the work and a 5" barrel was found so cutting a longer barrel was not required after all.
I still think the question should be asked of Roy.
Last edited:
OP
Jim and Gary, as the OP on this I really appreciate your additional information and speculation. The fact that 5 inch barrels were offered in factory literature leads me to believe that regular 5 inch, uncut barrels were available even into the late 30's. Perhaps because my target was very close to the end of 2nd HE production they might have needed to cut barrels to meet orders, maybe. That said, I don't think that's the case with my gun. Again, the invoice just shows a $2.50 charge for the five inch barrel, perhaps because it is so late in production. Whatever happened, the fee was charged for a five inch barrel. If cut, it would not have the integral sight base, which my barrel has. My gut tells me the fee was for the limited number of 5 inch barrels available and the nuisance of tracking one down to fill the order. Just a guess, mind you, but I believe borne out by the totality of the evidence. Again, thanks for your thoughts and ideas. I might query Roy when I can put this all together in way that is clear and concise. Randy
Randy, I think all Roy needs to see is the receipt and your post with the photo of the remains of the front integral sight base. The question becomes obvious.
The non-ribbed barrels of pre-war times were tapered and by my thinking, the muzzle should be the same diameter for all the barrel lengths. I will venture a guess that the muzzle diameter should be around .60" on N frame revolvers, but if cut, would be closer to .625"?? Worth a check on those 5" barrels.
Last edited:
OP
Gary, take a look at post #24 above...I did some measuring and the muzzle diameters were same. If you measure up from the muzzle on a 6.5 inch barrel about 1.5 inches where the cut would occur for a five inch barrel the diameter was .030 thicker. That's a substantial difference and would be noticeable in comparison to an uncut barrel. I think that might answer your question.
Randy
Randy
Last edited:
The answer I was asking for was the actual muzzle measurement? Were all 3 barrels .60" at muzzle? If so, they were not cut and why the letter states that is unknown. I agree with Jim that a clarification from Roy would be helpful. I am under the impression that the $2.50 was actually the extra cost for the barrel and had nothing to do with cutting as noted on the invoice.
Here is another mystery. The invoice was not from S&W that I can tell, but from King. There were 3 other parties mentioned; "Delivered by Harvey D. Rush & Sons, Fiala(?) Outfits Inc., NY, and lastly D.W. King Gun Sight, S.F., CA?
The kicker is that that model was way more than $28.81 by 1940. I have a price list from S&W that states a 44 Military was $37.50 and a 44 Military Target was $45.00 in 1938.
Here is another mystery. The invoice was not from S&W that I can tell, but from King. There were 3 other parties mentioned; "Delivered by Harvey D. Rush & Sons, Fiala(?) Outfits Inc., NY, and lastly D.W. King Gun Sight, S.F., CA?
The kicker is that that model was way more than $28.81 by 1940. I have a price list from S&W that states a 44 Military was $37.50 and a 44 Military Target was $45.00 in 1938.
