EDITED 10/16 TO ADD: S&W Historian Roy Jinks informs me that this revolver was shipped in February of 1932. That makes this a fairly early .38/44 Outdoorsman; the first one was shipped in November of 1931, so this one left the factory in the third full month of production.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Some of you will recognize this gun from its appearance in an inquiry thread a couple of weeks ago. I made an offer to the individual who posted it; to my surprise and great delight my offer was accepted. Today this gun took up residence in one of my safes.

38-44 Outdoorsman, S/N 40740. There are some case marks on the recoil shield and some scratches in the finish, but overall I consider this a 96-97% gun -- above 95, but not quite the equal of three prewar I-frames I have that look like 98-99 to my eyes. With a couple of exceptions, the scratches on this gun don't really show up in the photos, so it looks brand new in most of the shots.

I will letter this gun to get an exact shipping date, but comparable material suggest that it probably left the factory in 1932. The gun has ivory stocks with recessed gold medallions, a McGivern bead front sight, a round bottom (or semi-circular)/white-outline rear sight blade, and an original grip adapter. It also comes with what is probably the original box (though not marked with a serial number) and the appropriate tri-fold four-page insert. [NOTE ADDED: Actually the insert is a separate circular that was printed at least a couple of years after the gun was shipped.] I will image the document separately and post the page images at a later time.







In this next image notice the rounded laminar structure of the stock material. I think this is real ivory rather than an imitation.


Nice gold bead front sight:


Round-bottom white outline rear sight blade:


Left side detail:


Right side detail:


Box and brochure:


I already had one pretty nice prewar Outdoorsman, S/N 42169; this new one puts that one in the shade. Dang, but I'm happy tonight!

__________________
David Wilson

David,

You have every reason to be happy - that's a real sweetheart! Congratulations are in order. I really like the grip adapter. It will be interesting to see how this one letters.

Thanks,

Jerry

David

Nice finish on the gun - couldn't see the scratches you were referring
to. The ivory grips don't look right, to me - I'm thinking they were
added later. Also, that front sight blade looks to have been added
later, along with the rear sight blade. I could be wrong, but that is
what it looks like, to me. The gun is probably 1932, so that is very
early for a King rear sight blade. Possible, but seems very early.

Regards, Mike Priwer

Yowza!
Nice lookin' package.

__________________
John

David,

Congrats on a sublime revolver!

I remember when we spoke about this revolver and I asked what the rear sight configuration was. I'm not at all surprised to see the U groove style blade. I'm crossing my fingers that the gun will letter as having shipped in the configuration you have it, but in any event, it will be interesting to learn what details unfold from Roy's letter.

I'm very happy for you that this gem went to you. You might want to be careful though, good old GLL might stalk you for that one.

Best,

Michael

__________________
N-Frame-itis THERE IS NO CURE!

Gotta Love it, Pre War N-frame, Ivory, near perfect finish and box to boot. Congrats on a fine aquisition.

Absolutely beautiful! Congrats!

__________________
Misty

David,

Beautiful Outdoorsman! Once I get home I'll be able to upload some better pictures of the ODM I acquired last week, only a couple hundred numbers off yours.

Mike

__________________
Non illegitimae carborundum

It's a good example of how sharp the frame edges and the cylinder flutes should be on an original finish gun. Many refinished guns have been buffed to the point of rounding over those edges, let alone being the improper color on newer reblues. I love the sight set up, factory or not.

I should have said something about this in the original post, but I was so obsessed with getting pictures posted that I didn't even give the gun a good functional inspection until afterwards.

There is no endplay. The side play is within tolerance. Timing is fine. There is no problem with push off. But the trigger release has been definitely been tuned: single action pull is about 1.5 pounds, a little lighter than I consider safe. Double action pull is 7 pounds.

I haven't yet opened the gun, so I don't know if this means the mainspring and rebound spring have been modified. The strain screw is all the way in, but may have been shortened. I'll find out later today.

To Mike and Michael: I agree that the ivory and the sights may not be what were on the gun when it was shipped, but the letter should tell me that. I am more suspicious of the ivory than I am of the sights; I don't think that is something a serious target shooter would choose, and their presence kind of contradicts the message of the adapter, the upgraded sights, and the adjusted trigger pull. In addition, some of the hand annotations on the accompanying brochure make me think this gun was once in the hands of someone who was micro-attentive to details that affect any gun's accuracy. So all the components make a pretty package, but they are not necessarily consistent with each other.

By the way, the word "King" is not on either the front or rear sight unless it is concealed by the manner of installation. Is it suggested that these are aftermarket sights because they are not one of the listed options in the factory catalogs?

__________________
David Wilson

Not a bad "shooter" !

VERY, VERY NICE !

Great photos as well !

Jerry

__________________
.38/44 Outdoorsman Accumulator

David

I'm pretty sure that the rear sight blade is a King white outline. The
front sight is probably not King, but its a McGivern gold bead style.
My comments about it come from one of your pictures, in which you
can see that the blade is not seated properly in its base. The base of
the blade, below the gold bead, is above the top of the forged front
sight base. Also, that bead looks larger than ones I have.

These are the reasons that I think the front and rear sight blades
have been replaced.

The ivory grips appear not to fit right. There is overhang of the ears
of the grips, over the front grip strap, just below the frame cutout for
the top of the grip.

I have one King white-outline rear sight blade, buried away somewhere.
If I can find it, later, I'll respond as to whether its marked King.

Later, Mike Priwer

Mike,

I too am coming to think that the rear sight may be a King product. I looked at their 1939 catalog, which is available on line, and it looks like my rear sight could be their insert 111 (semicircular white outline notch for S&W rear assembly).

I'm still not sure about the front sight, which I could not find in the King catalog. In the photo, what appears to be a gap between the blade and the base is actually an unilluminated narrow plane on the base where it angles up to meet the bottom of the blade. On the gun the blade is tight to the base. I'll try to post another picture of this to show better what is really there.

I agree that the ivory doesn't fit perfectly, or even well. Part of the problem is that we are looking at the ivory against the grip adapter plates, which slightly overhang the frame in places. In addition, I understand from the recent ivory thread that ivory can shrink with time. I think I may give these stocks the mineral oil treatment to see if they swell up a little. When I put one panel in place without the screw, the round top will slide back and forth a tiny fraction of an inch inside the semi-circular relief in the steel. Whether they are original to this gun or not, I bet they fit some N-frame (maybe this one) better over 70 years ago than they fit this one right now.

Do the medallions say anything to you about chronology? I have not tried to clean these yet, but they are sort of gold or brass colored. They are definitely not silver.

I'm not arguing for the originality of these sights and stocks; I think it is an open question that I hope the letter will address. I very much appreciate your observations and thoughts.

__________________
David Wilson

David



It looks to me as though if you ran your fingernail across the top of
the sight base, it would catch on the edge of the blade.

The blade itself is not King - its probably a factory Patridge blade. My
question is whether, or not, that blade - with the McGivern bead - is
original to the gun. From what I see as to the fit of the blade in the
sight base, and the size of the bead, I'm thinking that its somehow
after the gun was shipped. I could be wrong, but that is what it looks
like, to me.

Regards, Mike Priwer

A very fine revolver! It will be interesting to see the letter.
Best, Steve

Mike & David:

The bead looks a bit too large to me.

Jerry

__________________
.38/44 Outdoorsman Accumulator

Maybe these images will help the discussion.

Yes, the bead seems big. The blade mikes at .125 (1/8"), and the bead's widest diameter at .11; I am not sure what the standard gold bead diameter is (if there is a standard), but I would guess a 1/8" blade would ordinarily have a 1/10" bead pegged into it.




Here's a side-on image in direct light that should address the question of whether the blade is all the way down on the base. The work marks also show pretty clearly that the pin has been removed and replaced at least once, which would indicate that this is not the original sight -- or if it is the original sight, that it has been removed, modified, and replaced. But it doesn't look like a stock S&W Patridge blade to me -- it's too long front to back. It also looks to me as though the inserted part of the blade rode a little high after placement, and someone tried to file it down to the height of the base, removing a little of the base stock in the process.




And since we are talking micro-measurements, I'll throw in another rear sight image and note that the top of the notch is 1/8" wide



I'd still like to ID the sight manufacturer if possible. I acknowledge that any competent gunsmith could fabricate or adapt a sight, but I have to believe that tinkering with something readily available would be easier than starting completely from scratch.

__________________
David Wilson

Original or not it's is still an outstanding example and you're so lucky to have that one. Congrats.

__________________
Lynnie, Professional Pest

Thanks, Joni-Lynn -- I'm not worried about "originality" on this gun. I am so pleased with it that I just want to do it the honor of correctly understanding its history.

After 24 hours of researching its features, I am tending to believe that it was probably a standard configuration (or almost standard) .38/44 when it left the factory, and that its distinguishing characteristics -- stocks, grip adapter, sights -- were attached to it over the next few years. That's fine with me. As Dan M pointed out above, it's a prewar N-frame with a great finish, ivory stocks, interesting sights, a rare original grip adapter and an even rarer original box. Who could complain?

__________________
David Wilson

David

I agree with all your latest comments.

Just to be clear about what I was referring to :



Later, Mike Priwer

Mike and Jerry,

It just occurred to me that if you ignore the bead, the blade is shaped like the factory-available Call bead sight. If an earlier owner of this gun tried it with a Call bead (in which the gold highlight is flush to the rear surface of the blade) but didn't like it, he might have removed the blade, drilled out the bead, and pinned in the raised McGivern style bead. But since the Call blade is wider than the 1/10" inch McGivern blade (which was designed to host a 1/10" bead whose diameter touched both sides and the top of the blade), imitating a McGivern bead would require a larger bead. Ergo...

Just speculating. It's another possibility.

I note that in "Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting," McGivern said that after his own 1/10" gold bead sight design, his favorite was the "larger King-Sparkpoint" sight. I'm not sure what that is, but I sure noticed the word "larger."

__________________
David Wilson

Mike,

Thanks for the graphic. I had indeed misunderstood exactly which part of the blade you were talking about.

__________________
David Wilson

One of my favorite pre-war guns and I love the stocks and the bead.

__________________
Richard
Engraved S&W fan

Very very nice package. This is also one of my favorite pre war target guns too. I can clearly see why you are excited. Excellent photography too.

Roger

The other thing that is wrong about that gold bead is that its the
wrong shape. There are supposed to be semi-spherical. This one
appears to have a cylinderical section to it, right where it meets the
vertical part of the blade.

Later, Mike Priwer

David,

To me, what is right about the gun is more important than what some might speculate is wrong with it. It is a fabulous example of a pre-War revolver period. I've yet to see it in person, however, I am looking forward to doing so.

Like I said before, when we discussed this revolver, my question was about the rear sight blade. With respect to the front sight, tiny variances of hand workmanship would not be out of the ordinary; it was indeed a factory back in the day. One would think that that the bloke who ordered this gun knew what he wanted; a combination of a bead and rounded notch rear wouldn't be the choice of the uninformed. If the records exist, I hope they show that what you have is factory original. In the event that the front and rear sight were added later, how would that detract from its value or collectibility? I sure would love to have that package in my herd and if I did, would fondle it with pride wondering who shot and enjoyed it back in those wonderful days when a man could order a gun and have it shipped to his doorstep.

Best,

Michael

__________________
N-Frame-itis THERE IS NO CURE!

The large diameter gold bead certainly makes for easy sighting by old eyes. Here's a photo approximating my sight picture at arm's length. In reality, the bead appears a little larger (or the notch a little narrower) when the gun is held in firing position. I was working in close quarters and could not exactly duplicate the sight-to-eye distance with the tripod I was using.

Also, my camera doesn't offer the tiny aperture one needs to get true focus at all distances, so you have to interpolate between the two images to understand the sight picture.

__________________
David Wilson

Michael:

It is not a matter of "right" vs. "wrong" ! As you know "aftermarket" sights are fairly common on the Outdoorsman. My main interest is where did the front sight on David's gun come from ?

A full-Target conversion by King with Roper or Sanderson grips would certainly be VERY desirable to me and certainly not "wrong" !

Jerry

__________________
.38/44 Outdoorsman Accumulator

Jerry

I'm in full agreement . I have a small collection of full King-conversions,
including two triple-locks - one in 44 special and one in 44 Russian.

I never know, when someone posts pictures of a gun, exactly what kind
of comments they are looking for, if indeed they are looking for any
comments at all.

As to this gun, to me, the rear sight blade looks like a King blade.
That front sight does not look like King. The bead , to me, is the
wrong contour for a McGivern gold bead - they are suppossed to be
hemispherical, with no cylinderical section.

Otherwise, as I noted in my first posting on this thread, the gun has
a nice finish, which makes it a very nice gun !

Regards, Mike Priwer

Jerry,

I couldn't agree more. My point was that I'd love to have a gun like that and any minor little tweaks would NOT be my focus. If it were mine, I would, however, want to learn as much as I could about the gun.

Best,

Michael

__________________
N-Frame-itis THERE IS NO CURE!

To me the Ivories look like they could be original to the gun. They have all the correct hardware and details that the factory used at the time. Ivory has a tendency to shrink and the might have been fitted to the gun before the grip adapter was added.

I hope you get the details form the letter and post them.

Tim.

Tim, I will post the letter when I finally get it, but I think that is likely to be at least six weeks away given the historian's schedule. I can't even send the form in for another two weeks per his request.

The thing about the stocks is that they have recessed gold medallions. Those supposedly went out of design favor and use at least a couple of years before this gun was manufactured. I supposed these could be a set of unsellable stocks the factory had lying around in the early years of the Great Depression, but I kind of think it likelier that they went out the door in the 'teens to mid-1920s on a .44; I will be delighted if they shipped with the gun, but I wouldn't be surprised if it could be shown they were taken from an earlier gun and placed on this one.

__________________
David Wilson

David, my dad once owned a 22 Outdoorsman that lettered with Ivory grips and it some nice scratching too. It was from around 1935 and the grips also had the large gold medallions.

Tim

That revolver is quite stupendous. The discussion is illuminating in its details.

Thanks for sharing, so we all can learn appreciation of fine arms and refinements of analysis, each of which has a place.

Wonderful S&W!!

Regards,

Dyson

David

Assuming the barrel to be 5" (it looks a bit like a 6") then it could be a McGivern Model Outdoorsman. As you rightly point out it needs a factory letter to be sure.

My McGivern Model does letter and looks pretty much identical to yours. My serial # is 43281 ans it shipped June 18th 1943. I don't have the detailed photographs that you've taken so I'll have to dig mine out and "re-pic" it. In the meantime I'll post a couple of existing pics below and I've set-up a new album with additional shots.

I hope it letters as a McGivern Model. They're rare and always fun to see. It's a real nice gun regardless. Nice find!

Regards.

Dave Ballantyne

__________________
Dave Ballantyne

Dave,

Thanks for looking into this question. Actually my gun has a 6.5" barrel, so it won't be a "pure" McGivern model if it turns out to be one that is somehow associated with him. I also note that the profile of the front blade on my gun is a little different from yours -- my blade is essentially rectangular with a fairly tight radius at the top front. Your blade's top surface is sloped slightly downward to the front and has a larger radius on the top front.

I'm getting the sense that there is some variety in the bead sights that are justifiably called McGivern. In his book he says that the McGivern bead sight consists of a 1/10" bead positioned on a 1/10" blade so that the top and two sides of the bead are flush with the corresponding blade surfaces. The blade on my gun is a 1/8" blade and the bead is almost large enough to meet the McGivern principles of tangency. But my bead seems to be a little off center, positioned maybe .01" further left than it should be, and perhaps high enough to rise slightly above the top surface of the blade. This tiny irregularity (plus the atypical shape of the entire blade) made me wonder if this is an experimental or one-off front blade based on McGivern's designs. I think I am going to have to wait for the letter to see what kind of sight was on this gun when it shipped. I am prepared to be surprised either way.

Do we know when the McGivern bead sight was first used on any revolver? His book came out in 1938. The factory offered McGivern bead options from 1937-1942. The .38/44 Outdoorsman was introduced in 1931. The known McGivern Outdoorsman models (five-inch barrel, bead sight) appear to have been leaving the factory in 1933 and 1934, with another spurt in 1938 and 1939 -- perhaps in response to the publication of his book.

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm glad to see there is another protruding gold bead sight that has a small cylindrical component to it behind the hemisphere.

Trivial point: I think you accidentally flipped the last two digits on the date for your gun. I bet it is 1934 rather than 1943.

__________________
David Wilson

David

S&W almost certainly used a variety of beads over several years and described them as McGivern. In the same way we found out last year that there were several different kinds of Baughman quick draw sights.

I'll take some picks of my McGiverns and post any variations I find.

David Carroll did have what he believed was the original McGivern sight gun a few months ago - as in the gun McGivern used to develop the bead. It was not in great shape but I think it was a Model of 1917, but I could be wrong. I believe it dated from the late 20's. David - are you listening?

And apologies, I did flip the dates. It was 1934.

__________________
Dave Ballantyne

Update: Roy Jinks informs me that .38/44 Outdoorsman 40740 was shipped in February of 1932. As Outdoorsman production began in November of 1931, that makes this revolver a fairly early specimen.

I have requested a factory letter. Details about the shipping configuration of this gun will be posted when they are available.

__________________
David Wilson

David, spectacular gun! The rear sight is a King I am sure. Here is a blade from on of my guns, excuse the poor photos.

__________________
John. SWCA #1586

That is a beautiful Outdoorsman. However it shipped in June of 1943? Wow. Who had that type of pull? As I understand it by June of 43 S&W would have well into wartime production quotas. Must have been somebody with some clout.

Wow! Thats a gorgeous Outdoorsman. Anybody would be proud to own it. Congratulations on your great find.

Charlie

David,

The Outdoorsman I picked up in Albuquerque last month also shipped February 1932. They could have shipped pretty close to one another, I guess we'll find out when the letters are received.

__________________
Non illegitimae carborundum

Mike, you are right. As I look further at the few shipping dates I know from the early '30s, it looks to me as though several Outdoorsman units were shipped in February 1932, with serial numbers ranging from 403xx to 408xx. Kind of looks like the factory set up to make at least a few hundred units of the new model in late '31/early '32, then over the next several weeks was in a position to respond quickly to what was probably strong interest in a new model. They already know from the few target versions of the Heavy Duty that had been produced that there was interest in an adjustable sight .38/44, and I imagine that even in the Great Depression there was enough initial demand for these guns to sell several dozen, if not a a couple of hundred, fairly soon after their introduction.

__________________
David Wilson

Actually, Dave corrected himself on that date. He meant to write 1934, but simply swapped the last two digits.

__________________
David Wilson

Oh okay. Didn't know that. That's too bad actually. Imagine if it had been shipped in the middle of WWII. It would have had to been somebody like General Eisenhower that it was shipped to.

David W.

Did you ever get a letter on that beauty? If so, what did you find out about the sights, the grip adapter and the grips?

Thanks,

__________________
Richard
Engraved S&W fan

I was sure I had posted back to the thread when I got the letter and am embarrassed to find that I did not. Thanks for pointing out my oversight. I also got copies of the customer order and company order entry from the Historical Foundation.

According to the order the gun was to ship with a Call gold bead front sight, so the McGivern bead sight on it now would be a replacement if the factory provided exactly what was specified in the original order. The rear sight is perhaps original. The customer order specifically asks for a 1/8" inch wide front sight and a 1/8" width rear sight notch instead of the standard approximately 1/12" sights.

The grip adapter is not mentioned in the original order, and must have been a separate acquisition. Roy's letter says the invoice (of which I do not have a copy) mentions blue finish and checkered walnut grips. The ivories are thus another addition from later on.

It's interesting that the McGivern bead now on the gun is also 1/8" in diameter. I suppose it is possible that the company shipped a McGivern bead instead of the recorded Call bead, but it seems likelier to me that the original inset bead was drilled out and replaced with a protruding McGivern bead. I doubt we'll be able to resolve the question. The earliest gun I can find with an originally installed McGivern bead sight dates to 1933. By then McGivern was nearly 60, so I suspect his protruding bead sight design must be found on some revolvers from the 1920s and maybe even the 'teens.

In his book on "Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting," published in 1938, McGivern defined his sight as a protruding bead 1/10" in diameter positioned in a vertical sight surface 1/10" wide so that the bead would contact both sides and the top of the blade. So the bead on this gun is definitely a custom oversize product.

The original order from Tufts-Lyon Arms Company of Los Angeles was submitted for three .38/44 Outdoorsman revolvers, one with custom sights as specified above, on January 14, 1932. It was a rush order with delivery to be made by January 27. S&W shipped the three guns on either January 23 or February 4; both dates are seen on the order entry, but the letter reflects the later date. Maybe the two standard-configuration guns went out first, and this gun, with the special order sights, followed about 10 days later.

I bought the gun out of Tennessee, so it moved around some after it was originally received. When I picked it up the gun came back to the region where it was first sold.

__________________
David Wilson

Wow, and I mean wow.

__________________
Vaya con Dios