I picked up this Aircrewman a few months ago. I appreciate feedback you provided. Here's the link to my previous thread: Questions on a Pre-model 12 - Aircrewman??

I received the requested letter from Roy Jinks a couple days ago.

According to Jinks, the serial number is legit and it was sent to Robbins Air Force Base, GA March 22, 1957. The aluminum cylinders were discontinued in 1954, so my Aircrewman should have a steel cylinder.

So, what do all you experts and collectors think this does to the potential value?

__________________
I have two trigger fingers

All of the USAF Aircrewman revolvers shipped with aluminum cylinders. The commercial gun--the M&P Airweight--got steel cylinders after 1954. Aircrewman revolvers that made it into civilian hands that were returned to the factory got steel replacement cylinders as a safety measure.

Regards,
Kevin Williams

__________________
Kevin Williams SWCA1649 HF208

Don't know the value,but if it were mine,I'd be capitalizing on the good news,pocketing the loot,and buying the shooter that you wanted in the first place.Historian that I am,no place for an alloy gun,especially a cracked alloy gun around here-I want steel.

Kevin, if all the USAF aircrewman had aluminum, then why would Roy tell me mine should have a steel cylinder?

__________________
I have two trigger fingers

Hi
I have a model 13 that is close to your serial number it is C-39xxxx
and it has a aluminum cly. I don't have a ship date on it but it is all orginal.
jim fisher

aHFo3,

Perhaps I'm wrong. Did you actually talk to Roy on the phone?

__________________
Kevin Williams SWCA1649 HF208

I didn't talk to him on the phone. I'd love to, though. I'm not sure how I'd go about that. Do you have any suggestions?

__________________
I have two trigger fingers

If you are going by the wording of the letter you have to read it carefully. When he mentions going to a steel cylinder he is referring to the commercial revolver.

I would encourage you to join the S&WCA. One of the benefits of membership is increased access to Roy.

Regards,
Kevin Williams

__________________
Kevin Williams SWCA1649 HF208

Did you try putting a magnet on the cylinder?

Isn't it possible a previous owner replaced the aluminum cylinder with a standard Mod 10 steel cylinder?

I considerd getting a 2nd steel cylinder and yoke for my 1954 M&P Airweight but I decided to just leave it alone. I don't shoot it with it's original aluminum cylinder.

Kevin - I had a Aircrewman that I sold in 2007. In my Jinks letter, he simply states:

"The U.S. Air Force called this revolver the Model 13 Air
Crewman. The .38 Military & Police Airweight was produced from
1953 to 1954 with the aluminum alloy cylinder. In 1954, due to
problems, the cylinder was changed to a steel cylinder.
* * *
We have researched your Smith & Wesson KA Frame .38 Military &
Police Airweight, United States Air Force Contract, caliber .38
S&W Special, revolver in company records which indicate that
your handgun, with serial number C277xxx, was shipped from our
factory on January 14, 1954, and delivered to Transportation
Office, Wilkins Air Force Depot, Shelby, OH. The records
indicate that this handgun was shipped with a 2 inch barrel,
blue finish, checkered walnut round butt grips."

Not saying you're wrong - just telling you what my letter stated.

chp,

I think you've made my point. The last sentence of the 1st paragraph is referring to the civilian M&P. Note that your revolver was shipped in the first month of 1954 BEFORE they started shipping the commercial guns with steel cylinders. The military spec was for aluminum cylinders and that is how they were shipped.

Regards,
Kevin Williams

__________________
Kevin Williams SWCA1649 HF208

Thanks Kevin, that makes sense, but here's the last paragraph of my letter verbatim:

We have researched your Smith & Wesson KA Frame .38 Military & Police Airweight, United States Air Force Contract Air Force Model 13, Caliber .38 S&W Special, revolver in company records which indicate that your handgun, with serial number C402xxx, was shipped from our factory on March 22, 1957, and delivered to United States Air Force, Robbins Air Force Base, GA. The records indicate that this firearm was shipped with a 2 inch barrel, blue finish, and checkered walnut grips. In the description of the revolver in your letter you stated that this revolver was equipped with an Aluminum cylinder. This would not be correct as the use of Aluminum cylinders in this model stopped in 1954.

__________________
I have two trigger fingers

Thank you for posting the text of the letter. I wish Ed Cornett or Rick Nahas (the real experts) would weigh in. Rick has maintained a database on these revolvers for many years and I've been adding to it for several years. In the SCS&W Rick writes, "It is interesting to note that the alloy cylinder was widely reported to have been replaced with steel in 1954, but inspection of over 300 guns over a very wide serial range shows alloy cylinders matched to the frames on all but one." I have recorded 52 Aircrewman revolvers shipped after 1954 and ALL of them have aluminum cylinders. Your letter is the first I've seen worded so specifically but it is inconsistent with actual observations of the guns and other letters.

Regards,
Kevin Williams

__________________
Kevin Williams SWCA1649 HF208

Got it. Thanks Kevin.

Doing a Google search for Burns and Martin holsters, I stumbled across this government document, first dated 1953. (see attached and underlined below) This may be of interest to anyone who has an interested in the S&W aircrewman series of revolvers.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf

1. This is a report of tests conducted to determine the performance
of various Colt and Srdith & Wasson revolvers in view of their
possible adoption as a weapon for arming pilots and aircrewmeon.
Also Included in th&% tests were various holsters which were to be
Evaluated

__________________
Always Stay Strong!

aHFo3, Kevin and I have corresponded back and forth about the letter on your AC gun. It's somewhat confusing and contradictory even to experieced Aircrew collectors, and for a new collector it can be baffling. Roy's reference to a change to steel cylinders in 1954 is meant to apply only to the commercial model M&Ps, not to the AC guns. An alloy cylinder in your gun is, in my opinion, correct, and I've
seen and noted in the data base dozens of similar examples shipped after 1954. Your gun is a very late shipment near the end of the contract and there are known examples of these late guns that do not have serial numbers on their barrel and/or cylinders, for whatever reason, but are genuine AC shipped guns. I believe Roy's reference to serial number groups for AC guns, in your letter, is a typo, as your gun falls outside those group numbers cited, but is a 100% AC gun. Good Luck, Ed.

Kevin, Ed thanks for the information. Do you think Roy would re-letter this gun since there are errors?

__________________
I have two trigger fingers

I believe that Roy would issue you a revised letter, if requested. He has done that in the past where typos, etc. had crept nto the original letter. I would sugest you send him a copy of your letter, with the requst for a corrected letter, and cite (1) the contradiction of your ship date falling outside of the serial number groups he cited for AC guns, and (2) a clarification of the "no alloy cylinders after 1954" statement, as several S&WCA members have advised you that many dozens of the AC guns shipped after 1954, listed in the data bases, have their original alloy cylinders, therefore did he mean that only the commercial M&Ps received the steel cylinder in 1954 and after? Good luck, Ed.

Thanks Ed, that sounds like a great plan. I appreciate your guidance.

__________________
I have two trigger fingers

The update: 3 years later I finally got around to re-lettering the Aircrewman. I recently received the correct information from Mr. Jinks, and I have listed the revolver for sale at auction. Hopefully, a few people with a greater interest than I have in collecting will want to add it to their collection.

__________________
I have two trigger fingers

aHFo3,

How did Roy word the new letter?

If the 397 stamped on the cyl and extractor star are the last three digits of your C402XXX serial #, that's a clue the cyl is original.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Jim,
The numbers "397" aren't part of the serial number - could they be assembly numbers? I can make out "397" on the cylinder in the recess where the extractor star fits, but I can only make out "97" for certain on the back side of the extractor. The serial number is very clear on the back side of the extractor, though. It is tough to see in there without disassembling the cylinder.

The portion of Jinks' letter about my revolver states, "We have researched your Smith & Wesson KA Frame .38 S&W Special, revolver in company records which indicate that your handgun, with serial number C402250 was shipped from our factory on March 22, 1957, and delivered to United Sates (their typo) Air Force, Robins Air Force Base, Warner - Robins, GA. The records indicate that this revolver was shipped with a 2 inch barrel, blue finish and checkered walnut round butt grips. These revolvers were marked on the back strap of the grip with the U.S. Air Force property marking."

Earlier in the letter Jinks states, "In 1954, due to problems, the cylinder was changed to a steel cylinder for the commercially produced .38 M&P Airweights, but factory records do not indicate if this change was incorporated into the revolvers sold to the United States Air Force."

This statement corrected the typo in the first letter that stated my revolver should have a steel cylinder.

The full serial number is "out" now, so I'm okay disclosing it here.

__________________
I have two trigger fingers

Kevin, et al

This statement from Roys letter is the key, I think:

"We have researched your Smith & Wesson KA Frame .38 Military & Police Airweight"

He is saying the gun in question is a .38 M&P Ariweight, not an Air Crewman. It looks
like the Airforce was receiving the commercial version, the Airweight, and not the
Aircrewman, and therefore the steel cylinder is correct.

That is what it looks like to me.

Regards, Mike Priwer

Mike, weren't all contract Aircrewman revolvers shipped from S&W as 38 Special M&P Airweights? To my knowledge, Smith & Wesson didn't apply the USAF roll marks, property marks or proof marks - the Air Force did.

The other Historical letters I have seen for M13's describe the revolvers as M&P Airweights. Have you seen them described in other ways from Roy?

Also, in the Standard Catalog of S&W, the authors state that in the dozens (going off memory because the book isn't in front of me) post '57 aircrewman revolvers they have seen only 1 has had a steel cylinder - even though the commercial guns switched to steel in/after '57.

Because of these reasons, I disagree with you, Mike, and believe that Roy wasn't saying that my revolver should have a steel cylinder. I obviously have a vested interest here, but Feel free to show me where I'm wrong.

__________________
I have two trigger fingers

All of them letter as Airweights. Roy very much favors the official S&W model designation and considers "Model 13" and "Aircrewman" to be strictly Air Force terminology.

The USAF roll marks were applied at the factory, NOT by the Air Force. However, the Army protested and pointed out that it was against regulations to mark any gun for a specific branch of the service. Only "U.S." or "U.S. Property" were permissible under the regulatory language so late production Aircrewman revolvers are marked appropriately.

I don't believe any Aircrewman shipped from the factory with a steel cylinder.

Regards,
Kevin Williams

__________________
Kevin Williams SWCA1649 HF208

Kevin,

Thanks for the information.

__________________
I have two trigger fingers

I'm not taking sides - I'm only looking at Roys letter, and trying to understand it.
If Roy thinks the factory stopped using alloy cylinders after a certain date, and
switched to steel at that time, then that is what is going to be in the letter.

I doubt the invoice records say anything about the cylinder material. The factory
letters reflect what is in the invoices, and what is in the various manufacturing and
engineering records. All the letter reflects is an interpretation of the available
information.

Perhaps you should call Roy, and ask him why it is that the gun letters with a steel
cylinder.

Regards, Mike Priwer

The US Gov't contract with S&W for these Aircrewman revolvers specifies alloy cylinders. No change order has been found that authorized S&W to substitute steel cylinders for the guns made for the Air Force. None of the Air Force guns in the data bases, and other records of these guns, that were made after 1954 have been found with original steel cylinders, to my knowledge. Granted, S&W switched to steel cylinders for commercial shipment in approx. 1954, however that did not happen with Air Force guns, as a contract change order would have been required, and no such change order is of record. That's not to say, an Air Force armorer could not have replaced some cylinders with steel cylinders ordered from S&W as parts, but the cylinders would be unnumbered, of course. Actually, most of the problems seen with these guns was cracking of the frames, not the cylinders. Ed.

Roy posted the following in 2005 on the site maintained by Joe Miller:

"What I ran the service department at Smith & Wesson the standard policy was
to replace all aluminum cylinders with steel cylinders at no charge. We
would scrap the cylinders unless the customer requested it be returned. My
original letters on the J frame and K frame aluminum (Model 12, Model 37 and
Air Force Model 13) suggested that the revolvers be returned for steel
cylinders. Roy G. Jinks, Historian, Smith & Wesson"

__________________
Kevin Williams SWCA1649 HF208

To me, the question remains the same: Why is the gun lettered the way that it is ?
There is only one way to get an answer to this question .

I do know that there are many guns that have "unique" features that their owners
believe are factory original, but the factory letter says something different. In most
of these cases, there is generally not a satisfactory resolution of the issue.

Regards, Mike Priwer

This is what makes this forum several cuts above any others. To the Op I would again reiterate the benefits if joining the SWCA. Not just for your benefit but for all who belong. This is a great thread.. Solving or maybe not solving the mysteries that are all things S&W. If you do join you have access to all members with their personal emails and areas of expertise or collecting. That helps a lot when you want to discuss something offline.
I had a renown S&W collector come to my house one time to look at a gun that I had questions about. That would not have happened if I was not in the SWCA. He drove over 2 hours each way!
Mike

__________________
John 1:17
NRA Life Benefactor

Mike Priwer,
Have you read the revised letter or are you referring to the original letter Roy sent?
Regards,
Kevin Williams

__________________
Kevin Williams SWCA1649 HF208

Kevin

No - I had not seen the revised letter. I just read it now, and there appears to be no
problem, nor a reason to call Roy. The revised letter is quite different from the
original letter. It doesn't address the cylinder question, as the first letter did.

Thanks for pointing out the revised letter.

Regards, Mike

Since this issue will come up again, I would like to reiterate the change Roy made in the letter, which now says:

"In 1954, due to problems, the cylinder was changed to a steel cylinder for the commercially produced .38 M&P Airweights, but factory records do not indicate if this changed was incorporated into the revolvers sold to the United States Air Force."

This is significant. Given Ed's point about no change order to the original USAF requirements (for an alloy cylinder) and an empirical database of several hundred observations, and Roy's statement in 2005 about replacing alloy cylinders with steel ones on guns returned to the factory, I think we are safe in concluding that no revolver delivered under the USAF contract shipped with a steel cylinder.

Regards,
Kevin Williams

__________________
Kevin Williams SWCA1649 HF208

Kevin

I wouldn't go quite that far. My interpretation of the above statement is that the
factory records do not contain any information about revolvers sold to the US Air
force. The records make no mention of it, one way or another.

One could assume that since the records do not contain any information about this,
then nothing has changed. The guns were shipped as they always were.

On the other hand, not all the records have been preserved. Lots of records are
missing - permanently. Its always possible that there was a change, but there simply
is no available hard-copy record to substantiate it.

Realistically, I don't believe there is information in the records to document how
these guns were shipped. Given the change in manufacturing from alloy to steel,
there is ample room to wonder about what was really done. The letters would probably
be better served if the topic was not mentioned at all. Otherwise, it raises questions
whose answers can only be guessed at.

Regards, Mike Priwer

Mike,

I had you, then I lost you. :-)

You say, "...there is ample room to wonder about what was really done." However, that's only true if you restrict yourself to Roy's letters. There has been ample research done by respected folks like Rick Nahas, Charlie Pate, Scott Meadows, et al. We KNOW what the USAF contract specified (DA-19-059-ORD-1546). We KNOW what the Technical Manual says. (TM9-2027) We KNOW what the 23 October 1959 letter says about destruction of the "Lightweight Revolver M13." I have copies of these documents along with internal USAF letters on the subject, the original test report and all the articles ever published (I think) on the Aircrewman revolvers. I also have a database with dozens of examples shipped after 1954 that have matching, serial numbered, alloy cylinders. AFAIK, no one has found a single authentic example of one with a steel cylinder.

I think the preponderance of the evidence is clear but reasonable men can disagree.

Regards,
Kevin Williams

__________________
Kevin Williams SWCA1649 HF208

Kevin

Given all the information that has been gathered , and is known by the folks you
mention, do you think the factory historian knows how these guns were shipped ?

If he does know, why don't the letters convey that ?

If he doesn't know, which is what I believe, why has this known information not
convinced him ?

The thing about factory letters is that they stand on their own. They are the standard
by which is gun is authenticated. They are, as much as possible, a reflection of what
is in the records. If certain information is not in the records, then the letter should
state that.

As Jack Web would say " Just the facts, ma-am, just the facts."

Having said that, given the preponderance of the observations of these guns shipped
with alloy cylinders, it is a reasonable assumption that they are factory-original. The
problem this raises is - suppose 3 or 5 or a few guns show up with steel cylinders.
Your assumption would mean that they are wrong - presumably. That seems like
a very dangerous assumption.

Regards, Mike Priwer

PS: Lee - thanks for this forum, so that we can spend our time like this !

In answer to your first question: No, I don't believe he does. It goes without saying that I have immense respect and appreciation for what Roy does but he is not omniscient, especially with respect to martial handguns. I respectfully suggest that you are not accepting "just the facts" when you ignore records in the National Archives and other sources that have been researched by the folks mentioned previously. Others like Richard McMillan, Charlie Flick, Max Hayward, Bill Anderson...all have made similar contributions. A few examples:

The so-called Red Navy or double marked Navy Victory Models. They are a legitimate and coveted variation that are not documented in the factory records. Same with the N.Y.M.I. marked guns.

USNCPC marked M&P revolvers. There was all kind of speculation about what that marking meant until Pate solved the mystery. Again, the factory records are no help.

U.S. Navy marked 2" Model 15 revolvers shipped to the SEALs.

A batch of pre-Model 39's that were picked up at the factory by a USAF SAC pilot and flown to the base at Goose Bay, Labrador.

Frankly, the factory records are just the first step in researching many S&W handguns, IMHO.

I'm hoping other military collectors pick up the thread, if need be. I tire of the argument.

Regards,
Kevin Williams

__________________
Kevin Williams SWCA1649 HF208