Pre War vs Post War Outdoorsman and Transitional

trouthunterdj

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Location
Northwest Iowa
Hello all,

I have been reading the posts on 38/44 Outdoorsman and have a couple questions. I understand there are some differences between the pre and post war Outdoorsman but what are the pro's and con's? What is the difference between the Long and Short hammer? Are the sights significantly different? Does the hammerblock make it more safe and is it encorporated in all the transitional models?

Thanks,


ddj
 
Register to hide this ad
You will get members give you much more detail than I can. A pre-war doesn't have a ribbed barrel, and post war will. Most post war guns will have lighter blue that isn't as polished. I think all the post war guns have the hammer block, that's why the serial # begins with S.
 
You will get members give you much more detail than I can. A pre-war doesn't have a ribbed barrel, and post war will. Most post war guns will have lighter blue that isn't as polished. I think all the post war guns have the hammer block, that's why the serial # begins with S.

He may mean immediate postwar guns, which look like the prewar ones, although the grip checkering isn't as fine.
For more money, S&W offered a high polish blue on the later guns, too, but I've never seen one that had it. They're probably out there, though.

T-Star
 
Re pros and cons, some of us feel that the prewar period, the 1930s, was the absolute peak of quality in firearms in terms of fit and finish. In some ways the appeal of the pre-war guns is also emotional, as they come from a bygone era that seems, probably due to all those old movies we watched as kids, to have been ever-so romantic and adventurous.

Here is a link to an article on the Winchester M71. There's a paragraph down towards the end that captures very well the 1930s as a great period in firearms manufacture: Winchester 71 Info
 
It may help to note that the short action, or short-throw hammer, came onto the N-frame scene with the Model of 1950 changes. The short-throw .38/44 ODs became known as the Model 23 after the model designation was established in 1957, and the 1950-1957 guns can be referred to a Pre-23s. So there are three periods to distinguish: prewar (1931-1940); postwar 1946-1950, and postwar 1950 onwards.

The long action is found in prewar and transitional models. The difference is that in the short action the hammer stud is slightly relocated in the frame, and parts reconfigured, to permit a faster lock time.

The adjustable sights on postwar revolvers (both postwar and transitional) are the larger micrometer click sights. Prewar ODs have smaller rear sight assemblies.

The safety block on postwar revolvers is "safer" in the sense that it cannot fail in the way the prewar safety block did -- by getting fouled and gunked up in its channel in the sideplate so that it sticks in place and doesn't slide back into the path of hammer travel when the gun's action is relaxed. But the postwar safety block is to my mind no safer than the prewar design in a clean and properly maintained revolver.

Pros and cons will be evaluated differently by different people. Like other posters, I love the fit and finish of prewar guns. But I tend to like the transitional models because the mix of long action (my preference) with the ribbed barrel and larger sights really seems to help my accuracy when I take these guns to the range. If my eyes were better, I would probably find myself more supportive of the 1930s guns.

But they are all fine revolvers.

Just for comparison, here are ODs from 1938, 1946 and 1956: The prewar specimen has a humpback hammer, but it originally shipped with a standard hammer whose spur looked like the one the transitional OD. The transitional OD has been fitted with a King reflector front sight in place of the standard patridge blade. And all three guns are wearing non-original stocks, so don't look at the wood.

IMG_1559.jpg



IMG_2316.jpg



IMG_0382.jpg



The prewar gun has the standard deep blue (almost black) high-polish finish of the 1930s. The transitional OD has the early postwar satin finish. The Pre-23 has the high-polish finish of the mid 1950s, which I think was the standard finish by then. In the early 1950s you had your choice between satin and high polish.
 
Long vs. Short Action

This crude Kitchen Table photography may be enlightening...

Modern "Short" Action is in the background, Early "Long" Action in the fore....

IMG_2161.jpg


IMG_2160.jpg


Drew
 
DC, Sabago and all,

Thanks much! The reason I was asking was I found a Transitional at a local Gun Shop. It had a 1 line "Made in the USA" address, Long action and a ribbed barrel. I was trying to determine if I wanted a Transitional Model or Post War Pre 23 without ever being able to compare the 2. Thanks to all the members for the great information and help.

Will the transitional model hold its value more than a pre 23?

ddj
 
Last edited:
Maybe production stats will put this in perspective. A tabulation made several years ago found that the company shipped (in round numbers) 4800 Prewar ODs, 2300 postwar transitional ODs, and about 6000 short action ODs (Pre-23 and 23 combined).

So the transition models are less common than the other varieties. Usually that translates to higher values, but in my experience the short-action models had the highest prices associated with them over the last few years. In the last several months that has changed a bit, as the price of Pre-23s has declined 20% or so (my impression). The prewar and transitional guns, when I see them for sale or at auction, don't seem to have suffered the same degree of price erosion.

Part of any OD's price is determined by demand. As long as these have a high collectability factor, prices should stay good. As the collector market shrinks prices will probably decline, though the decline may be slow as aspirational collectors who were previously priced out of the market move in to take advantage of drops. The lower the price you can get one for today, the better protected against fluctuations you will be in the future.
 
I've never had a pre-war Outdoorsman, but I can tell you that the post war gun that I have, despite some wear and tear has one of the nicest actions in any gun that I have owned. However I can see why the pre-war's are desirable, the .357 had just come out, and the Outdoorsman .38-44's ran neck and neck with the .357's for a while. The fact that it took until 1966 for them to finally get discontinued really says something.

Outdoorsmanmaple.jpg
 
ddj:

I would very much appreciate the serial number of the transitional gun you are looking at. I am keeping files on every one I can find. A photo would also be nice ! :)

If you do not buy it I would like to get a chance myself !

Best Regards,

Jerry
 

Latest posts

Back
Top