!948 S&W 5 screw M&P

[Cornbean]

I have a 1948 5 screw M&P 38 special serial number S973183. I have the original box for this gun but it states no model number on the box. On the box it states: Smith & Wesson, 38 M&P Revolver, Blue Finish, Square Butt, 6 inch barrel. I'm wondering what the model number of this gun is? The reason I know the year is because whoever bought the gun wrote purchase date where it was bought on inside of lid. Just wondering if this revolver has a model number. Thanks

[linde]

Originally Posted by Cornbean

I have a 1948 5 screw M&P 38 special serial number S973183 . . . I'm wondering what the model number of this gun is?

The serial number of your .38 Military & Police matches a 1948 ship date. It wasn't until 1957 that S&W assigned Model numbers and your M&P would have evolved into the Model 10.

Early post-war M&Ps like yours with the pre-war long hammer throw action are a pleasure to shoot . . . hope you enjoy yours,

Russ

[Cornbean]

Is there much difference between my gun and the very first model 10. Thanks

[linde]

Originally Posted by Cornbean

Is there much difference between my gun and the very first model 10. Thanks

There were a few subtle and one major change between 1946 when commercial production began after WWII and 1957 when model numbers were assigned.

The major change that occurred in mid-1948 around s/n S992XXX was the newer "high speed" short-throw hammer.

Russ

[JP@AK]

Cornbean
Your revolver most likely shipped in February or March, 1948. But keep in mind S&W did not ship in serial order, so sometimes revolvers turn out to have shipped later than we expect.

Russ wrote:

The major change that occurred in mid-1948 around s/n S992XXX was the newer "high speed" short-throw hammer.

This is correct. The lowest serial number for which I have a verified ship date left the factory in August, 1948.

You will see the term "pre-Model 10" thrown around a lot, referring to .38 M&P revolvers that shipped before September, 1957. But that term should only be used to refer to revolvers that do not have the long throw action. All non-model-stamped .38 M&Ps with a C prefix serial number fit the category. Only the very last few S prefix serial number guns do, from about S990184 and up. However, I have verified one with a number in the S998xxx range that was assembled using the old style hammer. There are probably others out there.

[JP@AK]

Cornbean
Thanks for the data about your revolver. As we discussed, it probably shipped in February, 1948.
Here is the photo I promised you:

This 5" postwar M&P shipped from the factory in March, 1946.

You can see the larger extractor rod knob and the end of the threaded hammer pivot stud that your revolver does not have, as we discussed. This revolver is also wearing stocks with the prewar style checkering.

[DWalt]

Yours would be called by collectors a "postwar" or "post-Victory" M&P. That refers to those revolvers made immediately after the cessation of hostilities, up until when the short action was adopted at SN S990148 on 4/7/48. As stated, model numbering did not start until about 10 years after yours left the factory.

[DWalt]

Your picture won't show up - the address given is on the C: drive of your computer.

[Mickey D]

Very nice example and welcome to the forum.

[JP@AK]

Originally Posted by DWalt

the short action was adopted at SN S990148 on 4/7/48.

I believe I know where this information came from. This is stated in the first paragraph of the section on the .38 Military & Police (Postwar) in the SCSW. This paragraph constitutes, in my opinion, one of the least well researched statements in the book. At the beginning of the next paragraph, we read that a revolver having serial number C1 was made on March 22, 1948. That checks with other sources and is most likely correct. But we are pretty sure that all C prefix guns had the short throw hammer. We also know that the last few thousand S prefix guns also had the new action. So something does not seem right. The April 4 date may not be correct regarding the revolver with serial number S990184, which apparently was the first S prefix revolver that had the new "high speed" hammer. Of course it is possible, I suppose, that S prefix guns were still being assembled when the C prefix guns started coming down the assembly line. If all the reported dates are correct, we would have to conclude that C prefix guns were being assembled with the short throw hammer before the first S prefix gun got the new action. That may be the case. We just don't know.
But we do know that shipping dates for some S prefix guns came much later in 1948. For example, S992366 shipped in August, 1948. It has the short throw hammer. But S998587 has the long throw hammer and did not ship until a year later (August, 1949). Oddly enough it was chambered for the .32 S&W Long, which may help account for its anomalies. I believe that both late S guns and early C guns were shipping at the same time. That would be consistent with the way S&W did things in those days.
Part of the problem may be that some reports (including some of the info related in the SCSW) confuse management decisions, production room actions and shipping dates. Right now we just don't have enough data to make any determinations about the transition from the last long action guns and the first short action guns. I still need to collect more hard facts for my database before we can come to any conclusions about this stuff. And we need to remember that the shipping date rules with respect to putting a date on this or that particular gun. When the engineers made proposals, when management made decrees, when the floor supervisor implemented the decisions and when the shipping department put a particular revolver on a truck were all different times. I think some of the reporting in the standard reference works don't always maintain that distinction.
It just occurred to me that one thing I should do is ask Roy for the shipping date on C1. That could be very interesting, provided it did ship and wasn't stuck in a museum or something.
This sort of stuff is what makes collecting Smiths so darn interesting. It's also part of why I started researching the postwar M&P. Lots of work left to do, but someday I hope to be able to present a more coherent story about these historically important revolvers.

[DWalt]

There have some previous descriptions here of "Transition"-type situations in which long actions in the C-series are allegedly known. This sort of thing usually happens during a major changeover in production. It might be interesting if we knew of the lowest S-series SN having a short action, and of the serial numbers of any long-action revolvers known to be in the C-series.

[Donald Paul]

Jack-
...very well written and very interesting.
For everyone who doesn't know {me included} can you show us with pictures, and/or a worded description, the different identifiable features between the long throw and the short throw hammers.
Thank you.
- DP

[linde]

Originally Posted by Donald Paul

. . . can you show us with pictures, and/or a worded description, the different identifiable features between the long throw and the short throw hammers . . .

Knowing Jack he'll be along with a much better description but hope the following picture provides a visual understanding. The pre-war style long throw hammer is in the front and the post-war style short throw hammer is in the rear . . . note the difference in the SA travel of the hammer in the second photo.






In addition to the easily recognized difference in the hammer profile, the internals will show the relocation of the hammer pivot stud/pin to accommodate the new geometry.

Russ

[Donald Paul]

The pre-war style long throw hammer is in the front and the post-war style short throw hammer is in the rear . . . note the difference in the SA travel of the hammer in the second photo.






In addition to the easily recognized difference in the hammer profile, the internals will show the relocation of the hammer pivot stud/pin to accommodate the new geometry.
......................................................................................
Thanks Russ-
Your pictures are worth a thousand words.
-DP

[HWayne]

Y'all continue to amaze me - blow me away - with your knowledge and generosity in sharing same. I learn something new every time I log on and browse through the forum. Thank you!

[JP@AK]

Originally Posted by linde

Knowing Jack he'll be along with a much better description but hope the following picture provides a visual understanding.

Thanks, Russ. About the only way I could improve on this would be to take some sideplates off and produce pictures of the internal differences. I'm "leaving on a jet plane" tomorrow night to drive a truck and trailer from Colorado to Alaska for my son. So I've no time to indulge this aspect of my hobby at the moment. You've done a more than adequate job here. Thanks for posting these photos.