Modified guns

This has been touched on in many threads in the past, and in several recent threads as well. To me, using guns are much more interesting than the NIB examples.

I get amused at our members who are HORRIFIED that someone back in '37 made changes to a RM, or a 1926 .44, or a..............

Folks, these are TOOLS! While some guns have been embellished with gold, diamonds, what have you, most are used; some more than others.

In my own sordid past, I bought a 4" blue M24-3, one of 2500 made. I took that revolver and made it into a round butt. Why, you may ask? The RB fits my hand better, and I bought that .44 to carry in a basketweave holster, hanging on a Sam Browne belt. I also did a new M25-5 the same way, for the same reason. My first customized revolver was a 3 1/2" M27-2 that I had converted to .44 Special.

Some here may recall a thread I started in the Lounge about a 1863 musket. Many members of the North-South Skirmish Association buy original guns and modify them with higher front sights, tuned locks, etc, to use in competition. We shoot in the heat, the rain , and the snow.

Now, I wouldn't do this kind of work to a mint Triple Lock. But the point is this: many folks bought guns to shoot, and a lot of them changed 'em to how THEY liked 'em. They weren't worrying about how these same firearms would appear to US, 60 or 70 years later.

I have an on-going project, that I call "What Could Have Been". It
comes from the variable lengths that were offered for the registered
magnums. I've contended, and have agreement from others, that
what enabled this offering was the introduction of the barrel rib.
Prior to 1935-ish, and after 1901, the extractor lug under the barrel
and the forged front sight base, fixed the length of a barrel. It could
not easily be shortened from either end. The rib, however, provided
the means to make any barrel length out of one long barrel. Simply
measue from the breech end, cut, and then mount the front sight in
the rib.

However, the model of 1899 is unique, in that in does not have a
extractor lung udner the barrel. It has nothing, except a flat area.
"What Could Have Been" is that one long barrel length, with its
forged front sight base, could have been used for any length, simply
by measuring from the muzzle end, cut, and then thread the breech
end. There are some subtlies here, but it could have, and in some
cases, was used to make shorter barrels from a longer one.

The following picture shows the progress, thus far, of this project.



These are three Models of 1899. The two standard barrel lengths are
the 4" and the 5". The gun in the middle is a 4 1/2". While I did
something different, this barel could easily have been made from
a 5" barrel, simply by cutting a 1/2" off the threaded end, turning
an additional 1/2" for new threads, and threading.

I have three more in the works: a 2 1/2", a 3", and a 3 1/2" .

This is something that the factory could easily have done, way back
in 1899.

Regards, Mike Priwer

My Latest...

2-1/2 shrouded model 17 round butt started this way

Then ended here





Most like it, some don't. I LIKE IT!! It shoots great! Feels great! Looks good doin' it.
Ned

mikepriwer said:

I have an on-going project, that I call "What Could Have Been". It
comes from the variable lengths that were offered for the registered
magnums. I've contended, and have agreement from others, that
what enabled this offering was the introduction of the barrel rib.
Prior to 1935-ish, and after 1901, the extractor lug under the barrel
and the forged front sight base, fixed the length of a barrel. It could
not easily be shortened from either end. The rib, however, provided
the means to make any barrel length out of one long barrel. Simply
measue from the breech end, cut, and then mount the front sight in
the rib.

However, the model of 1899 is unique, in that in does not have a
extractor lung udner the barrel. It has nothing, except a flat area.
"What Could Have Been" is that one long barrel length, with its
forged front sight base, could have been used for any length, simply
by measuring from the muzzle end, cut, and then thread the breech
end. There are some subtlies here, but it could have, and in some
cases, was used to make shorter barrels from a longer one.

The following picture shows the progress, thus far, of this project.

These are three Models of 1899. The two standard barrel lengths are
the 4" and the 5". The gun in the middle is a 4 1/2". While I did
something different, this barel could easily have been made from
a 5" barrel, simply by cutting a 1/2" off the threaded end, turning
an additional 1/2" for new threads, and threading.

I have three more in the works: a 2 1/2", a 3", and a 3 1/2" .

This is something that the factory could easily have done, way back
in 1899.

Regards, Mike Priwer

Click to expand...

Hi Mike,


Those look so nice!

The 1899 is my favorite S&W of the 20th Century.


S&W could ( and should! ) have also offered the m1899 'M&P' in a 2 Inch, 3 Inch and 8 inch Model...and I wish they would have.

Otherwise, yes, it is my understanding also, that on the 1902 on, each Barrel length required a seperate Drop Forging, which was hardly any problem to do really, anyway.

One Revolver sale, would have paid for the dedicated Dies for the Drop Forging of a new Barrel length back then.

Oyeboteb

They didn't do a 2", but they did do two 8" revolvers. I have one of
them - its pictured in Roys second book. It went to a physician who
was the captain of the US team, and used it ,in the 1908 Olympics. I
think the other 8" originally went to Charlie Call. One of the S&WCA
members has it now.

Regards, Mike Priwer

Neat thread, Gil! I agree wholeheartedly with the points you make. As a skirmisher myself (1st Valley Rangers) I use mostly repros, but would be happy to "resurrect" an original... in fact I have just such a Maynard in progress now. I wouldn't take a museum piece and make a competition gun out of it, but if the original condition is such that it has lost most of its "museum" value, why not make it usable and give it new life? As for altering current production pieces, the reason collectors have to scramble for original unaltered pieces is that most do get used and altered to suit the owner's needs and tastes. If none were ever altered, the value of an unaltered piece wouldn't be that great!!!

Finally, from a shooter's perspective, if an older gun has been shot, but only a very little, I am somewhat suspicious of its abilities. Frequently the "safe queens" don't shoot worth a *@^% while the best shooters get carried and used much more and get that comfortably worn look about them. Not always, you understand, but just a general observation.

Froggie

I like and have owned many "project" guns. Some were simple modifications, those more complicated were performed by professional gunsmith's. A gun that you will use often, frequently lacks certain features you want or need, so I see no offense in getting that done. Today, there are many more options available directly from the manufacturers than in past years, and even more aftermarket type add on's.

I think often when I see customized revolvers, rifles, shotguns or pistols that appear well used, that the owner had a genuine need to make modifications for purely practical reasons. Other times, just to suit their fancy, as in the case of engraving, jeweled bolts and receivers, etc. In the end these alterations make the gun your own. The impact on value is another question though, and admittedly, could go either way.

Cheers;
Lefty

Improved...

Gil,

Neither one of these are in their original configeration...But, they suit me right down to the ground!



Su Amigo,
Dave

Muley Gil said:

This has been touched on in many threads in the past, and in several recent threads as well. To me, using guns are much more interesting than the NIB examples.

I get amused at our members who are HORRIFIED that someone back in '37 made changes to a RM, or a 1926 .44, or a..............

Folks, these are TOOLS! While some guns have been embellished with gold, diamonds, what have you, most are used; some more than others.

In my own sordid past, I bought a 4" blue M24-3, one of 2500 made. I took that revolver and made it into a round butt. Why, you may ask? The RB fits my hand better, and I bought that .44 to carry in a basketweave holster, hanging on a Sam Browne belt. I also did a new M25-5 the same way, for the same reason. My first customized revolver was a 3 1/2" M27-2 that I had converted to .44 Special.

Some here may recall a thread I started in the Lounge about a 1863 musket. Many members of the North-South Skirmish Association buy original guns and modify them with higher front sights, tuned locks, etc, to use in competition. We shoot in the heat, the rain , and the snow.

Now, I wouldn't do this kind of work to a mint Triple Lock. But the point is this: many folks bought guns to shoot, and a lot of them changed 'em to how THEY liked 'em. They weren't worrying about how these same firearms would appear to US, 60 or 70 years later.

Click to expand...

Muley Gil:

I couldn’t agree with you more. As you mentioned, the idea of modifying firearms (especially in the past) so that they better “fit” the needs of the user is something that is oft-discussed on both sides of this Forum. And it is also something that (I believe wrongly) incurs the wrath of many people who fail to see why they were modified or understand such user-made changes in the light of the time they were made.

About a month ago, I read and began a response to one of the threads (from this same Board) to which you might be referring (Look What Someone Did To This .38 Outdoorsman!!) but my work got in the way and I never finished it. I don’t mean to hijack your thread here but if I may post part of what I planned to say there (about Fitz-like modifications and other things applied to then-not-collectable-but-merely-period guns), I think that you will see that my comments bear directly on what you are saying here…

…First, I should tell you that I respect the referred-to Mr. Fitzgerald very much. Not only was he responsible for many of the things that we take for granted today, but he studied and experimented with firearms (generally in a logical way) at a point in time when few people did. He was a hands-on kinda guy. He was a fixture at the shooting events of his era. And because he worked for Colt, which regardless of how much we all like Smith’s, was the major player in many of the gun “markets” at that time, he was in a position of influence and many of his experiments were taken to heart by the Company and to a lot of those outside it.

Second, I fully realize that people belong to and contribute to this Site for all kinds of reasons and that their interests in S&W’s vary greatly. But I would think that in a section dealing with “S&W Hand Ejectors: 1896 to 1961” there would be at least some historical perspective to many of the responses this Thread (Look What Someone Did To This .38 Outdoorsman!!) contains. Furthermore, I am not so thin-skinned so as to be remarking about those openly joking about vomiting or tracking down the “offender” who performed the modifications referred to in that thread but I am focusing on those who are either attacking Fitzgerald personally (“I hope John Fitzgerald is still burning in Hell for encouraging so many foolish people to ruin fine guns”) or failing to understand that things like this gun (the Smith in the thread) were done all the time. And done at a time (back then and in the decades that followed), when they weren’t necessarily felt to be wrong.

So while I would never cut away a trigger guard (nor would I recommend or sanction anyone else doing it) today, I would at least try and understand why, in the past and not today, somebody else might have done such a thing.

While I’ve seen pictures of people carrying original Fitzgerald revolvers in belt holsters [and I once toted around a similarly modified 1917 (New Service) in one myself], I believe that Fitzgerald himself was more likely to carry his such-altered guns in his pants pockets.

Think about it. He chops the barrel (but reinstalls the front sight), dehorns the hammer (sometimes checkering the top of what’s left to facilitate Single Action cocking – a technique which was for most people, pretty much the norm back then), maybe affects the butt and/or the grips and gripframe to better fit the hand and to possibly not print as readily when concealed, and then, on some guns, he cuts away the trigger guard for faster access.

And why not? While he (like McGivern who shot S&W’s but was not an employee of that company) was known as a double action shooter who often modified at least some parts of the lockwork to facilitate its firing in that mode (Have you ever tried to shoot a New Service quickly in Double Action?), why wouldn’t he, if he had big hands with big fingers (and was concerned about hanging up on the guard as he attempted to reach the trigger face in the initial milliseconds that can determine success in a gunfight) and if he carried the gun in such a manner (completely enclosed within his pocket) that its trigger could not be struck or even grazed by a passing object, cut the away the trigger “guard” for at this point and under these conditions, it contributed little to gun’s performance in terms of safety?

Especially as these guns of his were not designed as multi-purpose “duty” weapons, where they would not only be worn externally but might also be carried in the hand into all kinds of situations and in all sorts of environments. In these cases, they were created to be carried concealed and discretely; only being drawn when they were going to be fired. In that context, and also considering the fact that Fitzgerald and at least some of his more famous customers were true experts in terms of handling and fighting with a handgun, cutting the guard away for this specific application only (especially in an era that was less litigious than today), might not be as crazy as it sounds.

Today, I would never cut or allow someone who worked for me to cut away the triggerguard on any gun they owned or carried. But back then and in the manner in which he employed them, it might not have been that bad an idea for Fitzgerald’s own personal application.

And to show you how things evolved and parts of this concept were applied in later years by other people in other roles, look at how Bill Jordan – one of the singularly largest men I ever met – asymmetrically thinned down the widths of the triggerguards on some of his guns, which were not only carried openly in duty (not concealment) holsters (many of which exposed the trigger/trigger guard because that was the trend at the time) but they were often “carried” in the hand outright.

In his examples, the guard was still there to protect the trigger from unintentional contact with things around it but its bulk was diminished so that Mr. Jordan’s large (and long) fingers (both conditions that could be problematic in regard to the draw) could sweep into the guard and cycle the mechanism.

As most of you know, this was something that Smith itself did, incorporating it as a standard feature on their Texas Ranger Commemoratives back in 1973, apparently selling it on a group of 19-3's that were unmarked overruns from the TR offering, and possibly including it on individual guns before then as a special order item. In fact, I have seen a particularly unusual Model 19 from the early 1960’s that has it.

But why would somebody cut away the front of the guard on a non-concealable sporting or target pistol as seen in the gun that was the reason for this thread (Look What Someone Did To This .38 Outdoorsman!!)? Well, once again looking at the time frame and not just passing judgment on the act of doing so, there could be several reasons.

The most legitimate still relates to finger size. Somebody mentioned this in the thread (Look What Someone Did To This .38 Outdoorsman!!): “Maybe the guy had freakin HUGE fingers, and couldn't get them in the trigger guard....”. I don’t know if they were serious about that remark but I will tell you that I once knew a county sheriff who desperately wanted to buy a Ruger MK512 (their then Bull Barrel .22auto) but he couldn’t because the sheet metal triggerguard was integral to the frame and his trigger finger wouldn’t fit inside it.

And a similarly huge, older guy on my department once sheepishly told me the story of how he struck a combative subject with his alloy frame Colt Cobra and they had to saw the resultantly deformed trigger guard (and gun) off his finger as a result (and before you write me about how he shouldn’t have had his finger on the trigger to begin with, let alone hit the offender with the gun, this was a very long time ago).

Knowing those two men personally and having met Bill Jordan on a number of occasions, I could see that traditionally, what appear to be sizeable and accommodating trigger guards, weren’t always the one-size-fits-all designs that they appear to be.

Then as someone else mentioned in that thread (Look What Someone Did To This .38 Outdoorsman!!) “A lotta cops did that back in the day because of gloves...” This is true as well. We all know of oversize, optional and openable trigger guards in both handguns and long guns. “Winter” triggers and trigger guards exist on many rifles. Some shotguns have guards designed to accommodate fingers covered with lightweight gloves. And that county sheriff I mentioned earlier finally bought a Model 41 that was fitted with a machined, oversize, factory guard that was designed to (among other things) accommodate gloves on “normal” fingers.

But if that option was not available to you in the past. And if the gun was going to be used for “work”, either by “big” people or by people who (because of climatic conditions) had to wear gloves, then rightly or wrongly, cutting the guard away (something I do not recommend) might have been your only option. So as students of this stuff, let’s not just pile on and assume that the previous owner did this out of stupidity. He may have done it as an experiment, as just “something to do” (let’s not forget that such modifications were very much in vogue for a while), or because it might have been the only way he would ever have been able to employ the firearm for any purpose.

This gun as described, which includes a long barrel, a cutaway trigger guard and the installation of a trigger stop, makes me think that it was intended, not as a “carry” gun (of any kind) but as a target arm that would be merely picked up from the bench and fired. And if the gun was never intended to be carried or employed in the field (or at home for a home-defense weapon), again the argument against why it might have been done (especially in light of the time frame from which the gun itself emanates) needs to be re-examined in an objective and all-encompassing manner…

Muley Gil:

I hope that my example of this perhaps worst case (and to some abhorrent) Fitz-inspired modification helps illustrate how such things could have come about and how they and all other such things need to be viewed in context.

While I fully agree with you that guns are tools (and tools that are intended to be used), I also believe that in many ways they resemble cars; something that few people today seem to condemn their ancestors for carving up, souping up, and modifying to all levels of major and minor variability from stock in regard to both their cosmetic and mechanical natures. Even before WWII and certainly after, people from all walks of life were either personalizing or outright altering their vehicles for every reason under the sun and while some of the “purists” seen in the televised auctions of today bemoan past alterations while “restoring” some vehicles to surpass how they originally left the factory (in essence making me question them in terms of a “restoration”), most people in that field (one that far surpasses anything seen in this business in terms of both people and the money they spend) are willing to forgive and forget. Yet gun people appear to be generally unable to do this.

Your mention of round-butting guns reminded me of the large number of 4” K-Frame service weapons (mainly Model 19’s) that I routinely so modified in the 1970’s and 80’s. And not only did I faithfully re-serrate their backstraps but I also reprofiled their frontstraps to the correct contour (and redid/replaced their strain screws and frame holes accordingly).

While today, people all but worship the so-called “pinned and recessed” versions of these guns, back then, 19’s were common (very common) service weapons that were carried daily and subject to all the wear and tear that duty sidearms have been exposed to for more than a century. So am I to be condemned for professionally altering a gun that finally fit the officer’s hand (and that in some cases also allowed them to successfully carry a 4” gun concealed) when at the time I did it, the 19 was nothing more than a common, mass-produced, readily available “work” gun? According to the way that many of the people on both sides of this site look at it, probably; but I don't agree.

Going further in regard to your examples, while most people I knew converted various vintage Model 28’s to bigger bore revolvers, your Model 27 conversion is not at all uncommon. To be honest, the way people fall all over themselves these days in regard to 3½” .357’s, I think that a lot of them forget that in many cases (and in many places), you couldn’t give those guns away as then-current Model 27’s in the 70’s and 80’s. And Model 28’s (now growing more in popularity every day) were always around for they weren’t really setting the world on fire back then either. And the ones that did sell, were generally sold into the market for which they had been designed: Police Service (again subject to all of the daily damage and personal modifications that all such guns have seen at all points in the past).

How quickly we lose perspective in that three of the more popular Smith collectables today (28’s, 58’s and original Centennials) were, dare I say it, dogs, back in the 70’s and 80’s. The 28 was a huge and boring looking gun for what it was. The 58 was never popular and it also was a huge gun with a 4” tube and fixed sights. And many people never liked the “look” or the “feel” of the inside hammer, outside safety Centennial. Dealers in some parts of the country couldn’t give them away. But today, everybody decries anything that might have been done to make them more palatable, useful, and, most important at a dealer level, saleable.

Does that mean I like or agree with everything I see in this regard, hell no. But at least I understand why it was done. And yes, there are butchers out there, and hobbyists who would do better to find another pastime. And there are also tinkerers among us who would do better leaving well enough alone but my best friend back in the late 70’s (just recently retired as a Lieutenant of Police) had a Model 28 back then that had been ported and I believe plated by Larry Kelly at Mag-na-port Arms. With the loads we were using at the time, the porting made a relatively quick second shot possible and the flat luster, (industrial) hard chrome finish protected that gun far better than its original blue would have ever done. So it was (and still is) a perfect example of sensible modifications made by a skilled operation that might make people turn their noses today but that helped him out for the entire time he used the gun.

Along those lines (good work from a good shop), with excellent restorers out there like Doug Turnbull and others and with people just starting to collect masterworks like those from King, Pachmayr, Swenson, and more, maybe we should learn something else from our car-collecting and car-modifying brethren. Instead of failing to understand why some changes were made and instead of ignoring the art and creativity of past generations, maybe we should start studying such things and celebrating rather than attacking what they have done.

I will never be happy at the messes I have seen made out of what were once fine handguns but I will always take the time to figure out why somebody carefully and skillfully thinned down a triggerguard or rounded off and highly polished the lever within it. And while I will never be able to overlook the hundreds of do-it-yourself and amateurish front sight “inserts” and other similar alterations and additions I have observed over the years, I will never attack someone who did a good job of modifying their pistol or revolver because it better met their needs when they were done.

I tell people in the classes I still teach that we live in a truly golden age of hand carried firearms for not only are there more skilled pistolsmiths around than ever before (perhaps doing work on current and mass produced firearms that might also be condemned by the similarly short-sighted in the future) but we are also finding (at a minimum) excellent sights, great triggers and better ergonomics on firearms directly from the factory. So the dichotomy that exists today is that in many cases, for the average owner (or department that for reasons of liability will not allow aftermarket modifications to their guns), less work might actually be needed by that increased number of skilled performers!

Still, as students of this stuff, we need to remember when that was not always the case.

For in the past, if someone needed something “special” of something “more” than the factory was willing or able to offer, there were people out there who could do the work and help the owners (and, more importantly, the “users”) of such firearms better meet their specialized needs in the field, on the range and on the mean streets that some of them worked. Butchering guns cannot (and should not) be overlooked, but the kind of things you mention in the post that started this thread (decent work that was important to the owner and not to people several generations and several mindsets removed) is OK with me too.

There would not be so many modified guns, if S&W started to really have a customshop again, they would be backed up for orders just like in the old days!
But some guns are ripe for modifications, like I just picked up a Tripplock 455, for cheap, it will be converted one day to another calibre and be rifinshed. Some here would ring my neck, but when a guns cond. is not very good to start out with on the outside, and the internals are still great, a cheap way to get what you are after! cheers Dale Z in Canada!

All the more reason that a NIB gun with all of its original equipment making its way through time comands a premium price. Unfortunately, many folks use that number to establish the going price for that model, regardless of what is included or condition.

A good example of those who have made, or caused to be made, practical alterations to S&W and other, revolvers.

Mc Givern
Keith
Jordan
Askins
Fitzgerald
Applegate

The list of highly respected gun hands who have with little doubt, used modified, altered or otherwise customized pieces, would be nearly endless.

The lionshare of improved modern arms features, represent many that were inspired by those type of alterations, made decades before by individuals. Many of those guns that were altered in some way from factory original configuration and are known to have been owned by anyone of the guys on the "short list" above for example, command a premium. Just another perspective on this subject.

Cheers;
Lefty

"(Have you ever tried to shoot a New Service quickly in Double Action?),"

Actually, the best police qualification I ever shot was a 59/60, using a standard Colt 1917. And no, I don't have big hands; mine are on the smallish size.

I did do a mainspring mod to it.

oldflatfoot said:

A good example of those who have made, or caused to be made, practical alterations to S&W and other, revolvers.

Mc Givern
Keith
Jordan
Askins
Fitzgerald
Applegate

The list of highly respected gun hands who have with little doubt, used modified, altered or otherwise customized pieces, would be nearly endless.

The lionshare of improved modern arms features, represent many that were inspired by those type of alterations, made decades before by individuals. Many of those guns that were altered in some way from factory original configuration and are known to have been owned by anyone of the guys on the "short list" above for example, command a premium. Just another perspective on this subject.

Cheers;
Lefty

Click to expand...

“Lefty”

Your list of individuals (including Fitzgerald and Jordon, whom I mentioned) are only the tip of the iceberg. I guess I was sorta incensed at the attacks against Fitzgerald in that other thread and when “Muley Gil” opened the door here, I thought it was finally time to finish my original thoughts about that and expand upon his comments as well.

Keith was a friend of a friend and I got to know Colonel Applegate very well during the last ten or so years of his life (when he was getting re-involved in certain firearms and training matters) and they, like the others you mention, were constant experimenters who were always trying out one idea or another while also often sticking with whatever met their needs for decades after discovering it.

Certain gun writers (besides the “authors and experimenters” you mention) were like that too.

Skeeter Skelton had some real “fixed” ideas that showed up in a number of his guns but he was also someone who would try out new ideas and reexamine old ways to see if they were still valid. In fact, a past issue of Shooting Times magazine (possibly August of ’72 but don’t hold me to that) has an article of his where he takes a serious look at the drawbacks of the Cutaway Fitzgerald Trigger Guard and also questions Jordon’s approach of thinning such things down (both concepts being important to my first Posting in this thread).

Recently on the other side of this Forum (the S&W Collectors Association Site), I discussed George Nonte’s penchant for chopping pistols into mini-guns before most people had any idea of their value to those needing a service caliber concealed carry firearm. And while he wrote a lot about aftermarket and do-it-yourself cut down 9mm’s, he also wrote a great deal about something on the opposite end of the spectrum: big bore caliber conversions of the type generally performed on Smith N-Frames that I and “Muley Gil” mentioned (separately) in our original Posts.

Two contemporary writers who are always experimenting and trying out new (and old) ideas are Charlie Petty (a former officer and engineer) who is one of the most knowledgeable people in the business when it comes to historical mini-guns and custom handguns and Wiley Clapp (a combat Marine and police officer) who is currently having limited runs of his own spec’d-out Colt’s and Ruger’s made these days, so that others can benefit from his decades of experience.

While over the decades, Smith & Wesson and the other major manufacturers have often broken new ground in amazing and independent ways, many of their products have indeed drawn (as you suggest) from the work of others who were generally independent gunsmiths or private experimenters.

And the work of those people is not only important because of the impact it had on the product later sold to the public at large but just like collecting the work of the gunsmiths I mentioned in my first post, “Lefty”, you are quite correct that guns altered and employed by the men that you and I have mentioned here are well worth collecting in their own right.

I have modified just about every gun I own or have ever owned to suit my particular needs whether it be for "feel" or for function. Some mods have been rather extensive,others very simple.
Then,there have been a few that were fine for my purpose just the way they were. I am not a purist or a collector although I have a great appreciation for all quality firearms. I view them as tools to perform a specific task and make improvements where needed to suit me,personally.

Here is an older S & W Model 36 which I modified to be as you see it, in 1989...I Pants 'Pocket' Carried every day for 21 years thereafter.




By the time this image was taken, the really careful and excellent re-Blue I had originally done was totally gone and worn off and the little Walnut stocks I had made for it were a little dinged up.

I set a small shoulder Holster in the image, but I never carried it in one in practice.




I filed down the Ramp sight into a little 'Half Moon', I bobbed the Hammer and checkered the top...I shortened the Grip of the Frame and checkered the Back Strap...and I made it to have an open front Trigger Bow-Guard.

It carried very nicely in the front pocket of average Levi 501s without printing, and or I'd fold a piece of Junk Mail and slide it between the Revolver and the outer Pocket Fabric ro reduce any suggestion of printing.

This then represents an entirely snug and practical Arm, modified to answer to particular purpose and mode of carry.

Which for me, was for Motorcycle riding while wearing medium weight Leather Gloves, or in Summer Work or Social situations where I was wearing just a light ( tucked in ) Shirt, Shoes and ( regular style Levi or similar ) Pants with no other way to carry CCW but 'Pocket'.

Over many years, my late friend Chic Gaylord and I along with a few other guys, "experimented" with quite a few alterations. None were as elaborate as this one.


This Colt New Service is one of my "signature" revolvers. It was customized by not less than four superbly talented gunsmiths. Among them Bob Frielich, the "dean" of Colt gunsmiths. I have posted the pedigree of this revolver previously on this forum, so I apoligize in advance to those of you familiar with it.

The revolver is chambered in .45 Colt and sports a 2 1/2 inch barrel with ramp front sight. The grip frame has been modified to the smaller .41 frame size by Bryan Burgin. (the dimension of the Colt Official Police and a few similar models) The jigged grips were hand fitted from blanks by Chic Gaylord and gifted to me. The internal work was performed by Frielich. The sideplate has been engraved with the BELL CHARTER OAK holster company logo and the opposing side of the frame has been engraved with the CHIC GAYLORD NY makers mark. It has the smoothest double action of any Colt I've ever handled or owned, including several Pythons.

This is a much shortened version of this guns actual journey. All of those modifications took place over many years. Gunsmiths, especially those I mention who were in high demand, generally take awhile to turn the work around.

The revolver was inspired by one owned by Det. Reno Ganio, NYPD. Chic mentions it in his book HANDGUNNERS GUIDE, along with a photo of it. But now to my point.

We tried many times to persuade our contacts at Colt and S&W to produce large bore, short barreled combat revolvers all through the late 60's and up to the mid 70's. We were told by these executives that they simply were not "marketable". Some 40 years afterward, we began to see every sort of compact big bore revolver (and auto pistols) of similar configuration as we had suggested. Life is ironic. If I calculated the amount of money spent on customizing this revolver, in todays dollars, I could easily buy several modern S&W revolvers of similar configuration.

*Note the "Fitz" New Service .45 Colt lower right.

*Note the Colt Police Positive with bead front sight at top.

Cheers;
Lefty

I'm all for mods that make sense. Here is a modified TL bought with front sight and top strap anti-glare treated and magna grips, also my New Service that I did a bit of mod/decor.

Oyeboteb, since this is about making a gun "fit" the user, all answers must be personal in nature. I went another way to get the smaller grip frame...I started with a Baby Chief to achieve the desired size. Of course I also have the smaller trigger guard opening which in my case is intact and which I have no thoughts of altering. I'm curious as to why you thought the "Fitzification" of your trigger guard was necessary and advisable for a pocket carry (not challenging at all just curious.) One thing about posts like yours is that we get to talk about our "old friends" and how they have been influenced by us and influential on us.

About 20-25 years ago when police trade-ins were very common on the market, I picked the most likely looking Model 66 off of a gun show table of its brethren. I was looking for tight lockup and good timing first and foremost, with lack of significant wear a secondary concern and indicator of the first. What I ended up with was a typical 4" Model 66 no dash with a set of soon-to-be- discarded battered target grips. I had access to a large supply of S&W parts at that time, and with a more experienced friend went through and did a complete action job by the simple expedient of parts changing. IIRC, my example came with the blued adjustable sights, and if not, they were installed at this time. I also replaced the grips with the then popular smooth combat grips (factory) that fit my hand like they were custom made. The only true modifications I did were to use a smooth faced trigger for better double action feel on PPC events and modified the cylinder release by shaving off the bottom to provide better clearance for speed loaders. I shot this gun several thousand rounds at PPC and eventually decided to replace the barrel with a new 6" version from the factory and that's how it remains to this day. Modified? Yes, somewhat. Mine? Absolutely.

I wouldn't go out and pay collector's prices for another one of these to duplicate this one, but at the time and place it was the thing to do and I definitely have no regrets about having done it. In fact, I think I'll pull it out for a little exercise this weekend!

Froggie

Dave Nash said:

“Lefty”


Recently on the other side of this Forum (the S&W Collectors Association Site), I discussed George Nonte’s penchant for chopping pistols into mini-guns before most people had any idea of their value to those needing a service caliber concealed carry firearm. And while he wrote a lot about aftermarket and do-it-yourself cut down 9mm’s, he also wrote a great deal about something on the opposite end of the spectrum: big bore caliber conversions of the type generally performed on Smith N-Frames that I and “Muley Gil” mentioned (separately) in our original Posts.

Two contemporary writers who are always experimenting and trying out new (and old) ideas are Charlie Petty (a former officer and engineer) who is one of the most knowledgeable people in the business when it comes to historical mini-guns and custom handguns and Wiley Clapp (a combat Marine and police officer) who is currently having limited runs of his own spec’d-out Colt’s and Ruger’s made these days, so that others can benefit from his decades of experience.

While over the decades, Smith & Wesson and the other major manufacturers have often broken new ground in amazing and independent ways, many of their products have indeed drawn (as you suggest) from the work of others who were generally independent gunsmiths or private experimenters.

Click to expand...

During the late 1950's and well through the 1960's, altering, modifying or customizing "modern" revolvers was probably at it's zenith. The endless attempts to improve a stock revolver in some manner or fashion was among one of the most popular preoccupations of handgun enthusiasts. Gun writers in particular, were ever searching for fresh innovations, which they either decried or championed, because it sold magazines in a time when we depended largely upon the newstand for the latest poop. Series features were a sure way to sell the consecutive installments, and were a favorite format employed by the gun rags of the day. Many of the people you mention, I have been personally acquainted with, some more intimately than others.

Long before that time of course, during the 19th. century, probably late 1850's, yup.....guy's were doing the same thing. While I am not a historian, I would venture a guess it's been going on forever. We can find every sort of altered arm imagineable, because since it's invention, man's desire to improve things assured "tinkering" or "tweaking" or whatever we wish to describe this subject of modifying a gun.

One of our character flaws as human beings, is that we live only in the present and at best, only the very recent past. I believe we often overlook the obvious. As a young man, I frequently thought (mistakenly) that this thing or that thing was new or unique, only to be reminded by my elders that it certainly was not. What was old, is new again!

Cheers;
Lefty