Registered Magnum. Luxury item, or not?

This may be a little OT so here goes. The enablers here on this forum always go on about the 44 special and the 24-3's and the 624's in 44 special. I found my first 44 special in a local gun show. A 624 with the 6.5" barrel. In the box with all paperwork and tools included for $700. Now up until then I had never paid anywhere near that for a revolver but the 44 special fever was upon me and the hunt was on. At that time my wife had an interest in hematite jewelry and one of the dealers sold said stuff. Actually I think she started going to keep her eye on my and my spending. Few months later same show I found another 44 special. A24-3 with the 3" bbl and round butt. Whipped out the plastic and in 15 minutes it was mine. the looks I got from the 5' tall cajun would have melted ice in antartica. and a quiet ride home. I think the straw that broke the camel's back was the next 24-3 with the 4" barrel. Anyway I guess the fun was over. $2200 in less than a year. And while I do appreciate the fine machining, triggers and the accuracy pf a Registered magnums. My three 44 specials are sort of my Registered magnums. They were there,I could at least afford them and now they are mine. And that Winchester 210 or 200 grain silvertip ammo shot very well out of the 3" and 6.5" barreled ones. the 4" has to go back to the mothership for repairs. And occasionally I hear the going price continues to go up. These revolvers are the last ones I'd ever put up for sale. Hope you understand. Frank

6string said:

Exactly.
The rivalry between S&W and Colt was especially fierce. The Colt Shooting Master and New Service Target (available in 357!) was just under the price of the RM. Colt advertising clearly portrayed guys like Charles Askins actually using for (and winning) pistol matches.
I wonder if S&W got a kick out of outpricing Colt, or if Colt got a kick out of underpricing S&W? I bet the salesmen for each saw it their own way.

It does my heart good to see a RM with some mileage on it. (Didn't Ed McGivern slap a scope on his?)
All the texts of the day (1930s: Hatcher, Sharpe, McGivern, etc.) emphasized the introduction of the S&W RM in terms of performance. Any mention in terms of aesthetics, while wholly positive, was overshadowed by the capabilities of the gun and cartridge.

Jim

Click to expand...

In 1939 my Father a Patrolman/motorcycle officer ( Indian) bought a 6" Colt New Service in .357 magnum sent it off to King's in Calf for sights and an action job. I asked him why he didn't just buy a RM?????

Because even with the round trip to Calf ..... the Colt was between $5-10 cheaper than what a RM would have cost him.


Bargains can still be found...... with knowledge and a lot of luck..... I got my RM maybe 15 years ago in a LGS..... marked simply as a "S&W .357 magnum". It's a 6 1/2" 98%+ gun but w/o the original grips...... on consignment .... wife told her husband to "Get rid of your Dad's (guessing it might have been his Grandfather's also) gun before the baby is born"!!! Got it for the then going price of a 6" Highway Patrolman <$400OTD!

Keith, yours are some fantastic guns. I agree on the RM - it isn’t the cult status, price or rarity. It is just the pinnacle of pre war quality.

I keep thinking about the mail carrier that sent off for one to protect the mail in the SWCA Journal recently. Guess each fella’s needs are different. He didn’t likely think it was a luxury but I also don’t know why he felt he needed a Magnum as opposed to, anything else.

Doc44 said:

Many .357 Magnums were ordered by companies that were in the business of selling firearms and sporting goods and not by individuals. Often, they were purchased several at a time. I am sure when potential customers saw one of these "new" revolvers in the case, many reached for their wallet rather quickly.

Bill

Click to expand...

Yeah, but-----------------------------------------

Given that they reached for their wallets rather quickly, I hope they bought the gun, A BUNCH of ammo, a cleaning kit, holsters---maybe even one for every day of the week so the companies that were in the business of selling firearms and sporting goods could make a living.

The paperwork you sent to me on mine rather strongly suggests S&W would much rather sell the RM direct to the consumer (at full retail)----get ALL the money----and KEEP ALL THE MONEY----it's the American way---and good for what ailed them.

My guy bought three guns---all alike. I figured they were Christmas presents---one for himself, one for each of his two sons, or business partners, or whatever. For some strange reason he ordered them from a local, retail dealer (Sports Inc.). The dealer in turn ordered them from a distributor (Shapleigh Hardware)---business as usual, right? Well not in this case, it seems. My other reference material ("factory letters") shows S&W's distributor pricing was what I'll call "normal"----it was structured so as to allow for a reasonable profit for the distributor----and a reasonable profit for the dealer who bought from the distributor----the American way again. This time the distributor price figured out to be $47 and a few pennies. (Now when I say "figured out to be", I'm assuming there were some shipping charges included in the numbers I was working with---whatever it cost for three guns from Springfield to Chicago-----which wasn't much back then---and those shipping charges serve to distort my distributor price calculations------but not enough to distort my conclusions.

My conclusions go along these lines----pretty much exactly along these lines: A distributor price of $47 on a $60 at retail item allows for $13 gross profit to be split between distributor and dealer (as the distributor sees fit). I don't care how you slice it, that's what's called "slim pickin's" for both parties----perhaps by design---so as to discourage their involvement in the distribution chain (for the RM)----so as to allow S&W to sell them direct----and keep all the money----which would seem according to intent----not that you can blame them, considering their apparent circumstances at the time.

Ralph Tremaine

Depends on what your life is worth?

If you wanted the best help you could buy and you worked in law enforcement, the Registered Magnum was the choice. Besides, we all know street prices were 30% lower for LEO and dealers.

Given the choice of a sub-par Colt or less gun elsewhere, I'd have spent $40 bucks on a 357 Magnum. KCPD guns were under $40 dollars each in bulk. I don't doubt that ordering one on letterhead got you a deal on the price.

New technology costs money, you could be slinging a Colt SAA and enjoying a 90 second reload or you could step up to the modern world of 1937 and win a gunfight.

If I could travel back in time....

I would buy 10 Registered Magnums at $60 each in 1935 and hold them until 2020. Then sell them for $10,000 each...

A better investment than stocks and bonds.

Richochet said:

I would buy 10 Registered Magnums at $60 each in 1935 and hold them until 2020. Then sell them for $10,000 each...

A better investment than stocks and bonds.

Click to expand...

Now that's an interesting concept. I would guess probably not. If you bought a blue chip stock in the midst of the Depression and held onto it for over 8 decades, I would think it would have appreciated at a greater rate than a Registered Magnum.

The registered magnum was developed at the request of police departments. They wanted a revolver that would shoot through a engine block and stop a car. Remember the gangsters were the rage using tommy guns and shooting up the country side. Remington made the first ammo, using a large pistol primer. I found some at a gun show and shot one. It was by far the highest pressure 357 I have ever shot. The report was a lot louder and recoil noticeably more than any other 357 round I have shot. Nice collectors rounds.

So police departments bought most of the RM's needing to out gun the bad guys. A natural development from the RM's was the Highway Patrolman. Same gun but finished differently.

LPD256 said:

It’s fun to look back and realize it would have been nice to know what we could’ve made if we bought that 1964 Shelby Cobra for a song even 25 years ago. In the ‘70s while making $600/month I sold a Python to buy a Model 19. Which I sold for around $150. All the above are probably luxury items. As it comes to collectibles, to include hot rods, guns, etc. the real question going forward is who will want what we collect today? What will be valued?

Click to expand...

In 1968, a 427 Cobra cost me $6500. My 1969 Camaro 327 c.i cost $3400. at the time.

I was earning $9600 a year in my first job after college.

Richochet said:

In 1968, a 427 Cobra cost me $6500. My 1969 Camaro 327 c.i cost $3400. at the time.

I was earning $9600 a year in my first job after college.

Click to expand...

Are you saying you bought one at the time or couldn’t afford one? I understand either way. I sold a house and moved in about 1980. I had a cashiers check in my pocket for $39000. As I drove my Uhaul through Omaha, I stopped at a place called Barnaby’s. That check would’ve bought me a 289 Cobra, a ‘57 Fuelie Corvette, or a Jag XK120 that he had for sale. Truthfully I couldnt realistically afford any of them, and they would’ve been sold a long time ago......

The question now is, will my kids, or any kids twenty years from now have any interest in my desired guns, or will prices crater as my generation dies off.......