Model 43 22/32 Kit Gun Airweight

[Bhfromme]

Just adopted a sweet little 3 1/2" Model 43 22/32 Kit Gun Airweight. Serial Number 726xx. I'll probably request a letter to get more info but I'm told it was manufactured between 1955 and 1958.

Can't find much info online on the old Model 43s. Specifically, I'm wondering how this little J-frame shooter compares to the larger K-frame Model 18? I've been wanting an 18 but is there really going to be that much of a difference?

I haven't got many photos yet but I'll post the one I have. Looking forward to reading some perspective on how these little 43s compare to the 18s and the newer 4" Model 17s.

[BC38]

I have one. They are a great little 22LR six-shooter.
Aluminum frame and cylinder makes them quite light and handy.
Of course the 22LR has such minimal recoil that the light weight isn't a drawback at all.
I can't compare it to a M17 or M18 since I don't have one. But I can tell you the M43 is significantly lighter and being a J-frame smaller to boot.

[JP@AK]

Some points of clarification for you.
1. The serial number actually points to about 1960, which started at about 70,000.
2. Between 1955 and 1958, the Kit Gun Airweight did not have a model number. Another way of saying this is that there were no Model 43 revolvers until at least 1958.
3. Unlike the Model of 1953 and Model 34 steel frame Kit Gun, the Airweight version was always built on the JAT frame (J size, alloy, target). So you are correct in referring to it as a J frame. The steel Kit Guns didn't migrate to the J frame until 1960. They were I frame guns before that.

As for the Model 18 (.22 Combat Masterpiece) comparison:
1. The Kit Gun is significantly smaller, so the grip frame is less hand-filling. Because of that, I tend to shoot the Combat Masterpiece a bit better. It stabilizes in my hand better and my trigger finger hits the trigger in a more comfortable spot. I actually have to hold my trigger finger back (or rather off to the side of the gun) a bit to get the proper trigger pull on the Kit Guns. I have learned to adjust for this, but it took some practice.
2. The fact that yours has the square butt is an advantage and will mitigate the problem identified in #1 above. Most of my Kit Guns have the round butt.
3. The weight can also be a factor, if you are mostly used to shooting steel frame guns. But again, practice with the lighter handgun will overcome this problem.

My thought is to have at least one of each: .22/32 Kit Guns and .22 Combat Masterpieces. I have several of each and all of mine get their share of range and field time.

[Bhfromme]

Thanks Jack, that's exactly the kind of wisdom I was looking for. Looks like the search for a Model 18 will continue. I'm partial to pre-1982 Smiths. Are there any variants that are better or worse than others?

I'll probably get a 63 at some point as well. Or a 617. Or both? Yeah probably both. Can you share your thoughts on the stainless .22 revolvers? Is there one vs another that you prefer?

[JP@AK]

Originally Posted by Bhfromme

I'm partial to pre-1982 Smiths.

Me too. As far as I can remember, I've only owned one post-1982 S&W. It was a Model 29-3 that I bought for a backup gun when moose hunting in big bear country. Sold it several years ago and went back to carrying my trusty Super Blackhawk.

Are there any variants that are better or worse than others?

Assuming this is a reference to the .22 Combat Masterpiece, I'd have to say, "not really." The location of the sight leaf screw on the 18-3 would make it slightly more desirable than the -2. But that's all I can think of. All of the Model 18s are wonderful revolvers.

I'll probably get a 63 at some point as well. Or a 617.

Can you share your thoughts on the stainless .22 revolvers? Is there one vs another that you prefer?

I've never owned a Model 617, so I don't have an opinion on them (introduced in 1989, by the way). I personally don't care for any of the models with the full underlug. But the 4" 617 didn't have that, IIRC.

The only stainless model S&W rimfire revolvers I've owned are the Model 63 Kit Guns. As I noted previously, I do find an advantage in shooting these smaller revolvers if they have the square butt, and the square butt was standard on the Model 63. So, yes, I would highly recommend a Model 63. But be aware, they do not come cheap.

That isn't much of a reply, but I do hope it is at least somewhat helpful.

[Hondo44]

Originally Posted by JP@AK

I've never owned a Model 617, so I don't have an opinion on them (introduced in 1989, by the way). I personally don't care for any of the models with the full underlug. But the 4" 617 didn't have that, IIRC.

There were a few 4" 617s:

Product code 100563 special run of 200 with heavy barrel, without the full lug - 1991.

100564 with full lug -1990 thru 2001.

150929 is a 4" Mtn Gun with model 18 style tapered barrel and with the old style 1/2 shroud.

The 4" Mod 17-4 and early 17-6 had a heavy barrel without full lug.

Note: The alloy K frame cylinders were dropped eventually due to poor sales and went back to SS cyls.

I don't want any full lug barrels either!

[stu1ritter]

I have both a 43 (very close serial number to the OP at 7242x and a pre-18. No comparison shooting them, the 18 is MUCH heavier and much more a target revolver than the 43. They both shoot well. Here's a 10 meter target from the 43.

Stu

[H Richard]

I don't have a 43, but do have a Pre 18 K Frame, and both a 34 and 63. From a practical use, the J Frame .22's can shoot just about as good as the K Frame, just a little harder to hold on target due to less weight. I probably take my 63 to the range more frequently than I do a 18, 17, or 617.

I have added a Tyler T grip to the 34 since this picture.

[JP@AK]

Wow, Richard. All three of those are nice!

That .22 Combat Masterpiece is a gem. Based on the hammer and the front sight, I'm assuming it is quite early.

Thanks for posting those pics.

[Bhfromme]

Keep the pictures coming guys!

[Bhfromme]

I took this one today to show the difference between my Redhawk and my little 43.

[nbedford]

Originally Posted by stu1ritter

I have both a 43 (very close serial number to the OP at 7242x and a pre-18. No comparison shooting them, the 18 is MUCH heavier and much more a target revolver than the 43. They both shoot well. Here's a 10 meter target from the 43.

Stu

That is interesting. I have had my 63 for maybe 30 years, trigger is down to 21/2 pounds, and it has a set of Pac. Grippers on it. Never tried CCI standard velocity before; looks like I will now.

[H Richard]

JP@AK it dates to Feb 1953.

[Hondo44]

Originally Posted by H Richard

JP@AK it dates to Feb 1953.

Three awesome classics.

I have a twin to your 4" K22 CM that dates to 1952.


And this 18-4 from 30 years later in 1982:

[kscharlie]

A couple of pics to show comparative size.

1st pic, L to R, K-22 Masterpiece, .22 Combat Masterpiece (pre-18), Model of 1953 .22/32 Kit Gun, Model 1 2nd Issue.

2nd pic, .22 CM and Kit Gun.

3rd pic, Kit Gun with original stocks.

For shooting purposes, I highly recommend a set of J frame square butt target stocks. I cannot obtain a decent grip with the original stocks. The targets made a huge difference.

[22shtur]

Originally Posted by JP@AK

Some points of clarification for you.
1. The serial number actually points to about 1960, which started at about 7,000.

Should that serial number ^ be 70,000?
I had two pre model 43's. I sold one here about 7 years ago and kept one. The one I kept is serial number 24,8XX and it was aquired used in 1965.

[JP@AK]

Originally Posted by 22shtur

Should that serial number ^ be 70,000?

Yes. Left off a zero. Thanks for catching it.

I'll fix it.

[BC38]

I just made a deal with a guy today to buy this 22-32 airweight kit gun (pre-model numbers) and this 17-3.
Both show some holster wear, and I probably overpaid, but I'm getting them both for $900.

[22shtur]

I really like my pre 43, I hardly notice it's there, it's so lightweight.
The model 43 has excellent adjustable sights. Mine prefers Aguila SE slightly better than CCI.
Practice the fundamentals for each shot, and all the S&W .22lr revolvers will shoot about the same accuracy out to 20 yards, which is where most of my shots are taken at forest grouse.
I've owned other J frame .22's and K frame .22's, hence my user name. Combining the good accuracy and portability of the kit guns, they make my perfect packin' .22. hunting revolver.

[SuperMan]

...I don't think you overpaid BC...nice looking pair...

Had a 43 many years ago that I sold to one of my long time best friends. He recently sold it to one of my hunting partners who was looking for something light to carry while hunting and scouting.

Only sold the 43 when I bought a 317 3". Just didn't need two lightweights as they don't get carried all that often.

As to the others...have owned all of them and there are no bad ones...just pick them up one at a time...

Bob

[Bhfromme]

Originally Posted by BC38

I just made a deal with a guy today to buy this 22-32 airweight kit gun (pre-model numbers) and this 17-3.
Both show some holster wear, and I probably overpaid, but I'm getting them both for $900.

My philosophy is if it's what you want what's a few dollars one way or the other. Great looking guns!

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Originally Posted by BC38

I just made a deal with a guy today to buy this 22-32 airweight kit gun (pre-model numbers) and this 17-3.
Both show some holster wear, and I probably overpaid, but I'm getting them both for $900.

I'm not current on prices, but I'm pretty sure that you did NOT overpay.