Sadly, I repeat, SADLY, the Reg Mag pictured in this thread is not mine. It belongs to a friend and I have known about it for several years. I recently asked my friend if he would provide me the details of the gun so I could add it to the S&WCA Pre-War .357 Magnum Database. He graciously agreed and invited me over to his house to gather the information. The pictures below are the results of that visit.

This Reg Mag is not a safe queen or for the purist collector. In fact the trigger guard has been “Fitzed”, the original hammer has been replaced, the original grips have been replaced, the trigger has been modified or replaced, it has a substantial drag line, and the blue finish is worn almost completely off of the ejector rod. It does not include the box or registration certificate. BUT, I would LOVE to own it and I’ll bet MANY of you would too as it blows right through the top of the cool meter! The blue finish does appear to be original and the owner told me there are no rework marks under the grips. As you will see below there is no rework star on the butt. The replacement hammer is a Reg Mag Hump Back Hammer, the trigger is checkered, the replacement custom grips are possibly Poulin grips with S&W Pre-War medallions, it has the original King Luminous Red Post front sight (King Red Post on a King Ramp Reflector base), the original King 112 White Outline rear sight, an unbelievably smooth single and double action trigger pull, and the original 3 3/4” barrel! (Note: According to Dr. Jinks there were only 8 Reg Mags manufactured with that barrel length.) As I think most will agree, this gun seems to be set up for someone that depended upon it on a regular basis. My only question about the configuration of the gun is why wasn’t a Baughman Quick Draw front sight (which became available in August 1936 and was very popular with law enforcement customers) ordered instead of the King Reflector? Perhaps it was because the King Reflector sights were designed for use in poor lighting environments.

Anyway, when you view and handle this gun you imagine that it has a very interesting story to tell. Unfortunately the factory documentation available for this gun only identifies the original company that ordered it in 1936 (Bolles Brendamour Co., Cincinnati) and another company that apparently came into possession of it in 1938 (Powell & Clement Co., Cincinnati). Some of the documentation leaves you with more questions than answers. Below are pictures of the gun and the factory and Historical Foundation documentation available for it. I hope you find this gun as fascinating as I do.

The factory letter from Dr. Jinks for serial number 49606 Reg. No. 1495 which shows shipment from the factory on October 13, 1936. The letter confirms the 3 3/4” barrel and King sights but does not address the Hump Back Hammer (note that Hump Back Hammers were not yet available when this gun shipped). Also, as expected, there is no mention of the checkered trigger, Fitz style trigger guard, or unusual style grips.



The original order number A18221 dated 9/17/36 from Bolles Brendamour Co. for “1 only 357 Magnum with 3 3/4” barrel, squared front sight with reflector, white outline rear with fairly wide notch, cylinders to line up perfectly & smooth action.” This order was stamped as received at the factory on Sep 22, 1936.



The factory shipping invoice which again confirms the barrel length, sights, sighting in specifications, and Magna stocks. It is dated 9-21-36 but there is no visible date stamp on it so actual shipping date is questionable.



A letter from Bolles Brendamour Co. dated Oct. 5, 1936 stating they have received the 357 Magnum revolver but that it has “standard” grips and requesting “magnum” grips. This letter is confusing on a couple of fronts. First it is dated 8 days before the shipping date (October 13, 1936) identified by Dr. Jinks in the factory letter. Second, it indicates the gun was received with standard grips even though the shipping invoice and factory letter indicate it was shipped with Magna grips. Nevertheless I would interpret their request for “magnum” grips to be for Magna grips as I have never seen anything in factory documentation regarding “magnum” grips.



Apparently sometime between October 1936 and July 1938 the gun moved from Bolles Brendamour Co. to Powell & Clement Co. (both in Cincinnati) as Powell & Clement ordered both another King 112 rear sight and another trigger for Reg. 1495.




Unfortunately the documentation trail goes cold after the July 1938 correspondence from Powell & Clement. However, the gun is still with us and giving us clues as to how it has been used over the last 85 years. Here are a few pictures of it and I’ll let you interpret them as you see fit. I apologize for the finger print smudges visible on the second picture of the gun (facing right) below. Thanks for letting me share the incomplete story of this fascinating Reg Mag.

__________________
Terry Lester

While I am not personally a fan of the 357 S&W Magnum cartridge, this revolver is rather intriguing both from the factual information you present and the visual clues the revolver itself offers.

Hopefully at some point, more information will be found.

Thank you for sharing what is known.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

COOOoool !!!!!

Not a Fitz fan...... but love the grips.

Level of bluing wear reminds me of my Dad's .357 Colt New Service that he got in 1938/39 and sent off to Kings in Calf. for sights and action job. Dad had the same King's sights on his 6" gun.

It was Dad's primary duty gun for the next 30 years until he made Capt and generally carried his 2" Colt Detective Special

Thanks Terry. Very interesting story.

__________________
SWCA 3255 SWHF 615

Great reporting and documentation! I need a couple extra 'like' buttons... As you said the cool factor is off the scale.

__________________
Randy
Provenance nerd

Powell and Clement was a premier gunsmithing operation in Cincinnati through much of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In addition they were a high class sporting goods operation. In the mid to late 1800s most of the gunsmiths in Cincinnati worked for Powel and Clement at one time or another, possibly when they were short on cash. P&C were known for top grade work.

Interesting gun. Certainly precedes that "do not put your finger on the trigger" philosophy

__________________
Kind regards, Heinz

What a neat Reg Mag. It bet it has stories to tell.....there is a lot of detective work to be done.

Thanks for taking the time to share.

__________________
On the Oak Savannah

Thanks for posting this. An amazing and interesting revolver.
When I first looked at the pictures I’ll admit it hurt to see that trigger guard. But then read your story and the invoices and paper work. That really made the gun even more interesting.
You are right, it pegs any cool meter, would like to meet the original owner, so many questions.

You just have to appreciate that this gun was obviously built for a purpose. Perceived or real doesn’t matter. This gun is all business. While I don’t think I could be the one to take a hacksaw to the trigger guard you just have to admire the results. Put my name on the list of those who covet this. Thanks for your efforts to show off the lovely piece of history.

This is very very cool and obviously built for a purpose!

That is just a fantastic Registered. A lot of old guns are modified to satisfy the owners desires/needs, and to me are to be respected for that. Obviously high quality work built for serious social encounters. One could envision used by a hard bitten detective working bank robbery or homicide cases!

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

Sweet wheelie!! I kept looking at the close up of the chambers and imagined how many times they were loaded, fired and ejected. I do not particularly care for Fitz’d guns, but this really is a cool Reg. Mag.

I love those grips. I wonder who made them?

__________________
Sceva
OGCA SWCA NRA

Seriously way cool.

I would like to know the History of that Registered Magnum. It has stories to tell.

Cheer up!--------the actual shipping date you find questionable based upon data from the invoice very likely will be resolved by the knowledge shipping dates are determined from the shipping records (by whatever more precise name they might be known). It's entirely possible you might be able to acquire a copy of the page containing your revolver. Then again, considering the efforts being devoted to clearing the letter backlog, maybe not.

I'm fortunate enough to have copies of two pages, both offered to document or explain certain situations. One concerned an 8" .32 caliber single shot which letters as a 10" .22 (quite simply because that's what all available factory records say it is----never mind our lying eyes). The other is applicable to a low numbered 22/40 I'd asked about. (#682420 was the first one, #682435 was mine----and I'd asked about the shipping order---- where was mine in the shipping order).

At any rate, these pages contain 100 preprinted serial numbers, and the rest of the information is entered by hand----or typed----or stamped sometimes---apparently by a shipping clerk----and you've got your work cut out for you to make out what they wrote sometimes.

The form calls for "No. of Case", and contains a number AND THE DATE----or sometimes just the date----and every now and again, nothing (as in "Open On The Books" That means they know they made it, but have no idea what happened to it. (If you happen to have the second 22/40 (#682421), don't bother ordering a letter, 'cause you're going to get one of those "Open On The Books" letters---at least according to this one document.) Then there's a Remarks column, and contains the name of the recipient, and where they are------town/state or country if a foreign shipment.

Now, for any and all of you who might give a rat's hind end about why my 8" .32 is officially a 10" .22, how about this: The nice little old lady who puts the guns in boxes grabbed a 10" .22 box instead of an 8" .32 box. (WHOOPS!!) Then it gets hauled off to the shipping vault to wait for someone to want a 10" .22. It isn't long before that happens, and it's grabbed up, packed up, and shipped. Then it arrives----more than likely at a distributor's place of business------and there begins my very last chance. The distributor's receiving clerk opens the box, sees the pistol, and calls out, "Hey Boss, they sent us the wrong gun----we ordered a 10" .22, and they sent us an 8" .32----and here ends my very last chance when the Boss says, "That's okay, we can sell it----put it in stock." My fate is sealed----I'm doomed---and that nice little old lady is going to get a good talking-to if I ever run across her!!

Ralph Tremaine

World Famous TEXAS RANGER Manuel "LONEWOLF" Gonzaullas
(1891-1977) cut the trigger guard on ALL of his guns exactly like this gun is cut. I got to meet Lonewolf in 1973 when we dedicated the TEXAS RANGER HALL of FAME and MUSEUM in Waco ,Texas. At that time there were 82 Rangers and they were all in attendence. My Father was Mayor Pro Tem of Waco and gave the keynote speech. LONE WOLF may have owned this gun.

__________________
V/r,
Markham

Super cool all around! Those are the grips S&W should have made.

Beautiful and interesting gun. Thanks for posted this.

Mike Poulin I think.

Super cool gun and great history.

Very nice!

Very, very COOL gun!! When Terry wrote that the grips might be Poulin, I was expecting to see a pair of Ivory grips with pre-war medallions. The grips on it are really nice. To me, they could be Poulin, but they could also be Steve Jessee's, who went by schofieldkid81 on the forum too. He was a very talented grip maker, and made me a similar styled pair about 7 years ago. Isn't it too bad guns like these can't speak? I am sure it would have quite a few stories to tell!
Larry

__________________
Miss Buddies crsides & fat tom

Quite honestly I have no idea who did the grips on this Reg Mag or when. I mentioned Poulin as a possibility because of the similarity of the Reg Mag grips to other grips I have seen posted on this Forum that were identified as being done by Mike Poulin - they are pictured below along with Reg 1495 for comparison…….




I do not know Mike Poulin or when he was in business as a grip maker. The owner of Reg 1495 told me that he believes the grips on the Reg Mag are contemporary to the gun’s original period of use and that the date 1941 is penciled on the underside of one of the grips. I was not able to examine the underside of the Reg Mag grips, but they don’t appear on the outside to be recently manufactured to me.

__________________
Terry Lester

It is unclear to me how far back Mike Poulin was making grips, but I can say that my set (the ones with the medallion with the initials JR in them) were on a registered magnum according to the ebay seller who I purchased them from. They too seem to have proper age to them.

It may be a question for over on the Colt Forum. I was never able to get a clear set of information regarding Poulin, just the positive id of my set from someone I believe. If you can find out anything on the subject I would love to know, I adore my set.

Great post, Terry! Thanks for your efforts to bring this history to light.

Jerry

Great Gun, Great Grips, Great Thread!

Thanks for sharing Terry

__________________
Richard
Engraved S&W fan

Steve made several sets for me in both N and K size, using the vintage original set at the top as a pattern. The ones that Steve made are slightly thicker and so a little more comfortable when shooting. As noted in this thread above, these are grips that S&W should have made. I am sure the ones on the RM in the original post are vintage.

Interesting post Heinz, especially considering that P&C purchased a new King 112 rear sight and trigger for Reg 1495 in July 1938 as pictured in post #1 above. Possibly P&C did some or all of the modifications on this gun.

__________________
Terry Lester

LOL In 50-60 years they will be asking "Are these Spegel grips?" or Who made these elk stag grips?

Very, very neat! Thank you for sharing. All my best, Joe.

I admire the person that ordered it knowing exactly what he wanted in bbl length. The difference between 3 1/2" and 4" is minor but noticeable but to split that difference is innovative.

__________________
Front sight and squeeze