S&W 1950 4.5" BBL .45 Cal, all matching serial numbers. See pictures and letter. NOTE: Shows no sign of being factory modified or altered. Unlike the two others that have ever been documented, this one has combat trigger and target hammer. If true, this would be *only one* of its kind in any record that I've been able to find.


If anyone has any info on this, please let me know. If I'm wrong on any of this, please offer any corrections. I want to make sure I have what I think I have.

Attached Images

	IMG_0061_1.jpg (34.3 KB, 932 views)
	IMG_0061.jpg (34.3 KB, 845 views)
	serials.jpg (86.3 KB, 793 views)
	IMG_0068 smith letter.jpg (65.4 KB, 977 views)

Without a letter to validate the barrel length it may be difficult to confirm that the barrel is as it shipped from S&W. Some pictures of the barrel crown might help, directly at the muzzle and close up and sharp.

The barrel stamp position, compared to that of one of my 6.5 inch pre-26s, might indicate that the barrel length was shorter. Hope it works out for you, a real oddity if original.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

Welcome to the Forum.

You refer to this revolver as having a "combat trigger". On my computer, it appears to have the standard .265" serrated trigger.

Is there anything I'm missing?

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

I have a 25 no dash that was cut to 4” at some point. The work was done so well that I was sure it was some unicorn gun. The roll marks on the barrel were the tip off it wasn’t. Still a neat piece, I think an outfit named Badger (something) did a lot of these for police in the 60’s.

That is one very nice old Smith! It may not be able to be documented but it looks factory. I noticed a shorter than normal front sight, for a 6 1/2 inch barrel and a taller that what I think is normal front sight. I have a 625 in .45 ACP that has the same style sight set. I have no idea when the factory would put this kind of sights on a 5 inch or 5 1/2 in your case. Look at the sights carefully for any evidence they might not have been factory. They look factory in the pics, but a closer inspection should be done with gun in hand.
Whatever, it is a really nice find!

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

Cool gun.

It has a Target hammer (.500" spur width) and a standard service trigger (.265").

Agree with seeing close-up photos of the muzzle, barrel rib and front sight if possible. Unfortunately, without a letter of authenticity the best possible description may be "factory-level quality work".

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

I hope the evidence points to OPs gun being factory original barrel length. Here is my 6.5 with marking in same place.
Serial s 96681

I guess vintage also effects where barrel was stamped

Attached Images

26 Pre 26.jpg (259.8 KB, 231 views)

Factory barrel or latter cut barrel I like it. Nice gun.

Here is a Model 1950 barrel. It appears to be marked in the same place.



Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

The barrel of the 4 1/2" gun looks a bit flat on the end with minimal rounding of the edge. The sight base is obviously a separate piece. My guess is that the barrel has been cut down from the original length.

If you looks at an enlarged version of the image I posted, you will note the sight base is a separate piece, pinned in place. I believe the forged bases came at a later date.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

Welcome to the forum.

The gun looks fine to me. There are a bunch of reasons why a particular gun does not show up in the factory shipping records. The letter alludes to a few.

Guns were given to gun magazine and book writers for review or inspiration. If your name was Wesson it could have been a gift to someone and not recorded.

I personally have at least one of the "not on the books" guns in my collection but it does not diminish the value to me one single bit. It is what it is and I like owning it regardless.

It certainly did not come out of Bubba Gum Shrimps bumper shop.

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

The ramp base appears to be sitting on top of the barrel rib rather than being recessed into it like revolvers from the factory. This suggests to me the barrel was shortened and the sight/ramp base replaced. Also, I owned a 1950 45 Target with an original 5-inch barrel (not 4 1/2) and it had a plain Baughman front sight on a ramp base which seemed to be what S&W put on the 1950 Models with a 4 or 5 inch barrel.

Bill

Do you have any back info from where you obtained this gun? The barrel crown does not look correct as in more of a cut off and the front sight does not look like a factory job.

__________________
S&W factory revolver armorer

Great job Don

You provided all the information you had and returned the check as well.

That's great service 👍 thanks

__________________
Paul
S&WCA #2726

I show serial numbers close to the OP’s shipping in 1952 and 1953. But…as we know, S&W did not ship in numerical order.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

I do not know about OPs gu

But, cutting down 1950 barrels is rather easy
One at 4 1/4"

and at 3 1/4"

[QUOTE=steelslaver;141832437]I do not know about OPs gun

Watch out for loose nails on that deck.

Great looking gun, jamigunz.

If you look at all the gun pictures post on here you will see lots of toes and shoes. LOL

Drop an N frame on those toe nails and they will become as blue as the revolver

I have never dropped a revolver. Knocking on wood. I have repaired several that had been dropped however. Knocking on wood. Now revolver parts are a whole different story.

I do believe this nice nickle 5 screw combat masterpiece landed on its front sight. Finished removing the ramp, place the blade between 2 heavy stainless plates and a wack with a hammer flattened the bulge on the tip back flat, then made 2 new pins out of nickle tig rod, tapped them in and it was back to being a nice gun

Jami

Don's letter is very clear. The gun did leave the factory, but either not by the usual channel (shipping department bypassed), or the shipping information recorded under a different (transposed?) serial number, or in a lunch box or gift box. Until this can be resolved, I think it's too early to discuss the notion of a unicorn.

I know, for a fact, that serial numbers were occasionally transposed in the process of recording the shipping information. I have a 44 mag shipped to Congressman Cecil King, and the last two digits of the serial number were transposed, which then became a double entry in the shipping ledger. The 'correct' serial number entry is open on the shipping ledger.

I remember, from 20 or more years ago, a set of non-factory .45 caliber revolvers showing up for sale. I was offered some or all of them by Ray Brazille, now deceased. They were all made up by a factory employee, and then left the factory by his lunch box - according to the story. None of the guns would letter.

I suggest that you communicate with Don, and ask what transposed serial numbers he might have checked.

Without any 'inside' information, lunch box guns are almost impossible to trace.

Regards, Mike Priwer

Cool gun either way.
How about a few close ups of the muzzle and crown?

The positioning of the model name on the right side of the barrel sure moved around some during the production era. Strawhat's photo shows it completely behind the end of the ejector rod shroud. Note where it is on my 1956 example below.

If JamiGunz' barrel was marked as far forward as mine is I would have immediately discounted it as a cut barrel. But now I'm seeing that some Model 1950 .45 Targets were indeed rollmarked further back towards the frame. Hmmm.....

I think we'd all like to see some good macro photos of the crown and end of the rib and sight base.

Regarding the fact that no records are available, that works somewhat in favor of the gun being a factory job. A whole lot better than the records showing that it shipped as a standard 6.5" gun. Unless of course more photos reveal the work to be unlike the factory standards of workmanship. Possibly additional research will discover records under a transposed serial number.

In any case, it's really a cool revolver. And makes you think about why some barrel length variations were never offered. I kick myself for not buying a 5" Model 25-2 that I saw many years ago and think that a factory 4" Model 25-2 would have been an outstanding service revolver for holster carry.

Attached Images

.45 Cal. Model 1950 Barrel.jpg (45.5 KB, 100 views)

One thing sticks out to me where this Pre-26's barrel length originality is concerned, and that is the length of the front sight base. The 'long' base was generally most often used on barrel's 6" and longer. In the mfg. time period of this gun, most 5" and shorter barrels had short sight bases. Too me, it's a red flag of sorts, though others may disagree.

David

All speculation, need clear pic of muzzle. Is the sight base part of the barrel or attached later?

__________________
Mike 2796
SoFo Bunch member

You sir are indeed a highly skilled machinist.

What a great looking revolver.

__________________
Front sight and squeeze

I would like to thank everyone for their insight especially those who were able to detect that it appeared to be cut down, after running into dead ends
I figured why not call S&W customer service, after giving them the revolver info they were able too tell me that their records indicated that it left the factory with a 6.5 inch barrel.

The person you spoke with hasn't anymore information then the SWHF. I could have told you it shipped with a 6.5" barrel as well, but, I'd be lieing.

__________________
Don Mundell

I am very likely the only person on this forum, besides the owner, who has actually seen and held this gun. I examined it thoroughly, and it fooled me for sure. I encouraged the owner to request the letter from the SWHF. I was surprised that it only took a phone call to S&W solved the riddle. Whoever did the work was a real master gunsmith. The muzzle is virtually indistinguishable from a factory original gun, and the front sight looks the same. The photos show the revolver with my pre-26. I was intrigued by the fact that the barrel length, at 4 1/2", was the same as two that were known to exist with that length. An odd coincidence at the very least. I'm not completely convinced that gun is not all original, but that's my problem. A very cool revolver, original or not.

Attached Images

	20230928_130846.jpg (52.4 KB, 190 views)
	20230928_130817.jpg (51.6 KB, 173 views)
	20230928_125813.jpg (71.6 KB, 193 views)

Great find… and technically we will never know for certain. I have a 5” Pre-26 .45 Colt that shipped with other .45 Colts however my serial number is displayed in the ‘records’ as a pre-24 bright blue Pinto. In my opinion it was clearly a clerical error but I won’t ever have a clean shipping record. Luckily I have a subsequent invoice to document it as a Pre-26 .45 Colt. The ‘open’ on the books is sometimes a good thing on my opinion when it comes to really rare configurations such as this case.

__________________
Beau
SWCA #3106 - SWHF #643

Has anything else been uncovered regarding this revolver? I, too, would like to see more images.

As for a call to the current S&W, they can not answer questions about things before their time frame. The records are not there. Whatever they say, is merely a guess when it concerns a revolver with any age.

The OP has not been here for a while. I hope he returns. It could be an interesting discussion.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

I recently had the opportunity to re-examine this revolver, and noticed that the rib on the from sight did not perfectly line up with the rib on the barrel. I am surmising that the front sight was replaced, possibly the shorter barrel had a Baughman replaced with a Patridge. As I said previously, the revolver looks all original other than that. The muzzle is perfect. There is no evidence of a refinish. All numbers match. In comparing it side by side with my own 1950, I believe it to be a righteous gun. We may never know.

I wish I lived close enough to see it myself!

Are you saying the grooves in the sight ramp did not line up with the grooves in the rib?

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

Yes, they're slightly off. They look like they would match up on a 6 1/2" barrel. The barrel shows no signs of being cut or refinished.

Ok so maybe not a unicorn but possibly a Bigfoot. Some who have seen it swear by it. Others who have not seen it. Doubt it. Typical Bigfoot scenario.

Folks do all sorts of things


///

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Says the Master of fine revolver alterations!

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

Great post, thanks! Curious what a look up of serial numbers immediately before and after would be worth investigating? I tend to believe the lunch pale gun theory. My last question is due to my own lack of knowledge. Its .45 cal, but which cartridge, Colt or ACP, both?

Caliber is .45 ACP

I do like the look of it.

I might have whittled on a pre-26 once upon a time my own self...




///

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Well we do know it was made and Smith and Wesson AND left the factory at sometime, and was a cut down barrel.

so why would it be really rare? because it left the factory and because of bad records they don't know how. Heck Colt has done the same thing.

i would say a nice gun with shorter barrel. Now if owned by some general and used in War. we might have something.
I hope you did not pay some crazy price for it based on someones word it was a one only...

be happy you own it. RON K.

"I wish I lived close enough to see it myself!

Are you saying the grooves in the sight ramp did not line up with the grooves in the rib?"
Kevin
__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.


Kevin,
From my experience, with the tapered ribbed barrels...
When shortening, the rib width increases and the original
ramp is a tad to narrow to allow a perfect fit.

On the majority of the ones I cut, I make a new ramp to fit
width of the cut ramp.

Dave

///

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Dave,

I had not considered that. It could be a bit narrow.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.