USAF Issue Combat Masterpiece

I need some help from you pros. I saw an S&W Combat Masterpiece in a shop today in about 70% condition with Hogue rubber grips. The going price is just under $400. The serial number as best I recall was 583xxx. When I swung out the cylinder to check it, there were no letters or series of numbers inside the frame, only two or three little symbols of some kind. Can anyone give me a value or range of values and possibly when it was made? I do not have the gun so photos are out of the question. That is why I am requesting a price range rather than a hard number.

Could this possibly been an issue weapon to the USAF. That is my main reason for wanting a Combat Masterpiece.

Thanks,

Bill

In my opinion, that price, especially w/o provenance, seems too steep.
As a matter of comparison, I purchased this model 15 last month for $200.
Summit Gunbroker was clearing them out and this was one of the culls.
I added the stocks. It came with beat up Pachmayers.

An Air Force gun should be marked like this on the left frame below the cylinder. Unless it is an AF gun the price is way too high for a 70% Combat Masterpiece with incorrect grips.

krehmkej said:

In my opinion, that price, especially w/o provenance, seems too steep.
As a matter of comparison, I purchased this model 15 last month for $200.
Summit Gunbroker was clearing them out and this was one of the culls.
I added the stocks. It came with beat up Pachmayers.

Click to expand...

Yours looks in a lot better shape than the one I was looking at.

Would the fact that it is a pre K-15 make any difference?

Thanks,

Bill

hsguy said:

An Air Force gun should be marked like this on the left frame below the cylinder.

Click to expand...

I didn't recall the USAF marking but it has been over 50 years. I do remember it had a target trigger which looks to be the case on yours.

I doubt I can afford a real USAF issue anyhow and will probably have to settle for a civilian version that looks like it. It would appear the one I saw today is way over priced.

Thanks,

Bill

Hi Bill, the gun doe's have a target hammer and trigger as I recall. It is a 15-3. For $400 you should be able to find a very nice one.

Man Mark at Summit is supposed to call me on deals like that 15.

Very nice gun and what a price. Didn't buy 2 by chance?

This one was the dregs of Mark's last group. Thumbpiece was missing. That was a simple fix. This was my first time speaking with Mark. A helpful, straight up guy.

With PDs and guard companies having dumped large numbers of these revolvers, it seems that they were sold out at very low prices. Many seem to have been snapped up by resellers who really jack the prices up. LGS here has one now for $450 and that includes a big blood(?) rust spot on the frame,

Mine shoots great. I did a buff and fluff job on it and it now shoots one-hole groups DA on the 10-yd combat range. Definitely a keeper.

Hi,
I would not pay more than $300 for a combat masterpiece. I once had a pre-15 4 inch made in 1951. I paid $300. Condition was about 80%.

So if it was me I would pass.

Howard

So the UASF had target triggers on their Model 15?
I have always felt that the narrow, smooth trigger was better for DA firing.
Maybe the Air Force trained its SPs to fire SA?

krehmkej said:

So the UASF had target triggers on their Model 15?
I have always felt that the narrow, smooth trigger was better for DA firing.
Maybe the Air Force trained its SPs to fire SA?

Click to expand...

I can't speak for everyone but when I was trained we fired mostly single action as I recall. I did not get into double action firing until I got into LE.

Bill

Most of the standard qualification course for the Model 15 was single action when I was in. The combat qualification course for Security Police was mainly double action. The 15's had target triggers and hammers. Strangely, I always shot better double action.

S. Hammer said:

Most of the standard qualification course for the Model 15 was single action when I was in. The combat qualification course for Security Police was mainly double action. The 15's had target triggers and hammers. Strangely, I always shot better double action.

Click to expand...

That makes sense. Many of the pilots and some of the navigators tended to be city boys and either disliked guns or were downright afraid of them. They needed all of the help they could get in order to qualify. Many could barley qualify single action, double action they would have been dangerous to everyone but the enemy. Often, their contingency plan if shot down was to immediately surrender. I wanted more options so if forced down I planned to put as much distance between myself and the pilot as possible. Frequently I flew with some old sergeants who did not plan to be captured any more than I did unless there was no other option. In such cases I planned to team up with them.

Bill

Yes, they all had target triggers. And yes, standard AF training protocol for SPs and anyone else who needed to carry a handgun was both single and double action. They were/are very nice, accurate, revolvers, limited by the horribly puny 130 FMJ that was standard AF issue even in Vietnam.

The reason the USAF went with target triggers and hammers was because they were oversized which made them easier to manipulate when wearing gloves in cold weather.

ispcapt said:

The reason the USAF went with target triggers and hammers was because they were oversized which made them easier to manipulate when wearing gloves in cold weather.

Click to expand...

When we operated in the arctic, we were issued mittens. The weapon in our survival pack was a .22 over a .410 shotgun and had a special trigger so that squeezing the grip would fire the weapon.

I don't refute your word but trying to get a gloved finger in the trigger guard without an AD is a challenge. It would seem a wide trigger would only make this worse. But then, I was not involved in any of the testing or decision making, although I still believe the revolver was a better aircrew weapon for the novice which the majority were.

Bill

10-12 said:

When we operated in the arctic, we were issued mittens. The weapon in our survival pack was a .22 over a .410 shotgun and had a special trigger so that squeezing the grip would fire the weapon.

Click to expand...

Not the same thing as a M-15 nor the same purpose.

I don't refute your word but trying to get a gloved finger in the trigger guard without an AD is a challenge. It would seem a wide trigger would only make this worse.

Click to expand...

What I posted wasn't my supposition or WAG. The question was addressed at both the USAF SP school and at the USAF Armorer's school. At one of those schools, can't recall which, it was one of the test questions. The reason given both places was the oversized trigger made it easier to access wearing gloves. The oversized trigger allowed better access to the trigger wearing heavy gloves. You didn't need to get your finger completely inside the trigger guard wearing gloves with the target trigger where the standard trigger took a bit more effort.
Same reasoning for the target hammer. The oversize gave more purchase area when wearing heavy gloves.
Whether a person agrees with it or not really doesn't matter. It was the USAF's reasoning at the time.

ispcapt said:

Not the same thing as a M-15 nor the same purpose.


What I posted wasn't my supposition or WAG. The question was addressed at both the USAF SP school and at the USAF Armorer's school. At one of those schools, can't recall which, it was one of the test questions. The reason given both places was the oversized trigger made it easier to access wearing gloves. The oversized trigger allowed better access to the trigger wearing heavy gloves. You didn't need to get your finger completely inside the trigger guard wearing gloves with the target trigger where the standard trigger took a bit more effort.
Same reasoning for the target hammer. The oversize gave more purchase area when wearing heavy gloves.
Whether a person agrees with it or not really doesn't matter. It was the USAF's reasoning at the time.

Click to expand...

I must say, this was new to me. I was an Air Policeman in the 1960's, before the term SP came into use. I thought the target hammer and trigger were ordered by Curtis Lemay in hopes of giving his troops an advantage in qualifying, which was hard for many. The larger hammer and trigger were meant to assist in cocking the gun more easily, and hopefully aid in improving scores.

Personally, I prefer the standard hammer and trigger, and feel sure that they'd be preferable with gloves. But all the issue M-15's that I saw had the target stuff on them.

We were often short of the M-15's, priority being given to SAC and our forces in Vietnam. Victory Models and a smattering of Colt .38's were widely used, as well as a few remaining .45 autos.

We were were taught to use both SA and DA firing modes. If memory serves, we were told to shoot SA beyond 15 yards.

It is true that most airmen had little experience with firearms, and many were afraid of them. The Air Force impressed me as being somewhat weapon-phobic, as far as small arms were concerned. Troops bound for Vietnam did get additional training, and acquitted themselves very well during the Tet attack on Ton Son Nhut Air Base in 1968.

I knew a few other "gun people" in the Air Force, but we seemed in the minority. And I think I was the only one who studied how to use a knife to kill the enemy, if need be. I had one of the first Gil Hibben fighting knives, and a Model 3 Randall. Carried a Boy Scout (later, a Swiss Army) pocketknife. Never went to Vietnam, in spite of applying for that. But I did serve at a remote air base in Newfoundland, where I found absolutely no one well prepared to repel a spetnatz attack from a Soviet submarine. My auxilliary personnel, in most cases, could barely recall how to operate the .30 M-2 carbines that we had. And they didn't want to learn, as they'd have had to qualify, and to clean the weapons. That was regarded as unpleasant duty.

T-Star
P.S. I was an Outstanding Graduate of Air Police School, and was cited for academic achievement. I do not recall ever being told why the target hammer and trigger were adopted on the Combat Masterpiece. But they may have added that info later.

Texas Star said:

P.S. I was an Outstanding Graduate of Air Police School, and was cited for academic achievement. I do not recall ever being told why the target hammer and trigger were adopted on the Combat Masterpiece. But they may have added that info later.

Click to expand...

I went thru cop school in 1972 and thru CATM in 1986 and advanced in 87. CATM came under the SPs, name changed to Security Forces, while I was the commander after getting commissioned. They might not have told you the reason in the 1960s but they did when I went to cop school and I know it was covered in CATM school.
It was LeMay's decision. The target trigger is easier to manipulate with the heavy 2 layer gloves issued back then. Reason being the target trigger, being wider, was nearly as wide as the trigger guard and a person with the bulky gloves could get a finger on part of the trigger. With the standard narrow trigger it was more difficult with the gloves and nearly impossible to get into action quickly.
I know what you mean about few being gun people. That was true in the Army too. I did 2 yrs there. When I was the USAF SF cmdr I put together a rifle and pistol competition team and was team captain for 4 years. 1 yr I got enough of enlisted interested to field an M-60 team. We managed to do OK both rifle and pistol. I had 2 on the team who were gold distinguished in both rifle and pistol, Presidents 100, and Chiefs 50. During the 1991 national matches at Ft Benning my team took 3rd place pistol. The rifle team would usually place in the top 10. It was a tough life getting paid to shoot someone else's ammo. But it did get old at times.

ispcapt said:

I went thru cop school in 1972 and thru CATM in 1986 and advanced in 87. CATM came under the SPs, name changed to Security Forces, while I was the commander after getting commissioned. They might not have told you the reason in the 1960s but they did when I went to cop school and I know it was covered in CATM school.
It was LeMay's decision. The target trigger is easier to manipulate with the heavy 2 layer gloves issued back then. Reason being the target trigger, being wider, was nearly as wide as the trigger guard and a person with the bulky gloves could get a finger on part of the trigger. With the standard narrow trigger it was more difficult with the gloves and nearly impossible to get into action quickly.
I know what you mean about few being gun people. That was true in the Army too. I did 2 yrs there. When I was the USAF SF cmdr I put together a rifle and pistol competition team and was team captain for 4 years. 1 yr I got enough of enlisted interested to field an M-60 team. We managed to do OK both rifle and pistol. I had 2 on the team who were gold distinguished in both rifle and pistol, Presidents 100, and Chiefs 50. During the 1991 national matches at Ft Benning my team took 3rd place pistol. The rifle team would usually place in the top 10. It was a tough life getting paid to shoot someone else's ammo. But it did get old at times.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Very informative. May I ask what CATM was? If I enountered it, it was probably called something else back then.

Thanks,

T-Star