Here we see a Mod 29-2 in a Type 2B clamshell case. Nothing real unusual except for the Rosewood Target Grips. Goncalo Alves would be the norm.
It has the small upright Ampersand---
It gets a little strange when you look behind the yoke. There are no marks at all except the assembly number on the yoke.---
the assembly number-
It gets really weird when we finally see the serial number---
No caliber mark (0), no fitter's or inspector's stamps---
The grips have flat brass escutcheons which started about 1973 and blue circles which ended about 1973.
The serial number is on the cylinder---
The extractor is not numbered---
Summary:
1- The serial number is on the butt and the back of the cylinder.
2- There are no markings behind the yoke except for the assembly number on the yoke. There are no markings in the barrel shroud.
3- No model number.
4- There are no fitter's or inspector's stamps anywhere.
I'll let the paper tell the tale---
The original letter order form-
The response from Roy-
Evidently, he sent Roy some pics and received this letter-
The invoice for the M&P with serial number S947990-
__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett
Last edited by handejector; 08-25-2023 at 09:42 PM.
I learn more interesting information here, daily, it seems.
But, who would've ever imagined such a scenario.
Mr. Jinks is such an invaluable resource! -Bill
I think a question in many of our minds is, how do you go about valuing a revolver this unique?
The physical features of the gun put it in the early to mid '70s (P&R, standard ampersands, 3 screws). the SN puts it technically in the 1940's, before the .44Magnum even existed. And then there is all the absences you'd see in any production revolver: all the inspection and assembly marks. It's truly a #1 of 1. It's not like it is a mis-marked assembly line gun; per Mr. Jinks' letter, it is a purpose built, one of a kind, but in other ways, it isn't.
I wish it was mine.
Last edited by Hair Trigger; 04-11-2022 at 08:39 PM.
A very cool gun. I can understand why it is not model marked since they were replacing a K frame .38 with an N frame .44 Magnum. Also if this task was assigned to one person then fitters marks etc. wouldn't be necessary. It was obviously a custom built gun to satisfy a customer and if that customer was perhaps the purchasing agent for the Atlantic City PD then he might have received some special attention.
It is probably not the case but as I read this thread the term "lunch box" came to mind. As I pondered that scenario I concluded that it would be difficult at best, if not impossible to pull off. I suppose the environment at S&W at that time, and the professional mind set of the people working there would rule that out. I quickly dismissed the thought as an idea too far from reality. It was just a passing thought, but that gun itself seems so far from the norm. What an incredibly interesting piece. Thank for showing it here.
I have the "pieces" of a 44 Magnum that was blown up in 1958 due to faulty handloads. The damaged revolver was returned to S&W for repair, but was scrapped. In a letter to the owner, Carl Hellstrom, President of S&W, stated he would replace the revolver at 50 percent of the cost if he could keep the damaged magnum to show the hazards of handloading the 44 Magnum. He offered to produce a 44 Magnum with the same serial number as the one blown up. As it turned out, the gun was replaced, but with a different serial number and a nickel finish (original magnum was bright blue).
The physical features of the gun put it in the early to mid '70s (P&R, standard ampersands, 3 screws). the SN puts it technically in the 1940's, before the .44Magnum even existed.
This event obviously occurred after the implementation of the 1968 Gun Control Act. It is a violation of the Act because it knowingly put two different guns in the records with the same serial number!
This event obviously occurred after the implementation of the 1968 Gun Control Act. It is a violation of the Act because it knowingly put two different guns in the records with the same serial number!
Will the BATF come knocking? ? ?
jcelect
Joe, understanding your tongue in cheek comment, would it be a violation if the original gun was damaged beyond repair and subsequently destroyed as Roy's comment suggests? The newly stamped 29-2 would then be the only gun with that serial number. The BATF may be too busy worrying about how to re-categorize as illegal the thousands of pistol ARs they've approved over the last few years to worry about this issue. . . .
This event obviously occurred after the implementation of the 1968 Gun Control Act. It is a violation of the Act because it knowingly put two different guns in the records with the same serial number!
Will the BATF come knocking? ? ?
jcelect
BATFE Regs allow the replacement of a gun with the same serial number if the original frame is destroyed.
__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett
Last edited by handejector; 04-12-2022 at 11:43 AM.
Given the unusual serial number and lack of other stampings on the frame and in the yoke cut, it is possible this Model 29-2 was made in S&W's tool room. I owned a Model 57 with a special order 5-inch barrel than was marked similarly and it was made in the tool room.
It is surprising there is no record of this Model 29-2 in S&W's records.
Incredible story...but it seems to make sense. S&W obviously wanted to keep this customer happy so they replaced his damaged M&P with his choice of a beautiful custom made Model 29-2. I've never heard of this situation before, but like we so often hear on the Forum, you never say never with S&W! Not that you're ever planning on selling this .44 Magnum, Lee, but I would be interested in hearing what our Forum experts think the value of this unique piece might be.
Fun read, Lee. Thank you for sharing that interesting revolver. Besides the interesting SN, it is pretty easy on the eyes... both the gun and the clamshell case.
The point of my comment in post #15...based on the configuration and features of the 29-2, it probably dates to 1973-1974. In S&W's records, there should be a record showing the taking out of service of the original revolver and there should be an invoice for the replacement. However, if these records are not in the regular invoice system, but are part of the service record system, Roy would not have access to them.
An Anomalous Mod 29-2
That's a GREAT story Lee...
Linear Mode
