1949 Heavy Duty .38/44 Letter

[MSD2343]

I posted this Heavy Duty to the forum about a month ago when I purchased it. There was some question here as to whether this revolver was old enough to be a long action. The letter resolves that question — the revolver is a short action by about a year.

So one further question: With a ship date of June 1949 and being a short action, is this Heavy Duty considered a postwar transitional? I'm guessing probably not, but would like to know for sure.

 

[MSD2343]

And here's some invoicing documentation included with the letter.

 

[22hipower]

Very nice, great to have the letter and supporting documentation. Here's my transitional HD SN S 67385 shipped in 1946. Do we notice some difference in the hammers?

Jeff
SWCA #1457

https://flic.kr/p/2qV7bdG https://www.flickr.com/photos/brushypondranch/

 

[Casual Smith Nut]

To the OP, that hammer looks to me like a LONG action hammer. I could be wrong but I think a gun can ship at a later date and with later serial number but still have parts and the configuration of an earlier series. It would be less common but could still happen.

Do you have any prewar N frames to compare the hammer long vs short action?

If I'm correct, I'd still call it a transitional gun. If I'm wrong… oh well there's other much more knowledgeable folks here who can set me straight

 

[mh51]

I have two of the transitionals, and both of them have the prewar style hammer and a single line "Made in U.S.A." address on the right side of the frame. I think yours is slightly later than the transitionals.

 

[MSD2343]

To the OP, that hammer looks to me like a LONG action hammer. I could be wrong but I think a gun can ship at a later date and with later serial number but still have parts and the configuration of an earlier series. It would be less common but could still happen.

Do you have any prewar N frames to compare the hammer long vs short action?

If I'm correct, I'd still call it a transitional gun. If I'm wrong… oh well there's other much more knowledgeable folks here who can set me straight

This is my oldest revolver. I will say this, the action certainly feels longer than both my 28-2 and 27-9. In fact, a few times I short-stroked cocking the hammer when first dry firing it in SA (with snap caps) as it just seemed like it should have been locked by the time I prematurely released it.

 

[Gun Relics]

So one further question: With a ship date of June 1949 and being a short action, is this Heavy Duty considered a postwar transitional? I'm guessing probably not, but would like to know for sure.

Technically, it's a transitional. The new model wasn't introduced until September of 1950 (pre-model 20) . Your HD should also be a long action. The short action started with S75514 Nov 18, 1949. This is all from the Standard catalog, 5th edition page 222.

I have a circular from November of 1950. It shows the HD with a different hammer style (see attached).

 

[80sgyrene]

As said before, to my way of thinking, the hammer says long action. I don't think the date has anything to do with it.

Is this wrong?

 

[lestert357]

Transitional

Looks like a long action hammer to me, shipped post war, which would make it a Transitional.

 

[MSD2343]

Thanks guys, all the input is greatly appreciated and I'm proud to own a revolver that prompts some discussion among the experts here. This example was surely on the cusp of design changes and. whatever it's precise composition, such only adds to its notoriety as far as I'm concerned.

The revolver is with a gunsmith at the moment since I was too chicken to remove the sideplate myself to do a full strip down cleaning. Can't wait to get her back.

 

[wbraswell]

It has the old style hammer and 4 line address frame. That says transitional, to me. I have one like it.

 

[old bear]

Just love the 4" barrel H.D.'s they just look to cool. O/P enjoy yours..

 

[handejector]

That IS a LONG action gun, and therefore, it IS a Transition gun.

Are you sure you read the number right? I have never seen a Transition with a number that high. Would you post a pic of the butt, please?

 

[MSD2343]

Are you sure you read the number right? I have never seen a Transition with a number that high. Would you post a pic of the butt, please?

Here's the photo with the serial number.

 

[kaaskop49]

May I "piggy-back" my HD question here? My HD (#449xx) bbl was VERY professionally cut to 3 3/8" and recrowned, and the front sight remounted. No "bubba" job here. Reportedly, a cop gun. I've read that the factory has been known to do this occasionally. Any ideas?

P.S. It has the 'mushroom-tip' ejector rod. How can I remove the cylinder for cleaning the yoke/crane?

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

 

[afkirby]

This is the first transitional model that I have seen with the hammer pin blended into the frame like the 1950 models. I'm assuming its just due to the "lateness" of it?

 

[Fullmetaljacket]

I have no. 73313, most definitely a long action. 4 - line address on the frame, I'm guessing 1949? I was glad to note the OP's letter says "changed to short action at approximately 72,500..." I need to letter this one.

 

[wbraswell]

Fullmetaljacket, My 4" is just like yours and is S73830 and it shipped in Nov. 1949.