.22/32 HFT and the Bekeart craze phenomenon

[mrcvs]

Let's start out with a direct quote from James Redfield, who is JSR III on this forum:

"There were 6 shipments to Bekeart out of the first run of 1,050.
6-7-1922 30
6-22-1911 60
6-28-1911 60
6-30-1911 60
8-31-1911 50
10-13-1911 34

As I have stated several times before, this begs the question about Bekeart being credited for developing this model and having to order 1,000 guns in order to convince S&W to do the re-tooling necessary to build this new model. Based on the shipping records, within 9 days of the first Bekeart shipment on 6-7-1911, other dealers began receiving shipments so early on either Bekeart or S&W realized that he would not be able to market all 1,000 or actually the 1,050 produced in the first run.

All of those 1,050 received a stock imprint on the left stock bottom but these numbers have no correlation to the serial number. I surmise that the next run of 1,050 also received the stock imprint number which would place them with numbers between 1,051 and 2,100. The next set of guns that I see are the 490 that were shipped to M.W. Robinson that were in consecutive serial number sequence. This brings the total produced with this stock imprint to around 2,590 and is somewhat verified by the fact that in my 2,000 plus gun database, I have never recorded an imprint number higher than 2582. The Robinson guns were shipped out in 5 shipments at the beginning of 1914. The gun was cataloged by S&W in 1915 and I have never seen another gun after that with a stock imprint except for a couple of fliers that I believe are wearing the wrong stocks from an earlier gun."

So, James Redfield questions whether or not Phil Bekeart is even responsible for the development of this model. I have thought for a long time, why is there a premium for a revolver shipped to Phil Bekeart with the numerals stamped on the base of the stock as as compared to a like revolver that shipped to another retailer?

All Phil Bekeart was was a retailer. No different than any other retailer during the early teens. He was Phil Bekeart, not Phil Sharpe,
and certainly not Walter Winans, Robert Redford, Donald Trump…

So how did the Bekeart zaniness even begin? If I looked at this sensibly (not that what I say means an ounce of salt), I would value an early .22/32 HFT revolver with medallions slightly more than one that is later without medallions, and add a premium for the stamped number at the base of the stocks and, as with anything, usually, earlier more than later ones, especially if a one or two digit number. This being completely irrespective of what retailer it shipped to. A premium if it letters to an individual, and this being significant if shipped to someone like Frank Butler/Annie Oakley, etc.

FWIW.

 

[Muley Gil]

My guess it is kinda like 1926 .44 Specials. I'd rather have a Wolf & Klar shipped .44 rather than one that went to say, a hardware store in Pittsburg PA.

 

[Goony]

Well, rightly or wrongly, it's been referred to as the "Bekeart Model" for a long time now. So long as that's the case, that small portion of the first production run actually shipped to Bekeart is going to be the grail gun.

 

[rct269]

It may or may not be of interest to learn the good Dr. Jinks refers to these guns as a ".22/32 Bekeart Model"------throughout the entirety of the letter----stopping only once to call it a ".22/32 Hand Ejector". Of course that's probably better than calling it a "Heavy Frame Target"---unless you're trying to get a laugh!

Now we fast forward to a point in time, when we of the lunatic fringe set out subdivisions of "Bekeartness", starting with the Holy Grail---an early gun shipped to Bekeart---in the first shipment. I don't recall where, along the road, a Holy Grail gun stopped, and a not quite Holy Grail gun began----and so on.

All that aside, my gun (#444707) was shipped on March 8, 1927 to Von Lengerke & Antoine in Chicago (about a gazillion miles from San Francisco)---a mere 16 years after the first ones.(!!!) I reckon that has to put it so far behind a Holy Grail gun, that only a privileged few can count that high---but it's still a neat little gun!

Ralph Tremaine

 

[glowe]

Check pages 93-94 of McHenry & Roper and read a good representation of how Beakeart was involved. It is likely uncontested that Phillip Bekeart suggested that the company produce a more robust 22 revolver capable of shooting the higher velocity 22 Long Rifle round. It is also likely he would have suggested that the revolver be built on the I frame, which was already in production. I think the factory actually designed the gun, not Bekeart. Bekeart sealed the deal with his 1,000 gun order.

The questionable comment made by Roper and copied into Roy's book state production started in 1908, but shipping records available suggest nothing was shipped until 1911. Maybe the 1908 date was when the order was submitted and took the factory over 2 years to start production?? There are no records in the SWCA database of an 22/32 HFT shipping earlier than 1911 and those were noted as shipping to Bekeart as "early" HFTs from June to October.

The first 1,000 supposed to be sent to Bekeart, but that is a question only a complete set of invoice records or production ledgers could answer. We do know that there were examples sent to other destinations within the estimated 138,220 to 1339,275 range, but no numbers exist to say how many. I wonder if Ed Coronet has those ledgers or knows where they reside? Maybe he will join in here.

 

[JSR III]

The first 1,000 supposed to be sent to Bekeart, but that is a question only a complete set of invoice records or production ledgers could answer. We do know that there were examples sent to other destinations within the estimated 138,220 to 1339,275 range, but no numbers exist to say how many. I wonder if Ed Coronet has those ledgers or knows where they reside? Maybe he will join in here.

Gary, I have those destinations in my database thanks to Dr. Jinks allowing me access to the shipping records at his former home office a bunch of years ago. I spent several days transcribing the information and it is why I can tell you exactly where every gun went and on what date from the first gun 138226 to the last 139275 covering 1,050 firearms. IIRC there are about 3 that were not legible in the records so they don't show anything but are the exceptions to the group.

The unfortunate fact is that these records do not show the stamped assembly order imprint to the left stock bottom and the numbers that I have recorded in my database are from my research and with the assistance of many collectors supplying the information.

So basically of the first run of 1,050, we know that 294 went to Bekeart and therefore 756 went to other dealers or individuals as was possible back then.

One possibility to explain this story may be that Bekeart was responsible for requesting a larger .22 caliber revolver to be built using the I frame normally used for the .32 caliber guns. S&W told him that they would need an order of like 1,000 pieces in order to justify the tooling required. Possibly Bekeart then reached out to other dealers to promote this new configuration and secured enough interest to convince S&W to go ahead. So Bekeart gets the credit for the design and his name gets associated with the build but he did not sell all of the first run of 1,050 built.

The interesting detail that I posted in another thread is that there is an ad flyer out there wherein Bekeart promotes a second order of 1,000 pieces again exclusively available from his shop. Perhaps just a sales ploy because in viewing many of the second run produced while some did go to Bekeart, again many did not.

We may never know all of the details unless some early correspondence is discovered. Until then we can merely speculate.

 

[glowe]

James, I think we have a good answer in McHenry & Roper book as I stated above. I cannot find when Roper joined Smith & Wesson, but in 1911, he would have been 30 years old and so could have been in the factory when Bekeart guns were being designed. Unfortunately, I cannot find information when he started work at the factory. He at least had access to the employees who designed and built the guns for Bekeart, so his references are likely quite accurate when it comes to the 22/32 HFT.

 

[Club Gun Fan]

Of course that's probably better than calling it a "Heavy Frame Target"---unless you're trying to get a laugh!

Ralph.
I don't know why it would make you laugh. The one of the offical designations was .22/32 Heavy Frame Target.

 

[JSR III]

This gun has had several names over the years. The Bekeart ad slick referred to it as the Model 1911 and Heavy Frame Target. Remember until the 1930's when the heavier K frame 22's were introduced, it was S&W's heaviest .22 revolver. After the K-22's were introduced that term was dropped. Hopefully attached are photos of the S&W Catalog D2 with a date of January 1, 1921 showing that is was in fact listed on page 15 as the Heavy Frame Target weighing in at a whopping 22 3/4 ounces.

 

[JSR III]

Check pages 93-94 of McHenry & Roper and read a good representation of how Beakeart was involved

I have read those pages and while some of the information is correct, some is not.

It states that Bekeart received his 1,000 gun order around 1908 according to Colonel Hatcher however, we know that is incorrect. It goes on to state that production on a larger scale did not begin until June 1911. Again this is incorrect. Shipping began in June 1911 however production began sometime before that. It also goes on to state that the gun was available with a Patridge front sight and a square notch rear sight. Again, not totally accurate. According to my database, most of the initial shipments of these guns were with a Paine bead front sight and a U notch rear. Yes, the Patridge front sight and square notch rear were available by order but the standard sights were Paine and U notch. The photo in the 1921 D2 catalog on page 15 clearly shows the Paine front sight.

So what is written in books especially when information is quoted from another source must be taken with a grain of salt. Even Dr. Jinks first counted 292 guns being shipped to Bekeart but after doing a recount this number was revised to 294.

Authors are human and mistakes are made. Many times we have seen these mistakes repeated in subsequent books by other authors that have copied information from a prior work.

Again, I firmly believe that Bekeart was involved with the development of this model it is merely the specifics of the initial order that we may never know.

I have yet to find the time to count how the 756 non Bekeart guns break down with other dealers. I don't believe that any one dealer received more than the 294 that went to Bekeart but we do know that M.W. Robinson received 490 in early 1914 that were in serial number sequence albeit not shipped in order as was S&W's normal shipping procedure.

This is almost 200 more guns than Bekeart's shipments but very little is discussed about these 490 guns. I have a 2 in my collection and one loose barrel but they are hard to come by.

My thought is that Robinson shipped a lot of guns overseas and this may be why we don't see a lot of them here in the US.

I have 3 of the 294 Bekeart's and 2 of the Robinson guns in my collection. They are all from different shipment dates so the search continues.

 

[opoefc]

Gary, Sorry, but I don't have those records you mentioned. Bekeart's store in San Francisco was destroyed in the 1906 earthquake. There's a story that he paid a small boy to crawl thru a hole in the ruble into the store's basement to retrieve the store records. ( No, I was not that small boy ! ) Ed Cornett

 

[JSR III]

Ed we know that Bekeart continued in operation after the 1906 earthquake based on his involvement with the .22/32. Where was that and what about those records???

 

[rct269]

Once upon a time, when Roper joined S&W (1920---as reported by Roper in the May 1944 edition of the American Rifleman), he spoke disparagingly about the "Smith & Wesson .22-32"---not about it as respects any particular fault, simply about the fact it was not heavy enough; noting "Using these guns, shooters had difficulty in making scores equal to those possible with the heavier guns shooting the .38 Special cartridge." My reference to getting a good laugh was in reference to his opinion of the suitability of the gun for use in serious competition----never mind S&W's choice to call it a Heavy Frame Target----perhaps in defense of the fact they didn't have a .22 caliber Heavy Frame Target at the time---and wouldn't have for another 10 years.

He then went on to tell the tale of what he was told by his "Chief", a Mr. David Reddie at S&W. (It might be interesting if Don could get his hands on the personnel records of the time to see if Roper spelled Mr. Reddie's name correctly.) The tale told was of 20 (REAL) heavy frame (.22) targets built by S&W in 1910 (thereabouts)---a special order for the Army. The gist of the story is they didn't shoot worth a damn (frequent fliers), were returned, and destroyed---all but one which was given to Roper with the suggestion "Sometime you might like to try this gun. Maybe you can discover why it doesn't shoot as it should." Roper did just that, and discovered the rifling was 1 in 10. He goes on to state "How it came to be made that way I've no idea. I knew, and certainly Smith & Wesson knew, that about one turn in sixteen inches was correct-----------------."

So much for that, if any who wish to read about all this for themselves, it's on pages 24 and 25 of the May, 1944 edition of the American Rifleman.

As an extra added attraction, there's a little filler article on page 25--"LET'S EAT A CHUCK!"----gives you the preparation and recipe, and even claims "You'll find, perhaps to your surprise----it's good!"

Ralph Tremaine

As an aside, Roper was also told S&W folks had already decided why it didn't shoot as it should---the throat was too long. Step one of Roper's study was to sacrifice "a first class single shot barrel in an experiment.", where he had the throat made longer. He notes, "I had no machine rest, but many careful tests using a forearm rest, showed groups still considerably tighter than I could get with the .22-38 Smith & Wesson-----and I got no flyers!"

 

[JSR III]

Again Ralph, the .22/32 I frame was very robust at 22 3/4 ounces and compared quite closely to the single shot targets of the day. Compared to the smaller M frame .22 revolvers that collectors refer to as the Ladysmith, it was heavier and by frame size, larger.

In the mid 30's when the K frame .22's came out and if I recall they were around 38 oz's to mimic the K .32 and K .38 revolvers the 22 3/4 oz .22/32 would seem quite the light weight.

 

[rct269]

Again Ralph, the .22/32 I frame was very robust at 22 3/4 ounces and compared quite closely to the single shot targets of the day. Compared to the smaller M frame .22 revolvers that collectors refer to as the Ladysmith, it was heavier and by frame size, larger.

In the mid 30's when the K frame .22's came out and if I recall they were around 38 oz's to mimic the K .32 and K .38 revolvers the 22 3/4 oz .22/32 would seem quite the light weight.

You probably need to be talking to Roper et al, I've already noted my opinion of a "neat little gun" elsewhere.

And as an aside, the disparaging opinions of the 22-32 were cited as respects its use in the "Any Revolver" matches of the day----not as respects the comparative weight of a single shot.

Ralph Tremaine

 

[glowe]

. . . In the mid 30's when the K frame .22's came out and if I recall they were around 38 oz's to mimic the K .32 and K .38 revolvers the 22 3/4 oz .22/32 would seem quite the light weight.

The K frame 22 Outdoorsman's revolver came out in 1930 and were 35 ounces. The company said it was accurate as a watch and as sturdy as a tractor! The 38 M&P Target revolver was 31 ounces. The 22/32 HFT weighed only 22 ounces. It was not until the mid-1950s that the company first made all three calibers the same weight by widening the barrel rib on the K-32 and K-38 Masterpiece line.

 

[Hondo44]

Another informative thread on the HFT.

Rivaled only by the story of the "mistake" for why the K22 took 20 years from concept to production.

 

[RKmesa]

I very much enjoyed the above discussion. The only thing missing in this thread is some photos... so, here are some quick iPhone photos of a well-used Bekeart-shipped (6/30/1911) "22/32 Heavy Frame Target Model":





And a glamour shot of a pretty-dang-mint K-22 Outdoorsman ("22-38 H.E.") that shipped almost exactly twenty years after the above "Bekeart" on 6/29/1931









Both are great S&W models with a wonderfully rich design history.

 

[opoefc]

JSRIII ( James) I believe I read the story about the Bekeart records & the SF Earthquake in the Bekeart family history book later published by the Bekeart descendents. The SF store was briefly moved to Oakland after the quake and operated there. Ed

 

[JSR III]

Bekeart-shipped (6/30/1911) "22/32 Heavy Frame Target Model":

and with a Sheard copper bead front sight no less!!!