38 hand ejector 38Spl

[walter o]

Just got this today .a 38 cal hand ejector 4 th revision (I think) S/N 484062.
think it was shipped @ 1925. 6" barrel has light turn ring other wise bluing v good, stocks not # at all but i think are original to the gun .Any help or comments about age or value will be appreciated
\

 

[NovaJoe]

What a beauty!

 

[murphydog]

The stocks and other visible details are correct for the SN, and the production year sounds about right. It's in exceptional condition for a gun of that vintage, but I bet you already knew that . Enjoy!

 

[DWalt]

The stocks would be serial numbered in pencil, but frequently you cannot see the pencil markings. But the grips are period-correct for the 1920s. It's more likely to have been shipped in 1924. I have an M&P pretty much like it in the same condition, but it's slightly older (1922). It's properly called an M&P at that time.

 

[bedbugbilly]

You might be able to take the stocks off - take a good digital photo of them and with some photo editing working with contrast and hue adjustment, be able to pull the pencil numbering out if it's there.

Very nice revolver! I'll bet you're tickled to get it!

 

[JP@AK]

Curious. I can't see the Made in USA on the right side. Is it there?

 

[Skeetr57]

I believe that that would be a 5th change rather than a 4th change.

 

[DWalt]

The "Model of 19xx, xth Change" terminology is used only by collectors, not by S&W. And I don't think there is a 5th change.

 

[Skeetr57]

DWalt: You may be absolutely right. I don't refer to the hand ejectors by change number as a rule because it is too hard to keep straight in my head. I don't even understand why some changes got a number and others didn't. For example, I don't think the change from the first type of hammer block to the second was ever mentioned as a change, but it is every bit as important as the change from a right hand to left hand thread on the ejector rod. Just more mysterious reasoning by the factory.

 

[DWalt]

I agree - the 1926 hammer block change could legitimately have been considered the 5th change, but whoever it was that came up with what they thought constituted a "change" in 1935 (the McHenry & Roper book) apparently didn't think so. I prefer not to even think of or use the various enumerated changes, as they really don't mean much in the grand theme of things. Dates are better. Just as I don't like the use of the term "Transitional" as it is so vague as to be meaningless.

 

[Absalom]

The use of the "Model of 1905, Xth change" terminology in a way parallels that of the screw count.

My observation has been that experienced collectors use it only for the time period where it is actually helpful, in this case until shortly after the 4th change, and don't thereafter.

Just like the number of screws, which (if actually counted correctly) are very helpful for specific models and time periods, but unnecessary for most, the model/change terminology tends to be over-used, and is best enjoyed in small doses.

 

[DWalt]

The problem with using the number of screws is that many unfamiliar with the screw count method don't know what screws to count.