38 M&P?

LMD, you possess a great family heirloom. Knowing the history of such things adds so much more to the story. I noticed something when I looked at the pictures. Did your grandfather have large hands? Unless the light is playing tricks on my eyes, it looks like his gun has some inserts (white) placed between the grips and the frame. That would make the grip feel larger in his hand. I would love to see pictures of the grips on the gun from the front, back, and bottom if possible.:)
Larry
 
The sight in post #19 is another not treated in Neal's article. Most all of the sights not treated are fronts. The only known rear not treated is the so-called "Large Screw Spring Up" item I stumbled upon 20 some odd years ago.

I've noted this before, but the factory kept no records on sights except for three that were patented---and only one of those (the Micrometer Click) was ever used. The research for the article was done by "observation". In plain English, if Neal or one of his legion of helpers didn't see any particular sight on a gun, it isn't in the article. (I have Neal's entire file on the article, and it was a prodigious undertaking!!)

The only weird sight I ever had was on a Triple Lock Target---a great tall sail with a full length gold bead on top-----NUMBERED to the gun. It looked for all the world like a Sheard, possibly a King, but there was no name on it. I had the gun over at Southern Precision for some work, and one of their folks said "It's a King!!" This was a crusty old guy, and he said it in a tone and with emphasis which told you he didn't expect any back talk---so he didn't get any!!

Ralph Tremaine
 
I have a M&P Target #648366 with a gold bead front sight. It has the slickest DA trigger of all the Smiths I have owned or shot, including a couple Performance Center guns. You’ve got a real peach there.
 
I have a M&P Target #648366 with a gold bead front sight. It has the slickest DA trigger of all the Smiths I have owned or shot, including a couple Performance Center guns. You’ve got a real peach there.

The slickest trigger of all you have owned MAY have been the result of the TLC afforded all S&W targets of the time----never mind this TLC was focused on single action use----or least seemed to be that way to me. I don't know when this TLC started---nor when it ended---if it ended, but I checked the S.A. trigger pull on the 14 M&P targets in my collection of target guns. These guns ranged from two 1902 versions to the last (from 1936). As an aside, the specification for S.A. trigger pull on targets was 3 to 4 lbs. (5 to 7 on fixed sight guns). At any rate, the S.A. pull on these 14 guns was 3.5 Lbs.----right down the line---from 1902 to 1936---at least.

Here's what's what from the 1925 Catalog (This from the M&P Target page.): "-------a special type of trigger pull is desirable-----not by any means simply a very light pull, but one having the peculiar quality termed "short and crisp" by shooters. This not only requires a special type of notch and trigger point, but requires a different adjustment of the working parts of the action as well." (They neglect to tell us which working parts of the action---or what sort of different adjustment, but that's understandable seeing as how anybody could be reading this catalog---and very likely were reading it!) I'd for damn sure be reading it if my paycheck came from Colt!!

Ralph Tremaine

Speaking of Colt (and I've told at least part of this story before), I had what we came to call "a Roper Colt". It was an Officers Model 38. It'd been to Roper's shop, where his lads had their way with it----grips/sights/action job---and some cosmetic alterations (polishing the leads into the cylinder stop notch leads, and left them "in the white" such that there'd be no visible turn line)---very sneaky!!

At any rate, part of the action job consisted of the use of a hammer, the likes of which bore no resemblance whatsoever to the stock Colt hammer. Needless to say, the geometry was the same, but the profile wasn't even close to the same!

I took this gun to my gunsmith to show off. He sat there on his three legged stool, wearing his leather apron, and puffing on his pipe; and said, "You know, I hate these effing Colts, but whoever did that action job REALLY knew what they were doing!!" High praise from a very sharp guy!!

I wondered who in the world could have made that hammer without it costing a gazillion dollars. It took awhile, but I finally came to the only realization that made any sense: Colt made it---only they made it to Roper's specifications---which involved a trip to their milling machine where it got a new shape----and lost A LOT of weight!!

A belated thought: If you want the slickest trigger of all you've ever owned, break loose of $20-$30, and get yourself a Miculek spring kit. Stuff it in----EXACTLY as you're told in the instructions, and you'll have it. If ANYBODY knows what's what with the innards of a S&W hand ejector, it's Jerry Miculek! And with this spring kit you'll have any D.A. trigger pull weight you want! Note he tells you to not go below 7 lbs. lest your toy won't go bang.

Now the reason to install it EXACTLY as you're told is because I didn't---the first time around. I've been in and out of 200 and some odd S&W hand ejectors in my time, and I for damn sure don't need any instructions to tell me how to swap out a couple of springs!! Well, maybe---and then again, maybe not. NOTHING would move when I finished---the first time around! Okay, maybe I better have a look at those instructions. Everything worked just fine---the second time around. Again, note you can have any weight D.A. trigger pull you want!
 
Last edited:
Factory front target sights were placed in a half moon cut in the top of the sight base on target revolvers. It extend to just short of the front and back, so a target sight will fit in the slot and come end to end on the sight base. All pre-WWII guns I have seen and read about had the same feature. Just a little extra care taken to assure a perfect fit and appearance. Lots of alterations found post-factory would have just cut a straight slot through the sight base, leaving the ends of the slot visible, or sometimes the sight blade did not match the length of the sight base leaving part of the top sight base showing. As far as the OP's gun, it is not original and neither is the base?? If you look at the image of the front sight, you will see a solder line that does not fill all the voids under the base. Sight base on factory guns were forged with the barrel.

attachment.php


As I noted in an earlier post, Robert Neal's references to sights for S&Ws shows the standard line of front sights available at the factory. There are actually about a half-dozen sight that were available at the time of the OP's revolver. Sights like Lyman, Call, Paine, Patridge, and Marbles were standard offerings for hand ejectors in the pre-1930s guns. The factory also did some special work, altering or making custom blades, but I do not see many that letter. Have one target M&P that had an odd front sight and had conversations with Roy who stated it was an early factory ramped front sight for a shooter or law enforcement officer. It is not pretty, but would not catch a holster when drawn. It is understood that he found that information on the invoice from 1910 that stated Lewis E Petry, New York. The factory letter stated the type of front sight, and that he paid $30.38 for the gun. The sight has the entire serial number stamped on the bottom half moon insert. Pictures below.

attachment.php

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • P1010001.jpg
    P1010001.jpg
    120.1 KB · Views: 142
  • 38 M&P 154974 Letter.jpg
    38 M&P 154974 Letter.jpg
    70.2 KB · Views: 136
  • IMG_3735.jpg
    IMG_3735.jpg
    24.4 KB · Views: 138
Last edited:
Factory front target sights were placed in a half moon cut in the top of the sight base on target revolvers. It extend to just short of the front and back, so a target sight will fit in the slot and come end to end on the sight base. All pre-WWII guns I have seen and read about had the same feature.
Gary,
I'll agree with you on the early 20th century guns you collect.
However, I'll disagree with you on guns from the very late 20s and through the 30s.
By then, the Patridge blades almost never come to the rear edge of the base.
This is true on 38 M&P Targets, K-22 ODs, K-22/40s, K-32s, 38 ODs, 44 Targets, and 357 Mags.


38 M&P-
attachment.php



38 M&P-
attachment.php


44 Target-

attachment.php


38OD-
attachment.php


22 OD-

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0173.jpg
    IMG_0173.jpg
    73.4 KB · Views: 131
  • IMG_6169.JPG
    IMG_6169.JPG
    89.9 KB · Views: 133
  • IMG_6111.JPG
    IMG_6111.JPG
    80.7 KB · Views: 130
  • IMG_3316.JPG
    IMG_3316.JPG
    87.7 KB · Views: 131
  • IMG_2849.JPG
    IMG_2849.JPG
    75 KB · Views: 130
Last edited:
Thanks for the clarification. I have some 30s guns with the short sights, should have looked. Even have a McGivern shipped gun and the McGivern sight blade is also short.

Even though the OPs sight base was soldered on, I guess it could still be an altered Patridge blade.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • P1010006.jpg
    P1010006.jpg
    124.6 KB · Views: 132
As far as the OP's gun, it is not original and neither is the base?? If you look at the image of the front sight, you will see a solder line that does not fill all the voids under the base. Sight base on factory guns were forged with the barrel.

attachment.php
Ha!!!!!!!!!
I missed that!
However, we know his gun almost certainly shipped as a Target because of the grooved tangs.
My guess is someone (Grandpa??) wanted a different front sight, maybe to draw easier, or possibly just a cobbled up job of repairing a damaged sight.
 
M&P Targets are my favorite prewar guns. The front sight pin looks to have been out and the base looks odd, but could be lighting I suppose.
I marked this pic.
64-FE5-B64-4-CBF-4-BDF-866-C-1-EFB3788-B835.jpg


Also looks like the stocks are shimmed out. Nice to have a gun with family history.
 
LMD, you possess a great family heirloom. Knowing the history of such things adds so much more to the story. I noticed something when I looked at the pictures. Did your grandfather have large hands? Unless the light is playing tricks on my eyes, it looks like his gun has some inserts (white) placed between the grips and the frame. That would make the grip feel larger in his hand. I would love to see pictures of the grips on the gun from the front, back, and bottom if possible.:)
Larry

White plastic shims about 1/16 of an inch. To me the stock circle (s) are too proud of the frame, and a fat long questionable stock screw. The trigger looks checkered to me! Not the expected serrated,, but pictures of the “plastic “ shims, would be awesome. Your Grandpa was definitely a shootist
 
Guy's got a kool piece. link below is my Ruger example

Too Much Black is Never a Good Thing

it's a good mod if it fits your hand better. My insert examples were .045 each.

Thanks for the awesome link, yes that’s what I thought I was seeing in the OPs pictures.

You do very fine work. I hope LMD returns., I also thought about a Tyler grip insert and the thickness of those, compared to the OPs mystery shims.
 
Back
Top