.44 Special ctg?!?

[Dpris]

Having had more than one revolver barrel shortened on more than one brand, I've never yet come out with the rollmarks that centered, they're always "forward".
Looks original to me.

A letter would be well worth the money to see how it shipped.
Denis

 

[Zooyork77]

Ok, so i spoke with my grandmother and she told me that the gun was originally given to my grandfather by a close friend who used it as his serviceman's revolver when he was a deputy sheriff. this was sometime after my grandfather left the service in the 1950's. My grandfather never had any work done to this gun or any of his other guns, that's just the way he was. Most of the firearms he had, he acquired through friends and family and he never had any of them worked on or sold them. This gun has a had a trigger job also because the single action is EXTREMELY sensative... and thank you for all the help getting the link to get its paper work, i will be doing that soon.

 

[Art Doc]

Both are 1950 Target 44s. Upper gun has an original 5" barrel, lower gun had its barrel shortened. Roll marks are within 1/16" of being identical. Looking at the markings gives no indication it was cut.

I am basing my assumption on two facts: 1) A 3.5" 1950? When did anybody last see one? Of course anything is possible on special order, but what are the odds? A serious collector posted recently that maybe 50 4" 1950s were made, and that was sort of a standard barrel length. How many 3.5" guns could have been made and again, what are the odds this happens to be one of the 2 or 3 made? (If there were 2 or 3 made which I seriously doubt.)

2) The gun is refinished. Any known modification makes me think any deviation from standard is also a modification. If the gun were otherwise perfect with original finish I might (might) be tempted to think it original. But refinished? Nope.

gkitch- You're on.

 

[Hondo44]

gkitch,

I agree, even if one were to cut an original 4" barrel, the roll marks wouldn't even be close to centered!
Here's a thread with some lettered 4" .44s:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-hand-ejectors-1896-1961/212626-44-pre-24-four-inch.html

 

[Hondo44]

Zooyork77,

Even if your gun does not letter with a 3 1/2" barrel, you can then send to the SW Historical Foundation to see if it went back to the factory to have the barrel cut to 3 1/2" in which case it probably would have been re-rollmarked.

Look under the left stock for a 3 or 4 digit date code indicating it was worked on at the factory.

 

[Muley Gil]

Welcome to the Forum, Blake.

By any chance is the top of the frame, the barrel, and the rear sight checkered? Standard would be parallel grooves.

 

[rck281]

I am basing my assumption on two facts: 1) A 3.5" 1950? When did anybody last see one? Of course anything is possible on special order, but what are the odds? A serious collector posted recently that maybe 50 4" 1950s were made, and that was sort of a standard barrel length. How many 3.5" guns could have been made and again, what are the odds this happens to be one of the 2 or 3 made? (If there were 2 or 3 made which I seriously doubt.)
gkitch- You're on.

IMHO There are significantly more than 50 4" guns. I currently own 3 that letter. I would guess the number in the 200 to 300 range (more than the 202 1950 Targets in 45 Colt and less than the 500 5" 44 Magnums was the rationale provided to me). However, I would say that there are less than 50 of the 5" guns - maybe 35. Nobody really knows how the production of 5050 guns was distributed. How many were nickel or pintos? I believe a serial number has been found for a 3 1/2" gun but I doubt this is it. If it is the only know example, some will pay good money to purchase it.

 

[Hondo44]

Welcome to the Forum, Blake.

By any chance is the top of the frame, the barrel, and the rear sight checkered? Standard would be parallel grooves.

Good question! I can even detect the front sight corrosion problem between the sight base and rib that was so pevalent in these mid-50 N frames.

 

[glowe]

Barrel side roll marks on this model are all not centered. This goes all the way back to the early M&Ps. Many I have seen start about 3/4" from the frame no matter what length the barrel. The 1952 S&W catalog states the 1952 Target only came with a 6 1/2" barrel. Also, the catalog shows only a partridge front sight for target models, while yours has what looks like a Masterpiece front sight. Having said this, SaxonPig's guns clearly show that there are differences in the way they came from the factory. No configuration is impossible when it comes to S&Ws, but the factory letter will tell the tale.

It is quite simple to have the nickel removed from the hammer and trigger, then have them re-case hardened.

Should be a great shooter!!

 

[keith44spl]

Anybody want to put $5 on it right now? I say cut.

QUOTE]

SP, jest between friends...I'll take sum of that action!



And here's why...I've personally cut off 5 or 6 1950 44 Special barrels.

All were of the common 6 1/2" variety. To finish out with the roll marks anywhere close to center, whey were cut in the 4 7/8 to 5 inch lengths.

Below is photos of my un-cut factory four inch, five inch and a 6 1/2 inch.
I don't believe I could just cut one off and have the roll marks on both sides as close to center as the OP's photos show of his grandfather's revolver.

Su Amigo,
Dave

 

[Masterpiece]

I've never yet come out with the rollmarks that centered, they're always "forward".

Dpris's Quote is the closest one I could find to making my point about my previous observations concerning the Barrel Roll-Markings on Blake's Revolver so here goes!!

Granted the OP's Photos aren't the clearest, but if you look closely you'll see both the Smith & Wesson on the Left Side as well as the 44 S. & W. Special Ctg. on the Right Side of the Barrel are "Well" to the Rear of where I've ever seen any Rollmarks placed on one of these Barrels!! That is why I have good reason to believe this has a very good chance of "Lettering" with the 3 1/2" Barrel Length!! Fact is, the 44 on the Caliber marked side is nearly, if not into the Barrel Taper before it starts to blend into the Straight Section of the Barrel!!

Also, the Roll-Markings on "Both" Sides barely extend past the Retaining Pin in the Barrel Shroud!! I have never seen even a 4" have the Roll-Marks placed that far rearward!! On most all the 4-Inchers the Pin lines up somewhere in the near vicinity of the "L" in Special & as you can clearly see in Blake's Photo of that location it's between the "T & G" in Ctg.!!

Now I realize all of the above doesn't "Absolutely" confirm in any way that this Revolver left the Factory as a 3 1/2", but I do believe it should raise enough doubt that it has a better than average chance of being so!! Of course, as we all know, it's Roy's Letter that's going to tell the final tale, but I do have my fingers crossed for Blake that it does!!

 

[Masterpiece]

I can even detect the front sight corrosion problem between the sight base and rib that was so prevalent in these mid-50 N frames.

Jim,
Another very good observation to consider!!

 

[moosedog]

Nice old revolver. Your Grandfather had very good taste in guns.
If it was me, I would leave it just the way your Grandfather had it.
No matter how many times you "restore" a gun, you still will have a refinished gun and less money.
It is nice as is.

 

[Zooyork77]

I have some new pictures

here yah go!!

 

[Zooyork77]

more

here is some more

 

[Muley Gil]

IIRC, the digit "4" in picture number 4 in the first set indicates the revolver was built as a .44.

 

[keith44spl]

Blake,

Your revolver is missing the main spring strain screw....


Dave

 

[Masterpiece]

here yah go!!

Hi Blake,

I really appreciate you posting the Photos!! I'll have to say with the exception of the "B" stamping indicating it was most likely a Blued Revolver when it left the Factory, I'd have to think my previous observations of this being an Original 3 1/2" Revolver have a good possibility of being true as I see nothing else out of the ordinary!! No Rework Dates, Stamps or otherwise!! Still got my fingers crossed for you Buddy!!
*************************************************************************************
Sorry Blake, missed the Second Batch of Photos first time through!! Grips aren't matching, but that's not of much concern!! It would have been nice if they were, but what's gone's gone now!!

 

[Hondo44]

Hi Blake,

I really appreciate you posting the Photos!! I'll have to say with the exception of the "B" stamping indicating it was most likely a Blued Revolver when it left the Factory, I'd have to think my previous observations of this being an Original 3 1/2" Revolver have a good possibility of being true as I see nothing else out of the ordinary!! No Rework Dates, Stamps or otherwise!! Still got my fingers crossed for you Buddy!!

Yep, good photos and I agree with Masterpiece. And as Dave noticed your mainspring 'strain' screw is missing. The spring is almost completely relaxed and why the hammer and trigger pull are so light as you mentioned above. Can't wait to see your letter! Recognize it'll take a couple of months.

 

[Masterpiece]

And as Dave noticed your mainspring 'strain' screw is missing. The spring is almost completely relaxed and why the hammer and trigger pull are so light as you mentioned above.

Dave & Jim,

FYI, if you look closely at Blake's Original Full Side View Photo of the Revolver, you'll see the Strain Screw is there, but someone either intentionally trimmed it back to lighten the Hammer & Trigger Pull or the non-threaded area of the Screw broke off sometime over the years!! Regardless of the circumstance, if it were me, I'd replace it as that light of a Trigger can be somewhat dangerous in certain situations!!