.44 Special ctg?!?

Masterpiece said:
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!!
Click to expand...

Yeah you're right. It's almost the exact same view but looks like a dark hole in post #35.
 
Hondo44 said:
Yeah you're right. It's almost the exact same view but looks like a dark hole in post #35.
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,

Hmmm....looks as though you're right as well!! The photo in Post 35 was too small for me to see so I didn't catch that until I moved it to where I could enlarge it!! I wonder if maybe he didn't remove it for some reason when he checked under the Grips for markings on the Frame because it's most certainly present in the earlier photo??
 
SaxonPig said:
Post #34, photo #5.
Click to expand...


Whatcha seeing there SP?


I thought the barrel finished a lit'l long in relationship to the ejector rod housing...
But, with S&W barrel length tolerances, it could be with-in the limits set by production.

So, I pulled out a couple of 1950 Target .44 Specials and measured around on 'em some and
I now believe the OP's revolver barrel to be dead-nuts on the money.

Ya want to raise the sportin' side of this to say a twenty? ;):D


Su Amigo,
Dave



*************************************************************************************



Masterpiece said:
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!!
Click to expand...


I can't rightly tell from the pics, but in the original post it looks like I can see the
head of the strain screw...Blake may have simply removed it while removing the grip panels.

Hope this mystery gets solved....One of these days. :D
 
Last edited:
Masterpiece said:
Hi Dave,

I'm kind of wonderin' that myself!!

QUOTE]


Master,

All I see is the bit of corrosion between the ramp & rib.

But we've already determined I believe, that the revolver was original a blued piece.

It's not unusual to see bluing salts leach damage in that area with pinned on blued barrels.

Other that that...And another thing, I don't see any evidence of the flush ramp pins being monkey'd with.

Most time with finish of this nature, and if the barrel had been cut off post finish production,
you'd see where the pins would look sort of peculiar, I'd think.

Su Amigo,
Dave
Click to expand...
 
keith44spl said:
Hi Dave, I'm kind of wonderin' that myself!!QUOTE]


Master,

All I see is the bit of corrosion between the ramp & rib.

But we've already determined I believe, that the revolver was original a blued piece.

It's not unusual to see bluing salts leach damage in that area with pinned on blued barrels.

Other that that...And another thing, I don't see any evidence of the flush ramp pins being monkey'd with.

Most time with finish of this nature, and if the barrel had been cut off post finish production,
you'd see where the pins would look sort of peculiar, I'd think.

Su Amigo,
Dave
Click to expand...
Hi Dave,

Sorry you took my Post as being directed your way, but it was actually my intent to direct it towards SP to see what he wanted us to look at in Blake's Photo!! For the life of me I still don't have a clue, unless he wanted us to see how the Barrel was crowned!! If that's the case, it most assuredly looks Factory to me....Don't you??

Also, I'm full well in agreement with you on the corrosion & pin issues!! Especially with the bluing salts bleeding out from under the Sight Base onto the finish!! Very common on these 50's Era Revolvers as Jim (Hondo44) also brought up the other day!!

All in all, this Revolver is still screamin' original to me & hopefully when Blake's Letter comes back Roy will verify it as so.....with the exception of the Nickel Finish of course!!
 
Masterpiece,

I do believe you and I and several more are thinking along the same line...

The roll marks look to be as a one off set up and not that of a production run.

I could be fooled here...But I don't think so.

I really hope for Blake sake that this thing letter's to the 'T' !
That would be really something neat.

As far as whether anyone's right or wrong on this being original,
I take it all as jest good natured fun.

In the end, sumbodys may have to move back to the shallow end....Of this here 'Think Tank' ! ;):D

Su Amigo,
Dave
 
keith44spl said:
The roll marks look to be as a one off set up and not that of a production run.

I really hope for Blake sake that this thing letter's to the 'T' !
That would be really something neat.
Click to expand...

Dave,

I'm rooting for Blake as well!! Not only would it nice to hear it's Original for his sake, but if it "Letters" as such, it's also going to be one of the Rarest Configured 1950 Targets out there!! Maybe the Rarest, seeings it's going to be more scarce...by far...than the 5-Inchers & the ones chambered in 45 Colt!!
 
Last edited:
$50.
That's my bet.
Sorry, but I'm betting against the gun.
Cover me?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VM
I'm going with that barrel is factory a 3 1/2 inch barrel. When the barrels are cut they are cut from the muzzle end, not the frame end, so the roll stamp and ejector shroud remains in the same position in relation to the frame. I don't recall seeing any .44 barrels with the stamps that far back and near the frame. That is the same position you see the stamps on 3 1/2 inch 27s.
 
handejector said:
$50.
That's my bet.
Sorry, but I'm betting against the gun.
Cover me?
Click to expand...


Now were talkin'....I'll take that bet !

I think she'll be made that way from the start.
Even with all the poor post production work, the roll marks look right.
A liken to a 1950 Target in .357 magnum with a 3 1/2 barrel...Cept this'n sez .44 S&W SPECIAL CTG.


We all know the pre-war magnums were roll marked back purty deep on the shank end of the tubes,
so for to be cut to customer order lengths.

I wouldn't rule out a toolroom job neither. My mother's younger brother worked as
tool & gage maker for Colt and he had sum purty neat stuff too.

Cause ya jest never can tell, we all might come out of this'n with a lil't dough or not! ;)


Su Amigo,
Dave
 
Last edited:
A letter on this revolver is essential and I would encourage the forms be sent in now. The letter will give us a definitive answer unless the gun is "open on the books".

Bill
 
Doc44 said:
A letter on this revolver is essential and I would encourage the forms be sent in now. The letter will give us a definitive answer unless the gun is "open on the books".
Bill
Click to expand...

Bill,

That's exactly what I encouraged Blake to do when I sent him the PDF to print out the Request Form for the Letter!!

By the way, you would have to throw that in about being "open on the books"!! I hope for his sake this is not the case, but there's always that chance!! We'll see in a bit!!

Thanks!!
 
old bear said:
Who's going to pay for the letter? Are we, as a collective going to send the O/P the $50.00 to pay for the letter?
Click to expand...



Sumbody in this crowd ought to have enough juice to find out sumthing....



All I could do is run it through NCIC.........;):D:eek:


Su Amigo,
Dave
 
  • Like
Reactions: A10
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
ID Help
Replies
8
Views
870
Muley Gil
M
J
38 S&W Special CTG
Replies
3
Views
631
sceva
sceva
H
History Hunt
Replies
4
Views
456
Wiregrassguy
Wiregrassguy
J
Date my 38 Special
Replies
4
Views
616
Goony
Goony
C
Please help with grandpas 38 Special
Replies
10
Views
1K
janman
janman

Latest posts

Back
Top