A King-Marked McGivern Outdoorsman with Shortened Hammer Throw

[DCWilson]

Bob, thanks for the recent history on this gun and the kind words. I had the feeling it had been kicking around the gun shows for a little bit, and I thought I had better move if I was going to go home with a McGivern OD. Lee Jarrett had one on his table that got away before I made up my mind to talk to him about it.

Your gun is a beauty. Do the stocks number to the gun? If so, they must be among the earliest magnas shipped on a S&W N-frame.

With input from the Colt Forum, where I inquired about Colt revolvers that might be marked this way, I believe the King legend is inscribed with a pantograph instead of being rollmarked or stamped. That seems like a pretty highfalutin way to mark a gun on which a company did some custom work. I am more and more wondering if this legend is actually an assertion of ownership by D.W. King or his company.

With your gun I now have the serial numbers of 13 McGivern Outdoorsman models. There seem to have been three or four more in auctions over the last couple of years whose serial numbers I haven't yet recovered, but which may still be available in archived auction catalogs. I imagine a few more hours of research will possibly turn up half a dozen more serial numbers. We'll see.

 

[DCWilson]

Dan, you posted while I was composing a reply to Bob. Thanks for calling my mind analytical, but I think I am just flailing about in deep water while waiting for the lifeguards to show up and get me to drop the lunatic notions that are functioning like lead weights on a dive belt.

That King inscription on the interior of the sideplate is just so different that I don't know how to think about it. I do believe that it is a pantograph-assisted inscription rather than a rollmark. Something that big would distort the thin sideplate if it was pressed in, and the sideplate wouldn't fit the gun any more.

 

[bettis1]

David,

Unfortunately, the grips don't number to the gun.

My gun (44687) shipped to J.E. Haseltine & Co. in Portland, OR on July 31, 1936. As I recall, several of the other McGivern Outdoorsmen were also shipped to the West Coast. Perhaps coincidence or perhaps the "word" was just spread more quickly on the "left side".

I look forward to your analysis of your data on these fascinating guns.

Bob

 

[linde]

. . . A bit ago we had an extended discussion here (can't find the link right now) on the presence or absence of the various sight beads and the grooves on the back/fore straps . . . Mine here has no bead and both straps are grooved.

Bob,

Not sure we ever reached a conclusion on what feature set qualifies to be called a McGivern Model, but both of these threads offer informed opinions on the subject.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-ha.../315999-38-44-outdoorsman-question-forum.html
http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-ha...339-38-44-mcgivern-model-k-5-outdoorsman.html

Russ

 

[bettis1]

Thanks for bringing those links back to the front, Russ.

I don't think that we know enough to definitively nail down everything about the McGivern Outdoorsman/Heavy Duty Target just yet. But, if we continue to follow the scientific method of analyzing these things it is possible that we may be able to draw a conclusion that will stand close scrutiny.

I think that it is altogether possible that there were several lines of evolution in this design.

Bob

 

[DCWilson]

Russ, your gun from the second thread you linked to and the other 6/18/34 Seattle guns now bring me to 20 observed or documented McGivern ODs, but that's no guarantee that all 20 are visible in the collector community. I think I know the numbers of two existing Seattle guns, and there seems to be another Seattle gun whose number I don't know. The other five are at least temporarily on my "not observed" list.

Do we know the serial numbers of all 8 guns that went to Seattle? Looks like they might be consecutive, or mostly so. Then again they could be scattered and it is just a coincidence that two are numbered within a few digits of each other.

 

[shouldazagged]

Splendid revolver and your usual fine, thoughtful analysis, David. It's good to see you in your teaching role, or anything else you want to do here.

 

[chud333]

Very Nice indeed. I would be proud to own that
(modified) gun. Anything done by King is a plus in
my book.
Thanks for sharing and great find.

Chuck

 

[linde]

. . . Do we know the serial numbers of all 8 guns that went to Seattle? Looks like they might be consecutive, or mostly so. Then again they could be scattered and it is just a coincidence that two are numbered within a few digits of each other.

Unfortunately we (I) don't know the serial numbers. The Historical Foundation's search of correspondence and shipping records was helpful . . . but not when it came to serial numbers.

Russ

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Very nice example. I am really impressed by the detailed work internally.

 

[woreout]

I have two Colt DA revolvers with the short action. Both have King sights and cockeyed hammers so it is reasonable to think the action job is King's too. Took the sideplates off but other than matching serial numbers for the gun there is no King marking on the side plate... dammit.

 

[DCWilson]

Sending this old thread back to the top with initial-post images restored.

 

[RKmesa]

Sending this old thread back to the top with initial-post images restored.

Very fun to re-read this thread and look at the informative photos.

Thanks David for thowing it to the top.

 

[Green Frog]

I like it all over again! Thanks for the extra effort David.

Froggie

 

[SAFireman]

David,

As a fan of the King guns, a big thank you! for putting this up again.

I am going to have to pull some side plates and see if any of mine are marked inside.

 

[usmc2427765]

The most fun you will ever have with your pants on is becoming a part of the S&W Forum. You will not regret it !!