Atrocity Modifications

[Modified]

This is a thread for the sharing of once fine S&W revolvers who found their way into the hands of the worst kind of gun plumber. That spent time in the foul lair of this guy, and emerged deformed and grotesque.

It is also a thread I hope to be educational, if you post a gun point out why the things done to it were an atrocity, and note all the things that you see wrong with it.

First up:

A gun which was once a 1917. Polished to a disgusting degree, making for about the most pronounced sideplate dishing you are ever likely to see.

Equipped with a set of Micro sights, which also were polished heavily, and a set of what appear to have been original targets turned into some kind of uncomfortable as heck "art"

And of course the hack who re-blued this gun had to do the hammer and trigger.

Next up:

What was once a C serialed M&P, also polished well past the point of good taste. Speaking of good taste going out the window we have a jeweled or engine turned trigger.

The sights and hammer have also been bad touched.

It's difficult to tell what exactly is going on with them, and I'm not sure what kind of sight the rear even is. it appears to be resting atop of the frame more or less. The front sight appears to have been built up, before it too was treated to the not so tender buffing wheel.

The hammer was also modified, but again it's difficult to tell what exactly happened to it.

In both cases these guns both fall into this category:

With such outward molestation, who knows what kind of dangerous gun plumbing went on inside...

 

[kb1903]

Seems pretty harsh, the guns and your comments. Who knows how long ago these were done, and probably had little to no collector value at the time. Someone wanted a target type revolver and may have spent a lot less doing these guns the way he wanted rather than spend the money on a new one, which maybe was out of his reach price wise.
No. Not a fan of the guns, but trying to give who ever had them done the benefit of the doubt. Just my 2 cents.

 

[mk70ss]

Neither of those guns offends me in any way. I would not have made those exact modifications to them, but they both are probably damn fine shooters.

 

[growr]

Any revolver that had the trigger guard "Fitzed"

Randy

 

[Inusuit]

I'm in the "your gun, your money, your way" camp. I wouldn't do this to my firearms nor would I be interested in purchasing the pictured examples.

I do hold a small grudge against the individual/previous owner who modified the sight and reblued my Colt 1917. Didn't stop me from buying it when I though the price was right and it fed my big ol' Colt fantasies.

 

[Absalom]

Indeed, you can't account for taste. And those guns in the first post had a higher value as they were before only to the relatively small minority of us who see originality as an ideal.

For the gun's owner, hey, whatever works.

"Fitzing" the triggerguard is a different matter. That's not taste, that's dumb and dangerous.

 

[BigBill]

It's like seeing a mint 1960's corvette turned into a gasser.
I don't do that to any gun nor buy one like that. I did buy a ruger shh with a 10.5" barrel in 44 mg that was drilled for scopemounts but it was dirt cheap.

 

[sigp220.45]

I like 'em.

I don't subscribe to the "I'm only the current custodian of this gun" school of thought. Nope - it's mine. If I want to gold plate it or throw it in the river, that's my business.

Same with the Fitz style. I have a reblued Colt OP 4" former NYPD gun that will get the full-Fitz, just to collect harrumphs on the internet.

 

[Ruger 13]

I like the jeweled trigger and hammer, also the grips on the first revolver. The OP probably couldn't jewel a trigger if his life depended on it. Probably done in the 60's or earlier when 1917's were going for $24.95. Can't tell how good of a re-blue job was done with the poor quality pictures nor do we know the condition of the revolver prior to the customizing! Obviously someone did what they wanted with their gun.

 

[STCM(SW)]

Sounds like when I had my 1950 44 target 6" cut down to 5" with ramp sight. Target front sights tear up a holster. Now it doesn't and is a field
revolver.
Some got all upset with that.
My gun, I can do what I want to it......

 

[gerhard1]

I like 'em.

I don't subscribe to the "I'm only the current custodian of this gun" school of thought. Nope - it's mine. If I want to gold plate it or throw it in the river, that's my business.

Same with the Fitz style. I have a reblued Colt OP 4" former NYPD gun that will get the full-Fitz, just to collect harrumphs on the internet.

HARRUMPH!!

 

[JWintergreen]

I might take some flak for this but I am one of those "we should preserve these for the next generation" type of folks. It it is an argument by analogy, but I agree with the classic car comparison. Seeing an out of production classic butchered will always make me cringe.

I think future generations will be glad that there are some folks that sill care for, and maintain, things of great beauty and function. However, a man can't save them all, and you cant lose sleep over things like that.

 

[Wiregrassguy]

Whoo, Caleb! I think you opened a can of wurms.


Here's a 1917 I acquired that had been bobbed a little too much. It removed 1/4" of the locking lug.

Doesn't stop it from shooting, however. And I installed a ball lock in the yoke to compensate.

 

[merl67]

While I would not modify a collectable gun today back when these were done they were just "old guns". The first one was listed on Gunbroker as a factory modified gun that bothered me more than the actual modification. When I contacted the seller and told him there was no way the factory would have let that out the door i was told he loved armchair "experts"...

 

[mikerjf]

A modified gun tells us about the owner. An original gun tells us about the designer.

You might think one is important and not the other, but just to give some examples:

1. Browning's 1911. He designed it without a thumb safety, and the military made him put one on. Which way is the modified abomination?

2. Elmer Keith modified some guns. Abominated classics?

3. Fitz made his trigger guard cut for a reason. Some famous honchos with more street cred than us went with it. Do we call it an abomination *and* call them stupid for going with it? (Hint: Not to their face, if we know what's good for us!

4. Just for discussion, is modifying 1 gun out of a run of 1,000 a crime against history? How about 1 out of 10,000? How many original classics do we need - enough so that they are no longer special or rare?

 

[Modified]

Seems pretty harsh, the guns and your comments. Who knows how long ago these were done, and probably had little to no collector value at the time.

The 1917 would have been done sometime after the late 40's. Judging by the style probably in the 60's or 70's on both of them. Also, collector value isn't the point. I like modified guns. One of my favorite guns is this jalopy of a triple lock:

which is an example of a counterpoint to the notion that these guns had no collector value way back when. Have a look at this bit from a 1935 copy of American Rifleman which describes doing this work:

The next thing was the butchering process, which was fast and furious while it lasted; and some of the onlookers who loved the old Triple-Locks, threw up their hands in holy horror, declaring that a beautiful old six-gun was being cruelly disfigured.

The harshness of this thread is just hyperbole. Of course this was done a long time ago.

I contend that this does not excuse what was done to the guns, and more importantly that we shouldn't be doing similar things to guns today if we can avoid it.

Can't tell how good of a re-blue job was done with the poor quality pictures nor do we know the condition of the revolver prior to the customizing!

Oh but you can tell the quality, even from these pictures.

Which is actually the main point of this thread. I'm very interested in helping people understand a bit better what they may be getting if they were to buy such a gun.

The dishing on the sideplate is a dead giveaway that it was over polished, and done without it being on the gun. A sign of either an amateur or uncaring re-finish.

I you look at the example of my excessively modified triple lock you can also see a similar quality blue job (it is not factory quality), but with significantly more care paid to the metal preparation.

Sounds like when I had my 1950 44 target 6" cut down to 5" with ramp sight. Target front sights tear up a holster. Now it doesn't and is a field
revolver.
Some got all upset with that.
My gun, I can do what I want to it......

Well done sight modifications are a net positive in my opinion. Without seeing a picture I can't comment on anything but the configuration, but I can say that from a configuration standpoint you took the gun to perfection. A 5" 1950 in .44spl is a dream gun in my book.

I might take some flak for this but I am one of those "we should preserve these for the next generation" type of folks. It it is an argument by analogy, but I agree with the classic car comparison. Seeing an out of production classic butchered will always make me cringe.

I think future generations will be glad that there are some folks that sill care for, and maintain, things of great beauty and function. However, a man can't save them all, and you cant lose sleep over things like that.

I somewhat agree with you, but I also think that tastefully upgrading an old example is fine, assuming it is done to a quality level that honors the guys who originally put the gun together.

There is plenty of NIB or high quality examples of nearly any S&W model and configuration out there. If changing your 1950 to have a 5"bbl and ramp sight makes you happy then I am happy you did it, assuming you didn't do it with a hacksaw and then reblued it after savagely attacking it with a buffing wheel.

 

[opoefc]

Maybe an analgy here is something along this line: I have met some lovely ladies in my time who had invested in mamalary enhancement. Whether the after condition surpassed the before condition is purely subjective, of course. However, to the last one, they ( and I) were very satisfied with the result. Ed

 

[clang444]

You don't know what the OP's guns looked like before they were modded. Maybe some really bad pitting had to be polished out. I don't care for the target sites, but I'm sure they are functional. The modded target grips look great, not sure how comfy they are.

 

[Modified]

A modified gun tells us about the owner. An original gun tells us about the designer.

You might think one is important and not the other, but just to give some examples:

1. Browning's 1911. He designed it without a thumb safety, and the military made him put one on. Which way is the modified abomination?

2. Elmer Keith modified some guns. Abominated classics?

3. Fitz made his trigger guard cut for a reason. Some famous honchos with more street cred than us went with it. Do we call it an abomination *and* call them stupid for going with it? (Hint: Not to their face, if we know what's good for us!

4. Just for discussion, is modifying 1 gun out of a run of 1,000 a crime against history? How about 1 out of 10,000? How many original classics do we need - enough so that they are no longer special or rare?

1. That's just iterative design work. It would be an abomination if someone took one of JMB's toolroom prototypes without the thumb safety, added a thumb safety to it, then cerakoted the whole thing.

2. As the proud owner of this thing:



which Elmer apparently let anyone modify, and has been re-finished I have no idea how many times, I feel like I can authoritatively say that it is not an abomination. That said I passed on some of Elmer's less well modified/refinished guns because I did consider them too.. abomination-ified, abominacated?

3. After owning a couple Fitz'd guns I have to say that the modification isn't as horrifying as I once thought. I still don't really like it, but I get why they did it.

4. This is actually a deep question. It touches on something more then just modified guns and goes into the question of a healthy collecting community. The thing is that there needs to be enough guns available that a healthy number of collectors can get into collecting with entry level guns, and then enough examples of different things to progress with collecting.

S&Ws are wonderful for this because the production numbers of excellent guns were so high that there is a great number of entry level guns to get people hooked, then a myriad of niches to move into as you learn more about them. Preserving good examples of every representative of these difference niches is important to a healthy overall collecting community.

Whoo, Caleb! I think you opened a can of wurms.

I sure hope so.

I saw one "factory modified" gun too many and kind of snapped. I know I had to pay for an education by buying some of those, and if people getting a bit miffed at my hyperbole brings attention to this issue I'm ok with playing the heel.

I feel terrible for people who are new at S&W collecting and buy something which they think is special, only to find out it has almost no value outside of being a shooter/parts gun, and maybe not even that if the internals have been gun plumbered into uselessness.

Here's a 1917 I acquired that had been bobbed a little too much. It removed 1/4" of the locking lug.

Doesn't stop it from shooting, however. And I installed a ball lock in the yoke to compensate.

See, this is awesome. I absolutely love what you did with the ball lock. That's an example of a fine modification.

I have to say though, the pin protruding from the end of the locking lug would bug me. I'm trying to picture the innards there...could you just take off part of the protruding part of the pin, and round it off? Or would that potentially get hung up inside if you did that?

 

[SS336]

That 1911 is one handsome pistol. The stocks/grips are just cool.

2. As the proud owner of this thing: