Factory letter on my Second Model 5 inch Target

[AlanDavid]

HeloMt

Out of interest and this is not related to your revolver, 10 Warren Street, NYC, was the New York headquarters of the American Committee for Defense of British Homes, set-up in late 1940, so after the shipment of your revolver. The building is still there, I took a photo of it on my last visit to NYC.

Regards

AlanD

 

[HeloMt]

AlanD, Thanks for the insight regarding the building and address. It's always fun learning a little bit more regarding the story. Thanks, Randy

 

[glowe]

. . . They may have been forged with a 6" forging die because Smith didn't have an N frame 5" barrel forging die. So it had to be cut. Therefore 5" barrels were factory made and properly factory roll marked . . .

Jim, help me out here. When the book states that 2nd Models came in 4", 5", 6", and 6.5", was the 5" was always cut?

I checked the SWCA database and found the following:

1% were 4"
20% were 5"
<1% were 6"
78% were 6.5"

Of course there are not enough entries to give a high degree of accuracy, but believe the numbers are in the ballpark. The 1925 S&W Catalog stated that the 44 Military was available in 5" and 6.5" barrels. To me that means that 5" was a standard order, at least in 1925?? Was it because of the late manufacture date that it needed to be cut?? Pages from that catalog are below.

 

[glowe]

Maybe I answered my question. I did have S&W 85th Anniversary Catalog (1938), which states the 44 Military was available in 5" and 6.5" as well??

 

[Hondo44]

Gary,
Your additional evidence and the integral sight base on the "cut" barrel Is a real conundrum. This leads me to speculation: the word "cut" in the factory receipt is not literal. It was used as short hand to mean replace or rebarrel with a 5" barrel. Or perhaps the receipt/or quote preceded the work and a 5" barrel was found so cutting a longer barrel was not required after all.

I still think the question should be asked of Roy.

 

[HeloMt]

Jim and Gary, as the OP on this I really appreciate your additional information and speculation. The fact that 5 inch barrels were offered in factory literature leads me to believe that regular 5 inch, uncut barrels were available even into the late 30's. Perhaps because my target was very close to the end of 2nd HE production they might have needed to cut barrels to meet orders, maybe. That said, I don't think that's the case with my gun. Again, the invoice just shows a $2.50 charge for the five inch barrel, perhaps because it is so late in production. Whatever happened, the fee was charged for a five inch barrel. If cut, it would not have the integral sight base, which my barrel has. My gut tells me the fee was for the limited number of 5 inch barrels available and the nuisance of tracking one down to fill the order. Just a guess, mind you, but I believe borne out by the totality of the evidence. Again, thanks for your thoughts and ideas. I might query Roy when I can put this all together in way that is clear and concise. Randy

 

[Hondo44]

Randy, I think all Roy needs to see is the receipt and your post with the photo of the remains of the front integral sight base. The question becomes obvious.

 

[glowe]

The non-ribbed barrels of pre-war times were tapered and by my thinking, the muzzle should be the same diameter for all the barrel lengths. I will venture a guess that the muzzle diameter should be around .60" on N frame revolvers, but if cut, would be closer to .625"?? Worth a check on those 5" barrels.

 

[HeloMt]

Gary, take a look at post #24 above...I did some measuring and the muzzle diameters were same. If you measure up from the muzzle on a 6.5 inch barrel about 1.5 inches where the cut would occur for a five inch barrel the diameter was .030 thicker. That's a substantial difference and would be noticeable in comparison to an uncut barrel. I think that might answer your question.
Randy

 

[glowe]

The answer I was asking for was the actual muzzle measurement? Were all 3 barrels .60" at muzzle? If so, they were not cut and why the letter states that is unknown. I agree with Jim that a clarification from Roy would be helpful. I am under the impression that the $2.50 was actually the extra cost for the barrel and had nothing to do with cutting as noted on the invoice.

Here is another mystery. The invoice was not from S&W that I can tell, but from King. There were 3 other parties mentioned; "Delivered by Harvey D. Rush & Sons, Fiala(?) Outfits Inc., NY, and lastly D.W. King Gun Sight, S.F., CA?

The kicker is that that model was way more than $28.81 by 1940. I have a price list from S&W that states a 44 Military was $37.50 and a 44 Military Target was $45.00 in 1938.

 

[HeloMt]

Gary,
Yep the muzzle measurements on my two five inch HE'S and the 6.5 inch HE are within .002. Basically identical. So I don't think the barrel was cut based on that alone.
Second, in reference to post 26 by Jim, I failed to mention and photograph that the sight base has the milled slot as would be expected for a forged sight base to accept a target front site. I wish I would have photographed that when I had the King sight removed, but trust me it's there.
Third, the photo of the copy of the invoice I posted was not complete. I just shot the portion that was of interest. The name at the top of the post was from the preceding order.
Lastly, the pricing thing you mentioned completely baffles me. I have no idea why it would be so much cheaper than the 1938 price list.
Anyway, I appreciate your input as I highly value everyone's thoughts regarding this somewhat unique revolver.
Randy

 

[Kinman]

The answer I was asking for was the actual muzzle measurement? Were all 3 barrels .60" at muzzle? If so, they were not cut and why the letter states that is unknown. I agree with Jim that a clarification from Roy would be helpful. I am under the impression that the $2.50 was actually the extra cost for the barrel and had nothing to do with cutting as noted on the invoice.

Here is another mystery. The invoice was not from S&W that I can tell, but from King. There were 3 other parties mentioned; "Delivered by Harvey D. Rush & Sons, Fiala(?) Outfits Inc., NY, and lastly D.W. King Gun Sight, S.F., CA?

The kicker is that that model was way more than $28.81 by 1940. I have a price list from S&W that states a 44 Military was $37.50 and a 44 Military Target was $45.00 in 1938.

My 1940 Stoeger Catalog has a list price of $37.50 for the .44 Military.

 

[Hondo44]

Gary,

Lastly, the pricing thing you mentioned completely baffles me. I have no idea why it would be so much cheaper than the 1938 price list.
Anyway, I appreciate your input as I highly value everyone's thoughts regarding this somewhat unique revolver.
Randy

The only thing I'm thinking is that Smith supplied the gun to King at their wholesale price.

 

[HeloMt]

That makes sense...I guess company to company discounts might happen. Whatever occurred it makes the story all the more interesting!

 

[Pisgah]

I'm not much of a collector, but a combination of arguably the best revolver of the era and arguably the best custom gunsmithing house of the era is enough to give even me the warm fuzzies...

Beautiful revolver.

 

[HeloMt]

So, my latest update regarding this revolver. I sent to SWHF to see what additional information might be available. Turns out there are 11 pages of information about this revolver that Bill Cross states "tells the whole story". So my check went in the mail today and I hope to have the paperwork soon. When I do, I'll provide another update. SWHF is a wonderful resource!!!

 

[HeloMt]

So, I got the eleven pages of paper from the Historical Foundation this week. Thanks to Bill Cross for the thorough work. A couple of interesting takeaways from the correspondence. First, from the first inquiry to S&W regarding the feasibility of the order until the revolver was delivered took 62 days, including the airmail trip from Massachusetts to San Francisco for the King installed sights. Second, 5 inch barrels were available on a special order status for an additional fee of $2.50. Third, S&W states that King sight were only installed by S&W on the .357 magnum in 1940. Apparently all other King sights on any other model were shipped to and installed by King. Fourth, Fiala's customer for this revolver was very specific in what they wanted including the Humpback hammer, Magna stocks, King red post reflector front sight, white outline rear sight and a 3 pound trigger pull. Anyway, I've included a few of the most notable pages. Enjoy! Randy

 

[HeloMt]

Two more pages. The last one is kind of interesting as King messed up the order and different sight had to be supplied.

 

[HeloMt]

Sadly, no idea who the customer was, nothing indicated in the paperwork. Whoever it was, they ordered up a fine piece!

 

[paplinker]

So, I got the eleven pages of paper from the Historical Foundation this week. Thanks to Bill Cross for the thorough work. A couple of interesting takeaways from the correspondence. First, from the first inquiry to S&W regarding the feasibility of the order until the revolver was delivered took 62 days, including the airmail trip from Massachusetts to San Francisco for the King installed sights. Second, 5 inch barrels were available on a special order status for an additional fee of $2.50. Third, S&W states that King sight were only installed by S&W on the .357 magnum in 1940. Apparently all other King sights on any other model were shipped to and installed by King. Fourth, Fiala's customer for this revolver was very specific in what they wanted including the Humpback hammer, Magna stocks, King red post reflector front sight, white outline rear sight and a 3 pound trigger pull. Anyway, I've included a few of the most notable pages. Enjoy! Randy

Interesting that they sent most King work all the way across the country. I have a 1938 OD with a factory installed King front sight. Was part of a two gun shipment with a 22 OD with the same sight. I believed they charged 2.50 for the upgrade.

 

[LeadSpitter]

That's perty! Them grips set it off!

 

[mikepriwer]

There are a couple of points to add, regarding the installation of King front sights. The design innovation for the registered magnum of the rib on the barrel was a game changer for the factory. Any front sight base/blade that could be pinned into the rib meant that the factory could do the work.

The King mirror front sight base, for any other S&W pre-WW2 revolver, was a different matter. There was no rib to pin the massive King front sight on to, so those guns were most likely sent to King for that work.

Regards, Mike Priwer

 

[rct269]

It seems to me the lying eyes that saw the remnants of the forged front sight settled the matter.

In the for what it's worth department I too have seen the remnants of a fixed sight S&W front sight following the folks at King having their way with it. That came to pass with a King Super Target Triple Lock that came to live here about five years ago. Needless to say, that fine example of the gun makers' art was completely apart in short order after it walked through the door---and the remnants of the front sight were the same as our friend with the lying eyes described seeing on his gun.

So------if I get asked to choose between what our friend with the lying eyes said he saw on the barrel of his gun (and what he can show to anybody who drops by to see it for themselves)----and what an invoice (or any other factory document from yesteryear) has to say about anything, I'm going with the lying eyes---every time.

If anybody feels they have cause to question my judgement, please let me know-----so I can regale one and all with my laundry list of factory fubars and other flights of fancy foisted upon me over the years. (A couple of my favorites: My 8" .32 caliber Single Shot that letters as a 10" .22. My 6" 2nd Model Single Shot that lettered with barrel length unknown in my first letter, and lettered as "with a 6 inch barrel, blue finish, and checkered black hard rubber target grips." & "This was a special order for a single unit." in the second letter. And as an aside, these differences came to be noted with no input from me whatsoever. I can go on, but this is about a barrel that very clearly was not cut as opposed to one that was----seems to me it's pretty easy to tell the difference----especially when you can sit and stare at the nubbin of a factory front sight----like he of the lying eyes has ---and like I have.

Ralph Tremaine

 

[HeloMt]

Thanks for your comments Ralph! I'm glad I passed the eye test...lying and all. You have a keen insight regarding what transpired at the factory and how things got done. It's like everything in life, most times things aren't as clear cut as we think.