Flat Hammer Stud Question

[hardscrabble]

I need a lesson in hammer studs. I have read more than once that a hammer stud that has been polished flat is an indicator of refinishing. I have a good example of that in a Model of 1903 that should have a rounded stud, but doesn't. On that revolver, there is an indented circle around the flattened stud (or in other words, the diameter of the end of the stud is smaller than the diameter of the hole in the frame, which shows up as a circle around the stud, not at all like the pics below, where the end of the stud is exactly even with, and the same size as the hole in frame).

I just bought this Heavy Duty at auction. It is SN 690XX, a post-war transition gun with a one line "MADE IN USA" marked frame. I haven't received it yet. Assessing the pics, I was (and am) less than sure that it is in the original condition. When I asked, the seller specifically stated that there are no stamps indicating a factory refinish, and there are none in the pictures (at least on the cylinder face or the butt...there were no pics of the frame with the grips removed). The pictures are fair to good, especially in terms of what you usually get on the auction sites, and the markings look good to me. I wouldn't swear on them until I've had a good look first hand, though.

But it's this hammer stud that is obvious in the pics and that I don't know enough to use as evidence of a refinish. I think on a post-war transition gun that it should be rounded (they are rounded on many of the pics I've seen of HD's and Outdoorsman models).

I'd like to get some comments that might help me understand: when are the studs supposed to be flat and when are they supposed to be rounded...if indeed it is that simple. I've already bought this gun, I knew all this on the front end, and I'm satisfied with the "upper end shooter price ($855) I paid for it, but I'd really appreciate any knowledge that might help me with this in the future.

 

[deadin]

I'm not positive (I mainly am into pre-war Smith's) but I think the rounded hammer studs were pre-war. My only post-war is a K22 from around 1954 and it is flat as shown in your picture.

 

[linde]

. . . I just bought this Heavy Duty at auction. It is SN 690XX, a post-war transition gun with a one line "MADE IN USA" marked frame. I haven't received it yet. Assessing the pics, I was (and am) less than sure that it is in the original condition . . .

But it's this hammer stud that is obvious in the pics and that I don't know enough to use as evidence of a refinish. I think on a post-war transition gun that it should be rounded (they are rounded on many of the pics I've seen of HD's and Outdoorsman models) . . .

Without seeing this HD in person I can't confirm whether or not it was refinished. If this is s/n S69057 I do know it's early history and . . . in collaboration with out resident Heavy duty expert "1aspenhill" . . . have a theory on the hammer stud.

Even though a circa 1946 serial number, this HD was first shipped in May 1948 to the Missouri State Highway Patrol. It was returned in 1949 to the factory for repairs. We theorize the original threaded hammer stud was replaced with the newer pressed and polished flat hammer stud.

If you'd like to visit further once you receive it, please feel free to PM or email.

Russ

 

[Mike McLellan]

That's pretty much it. The older rounded studs (Hammer, trigger, & rebound) are threaded studs screwed into place. The more modern studs are pressed into the frame and polished in place. I suppose there are always exceptions.

 

[hardscrabble]

Even though a circa 1946 serial number, this HD was first shipped in May 1948 to the Missouri State Highway Patrol. It was returned in 1949 to the factory for repairs. We theorize the original threaded hammer stud was replaced with the newer pressed and polished flat

Russ

That's some pretty interesting news, Russ. Thank you, and I will reach out to you.

 

[JP@AK]

The change order to go to the pressed hammer stud from the older, threaded type was issued on January 18, 1946, on the K frame Military & Police revolver. I'll have to check my references to see if the order also included N frame guns. If I find an answer to that, I'll post it here.
According to my data log for the M&Ps, the change was implemented pretty quickly, with guns showing up having the pressed stud within a month or two (shipping dates). But the threaded stud shows up on individual guns for quite a while after the change order was listed. That is, of course, normal for S&W change orders, since they did like to use up all parts.
As I look at your picture, I see a pressed hammer stud. I would not use this as a determination for deciding the gun had a refinish. That would have to be decided based on other examined criteria.

 

[JP@AK]

Even though a circa 1946 serial number, this HD was first shipped in May 1948 to the Missouri State Highway Patrol. It was returned in 1949 to the factory for repairs. We theorize the original threaded hammer stud was replaced with the newer pressed and polished flat hammer stud.

Hi Russ!
Given the date of the change order and the dates you have provided for this particular gun, it seems to me possible that this revolver got the pressed stud from the beginning. However, I cannot confirm the change order for this modification being applied to N frame revolvers. I checked my source and it only makes reference to the K frames. So whether January 18, 1946, applies to the change on the N frames, I have no idea.

 

[hardscrabble]

That's great information, Jack.

Thanks.

 

[1Aspenhill]

I doubt very seriously that the Jan 46 order applied to N frames. The first N frames shipped were in late June/early July 46 and they have the beveled hammer stud. It is not until later that you see the flat hammer stud. Our theory, unsubstansiated, is that there was a problem with the hammer studs on these guns-loose, broken etc, that prompted their return and we have noticed that the specimens we have seen have the flat hammer stud and that the blue matches the rest of the gun, which indicates they had someone really good to match the color of the gun. The range of serial numbers on these is from S65K to S71K. I have an idea on when they went to the new hammer stud but do not have my notes with me.
I hope this helps,
Bill

 

[JP@AK]

I doubt very seriously that the Jan 46 order applied to N frames. The first N frames shipped were in late June/early July 46 and they have the beveled hammer stud. It is not until later that you see the flat hammer stud. Our theory, unsubstansiated, is that there was a problem with the hammer studs on these guns-loose, broken etc, that prompted their return and we have noticed that the specimens we have seen have the flat hammer stud and that the blue matches the rest of the gun, which indicates they had someone really good to match the color of the gun. The range of serial numbers on these is from S65K to S71K. I have an idea on when they went to the new hammer stud but do not have my notes with me.
I hope this helps,
Bill

Thanks, Bill. As I stated above, I could only really speak to the K frames, since those are the only assembly log notes I have access to. It would be interesting to me to know when the change did actually take place (or at least when the order was issued) with respect to the N frames of the period. I have a few N frames, but I don't collect them, so my knowledge of them is much more limited.
Again, thanks for responding.

 

[Nightowl]

Russ: this gun looks to have not been used at all. Do you have an idea on whether it was even issued? It seems strange that there would not be holster wear and shooting wear on a patrol gun of that age, unless it was traded off pretty soon after it was purchased and not issued.

 

[1Aspenhill]

Russ and I feel that the gun has been refinished.
Bill

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Wiregrassguy]

Is it possible that the gun failed inspection due to the hammer stud and the newer pressed stud was used to replace the defective one, then the gun was finished at the factory? I suppose there is no way to determine this from records or stampings on the gun?

 

[Muley Gil]

Most times, it is almost impossible to see the end of the flat stud.

 

[1Aspenhill]

The sideplate fit is not factory work.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[hardscrabble]

I haven't received the revolver yet, and when I do I'm not going to be able to provide the detailed description that many here would be capable of providing due to my lack of experience. I'm not a serious collector and I haven't examined 1/100th of the guns most members here have. Regarding the revolver I bought and commenting on the auction pictures only:

The hammer stud jumped out at me and was the reason for my original post. The overall condition of the gun is better than the condition of the original grips. There's a funny color difference between the cylinder and the ejector star. The side plate fit is not what it should be. The "MADE IN USA" stamp isn't clean. The recoil shield is 100% blue around the firing pin. The ejector rod appears new. This amounts to a lot of evidence that the revolver was refinished, maybe more than once if it received extensive repair/refurbish at the factory during the initial return in 1949 (which 1aspenhill and linde have documented). Again, these comments are without benefit of first hand inspection.

I'm having trouble with that factory return, which according to the two most knowledgable members commenting took place in relays starting in 1949, the year after the revolvers went into service. Even after the factory return, by 1952 they were on the way out, replaced by 4" barreled K-38's. That's a short service life (1948-1952) any way I look at it. They didn't like the HD's for some reason, they sent them back to the factory (inspection? alteration? refurbish? repair?) and they didn't like them any better when they got them back. Is it possible all this occurred due to a hammer spur issue? If so, was it a common issue related to HD's, or for some reason limited to this "batch" of post-war transitional HD's? How did those troopers like that new .44 framed .38 with it's extra 6 oz and larger footprint over the Colts they were used to, and could a lack of acceptance in the ranks contribute to the short service life?

There are only 6 known examples out of the original delivery of 284 guns to the MSHP. That's a small sample size, and difficult to draw reliable conclusions. Linde and 1aspenhill have studied these MSHP guns specifically, and HD's in general, and conclude that the hammer spur replacement was the (or a) reason for the factory return of almost all these service revolvers, and I'm in no position to refute their theory. I am, indeed, very grateful for all the background I've been able to gather from them and they are to be commended for their willingness to share their extensive knowledge.

I'm lucky to have stumbled into a revolver with some history behind it...wouldn't I like to have this much information on some of those pretty K'22's I have squirreled away!

 

[shawn mccarver]

Russ and Bill are all over it, as usual, with good information. They have studied this issue of the MSHP HDs, which were replaced with the 5 inch Combat Masterpiece revolvers in 1952.

Most MSHP people say that the reason for the 5 inch barrel is that all previous issue guns for MSHP had 5 inch barrels. As to the short service life of the HD, again, most thought that it was a weight issue, as the swivel on the swivel holster would occasionally give way, leaving the holstered weapon somewhere other than where the officer was! I personally know of one trooper who said he got out of his car, and upon returning, found the bottom part of the holster and his S&W laying neatly in the seat, barrel pointed forward, just as it laid next to his leg in the swiveled position when seated in the car!

The hammer stud question was never discussed with these old timers as the issue was not really known until recently. For what it is worth, however, not a single trooper who carried the big N frame ever said a bad word about it. It did, however, really go off with 38/44 ammo! Just a theory, but I think the change to the 5 inch Combat Masterpiece was due to two factors: (1) weight; and, (2) the fact that the K38 was "newer technology." Recall that the 4 inch CM was marketed as a "short-action target grade holster weapon for law enforcement officers," or words to that effect. MSHP was known to get on board pretty early with new technology, whether it be two-way (instead of one-way) radios, new-fangled radar guns (those came later), etc.

The MSHP records we studied show that most, if not all, of the MSHP HDs went back to S&W, but as yet, I think there are only theories as to why.

My early theory was perhaps issues with the fixed sights not shooting to the point of impact desired, but that was pretty quickly ruled out, and I personally like the Russ/Bill or Bill/Russ theory on the hammer stud being replaced.

The only person who could tell us for sure about the reason the MSHP HDs were sent back to S&W, unless S&W records would indicate the nature of the repairs to those MSHP revolvers, was Lt. Herb Brigham, who is now deceased. In what I believe was his last MSHP History interview, which was in 1980, no one thought to ask him this question! As he came on the Patrol in 1932, shortly after the agency began in 1931, and he was in a recruit class consisting of just one person, questions were focused on his memories of patrolling in the Model A Roadster, the famous prison riot, where he led the assault team with a Thompson Sub-Machinegun, and his pioneering work with creating a database (in paper files) of stolen cars and car parts, a model that was adopted all over the place. He served in many capacities in the MSHP, and he was in charge of firearms training and the guns at the time, but at that time, the firearms related duty was by no means full-time. Although few MSHP HDs have been observed, all of those so observed have the change in the hammer stud, if I recall correctly.

Russ and Bill are still on this issue, and I hope that some day a document or some other proof is uncovered on this issue.

As we like to say, "if only this HD could talk!"

 

[1Aspenhill]

Of course, we have not examined the gun in person and only by way of pics. russ and I also feel that the extra weight probably had something to do with them going to the K38. It is my opinion, and you what they say about those, that due to what I feel is a bad sideplate fit that the gun was refinished outside the factory. Russ and I looked at a MSHP HD that has not been refinished, yet the hammer stud is flush and the color matches the rest of the gun. What explination do we have for that? None. We are not in no way running this gun down, as I was going to buy it until I made my conclusion. No matter our opinions, it is AN early piece of HD and S&W history.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[chief38]

Most Smiths with press fit studs are very hard to see a definite outline of the studs diameter. That is because they are taken down and finished together before the bluing is done and they almost become one.

It is possible that someone replaced a broken stud and did not do it the way it was done initially. I have replaced studs without rebluing the gun but it will never be as perfect as it was when it left the Factory due to the fact that it was not taken down in the frame - but "pre sized" and then installed.

From your photo that might be a very real possibility as I do see marks and indications of this. Almost looks as the bluing might have been touched up.

 

[Nightowl]

This has been a neat learning thread. Thanks to the OP for starting it and the rest for adding your knowledge as well.

 

[JP@AK]

Russ and Bill are all over it, as usual, with good information. They have studied this issue of the MSHP HDs, which were replaced with the 5 inch Combat Masterpiece revolvers in 1952.

Not a Heavy Duty, but here is a picture of one of the MSHP 5" Combat Masterpiece revolvers mentioned by Shawn. This one shipped in October, 1952. I was able to buy it a while back from the son of the trooper who carried it and was allowed to purchase it when these were retired from service.

 

[hardscrabble]

That's very cool, Jack.

For anyone that might be interested, there's a pretty fair dept. history and several interviews with some of the earliest MSHP officers here:

History

 

[JP@AK]

That's very cool, Jack.

Thanks. I'm now awaiting an opportunity to buy one of the ISP 5" K-38 Masterpieces to round out the collection. One of these days one of those will wander into my path!