Happy Happy Happy! Completed my K Frame Masterpiece Trio.

[COYOTEHUNTER]

I have completed my Postwar Masterpiece Trio.

Here is my K22 one line address. Shipped February, 1947.







Here is my K32 four line address. Shipped March, 1955.







Here is my K38 one line address. Shipped May 1948.









Here is the trio together.



Notice the height difference in the front sights with the K22 in front, K32 in the middle and the K38 in the rear.

 

[410bore]

AWESOME Mitch! Usually the K32 is the pride of everyone's K-Target trio but in your case that K190 is hard to beat

 

[Modified]

K190 and a K-32?

I'm seriously experiencing an emotion here. Pretty sure it's one that's classified as a sin.

 

[05CarbonDRZ]

Congrats Mitch,That is quite the set!

 

[LEO918]

Well done Mitch. I'm happy for ya'.

P.S. My K-32 is SN: K 221793

 

[MrTrolleyguy]

Congratulations on your trio! Pat yourself on the back. Nice photography job also. And I hear even finding those blue S&W prop-rods is an accomplishment, at lest around here it is. Again, congrats.

 

[tlay]

Mitch, those three are beauts. How long have you had the K32? Do you have all the boxes?

 

[COYOTEHUNTER]

Mitch, those three are beauts. How long have you had the K32? Do you have all the boxes?

Tom,
I have had the K32 a couple weeks, I got it from a member here.
I have the original K22 box with K190 and I have period correct boxes for the K32 and K38.

 

[paplinker]

Mitch, I'm glad k190 is still in the fold. Thats a very fine trio anyone would be proud to own.
Are any of these in your shooting rotation?

 

[COYOTEHUNTER]

Mitch, I'm glad k190 is still in the fold. Thats a very fine trio anyone would be proud to own.
Are any of these in your shooting rotation?

Rich,

I am looking for some 32 S&W long brass to load for the K32, everyone says that they are a dream to shoot. So I want to experience shooting this one. The other 2 probably won't see much range time.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

Congrats! I just completed mine about 5 or 6 weeks ago. Mine are not all 5 screws though. The K-38 is a 4 screw as is the K-32. The K-22 is a 17-3, but finding a dash one or earlier K-22 is a LOT easier than finding the K-32.

Couple things I notice- your K-22 front sight is a lot shorter as you pointed out already, but mine is the same height as my other K Masterpieces, or at least within a couple thousandths if not exact. I wonder if yours was modified, or if S&W changed that at some point after yours was built? The other thing I notice, in your pics at least, your K-32 barrel looks like it is duller than the rest of the gun. Mine is the same way. I wonder what's the story there?


I looked all over the place for brass, and I was lucky enough to get the last 200 Long cases that Midway had. In fact, they only had 199, so I got shorted 1 in my order which is a PITA if you're like me and want to load in 50 or 100 round batches. They told me they didn't expect any more until Sep of '14. Yikes!! Durn CASS dudes.

 

[larryofcc]

Well, if anyone deserves congrats, it is you my friend. Super nice revolvers. I have all these as well, but my K22 was shipped 9-23-1947. You are "D" man my friend. Big Larry

 

[mikepriwer]

The three different sight heights are because of the three different calibers. The
larger the bullet, the more recoil you get, and therefore you have to push the front of
the barrel down further, to accommodate that recoil. That is primarily why the
38 has the highest front sight. With the barrels all the same length, this is what is
necessary.

Mike Priwer

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

The three different sight heights are because of the three different calibers. The
larger the bullet, the more recoil you get, and therefore you have to push the front of
the barrel down further, to accommodate that recoil. That is primarily why the
38 has the highest front sight. With the barrels all the same length, this is what is
necessary.

Mike Priwer

Mike,
I understand all that. Nothing new to me there. What I was pointing out is that the OP's front sights appear to be a LOT different in height when I compare them to my trio. My K-22 has a .158" front blade height. My K-32 runs .210" and my K-38 runs .220". None of them have ever been altered or replaced. The K-32 and K-38 are almost impossible to see the difference unless you are right here looking at them. My K-22 is visibly different than the other two, but not nearly as much as the OP's. The op's K-22 front sight blade appears to be less than what is on mine by a noticeable degree, and is what caught my eye.

 

[05CarbonDRZ]

Congrats! I just completed mine about 5 or 6 weeks ago. Mine are not all 5 screws though. The K-38 is a 4 screw as is the K-32. The K-22 is a 17-3, but finding a dash one or earlier K-22 is a LOT easier than finding the K-32.

Couple things I notice- your K-22 front sight is a lot shorter as you pointed out already, but mine is the same height as my other K Masterpieces, or at least within a couple thousandths if not exact. I wonder if yours was modified, or if S&W changed that at some point after yours was built? The other thing I notice, in your pics at least, your K-32 barrel looks like it is duller than the rest of the gun. Mine is the same way. I wonder what's the story there?


I looked all over the place for brass, and I was lucky enough to get the last 200 Long cases that Midway had. In fact, they only had 199, so I got shorted 1 in my order which is a PITA if you're like me and want to load in 50 or 100 round batches. They told me they didn't expect any more until Sep of '14. Yikes!! Durn CASS dudes.

Don't feel bad,Midway shorts everyone on brass.I ordered 200pcs of .45LC Brass and ended up with 197.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

Don't feel bad,Midway shorts everyone on brass.I ordered 200pcs of .45LC Brass and ended up with 197.

That's too bad to hear. I haven't had to buy any brass in a LONG time, especially from Midway. I had a really good supply on hand for almost every single caliber I load for (which is 26 IIRC) when all this latest BS started. I always used to receive one to two extra pieces from them in my orders. Times, they are a changin' eh?

 

[Jebus35745]

WOW, what a nice set of calibers and hard ones to find also. If you can't find brass in the near future let me know. I'll send you some to get you started, Larry

 

[M29since14]

Well those are very nice. Thanks for showing us.

 

[COYOTEHUNTER]

Congrats! I just completed mine about 5 or 6 weeks ago. Mine are not all 5 screws though. The K-38 is a 4 screw as is the K-32. The K-22 is a 17-3, but finding a dash one or earlier K-22 is a LOT easier than finding the K-32.

Couple things I notice- your K-22 front sight is a lot shorter as you pointed out already, but mine is the same height as my other K Masterpieces, or at least within a couple thousandths if not exact. I wonder if yours was modified, or if S&W changed that at some point after yours was built? The other thing I notice, in your pics at least, your K-32 barrel looks like it is duller than the rest of the gun. Mine is the same way. I wonder what's the story there?


I looked all over the place for brass, and I was lucky enough to get the last 200 Long cases that Midway had. In fact, they only had 199, so I got shorted 1 in my order which is a PITA if you're like me and want to load in 50 or 100 round batches. They told me they didn't expect any more until Sep of '14. Yikes!! Durn CASS dudes.

"but finding a dash one or earlier K-22 is a LOT easier than finding the K-32."
Try finding a 3 digit serial numbered K22 that starts with a 1.


As far as the barrel on the K32 it must be the lighting for the satin finish is consistent over all when it is in hand.

As for the sight on K190, it is original. I am assuming that sometime between the Pre Model 17's and your 17-3 they went to a taller front sight for here is a couple more early K22 with the same front sight.

This one is K13XX. Shipped March 1947.



Here is K28XX, shipped August 1947.






Regards

 

[Engine49guy]

Nice trio but the collection is now "Compete" ? somehow Im guessing it will keep growing !

Mike,
I understand all that. Nothing new to me there. What I was pointing out is that the OP's front sights appear to be a LOT different in height when I compare them to my trio. My K-22 has a .158" front blade height. My K-32 runs .210" and my K-38 runs .220". None of them have ever been altered or replaced. The K-32 and K-38 are almost impossible to see the difference unless you are right here looking at them. My K-22 is visibly different than the other two, but not nearly as much as the OP's. The op's K-22 front sight blade appears to be less than what is on mine by a noticeable degree, and is what caught my eye.

The SCSW mentions 1/10" or 1/8" Patridge FS with the 1/10" deleted in 1952 (always assumed that was blade thickness) but all of my 6" K-22's up to 1951 have a visibly shorter FS blade (they also have a narrower rear blade notch).

May have something to do with the change in how the earlier K22 ramp appears to be pinned to the top of the rib where after 1950 seems they milled a bit of the rib so the ramp blade is lower and a flush mount.

 

[rct269]

The three different sight heights are because of the three different calibers. The
larger the bullet, the more recoil you get, and therefore you have to push the front of
the barrel down further, to accommodate that recoil. That is primarily why the
38 has the highest front sight. With the barrels all the same length, this is what is
necessary.

Mike Priwer

So what you're saying is the force which moves the mass of the bullet down the barrel in some (pretty small) amount of time also moves the mass of the gun (in recoil) in even less time------thereby causing an effect on the path of the bullet. That's an interesting concept----all the more so when you consider the average weight of one of these guns is somewhere around 14,000 grains---and the average weight of the bullet is some less. I guess I'll have to ponder that some----for awhile.

Ralph Tremaine

 

[Jim R]

Mitch

I lost your address from when I got those 2 revolvers from you. PM me with it and I will send you some brass. I don't have a lot but as the wife shoots up those 32 shells she has I will send you the brass.

Jim R

 

[perrazi]

great looking trio. are you starting on the combat versions of these now?

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

So what you're saying is the force which moves the mass of the bullet down the barrel in some (pretty small) amount of time also moves the mass of the gun (in recoil) in even less time------thereby causing an effect on the path of the bullet. That's an interesting concept----all the more so when you consider the average weight of one of these guns is somewhere around 14,000 grains---and the average weight of the bullet is some less. I guess I'll have to ponder that some----for awhile.

Ralph Tremaine

Mike is absolutely right about that. The moment a gun is fired it starts to move in recoil just as quickly as the bullet starts down the bore. The heavier and slower the bullet is, the longer it is in the bore for the recoil forces to work on. That is not a new theory, and in fact, not theory at all. It is a simple fact of physics.

It is why in a (handgun especially), when you fire faster, lighter bullets than what the main/general/most common bullet weight used for a particular caliber, and what the sights are generally set to work best with, you have to crank the rear sight up to bring POI up, and why it is just the opposite when firing heavier than normal/standard bullets from the same gun (or more lightly loaded ammo using bullets of the common weight used in that cartridge), that you have to crank it down, usually as much as possible, and even then it is sometimes not enough depending on the front and rear sight blade heights. The model 25-5's are famous for having too short a front sight blade on them.

 

[PMRet]

Congratulations on a great looking group. Sounds like you've never fired a K-32, so you're in for a real treat. To me, hands down the sweetest shooting target revolver on the planet!

 

[OldDominion]

Well done Mitch! I always heard that twins are fun, but triplets are even better....My search for the elusive K32 has been fruitless so far. I know one is out there for me, just have to be patient. Your photog skills are also first rate. I really should build a light box so I wouldn't have to depend on the weather being nice to shoot photos. Lee

 

[captaint]

Nice job, Mitch. Beauties, all. Now I have to wonder if you ever got that other grail gun you talked about ?? Still haven't shot my 1950 .38 Masterpiece.. I actually bought a newer one to shoot !! You know how it is..... Mike

 

[Jaymo]

I haven't even seen a K-32 in the wild.
Nice trio.

 

[rct269]

Mike is absolutely right about that. The moment a gun is fired it starts to move in recoil just as quickly as the bullet starts down the bore. The heavier and slower the bullet is, the longer it is in the bore for the recoil forces to work on. That is not a new theory, and in fact, not theory at all. It is a simple fact of physics.

It is why in a (handgun especially), when you fire faster, lighter bullets than what the main/general/most common bullet weight used for a particular caliber, and what the sights are generally set to work best with, you have to crank the rear sight up to bring POI up, and why it is just the opposite when firing heavier than normal/standard bullets from the same gun (or more lightly loaded ammo using bullets of the common weight used in that cartridge), that you have to crank it down, usually as much as possible, and even then it is sometimes not enough depending on the front and rear sight blade heights. The model 25-5's are famous for having too short a front sight blade on them.

So the trajectory of the faster, lighter bullets has nothing to do with it then----and apparently the trajectory of the 22/32/38's also have nothing to do with the sight height----right? And the gun starts to move at the same time the bullet does? Boy, have I got it all wrong!!

Speaking of a simple fact of physics, where does the acceleration of the two different masses (bullet/gun) by the same force come into play?

Thanks for your help!

Ralph Tremaine

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

So the trajectory of the faster, lighter bullets has nothing to do with it then----and apparently the trajectory of the 22/32/38's also have nothing to do with the sight height----right? And the gun starts to move at the same time the bullet does? Boy, have I got it all wrong!!

Speaking of a simple fact of physics, where does the acceleration of the two different masses (bullet/gun) by the same force come into play?

Thanks for your help!

Ralph Tremaine

Ralph,
I'm no physics expert, but there was an extremely detailed thread on TFL a couple years back about this subject.

There is no "trajectory" in reality (at least in the sense in which you seem to be considering it) for any round made. They all start to drop the moment they leave the muzzle. Any trajectory is based totally off of the sight settings. As long as your sights get POI on target, a bullet that has less dwell time in the bore will hit lower on the target than will one that is in the bore longer.

You can test that easily with an gun, but especially one with plenty of recoil.

Example:
I can load 425 grain cast bullets to 800 fps in my 475 Linebaugh, and then again at 1400 FPS. With the lighter load I have to crank the rear sight all the way down, and I'm still too high because the sights are designed to work with the round running at its normal speed. If I crank up the velocity to where it was designed, the rear sight is in the mid/to upper area of its range to get the hits to POA. It is the same with any bullet weight loaded up or down, and in any caliber I load for.

Sorry about the thread hijack Mitch. I won't go any further with this in this thread.