K model info

[jachd17]

Looking for any info (age, value etc) that is available for an old .22 revolver. No model # on yoke. She's old and used, but still tight with that silky smooth Smith trigger. Ser. starts K18***
Any info greatly appreciated.

 

[DWalt]

It is a fairly early K-22 Masterpiece, probably around 1948-49. A very popular target revolver at the time. Ten years later it became the Model 17. I'd say in the $700-800 price range today in that condition.

 

[JP@AK]

As DWalt wrote, this is an early K-22 Masterpiece. At K18000, it probably shipped in 1948, but could have departed Springfield as early as late 1947. It still has the one line address, which went away in the spring of 1948.

Could you post a closeup picture of the front sight? It might be the standard Patridge, but it looks to me like it might not be.

Your K-22 shows a fair amount of blue loss and the Magna stocks are a bit worn or beat up. I'm not sure this one will bring a premium price but it's still a nice old shooter. I think $700 would be the max, but these are crazy times.

 

[Green Frog]

Probably my most-used revolver for many years was an early K-22 with serial number fairly close to yours. Condition on mine is only a tiny bit better than on yours (less blue wear) and as has been stated, this makes it perfect to take about and enjoy shooting a lot and often! Mine doesn't suffer from the "Sticky Chamber Syndrome" you may experience as some folks describe, but clean, dry chambers will minimize this.

Most recently I've shot a lot of "semi-target" ammo in mine. They were designed as target pistols, but I cheap out and use Federal's Auto Match that I buy in bulk boxes in mine. It is a little faster than pure target ammo (standard velocity) but is still less rowdy than the high velocity stuff.

I hope you enjoy yours as much as I do mine.
Froggie

 

[JP@AK]

The K-22 Masterpiece tends to be a very accurate revolver in any case.

I've owned several over the years, including three one-liners. Those three were the most accurate of all; absolute tack drivers.

Several years ago, I sold one of them to a friend. Last Saturday, I ran into him at the gun show and we were chatting about S&W revolvers. He said the one-line K-22 he got from me is the most accurate (and fun to shoot) revolver he owns. I told him that when I first got that revolver I put 50 rounds into a target at 15 yards and could cover the group with a silver dollar. I wish I had kept that target.

 

[DWalt]

In the 25-30 years after WWII, competitive Bullseye shooting at 25 and 50 yards was very popular. One of the stages of Bullseye shooting requires using .22 handguns, and most Bullseye shooters back then who preferred revolvers used the S&W K-22 in that stage. For those preferring a semiauto, the Colt Match Target Woodsman ruled the roost. Bullseye as a shooting sport today is not nearly as popular as it once was, and essentially all of those seriously engaging in it now will use semiauto .22 pistols, usually highly customized and accurized. A .22 revolver is simply incapable of producing consistent match-winning scores that a highly-tuned semiauto will.

 

[DWalt]

K18,732 – K73,121…...1948 (Production)

I have three listed in the K18xxx range, all of those shipped in early 1948.

The highest 1-line K-series on my list is K24654 (which shipped in 5/48). Note that it is NOT the highest 1-liner, just the highest SN identified as a 1-liner that I have listed. I believe they go a little higher than that.

Something I did not mention earlier, it is possible that, by their appearance, the wooden grips on yours may not be original. There should be a matching SN stamped on the inside of the right grip panel. You might check that. If so, it will reduce the value some.

 

[jachd17]

Thank you all very much. This particular .22 is not mine, (yet) but a close relatives. I will get a front blade pic to post soon. I don't post much but I love reading posts here. I have greatly improved my S & W knowledge from it.

ETA: Front blade pics added to original post

 

[Green Frog]

Even with my cataracts acting up, it appears that the front sight blade includes a bead... it looks red to me, but who knows? A closeup picture would be helpful.

DWalt, i'm a little offended that as you enumerated the target autos you neglected to mention the High Standard. I collected them for years and can say they began to become popular on the Bullseye lines in the late '30s and after the war they became the nemesis to the K-22. Oddly enough I still have a pre War King Modifed HS Model HE and a 1948 vintage K-22. I can definitely do vintage!

Froggie

 

[MajorD]

In the 25-30 years after WWII, competitive Bullseye shooting at 25 and 50 yards was very popular. One of the stages of Bullseye shooting requires using .22 handguns, and most Bullseye shooters back then who preferred revolvers used the S&W K-22 in that stage. For those preferring a semiauto, the Colt Match Target Woodsman ruled the roost. Bullseye as a shooting sport today is not nearly as popular as it once was, and essentially all of those seriously engaging in it now will use semiauto .22 pistols, usually highly customized and accurized. A .22 revolver is simply incapable of producing consistent match-winning scores that a highly-tuned semiauto will.

I would disagree. My bullseye scores ( I hold a distinguished pistol badge so shot a lot of bullseye in my day) are identical with both auto and revolver. I do think the revolver is harder to shoot consistently well, but the gun is easily capable of a perfect score on a bullseye course. The shooter not so much. Also red dots have almost totally tAken over as standard sighting equipment for bullseye pistol shooting, and the autos are a bit easier to set up that way.

 

[JP@AK]

DWalt, i'm a little offended that as you enumerated the target autos you neglected to mention the High Standard. I collected them for years and can say they began to become popular on the Bullseye lines in the late '30s and after the war they became the nemesis to the K-22.

Interesting that you should bring that up, Froggie.

I can remember in the late 1950s and early 1960s, lots of hoopla about the High Standard .22 target pistols. My brother and I had a friend with one and it was a fine handgun. Very popular pistols among target shooters that we knew.

We looked at them a lot, but were happy with the K-22 we got from our uncle. I almost bought a High Standard once, but ended up buying a Winchester Model 72 rifle instead and was very happy with it. Better for shooting rabbits out in the desert.

 

[jachd17]

Front sight pic added to original post.

 

[JP@AK]

Yep. Front sight has been modified. It looks to me like it has been shortened and a red bead added. I'll have to drag a K-22 of the same vintage out of the safe for height comparison. If it is shorter than normal, it will tend to shoot high unless the rear sight has been elevated, which is possible.

Perhaps someone else can weigh in here.

 

[DWalt]

DWalt, i'm a little offended that as you enumerated the target autos you neglected to mention the High Standard. I collected them for years and can say they began to become popular on the Bullseye lines in the late '30s and after the war they became the nemesis to the K-22. Oddly enough I still have a pre War King Modifed HS Model HE and a 1948 vintage K-22. I can definitely do vintage!

Froggie

No intent to slight the Hi-Standards. Jim Clark of Shreveport customized a great many of them in the 1960s-80s, and they were extremely popular among top-level Bullseye shooters. One of my employees back in the late 1960s was a Master, and he had several Clark H-S .22s and a Clark long slide .45. At that time, I was using a Colt Woodsman Match Target in competition, and a magnificent shooter it was, right out of the box. My aforementioned employee could shoot just as well with it as he did with his custom Clarks, and he tried to talk me out of it several times. The only H-S I ever owned, and still own, is an Olympic rapid fire model in .22 Short. I had a brief fling with shooting Olympic rapid fire, but I didn't stick with it too long. I did have some custom work done on it by Alex Hamilton at Ten Ring. I haven't fired it for over ten years.

 

[JH1951]

The front sight on mine of a similar vintage differs. Here is a picture or two.

I hope this helps. I also looked in a '50's vintage S&W catalog at sight options available, but found none quite like the one in the original post.

 

[jachd17]

I actually have it in my hand at this moment and comparing it to the above images it appears identical, with the exception of a spot of red paint added to the blade, obviously for better contrast.