K22 Combat Masterpiece *Better pics*

[Kobold_27]

Originally posted by Doc44:
szuppo...If you have Roy's book on the history of S&W, take a look at the ".357" Magnum illustrated on page 215. I think you will find the front sight blade on this revolver to be very similar to the one on your K-22 Combat Masterpiece. Looks like a few guns from the early 50s were fitted with these

.

Bill

I find this thread to be very fascinating. And it would only make sense that my friend Szuppo would end up with that gun in his hands.

I think it would be cool if he might share the story behind him finding it; it's a classic scenario.

Last night, I scanned in the page that Bill is referring to. To my eye, the sight pictured in the book looks very similar to the one on Steve's K22 Masterpiece, except for the protruding pin that retains the sight blade. It also appears that the sight base is set back just a bit. In addition, it appears that the gun on page 215 has an RM barrel.

These are the sorts of things that bring me back to collecting, S&W, and especially this forum. These sorts of details are really neat!

Michael

 

[JayCeeNC]

Two of my early pre-Model 27's have a flat area on top of the front sight blade, though not as long or pronounced as szuppo's.

 

[szuppo]

Michael,

I too find the discovery, investigation, opinions and discussion the very things that keep my collecting interest going.

This is what it's all about.

Thanks for posting the scan and sending it to me. Very much appreciated.

The story behind this one is linked in this thread. Another Forum member helped me out.

Best Regards,
Steve

 

[BlackAgnes]

I have an early .22 Combat Masterpiece, K-908XX, that has the flat-topped Baughman sight and flush-polished pins--original finish.

Weird!

Tim

 

[szuppo]

Can you post or send me a picture?

 

[X-RingDistroyer]

I have a 6" pre-17 K22 from 1955 and it's sight looks like yours, szuppo. I thought something didn't look right when I got it because I didn't see any pins. I need to look closer to see if any are present. The book page posted earlier shows a slight ledge on the muzzle side of the sight. Mine has the wide rib and the lines go all the way to the muzzle and it too has a slight ledge. The barrel on this one is straight. The "book" said this is correct for the year.

I have a 6" pre-17 from 1948 and the pins are clearly visable. The barrel has a slight taper and a slender rib.

When I looked at them side by side I thought the sight was changed. However, with these posts I'm thinking both my guns are correct.

 

[BlackAgnes]

szuppo--

Here ya go. I think there is sufficient evidence to assume that this configuration was factory work.

Why? Who can say...?

Tim

 

[szuppo]

Bingo!

Thanks! Got enough to support our case I think.