King Gun Sights Questions

bill-in-texas

bill-in-texas

US Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
729
Reaction score
2,995
Location
The Lone Star State
After looking forwards and backwards through the very informative thread below, I can't find a matching rear sight in any of the catalog scans to the one I have. I've also searched the forum for photographic images of any early-mid 20th century Smiths or Colts having this same rear sight. No luck.
However, it appears to be the same rear sight listed as Design 14, on page 35, depicted as a line drawing in the latest SWCA Journal.
I'd like to see another example affixed to a revolver.
-Anyone got one? :rolleyes:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-ha...information-thread.html?611178=#post140673406

All input is welcome. (Ahem, Mr. Ralph Tremaine?) :)



Also, the King Modified Patridge front sight on my revolver is marked "Pat. Pend."
Does anyone know approximately how far that dates back, prior to receiving the patent?



Thanks in advance!
-Bill

P.S. I've sent off for a letter to hopefully learn more about this uncommon and unusual .45 Hand Ejector, Model of 1917.




Click Links for More Pictures

https://i.ibb.co/Gdf2Dyd/6-D2-A2-F48-46-CE-4-F8-C-B7-C3-312-BFC5-E3-A97.jpg"

"https://i.ibb.co/qkkvvy9/6-F97-B892-F18-B-4-EFE-83-E8-C56426-B1-C48-B.jpg"

"https://i.ibb.co/0cwt8rL/3-CFA8865-4-E90-4-ECC-BDD8-76-E347-DD42-F9.jpg"

"https://i.ibb.co/866TKJq/97897142-7-A32-458-F-AAF0-23-B2-AD00-CEC1.jpg"
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
Design 14 (Per Bob Neal), and pictured above, is commonly known as the "two screw" sight; referring to the two screws at the rear. Those two screws, often thought of as an elevation screw and a locking screw, are BOTH elevation and locking screws. The procedure (per sundry S&W instruction sheets from the early 30's to the early 40's) goes like this: Make the preliminary elevation adjustment with the aft screw (Get close.). Make the final adjustment with the screw immediately forward of the aft screw. At this point, turn the aft screw counterclockwise as far as it will go. You're done. The sight is locked in place; and WILL NOT "shoot loose". It is the first such sight in S&W's history---after only about 50 years of trying.

If you'll sit and stare at what you've done, you'll note the forward screw is pushing against the frame, and the aft screw is pulling against the frame. The frame isn't going anywhere---------and neither is the sight.

This is the finest sight S&W ever made in my opinion. It is infinitely adjustable, and won't shoot loose. The later sight, the so-called Micrometer sight won't shoot loose, but its adjustments are apparently deemed to be close enough----and they are, if you're shooting at paper targets for score. Don't bother with them if you're trying to drive nails, light matches, extinguish candles, split bullets on an ax blade, or murder Bumble Bees.

As to who has one (a two screw sight), any and all with a K or N frame revolver with target sights from about 1932 to WWII (not counting the K-22 Second Model (AKA the "22/40").

All that said, I am not aware of any King rear sight bearing similarity to Design 14-----if, in fact, that's what you're asking about.

Ralph Tremaine

It just dawned on me how you could have decided the sight pictured above is a King sight (Again, if that was your thought.)------the rear blade says KING on it!! (???) If that's the case, don't sweat the small stuff! King very likely made replacement blades for myriad other sights---I know they made them for S&W sights----pre-war sights anyhow. (I don't know diddly about S&W post-war sights.)

And if you're wondering how you can be "pulling against the frame", the aft screw goes into a flange nut---the flange residing in a slot milled into the frame---------BINGO!!

And as an aside, the adjustments on some later (I suspect all) pre-war sights make for a one inch change in point of impact for each ten yards of range with one full turn of an adjustment screw----so says the folks who made them. I suspect the same is true of all pre-war sights simply because it makes sense, and I don't know any better------never tried it-----not much of a shooter, and never fired any of the guns in my collection. Actually, I did fire some of those guns. Maybe 25 years ago, I decided all my guns should be sighted in; so once a week I'd pack up a bunch of guns, and head for the range. It started out to be fun, and rather quickly seemed more like work--------and I quit it. So any of the folks who have some of my guns can count on them being sighted in----dead nuts perfect (at 25 yards)---unless you've messed with them---or unless they were among those that never made it to the range.
 
Last edited:
bill-in-texas said:
However, it appears to be the same rear sight listed as Design 14, on page 35, depicted as a line drawing in the latest SWCA Journal.
I'd like to see another example affixed to a revolver.
Click to expand...

Below is pictured the standard factory rear sight on a Registered Magnum from 1935. It is the rear sight identified as Design 14 by Robert Neal. Notice there are no grooves…..
cab8ba941ce003ecb0d6f4ce402366d9.jpg

7e7a5bc96f6dc88bca2fb1934c0cb604.jpg
 
For what it's worth, the King pat pending front sight shown above on the 1917 revolver is not pictured in the King Sight catalog for 1925. All front sights in the catalog for S&Ws have are King bead type blades, therefore the sight must be a post 1925 design. Ed
 
Last edited:
Original Catalog No. 21
App 6-1/8" x 9"
Undated

attachment.php


Page 9 shows their Micro Click rear sight. They are usually marked "King".---
attachment.php


Page 10 shows the sight like yours, which I believe to be a sight that King developed earlier, before his Micro click sights. It is NOT in a later King catalog that I have dated 1938. I do not recall seeing one marked "King". There is not really a spot large enough to mark that shows above the frame.
attachment.php


Front sights. I seriously doubt that King was able to secure a patent for the undercut Patridge. I could be wrong, but I've never seen one marked "Pat'd". Patent research might reveal a patent for it if someone cares to look. I don't care enough. :D

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1051.JPG
    IMG_1051.JPG
    173 KB · Views: 214
  • IMG_1050.JPG
    IMG_1050.JPG
    185.4 KB · Views: 221
  • IMG_1053.JPG
    IMG_1053.JPG
    229.4 KB · Views: 216
  • IMG_1049.jpg
    IMG_1049.jpg
    48.4 KB · Views: 213
Found it interesting that the King catalog 21 shows the older rear sight but my King catalog 19 does not. It only shows a micro click.

I assumed catalog 19 meant older but now I wonder.
 
22hipower said:
1917 with a 6.5 inch barrel and target sights. Surely will be interesting if it letters as coming from the factory in that configuration. Even if it doesn't, very nice revolver!

Jeff
SWCA #1457
Click to expand...

Jeff,

I learned rather quickly from Roy that this shipped in June of 1918 with a 5.5" barrel. Not a hint of anything more from the good doctor. However, I am hopeful that once my letter request is fulfilled, Bill Cross will find something, anything in the historical records pertaining to my ol' .45 Hand Ejector, M1917.

-Bill
 
Don't want to hijack this thread but wondering what about the differences between the Standard Post (Patridge sight) and the Undercut front sight as shown in the OP's initial post? Was the Undercut just a style thing or was it thought to be better than the Post Sight? More accurate or faster on target?
 
Moo Moo said:
Don't want to hijack this thread but wondering what about the differences between the Standard Post (Patridge sight) and the Undercut front sight as shown in the OP's initial post? Was the Undercut just a style thing or was it thought to be better than the Post Sight? More accurate or faster on target?
Click to expand...


Merely an attempt to preclude any light reflection. They present a jet black post in almost all light conditions. ;)
 
Jim,
Indubitably.

I’m working long days, M-Sat, lately and haven’t been able to do more than a quick going-over with cleaning supplies. I’ve been wondering if it is marked King, now that it’s clear what it is.
I also wanted to be sure of the correct screw removal sequence before attempting the removal. :)

-Bill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
32 SW questions
Replies
12
Views
797
Hondo44
H
DARE
Pre-Model 26 Questions
Replies
15
Views
912
Muley Gil
M
C
M1917 marking questions
Replies
11
Views
704
alwslate
A
C
Questions On Pre 18 CM
Replies
2
Views
98
JP@AK
JP@AK
F
Help on Model 48 & 53 Questions..
Replies
9
Views
761
jcelect
J

Latest posts

Back
Top