Low luster finish

[30-30remchester]

I assume this subject has been asked before but I could not find the answer in search. Anyhow, why and when did Smith & Wesson change from the bright blue to the low luster finish. I have several revolvers from the early 1950's that have this finish.

 

[DWalt]

S&W used the duller finish as standard in the post-WWII years up until the mid-1950s. Except for the .357 Mag revolvers (pre-27) which retained the bright glossy blue throughout this period, and I believe that bright blue was always available in the post-war period as an extra-cost option for any revolver. Actually, the dull finish itself is the same, just less metal polish prior to bluing. A mirror polish makes all the difference in appearance.

 

[Art Doc]

I have a pair of 1950 Target 44s that were made within a few months of each other in 1955. One has the "satin" blue while the other has a more polished "bright" finish. I have read that the higher quality finish was something like a $10 or $20 option back then. I don't have the boxes and I wonder if this finish difference was noted in some way on the label?

Or maybe since each gun was polished by individual craftsmen some just a little better finish?

 

[30-30remchester]

So it was cost cutting?

 

[DWalt]

"So it was cost cutting?"

Primarily, and also to speed up production. Hand polishing to a flawless mirror finish takes a lot of time and a high level of skill. And it doesn't make any gun shoot better. I think S&W concluded they would rather sell more guns at a lower price by lowering skilled handwork requirements, thereby reducing production cost and saving manufacturing time. The major difference between the .357 Magnum - Model 27 and the Highway Patrolman - Model 28 is the degree of finish. S&W wanted to sell more .357s to LE, and it was necessary to lower prices to do so, to meet the budgets of LE agencies. That meant lowering the cost of the finishing. In the end, business survival is all economics.

 

[CJS57]

This tread may help the discussion. But Bright vs. dull blue was not from some workers did better polishing than others. It was an extra cost option before about 1954 on some models.

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-hand-ejectors-1896-1961/337861-bright-finish-m-p-38-prewar.html

 

[Skeetr57]

I don't think that the cost for the high polish was as high ($10) as one poster surmised in the referenced thread. In @ 1970 the total cost for a refinish in either blue or nickel was less than $18, and that would have required a repolish to match the original. A change in finish from blue to nickel or vice versa was about $2 higher as I recall, due to more polishing work being required. I know this because the only S&W that I ever had refinished was a renickel of a .32-20 M&P that I had redone in the early 1970's.

 

[rct269]

I can't speak to all guns at all times, but in my collection (Target---begining to end) the 19th century products were "Bright Blue" (high polish)----or nickel---on into the early 20th century. In the 1920's-early 30's, the matte blue appears to have become the standard (blue) finish---"Bright Blue" available on order. Beginning in the late 30's, "Bright Blue" seemingly became the norm. Immediate post WWII products were matte blue (to speed things up, as noted earlier) with "Bright Blue" again available as special order. From that point into the early-mid 50's such a special order usually took six months---and didn't get a lot of takers. I know little to nothing about products after the late 50's.

Note was made of "hand polishing". S&W products were polished with formed leather wheels (at least up to the point of moving from old factory to new factory (mid-50's)---and likely beyond. (??) (If it ain't broke, don't fix it!). They had/have(??) about a gazillion of them to fit all the myriad surfaces on all the products. The knowledge/skill required to polish was knowing which wheel to use for which surface, which compound to use for which finish, and how hard to lean on the work---and especially how hard not to lean on it. I suspect, (and will bet money on it) the only hand polishing was done to blend/correct minor boo-boo's----some of which were missed. (I have a late 30's M&P in "Bright Blue" that will bring tears to your eyes. The gun is as new. The finish (the polish actually) is the most atrocious, sloppiest work you have ever seen----every place it has a place. I figure it was done late Friday before a hot date or early Monday after a particularly punishing weekend. And I figure both the polisher and the inspector were related.)

Ralph Tremaine

And as noted earlier, some guns were always "Bright Blue". In the target world, 1st and 2nd Model Single Shots were either "Bright Blue"------ or nickel. 3rd Model Single Shots were both "Bright Blue" and matte blue---seems like the early 3rd's were the "Bright Blue". All the Straight Lines were "Bright Blue".

 

[MrG5122]

.....I don't have the boxes and I wonder if this finish difference was noted in some way on the label?......

There was a K32 on here recently that had "Bright" handwritten in cursive on the bottom of the box. That seemed to be the bonafides for a factory bright blue for the experts on here for a '50's S&W.

 

[Texas Star]

The Combat Magnum/M-19 and the .44 Magnum were always Bright Blue. The .357 has been mentioned.

The M-28 was "satin" but some are definitely finished better than others.

Postwar guns other than mentioned were usually a bit dull unless a better polish was paid for. About the time model numbers came along, the finishes got better. And I think metallurgy improved, as per Chic Gaylord's comment about that in, "Handgunner's Guide", 1960.

There's been many an argument as to whether S&W's Bright Blue was as good as Colt's Royal Blue.

 

[rct269]

The Combat Magnum/M-19 and the .44 Magnum were always Bright Blue. The .357 has been mentioned.

The M-28 was "satin" but some are definitely finished better than others.

Postwar guns other than mentioned were usually a bit dull unless a better polish was paid for. About the time model numbers came along, the finishes got better. And I think metallurgy improved, as per Chic Gaylord's comment about that in, "Handgunner's Guide", 1960.

There's been many an argument as to whether S&W's Bright Blue was as good as Colt's Royal Blue.

I don't know, but suspect the "better finished", "satin" finished Highway Patrolman's (and similar) were prepared by glass bead peening rather than polishing (and could have been some other media besides glass beads). Given a high consistency in media size, line pressure, and angle of attack, the results are superbly uniform.

Ralph Tremaine