Model 45/pre 45 rarity perplexing

[MajorD]

You all make valid points. It still seems funny the feds found the concept to be valid but few others. I agree the target grade 17/18 make more sense ( my 17-2 is my primary rimfire bullseye gun).
If I ever trip over a 45 at a decent price I will pick it up not holding my breath however. I have never 3ven seen one in person!

 

[bdGreen]

Imagine the disappointment my children are going to have when they realize these neerdowell Model 45's didn't come with adjustable sights. Oh, the humanity! I guess they will be relegated to the lower echelon of goodies left to them by dad.

enjoy anyway,
bdGreen

 

[GerSan69]

We all here know the model 45 series is a pretty rare and valuable revolver.
I find it strange that for decades the model 10 series guns were the most common police revolver around, and one would of expected a companion .22 training gun to be popular but wasn't.
Anyone have any ideas why? Lack of marketing by the factory?
Or what.

Well, since you asked...
Back in those days, men were men and women need not apply. There was no need for a minor caliber for "training" because if a recruit couldn't "take it" in training, they didn't expect he'd make it as a cop.
The Post Office was primarily training Mail Clerks for money runs, not cops. As for Boston.... democrats. Can't say more than that.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Well, since you asked...
Back in those days, men were men and women need not apply. There was no need for a minor caliber for "training" because if a recruit couldn't "take it" in training, they didn't expect he'd make it as a cop.
The Post Office was primarily training Mail Clerks for money runs, not cops. As for Boston.... democrats. Can't say more than that.

Well you know someone had to say it......

 

[Green Frog]

If there was ever a gun that needed adjustable sights its a .22, although neat from a collecting standpoint I don't see any use for it that a model 18 wouldn't serve better. I have one but only because the guy selling it knew it was different and he had never seen one before but had not researched it before selling.

Reading through this whole thread, I had come to about the same conclusions as Mr Brown... the Model 45 to me is a niche gun that lacks a niche (except as a collector's piece.) the 22 rimfire revolver will probably digest a variety of loads that will make adjustable sights more necessary than for "service" revolvers like the Model 10, and as others have stated, training for "service" (in this case, mainly for law enforcement) brought the expectation of a certain minimum of strength and self control, which would certainly enable the trainee to be able to handle that most ubiquitous of law enforcement rounds, the 38 Special.

Would I like to have a set of three M&Ps, one each in 38, 32, and 22, or even with a fourth in 32-20? I'd be lying if I said no. But would they be a practical addition to my shooting battery. Not in the least. Although they could be called upon to carry and shoot in yeoman fashion, I'd be much more likely to use one of the Masterpiece series in the same caliber. Back in the '50s when purchasing a revolver, were I to consider the difference in price between the M&P and its Master equivalent, I would likely have saved up the required amount and upgraded to the gun with adjustable sights, especially for anything other than my actual duty gun. JMHO, YMMV.

Froggie

 

[larryofcc]

Pre M45

According to the book, this serial number is just over the one mentioned in the book for a pre M45 M&P 22. # C 407568. It is not model marked and was shipped 6-1958. It also has PC stocks numbered to the gun. Most I have seen have the standard magnas. No PO or PD markings. Eventually, I will letter it.
Anyone have any info on it? The bbl. and cyl. are not numbered. Thanks, Big Larry

 

[DWalt]

Mine is C429xxx, 4", it has original PC grips. No markings other than standard. My cylinder is not serial numbered. I don't believe the barrel is either, but I would have to look to be sure. I am fairly certain mine was one of those PO overruns sold by H. H. Harris. I have a 1960 factory letter that doesn't say much about anything else, and does not even provide a shipping date.

 

[bdGreen]

According to the book, this serial number is just over the one mentioned in the book for a pre M45 M&P 22. # C 407568. It is not model marked and was shipped 6-1958. It also has PC stocks numbered to the gun. Most I have seen have the standard magnas. No PO or PD markings. Eventually, I will letter it.
Anyone have any info on it? The bbl. and cyl. are not numbered. Thanks, Big Larry

The barrel and cylinder won't be numbered as your gun is a four screw model and that wasn't done on them.

I own one gun with standard magnas.
It is a non model marked four screw gun.
All of the ones I have seen and examined have the modified magnas. All of them.

bdGreen

 

[reccpd101]

Hourly costs?

This just an uneducated guess . Part of it may be that the cost of the M&P in .22 caliber reduced the profit margins for S&W. Also lots of cheaper choices for .22 plinkers for general market .

The other part is that training is expensive. Hourly costs incured by Officers and Instructors, ammunition costs, range construction, outfitting and maintenance can add up.

Then also training time away from duty can run departments short on shifts.

It seems like since TR first mandated revolver practice for NYPD ,LE Administrators have viewed sidearm training as a necessary evil. Of course not realizing always that lack of proper training increases the government entity's, the department's, and those same administration's liability greatly.

If S&W ever does decide to resurrect the Model 45 I hope it occures after the funeral of the lock.

Until the US Supreme Court decision in Garcia v San Antonio (1985), local and state governments were generally thought to be exempt from having to pay overtime or even comp time. Some agencies had agreed to do one or the other in union contracts but most said "thank you for showing up for training/qualification, we appreciate your dedication but you won't get paid a nickel more.". The Model 45 was long gone by 1985. The rest of the costs are correct. until, you factor in how cheap practice 22 compared to even reloaded 38 in those days was.

Some officers looked at their sidearm like a carpenter does a hammer and did the absolute minimum. Even today that attitude prevails, the more dedicated ones supplement dept. minimum with skills acquired on their own time.

 

[S.B.]

This just an uneducated guess . Part of it may be that the cost of the M&P in .22 caliber reduced the profit margins for S&W. Also lots of cheaper choices for .22 plinkers for general market .

The other part is that training is expensive. Hourly costs incured by Officers and Instructors, ammunition costs, range construction, outfitting and maintenance can add up.

Then also training time away from duty can run departments short on shifts.

It seems like since TR first mandated revolver practice for NYPD ,LE Administrators have viewed sidearm training as a necessary evil. Of course not realizing always that lack of proper training increases the government entity's, the department's, and those same administration's liability greatly.

If S&W ever does decide to resurrect the Model 45 I hope it occures after the funeral of the lock.

I agree with all you have said so, what's your point here? Your arguments make good sence and why not the model 45?
Steve

 

[larryofcc]

The barrel and cylinder won't be numbered as your gun is a four screw model and that wasn't done on them.

I own one gun with standard magnas.
It is a non model marked four screw gun.
All of the ones I have seen and examined have the modified magnas. All of them.

bdGreen

I have a 4 screw pre M14 and the cylinder and bbl. are numbered to the gun. Big Larry