Model 65-5; Couple of Questions

[TJm15.38]

I own a model 65-5 3" barrel with round butt. I bought this gun used. The owner of the LGS where I purchased the revolver said that it started it's life as a Tennessee Department of Corrections prison guard gun and that he thought it had been partially refurbished/refinished with a bead blasting treatment. Question 1. What's the difference between the finish on this gun vs. original finish?

Additionally, I cannot find the CCJ prefix anywhere in my Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson (Edition 3) On page 400 as you can see in the photo, the prefix skips from CCE in November 1997 to CCK in January 1998. Can I assume this revolver was manufactured between the Nov '97 and Jan '98?

Lastly, on the yoke the serial number is displayed (looks like electro pencil) and the model 65-5 is below that. However, in between you can cleary see an overstamped "U". Does anyone have any idea what the U means? I see nothing on this revolver to indicate it was a law enforcement gun. Perhaps the U is something to indicate that. I welcome your comments and any answers you can provide.

 

[murphydog]

Nice gun, it does appear to have an aftermarket bead blast finish. The original would have been a semi-polished matte appearance. The very first stainless model 60s were bright polished, which was labor intensive.

Many of the letters short numbers and symbols are mysterious. The letter U could be an assembler’s, fitter’s or inspector’s mark.

 

[PeteC]

...

Additionally, I cannot find the CCJ prefix anywhere in my Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson (Edition 3) On page 400 as you can see in the photo, the prefix skips from CCE in November 1997 to CCK in January 1998. Can I assume this revolver was manufactured between the Nov '97 and Jan '98?...

That prefix is not in the 4th edition either. However, several other CC- prefixes are, so 1997~98 is a good guess.

 

[PeteC]

The original finish on a 65-5 has the appearance of a satin/brushed surface. Lookingat an angle in good light, or with a good digital camera, there will be fine directional lines. When stainless is refinished in a media blasting cabinet, it acquires a more matte surface.

Before refinish, the S&W Trademark logo (left side under the thumb piece) has a sharp appearance with dark lines. See pic. After refinishing the lines usually look a little more blurry, and lighter color.

 

[Hair Trigger]

Question 1. What's the difference between the finish on this gun vs. original finish?

Additionally, I cannot find the CCJ prefix anywhere in my Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson (Edition 3) On page 400 as you can see in the photo, the prefix skips from CCE in November 1997 to CCK in January 1998. Can I assume this revolver was manufactured between the Nov '97 and Jan '98?

The original finish would have looked like this M66-1 below.

As for the SN not being in the SCSW, the numbers that are there are reported from owners who knew the gun's age from the Julian date code on the original box. You might assume your number is between ones you mention, but no guarantee within a couple of years, as these guns aren't numbered in serial order, and some letter combinations were used out of order, and some combinations not at all.

 

[TJm15.38]

The original finish on a 65-5 has the appearance of a satin/brushed surface. Lookingat an angle in good light, or with a good digital camera, there will be fine directional lines. When stainless is refinished in a media blasting cabinet, it acquires a more matte surface.

Before refinish, the S&W Trademark logo (left side under the thumb piece) has a sharp appearance with dark lines. See pic. After refinishing the lines usually look a little more blurry, and lighter color.

I can see a slight differnce in the logo on my revolver. The lines are still fairly sharp but the appearance is lighter.

 

[j38]

I have a 3" Model 65 with serial number starting CAA. It also has a "U" stamped where yours is. I called S&W back when I bought it - maybe 15 years ago - and was told the "U" indicates that it was a buy-back (or trade-in) from some agency that was purchasing new guns and had gone through the service dept. to check for proper function before it was resold - probably to a wholesaler.

The finish on mine is not bead-blasted but rather, the more typical, brushed stainless finish.

Jerry

 

[PeteC]

I can see a slight differnce in the logo on my revolver. The lines are still fairly sharp but the appearance is lighter.

Yes. The lines look lighter because the sharp edges were softened during the bead-blasting.

It still looks good on a K-frame, but on a J-frame from the same period, the trademark logo is much lighter to start with. It can almost disappear during refinishing, especially the words at the bottom.

 

[Igiveup]

I recentley purchased a 65-3 three inch RB. The finish on mine must have been polished, as it is shiney. It is my favorite carry revolver.

 

[wood714]

My 65-3 has never been refinished, but does seem to have a light side stamp.

Should get monster size if you click the pic.

 

[BC38]

My 65-3 has never been refinished, but does seem to have a light side stamp.

Ditto on the finish though I wouldn't say mine has a "light" logo stamping. Here's my 65-5

 

[wood714]

I think the factory does some weird stuff when it comes to stamping. I have this 65-5 LS that the side stamping is way off. Look at the left side of the stamp. MADE is all messed up.

I had 2 of them at the time, and decided to polish this one. A few people said I went over board due to polishing the stamp. I have to show them before pics.

*EDIT* Look at Magnum on the barrel too.

Click for massive size.

 

[BC38]

I think the factory does some weird stuff when it comes to stamping. I have this 65-5 LS that the side stamping is way off. Look at the left side of the stamp. MADE is all messed up.

I had 2 of them at the time, and decided to polish this one. A few people said I went over board due to polishing the stamp. I have to show them before pics.

*EDIT* Look at Magnum on the barrel too.

Click for massive size.

I think you attached a picture of your ladysmith by mistake - instead of the left side of the polished revolver...

 

[wood714]

I think you attached a picture of your ladysmith by mistake - instead of the left side of the polished revolver...

I was trying to show that just because there may be light markings doesn't mean the gun had been polished or altered.

My post shows before and after polishing.

The markings were messed up from the factory prior to polishing.

 

[stansdds]

Is the OP's Model 65-5 refinished or not? This might be a question that only S&W can answer. If it was ordered by Tennessee DOC, they may have specified a bead blasted finish. I think the only way to know for certain would be for S&W to look it up.

Whether or not they will tell you or be able to tell you over the phone or via email I don't know. They may consider this to be something that Roy Jinks would have to research and provide a letter of provenance and that currently costs $100. Probably not worth the money for a pretty common revolver.