Need your knowledge.? 38/44

[DCWilson]

I agree with the two preceding posts. That is very likely to be a mid-'30s Heavy Duty that was converted to a target configuration by King a few years later. King could have dropped a S&W humpback hammer into the gun with no trouble at all at the time they put their sights on it.

So you appear to have a "virtual" McGivern Outdoorsman rather than a King-modified original, but the fact remains that the configuration is well regarded by the shooting/collecting community. Five-inch N-frames with adjustable sights and in any caliber are much sought after.

The B in the ejector rod shroud is an indicator that this gun was to be finished in blue. You would see N if it was slated for finishing in Nickel.

 

[glocknroll]

value"....?

American gun history is amazing"
So what would or could be the value of this gun knowing what we do so far..?

 

[ISCS Yoda]

My .38-44 (see avatar above) is a 1932, stock model except for the stag grips. I have it about 2 years, I guess, maybe a little more. It was under 700 bucks at the time, if that helps you at all.

***GRJ***

 

[nicky4968]

I wish I had one.

Congratulations.

 

[410bore]

American gun history is amazing"
So what would or could be the value of this gun knowing what we do so far..?

Its sort of a hard gun to value, at least for me it is. Since it is not a factory gun any longer and things have been added/modified its hard to look at it and shout out a price.


So, Let's look at it incrementally;

5" Pre-War HD, no grips (I think the ones on it are unnumbered so I'll value them on their own), $500 +/-
Great Condition Large Medallion Service Stocks.....$300+
Humpback Hammer..................$300
King Front and Rear Sights and possible action job......$200-500+ depending on how bad someone wants it. These are niche guns and people who like them will pay for them.

Total $1300-1800 +/-

At least that's how I look at it.........

 

[bettis1]

I also agree that the gun probably started life as a Heavy Duty and was, most likely, modified by King's. Although there are several slight variations of the known Factory McGivern Outdoorsmen (i.e. front sights either with or without McGivern bead) this is the first that I've seen that wasn't a Patridge variation.

No matter whether it came from the factory that way or it was later modified by King to fit the desires of the owner, it is a very desirable configuration. Its value would certainly warrant spending $50 for a Factory Letter. The letter may or may not (probably won't) say that it shipped as is, but it will open up the chance to communicate with the S&W Historic Foundation. That could possibly reveal some additional factory communication with the owner.

The value is well into the thousands. Be Happy, Happy, Happy!

Bob

 

[1Aspenhill]

I was going to wait before making anymore comments, but as it has been said, never say never with Smith & Wesson. We don't know, but the factory could have been out of N Target Frames, pulled a HD frame, milled for the rear sight and put the King sight on due to a customer who wanted it quickly. I tend to go with it left as a HD and then was returned to the factory for work to make it a target gun. However, it is in the time frame for other McGivern models so until it gets a letter, we won't know for sure.
Bill

 

[glocknroll]

letter time"

Well" sounds like the "letter from S&W" is the call...! anyone know the turn around time..? thanks for all your info.. GOD BLESS AMERICA"

 

[05CarbonDRZ]

Well" sounds like the "letter from S&W" is the call...! anyone know the turn around time..? thanks for all your info.. GOD BLESS ASMERICA"

About 4 months plus.

 

[bettis1]

In reviewing my information file on the McGivern Model I have found some interesting data that causes me to rethink my previous comments a little.

There is a lot of communication between Ed McGivern and D. B. Wesson and one invoice in particular addresses the question as to how the McGivern Model originated. In that Factory invoice to McGivern a gun was described as: "38/44 Heavy Duty McGivern Model* *McGivern Model .38/44 -5" B Target McGivern front sgt. That invoice was dated in 1933 and puts to rest that the first gun was a Heavy Duty.

In regard to my gun (#44687) it has a grooved front and back strap, a Patridge sight without a McGivern Bead. The letter from Roy describes it exactly but does not use the term "McGovern Model". However, further search through the SWHF turned up two documents on my gun from the original recipient to the Factory which do refer to the gun as a "McGivern model".

When I asked Roy if the McGivern bead and the grooved straps were specific or if the presence or absence of either was necessary for it to be classified as a McGivern Model, he opined that there wasn't a real answer to that. When Ed. McG. ordered the first one (on a Heavy Duty), the Factory just began to call the 5" target sighted guns a McGovern Model. It was never catalogued by that name.

Logic would tell us, as Bill mentioned above, that subsequent orders were filled either with Heavy Duty or Outdoorsman frames depending upon what was available at the time of the order.

I think that there is an excellent possibility that your gun shipped as a "McGivern" model and the owner subsequently sent it to King for the replacement of the Patridge sight with the King ramp sight and the humpback hammer.

Get a letter!

Bob

 

[bettis1]

Here is another letter from the S&W factory relating the origin of the first McGivern Model. In case the letter isn't clear, the first paragraph states in part:

"…the McGivern Model is our 38/44 Heavy Duty equipped with an adjustable target sight and the McGivern front sight. It was this arm that was made up on Mr. McGivern's request and which he has unhesitatingly declared to be the finest, fastest, ruggedest hand arm he has ever handled."

Bob

 

[glocknroll]

pulled rear site" no ser# under it..?

 

[bettis1]

I couldn't quite tell from your last post but to be sure you understood, the serial number would be on the bottom of the sight, not on the frame under the sight. Of course, if it isn't there that is additional confirmation that the sight was not put there by the factory but rather by King.

Bob

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Intriguing gun. It will be very interesting if you letter it to find out how it came that way.

 

[410bore]

I will have to check the rear sight on my King OD. If there is no SN on it then my guess is the entire assembly was crafted by King.

 

[glocknroll]

I couldn't quite tell from your last post but to be sure you understood, the serial number would be on the bottom of the sight, not on the frame under the sight. Of course, if it isn't there that is additional confirmation that the sight was not put there by the factory but rather by King.

Bob

NO SER# ON SITE OR FRAME..! CHECKED IT ALL..!

 

[1Aspenhill]

I would say that the work was done by King or a very competent gunsmith. Now go out and shoot it and enjoy it.
Bill

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[A10]

Any way you slice it, it's a very cool gun!

 

[handejector]

This gun is a Heavy Duty.

Look at what you see-

Smooth tangs.

Add on King front sight that fits over the original BASE after the blade is ground off, and pinned through the base.

The rear sight is a King, not factory.

The frame is white in the cut for the rear sight.


Guys-
Grips in the 30's have STAMPED numbers, NOT pencil.

 

[bettis1]

This gun is a Heavy Duty.

Look at what you see-

Smooth tangs.

Add on King front sight that fits over the original BASE after the blade is ground off, and pinned through the base.

The rear sight is a King, not factory.

The frame is white in the cut for the rear sight.


Guys-
Grips in the 30's have STAMPED numbers, NOT pencil.

Lee,

I think that we can all agree now, with all the information that we have, that it is a customized Heavy Duty. But with the original information and the pictures that wasn't clear.

The fact that it has smooth tangs certainly isn't definitive by itself. Remember that the FIRST McGivern (and several subsequent ones) was built on a Heavy Duty. And, until we saw the rear sight removed, the gun could have just as easily have been an original McGivern Model that had been modified by King for someone who wanted a Baughman style instead of a Patridge and a humpback hammer.

Bob