Pre-war K-22 Masterpiece value

[MJS5678]

It worked!! I did not think a first model hammer would fit into a second but here are the pictures. The gun functioned properly DA but would not hold full cock SA. The triggers are slightly different from first to second but I suspect both were changed in your revolver. My gun still had the short throw with the first model hammer.

 

[Harvester]

Very cool, MJS5678, you ROCK!!

So since mine locks-back tight in SA, the presumption is my Materpiece has the OD hammer *and* the OD trigger? Things that make you go: "Hmmm..."

I think my trigger appears in both sets of my pics in this thread... you mentioned a light difference in the short-throw trigger... is there a visual difference?

~Harvester

 

[DCWilson]

That is really interesting.

There's an old generalization that 90% of everything you know is wrong, and I was way wrong in my "knowledge" of K-22 OD and K-22/40 hammers.

With those photos my bad knowledge index is down to 89.999999...% -- for the moment.

 

[Masterpiece]

Harvester,
You mentioned that you are still somewhat confused regarding the Rear Sight Issue!! There are "No" Engineering or Cosmetic Differences between these Two Sights!! The Sights are "Identical" in every way with the exception of the Roll-Stamping of the Patent Information!! The Earlier Issued 2nd Models will have the "Pat.Pending" Roll-Stamp & the Later Isuues will have the Actual "Pat.Number" Assigned to the Sight Roll-Stamped on them!! The Early Issues had the "Pat.Pending" applied to the Sight because the Actual "Patent" for it had not yet been approved when they started using these in production!! I hope this information helps with your confusion!! I'm anxious to see how Roy's Letter is going to explain the Hammer!! Like I said previously,don't look for a straight-forward explanation to the Hammer "Issue" as I don't think you're going to get one!! So don't be disappointed if you don't get a straight answer!! In any case,Good Luck!!!

 

[MJS5678]

Harvester, the trigger difference is under the sideplate where the hammer and trigger contact, the second has a "hook" that the OD does not have. You should be able to see it with the sideplate removed.

David, don't beat yourself up to bad, I had no idea this would work until I tried it.

Now to find a transitional N hammer to put into a post 1950 short action!!
Any takers? Sounds cool to me!!

 

[Masterpiece]

Thanks Mike!!

Quote<!!(David, don't beat yourself up to bad, I had no idea this would work until I tried it.)!!>

Thanks Mike,

I'm glad you took the chance to see if they'd interchange!! It was really starting to get to me & now I don't have to take any of mine apart to see!!

Take Care!!

 

[rburg]

So what I'm thinking is with my spare K22 Outdoorsman HBH, I can maybe install it in one of my K22 2nds , or better still, in one of my low serial K22 post war guns! Think of the possibilities. Nothing feels as good as a HBH. This forum is evil.

 

[MJS5678]

Sorry Dick, it only works in the second model, I tried in a K38.

 

[Engine49guy]

Harvester, the trigger difference is under the sideplate where the hammer and trigger contact, the second has a "hook" that the OD does not have. You should be able to see it with the sideplate removed.

David, don't beat yourself up to bad, I had no idea this would work until I tried it.

Now to find a transitional N hammer to put into a post 1950 short action!!
Any takers? Sounds cool to me!!

Very interesting, especially the fact a long throw hammer fits.
Have you compared the 2nd model trigger to a post war short action K22 trigger for similarity yet?

Something is telling me they might be very similar.

 

[Harvester]

you guys are outta control... but I am enjoying the education and the conversation! My 'Letter of Authenticity' request is in the mail and on the way to Mr. Jinks along with a dozen or so pictures.

I explained the controversy so I hope he has an answer regarding the hammer, etc. Hopefully, confirming the fact my revolver left the factory that way. Regardless, I will keep you posted.

Thanks again,

~Harvester

 

[charlies]

Interesting your comments. I have a similar 22, serial number 647731 the hammer looks like Harvester's but the rear sight runs the length of the top strap and is held on with three screws. I always thought it was a prewar.
Charlie

 

[Harvester]

Yeah, Baby, YEAH!!

Woo, HOO!! I got my K22/40 letter back from Roy Jinks today... I will read it and try to get it scanned-in later this evening...

~Harvester

 

[Hondo44]

We're all holding our collective breath.........

 

[Harvester]

at long last...

OK... I was finally able to scan in the 2-page letter from Roy. As the first page and a half was general information and history on the K-22, I only attached the last paragraph to this post since that is the section the specifically pertains to my revolver.

For a little background, in addition to my letter of authentication request (and $50.00 check), I sent Roy 14 (fourteen) 8 1/2 x 11 printed color pictures of my revolver showcasing every angle and detail... including the cylinder open and the hammer cocked, the wording on the rear sight, etc. I also included the questions regarding the discrepancies many here on the Forum noted pertaining to the hammer and rear sight in the hopes Roy would address them.

And the attached picture is the last paragraph of Roy's letter to me (hopefully it will be visible). I am happy to share the full letter offline and/or when I have a moment to review the stellar steps bdgreen was kind enough to share about posting robusto, detailed pictures here on the Forum (thanks again!).

Oh, and just in case the copy in the picture cannot be read, Roy gave my revolver a "thumbs up"... and, in my opinion addressed my queries about the sight and the hammer in his last 2 (two) pertinent sentences:

"I believe your revolver is original and there are many minor
variations in production as Smith & Wesson geared up for war time
production. The collectors forget that these are manufactured
products and what is important is to get the product out the door."

Then again, for all I know, those comments may appear on each and every letter of authentication. All I know is it put a HUGE smile on my face as I read the letter... long before I even got to the details about my revolver because history, especially firearms history, is VERY cool stuff!!

The only dissapointment is the letter came in a 8 1/2 x 11 paper envelope and the USPS bent it putting it in my mailbox. *sigh*

~Harvester

BTW- I did not mean to leave out my appreciation for the wealth of knowledge here on the Forum and my sincerest appreciation for all of you who take the time to share it and enjoy doing so! I was excited earlier but I woke up on the couch thinking about that and I wanted to be sure I had not given anyone the wrong impression.

 

[RKmesa]

Harvester:

I think that your letter is missing the reference to your serial number. Usually in, Roy's letters he states "...which indicate that your handgun, with serial number ________, was shipped from our factory..." It looks as if Roy or his assistant failed to input your number into the template. I'm certain that Mr. Jinks would "fix" that oversight (send you a corrected letter) if you let him know about the oversight.

BTW - Congrats on the gun lettering in its current configuration ...

 

[Hammerdown]

Harvester:

I think that your letter is missing the reference to your serial number. Usually in, Roy's letters he states "...which indicate that your handgun, with serial number ________, was shipped from our factory..." It looks as if Roy or his assistant failed to input your number into the template. I'm certain that Mr. Jinks would "fix" that oversight (send you a corrected letter) if you let him know about the oversight.




BTW - Congrats on the gun lettering in its current configuration ...

Gentlemen
I see we are Quickly Humbled by the factory letter as we have to Learn Yet again to respect the Famous past Phrase of "Never say Never with anything Smith & Wesson"....

 

[Harvester]

I know... I saw that too but I was not sure if that was something which could be corrected... definitely worth the effort so I will send Roy a letter asking for a replacement with the correction, thanks for the suggestion!

OK... here we go with my first attempt at inserting some HUGE images and try to post my 2-page letter from Roy:

http://i1119.photobucket.com/albums/k625/Harvester007/SnW_letter_K22-40_09-09-2011_page-1.jpg

http://i1119.photobucket.com/albums/k625/Harvester007/SnW_letter_K22-40_09-09-2011_page-2.jpg

Fingers crossed as I click 'submit reply'...

~Harvester

 

[Hondo44]

Harvester,
Congratulations on the originality of an even more special already rare revolver. A couple of observations: Based on the letter the change in 1936 to Magna grips indicates you'll need a grip change for your gun to be original.

With a new letter coming, maybe you'll want it sent to a different address so it doesn't get folded to fit in your mailbox again. Also, you might want to have Roy correct the spelling of "build" and "scattered" as long as the letter has to be redone anyway to add your serial #.

That's one happy ending to the story of your K22/40.

 

[Masterpiece]

Harvester,
Congrats on the Originality of your Revolver Lettering in it's present configuration!! You've definitely got the only one I've ever seen "Letter" with the Long Throw Hammer!! I do although have to somewhat disagree with the comment that Hondo made regarding the Grips!! I have seen & owned my fair share of these Second Models that were Correct with the Pre-War Medallion Grips yours now wears!! Most all of the ones with these Grips I've encountered were actually stamped with the Serial Number of the Revolver that was wearing them,but there are also cases of these having Grips with Penciled Serial Numbers as well!! I also believe when Roy made the statement that it had Checkered Walnut Grips when it was shipped from the factory it refers that yours are correct for your Revolver since you supplied him with so much information & also photos when you sent in the Letter Request!! Bottom line is,I don't think I'd rush right out & try to find a set of Pre-War Magna's thinking it is only correct if it has them!! I also don't think you'll have a problem with Roy amending the Letter either!! He's generally pretty good about mistakes like that!! Finally,you've got a Great Find there & I hope you enjoy it for many,many years to come!! Enjoy!!!!

 

[handejector]

As I recall, the hammer stud was moved on the second model.
So, post a pic of the thumb latch straight on from the side.
Someone else post the same pic of a K-22 OD.
Then, we can compare stud locations. Perhaps someone replaced the hammer, perhaps in the WW II rush, somebody screwed up....