Pre-War Magnums in Nickel, including 2 Non RM's

[10-12]

This is probably not much help but back around 1977, I purchased a registered magnum form a private individual for $200.00. It was in excellent condition except the right grip panel was from a different era than the left. One had a large escutcheon and the other was smaller, similar to more current styles. It had a five-inch barrel, hump back hammer and a mirror on the base of the front sight that reflected light onto the sight itself. It was nickel finish but the cylinder was blue. I assumed they had been refinished but the finish appeared to be original for both. There was no bill of sale so I have no record of the serial number. Regrettably, I no longer own it. I did not care for the "two-tone" finish. Had it been all blue or all nickel I might still own it.

Merry Christmas,

Bill

 

[bettis1]

Dick & Dave,

So that means that we now know of 4 nickel non-Regs (two 4's, an 8 3/4, and a 3 1/2). Correct?

Will you give the number and shipping data of the "new" 4" to Mike and Kevin for the data base?

We've worn out trying to classify these things before but all this "number assigned but not stamped" and "number stamped but not registered", etc. makes my head swim. I used to be happy in dividing them up into just Registered and non-Registered. Now, I think I will just simplify my life and call 'em all "Prewar Magnums" until Roy gives us some more information.

10-12,

Do you happen to have the serial and registration numbers of your gun and was the cylinder numbered the same as the frame?


Bob

Bill, I just re-read your post and see that there is no record of the serial. Too bad. I don't know just when the factory first made "Pinto" HE's but I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the pre war era.

B.

 

[merlindrb]

Bob

I think there was a typo in the database. There are only the 3 known, I believe. The one Geoff had (now mine), the one Dick had (also now mine) and yours. Perhaps the 3 1/2" noted was actually a 4"? Which gun was it you wanted the serial and Reg# for? The Reg/Non-Reg gun? If so, it was Reg #5415 serial 60175.

Ed - I'm sorry someone advised you to delete a post. In future I'd let valid questions stand and thank people politely for their interest

...

Mike - I wondered, as you did, about the sight bases and pins. None of the other nickel pre-war magnums that I own has a nickel sight base, nor are the pins "flushed". I think both have been off the guns at some time and replaced or refinished. However, I'd bet a small fortune that neither of the guns themselves have been touched. Which makes little sense. Did you have any thoughts?

 

[bettis1]

Dave,

The 3.5" really is a 3.5". (61270)

If there is a typo and there are really only three of them, it must be the one listed as 8 3/4" (62101).

Bob

 

[230grfmj]

Dave,

Those nickel magnums are simply beautiful.

I hope you had a nice Christmas and the New Year will be a good one for you too.

I hope to make Tulsa in the spring, and I look forward to seeing you then.

 

[merlindrb]

Same to you Tom, and it'll be good to see you in Tulsa. You too Bob, I hope??

I forgot the 3 1/2" was your Bob.

I've no knowledge of any 8 3/4". It would be doubly unusual as that was not a standard barrel length in a non-reg. That gun of yours if awfully pretty

 

[mikepriwer]

Dave

I have some thoughts about these guns in particular, but my comments are really
directed to a more general, and related discussion. I don't want you to take any of
what I say here personally; they are more of a collector-related idea.

First, as a general background comment, we have all been advised, many times, that
the factory had the ability to refinish a gun, and no one could tell. We seem to
forget this from time to time, but it comes back to the forefront when I see comments
about betting small fortunes that the finish is original. If we believe the advice
we have been given, then it seems ill-advised to believe that we can beat the odds.
For this reason alone, I don't make any claims about the originality of the finish
on my guns - irregardless of what I may personally think. What this advice really
means is - just about the time that we think we can tell, that is when we will be wrong.


Second, and I've commented on this before, I continue to be amazed by the number
of high-condition registered and non-registered magnums that are surfacing. These
guns were not sold to collectors, but rather working LEO's. I just can't believe
that they kept them wrapped up in a sock in their office drawer. I believe that they
used them - they carried them - they shot them, etc. And yet, these guns are showing
up in near-mint condition amid collector/dealer claims that the finish is original.
In my view, this is just not possible.

Third, and getting more to these non-registered magnums, I think that the provenance
of these guns is more important than the issues about the originality of the finish.
Indeed, originally of finish may be a part of what one pays for these guns, or it
may not - given that we really can't tell anyway. I think the nickel-plated front
sight bases,and the polished pins, are indicative of a subsquent rework of one kind
or another. If the original pins were not polished, then there certainly is the chance
that the whole gun was redone - but I don't think this question can be answered.

Fourth, I don't have any problems with a gun being restored, not that I believe
that any of these non-RM's have, or have not, been restored. I know that there exists
today several examples of guns that surfaced with the "wrong" hammers, barrels, etc,
and that collectors have gone to great effort to get the guns original. As long as
that information is associated with the gun, I think that is a worthwhile effort. I
know that several of my guns (that belonged to various shooters) have gone back to the
factory at least once, sometimes more, and may have been refinished during those
visits. This doesn't bother me - its the gun itself that is important, in these cases.

In closing, please be reminded that none of these comments were directed to you
personally. I am trying here to address, from a different perspective, some issues
about refinishing and restoration.

Regards, Mike Priwer

 

[MikeyL]

First, let me say that those three nickel guns are fantastic, and I had to wipe the drool off the keyboard before I could go much further!

Secondly, Mike Priwer's dissertation on the refinishing/restoration was, in my opinion, right on target. One of the issues is that there are those (not on this forum) that try to pass off refinished or restored guns as "original", and that sort of puts my shorts in a twist. I have a number of refinished guns, since I am a shooter, not a real collector, so the refinishing doesn't mean as much to me. My only RM was originally a cop's gun, and the finish wore off...it was refinished in the 1960's or so..and not a great job. I shoot it a lot. On the other hand, I had my post-war (1953) non-registered magnum refinished at the factory last year because it needed a rebuild, and I was happy to pay the price and get a gun back that looks 100% like a brand-new, 1953 non-registered (pre-27) magnum. I got the factory letter for it, and Roy made the proper notation therein.

I think all of us are concerned when guns show up that are questionable. I just hate it though when I pay through the nose for something that isn't truly "original". Again, just my opinion.

Happy New Year, y'all!

MikeyL
SWCA #2010

 

[Onomea]

Mike, regarding your comments about a too many pristine RMs and NRMs showing up recently, inasmuch as these were purchased by working LEOs and not collectors, that gives me pause. Let me explain why:

I think these guns were, at list of ~$60, the most expensive production handgun available at the time, with the Colt New Service Targets and Shooting Masters at a list of ~$10 less. I do agree that the discounted, bulk sales to PDs (KC in particular as the "bulkiest" buys, as it were) were for working LEOs, and generally those guns do show the wear. (There are exceptions, like Bob's KC gun). I don't think anyone has ever come up with a percentage of how many guns went to LEOs vs. the general public, but it seems to me it is likely, given the high cost, that more went to the public. If so, it further seems to me that of the general public buyers most buyers were comparatively well-to-do in order to afford such a high-end gun. (The other type of buyer, I speculate, would be a gun nut, who, scraping his bucks together, very well might have used the gun thoroughly.) I think well-off buyers were unlikely to be in a line of work where they used guns much, and may well have bought them as many of us do, more to admire than to shoot.

All of the above is just my speculation, but it seems to me that if my speculation is correct, it could account for pristine guns still appearing today.

Arlo

 

[mikepriwer]

Arlo

First, from the notes in this thread, at least one of these three guns is a police gun. I think
its 5145.

Second, the majority of registered magnums were for law enforcement organizations. After all,
that is what the cartridge was developed for , and as a response to: something to go after the
bad guys with ! Whole agencies equipped their entire staff with them.

Third, they were no better looking than any S&W produced - at that time. Their uniqueness
was in their customization - it could be ordered with almost any feature. As evidenced by the
scant survival numbers of the certificates, that was not a big issue. Furthermore, had a lot of
orders been to the public - who thought they were buying a collectable (which is unimagineable
for that period in time) - they would have saved the certificates !

No - these were working guns, just like all the other guns that S&W produced. And particularly any
that went to LEO's.

That is my story, and I am sticking to it !!

Regards, Mike

 

[merlindrb]

Mike

No offence taken - I'm in laid back mode after a long lay-off from the forum.

I don't disagree with any of the points that you've made. I cannot be certain the two guns have not been refinished, however I don't believe the factory would have nickeled the sight bases. Therefore, if these were re-finished it was not done by S&W, and a non-factory re-finish is (generally) easier to spot as I'm sure you'd agree.

Your point about the LEO guns is fair. However, there were many guns purchased by non-LEO's. Out of my small collection less than half were originally LEO guns. I believe that many of those purchased by private individuals were treated as prize possessions, which would explain the conditon of those that we see today.

Regards

 

[mikepriwer]

Dave

These three nickel guns- which ones were shipped to LEO's ? I assume you
have that information via letters ?

Personally, I have a hard time believing they were prized possessions. This was
1935 to 1939/1940. Times were still hard in this country. Lots of people
still hunted for food. Guns were tools, not collectables ; who ever heard of
a $60 collectable ? And, they only made 5300 or so of the registered magnums.
Was this the introduction of the limited production collectable ?! One of my regmags
was a gift from RRM Carpenter, a very senior vice president of DuPont, to a
fishing boat captain based in Seattle. I wrote a long story about it in the
Journal some years ago . He and his daughter shot the thing ! The took good care
of it, but it wasn't a prized possession. Think about 1957 Chevys. At the time
you could buy all you wanted, and they never raised the price. Some years later
they become coveted collectible's - but they sure weren't back them. Or 1963
Mustangs - same thing.

No - I have to disagree with the romantic notion associated with these guns. I think the
explanation lies in the revival of the famed cottage industry. Those folks have finally
stumbled onto registered magnums, and are having a field day.

I'm sure you are aware of the 3 3/4" reg mag that was sold at the Julia auction ( I think )
a couple of years ago. At the time, it had a star on the butt, a factory date on the
grip straps, and was two different colors of blue on the gun. I still have the catalog
page describing all of this. Last year it re-surfaced in mint condition. No star on the
butt, no rework date on the grip straps, and with a correct HB hammer. This is a very
scarce regmag - less than 5 ever done in this barrel length. If one didn't know this earlier
history, I would expect to hear a very lively story about its past !

Regards, Mike

 

[rburg]

The 4" gun went to the chief of Winston-Salem NC. If you look closely you'll see that the gun has some use on it. Even some very minor scuffing of the nickel at the barrel end. On that one, I just assumed that a chief's gun didn't get a lot of wear. Might have spent its life in his desk drawer.

#318 does have a * on the grip frame. But careful inspection shows that it was stamped thru the plating.

Those guns, along with 2 others went to a supper "meeting" with David Carroll, Jim Fisher, Lee Jarrett, my wife and I. The subject of that discussion was if any had been refinished. There were some very minor wear marks on all the guns. Nothing that would indicate a refinish by someone that wasn't a real pro. Because of the stature of the people involved (except me), I tend to think Daves guns are probably original.

As for the * on 318, who knows. It didn't go to an LEO. I found it downstate on a pretty pathetic table at a gunshow. The seller was embarrassed to as as much for that cranky old warhorse as he wanted for newer 27-2s.

I helped him out of his predicament. Almost ripped my pants pockets doing it.

Just to add to the discussion, I've sure owned a bunch of prewar K22s and many of them are even in better condition. People that care for their guns often don't "wear them out". The exception to the minimal wear were the unlucky 450 that went to Kansas City. Those folks are rough on hardware.

 

[bettis1]

Dave, Mike, Dick, and Arlo,

All points well taken. I can only speak for the current condition of my 3.5". I've told the story previously here, and on the SWCA forum, and at the Tulsa "show and tell" so there are no secrets about its modern history.

When I got the gun, it was wearing a blue that was obviously not a factory finish and a set of inappropriate grips. It was a well used gun but the defects were in the finish and not in the metal or function. I paid too much for just a shooter, but I knew the inherent quality and frankly, I did consider it just a shooter. As I always do with guns of that age and heritage, I ordered a letter.

When I received Roy's letter, I knew that the gun deserved to be more than "just a shooter". It revealed that the gun had originally "shipped as a 3.5 inch nickel non-regestered on March 5, 1940 to Gil Salter, Kentucky Highway Patrol, Hopkinsville, KY, delivered to the City Police Station". (Officer Salter was both a city patrolman and a KHP Trooper.)

Since the original Factory nickel finish was long gone, my concern became whether or not the present finish that it wore had a historical significance. My research turned up a current Chief of Police who knew Officer Salter when the Chief was a boy. He recalled seeing the nickel gun in Salter's holster so I'm reasonably certain that the blue that it wore when I got it was not done by Officer Salter.

Because of the scarcity of nickel non-Registered's and this one's LEO history, it was an easy decision to return the gun to the original shipping condition.

I sent it to Gene Williams to be restored and ordered a set of the appropriate Magna grips from Keith Brown. I can only say that, since I have never opened an original magnum box and held a Registered Magnum just as it shipped from the factory, I would put this one up against what I believe that original condition to be. Additionally, it represents the work of two of the finest artisans in the business today.

I think that the greatest concern that we as collectors have is the worry that a restored gun will somehow enter the market as an original. I share that concern and that is one reason why I am quick to tell the story of this restoration. I don't intend to sell it anytime soon but reality is that I won't own it forever and the more folks in the collecting community that know it's history, the less likely it will be that someone will be misled in the future.

Bob

 

[mikepriwer]

Dick

Thanks for the shipping information.

As for the supper meeting of the magnificient three plus 2, I can't imagine
a meeting with more conflict-of-interest than that ! It wouldn't have
made any difference if it was Gods cousin, or even God and his cousin, who did
the examination. If you accept the proposition that a gun could be refinished
and no one could tell, then - How do it know ? On the other hand, I accept your
way of saying it: the guns are probably original.

I suppose that there is another issue about gun(s) being shipped to the Chief of
Winston Salem NC. Suppose he was the receiving officer for all guns shipped to
Winston Salem ? Do we know, for a fact, that this was his personal gun ?

Indeed, KCPD was hard on guns. Its puzzling as to why they appear to be the only
LEO with such a record. I find that hard to believe. Maybe its the case that
they had the worst armorers in the industry, but even that seems a push. For sure,
those guns took a beating - but I would have thought the same thing for Chicago,
for exaample ! 450 unlucky guns is a mighty large amount of back luck !

Regards, Mike

 

[rburg]

I've heard and repeated the story that someone handed Roy a gun that the owner knew had been refinished because he was the one that had it done. The workmanship was so good that Roy couldn't tell.

Our supper meeting at the BBQ joint really had no ulterior motive. All the guns were mine at that time, and all I was doing was asking friends for their opinions. Sometimes David Carroll just amazes me with his ability to pick up on little hints of a refinish. I've certainly missed some in the past, and I assume my ability won't advance to the point where I can always identify one. All most of us can do is keep looking, learning, and sniffing (that from Supica.)

I've also had guns that were brand new with some hints that corners weren't as sharp as you'd expect, or rollmarks thin, etc. But taken as a whole, the guns just didn't cry out that they'd been worked over. Some just escape the factory with polishing a bit heavier than the next one. Maybe they were Monday morning or Friday before a holiday weekend guns.

Just as all guns don't leave the factory in 98% or better condition, some have individual differences under the finish, or in the finish itself.

In all this I also feel certain that we're the first generation to think that a repair is a bad thing. We even make exceptions for minor parts, then get upset if the original owner swapped out front sights because the originals didn't work for him.

 

[kwill1911]

Roy has estimated in the past that about 10% of pre-war Magnums went to LEOs. My data shows closer to 20%. While law enforcement was one of S&W's markets, so were hunters and target shooters and it would seem that many more were bought by those segments of the market than LE officers or organizations.

 

[Onomea]

Thanks, Kevin. That's interesting, and news to me. It is what I would have thought to be the case, although I had no factual basis for my assumption. Well, maybe I woulda guessed LEO RMs/NRMs at higher than 20%, but less than 50%, anyway.

*********************

I wonder how many people out there today are capable of refinishing a gun so that it could pass for original to an educated eye? I don't think this can be done by your average refinisher, and I don't think it can be done by Fords. David Chicoine, from what I have read, can do this, and he quite rightly marks his guns so as to prevent fraud. Gene Williams is certainly excellent, and I have a TL beautifully restored by him, but I have never laid it along side an original finish TL to compare. (If I had known then what I know now, I would also have asked Gene to mark the gun for me in some fashion.) Turnbull for Colts.

Who else?

I've heard there is a very good shop in the northwest, I think, that does fantastic work, but does not mark the guns… Hmm, lemme search here for a minute. Got it:

...There's a company that "restores" firearms up in Wisconsin. They're extremely well known in professional circles and are anything but cheap ...

So, who are those guys, and is it true they do not mark their guns? (I guess I realize that some customers don't want their guns marked, but if good enough to pass for original, not marking the gun bothers me.) And why does one say "there is a company" rather than "the ABC Company," especially if extremely well known…?

Are there others out there at this level?

 

[merlindrb]

Arlo - your post appears to be accusing me of FAKING restorations. I'm sure that wasn't your intention but...

I'm not a gun dealer and I have no interest in faking and reselling pre-war magnums. The company in Wisconsin isn't named because I was complaining about them and they have 2 guns of mine in their possession. I don't want my precious guns lost or buggered up out of spite. It's also not my style to run down the reputation of a business without knowing what their issues are. The point in question on that particular thread was the amount of time being taken by gunsmiths and that was the purpose of my post.

Mike - you're a cynic and I'm not. So there are times when we are going to disagree with each other. Your point about refinishing is well made, there are times when it's difficult (if not impossible) to identify such work. In my opinion the 2 guns in question are not refinished. If I thought they were I would not have paid what I paid for them. My money, my call. Likewise my opinion, which I am as entitled to as you are yours - a point you and I have discussed before. As I have the guns in my possession and have examined them pretty thoroughly, and you've never seen them, which one of us has a stronger case?

Re the destination of the guns, as Dick says, one went to law enforcement the other went to a hardware store in Knoxville TN.

Re my point about cherished possession. I would point out that those individuals who purchased these guns in the late 30's were spending very large sums of money - over 2 weeks average take home wages for that period, I was once told. I'm not suggesting that these guns were cased and never used. I am suggesting, quite reasonably I think, that the buyers took greater care of them because of their purchase price. They cherished them. As has been pointed out to you by Kevin, a significantly lower percentage of pre-war magnums went to law enforcement departments than you estimated. Many of the (say) 20% shipped to law enforcement were still paid for by the individual officers, they merely used the dept or agency to get them a substantial discount. For example, most of the FBI guns sold went to individual SA's who paid for them themselves. This was because FBI "Field Offices" were issued with only one or two magnums each - so the guys bought their own.

We are in agreement about the basic premise that you can refinish a gun without anyone being able to spot it. It's where you go from there that's confusing me.

Regards.

 

[Onomea]

Originally posted by merlindrb:
Arlo - your post appears to be accusing me of FAKING restorations. I'm sure that wasn't your intention but...

Good grief! Dave, I am very sorry if my post appeared that way. It was most certainly NOT my intent. You are a highly respected member of our community, and I have personally benefitted from your advice on several occasions. It was not my intent. I should have written my post with greater care.

And just as a matter of commonsense, no one would ever say he was getting his guns restored, as you did, if he intended to then pass them off as originals!

FWIW, taking a long time to get work like this done is to me not a sign of bad business practice. (Though I think it a good policy to give accurate estimates as to time required.) High-end work takes time. Further, I didn't think you were criticizing 'em for taking a long time. I thought you were braggin!

Again, my sincere apologies, Dave.