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

merlindrb

merlindrb

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
274
Reaction score
127
Location
SW Florida
Firstly, Merry Christmas to all the members with a special thanks to the forum owner and his team.

I've recently taken temporary guardianship of 3 further pre-war Magnums in Nickel finish (shared thanks to David Carrol & Dick Burg plus Lee Jarrett & Geoff Moore).

Two of these are non-reg and one is an early RM (#318). In the pic below the two non-reg guns are on top. So the bottom gun is the RM.


I believe that there are only three non-reg nickel guns in our records, so this is two-thirds of the total. Unless you know different...
icon_biggrin.gif


The first of the non-reg guns is rather interesting. It letters as leaving the factory in November of 1939 and does not have a Reg # stamped on the frame. However, Roy says it was assigned Reg # 5415 at the time of order, it just wasn't stamped. The November 1939 date makes it a very early non-reg gun.

Equally interesting is that I have an RM with the Reg # stamped on the frame that didn't leave the factory until July 1940. Go figure! Nothing's ever simple with S&W!
icon_biggrin.gif


I hope you enjoy seeing them.

Dave
S&WCA #1678

P1000347.jpg
 
Register to hide this ad
Firstly, Merry Christmas to all the members with a special thanks to the forum owner and his team.

I've recently taken temporary guardianship of 3 further pre-war Magnums in Nickel finish (shared thanks to David Carrol & Dick Burg plus Lee Jarrett & Geoff Moore).

Two of these are non-reg and one is an early RM (#318). In the pic below the two non-reg guns are on top. So the bottom gun is the RM.


I believe that there are only three non-reg nickel guns in our records, so this is two-thirds of the total. Unless you know different...
icon_biggrin.gif


The first of the non-reg guns is rather interesting. It letters as leaving the factory in November of 1939 and does not have a Reg # stamped on the frame. However, Roy says it was assigned Reg # 5415 at the time of order, it just wasn't stamped. The November 1939 date makes it a very early non-reg gun.

Equally interesting is that I have an RM with the Reg # stamped on the frame that didn't leave the factory until July 1940. Go figure! Nothing's ever simple with S&W!
icon_biggrin.gif


I hope you enjoy seeing them.

Dave
S&WCA #1678

P1000347.jpg
 
Dave,
Merry Christmas to you! I see your Christmas came early!
icon_biggrin.gif
What's the history on the RM? since it is so early, did it go to anyone special? All of these look as though they just left the factory. Congrats on pulling these together, they sure are nice. Take care and have a Merry Christmas!
Bill
 
Darn nice, Dave, thanks for sharing!
I picked up a blued KC non-RM from Geoff a few months back, shows honest cop wear and hasn't been refinished. Neat guns.
Merry Christmas to you! Does Santa wear shorts when he flies into Florida??
icon_biggrin.gif
 
Merry Christmas,

Beautiful guns, all I can say is WoW!!!
Thanks for sharing the picture which is destined for the wallpaper
icon_biggrin.gif



Dan M
 
Dave:

Made my Christmas morning complete! I received a copy of Jinks' History of Smith & Wesson and Smith & Wesson 1857-1945 A Handbook for Collectors for Christmas and was enjoying the chapters on RM's when I clicked on this thread
icon_biggrin.gif
.

Thanks for sharing and MERRY CHRISTMAS!
 
Dave

There was a post, on this thread, last night, that seems to have disappeared. It raised a question
about the two nickel-plated sight bases.

The pins, if there are any, that hold those two nickel sight bases are polished smooth to the rib
of the barrel. One of the two is showing just the bare beginning of something going on betwee the
sight base and the top of the barrel rib.

I wasn't aware that the factory was polishing those sight-base pins flush to the rib, during the
registered/non-registered magnum era. Do you have any comments, or insights, about that ?

Later, Mike Priwer
 
Mike:
I posted and raised the point/question but got a couple of emails off-forum asking why I was being negative about 3 such beautiful guns(I was not, in my opinion), but in the spirit of the season, I removed it.
Ed
 
I don't remember them looking that nice when they were in my safe...
icon_biggrin.gif


As for Mike's question, we sure had a series of discussions about that. I can freely admit I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Because the prices I paid originally weren't very high, and I knew they were originally shipped as nickel, I just didn't care. When David looked at them he spent some time on each and made the comment that he thought they were original. He's about as good at spotting a refinish as anyone I know.

I'm just glad they've moved someplace where they'll be appreciated and cared for.
 
Hi Dave. You obviously haven't been wasting your time away from here! Great guns!

I'm confused on the number of known non-Reg. nickels now. The data base lists an 8 3/4, a 4", and a 3.5". Are these two 4" guns new ones or is one of them the one that is already listed?

In any case, they are pretty rare birds. Would any of you folks like to make an estimation of the number produced? Just to start things off, I'll guess no more than 50 and probably nearer to a couple of dozen. (no facts to back that up, just a WAG.
icon_smile.gif
)

Bob
 
Two 4" guns, Bob. The one in the database was Geoffs, the other one was the one I had. Its neither fish nor fowl. As Dave stated, it did have a registration number assigned, but not stamped on it. It went to the chief of Winston-Salem PD in October of 39 as I recall. Nice little gun.

#318 was interesting because it was one of the first nickel guns.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
icon_biggrin.gif
...

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?
 
Dave,

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

standard


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
 
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.
 
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.
icon_biggrin.gif
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
icon_biggrin.gif
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LLOYD17
Greene County, MO Deputy Sheriff Registered Magnum (Update: The RM has gone home)
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
SAFireman
SAFireman
lestert357
KCPD Pre-War .357 Magnums Purchased During 1939/1940 (Finish Condition - A Survey)
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
17K
Familyman
F
Toyman
Non registered Magnum 5 inch
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
crsides
C
O
  • Locked
Please Close Thx WTS 5" Nickel Pre-War RM (Withdrawn) & 3" 627 V-Comp (V-Comp SPF)
Replies
1
Views
2K
onemanwolfpack
O
RKmesa
UPDATE 11/23/10 - Pre-War 6.5" Nickel Non REG 357 Magnum
Replies
20
Views
3K
bettis1
bettis1

Latest posts

Back
Top