Gramp's reg. mag
Member
What a great find and a great story. I get a lot of enjoyment on this forum in the celebration of other members good fortune. Chalk another one up for the good guys!!
Registered Magnum reg#1169
- Thread starter gunfish
- Start date
Art Doc
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
OK, some folks here like to think of themselves as serious collectors and a couple actually are. So let's get serious about something for once.
Let's form a committee (say 5 members) to hash out definitions for "scare," "rare" and "uncommon" and run it past the general membership for comments and suggestions. I think the definition should be based on a formula, like a percentage of production instead of personal opinion. Nothing can be perfect but maybe something could be developed that most collectors could agree to live with.
Rather than sit around bemoaning a lack of proper terminology, lets create some.
Let's form a committee (say 5 members) to hash out definitions for "scare," "rare" and "uncommon" and run it past the general membership for comments and suggestions. I think the definition should be based on a formula, like a percentage of production instead of personal opinion. Nothing can be perfect but maybe something could be developed that most collectors could agree to live with.
Rather than sit around bemoaning a lack of proper terminology, lets create some.
Gunfish,
What a great find! Congratulations.
The front sight is a McGivern gold bead. Ed McG. designed it and loved it. Elmer Keith hated it and thought it "shot away from the light". If those two old masters couldn't agree on its merits who are we to decide. I haven't shot a McGivern bead but I sure like its looks.
As to your comment that the "barrel doesn't have a groove in the rib", I'm not sure just what you mean. It looks like a perfectly normal Registered Magnum barrel to me. (Interpretate that to say "They don't get any nicer than a barrel like that!").
Regarding the discussion about "scarcity or rarity": When that one is settled, perhaps we can take up the old conundrum about "just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". I don't recall that they ever came up with a good answer for that one either.
Bob
What a great find! Congratulations.
The front sight is a McGivern gold bead. Ed McG. designed it and loved it. Elmer Keith hated it and thought it "shot away from the light". If those two old masters couldn't agree on its merits who are we to decide. I haven't shot a McGivern bead but I sure like its looks.
As to your comment that the "barrel doesn't have a groove in the rib", I'm not sure just what you mean. It looks like a perfectly normal Registered Magnum barrel to me. (Interpretate that to say "They don't get any nicer than a barrel like that!").
Regarding the discussion about "scarcity or rarity": When that one is settled, perhaps we can take up the old conundrum about "just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". I don't recall that they ever came up with a good answer for that one either.
Bob
Mike, I do understand your point of view. Not sure if I agree with it, but I respect it, and get where you are coming from.
Here's the RM bbl length chart from Roy Jinks' registered magnum article in the Winter 1989 SWCA Journal, The Revolver that Changed the Direction of Handgunning:
Sax, if we actually were to encourage our true experts and "serious" collectors – I imagine a beady eyed, dour fellow with a monocle – to come up with a consensus on rare, scarce and uncommon, wouldn't that destroy a lotta the fun? I mean, what would we have to argue about here?
Gunfish, again, congratulations! Sure hope you can get the numbered grips as well. Good luck!
Here's the RM bbl length chart from Roy Jinks' registered magnum article in the Winter 1989 SWCA Journal, The Revolver that Changed the Direction of Handgunning:
Sax, if we actually were to encourage our true experts and "serious" collectors – I imagine a beady eyed, dour fellow with a monocle – to come up with a consensus on rare, scarce and uncommon, wouldn't that destroy a lotta the fun? I mean, what would we have to argue about here?
Gunfish, again, congratulations! Sure hope you can get the numbered grips as well. Good luck!
I have to side with Arlo on this issue of definitions, for a number of
reasons. But I would add that I don't think we are differing on definitions,
but rather on what is individually important to each of us.
Just for fun, I looked up "rare" and "scarce". Both words relate to
an insufficient supply, a limited amount, infrequent occurance, etc.
Rare itself can be used to describe scarce, but it appears not to be
the other way around.
The problem with these dictionary defintions is that, in this case, the
two words are so similar that the use of one or the other probably would
not have much effect on the price of a gun. I suppose that, in the specific
case of registered magnums, the choice of these two words could be in
relation to the number of a particular barrel length, but - all the
registered magnum collectors already know that. When there are only 4
4 1/4" guns made, whats the difference whether its referred to as scarce
or rare ?
Then there is the issue of getting that universe of buyers and sellers to
agree about all of this. The gun market is very illiquid, in the sense that
every transaction is one-on-one. While previous sales help to set some
notion of precedent, each successive sale is still a one-on-one transaction.
Just because the last known KCPD registered magnum sold for $2200 doesn't
at all mean that the next one will. In fact, more likely than not, the
next one will probably sell for $2600, for any number of unrelated reasons.
For those readers who are members of the S&WCA, I recently posted a piece
about the .38 1902 Military. In this story, I noted that while the Collectors
refer to any pre-WW2 k-frame made after 1905 as a model of 1905 with some
notion of Change, the factory catalogs did not do this. In fact, from the
catalog perspective, there are no notions of Change, and the 1905 designation
is for square-butt guns only ; not round butts. Yet, the Collectors persist
with this difference in nomenclature.
If we can't agree , among ourselves, about the proper name for a 1905
K-frame, I think there is little hope that we can arrive at a consensus
about defintions that are important vis-a-vis value.
Later, Mike Priwer
reasons. But I would add that I don't think we are differing on definitions,
but rather on what is individually important to each of us.
Just for fun, I looked up "rare" and "scarce". Both words relate to
an insufficient supply, a limited amount, infrequent occurance, etc.
Rare itself can be used to describe scarce, but it appears not to be
the other way around.
The problem with these dictionary defintions is that, in this case, the
two words are so similar that the use of one or the other probably would
not have much effect on the price of a gun. I suppose that, in the specific
case of registered magnums, the choice of these two words could be in
relation to the number of a particular barrel length, but - all the
registered magnum collectors already know that. When there are only 4
4 1/4" guns made, whats the difference whether its referred to as scarce
or rare ?
Then there is the issue of getting that universe of buyers and sellers to
agree about all of this. The gun market is very illiquid, in the sense that
every transaction is one-on-one. While previous sales help to set some
notion of precedent, each successive sale is still a one-on-one transaction.
Just because the last known KCPD registered magnum sold for $2200 doesn't
at all mean that the next one will. In fact, more likely than not, the
next one will probably sell for $2600, for any number of unrelated reasons.
For those readers who are members of the S&WCA, I recently posted a piece
about the .38 1902 Military. In this story, I noted that while the Collectors
refer to any pre-WW2 k-frame made after 1905 as a model of 1905 with some
notion of Change, the factory catalogs did not do this. In fact, from the
catalog perspective, there are no notions of Change, and the 1905 designation
is for square-butt guns only ; not round butts. Yet, the Collectors persist
with this difference in nomenclature.
If we can't agree , among ourselves, about the proper name for a 1905
K-frame, I think there is little hope that we can arrive at a consensus
about defintions that are important vis-a-vis value.
Later, Mike Priwer
bettis1, The sides of the barrel rib are flat, there is no convex shape to the sides of the rib. I have a KCPD reg mag with a barrel rib that has convex sides not flat sides. Here is a pic of the ends of the barrels of both guns. The KCPD is on the right and the one I just purchased is on the left. I noticed also that the barrel on the right has thinner barrel walls than the barrel on the left. It's kind of odd since the barrel on the right is 1/2 inch shorter than the barrel on the left. Anyway, I think of the convex sides as grooved which is why I referred to the flat sided rib as having no "grooves". I couldn't get the difference to show well from the side so I took the pic from the front of the barrels.
Less than 10,000 is uncommon. Less than 1,000 is scarce. Less than 500 is rare. I apply these definitions to military rifles, I ain't sure if they work with S&Ws. Then comes chicken lips and rocking horse poo.
Less than 10,000 is uncommon. Less than 1,000 is scarce. Less than 500 is rare. I apply these definitions to military rifles, I ain't sure if they work with S&Ws. Then comes chicken lips and rocking horse poo.
...now this is getting more and more interesting! I can't wait find out about barrel thickness and barrel rib transition shape (it looks thicker also)... With Anticipation, Jerry
Gunfish,
That's an interesting picture. You'll probably get a lot of responses but here's mine. I think that it is an example of the fact that these guns were hand made. Each one was hand polished and there were relatively few men who had the skill to do the polish that is found on a Magnum. The one on the left is the correct contour. The fact that the rib on the KCRM seems more concave and the barrel diameter is thinner indicates to me that it has been refinished, possibly several times. (We know that the majority of the KC guns were refinished at least once.) I would expect that the workmen who did the rework were less skilled than the original workers or perhaps more likely, the condition of the metal when it was refinished required the polisher to remove more metal.
You'll notice that the sight base is approximately the same width in both guns. The pins also tell a story about the sequence in which the sights were placed and polishing was done.
Bob
That's an interesting picture. You'll probably get a lot of responses but here's mine. I think that it is an example of the fact that these guns were hand made. Each one was hand polished and there were relatively few men who had the skill to do the polish that is found on a Magnum. The one on the left is the correct contour. The fact that the rib on the KCRM seems more concave and the barrel diameter is thinner indicates to me that it has been refinished, possibly several times. (We know that the majority of the KC guns were refinished at least once.) I would expect that the workmen who did the rework were less skilled than the original workers or perhaps more likely, the condition of the metal when it was refinished required the polisher to remove more metal.
You'll notice that the sight base is approximately the same width in both guns. The pins also tell a story about the sequence in which the sights were placed and polishing was done.
Bob
rburg
Member
Ah but Roy tells us that none of the KC guns were Registered Magnums. According to his defination, only guns he says are Registered qualify. That means that the stamp in the crane cut means nothing to him. The guns weren't shipped with a card, so none of them could have been "registered".
I only bring that up because the table Arlo presented indicates a small number of 4" guns. If you add in the 450 that went to KC (or, take your choice, only 250 of them) it would mean that buy using the "numbers", the 4" variety is only rare or scarce if you eliminate the KC guns.
So to redirect the thread (normally called a hijacking), lets consider guns we don't have numbers to quote. To me, prewar 3rd model targets are scarce, like hens teeth. Prewar 3rd model 4" targets are really rare. We know of 2 of them.
I only bring that up because the table Arlo presented indicates a small number of 4" guns. If you add in the 450 that went to KC (or, take your choice, only 250 of them) it would mean that buy using the "numbers", the 4" variety is only rare or scarce if you eliminate the KC guns.
So to redirect the thread (normally called a hijacking), lets consider guns we don't have numbers to quote. To me, prewar 3rd model targets are scarce, like hens teeth. Prewar 3rd model 4" targets are really rare. We know of 2 of them.
Regarding the thinned-barrel KCPD gun, I agree with Bob - that barrel
has seens a lot of filing, among other things.
Regarding definitions, I guess we have our first candidate:
Scarce == Hens teeth.
I look forward to a candidate for "rare" ..
Regards, Mike Priwer
has seens a lot of filing, among other things.
Regarding definitions, I guess we have our first candidate:
Scarce == Hens teeth.
I look forward to a candidate for "rare" ..
Regards, Mike Priwer
Gary
That is a worthwhile comment on the subject of definitions.
I hadn't considered that, and it was not in the dictionaries that I
looked at.
So, we have:
Scarce == Hens Teeth
Rare == Steaks cooked for Gary
Regards, Mike Priwer
That is a worthwhile comment on the subject of definitions.
I hadn't considered that, and it was not in the dictionaries that I
looked at.
So, we have:
Scarce == Hens Teeth
Rare == Steaks cooked for Gary
Regards, Mike Priwer
jphendren
Member
Barrel rib contour thread
gunfish, see this thread regarding the rib shapes found on RM's. I believe that the earlier guns had the more vertical sides whereas the newer barrels had the "grooved" sides.
Jared
gunfish, see this thread regarding the rib shapes found on RM's. I believe that the earlier guns had the more vertical sides whereas the newer barrels had the "grooved" sides.
Jared
Well now, Jared: The plot thickens!
jphendren, Thanks for the link. Perhaps that is where I got the idea that there were different style ribs. I would offer an opinion on this subject but I just don't know enough about RMs. I am sure there are collectors that have seen and handled hundreds of them, I will leave discussion of such details to folks that have experience.
Common = Rare guns for sale on auction boards.
Common = Rare guns for sale on auction boards.
Originally posted by rburg:
Ah but Roy tells us that none of the KC guns were Registered Magnums. According to his defination, only guns he says are Registered qualify. That means that the stamp in the crane cut means nothing to him. The guns weren't shipped with a card, so none of them could have been "registered".
So by Roy's reasoning, any .357 mag that didn't have its registration card submitted by the origional owner is not an RM?
This would make for many peope who thought they owned an RM, but simply own a pre war .357 mag. While he may be technically correct, I don't think he has many people in his camp on this subject!
Methinks this is the splitting of hairs as people are not going to quit refering to their "unregistered's" as RM's.
Habu
Those non-registered magnums are, to many collectors, more scarce/rare than
the registered magnums. There is not a lot of them, and they go for big
prices when they are categorized correctly.
Its not a technicality - its a very important group of guns that are
valued separately from registered magnums.
Later, Mike Priwer
Those non-registered magnums are, to many collectors, more scarce/rare than
the registered magnums. There is not a lot of them, and they go for big
prices when they are categorized correctly.
Its not a technicality - its a very important group of guns that are
valued separately from registered magnums.
Later, Mike Priwer
Sgt 127
Member
Let me see if I have this right. There were the Registered Magnums. The first run of .357 Magnum revolvers that left the factory with a REG XXXX stamped in the crane. Roughly, 5000 made.
There were a few guns, made during the REG period that were not stamped with a REG number in the crane.
Then there were the .357 Magnums that were made after the Registration process ended that were the same gun, without the REG stamped in the frame. (And, there were considerably LESS of those made).
But, and this is where I am confused, if the gun, that has REG stamped in the crane was never officially registered, by returning the card to S&W, Roy Jinks does NOT consider those registered Magnums?
There were a few guns, made during the REG period that were not stamped with a REG number in the crane.
Then there were the .357 Magnums that were made after the Registration process ended that were the same gun, without the REG stamped in the frame. (And, there were considerably LESS of those made).
But, and this is where I am confused, if the gun, that has REG stamped in the crane was never officially registered, by returning the card to S&W, Roy Jinks does NOT consider those registered Magnums?
Art Doc
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
There are several definitions as to what constitutes an RM. As I understand it, Jinks doesn't count police sales where the registration cards weren't sent with the gun despite the reg numbers being stamped on the frames.
Well, Roy is a great guy and all, but IMO that's ridiculous. If it has a stamped reg number it's an RM in my book (for what that's worth). Of all the features that make the RMs what they were, the presence or absence of the damned postcard is insignificant AFAIC.
A high percentage of RM sales were police orders, and I suspect that among all RM sales the number of buyers who bothered to return the cards was small. Given Roy's definition there are likely no more than 1,500 RMs. That's just plain silly.
Well, Roy is a great guy and all, but IMO that's ridiculous. If it has a stamped reg number it's an RM in my book (for what that's worth). Of all the features that make the RMs what they were, the presence or absence of the damned postcard is insignificant AFAIC.
A high percentage of RM sales were police orders, and I suspect that among all RM sales the number of buyers who bothered to return the cards was small. Given Roy's definition there are likely no more than 1,500 RMs. That's just plain silly.
I wanna get back to the bbl distinction that Gunfish raised. It seemed we'd most cleverly concluded that it was due to polishing prior to refinshing a coupla days back, but then Jared posted his reference to his 12/06 thread, which blows that theory outta the water.
Here's an excerpt from that thread:
The thread confirms that the earlier the RM, the more likely it does not have a "groove" or "lip," and the later it is the more likely that it does.
So, how 'bout them apples, boys?
Here's an excerpt from that thread:
The thread confirms that the earlier the RM, the more likely it does not have a "groove" or "lip," and the later it is the more likely that it does.
So, how 'bout them apples, boys?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
