Second Second Model 44HE

Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
260
Reaction score
532
This is a story of my second Second Model Hand Ejector. It’s a bit of a tale...

From the beginning of my N-frame interest I have been keeping my eyes open for a good deal on a 44 Hand Ejector. The term “good deal” means different things to different folks since 44 Hand Ejectors are, by and large, scarce and expensive compared to many other S&W’s. Further, the First Model, the venerable Triple Lock, is even scarcer and expensiver than the rest of the 44HE models! Since most Forum members have some understanding of the pricing of those I won’t go into it here. Suffice to say that when I saw one for <$500 I was immediately interested, and a wee bit skeptical.

The gun pictured here was advertised on Armslist and was on the opposite coast from me. Listed by a private seller, it was one of three low-cost revolvers, with shipping indicated as “No”. I watched the ad, along with 44 HE’s listed on other gun sights. Those other 44’s all carried the expected price tags, generally $1500-$2500. So after a few weeks I decided to reach out to the seller. We exchanged messages and after a time I asked if he would consider shipping for some additional cash to cover shipping costs and his trouble.

In response I received several additional pictures and a phone call. The seller explained that he generally didn’t ship since he did not want to get into a situation where a buyer was not clear on what he was buying and everyone ended up unhappy. Using the additional pictures, he explained that the barrel had been shortened and the gun re-plated. The original grips were long gone and in their place were a pair of Altamont service replacements, which neither of us found particularly flattering on the nickeled N-frame. The hard parts were all original and all of the numbers matched. The gun was reported to function fine. He stated that he thought he could use a local shop to ship it and was willing to do so. We made a deal.

Of course, Murphy’s Law, nothing is ever easy, pick your analogy, I was still a ways from holding my 44 HE. He had requested payment via USPS money order, which necessitated a trip to the post office. I put the MO and my C&R in a Priority envelope on a Tuesday, expecting it to arrive on Thursday. Some of you who inhabit the North or East of the US may recall there was a bit of a snow storm in January. “Neither rain nor sleet nor dark of night!” they said. Apparently that storm was more than the slogan allowed as “Delivery delayed due to weather” was the status for the next week. On day eight or ten I went back to USPS and asked them to put a trace on my package. A couple of days later the seller let me know he had received it and would ship the next day or so. Apparently the new help at the local shop said they no longer shipped guns. The next shop said yes but only on Monday, which meant another week wait. After another two weeks of waiting a package appeared at my door containing my new-to-me 44 HE! 😊

She was beautiful, in a well-used shooter sort of way. The good news is that based on previous owners mods I don’t absolutely have to keep it original. The other good news is for the price I have improvement options. The gun has serial number 16665, which I think puts it ~1921. Frame, cylinder, and barrel all match. Lockup and timing are good for the age.

The grips had to go first thing, though the N-frame grip choices in my drawer were few. With the short barrel and the N-frame I prefer a beefier looking grip. It is currently wearing a pair of aftermarket targets, though they are not great. I have a set of Hogue wood grips coming from a member here that I think will look good; still waiting for those.

The barrel was cut just behind the sight to 4 1/2”. The rifling seems well aligned and continuous, but the parting line was not well filled in on the outside. I would like to keep the serial numbered barrel but will see how she shoots. If the grouping is poor I have some options: I could swap the barrel and cylinder for a 29 / 629 set, both of which are available. Or rebore and rechamber for 45LC (or 45ACP, though ACP will cause me to lose the SN on the cylinder face.)

I actually do not like plated triggers and hammers. The plating on the hammer is thick and filled in the grooves, which makes the hammer slick. I am picking up a matched target trigger and hammer set to try. We will see how that feels and if it looks obnoxious.

The 1917 Commercial I posted yesterday has had some ramping done to the sight, I might consider that on this gun also as the flat front sight surface, especially with some color, is really helpful to me. If I end up with a new barrel (eg 629) I will have the frame machined for a matching rear sight.

Or I may just leave it as is, a 100yr old survivor. That is part of the fun of this hobby for me, the choice to leave it or build it, learn what I can do myself vs what I need someone experienced to do, see what upgrades owners engaged in before me, and of course, shoot. It is another non-collector piece, which fits my style just fine. As a result of a couple of gun deals I now also own a 29-2 and (almost) a 629-6 Classic. So that has sated my 44 desires for the moment (these seem to come in 3’s for me). I will keep looking for another classic pre-model 44 HE, maybe a pre-24, but will wait for the right shooter at the right price to come along. Thanks for sharing my find 😉
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7113.webp
    IMG_7113.webp
    95.9 KB
  • IMG_7112.webp
    IMG_7112.webp
    91.4 KB
Last edited:
I have a 1917 commercial model that had been nickel plated including the hammer and trigger. I was able to put in a replacement trigger but I could not get so far the hammer to fit.

I also have a third model in the same condition. I cannot get the replacement hammer or trigger to fit up correctly
 
Last edited:
lestuff,
Neat old 44 second model.
I had a third model .44 HE that had been to Bubbas Inc. Ultimately I found a prewar 38/44 parts gun and moved the complete hammer, trigger and rebound slide into the old 44 restoring it to full mechanical function. It was a great shooter!
Good luck in your quest!
 
There are no factory target hammer and triggers for the pre WW II long action revolvers.

I wouldn't put a .44 Magnum barrel & cylinder in a pre WW II revolver. The frame isn't heat treated, plus the front sight won't match the fixed rear notch.
thanks for the info Sir. appreciate the learning even when i don't want to hear it ;-) Thinking about it, didn't heat treating start in ~1921? or was that just the cylinders?

I recognize the rear sight issue. I had thought about machining the frame to accept a matching rear sight but if the frame isn't strong enough i don't want to put on a barrel that indicates a caliber it is not safe to shoot. :-\
 
lestuff,
Neat old 44 second model.
I had a third model .44 HE that had been to Bubbas Inc. Ultimately I found a prewar 38/44 parts gun and moved the complete hammer, trigger and rebound slide into the old 44 restoring it to full mechanical function. It was a great shooter!
Good luck in your quest!
that's a good thought. If the hammer and trigger i bough don't fit i will have to look for a pre-war donor. Fortunately, it does function as it. I could probably remove the plating on hammer and trigger. Not sure what the underneath will look like once exposed...
 
That's a better way to shorten a barrel than the usual of soldering the front sight on. I like that it keeps the factory sight and crown.
I just sold a new old stock 5" 2nd Model barrel that was stamped but in the white to another forum member last week. I'd planned on putting it and a 624 cylinder on a 1917 frame but lucked into a .44 2nd for a good price with original stocks and lanyard ring.
 
I bought some nickel remover recently and I'm going to try that on my third model in my 1917 as opposed to changing out the parts. If that works, I'll send you a message and send you some of the material if you want to try it
 
This may seem like a stupid question, but how does one calculate the cut to keep the rifling continuous and the front sight at top dead center? 🤔
 
This may seem like a stupid question, but how does one calculate the cut to keep the rifling continuous and the front sight at top dead center? 🤔
I've never done it, but my thinking leads me to believe that exact measurements in length and an accurate knowledge of the rifling twist rate would be essential...I would also like to know how the barrel taper (if any) could be accounted for...:unsure:...Ben
 
This may seem like a stupid question, but how does one calculate the cut to keep the rifling continuous and the front sight at top dead center? 🤔

I've never done it, but my thinking leads me to believe that exact measurements in length and an accurate knowledge of the rifling twist rate would be essential...I would also like to know how the barrel taper (if any) could be accounted for...:unsure:...Ben
I doubt the rifling lines up. S&W used 1 turn in 18 3/4”. The numbers don’t jive. As for the taper, not even close. Far better to shorten then barrel, remove the front sight leaving enough material to contour to fit the new barrel and solder it in place.

IMG_1026.webp


IMG_1023.webp


IMG_1025.webp


What you are looking at is a 45 Hand Ejecstor that has been treated this way. It is done well and blends well.

Kevin
 
"I doubt the rifling lines up. S&W used 1 turn in 18 3/4”. The numbers don’t jive."

I figured the same way, but looking down the muzzle in the 2nd to last pic, the rifling looks pretty good.
 
Last edited:
"I doubt the rifling lines up. S&W used 1 turn in 18 3/4”. The numbers don’t jive."

I figured the same way, but looking down the muzzle in the 2nd to last pic, the rifling looks pretty good.
If you are happy with that and the taper, I am happy for you.

Kevin
 
I bought some nickel remover recently and I'm going to try that on my third model in my 1917 as opposed to changing out the parts. If that works, I'll send you a message and send you some of the material if you want to try it
hey awesome! Let me know please and thank you!
 
I said the rifling looked pretty good. I never addressed the taper. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Wasn’t trying to. Merely expressing my opinion. Sorry you are thin skinned.

Please, feel free to disregard any more of my posts.

Kevin
 
"I doubt the rifling lines up. S&W used 1 turn in 18 3/4”. The numbers don’t jive."

I figured the same way, but looking down the muzzle in the 2nd to last pic, the rifling looks pretty good.
Those are both my thoughts. I fully expected the rifling to be off but it looks darn close. I don’t understand how that can be. A family medical issue has kept me from shooting so I can’t yet speak to what I really have.

Appreciate all the feedback. I will add a shooting report in a couple of weekends.
 
Neat gun. Raljr1 has a good suggestion worth trying. If I owned it that’s the only change I’d do and call it good.
 
I actually do not like plated triggers and hammers. The plating on the hammer is thick and filled in the grooves, which makes the hammer slick.
That hammer never had grooves. It always had smooth sides.
Plating does not "fill in" holes or contours. It builds up in a uniform thickness on the original surface, following all dips and depressions.


This may seem like a stupid question, but how does one calculate the cut to keep the rifling continuous and the front sight at top dead center? 🤔
The rifling was never cut through. The barrel was cut off at the full length that it now is. The front one inch (or so) of that cut barrel was then turned down to reduce the diameter. The front one inch (or so) of the cut piece was then cut off and reamed out to form a sleeve that was soldered on to the front end. You can see the seam on the muzzle at 10 o'clock and elsewhere in this pic.


722873-4337a5ab4970d1548aba7f9ce26d065b.webp
 
I doubt the rifling lines up. S&W used 1 turn in 18 3/4”. The numbers don’t jive. As for the taper, not even close. Far better to shorten then barrel, remove the front sight leaving enough material to contour to fit the new barrel and solder it in place.
723242-1c871faae3f464d406a6bdf5d62b872b.webp

I believe your barrel also has a sleeve. LOOK at the pic I left in the quote above. Can you see a seam on the muzzle?
 
That hammer never had grooves. It always had smooth sides.
Plating does not "fill in" holes or contours. It builds up in a uniform thickness on the original surface, following all dips and depressions.



The rifling was never cut through. The barrel was cut off at the full length that it now is. The front one inch (or so) of that cut barrel was then turned down to reduce the diameter. The front one inch (or so) of the cut piece was then cut off and reamed out to form a sleeve that was soldered on to the front end. You can see the seam on the muzzle at 10 o'clock and elsewhere in this pic.


View attachment 845738
Well i’ll be darned. That is really interesting. It explains exactly how it is possible to keep both the rifling and the front sight intact (though slightly rotated). Also explains the parting line. I am going to go home and look more closely at the front of the muzzle. Thank you much for the explanation.

Also, looking at the second picture posted by StrawHat it does appear that his gun has the same parting line, though the machine work was more precisely done.
 
Wow, that's a scenario I never contemplated. Sounds very plausible to me. It's almost like watching an old episode of Columbo. Thank you for clearing that up Lee.
 
I am going to go home and look more closely at the front of the muzzle.
Ok one more post in this thread. The below pic highlights the end of the barrel (through a 10x eyepiece.) It clearly shows the sleeved outer barrel from the cutoff portion over the original barrel. This was an interesting education. It makes sense and also makes me want to become more of a machinist. ;-) Pretty sure the cut, the boring / reaming, and the barrel cut down can all be done with a lathe. I can fit one of those in the shop, maybe, somewhere … now the soldering, that’s a different problem… ;-)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7314.webp
    IMG_7314.webp
    116.1 KB
I've never done it, but my thinking leads me to believe that exact measurements in length and an accurate knowledge of the rifling twist rate would be essential...I would also like to know how the barrel taper (if any) could be accounted for...:unsure:...Ben
I assumed the front sight section of the barrel was removed and turned into a hollow 'shroud', then soldered onto a turned section of the cut off barrel. No mods to the rifling if done this way. I could be wrong, but that would make more sense than trying to match rifling. And like I said, it looks a lot better than soldering the front sight onto a cut off barrel. That gap could be filled better.
 
I believe your barrel also has a sleeve. LOOK at the pic I left in the quote above. Can you see a seam on the muzzle?
Lee,

I got a chance to grab some images of the muzzle. What are your thoughts.

IMG_1365.webp

IMG_1364.webp

IMG_1363.webp

IMG_1361.webp

If you would like to see other angles, let me know.

I do not believe the front sight was sleeved.

Kevin
 

Latest posts

Back
Top