I bought a 29-2 8 3/8" SN 425XXX recently and was told it was anib unfired. I purchased it from a S&W collector that has a pretty good reputation, however, after inspecting the gun I noticed a few quirky details that have me pausing. First, the "44 magnum" stamping on the right side of the barrel fades out on the top (in otherwords, it looks like only the bottom portion of the stamping mark is deeply punched and it gradually becomes indistinguishable toward the very top of the letters). The other thing I noticed about it are that the forcing cone and breech face of the barrel looks extremely shiny and has no chamfering around its rearward edge (considering that I have noticed some very faint copper fouling in the bore, the gun was obviously fired at least a couple times, but I would assume that this area would have taken a blackened color even from the factory test firing). There are small nicks and scratches on the barrel that can be seen when looking closely that seem to look as though the barrel was clamped right near the front of the underlug area at one time. I have not seen another gun that exhibits this condition to that degree, and am starting to wonder if someone later on had the barrel off or rereamed the breechface/forcing cone. Has anyone seen this or heard of these conditions on a factory gun, or should I be weary of rework? I looked at the gun under a light and the blueing seems to be about the right color, I dont notice any milkyness or purple color, however, the barrel has alot of scratches especially longitudinal scratching. The sideplate screws are not "buggered" but you can tell that the edges of the slots are slightly deformed to indicate either removal or overtightening at one point (I have seen factory guns that have this to a degree though). Also, the gun has the factory presentation case which looks to be correct, a shipping sleeve (the condition of the cardboard looks almost too good) and it has a receipt of purchase that appears to show the correct age, however, I cannot verify if it is original or not as I didnt buy from the OP.
Spotting Rework on my 29-2
- Thread starter shawplat1
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
very subjective and opinionated, and hard to make observation/comment without "seeing" the gun in question.....first off, there is NO new,UNFIRED, in the box...they are tested and usually in the case of S&W was "every other chamber" so you would "see" discoloration ( contrast) on at least 3 of the chambers...now, if they had trouble building the gun, and required further test firing ,this too did occur....so now all 6 may show 'signs'...if even fired ONE shot, you would get fouling, whatever one wants to call it in the lands ,grooves, on the top strap, etc..................the roll marks 'may" have been "off center" ( lighter one end or the other or from top to bottom)...have seen this in the past. Marks on the barrel could be from being in a vise ,OR may have been made from a barrel wrench,going on or off, ??? MOST of the -2's we've seen looked really nice, so the chance of a "bad build" would be less likely...yes, when companies have "new hires" there may be a 'transition' in place, work not up to snuff ( par) again, subjective.......
the "bare metal" may be from 'fitting ,clearance for the brl/cyl,gap...??who knows, maybe the barrel was "set back" one turn,ergo the marks on it. Wish we could telll you something "positive" one way or the other, as these are also signs of a "refinish"...or at least that the gun was "worked on" ( serviced...) same goes for the 'screws' on a new gun, any and all marks in/on the slots of the screw head should be in the "forward" ( screwing IN) position or side of the slot in question....if the other way, means the screw was taken OUT...hard to tell in most cases ,but I know of guys who could spot this in an instant...the screws do tell a story............but again, of course, this may have happened when the gun was actually built/fitted....
do you have any pictures?? may help ,but..........................
the "bare metal" may be from 'fitting ,clearance for the brl/cyl,gap...??who knows, maybe the barrel was "set back" one turn,ergo the marks on it. Wish we could telll you something "positive" one way or the other, as these are also signs of a "refinish"...or at least that the gun was "worked on" ( serviced...) same goes for the 'screws' on a new gun, any and all marks in/on the slots of the screw head should be in the "forward" ( screwing IN) position or side of the slot in question....if the other way, means the screw was taken OUT...hard to tell in most cases ,but I know of guys who could spot this in an instant...the screws do tell a story............but again, of course, this may have happened when the gun was actually built/fitted....
do you have any pictures?? may help ,but..........................
Last edited:
faraim
Member
I don't mean to disparage your observations, but you may not be aware that back when these revolvers were made, they were just tools and not collector's items. I have a 27-2 that has a frame with a much less shiny finish than the cylinder and barrel. It also has a nick in the topstrap across the checkered area that was blued over. It came out of the box that way, as I was the first person to unwrap it, and I was glad to get it because it was the first one to arrive at the hardware store in at least a year. The quality declined during the Bangor Punta years also. The first model 60 I ever purchased in 1984 had a ring in the barrel. You may very well have a 29 that has been messed with, but then again it could just be a rough example. As much as I crave the old guns I have to admit that some of them were not as good as what we have today. Good luck getting it sorted out.
Last edited:
Update
Well after looking closer at the barrel frame interface, I have no doubt that at one time the the forcing cone was cut and the breechface surfaced. The telltale sign is that the rearward face of the barrel shroud (that you can see with the cylinder open) is not blued and upon inspection you can see the sharp edge that a toolbit would have left when the shoulder was turned in a lathe so the barrel could be rotated in one full extra turn. In addition, I measured the distance from the pin in the barrel shroud to the frame opening on this gun and compared the measurement to two other 29-2's that I have and this gun is about .020 thousands less. I have established the fact that it was indeed turned down and appears to be reamed but the question lies in whether or not this could have been done at the factory or later on? Most everything else about the gun looks correct and it doesnt appear to be refinished or even show much evidence of firing or handling other than the minor "nicks/scratches" on the barrel from what looks to have been clamping. It has the original receipt of purchase, shipping carton, and very nice original presentation case (I already tried to contact to OP with no luck, and the guy I bought it from said that it came out of an estate sale with three others that were bought from the same gun shop.) It seems that there is not much motivation for someone to do gunsmithing work such as this on a gun that really doesnt appear to have been shot. I know about the workmanship issues with smith but I mainly want to know if the factory was known to recut forcing cones/breechfaces and turned shoulders on these guns in the 70's? I am thinking about trying to bring the gun back if this is not original...but if it is original then finding a package gun like this is rare and I may just keep it.
Well after looking closer at the barrel frame interface, I have no doubt that at one time the the forcing cone was cut and the breechface surfaced. The telltale sign is that the rearward face of the barrel shroud (that you can see with the cylinder open) is not blued and upon inspection you can see the sharp edge that a toolbit would have left when the shoulder was turned in a lathe so the barrel could be rotated in one full extra turn. In addition, I measured the distance from the pin in the barrel shroud to the frame opening on this gun and compared the measurement to two other 29-2's that I have and this gun is about .020 thousands less. I have established the fact that it was indeed turned down and appears to be reamed but the question lies in whether or not this could have been done at the factory or later on? Most everything else about the gun looks correct and it doesnt appear to be refinished or even show much evidence of firing or handling other than the minor "nicks/scratches" on the barrel from what looks to have been clamping. It has the original receipt of purchase, shipping carton, and very nice original presentation case (I already tried to contact to OP with no luck, and the guy I bought it from said that it came out of an estate sale with three others that were bought from the same gun shop.) It seems that there is not much motivation for someone to do gunsmithing work such as this on a gun that really doesnt appear to have been shot. I know about the workmanship issues with smith but I mainly want to know if the factory was known to recut forcing cones/breechfaces and turned shoulders on these guns in the 70's? I am thinking about trying to bring the gun back if this is not original...but if it is original then finding a package gun like this is rare and I may just keep it.
Similar threads
- Locked
