Depending on which war, it may letter somewhat disappointingly...I'm still on the hunt for a pre-war 44 Magnum.
...Ben
Terminology
- Thread starter DARE
- Start date
...Ben
Depending on which war, it may letter somewhat disappointingly...
OK, pre- Desert Storm 44 Mag.
DWalt
Member
With no doubt whatsoever, to me the most useless, meaningless, and confusing word in the entire lexicography of gun collecting is "Transitional." I hesitate to mention it even here, as I took a vow that I will never use it. It is a repulsive abomination. It seems that it is no longer used on this forum to nearly the extent it formerly was, so I guess others have come to believe the same as I.
Last edited:
I don't use the term but what terminology do you use to describe a gun with a mix of pre and post war features? As with "pre," if it helps identify the item for the parties discussing it, isn't it useful?
The only real objection to the term I have is that those using it usually want to "transition" a large number of dollars away from me, to them, in order to acquire whatever "transitional" it is.
Jeff
SWCA #1457
Last edited:
You know, if you stop and think about it for a spell, the term "pre-war .44 Magnum" could perhaps be used to describe pretty much any .44 Special that used to live at Elmer Keith's house---where powder measurement was done in accord with the saying, "Some's good, more's better, and too much is just right!"
I can see him now--sitting there thinking, "Well, that worked; maybe it'd work better with just a wee tad more."
Them there was the "good old days"!
Ralph Tremaine
I can see him now--sitting there thinking, "Well, that worked; maybe it'd work better with just a wee tad more."
Them there was the "good old days"!
Ralph Tremaine
Absolutely! I have and will continue to use the term “Transitional” here on the Forum and elsewhere.
According to Merriam-Webster the definition of transitional is: involving, providing, or consisting of a passage, movement, or change from one state, condition, subject, place, etc., to another.
The very early long action Post War .357 Magnums carried over many configuration characteristics of the Pre-War .357 Magnums, but also introduced several of the configuration characteristics that became standard on the later short action models, and thus fit the definition of "transitional" perfectly.
Transitional is definitely a term used in the semiautomatic area of the site and it describes a short run of very early 3rd Gen pistols that were made up using 2nd Gen parts & pieces, some of which got model numbers assigned to them on the box end label that didn’t exactly match the gun itself.
As to the larger discussion at hand, I might suggest a few items:
First is that if something upsets you and you take vows in/around the use of same, it might benefit you to take a step back and catch a breath. When visiting the S&W Forum causes you pain and grief, you might be doing it wrong.
Next up is that it might make sense to determine the goal in some of these discussions. Being correct and accurate has tremendous value for sure, but there’s also value in not trying to build a private old boy’s club where the unwashed masses that don’t have the knowledge or experience are seemingly not welcome.
I’m not here to police that, but a quick double read before submitting a strong opinion is rarely a bad idea.
As to the larger discussion at hand, I might suggest a few items:
First is that if something upsets you and you take vows in/around the use of same, it might benefit you to take a step back and catch a breath. When visiting the S&W Forum causes you pain and grief, you might be doing it wrong.
Next up is that it might make sense to determine the goal in some of these discussions. Being correct and accurate has tremendous value for sure, but there’s also value in not trying to build a private old boy’s club where the unwashed masses that don’t have the knowledge or experience are seemingly not welcome.
I’m not here to police that, but a quick double read before submitting a strong opinion is rarely a bad idea.
I think the term transitional is not meant so much to describe a mix of pre and post war features as it is to recognize a significant advance, if I can use that word, in some one or more aspects of a given item/product---from before to after. That said, I'm hard pressed at the moment to think of a transitional gun.
There is, I believe, a transitional sight. That would be design #14 in Neal's article (The Evolution of Smith & Wesson Target Sights)---to be found here on this forum (somewhere), and in a SWCA Journal (of unknown, but more or less recent vintage). We know it as the "two screw" sight.
It came along in the early 1930's. It is the first S&W sight that absolutely, positively will not shoot loose (when properly adjusted and locked)-----the very first since their first target sight in the late 1870's. That has to be a transition worthy of the name!
As an aside, it is quite possibly the very best sight S&W ever made, considering the fact it is also infinitely adjustable-----whereas it's successor (the so-called Micrometer sight) still with us today, is not.
Ralph Tremaine
After a brief search, that SWCA Journal of recent vintage is Summer 2022.
There is, I believe, a transitional sight. That would be design #14 in Neal's article (The Evolution of Smith & Wesson Target Sights)---to be found here on this forum (somewhere), and in a SWCA Journal (of unknown, but more or less recent vintage). We know it as the "two screw" sight.
It came along in the early 1930's. It is the first S&W sight that absolutely, positively will not shoot loose (when properly adjusted and locked)-----the very first since their first target sight in the late 1870's. That has to be a transition worthy of the name!
As an aside, it is quite possibly the very best sight S&W ever made, considering the fact it is also infinitely adjustable-----whereas it's successor (the so-called Micrometer sight) still with us today, is not.
Ralph Tremaine
After a brief search, that SWCA Journal of recent vintage is Summer 2022.
Last edited:
In the case of the .357 Magnum, the factory did not go from the “old” pre-war long action trigger and hammer configuration with pre-war adjustable rear sights (before 1941) DIRECTLY to the “new” post war short action with micrometer click rear sights (after October 1949); rather they TRANSITIONED from the old configuration to the new configuration by manufacturing approximately 142 “interim” or “transitional” guns (from December 1946 to March 1949) that carried over some of the old features and introduced some of the new features.
Last edited:
First, a big THANK YOU to Ralph for your kind words!
Second, in trying to address the comments of the original post in this thread, I note that "Standard Catalog" and "Smith & Wesson 1857 to 1945" make use of the notion of engineering changes, that were developed in the service department for making repairs. These collector-nomenclature concepts were never used in the factory catalogs, flyers, All-Model Circulars, etc, whose primary purpose was for selling guns.
It turns out that the factory advertising documents do not have the problems that collectors experience with the nomenclature being used. Specifically, factory letters describe early 4-screw square-butt revolvers as a model of 1902, and a 5-screw round-butt revolvers as a model of 1905, when in fact, square-butt models are always a model of 1905, and round-butt models are always a model of 1902.
Another problem with the collector nomenclature is that is violates the factory distinction between 1902's and 1905's. The following image is pages 38 & 39 of the 1912 catalog.
The first line of the last paragraph clearly states that 1902's and 1905's are identical except for the butt configuration. This statement, using the factory nomenclature, is always true, for contemporary models. The collector nomenclature denies the existence of a model of 1902 in about 1905, which voids the factory distinction, when in fact, the two models were always produced side by side (except for a period during WW2).
This confusion about two models vs one model did not have to happen. Instead of denying the existence of the round-butt model, it should have continued to exist. For example, the addition of the 5th frame screw in a round butt frame would simply be a 1902 2nd change. To maintain the factory distinction, the square butt model with the 5th frame screw should be a 1905 2nd change.
This implies that, at its introduction, collector nomenclature should have called it a 1905 1st change, which makes it compatible with the factory rule that, except for butt configuration, contemporary models are identical - which means that they have the same name structure.
This would clear up some of the confusion caused by the collector nomenclature. It may not address all the problems, but it does address one of them.
Regards, Mike Priwer
Second, in trying to address the comments of the original post in this thread, I note that "Standard Catalog" and "Smith & Wesson 1857 to 1945" make use of the notion of engineering changes, that were developed in the service department for making repairs. These collector-nomenclature concepts were never used in the factory catalogs, flyers, All-Model Circulars, etc, whose primary purpose was for selling guns.
It turns out that the factory advertising documents do not have the problems that collectors experience with the nomenclature being used. Specifically, factory letters describe early 4-screw square-butt revolvers as a model of 1902, and a 5-screw round-butt revolvers as a model of 1905, when in fact, square-butt models are always a model of 1905, and round-butt models are always a model of 1902.
Another problem with the collector nomenclature is that is violates the factory distinction between 1902's and 1905's. The following image is pages 38 & 39 of the 1912 catalog.
The first line of the last paragraph clearly states that 1902's and 1905's are identical except for the butt configuration. This statement, using the factory nomenclature, is always true, for contemporary models. The collector nomenclature denies the existence of a model of 1902 in about 1905, which voids the factory distinction, when in fact, the two models were always produced side by side (except for a period during WW2).
This confusion about two models vs one model did not have to happen. Instead of denying the existence of the round-butt model, it should have continued to exist. For example, the addition of the 5th frame screw in a round butt frame would simply be a 1902 2nd change. To maintain the factory distinction, the square butt model with the 5th frame screw should be a 1905 2nd change.
This implies that, at its introduction, collector nomenclature should have called it a 1905 1st change, which makes it compatible with the factory rule that, except for butt configuration, contemporary models are identical - which means that they have the same name structure.
This would clear up some of the confusion caused by the collector nomenclature. It may not address all the problems, but it does address one of them.
Regards, Mike Priwer
In the post above (^^^^^^^), Mike seems to be saying the various engineering changes (1st/2nd/3rd/etc.) were noted/developed by the Service Department (for the purpose of making repairs)---rather than by a particular group of collectors. On the one hand, this is news to me-------AND makes perfect sense. On the other hand, it's contrary to the tales told to me during what I'll call my formative years---that these changes were identified/labeled by collectors.
Which is it?
Ralph Tremaine
Which is it?
Ralph Tremaine
John Patrick
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2021
- Messages
- 1,575
- Reaction score
- 2,465
You would think that engineering changes would not be made willy nilly, without reason. So, not knowing the answer I’d bet on the repair shop identifying an issue and manufacturing providing a solution.
What they were called by the factory has become irrelevant, and I’m sure the sales department didn’t want to advertise, “Hey, all of the M&Ps we made prior to this year have a defect identified by our service shop, so we fixed it…”
What they were called by the factory has become irrelevant, and I’m sure the sales department didn’t want to advertise, “Hey, all of the M&Ps we made prior to this year have a defect identified by our service shop, so we fixed it…”
IMO it comes down to saying "M&P 38 Special model of 1905 4th change", or saying "Pre-model 10".
The exact "shorthand" isn't as important IMO, as using a description that everyone UNDERSTANDS.
Anything else is angels dancing on the head of a pin IMO.
The exact "shorthand" isn't as important IMO, as using a description that everyone UNDERSTANDS.
Anything else is angels dancing on the head of a pin IMO.
OP
Thanks, Mike.
The "Standard Catalog" says .38 M&P Model of 1905, round or square butt.
The 1912 S&W Catalog shows .38 Military Model 1902 (has a round butt) and .38 Military Model 1905 (has a square butt).
I would say The "Standard Catalog" information is not correct. Interesting to me that the 1912 Catalog says Military Model rather than Military & Police. Might be another error in the "Standard Catalog". My 1941 Catalog says Military and Police and shows square butt and round butt guns. Does not talk about two models. Pages 10 and 11 from S&W 1941 Catalog.
BC38, .38 M&P Model of 1905 4th Change is not a pre-model 10 in my opinion. The pre-model 10 (if you want to use that term) is a postwar gun.
The "Standard Catalog" says .38 M&P Model of 1905, round or square butt.
The 1912 S&W Catalog shows .38 Military Model 1902 (has a round butt) and .38 Military Model 1905 (has a square butt).
I would say The "Standard Catalog" information is not correct. Interesting to me that the 1912 Catalog says Military Model rather than Military & Police. Might be another error in the "Standard Catalog". My 1941 Catalog says Military and Police and shows square butt and round butt guns. Does not talk about two models. Pages 10 and 11 from S&W 1941 Catalog.
BC38, .38 M&P Model of 1905 4th Change is not a pre-model 10 in my opinion. The pre-model 10 (if you want to use that term) is a postwar gun.
Attachments
Last edited:
Ralph and others
The service department, when run by Roper, had a problem with the engineering changes that were occurring. The problem was that they didn't have a mechanism for picking out new parts to use, when a revolver came in for repairs. Roper recognized that the engineering changes were related to serial numbers. So, he developed a list of the serial number boundaries on parts that were sensitive to engineering changes, and he also had the parts identifiable as to engineering changes. This scheme was first mentioned in the McHenry & Roper book.
Neal and Jinks uses this methodology first developed by Roper.
Because contemporary round and square butt revolvers were identical except for the butt configuration, the marketing and sales departments had no need to be concerned about engineering changes, they are never mentioned in the sale literature.
Collectors generally, on the other hand, do have that need.
Regards, Mike Priwer
The service department, when run by Roper, had a problem with the engineering changes that were occurring. The problem was that they didn't have a mechanism for picking out new parts to use, when a revolver came in for repairs. Roper recognized that the engineering changes were related to serial numbers. So, he developed a list of the serial number boundaries on parts that were sensitive to engineering changes, and he also had the parts identifiable as to engineering changes. This scheme was first mentioned in the McHenry & Roper book.
Neal and Jinks uses this methodology first developed by Roper.
Because contemporary round and square butt revolvers were identical except for the butt configuration, the marketing and sales departments had no need to be concerned about engineering changes, they are never mentioned in the sale literature.
Collectors generally, on the other hand, do have that need.
Regards, Mike Priwer
3 others I hate are
Tactical.................You on a swat team somewhere?
Combat................Just which war are you fighting now?
Rare....................You mean they only made 2 and you got one?
John Patrick
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2021
- Messages
- 1,575
- Reaction score
- 2,465
So you hate post war K frames and the later L frames?
Like the Combat Masterpiece, the Combat Magnum and the Supreme Combat Magnum or whatever it is the S&W named the 586?
Like the Combat Masterpiece, the Combat Magnum and the Supreme Combat Magnum or whatever it is the S&W named the 586?
Well as one of the "purist" collectors I will offer my position on the subject. I am a Virgo and one of the traits of my sign is perfectionist. While I am far from perfect, I do try to honor and respect those terms that were used by the founders of the company that brought us all to this dance.
In today's world there seems to be a desire by many of the younger generations to trample over our collective history and erase it away. That bothers me.
Harold and Daniel chose terms like "yoke", "stocks" and "checking" for a specific reason and that was to differentiate themselves from that little gun company down the street in CT. They even went so far as to not use that 4 letter word when placing the caliber name on the barrel of one of their revolvers.
So it is not being a "word Nazi" as I believe someone stated it is merely an effort to try and keep these subtle differences alive out of respect to the founders.
I don't require that you do, but merely supply the information. You are certainly able to use whatever term that you chose.
If the term "manhole cover" gets your dander up then of course refer to it as a "personhole cover" however since that contains the term "son", you might want to check with the pronoun folks because maybe "son" wants to identify as a "daughter". Of course that leads us in the term "woman" and I'm not sure what we are supposed to do with the "man" part. (The word of course is what I'm referring to just for all the quick thinkers out there). This area of terms is unending so I will move along.
So there you have it, you say POTATO and I say POTATO.
Since this is still a free country (for a while) you can use whatever terminology you like but for me keeping some traditions alive just feels right.
In today's world there seems to be a desire by many of the younger generations to trample over our collective history and erase it away. That bothers me.
Harold and Daniel chose terms like "yoke", "stocks" and "checking" for a specific reason and that was to differentiate themselves from that little gun company down the street in CT. They even went so far as to not use that 4 letter word when placing the caliber name on the barrel of one of their revolvers.
So it is not being a "word Nazi" as I believe someone stated it is merely an effort to try and keep these subtle differences alive out of respect to the founders.
I don't require that you do, but merely supply the information. You are certainly able to use whatever term that you chose.
If the term "manhole cover" gets your dander up then of course refer to it as a "personhole cover" however since that contains the term "son", you might want to check with the pronoun folks because maybe "son" wants to identify as a "daughter". Of course that leads us in the term "woman" and I'm not sure what we are supposed to do with the "man" part. (The word of course is what I'm referring to just for all the quick thinkers out there). This area of terms is unending so I will move along.
So there you have it, you say POTATO and I say POTATO.
Since this is still a free country (for a while) you can use whatever terminology you like but for me keeping some traditions alive just feels right.
Last edited:
For the record, the dictionary definition of 'rare' is 'seldom seen', and the definition of 'scarce' is 'demand exceeds supply'. I think 'rare' and 'scarce' are perfectly good descriptors for some of the guns that we collect.
It's important to note that 'rare' does not connote value, but 'scarce' does.
S&W, as far as is known, made one and only one 2" K-22 snubbie. I know the gun exists because I have seen and handled it, and I know who has it now. It was a special order gun made up for Col. Rex Applegate. It is indeed a rare gun.
S&W made up 5000 C-frame revolvers to compete with the Colt Detective Special. They had a lot of trouble with it during its manufacture, and made the decision to destroy all of them. None were ever sold, and only one survived, and I know who owns it. That is another example of a rare gun.
I have a sequential pair of 4" K-32 long targets, made in 1910, shipped to a couple shooters in St Louis. They are made up in the 32-20 serial number series, which is where all the K-32's should have been made. I know where another 4" K-32 target is, made in 1916, and another 4" K-32 M&P made about a year later. Each of these guns were a part of 3 different very small batches of guns - something like 10 or 12 guns to a batch. The rest of these guns are presumably out there somewhere, so I would categorize these as scarce. They were pricy when I bought them about 15 years ago, and I expect they are more so today.
'Rare' and 'scarce' - two good descriptors for some S&W's.
Regards, Mike Priwer
It's important to note that 'rare' does not connote value, but 'scarce' does.
S&W, as far as is known, made one and only one 2" K-22 snubbie. I know the gun exists because I have seen and handled it, and I know who has it now. It was a special order gun made up for Col. Rex Applegate. It is indeed a rare gun.
S&W made up 5000 C-frame revolvers to compete with the Colt Detective Special. They had a lot of trouble with it during its manufacture, and made the decision to destroy all of them. None were ever sold, and only one survived, and I know who owns it. That is another example of a rare gun.
I have a sequential pair of 4" K-32 long targets, made in 1910, shipped to a couple shooters in St Louis. They are made up in the 32-20 serial number series, which is where all the K-32's should have been made. I know where another 4" K-32 target is, made in 1916, and another 4" K-32 M&P made about a year later. Each of these guns were a part of 3 different very small batches of guns - something like 10 or 12 guns to a batch. The rest of these guns are presumably out there somewhere, so I would categorize these as scarce. They were pricy when I bought them about 15 years ago, and I expect they are more so today.
'Rare' and 'scarce' - two good descriptors for some S&W's.
Regards, Mike Priwer
Last edited:
I have to agree with Mike here. I think of it in terms of steak.
If I'm offered a "rare" steak, it means I'm eating well tonight. If I'm offered a "scarce" steak, I might be hungry tonight.
