The American Rifleman, Rick Hacker, and the M29

[Muley Gil]

The current American Rifleman has an article on the M29, written by Rick Hacker. Now, Rick does pretty good if the subject is black powder guns or early Winchesters. He needs to do more research on S&Ws, however.

He keeps referring to the early M29s and pre M29s as being built on the S frame. I wonder what he would call a post WW II .38 special M&P with the "S" serial number prefix?

He also discussed Elmer Keith's connection with the M29. Rick stated that Elmer blew up "numerous revolvers" while developing heavy .44 Special loads.

The only written reference to Elmer blowing up a revolver was when he loaded a .45 Colt SAA with a handload of a sized down .45-90 bullet over 35 grains of black powder.

If anyone can provide a link to any other handguns that Elmer destroyed, I'd like to see it.

 

[shawn mccarver]

Yes, that article could have been better. I was underwhelmed. There could have been so much good information in that article. Instead, it has mistakes - and in some cases - big ones. Very much below the normal quality I expect from an article in American Rifleman.

 

[max]

Mr. Muley, I find myself in total agreement as to your assessment of the aforementioned article. I would gladly buy you a beer.

 

[410bore]

I've read other articles by him that referenced the "S" frame as well. I'm sure he means s prefix n frame but still......

 

[DWalt]

Some other forums have dissected this article thoroughly.

 

[BCDWYO]

I agree... I was surprised no editor caught any of those errors. And thanks for pointing out the Elmer Keith "exaggerations" Muley. I assumed that was fact and wouldn't have known otherwise.

 

[truckmizer]

The current American Rifleman has an article on the M29, written by Rick Hacker. Now, Rick does pretty good if the subject is black powder guns or early Winchesters. He needs to do more research on S&Ws, however.

He keeps referring to the early M29s and pre M29s as being built on the S frame. I wonder what he would call a post WW II .38 special M&P with the "S" serial number prefix?

He also discussed Elmer Keith's connection with the M29. Rick stated that Elmer blew up "numerous revolvers" while developing heavy .44 Special loads.

The only written reference to Elmer blowing up a revolver was when he loaded a .45 Colt SAA with a handload of a sized down .45-90 bullet over 35 grains of black powder.

If anyone can provide a link to any other handguns that Elmer destroyed, I'd like to see it.

Read "Sixguns By Keith" revised edition, it shows a lot of blown up revolvers in the reloading chapter. Plus the revision gives a bit of history on the S&W NT 430 .44 magnum.

 

[Texas Star]

Read "Sixguns By Keith" revised edition, it shows a lot of blown up revolvers in the reloading chapter. Plus the revision gives a bit of history on the S&W NT 430 .44 magnum.

I have the book and I knew Elmer slightly. He didn't say that the blown-up guns in the reloading chapter were HIS guns. I doubt that they were.

He claimed that even the old Triple Lock .44 would handle his heavy loads, but that ammo companies were afraid of it. I think that's why S&W brought out a new Magnum gun and ctg. case length for the hot ammo.

 

[steamloco76]

I also found the Model 29 article to be a rather sloppy piece of under researched "journalism". If it was turned in as a high school term paper the teacher would have given it an Incomplete grade.

 

[steveno]

in the article the author says he acquired a 6.5 M-29 that had been shot so much that the barrel had to be set back .250. first of all I have a hard time believing a M-29 was shot enough to require that much of a set back. the question I have is what was done on the ejector rod lockup on the other end? Unless you shorten the ejector rod .250 you have to make up for that .250 somewhere and that would mean machining out ejector rod housing and that sure wouldn't leave much room for the lockup parts.

What am I missing here?

 

[wheelgun28]

in the article the author says he acquired a 6.5 M-29 that had been shot so much that the barrel had to be set back .250. first of all I have a hard time believing a M-29 was shot enough to require that much of a set back. the question I have is what was done on the ejector rod lockup on the other end? Unless you shorten the ejector rod .250 you have to make up for that .250 somewhere and that would mean machining out ejector rod housing and that sure wouldn't leave much room for the lockup parts.

What am I missing here?

I would have to think that its a typo...

.250 is 1/4" it may as well be a mile

Now .0250 seem like a mile to me but is a bit more believable.

 

[Muley Gil]

I've read other articles by him that referenced the "S" frame as well. I'm sure he means s prefix n frame but still......

I'm not convinced of that.

A paragraph near the end of the article contains this sentence: "The Gun Control Act of 1968 resulted in the S-frame designation being changed to an N-frame prefix..."


I believe he really believes that the .44 frame revolvers were called S frames by the factory.

 

[PALADIN85020]

I also found the article varied from the facts in a number of particulars. I considered writing a letter to the editor, but I didn't want to imply that I'm an expert (far from it), and I suspect a lot of others will generate enough flak to cover the ground. It's always good to have knowledgeable people review your work before it's published. That's one reason I often preview my pending articles here; I find the comments very useful and any errors or omissions can be corrected. We have a lot of folks here who ARE experts and I tip my hat to them for their contributions.

John

 

[keith44spl]

Ol' Muley's right ya know!

Lot of hacks writing for the gun rags and newspapers now in days....

It's sad, credibility doesn't mean a thing anymore.

It's get paid by the word and roll on.

.
Su Amigo,
Dave

 

[Jack Flash]

It's really ironic that an NRA publication would contain so many misstatements about S&Ws. Wasn't Jim Supica appointed to supervise the NRA museum a year or so ago?

You would think they could get him to proof-read the article before it went to press.

 

[jrm53]

I suspect that it was not .250 but .025, if you divide 1" by 36 tpi it equals .0277 which is setting it back one thread. The first S&W .44 I ever shot was one in a black presentation case that he mentioned was from 1957 on, the owner has passed on and I know he bought it in the mid 60's and I was not that familar with them when I shot it but I always thought it was from the late 50's. Jeff

 

[mkk41]

Ol' Muley's right ya know!

Lot of hacks writing for the gun rags and newspapers now in days....

It's sad, credibility doesn't mean a thing anymore.

It's get paid by the word and roll on.

.
Su Amigo,
Dave

Gotta respectfully disagree with ya on a point Dave. Rick Hacker has been a gun writer for probably over 30 years. I recall his articles , mostly on guns of the old west in several magazines thru the years.

That's what confused me in an earlier article he did on the S&W 1917. He states the factory called it an S-frame till the start of N-prefix serial numbers. Then they called it an N-frame.

 

[keith44spl]

Gotta respectfully disagree with ya on a point Dave. Rick Hacker has been a gun writer for probably over 30 years. I recall his articles , mostly on guns of the old west in several magazines thru the years.

That's what confused me in an earlier article he did on the S&W 1917. He states the factory called it an S-frame till the start of N-prefix serial numbers. Then they called it an N-frame.

When Hacker sez, "But first some tweaking had to be done, which included lengthening the cylinder to close up the barrel-cylinder gap..."

That told me all I needed to know about Mr. Hacker's knowledge of revolver building.

I think we all know why one would want to lengthen a cylinder for that cartridge...

And it wouldn't be to close the barrel gap....

All My Best,
Dave

Film at 11

 

[model70hunter]

I started the article the other day when the Rifleman arrived. I did not notice the author's name. I was not long into it the first day when I smelled the barnyard and looked to see who penned it. Yep, Rick. I've read lots of articles by him, he must type fast, facts? dang the facts, full speed ahead.

I think he owns a few lever guns and perhaps shot a duck with a black powder shotgun. The lever gun articles were OK, barely. I do not have any axes to grind with Mr. Hacker, but I normally choose not to read his articles. It is like back in the day when Guns and Ammo would let brothers of some 2nd rate staff writers write articles on squirrel hunting and such to break in. I don't know if they made it as I did not renew my subscription.

The Rifleman is too important to all of us and I will not drop the NRA because I do not like one writers "work". However I do feel the NRA has lowered its standards and has not kept authors of note writing for them. Of course after Craig Boddington it slims down quickly.

So. Mr. Rick, if you read this, please redo the article. Gather facts. Run it by some folks who have done actual research, gathered knowledge and are willing to share to get it right. We and the NRA magazine deserve better.

 

[PALADIN85020]

I miss Theodore Roosevelt, Elmer Keith, Townie Whelen, Phil Sharpe, John Amber, Charlie Askins the younger, George Nonte, Jeff Cooper, Jack O'Connor, Warren Page, E.C. Crossman, Robert Ruark, Jim Carmichael, P.O Ackley, Julian Hatcher, Skeeter Skelton, Bill Jordan, and a bunch of others now long gone who had seen the elephant, done their homework, and wrote knowledgeably.

My bookshelves are filled with their works; there is hardly a day that goes by that I don't pull one of their books down and learn something. I'm grateful that they set their thoughts down for posterity.

God bless their departed souls; the world will probably not see their like again. I lift a Sapphire on the rocks to their memories.

John