I wonder the same thing. Did they create a 1 of 1 scenerio for Roy Jinks?
The only one - A 4" K-22 target revolver Stainless steel Model 65
- Thread starter mikepriwer
- Start date
Mike, congrats. I think that one overshadows most all of your 1899's.
Minshooter
Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2025
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 16
Yes.Very interesting reading, and congratulations to Mr. Priwer on a wonderful collection specimen. However, unrelated to the letter's content (and certainly meaning no disrespect to the highly regarded Dr. Jinks), I am surely not the only reader who noticed the letter's dozen or so glaring grammatical errors. As it was an official correspondence from a nationally known business, the letter seemed to treat the English language a bit roughly, going well beyond the occasional common typo of the day.Not a big deal in the long run, of course, just a little surprising to see.
Very difficult to understand why.
Even if the the well educated Dr. Jinks was dictating for others to type (keyboard?) into a letter, he would have used proper grammar.
It does seem that for a large percentage under age 40 or so, grammar and spelling are mostly optional.
To be fair, around ten years ago, I was speaking to a Middle School teacher who maintained that teaching spelling was no longer necessary, as autocorrect would take care of it. He really said that. So much for the persute
of excellence.
roundels
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 113
- Reaction score
- 120
I thought it was spelled pirsoot. Shows you what I know.Yes.
Very difficult to understand why.
Even if the the well educated Dr. Jinks was dictating for others to type (keyboard?) into a letter, he would have used proper grammar.
It does seem that for a large percentage under age 40 or so, grammar and spelling are mostly optional.
To be fair, around ten years ago, I was speaking to a Middle School teacher who maintained that teaching spelling was no longer necessary, as autocorrect would take care of it. He really said that. So much for the persute
Engine49guy
Member
A few random thoughts,
First, my understanding is that while pure Stainless is harder on tools etc SW learned the ins and outs in the 1960's and made several changes to their original SS revolver the Model 60 including the internal parts material as well as metallurgy, these issues were ironed out by 1970 when the Model 66 and 64 were introduced.
Two interesting things to note,
So the Model 60 was their first SS cataloged revolver in the early 1960's, FF to 1970 and we see their second two the Model 66 and 64, we know from Doc 44s early Model 66 that the very earliest ones had the K serial prefix somewhere in the high K9xx,xxx range IIRC (The Model 65 would have a D serial so set it aside for now) we also know that the Model 67 was the next SS K target revolver introduced around 1972 so this would mean that the OPs rare example predates the introduction of the Model 67.
As the three introduced SS K frames and one J frame probably represented the bulk of LEO orders my guess is that the LEO was SW's primary focus, the fact that the SS K22 didn't arrive until many years later in the mid to late 1980's in the form of the Ashland 617 ND
( the SS counterpart to the 17-5) and that no SS version of the Model 14 was ever offered might support that theory and explain why the factory turned their attention to a SS version of the Model 13 ( Model 65) over a SS version of the Model 18.
Lastly, why the factory admin would choose to destroy perfectly functioning firearms rather than gift or sell them thus preserving them is perplexing , my guess it was just easier, thankfully this one survived.
On a side note the closest version to be offered to date besides the small run of wide rib non underlug Ashland guns was the small run of 22 Mountain guns which have the same narrow rib barrel profile but with the addition of an ejector rod shroud , of course these were also iL frames as well.
Hopefully someone at Lipseys will take note and see that the reintroduction of a K22 Mountain gun sans iL would also sell like hotcakes,
I will take two.
First, my understanding is that while pure Stainless is harder on tools etc SW learned the ins and outs in the 1960's and made several changes to their original SS revolver the Model 60 including the internal parts material as well as metallurgy, these issues were ironed out by 1970 when the Model 66 and 64 were introduced.
Two interesting things to note,
So the Model 60 was their first SS cataloged revolver in the early 1960's, FF to 1970 and we see their second two the Model 66 and 64, we know from Doc 44s early Model 66 that the very earliest ones had the K serial prefix somewhere in the high K9xx,xxx range IIRC (The Model 65 would have a D serial so set it aside for now) we also know that the Model 67 was the next SS K target revolver introduced around 1972 so this would mean that the OPs rare example predates the introduction of the Model 67.
As the three introduced SS K frames and one J frame probably represented the bulk of LEO orders my guess is that the LEO was SW's primary focus, the fact that the SS K22 didn't arrive until many years later in the mid to late 1980's in the form of the Ashland 617 ND
( the SS counterpart to the 17-5) and that no SS version of the Model 14 was ever offered might support that theory and explain why the factory turned their attention to a SS version of the Model 13 ( Model 65) over a SS version of the Model 18.
Lastly, why the factory admin would choose to destroy perfectly functioning firearms rather than gift or sell them thus preserving them is perplexing , my guess it was just easier, thankfully this one survived.
On a side note the closest version to be offered to date besides the small run of wide rib non underlug Ashland guns was the small run of 22 Mountain guns which have the same narrow rib barrel profile but with the addition of an ejector rod shroud , of course these were also iL frames as well.
Hopefully someone at Lipseys will take note and see that the reintroduction of a K22 Mountain gun sans iL would also sell like hotcakes,
I will take two.
OP
""I have a 1970s-era Model 65 factory chambered in .38 Special. It's the only one I've ever seen in half a century of gunning. Anyone else seen or own one?""
I can only guess what might have happened here. Some information about the gun might help. Where is the gun marked 38 Special ? Does it have adjustable rear sights, or fixed rear sights? What is the serial number of the gun? Will it chamber a 357 cartridge ? Finally, can we get a couple pictures of the gun - one of each side?
Regards, Mike Priwer
I can only guess what might have happened here. Some information about the gun might help. Where is the gun marked 38 Special ? Does it have adjustable rear sights, or fixed rear sights? What is the serial number of the gun? Will it chamber a 357 cartridge ? Finally, can we get a couple pictures of the gun - one of each side?
Regards, Mike Priwer
StickShift
Member
I wonder if the factory destroyed, rather than sold, the guns because their model number was used by an almost entirely different model that was sold in large nimbers. Having these guns out there would have been very confusing for everyone who encountered one in the days before the internet and readily available reference material.
"Over stamping" was a common practice! 642=over stamped 042
Similar threads
