Smith And Wesson Forums banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi All,

Hoping you can help me out. Looking at a S-prefix k-frame snub that appears to be all original, but the ejector rod head is smooth and not knurled--any original factory pieces come this way, or does this sound like a homemade replacement from a cut-down standard rod? (not sure it would work, but it's the first thing that popped to mind)

Edited to add photos. The sideplate and screws all look clean and tight. To my untrained eye it looks good except for the ejector rod. Note that the ejector rod catch also seems to be sticking out too far from the barrel lug.

Thinking this is one to pass on...

Appreciate any help,
Todd


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,504 Posts
Hi: I looked at the ejector rod catch on my 1954 M&P snub nose, and it is not as pronounced. Then I noticed the different hammer styles on the two M&P's. I think the hammer style on the gun your considering is an early post war long action K-frame. I believe S&W came out with the short action around 1948 and changed the hammer style to what they called the speed hammer. So my snub nose is a different vintage and the ejector rod catch may also have been different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
I'd go with the "cut down", should be 'knurled' and if earlier, have the 'bulge'......... fhfjjjj
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
593 Posts
Even the best would have to examine it closely.
IMHO it's a rebarrel, it just looks a little soft to me.
The ER is the giveaway (good spot).
But I've been wrong before so the following legal disclaimer is enforced! perkgfn lgfhj confused02
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Thanks for the replies--very much appreciated--I let it go...saving the money for the next big thing!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Yes...appears to be a 'shortened' ejector Rod, which suggests a re-Barrel had occurred, of a previously longer Barreled longer Ejector-Rod Revolver...where some one fitted a non-cut, proper, Factory, 2 inch Barrel...but did not want to spring the extra expense for ordering a 'short' ejector Rod.


If you are not getting it...I might be interested...if you felt like PM-ing me the contact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
The barrel script appears correct and in the correct position. The ejector rod may have had the knurling boggered and was turned down smooth. Seen that before.

As far as hammers and half moon sights on the barrel go, S&W used up what they had even after designated changed were decided on. You'd see half moon sights on snubbies long after the longer barrels had ramped sights. S&W wasted very little.

Here's my mid-50's pre-M10 snubbie.

Rod



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,504 Posts
Rod: Just out of curiosity, seeing you already have a mid 50's M&P, can you compare the double action trigger pulls on each, to see if the M&P in question has the long action. I have an early post war with the long action and it's hammer is identical to your original post. . .Like you say S&W makes good use out of it's spare parts.

Hank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
My snubnose doesn't have the long action. I compared it to a pre-war M&P, I have, and no comparison. Also I checked my early post war K-22, ser. # 40xx. It also has the short action. it's the smoothest of the three but the snub is okay. All three have different hammers.

Rod
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,488 Posts
All Postwar K-22's will be of the Short Action pattern.

Here's K#117.







Pre-War Outdoorsmans 2nd Issue, the so called "K-22/40" were the first of the Short Action Patterns. One day I'll get a snapshot of mine put up.

Drew
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,504 Posts
Okay a little research has turned up the following: That in April of 48, the M&P revolvers were switced from the long action to the short action. My revolver, as pictured, was a long action, Ser # S 93XXXX. and has a different hammer than my M&P Snub Nose, Ser. # C163XXX.

I might add, the grips aren't original, I picked the grips up at a gunshow, replacing the worn magnas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Hank:

You M&P looks in great condition, nice stocks. Your transitional revolver has some old and some new. The pre-war stocks and long action but the post war ejector rod and unrelieved barrel, Would you have a picture of the left side?

Rod
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,504 Posts
Rod: Had to get a quick shot of the left side. Not bought as a collector piece but bought to replace one I sold in a lesser condition. The frame and the cylinder have matching serial numbers. It looks like all of the "S" prefix guns have the standard prewar hammer, and the "C" prefix M&P's have two hammer variations. The larger head on the ejector rod requiring a barrel cutout was on a pre-war M&P I had and from pictures was on the Victory Models. Did S&W change ejector rod styles on M&P's with the "S" prefix - I don't know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Hank:

That's a nice M&P no doubt about it. S&W was a lot like Winchester in they changed when the supply ran out. Quite often you see both types of ejector rods on the early post war guns with the one line address. As the bins on each assembly line get empty, the new changes occur. Serial numbers are not the exact cut-off as one would expect.

I would say that your gun is of collector quality. It's quite unique with the stocks and the new style ejector rod and there's no reason to doubt it's originality. The bonus is it's in such nice condition.

Rod
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,504 Posts
Good information Rod, I now know why my post war Winchester 94 has a checkered hammer instead of a serrated one - Thanks,

Hank
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top