The S prefix guns in the 44 frame are earlier guns than the N numbered guns, up to about late 60's I believe. Tam will know more specifics, like when it was first used. Before the early 50's, they weren't model numbered like later guns. Other things, like 4 or 5 screw, date the guns to different time periods in the 50's to early 60's.
I figured that the "N" would have come first.........but there is that whole common sense thing. I badly want a "Registered Magnum", but I simply have to drool on the glass at Jackson Armory until I get a real job again someday.
Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard. Snarky and easily butt hurt. Favorite animal is the Cape Buffalo....likely indicative of a personality disorder.
"If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".
There's a whole big essay explaining the differences in John Ross's Unintended Consequences, of all places, but to give the thumbnail:Originally Posted by nyeti
When the .357 Magnum cartidge debuted, the eponymous N-frame revolver that chambered it was intended as S&W's flagship revolver. The first ones, the Registered Magnums, were individually custom-ordered guns, priced at $60 when the next most expensive gun offered by the company was only forty-five bucks retail. ($500 would buy a new Ford coupe.) Even after the Registered Magnum run ended, they remained pricey offerings, practically "custom shop" guns; a guy had to work at S&W ten or fifteen years before he was even considered to do the polishing job for the bluing on a .357 Magnum. When they added the .44 and .41 Magnums, these too got the "flagship" treatment.
After the Bangor Punta purchase, an eye towards profit margins plus the inability to crank out enough .44 Magnums to keep up with the demand meant an end to the extensive handwork that went into the flagship guns, and about the time of the switch in serial number prefixes from "S" to "N", you can see the effects. The polish on the blue isn't quite as lustrous; it may look a little rougher under the sideplate; things like that. It was already an anachronism on a mass-produced consumer product offering in the '50s, anyway.
Thanks Tam, that was the justification I needed to start carrying and shooting this thing....it is just an "N". Of course, the Quest has now begun for a pristine S or a real Registered Magnum. It's funny, I passed on "perfect" 27 recently because it was Nickel. If I am dropping that kind of coin, I want bluing I can swim in.
Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard
"If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".
I'm with you. I can't even consider buying a stainless Smith revolver. Although sweet bluing seems to be a lost art (unless your name is Turnbull), it still carries 10x the character for me. Which reminds me I need to dig out the 586 I picked up right before my heart surgery. It kinda slipped my mind I even had it.
At one time I collected 3" stainless N-frames; had one of each caliber except .45ACP, including the super-rare 10mm and .45 Colt, as well as 3" V-Comp 627 serial number JMC0001. Ended up selling all of them except the 629.
I still prefer stainless guns for shooting and using (I'll leave a stainless gun sit uncleaned in a range bag for months without the slightest twinge of conscience) but collecting soulless steel Smiths strikes me these days about the same as the idea of collecting used Ford Taurus rental cars.
I also have the "Lew Horton bug". I just took my 3" 629 out the other day to the range and got some of the 240 grain "let you know what a real gun feels like" love going. Past the "Pinned and Recessed" days, I like the stainless guns, especially if I am shooting and carrying them a lot. The older blue guns are just special because of the bluing quality. For working finishes, my "pre Mountain Gun" Performance Center 629 Mountain Revolver is probably my favorite of the bunch. It has a sort of weird bead blast finish that looks great.
I find the newer stainless guns to be great projects with grips, sights, and work done to them, where touching the 27 for anything other than great looking grips would be a sin. With Tam's analogy, I rather hot rod a Taurus SHO and leave the 60's Mustangs alone.
Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard
"If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".
I liked my M13. The first thing I did was to remove the spur from the hammer.
I`d rather have a 3inch version instead of the 4inch.
accuracy was excellent. Heck all my S&W 38/357 shot nicely
I like nickel better than stainless. I had a 6 1/2" 29 for several years and foolishly traded it off. It's one of the ones I've traded but I wish I'd kept. Just as many like stainless guns for their low maintenance, I look at nickel the same way. It shows holster wear and handling, but it adds character in ways stainless guns don't (or can't?). I also miss the 4 3/4" Colt SAA 44 spl I had. It got carried a fair bit while I had it. Back in my motorcycle days, when I got stopped for velocity infringements, the usual reaction from the attending officers was "Cool! Where did you get that?" (those were the open carry days, no concealed permits)
My wife is much the same. She enjoys shooting but doesn't go that often. She's more than happy with the 2.5 inch S&W Model 66 I bought as a house gun. She shoots it pretty well with .38 +P loads and I feel comfortable with her level of security, as I also work nights.
Reply With Quote