Thread: Remember these?
View Single Post
Old October 6, 2012, 11:39 PM   #13
Winchester_73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 2,859
Quote:
You say a lot of effort for small gain, but apparently the shooters and 'smiths of the day didn't think so. As to popularity, both Smythons and Smolts did a fair amount of exposure on the firing lines.
Quote:
Bob, you are correct.

For those who are unfamiliar with this creation, an outgrowth of the Practical Police Course (PPC) matches of the early 1970's was the Smython.

Bill Davis of Sacramento was a renowned pistol smith of that period building custom guns for PPC shooters. Favorites of the time were the S&W Model 19 for its trigger action and the Colt Python's for its barrel weight and high accuracy.
Quote:
And what about those short cylindered .45 ACP Colt M1917s? Again a lot of effort, but done non the less.
Not the point Bob. I didn't say no one did it, I didn't say they didn't exist, I didn't say that some people didn't think it was a good idea. The point I am making is that they were not "popular" meaning far less than half the shooters used them, AND (or you could say 'because') they didn't offer a real benefit. IMO the people who bought such guns were trying to correct a problem they had, not a problem with their gun. PPC is more about technique than having a frankengun that's meant to be perfect, when a perfect gun doesn't exist. I think most of the "advantage" of these modifications could be over come with more practice but of course, why do that

Some guys preferred the Colt action and other people knew their S&W was fine, with original barrel. If someone was a top PPC shooter, with a plain S&W 66 for example, he (or she) is not going to have trouble beating someone because they have some magic hybrid revolver. The guns that were converted with Colt barrels did not weigh enough more for it to be worth it. Also, the taper barrel thing, for such shooting is not important enough to justify doing this. I think your reasoning of "some people thought it was worth it" is very flawed. Many people also think the Taurus Judge is an excellent home defense option too. Many others think Obama will save this country. Popular ideas aren't always right and right ideas aren't always popular. Have you ever heard someone complain that the BARREL on a S&W isn't accurate? I don't mean the gun, I mean the barrel. I can understand buying a competition barrel such as a Clark for a S&W 41, but a Colt barrel on a S&W because its more accurate? The difference if any would be small enough to where its splitting hairs.

Quote:
Incidentally, the revolver shown appears to have a Paine front sight, not a Patridge.
It is a paine front sight. The pictured gun, as I said, is a pre war I frame 22/32 "bekeart" whereas the gun that I said that did have a patridge was a J frame 22 target: aka 22/32 target (pre model 35) or later the model 35.

Quote:
O.K. I went to a Smith & Wesson forum and the revovler shown they refer to as a pre-Model 35, with Patridge sights and sort of Magna stocks, referred to as a 22/32 Target.
Now that you clarified, as I said already, those are definitely SCARCE (I don't know how many pics I've seen of a pre model 35 and a model 35 is very hard to find) and that modified smolt gun you speak of was a waste of a good S&W. Not many pre model 35s were made at all. I suggested a pre war 22/32 possibility only because you said "well it was a not a scarce gun at the time" which it certainly was, unless it was a pre war 22/32. The interesting thing that you and whichever forum you cross referenced didn't realize is there is no way to know which exact S&W 22 revolver was the frame and action. How is that you say? Well the difference between a 34 and 35 aka 22/32 and 22/32 target is the barrel only. Now of course, later ones were model marked but feature wise, they are the same. It also should have the post war rear sight assembly if their identification was correct. You could have got the 34 in a square frame gun and then of course put on any J frame stocks, all the same frame. So really, there is no way to tell either way.

Even though I still say such guns are a nonsensical waste of time and resources, I would like to have such a gun (like this one of a kind S&W 22 / colt OMM hybrid), with the proper paperwork of course. The concept would be one of a kind, because it became obvious there was a very very small benefit to such a gun. After the myth behind the first creation hybrid gun was disproved, no more needed to be made.
__________________
Winchester 73, the TFL user that won the west
Winchester_73 is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05073 seconds with 7 queries