Categories
All About Guns

The Smith & Wesson Model 24: A Look Back by DAVE CAMPBELL

sw_24_m1950.jpg

In 1905, Smith & Wesson was riding high on its Hand Ejector Series of double-action revolvers featuring a swing-out cylinder, 10 years before the Hand Ejector had been perfected to the point of starting to manufacture these revolvers on the I- (.32 cal.) and K- (.38 cal.) frames. However, plans for a new large .44-cal. frame were coming along.

The first cartridge for this new frame would be an updated version of the .44 Russian round. Smith & Wesson’s engineers lengthened the case by .360″ and added 3 grains of black powder to a 246-gr. round-nose bullet yielding a muzzle velocity of 755 fps from a 6″ barrel. The new cartridge was christened the .44 Smith & Wesson Special. Smith’s new revolver would be called the .44 Hand Ejector First Model.

So concerned was S&W about holding the new revolver together to withstand the rigors of the new and powerful cartridge, that they added a third locking point to the cylinder. Heretofore, Hand Ejectors locked at the rear of the cylinder via an extension of the ejector rod into a hole in the recoil shield, and the other end locked into a spring-loaded pin mounted on a lug on the barrel.

The third locking point was a lug on the yoke that mated into a recess machined into the frame. This third lug was drilled with a hole to accommodate the ejector rod. Shooters would soon deem this model the Triple Lock. Production of the Hand Ejector First Model began in 1907. This was the first Smith & Wesson revolver with an under lug on the barrel shrouding and protecting ejector rod.

It wasn’t until the following year that the new revolver became available. The revolvers were available in either blue or nickel finish, and sights were either fixed or adjustable (target). Barrel lengths were 5″ or 6 1/2″, though a few were made with 4″ barrels. An extremely limited number of these revolvers were produced in .38-40, .44-40 and .45 Colt, as well. The price was $21. Oddly enough the Hand Ejector First Model did not set the world afire. Sales languished at about 2,000 per year.

In a cost-cutting move, S&W decided to jettison the ejector shroud and third locking lug and reduce the price from $21 to $19. This would be known as the .44 Hand Ejector Second Model and was produced from 1915 until October 1917, due to a demand for large-frame revolvers to support World War I efforts. The factory resumed production of the Hand Ejector Second Model in 1920 and ran until 1940 when the needs of war superseded the civilian market.

It was during this period that a group of aficionados calling themselves the 44 Associates developed. Led by a sawed-off cowboy from Montana, one Elmer Keith, this group learned that by handloading, the .44 Spl. could perform much better than the factory loads of the day. Keith, along with his friend Harold Croft, developed a semi-wadcutter design of cast bullets that performed better than anything of the day for self-defense, as well as hunting. Belding and Mull made the molds to Keith and Croft’s specifications, and they, along with their fellow 44 Associates turned a bunch of hobbyists into a near cult of handgun hunters. Their work would eventually lead to the .44 Rem. Mag. cartridge, but that’s getting ahead of us.

Early on during the production of the Hand Ejector Second Model, a number of customers called for S&W to bring back the shrouded ejector rod. The company at first resisted the change feeling that it wasn’t much of a seller the first time around, and it was expensive to produce. A company in Fort Worth, Texas, Wolf & Klar, placed an order for 3,500 Second Models with a shrouded extractor rod. Harold Wesson was leading the company co-founded by his grandfather in 1926, and he ordered that the shrouded extractor rod be produced.

This became known as the Hand Ejector Third Model or sometimes the Model 1926. The Third Model was a special-order-only revolver and was not cataloged until after 1940. Post-war civilian production found most of the Third Models being made from parts on hand. Sales were a little lackluster, so the company decided to pursue a modernization of its line.

Such features included an integral rib along the top of the barrel, a shorter throw on the hammer—a.k.a. short-action—and a new micrometer-style adjustable sight. This revolver was called the Hand Ejector Fourth Model or Model 1950 Target Model. Initial sales were dismal—a mere 244 copies were sold during its first three years of production. It recoiled too much for the target shooters of the day, and with a 6 1/2″ barrel it was quite a burden for most law enforcement officers.

The only thing that saved the Model 1950 was Elmer Keith and his incessant ranting about his heavy .44 field loads. The .44 Mag. was introduced in 1956, thus putting another nail into the Model 1950’s coffin. In 1957 the model number system took over Smith & Wesson’s product line and the Model 1950 became known as the Model 24. It limped along until 1966 when the Model 24 was dropped from the line.

During its sputtering run, the Model 1950 or 24 had some limited, special-order runs with 4″ and 5″ barrels. But the overshadowing of the .44 Mag. kept these versions checked in terms of sales. A few smart guys glommed onto them, and today a factory 4″ or 5″ .44 Spl. has a lofty premium to its already stratospheric price.

Along came the 1970s, and a gun writer out of New Mexico, along with a few other ne’er-do-well cohorts began touting the virtues of the .44 Spl. cartridge and the Model 24 revolver. Skeeter Skelton was one of those handgun enthusiasts who was smart enough to latch onto a 4-incher. Skelton touted the accuracy and controllability of handloaded .44 Spl. cartridges in a lighter, easier-to-pack revolver than the .44 Mag.

His articles were often spiced up with vignettes of adventure from his law enforcement background—Skeeter was a great storyteller—prompting a lot of handgun enthusiasts, including me, to scrounge about any purveyor of guns for a Model 24 Smith & Wesson. On those rare occasions when one surfaced, the price was usually about 50 percent more than the already outrageous scalper prices for .44 Magnums at that time.

So scarce was the Model 24 that a lot of us, again including me, resorted to getting another N-frame Smith converted to .44 Spl. by a cadre of pistolsmiths. In 1976 I bought a brand new Model 28 Highway Patrolman and with an original 6 1/2″ 1950 Target barrel had it re-chambered and fitted. While my pistolsmith was at it, I had him shorten the barrel to 5″, as I like the balance of that barrel length. It remains in my modest stash of guns and is one of my most accurate revolvers.

Smith & Wesson—like most gun makers—may be a bit slow to recognize a trend, but it again reintroduced the Model 24 in 1983 with a limited run of 2,625 revolvers with 4″ barrels and 4,875 with 6 1/2-inchers. These are designated as the Model 24-3. Lew Horton, the Massachusetts distributor commissioned a special run of Model 24s with 3″ barrels and a K-frame-sized round butt. I snagged one of them right away when I worked in a Wyoming gun shop.

Later I bought an unfired 4-incher from a collector. Today any of these Model 24-3 revolvers command a premium north of $1,100. Smith & Wesson has done some additional limited runs, deemed the Model 24 Classic, but they are all 6 1/2-inchers. A Model 624 has also been produced having all the features of the Model 24-3 revolvers, but made of stainless steel.

Smith & Wesson has been tortured with competing business parameters. During its revolver heydays of the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, the .44 Mag.—renamed the Model 29 and later the stainless steel Model 629—easily outsold its little brother. The American “bigger is always better” mindset kept the production line full of the magnum revolvers. Nonetheless, a cadre of revolver sophisticates kept relentless pressure on the company to maintain the Model 24 in its line.

Yet nearly every time it produces a run of the Model 24 it just barely sells out, and the excitement wanes a while. Today, the company can’t seem to produce enough semi-automatic pistols, even while revolver zealots pine for their favorites. Decisions…decisions…

Categories
War

A Crashed German Bomber’s Final Stand – True Story of Battle of Graveney Marsh

Categories
N.S.F.W.

Clam bake ? NSFW

Categories
All About Guns

WWII Collection – Mystery Mauser – WWII Mauser Found Under a House

Categories
Allies

The Royal Navy creates New 2nd Largest Warships after its Aircraft carriers

Categories
All About Guns

A Smith & Wesson S&W MODEL 10-7 NICKEL FINISH M&P REVOLVER in caliber .38 SPL

Categories
Gear & Stuff Paint me surprised by this

Forget something? (I always seem to do this myself)

Categories
All About Guns Gun Fearing Wussies Well I thought it was funny!

Guns that would give nightmares to the gun fearing wussies out there

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" You have to be kidding, right!?!

Firearms Policy Coalition Takes No Prisoners in Sharp Response to Thin-Skinned Maine Governor by J.D. Tuccille

Gov. Janet Mills’s office referred critical social media posts to the police. The FPC pushed back.

Talk about your thin-skinned politicians! Apparently, it doesn’t take much more than an insult from critics these days to get the governor of Maine to scream for the police.

Since When Is Criticism a Crime?

Back in December, during an interview with a local NBC affiliate about blunders by official in the lead-up to the Lewiston mass shooting, Maine Gov. Janet Mills left the door open to tighter gun restrictions, including a ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

That segment was picked up and publicized by The Maine Wire, a conservative-leaning news site. That outlet’s post, in turn, drew a pungent comment from the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), a pugnacious self-defense rights group that pulls no punches when it comes to defending individual liberty. So, of course the governor’s office went crying to the cops.

“Documents obtained by the Maine Wire via a Freedom of Access Act show that Gov. Janet Mills’ personnel referred social media posts from the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Maine Wire to the State Police, flagging them for the governor’s Executive Protection Unit,” The Maine Wire‘s Steve Robinson reported last week.

The posts in question were entirely unthreatening, except perhaps to sensitive feelings. The Maine Wire added nothing to the video clip except for a short summary of the content: “Governor Mills is leaving the door open for a possible assault weapons ban following the Lewiston shooting.”

The FPC was, characteristically, a little sharper: “Hey @GovJanetMills, Three words: Fuck you. No.”

That’s short, to the point, and perhaps a bit sharp, but it implies no threats whatsoever.

Nevertheless, The Maine Wire found emails showing that Mills’ press secretary passed a link to the post around the office, and that “another staffer immediately forwarded the post to the Maine State Police employee responsible for protecting the governor.”

According to Robinson, this isn’t the first time officials in the Democrat-led state government have tried to get the outlet in legal hot water. Emails revealed the office of Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows questioning if an article illustration depicting a stylized presidential ballot featuring only the Joe Biden–Kamala Harris ticket qualified as a “fake ballot” since it showed the state seal. This happened after Bellows tried to boot Republican Donald Trump from the state’s primary ballot.

Part of a Pattern of Weaponized Law

The Maine spat is part of a flurry of cases across the country involving government officials attempting to misuse the legal system and regulatory power to punish political opponents. While not as high-profile or as high-stakes, it’s reminiscent of NRA v. Vullo, a case recently given new life by the U.S. Supreme Court, in which Maria Vullo, the former head of New York’s Department of Financial Services, very clearly used the power of her office over banks and insurance companies to twist their arms until they denied services to the National Rifle Association.

“Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion’ against a third party ‘to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment,” Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote for the court in the unanimous opinion. “Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.”

Such coercion came in the form of the abuse of regulatory power over financial institutions in the Vullo case. But it can come as old-school referrals to the police of anybody who criticizes government officials and their policies. Anything like that violates free speech rights.

The Firearms Policy Coalition Fights Back

“The disdain for natural rights by government officials like Maine Governor Mills and Secretary of State Bellows bolsters our commitment to our mission to render them irrelevant,” the FPC responded to the dust-up over the X post referral.

In a July 18 letter to Mills and Bellows, FPC President Brandon Combs vowed, “we take First Amendment-protected rights just as seriously as we do others.”

“You must surely be aware that our X post responding to Governor Mills’s discussion of an immoral ban on protected arms is clearly protected speech as there is absolutely no uncertainty about the law regarding this form of speech. If not, some education is in order,” the letter continued. “Naked authoritarianism, such as efforts to chill free speech, is not acceptable to FPC and our members. We strongly encourage you to learn more about protected speech and arms.”

For what it’s worth, the first letter of each line of the letter, read vertically, spells: “Fuck You No.”

The governor’s office did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

The state police commissioner was copied on the letter. That seems a handy shortcut given the propensity of the governor’s office to share mean messages with the cops. It cuts out the middleman and ensures police get a timely heads-up about sharply worded criticism of government officials.

A Practice That Needs To Stop

The weaponization of law, the courts, regulatory agencies, and tax collectors is despicable, but nothing new. The IRS has been used by presidents at least as far back as Franklin Delano Roosevelt to torment political enemies. Operation Chokepoint put federal regulatory pressure on banks to cut off access to financial services for legal but politically disfavored industries. The practice is extralegal and destructive of whatever remains of respect for government. It’s also becoming increasingly common.

When abusing the power of the state to punish critics becomes the norm, it erases the line between people who have committed actual criminal acts, and those who have just pissed off the powerful. That’s what lands us at the point when the office of a state governor refers insulting social media posts for the state police to do something about.

We’ll discover the hard way what that something is, unless those on the receiving end push back the way the FPC did. That means mocking thin-skinned government officials, calling them out publicly, and taking them to court. Intolerant officials want to hurt their critics with powers that were never meant to be used that way. That can only be discouraged if such abuses come with high costs of their own.

Categories
All About Guns Fieldcraft Well I thought it was funny!

TRUE CONFESSIONS THE HORROR AND THE HERESY

WRITTEN BY JOHN CONNOR

It happened again, and I can’t stand it anymore — the muffled whispers and furtive pointing; the sidelong slitty-eyed glances and snide snickering. I have to confess; get it off my chest and out in the open: I don’t shoot by The Book!

I was at another GunWriter Group-Grope — one of those wingdings put on by arms and ammo makers where a buncha real gunwriters and a couple fellow hacks like me are invited to burn up a ton of somebody else’s ordnance and fondle their firearms.

Anyway, I was merrily makin’ mayhem on innocent cardboard targets when, once again, I became aware of weighty stares and rancid repugnance radiatin’ from an assembly of The Anointed. They were horrified at my heresy. See, I don’t worship at any particular Temple of Technique or follow any “School of Shootery” du jour. I have what I call “evolved practices,” born of experience, and they’re still evolving. But in the eyes of the Keepers of The Book, my sins are many and mortal, it seems.

In an attempt to avoid co-pay costs for sessions on a shrink’s sofa, maybe I’ll just spill my guts to you guys …

The Seven Deadly Sins

I don’t do “tactical speed reloads” with pistols or mag-fed rifles. I don’t hit the mag release and kick empty magazines out on the deck with my weapon hand while reaching for a fresh one with the other. I do “sure & certain combat reloads” as fast as I can without fumbling. That means keeping an unchanged granite grip on the weapon, hitting the mag release with my off-hand and assisting that empty mag out if necessary. Then I’ll fetch a fresh mag and shove it in.

Yeah, I know. This might cost you critical points in a match. But in my experience, doing otherwise could cost my life in a fight. Pristine mags should fall free from a clean mag well, but just add mud/blood/beer, sand/sludge/grit, twisted positions or damage to the equation, and “drop-free” mags often don’t. I could practice “tactical speed reloads” just for matches or to “fit in with the boys,” but I won’t, because I know me under fire, and I want just one absolutely reliable reloading drill in my head when somebody’s trying to blast my butt off.

My slide release ain’t a “slide release,” it’s a “slide STOP.” I don’t thumb that lever to feed first rounds on reloads. I crank the slide back briskly to its limit either overhand or “slingshot style” because I want that slide driven home under full spring-plus-paw power. Again, it’s all about keeping that granite grip, plus absolute certainty the round is fully chambered and the slide is in battery. It ain’t slick and stylish, but it’s survivable. If you can chew gum, whistle and play with your GameBoy whilst shooting for your life, good for you. I can’t.

I don’t “ride the safety” on a 1911, keepin’ it held down with the master thumb to prevent it from bein’ bumped up and engaging unintentionally. I confess I never heard much about it until recently, but I’ve read several experts’ opinions that this practice separates the pros from the poseurs.

I guess I’m a heavily-experienced poseur. Riding it just doesn’t work for me. If I use too high a thumb-over-thumb grip I lose rigidity, and I’m not installing shelf-sized safety levers. Maybe a tad wider than standard, OK. I like my slides slick and “service-issue” for all kinds of clumsy Neanderthal reasons.

Plunging Into Purgatory

I am a profligate expender of ordnance, operating under the premise if anything needs shootin’ once (besides game) could probably benefit from a barrage of bullets until its inherent threat potential is absolute zero. Kinda like the difference between water “kinda-sorta-maybe conditionally” freezing at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, versus complete cessation of quantum activity at minus 459.6 F or zero Kelvin. I’ve seen too many guys who were “technically dead,” but who apparently didn’t receive their termination telegram, so they kept fighting. That kinda thing scares me.

I respect my own Fear Factor. For me, the quicker that dude is deader, the sooner I’m less scareder.

I don’t like feather-light triggers that “break like a thin, glass rod.” Not on firearms for Serious Social Work anyway, so I avoid them entirely. I want to know when I’m “on” that trigger, and it will require deliberate pressure to go bang — not when Adrenaline Overdrive decides to drop the hammer for me. What I want is a clean break after a tad of take-up. So I’m not a connoisseur, so crucify me, OK?

I’m not a straight-up shooter. The Book says a handgun should be held at zero vertical and, as much as possible, zero horizontal. I think this sprang from the days when first, shooting positions were dictated by geometry-driven military martinets, second, when a lot of pistols wouldn’t feed and function when held off-axis, and third, when all training and practice shooting was done on black-ball bull’s-eye targets.

It made for a prettier sight picture — but I’ve never had to fight a bull’s-eye target. Two-handed or single, strong or weak hand, I shoot best when side-canted about 10 to 15 degrees. You might shoot better that way too, but watch out for angry mobs of The Anointed bearing pitchforks, tar and feathers.

I don’t “index” nice, or “UTM” per usual. When you’re not actually “tappin’ the trigger with intent to pop caps,” your index finger is s’posed to be rigidly extended straight along the frame. Mine doesn’t “rigid” very well, and “straight” went off the table with some fractured mitt-bones and nerve damage a while back. The tip of my crooked trigger finger parks on the side of the triggerguard in Condition Orange, and it’s on the trigger in Condition Red. Note: I go Red real easy (another reason for favoring sorta stout service triggers).

Dang, I feel so much better now! And I didn’t have to lay on a couch or pay a guy in Gucci loafers to listen to me!

Connor OUT