Small Revolvers used as Kit Guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is a SW 22/32 Kit Gun, Model of 1953 built on the Improved I frame with a coil mainspring. Also shown in a Model 63-0 in stainless.

IMG_3710.jpeg

I do not ascribe to the belief that the definition of a Kit Gun is arbitrary or that a Kit Gun can be simply whatever you want it to be.

A Kit Gun is a revolver, on a small frame, in a small caliber (.22, .32 SW or SWL, but probably not a .38 or larger). It features typically, but not necessarily, barrel lengths of 4" or shorter, and ADUSTABLE sights. Among the primary jobs this gun needed to do was to take SMALL game. For this task, adjustable sights are necessary, I think, so that you adjust your sights to your most accurate load, rather than relying on Kentucky windage. Kits were fairly lightweight and had good triggers.

I have seen similar threads elsewhere where guys are posting their Glock 19's, GP100's (and all manner of other guns) because "that's what I carry in the woods". Sorry, no. The Kit Guns came in an age when outdoorsmen were not so obsessed with self defense and protection from bears as so many are now.

Here is another good reference article from a Kit Gun collector's perspective.

https://www.ogca.com/Legendary Kit Gun.pdf
 
Last edited:
Howdy

They were called kit guns, or more properly 22/32 Kit Guns, because they were small enough to fit into a fisherman's tackle box, or kit. 22/32 because they were 22 rimfire revolvers built on the I frame (later the J frame) which started out as a six shot 32 caliber revolver. I picked up this Model 63 a bunch of years ago. It left the factory around 1980-1981. I was lucky enough to get the box and all the goodies, including the pamphlet about the ammo that S&W used to sell.

Great post, Mr. Johnson. Lot's of info there. You are quite the S&W curator. :thumbup:
 
Here is a SW 22/32 Kit Gun, Model of 1953 built on the Improved I frame with a coil mainspring. Also shown in a Model 63-0 in stainless.

View attachment 905503

I do not ascribe to the belief that the definition of a Kit Gun is arbitrary or that a Kit Gun can be simply whatever you want it to be.

A Kit Gun is a revolver, on a small frame, in a small caliber (.22, .32 SW or SWL, but probably not a .38 or larger). It features typically, but not necessarily, barrel lengths of 4" or shorter, and ADUSTABLE sights. Among the primary jobs this gun needed to do was to take SMALL game. For this task, adjustable sights are necessary, I think, so that you adjust your sights to your most accurate load, rather than relying on Kentucky windage. Kits were fairly lightweight and had good triggers.

I have seen similar threads elsewhere where guys are posting their Glock 19's (and all manner of other guns) because "that's what I carry in the woods". Sorry, no. The Kit Guns came in an age when outdoorsmen were not so obsessed with self defense and protection from bears as so many are now.

Here is another good reference article from a Kit Gun collector's perspective.

https://www.ogca.com/Legendary Kit Gun.pdf

Thanks for the link at the bottom, Maia007. :thumbup:

Regarding fixed sights, as long as they can be "adjusted" to ammo that shoots well in that gun, then no Kentucky windage is needed. Not all fixed sight guns can be corrected to do that, but plenty have been. Of course, proving that would be in the shooting. :cool:

While on that topic, this makes me think of a 21st century version of adjustable sights. Which would be a red dot or laser, which isn't traditional in the least. Only the laser in a grip would keep the profile of the gun virtually the same as before. A laser light source would probably spook any game, though. "What's that red light? Ruuuuuuuunnnnnnn!!!!!!" :D
 
Last edited:
S&W 63, 4". Colt Sport Woodsman, 4". Old, really old, old enough to be good Rossi 51, pinned and recessed. Walther PPK/S 22. Biggest problem is deciding what to take "shroomin".

I have two Kit Guns, one's a revolver...and the other one isn't!

If we included autoloaders, I have a Bersa Firestorm in .22LR that might be considered. It has an adjustable rear sight, but requires flame throwing ammo to move the slide, so I can't quiet it down without turning it into a manually operating gun.

Besides, I'm anti-magazine in this thread. One less thing to worry about losing or buying spares of. :D
 
Maia007

A Kit Gun is a revolver, on a small frame, in a small caliber (.22, .32 SW or SWL, but probably not a .38 or larger). It features typically, but not necessarily, barrel lengths of 4" or shorter, and ADUSTABLE sights.

While I can appreciate your viewpoint I would kindly beg to differ with you on the point of a .38 caliber not being suitable as a Kit Gun. Years ago I had a stainless steel Rossi Model 88. It was a 5 shot, .38 Special J frame size revolver with a 3" barrel, front ramp sight, and semi-adjustable rear sight. To my way of thinking it was like the perfect size, weight, caliber, and versatile enough with different carry loads to be considered a Kit Gun; a gun I might add that S&W would later offer as the Model 60 Chiefs Special Target. I use to carry it on many a walk through the backwoods and felt well armed and prepared for just about anything I might encounter out there.
 
chicharrones

Besides, I'm anti-magazine in this thread. One less thing to worry about losing or buying spares of.

I understand your position, though I would say that in all of the years I have carried semi-autos in the field I have yet to lose a magazine (and yes, I will concede there is always the need to buy spare magazines at some point).

Your thread, your rules! I will abide by your conditions.
 
Howdy Again

There are definitions and there are definitions. I posted the definition of a Kit Gun as defined by Smith and Wesson.

I agree with Maia007. The purpose of a Kit Gun was a small, handy revolver that could easily be stashed in a fisherman's tackle box. It was not meant for self defense, it was only meant for shooting small game when the fish weren't biting, hence a true Kit Gun is a 22 Rimfire. Remember, the Kit Gun was first marketed in the 1930s. Long before hikers were obsessed with being armed for bear. At least armed for bear with a pistol.

I only posted a photo of my 38 Special Model 36 to show the size and round count on a 38 caliber J frame revolver. It is not a Kit Gun.
 
chicharrones

I understand your position, though I would say that in all of the years I have carried semi-autos in the field I have yet to lose a magazine (and yes, I will concede there is always the need to buy spare magazines at some point).

Your thread, your rules! I will abide by your conditions.

Yeah, I haven't lost a magazine yet either. I've got this sick addiction of buying spare mags, which aggravates me a bit when I think of the cost increase of any autoloader I just bought.

Just another reason I love revolvers. Sure, I can buy speed loaders or strips. Or, I can just dump some ammo in a pocket to load in a cylinder and go shootin'. :cool:
 
I do not ascribe to the belief that the definition of a Kit Gun is arbitrary or that a Kit Gun can be simply whatever you want it to be.
. . .
I have seen similar threads elsewhere where guys are posting their Glock 19's, GP100's (and all manner of other guns) because "that's what I carry in the woods". Sorry, no. The Kit Guns came in an age when outdoorsmen were not so obsessed with self defense and protection from bears as so many are now.

Howdy Again

There are definitions and there are definitions. I posted the definition of a Kit Gun as defined by Smith and Wesson.

I agree with Maia007. The purpose of a Kit Gun was a small, handy revolver that could easily be stashed in a fisherman's tackle box. It was not meant for self defense, it was only meant for shooting small game when the fish weren't biting, hence a true Kit Gun is a 22 Rimfire. Remember, the Kit Gun was first marketed in the 1930s. Long before hikers were obsessed with being armed for bear. At least armed for bear with a pistol.

I only posted a photo of my 38 Special Model 36 to show the size and round count on a 38 caliber J frame revolver. It is not a Kit Gun.

I recognize and agree that S&W set the definition, and that would probably not include single action revolvers either since S&W doesn't play in that game. So, I concede and have changed the thread title to allow us to go off definition without changing that definition. :)

I would like anyone to share what small frame revolver they would personally carry in their 21st century version of a kit. For small game hunting, plinking, or whatever they enjoy to do. But as mentioned, leaving out specific self defense guns.

What I can appreciate in a .38 Special revolver is that it can be tamed down with something like wadcutter ammo, and if using shot shells have greater shot capacity than a .22LR shot shell. So, I won't claim that S&W 337 is a kit gun by the original definition, but it sure looks to be a handy and lightweight revolver. :cool:
 
Last edited:
chicharrones

What I can appreciate in a .38 Special revolver is that it can be tamed down with something like wadcutter ammo, and if using shot shells have greater shot capacity than a .22LR shot shell. So, I won't claim that S&W 337 is a kit gun by the original definition, but it sure looks to be a handy and lightweight revolver.

My thoughts exactly! That's why I included mention of my Rossi Model 88 because while it was not a Kit Gun by S&W's definition, it was one by means of a more practical application!
 
Maia007



While I can appreciate your viewpoint I would kindly beg to differ with you on the point of a .38 caliber not being suitable as a Kit Gun. Years ago I had a stainless steel Rossi Model 88. It was a 5 shot, .38 Special J frame size revolver with a 3" barrel, front ramp sight, and semi-adjustable rear sight. To my way of thinking it was like the perfect size, weight, caliber, and versatile enough with different carry loads to be considered a Kit Gun; a gun I might add that S&W would later offer as the Model 60 Chiefs Special Target. I use to carry it on many a walk through the backwoods and felt well armed and prepared for just about anything I might encounter out there.

Your .38 might well suit your purposes for fulfilling the role a Kit Gun, I would never dispute that. Just like my Model 60 with a 3" barrel in .357 with adjustable sights (and a CT laser grip) that I often carry as a "woods gun" might well fulfill the role. That is, if I were to expand its role to include self defense.

Both guns meet most of the elements of the definition of a Kit Gun. But each fails to adhere to the "smaller caliber for small game" component of the Kit Gun's definition. Once the definition of a thing becomes expanded or contracted by interpretation, it loses its meaning. In the time when Kit Guns were known as Kit Guns, the definition was far more fixed than fluid.

However, I will maintain that while both our guns might, for us, "suit the purpose" of a Kit Gun, they fail to fully conform to the definition of the classical Kit Gun.

That said, we can certainly call them what we want, I suppose.

I am trying to be informative, supported by references, and am not trying to be argumentative for its own sake.

On the subject of autos, this is what I most like to carry in the woods to "suit the purpose" of a Kit Gun. Of course it does not conform to the definition because it is an auto and it is a bit large and heavy by Kit Gun standards, but I suppose I can call it "my Kit Gun". I take this one (and another one in Second Series) because my ability to shoot with accuracy at longer ranges vastly exceeds that of any .22 small framed revolver I've ever had.

Colt Woodsman Sport, First Series, 4 1/2" barrel, adjustable front and rear sights, 1938, carried in a classic vertical shoulder holster.

IMG_2548.jpg
 
Last edited:
Some other additions (consistent with the expanded definition of kit gun):

IMG_3973.jpeg

Top is the Ruger New Bearcat in 3", also shown in the original post. Weighs 16 oz. I was quite surprised by this piece. For a fixed sight, short barrel it shoots quite well within its range limitations. It would be nice if I had waited and got the later released 4" version.

The last time I had it out, a neighbor brought his grandsons, age 6 and age 9 over for their very first shooting experience. And, of course, they wanted to shoot a pistol. No Crickets for these savage boys. This pup-gun was just the ticket a first timer. I stood right beside them so I could quickly grab the cylinder if I had to. What a hoot to watch them! This is one fun gun.

Next is a Colt Cobra, aluminum D frame in 3", built in 1968. This comes in .32 Colt New Police, Colt's designation of the S&W .32 Long cartridge. Weighs 17.6 ounces with wood original grips, a bit more with the Pach Compacs shown, which improve its shoot-ability immensely. Fixed sights but quite accurate with wadcutters and suitable for small game within a reasonable distance. I'm sure that many of you know that Lee Marvin as Detective Lt. Frank Ballinger, carried two Cobras in .38 Special in the series "M Squad". So this one has to take the cake for cool.

Last is a Colt New Frontier in single action with adjustable sights. A smaller frame SA . Maybe bit long with the 6" barrel and a bit heavy at 31.6 oz, it barely qualifies (but maybe not). This is an exceptionally high quality build. Vintage 1972. While it won't outshoot my vintage 1960 K frame Mod 17, it holds its own with the K frame at the longer distances. That is saying a lot for it.
 
Last edited:
Some other additions:

View attachment 905554

Top is the Ruger New Bearcat in 3", also shown in the original post. Weighs 16 oz. I was quite surprised by this piece. For a fixed sight, short barrel it shoots quite well within its range limitations. It would be nice if I had waited and got the later released 4" version.

I've been doing some comparison shooting between my Bearcat and the new to me Pocket Target.

Neither one of them shoot Aguila Colibris worth anything. One gun slings the Colibris down and left, the other slings them to the down and right.

Both of them do well with CCI Quiets shooting to point of aim. More comparison testing will be done with other ammo soon.

Speaking of that short barrel Bearcat, I have purposely bought up quite a bit of .22 shorts. I get good shooting results and the shorter case ejects well with the Shopkeeper's short ejection rod.
 
There really isn't an "official" agreed-upon definition.

A small-framed 3" 22lr revolver is pretty much the classic example, IMHO.

My 2" 22lr CA Pathfinder is pretty close. My 4" S&W Hand Ejector in 32 S&W long isn't too far off.

These seem to be fairly decent little 22 revolvers for what they cost.

I agree on the idea not being 38 cal and such.
My 1875 Marlin 32 r short may fit in with my Model 51 22 mag.
 
I have a Smith 317, which is about as "Kit-Gunny" as one can get. Light as a feather, holds 8 shots and fits just about anywhere.

317.jpg

My more classic-styled kit-guns are Taurus 941 .22 Mag 8-shot and 94 .22 LR 9-shot rimfires...I'm trying to replace them with their S&W counterparts but I keep getting outbid on GB :(.

Taurus .22's.jpg
Stay safe.
 
View attachment 905494
...in that case, count me in.

I was digging through some old pics and found this mockup I made long ago when contemplating a gun purchase.

4.2" barreled Bearcat, 4.2" barreled Pathfinder, and the 4.62" barreled Single Six. All are to scale.

If it wasn't for that ejector rod housing . . .
Ruger could make a shorty Single Six , with a birdshead grip, and 10 shot capacity . . . call it the ShopOwner. ;)

View attachment 905656
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top