You'd think I'd know better...

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

After a couple of sword sales we stopped by Pinto's to pay off my Christmas present layaway. Linda made a 'go look in the case' gesture while she filled out the paperwork and (like a fool) I did.

An I-Frame S&W Regulation Police in .32 Long marked at $125 caught my eye. I assumed it was a parts gun at that price. Nope. Mechanically sound, pristine chambers and the bore looked good enough but for some pitting near the muzzle. Pretty seriously freckled on the surfaces. I didn't even ask why it was so cheap- just 'shut up and take my money!' Linda took one look at me and requested more paperwork.

After I got home I gave it a good cleaning and the bore is a little worse than I thought, but not really bad until you get near the muzzle. I'm going to run some brass wool down the barrel and see what's what.

At the very least I'm going to strip it, polish it up a bit and re-blue it and make some custom grips for it. I'm considering cutting off the bad section at the muzzle, re-crowning and installing a new front sight.

So... new project!

 

[WestKentucky]

You'd better be glad you found it instead of me. I wouldn't have let it leave my sight til the transfer was finished.

 

[J-Bar]

Shoot it before chopping it...the old gal may surprise you!

Nice find.

 

[200Apples]

I'm considering cutting off the bad section at the muzzle, re-crowning and installing a new front sight.

If J-Bar's solid suggestion bears no fruit, then, I'm with you. Whatever length it becomes it should prove interesting.

Great find. Have fun with it.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I believe that is a third model hand ejector, but not a Regulation Police. The Regulation Police had a patented grip and different grip frame. The patent date would be on the bottom of a wooden grip and be dated June 5th, 1917. Do you have a picture of the back of the grip frame?

This Regulation Police was built in 1923.

Regulation Police 1923

• Zaydok Allen
• Oct 20, 2016

I'm sure Driftwoid Johnson will be along with more info.

 

[Twiki357]

I believe that is a third model hand ejector, but not a Regulation Police. The Regulation Police had a patented grip and different grip frame. The patent date would be on the bottom of s wooden grip and be dated June 5th, 1917. Do you have a picture of the back of the grip frame?

I agree. The Regulation Police has a round butt frame with a [notch or step out] on the back strap to help support the square butt stocks.
Needless to say, this one is not “original” but you can see the step out on the back strap.

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

After researching the gun I agree this is not a Regulation Police- I was going by what it said on the tag without knowing enough about the model. I've checked into it and consulted the S&W forum. This appears to be a Model 1903- 5th Change made between 1910-1914. Which is perfectly OK with me- I mean, how often does one find a shootable I-frame for $125? No complaints here!

 

[bannockburn]

MTP

Great find! I would snapped that up too if I had come across it at my LGS!

 

[entropy]

Good catch! I'd have been all over that, too! I agree with J-bar, shoot it first. You are a lucky man; I went to a couple shops yesterday with SWMBO, and all I got was a Mouse Hawk at Cabela's, and I had to pay for it. She did let me ogle in the Gun Library for a while. I pointed out the 2 1/2" Python like the one I had to sell to get the water turned back on many years ago. It was tagged at $5995.

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

Good catch! I'd have been all over that, too! I agree with J-bar, shoot it first. You are a lucky man; I went to a couple shops yesterday with SWMBO, and all I got was a Mouse Hawk at Cabela's, and I had to pay for it. She did let me ogle in the Gun Library for a while. I pointed out the 2 1/2" Python like the one I had to sell to get the water turned back on many years ago. It was tagged at $5995.

Ouch!

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

Here are a few photos showing the details of the way the grips were done with the Regulation Police models. Notice there is a small notch on the rear of the grip frame.

This view shows how the grip frame 'disappeared' into the wood at the rear. Because the grips covered the butt of the grip frame, the serial number was stamped on the front of the grip frame of these models. Sorry, I don't seem to have a photo of that.

Apparently S&W thought enough of this style of grips to have it patented.

You can see how the grip style of the Regulation Police increases the over all length of the grips compared to the grip on your revolver. The Regulation Police was chambered for 32 S&W Long and there was a five shot version chambered for 38 S&W, not 38 Special.

The I frame cylinder was not long enough to be able to handle a 38 Special cartridge, that is why it was eventually replaced by the J frame, which can take five 38 Special cartridges. This stainless 22/32 Kit gun is a 22 Rimfire, but you get the idea.

Just one more Regulation Police photo, comparing it in size to a six shot, K frame, 38 M&P. An under powered weapon by present standards, but with a name like Regulation Police, a lot of them must have been sold to law enforcement organizations.

I am not an expert on the different dash numbers of the Model 1903 32 Hand Ejectors, always something more to learn about old guns. I can tell you though that the when the Model 1903 first came out in 1903 (duh) it was the first 32 caliber side swing revolver that S&W made with the bolt stop down at the bottom of the frame, just like almost every revolver made since then. The 32 Hand Ejector 1st Model (Model of 1896) had an unusual arrangement hearkening back to the old Tip Ups of the 1850s with the bolt stop up in the top strap. You can always tell the Model of 1896 by the squared off appearance of the frame near the hammer.

I went over to the S&W Forum but could not find your post asking about your revolver.

All I can glean from the Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson is that the 32 Hand Ejector Model of 1903, 5th Change was made from 1910 until 1917, with Serial Numbers running from 102501 to about 263000. If you take it apart, be sure to take some photos. According to SCSW the 5th change included 'major internal changes in the trigger, hammer and sear'. At some point these early Hand Ejectors went from an earlier arrangement of the trigger and hammer to the current arrangement with the modern rebound slide. This change happened in 1905 with the 38 caliber Hand Ejectors. I do not know if that is what SCSW meant by 'major internal changes' with the 5th Change Model 1903, but that is my guess. If so, photos would be educational.

I agree, try shooting it before chopping off the barrel. I have lots of old guns with worn, pitted bores, but as long as the rifling is still strong, most of them still deliver acceptable accuracy. If it was mine, I would leave it exactly as it is, I would not do anything to it. If I had seen that nice old gun for $125, I would have run down anybody standing between me and the cash register. Of course first I would have tried to talk them down a few bucks. By the way, even though they have a little bit of wear on them, those grips are probably worth that much to somebody on the internet.

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

Wow Driftwood- that was a very informative and comprehensive post! Beautiful guns too. My serial number is 102219, so that would mean this might be a 4th change?

I cleaned the bore thoroughly with a wire bore-brush wrapped in bronze wool and doused with gun oil. A lot of lead and other crap came out that hadn't when I cleaned the gun last night. There's more pitting in the bore than I thought, but it's nothing that concerns me until you get to the last inch or so before the muzzle, where it is very bad indeed. I had a Lend-lease M&P in .38 S&W with a similar issue and got excessive leading near the muzzle and a lot of bullets key-holing at ten yards. My theory- and I'm no expert- is that the rifling became weak enough that the bullet smeared over the rifling at that point and this destabilized the bullets.

Nonetheless I will certainly shoot it before I do anything. In the long run I will probably refinish the gun and make some custom grips (I'm thinking stag,) but I'd just as soon leave the barrel alone.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

I don't want to second guess what ever you were told on the S&W Forum, there are some very knowledgeable guys over there, not a few of whom know more than me. But according to SCSW serial numbers for the 32 Hand Ejector Model of 1903 4th change ran from 96126 to 102500, with a total of 6,374 manufactured C 1910. A fairly short production run. There were 160,499 5th Changes made between 1910 and 1917. Standard barrel lengths for the 1st Change, 2nd Change, 3rd Change, 4th Change, and 5th Change were 3 1/4", 4 1/4", and 6". This is information that many of the guys at the S&W forum would have access to, the Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson has become the standard reference work for all things Smith and Wesson.

If my theory is correct, the lockwork inside the 4th Change would be significantly different than the lockwork inside the 5th Change, so it would be interesting to see a photo of the lockwork. That might also dovetail with why so many more 5th Changes were made, perhaps once the new lockwork was developed production of the older models was halted. Just a theory on my part. Anyway, if you take the side plate off a photo of the lockwork would be interesting to see.

 

[BobWright]

Just me, I know, but a gun in that condition would not "jump out at me." Even an old Colt Single Action would not appeal to me in that shape. I have bought used guns before, of course, but never in real rough condition.

Now don't get me wrong, if that's your penchant, go ahead and more power to you! I don't mind wear, or even rebuilding to another caliber, but I reckon I prefer to buying good condition and put the wear on a gun myself. And at my stage in life, sure want a caliber for which I already reload.

Bob Wright

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Just me, I know, but a gun in that condition would not "jump out at me." Even an old Colt Single Action would not appeal to me in that shape. I have bought used guns before, of course, but never in real rough condition.

I look at it a little bit differently. If I see a really neat old gun, and it will fit into a niche in my collection, I will often buy it even if the condition is pretty rough. That Model 1896 that I posted in the earlier post is a good example. You don't run into a whole lot of them. I figure if later on I find a better example of that same gun, I can always get rid of the one in rough shape.

But I am probably coming at this from a different angle than you are.

Here's another example of my reasoning. I nice old Bisley Colt. Hardly any blue left on it anywhere. But it's all original, right down to the bent ejector rod handle. When I found it, it was affordable, and I bought it. Maybe some time down the road if I find another one in better shape, I will upgrade to that one and sell this one.

Maybe

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

Just me, I know, but a gun in that condition would not "jump out at me." Even an old Colt Single Action would not appeal to me in that shape. I have bought used guns before, of course, but never in real rough condition.

Now don't get me wrong, if that's your penchant, go ahead and more power to you! I don't mind wear, or even rebuilding to another caliber, but I reckon I prefer to buying good condition and put the wear on a gun myself. And at my stage in life, sure want a caliber for which I already reload.

Bob Wright

Makes perfect sense to me Bob. A little different for me of course. I look at a gun like this- a quality brand gun with no issues that aren't fixable and I see not what it is, but what I can make of it. It's as much a canvas as it is a firearm, and I delight in taking an old gun and giving it new life. It's a hobby for me, and everyone has their own. I have friends that are into model trains or medieval archery. Not for me, but I can appreciate the work, skill and passion that goes into it.

The gun below (another S&W) was in not much better shape than this one and I got it for a song. After a bit of work- which I do for the fun of it- now people keep trying to buy it from me. It tickles me that I could take something old, unloved and discarded and create something that other people appreciate and desire. It's gone from 'junk' to a treasured and coveted expression of my growing skill, capabilities and esthetics.

 

[loose noose]

I agree with Michael Tinker, a couple of years ago I bought a 1897 Winchester Pump in 12ga. it was manufactured in 1907 if I remember right. The bore was a real nightmare, as it had a lot of pitting, and the steel on the outside was in very poor shape to say the least, not to mention the wood, although not very deep creases they were definitely present. However after about two months of work on it, refinishing the stock completely, polishing the bore, and steel and last but not least re-bluing it. I've got a shotgun that if it could talk would keep us all intrigued for quite some time, and yes I've shot it with low base light loads at a local trap range, very nice results also. I'm sure you will have as much pleasure as I did refinishing your excellent find.

 

[BobWright]

Lest there be any misunderstanding, here is a revolver I bought a couple years back. Its a Hy Hunter Western Six Shooter, .357 Magnum, made by J.P. Sauer & Sohn of West Germany.



Not a $100 gun by any means, but I also saw potential in the gun, despite plastic imitation stag grips, ZAMAK trigger guard, backstrap, and ejector rod housing. After a little fitting, trigger guard from a Uberti 1851 Navy and backstrap from a Hawes Western Marshal, and scrap walnut home made grips:




Bob Wright

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

Lest there be any misunderstanding, here is a revolver I bought a couple years back. Its a Hy Hunter Western Six Shooter, .357 Magnum, made by J.P. Sauer & Sohn of West Germany.



Not a $100 gun by any means, but I also saw potential in the gun, despite plastic imitation stag grips, ZAMAK trigger guard, backstrap, and ejector rod housing. After a little fitting, trigger guard from a Uberti 1851 Navy and backstrap from a Hawes Western Marshal, and scrap walnut home made grips:




Bob Wright

Nice upgrades! Many years ago I did something similar to a off-brand SAA; I fitted the trigger-guard, frame and grips from a 1860 army to mine- I like the longer grip better.

I don't think I misunderstood your post; I just appear to have a slightly different approach and emphasis. Not a problem, and I certainly wasn't offended! I hope that I did not, in my turn, offend you! If I did it was most unintentional. This is a very broad-based hobby, with a screw for every nut.

 

[BobWright]

I was trying to clear up any misconception that maybe I bought only new or like new used guns. True, most of the guns I've bought were brand spankin' new, but I've bought my share of used guns for projects. But never bought one that required extensive refinishing.

Offend me? No my friend, gun men seldom have offended me.

Bob Wright

 

[Tallball]

Apparently the OP and I like similar revolvers. IIRC, mine was made in 1915 or 1916. I won it on GB for a bid of right around $125 a couple of years ago. It turned out to be a pretty good shooter. I enjoy taking it to the range with me sometimes.

 

[S&Wfan]

Agreed. It is a 5th change. Here's mine, from 1916. It is definately a "shooter" but one that seems to have always been taken care of pretty good.

I just took it to the range last Saturday to celebrate its 100th birthday. Still a sweet shooting little I-frame, as you'll see.

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

Lovely gun and good shooting! As a test for how tough it was going to be to refinish this gun I did some quick work on the barrel- the photo represents about 1/2 hour of work. It came out pretty well- the hard part will be dismantling the rest of the revolver to continue the job; I'm going to need to make some special screw-drivers to do it properly. Fortunately I can do that.

 

[entropy]

A good gunsmith is always custom fitting screwdrivers for jobs like this. I'm sure you do it properly. Nice job on the barrel!

 

[Michael Tinker Pearce]

Driftwood- here is the requested pic of the internals: