I do Like an ACP Revolver.

[StrawHat]

Here is a S&W Model 1950, built ??? with a 5 1/2” barrel and chambered for the 45 ACP cartridge.

I will probably load this with the SAECO 453 or a 230 ounce nose cast a bit hard. If it goes well, I hold also consider a 230 grain Keith SWC, or heavier.

Kevin

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Wow, 230 ounce bullet, that's heavy

Kidding aside, cool revolver.

 

[StrawHat]

Wow, 230 ounce bullet, that's heavy

Kidding aside, cool revolver.

Had to look to see wtf? Autocorrect got me! I edited it out.

Kevin

 

[StrawHat]

On second thought, I re-edited it back in! Otherwise no one would get the post.

Kevin

 

[StrawHat]

5's and 5 1/2" revolver barrels are perfect. Nice pics of your .45,thanks for sharing.

I prefer the 4” tapered barrel but the 5+” barrels are second.

Kevin

 

[Rick]

Here is a S&W Model 1950, built ??? with a 5 1/2” barrel and chambered for the 45 ACP cartridge.

I will probably load this with the SAECO 453 or a 230 ounce nose cast a bit hard. If it goes well, I hold also consider a 230 grain Keith SWC, or heavier.

Kevin

Wow . . . A 14.375 pound bullet, You must reserve that for things that absolutely guaranteed positively must be shot.

 

[CZ93X62]

Lovely example, by the serial number on the early end of things--range of "S85000 to S236000" from 1951 to 1966, Standard Catalog of S&W.

Yessir--5" -5.5" barrels are about perfect, though a PITA to find proper holsters for.

 

[Rally]

We had a similar conversation not too long ago, where I used to have what I thought was a model 25. Your model 1950 looks like what I had, but mine had been parkerized a flat black. Shot well but the clips were a pain. Ar brass was rare as hens teeth also. How many version of this were made?

Strawhat,
Does your revolver pictured have target hammer and trigger?

 

[CZ93X62]

Both Colt and S&W made large-frame revolver models in 45 ACP/Auto Rim during and after WWI. SC of S&W goes into some detail about the flow of variants during their production lives; summed up, S&W has almost always had at least one N-frame variant in 45 ACP/AR in production since 1917--Colt was more intermittent, and their New Service frame size did not last long after the end of WWII, as a practical matter. Truth to tell, large-framed revolvers never sold very well commercially in North America--not like small and medium frame sizes did, anyway. It took "Dirty Harry" in 1971 to excite consumers into buying N-frame S&Ws, and once that cult-following got under way S&W couldn't make the things fast enough.

My "take" on the matter, FWIW. (HERESY ALERT) The S&W N-frame was designed originally around the 44 Special cartridge. In that role, the N-frame is well-nigh perfect. OEM loadings in 44 Special during the early 20th Century ran a 246 grain RN lead bullet at 700-725 FPS. There was plenty of room mechanically to enhance bullet performance a bit, perhaps into the 900-1000 FPS ZIP Code. Skeeter's Load is about perfect in an N-frame 44 Special, +/- 950 FPS from a 4"-6" barrel. This pretty close to what the 45 ACP cartridge in a revolver produces as well--800 to 900 FPS with a 225-255 grain bullet. This is a nice performance envelope--the recoil is docile, the report isn't an eardrum drill, and you can shoot these in large numbers without much fatigue or flinch creation. There are good reasons why the 45 ACP N-frame revolvers have been slow but steady sellers for 100 years.

 

[Missionary]

Our favorite is a 1917 Colt Army marked. Our #2 in line is a S&W Army marked. Have been using a 44 WCF New Service Colt made in 1903 and was much used to the revolver when the 1917 Colt came along. Nothing against the S&W but the Colt just "feels" more natural in my hand.

 

[StrawHat]

Our favorite is a 1917 Colt Army marked. Our #2 in line is a S&W Army marked. Have been using a 44 WCF New Service Colt made in 1903 and was much used to the revolver when the 1917 Colt came along. Nothing against the S&W but the Colt just "feels" more natural in my hand.

You must have huge hands!

We had a similar conversation not too long ago, where I used to have what I thought was a model 25. Your model 1950 looks like what I had, but mine had been parkerized a flat black. Shot well but the clips were a pain. Ar brass was rare as hens teeth also. How many version of this were made?

Strawhat,
Does your revolver pictured have target hammer and trigger?

To the best of my recollection, the following comprises the fixed sighted, 45 ACP line of S&W revolvers;
1917 Military built from 1917-1918, 5 1/2” barrel
1917 Commercial built 1919-1950, 5 1/2” barrel
Brazilian 1917 built in two batches the first in 1937 using brand new commercial frames with square notch rear sight and wider (.1”) front sight and some of these were used by the Brazilians in Italy during WWII. The second batch was delivered in 1946 and was built using “leftover” 1917 Army frames. (Somewhere in the dark recesses, S&W found a large pile of frames, barrels and small parts that they were forced to buy back after WWI ended and the government cancelled the contract. These found parts had been accumulating dust and after the end of WWII, allowed S&W to fulfill the Brazilian contract with minimal outlay of money.). Both versions had 5 1/2” barrels.
1950 Military, a new, short action version of the old 1917. It has the square notch rear sight and .1” front sight of the Commercial model but lacks the lanyard ring. In 1957 this becomes the Model 22. 5 1/2” barrels.
Model 22-4, a newer versions of the 1950 which include MIM parts and an internal storage lock. Offered with 5 1/2” and 4” barrels.

Okay, my brain is tired, someone else can fill in what I missed.

Kevin

 

[Ian]

Mastodons, Rick. We have a few in Texas.

 

[fiver]

well when you have a 15' long bullet you don't have to get too close to things.
of course a quick reload, and getting the muzzle velocity up above 3-4 fps. is also not so easy.

 

[Brad]

Rick, the correct question was “Can I mine your berm?”

Wont take many of those to fill a 5 gallon bucket

 

[fiver]

just put the bucket under the mold and catch the run off, you won't have to fold that in eighths to get it in the bucket.

 

[Brad]

I would almost pay to watch Ian figure out a way to make the mould work using only a Lee 10 pounder. Bottom pour.

 

[Bret4207]

Good run down on the Smiths guys. I think Al is 100% right on why the N frame Smith is about perfect for the 44S/45ACP.

Missionary- I agree, you must have a big mitt. I drooled over a Colt '17 at one time. I had the Smith '17 but wanted an example of the Colt version, mainly because the first NYS Troopers carried Colt New Service 45 Colts from '17 until '53 IIRC. They were carried crossdraw as when we started we were a mounted force and our first Superintendent was an old US Calvary Officer. They were still horseback up towards WW2 ins some areas. Anyway, finding a NS in 45 Colt, much less marked "NYST" was just out of the question, but the 17 was the same frame and it was a 45 at least. When I picked the gun up I got a tremendous let down. I have a wide, thick, fairly short fingered hand. The Colt must have been built for men with larger, longer fingered hands because it was just too big for me to like the feel of. The price was outrageous anyway, so I passed it up. I got thinking later that a Tyler T-grip adapter might have made it feel better. I would still grab one if the right price was involved, but Smith fits my hand much better.

 

[StrawHat]

We had a similar conversation not too long ago, where I used to have what I thought was a model 25....

Strawhat,
Does your revolver pictured have target hammer and trigger?

Do you still have that revolver?

No, the hammer is a standard hammer with a different checkering than the 1917 Military. The trigger is narrow and grooved unlike the narrow smooth trigger on the 1917.
The photo are (l to r), 1917, 1950, 22-4.

 

[CZ93X62]

Having a couple opportunities to see and hold N-frame S&W and New Service Colts at the same time, the New Service is noticeably larger in all respects than the N-frame. Both frames require aftermarket grips for my paws, though.

The 44 Magnums that stay around at my house are 1) rifles or 2) Rugers. S&Ws don't stay around long. Thankfully, they sell easily. S&W has a bad habit--now decades-long--of putting too much cartridge in too little platform. MORE HERESY--the 44 Magnum as envisioned by Remington in 1955 at the caliber's roll-out (allegedly 240 grainers at 1450 FPS, 1325 FPS was more like it) is just too much cartridge for the frame and platform weight. Dial the velocity back to Elmer Keith's 1100-1200 FPS, and you have a capable wheelgun that won't beat you or itself to flinders. Yes, I know--more recent 29-series Smiths have been "endurance enhanced" to hold up better for longer timeframes. SAAMI also dialed back the cartridge pressure gradients in 1990, from 43.5K CUP to 36K PSI. (This applies to the 357 and 41 Magnum as well). Correspondingly, (IMO) the K-frame 357 Magnums are a bit more cartridge than is the best fit for a frame meant for standard-velocity 38 Specials in 1902. The K-frame has been upgraded & updated over the years, but with the Model 13/65 and Model 19/66 you still need to be selective about 357 loads, and avoid the 110-125 grain loads entirely. The I-frame S&Ws were morphed into the J-frames after WWII, and upgraded to 38 Special from its 22 LR/32 S&W Long/38 S&W origins. Now S&W chambers a number of J-frames in 357 Magnum.......are you kidding me? SO. NOT. HAPPENING. Not at my house.

 

[CZ93X62]

Yessir. A lot of revolver grip frames are built exactly backwards, in view of how finger lengths shorten from the middle finger to the small finger. Grip Frames flare outward as finger lengths shorten--and pre-1940 Colts are worse than S&Ws in this respect. The recoil humps on D/A wheelguns are the grip frames' saving grace--they give a constant contact point for the thumb/forefinger web to index upon. But the butt flare is still exactly backwards. The S&W round butt frame form is something of an improvement, but still too small for me.