If you can get the right grips I'd do the STEMBRIDGE since they used the 1917. The TOD is a good option too if it can be proven that they used an unaltered 1917.
In essence, if you wouldn't do it yourself, but have no problem buying a gun that someone else has converted as such, doesn't that mean you ultimately do support the practice? Just a thought.
I prefer to keep original vintage firearms as they are, but I think it's fine to get a replacement barrel to cut down and modify while keeping the original barrel intact.
binkmeisterRick wrote:In essence, if you wouldn't do it yourself, but have no problem buying a gun that someone else has converted as such, doesn't that mean you ultimately do support the practice? Just a thought.
No. Absolutely not. Were none to adopt the practice then the historic pieces would survive. My not supporting the practice in no way restricts my purchase options. And I have purchased bastardized historic pieces and restored them.
A historic weapon should be given its due - it's come a long way, and should be appreciated for its age and character. Especially when a new version, in this case, the Model 22, of recent vintage can be purchased new/used. A pistol out of the box often needs some basic work to improve its performance. An action job will make the trigger pull smoother, and help to alleviate the downward movement of the hand, sometimes generated by the simple act of squeezing. Several things can be done to improve sighting and accuracy. This is not to dismiss the work put in by the individual shooter to master an out of the box weapon. But, as in cars, some of us just enjoy working on our instruments. And you can expand this to loads.
I've always been a fan of the Stembridge. Between the checked grip, chipped corner, blade sight, and banding on the end of the barrel, I've always thought it had a bit more character than the Bapty. I'm hoping beyond hope that someday Rook will do a reproduction of this piece.