Why a 4" barrel?

Havana · Post by **Havana** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 3:29 pm

Okay I have to ask, does anybody know why the Raider's revolver(s) had 4" barrels? Was this done for some aesthetic or stylistic reason or was it the case that the first gun they located for the shoot already had a shorten barrel and the second gun was just cut to match? I own a S&W 1917 with the standard 5" barrel and I can see no practical reason for cutting it down. It wouldn't improve the shooting characteristics. It wouldn't change the balance significantly. It doesn't really even make it much smaller. Indy typically carried in a large outside holster anyway so I can't believe it was done to reduce the size. What's the deal here?

J_Weaver · Post by **J_Weaver** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 5:32 pm

I've often wondered the same thing. The only reason that I can figure is that a 4" barrel is more pratical for carry than a longer barrel like the 6.5" on my S&W. However, like you said, the 5" models were and still are available and 1" makes little difference. Maybe its just cause the 4" barrel model looks so cool.

Sergei · Post by **Sergei** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 5:59 pm

Actually the standard length for the US M1917 was 5.5". The British issue of the S&W M1917 was 6.5". As far as the 4" barrel, I can only think that it was a speedier draw than the more cumbersome 5.5 or 6.5" barrel. In fact I heard that LE's during the 40's and 50's cut down the S&W .45acp revolvers to the 4 inch barrel length for that reason - they wanted the power but an easier drawing revolver. So the Bapty and Stembridge were probably already cut to 4" which the prop people accomodated. However, after saying all that, then it makes no sense they went for the 6.5" barrel of the Webley in the last movie (LC).

Indiana Jerry · Post by **Indiana Jerry** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 6:41 pm

Maybe just a different prop master? Or maybe the same prop master said, "I'm not going through THAT nightmare again."

Certainly nothing in the script mentioned the type of gun - just a flap holster. After that, it seems like it was probably just a choice of one type of gun from what the prop master had available and showed George and Steven.

K on the run · Post by **K on the run** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 7:03 pm

Sergei wrote:However, after saying all that, then it makes no sense they went for the 6.5" barrel of the Webley in the last movie (LC).

Maybe because the Webley opens the way it does (I'm not sure what it's called), making it very easy to show that it's empty

-Or maybe because it's a distinct design adding to Indy's personality.

-K

Masterfulks · Post by **Masterfulks** » Sun Jan 01, 2006 4:34 pm

I think most likely Indy just came across this gun and liked it.

Maybe he took it off someone who tried to kill him...

Crusader556 · Post by **Crusader556** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:46 am

I agree with Sergei, I think it was shortened to allow for an easier and faster pistol presentation.

Since Indy is a thinking man he would probably look for way ways to optimize his carry gear. So it doesn't sound unreasonable that Indy would want such a mod due to the the way he dressed and the nature of his work.

That's the logical, realistic guess, as far the actual Hollywood reason who really knows...

Post by **Michaelson** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:29 pm

OLD old post, but one I missed. Sorry.

Barrel lengths are not necessarily determined by ease of use.

There are standards that are followed based on the best length for the maximum power from a bullet powder load.

Standard length for maximum power of guns with .38 caliber bullets has been determined to be 4 inches. Anything shorter will blow unburned powder out the barrel, and anything longer will burn all the powder but the muzzle velocity will have begun to fall as the bullet is now depending on the power of the now completely burned powder to push it out the end of the muzzle.

In a .44 caliber, the maximum powder burn/pressure is achieved at 5.5 inches down the barrel....same scenario....shorter barrel, more unburned powder....longer barrel, total burn and the bullet is slowing.

This was the reason that the original Ruger Redhawk .44 magnum was made in 7 inch (for hunters who wanted a revolver with a long sight radius), and law enforcement with 5.5 inch... maximum barrel performance for .44 mag.

This was a lesson relearned from the 1917 at 5.5.

As to the original question as to WHY the Raiders Smith was shortened....more than likely it was either rebarreled or bobbed from it's original 5.5 due to holster availability.

Anyway, there's the gunsmith reasons for barrel length...they're not arbitrarily chosen for appearance...there's a ballistic reason for the length choice for the calibers being used.

Regards! Michaelson

FloatinJoe · Post by **FloatinJoe** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:42 pm

Sergei wrote:So the Bapty and Stembridge were probably already cut to 4" which the prop people accomodated. However, after saying all that, then it makes no sense they went for the 6.5" barrel of the Webley in the last movie (LC).

I believe that if we do some digging we'll come across a thread about this. If I remember correctly, Rob MacGregor was the first person to give Indy a Webley. He saw it at a gun store and thought it was pretty cool so he included it in his next book. The information from the books was then used by the prop folks for LC.

My memory is a bit rusty, so I might be off the mark.

Mike

Post by **Michaelson** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:44 pm

That's what Rob told me....he had NO idea what a Webley was before seeing that one in the gun shop, but thought it was a pretty neat looking piece of artillery....so he put it in Indy's holster just for the heck of it.

Regards! Michaelson

ShortRound45 · Post by **ShortRound45** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:41 pm

There is another reason to select a 4-inch barreled revolver - at least for US police officers for many, many years. A 4-inch revolver 'rides' better when in a hip holster and when seated in a vehicle.

I think the *real* reason that it is 4 inches has already been stated: it was on hand or the armorer made it so.

My 'fluff' reason for the bobbed barrel - Indy thought it was long enough to be useful and short enough to be 'handy'. ;-)

Post by **Michaelson** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:14 pm

Actually, the 5 inch barreled Smith was the favorite of both car and motorcycle cops, with the 6" even getting the nod from the folks on the cycles up until the mid 60's. The policemen in cars wore their revolvers butt forward on the weak side, so the 5 inch barrel was canted down and back.

This was real popular especially here in the South. The Florida Highway Patrol didn't change to a 4 incher with the revolver on the strong side until the mid to late 80'. Even now a lot of FHP academy graduates are still being issued the 5 inch Smith model 27 before being trained and upgraded to the Beretta 92. This has never set well with a lot of opponents to this idea. The 5" revolvers date well back into the 50's (I know, as I used to spend a LOT of time with the armorer at the academy. It was right next door to the video studio at the academy in Tallahassee where I spent a LOT of my time), and even the armorer said that it was a wonder they didn't also assign the new recruits 1964 Ford sedans as their first car, as they sure didn't seem to care that much about the age of the revolver they were having to issue them.

Hopefully that's all changed in the last decade....but knowing Southern politics....I doubt it...

Ah well, I'm off the road here...back to topic.....

Regards! Michaelson

hanson · Post by **hanson** » Thu May 11, 2006 3:34 am

On the topic of 4"bbl's, when Raiders 1st came out on vhs, my buddy and I went over and over it trying to decide what the gun was. He said it was probably a 2nd mdl HE in .44 spl, because of the 4"bbl. He said this because we both knew that 1917's had 5.5"bbls and .455's had 6.5"bbls. The 44's had numerous lengths including 4",which also happens to be the rarest and most expensive one to aquire. I have never seen a 4" in person, but bought the 1st 5" I saw. It also fits the raiders holster. At the time, we thought perhaps the film-makers wanted a .44,but couldn't locate 1 in a timely or affordable manner. We figured out the 2 different guns were .45's by the bbl wall thickness and decided that they tried to trick us into buying $1500 S&W's to go with our other expensive gear, Poets,Morgans,Jackets,Aldens,etc.,etc.LOL,hanson.

Post by **Cajunkraut** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:34 am

I've often thought that the Raiders revolver was originally supposed to be a S&W Victory Model (also a common US military pistol for that era) due to its nearly identical looks and factory 4-inch barrel, but that the 1917s were substituted due to the wider availability of .45 caliber blanks. Just like the Hi-Power was originally supposed to be a 1911.

Gorak · Post by **Gorak** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:36 am

Not being a gun guy, I thought that it was all due to the stunt work involved..... Anyone here try wearing a gun in a holster on the front of your hips and try running fast? Or jump a chasm? Or get dragged under a truck? I know with my cellphone holster it is cumbersome enough, I can't imagine with a heavy pistol in the saddle!

Post by **Cajunkraut** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:56 am

Gorak wrote:Not being a gun guy, I thought that it was all due to the stunt work involved..... Anyone here try wearing a gun in a holster on the front of your hips and try running fast? Or jump a chasm? Or get dragged under a truck? I know with my cellphone holster it is cumbersome enough, I can't imagine with a heavy pistol in the saddle!

Sounds plausible, but then why the much longer 7.5 inch barrel of the Webley...

Gorak · Post by **Gorak** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:16 pm

Well, being Raiders guy, I just pretend the other films didn't exist! Makes things much easier in the costume realm.

That is a very good point, though that thoroughly trashes my point. But perhaps, when they were considering the stunts, your first impression for Raiders is 'being dragged under a truck'! Where as, temple of doom is was 'mine car chase' so the concern for the gun digging into the hip wasn't as paramount and they could go with what they really liked? I don't know!

Post by **Indiana Jeff** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:20 pm

And keep in mind during any stunts the holster is going to be empty or have a rubber gun precisely to reduce the weight and risk of injury.

Given their 'fast and loose' mentality while making ROLA I figured the prop masters were tasked with finding a period accurate revolver and went with what was readily available. After all, why then the use of two different revolvers (that were supposed to be the same) and a Browning all for one character?

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

Post by **Cajunkraut** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:06 pm

Indiana Jeff wrote:Given their 'fast and loose' mentality while making ROLA I figured the prop masters were tasked with finding a period accurate revolver and went with what was readily available. After all, why then the use of two different revolvers (that were supposed to be the same) and a Browning all for one character?

Word is that the Stembridge was used at US filming locations since Stembridge was a stateside rental firm, and the Bapty at UK locations through the UK-based firm. It makes sense that production logistics and/or UK firearms restrictions would make using just one revolver impractical or even impossible.

And the whole revolver to semi-auto (and back again) switcheroo puzzles me too. I addressed exactly that in one of my very first COW threads, and someone responded that there was a subplot of Indy misplacing his pistols in the original movie concept.

backstagejack · Post by **backstagejack** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:27 pm

FloatinJoe wrote:
Sergei wrote:So the Bapty and Stembridge were probably already cut to 4" which the prop people accomodated. However, after saying all that, then it makes no sense they went for the 6.5" barrel of the Webley in the last movie (LC).
I believe that if we do some digging we'll come across a thread about this. If I remember correctly, Rob MacGregor was the first person to give Indy a Webley. He saw it at a gun store and thought it was pretty cool so he included it in his next book. The information from the books was then used by the prop folks for LC.

My memory is a bit rusty, so I might be off the mark.

Mike

Please correct me, as I'm just going off my reading...... I thought Rob MacGregor did the LC novelization and then did the "prequel" novels after that.... so wouldn't the Webley be established in LC and then MacGregor just threw it in to the novels? So you're saying that MacGregor wrote the LC novelization and the prop guys or SS and GL liked it enough to use the gun from the novel int he movie?

I didn't know that MacGregor was the one that "established" the Webley as Indy's gun. That's kinda epic if so

Post by **Cajunkraut** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:34 am

backstagejack wrote:I didn't know that MacGregor was the one that "established" the Webley as Indy's gun. That's kinda epic if so

I'll never accept the Webley as the "established" Indy gun. Ever.

Had the sequels never come to fruition, we'd have never seen that boat anchor OR its knee-knocker holster.

ChrisMD · Post by **ChrisMD** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:25 pm

Cajunkraut wrote:
backstagejack wrote:I didn't know that MacGregor was the one that "established" the Webley as Indy's gun. That's kinda epic if so
I'll never accept the Webley as the "established" Indy gun. Ever.

Had the sequels never come to fruition, we'd have never seen that boat anchor OR its knee-knocker holster.

Huzzah! +1

micsteam · Post by **micsteam** » Tue Feb 09, 2016 6:02 pm

I enjoy the Webley as being an Indy gun, it does make sense, but Indy's gun changes per adventure as he loses it or it gets confiscated here and there. I'm a Raiders fan and I love the S&W HE 2nd Model, I have one from WWI, and I'd love to come across a piece that I wouldn't feel guilty cutting down. I think these cut down versions of the HE2 which are the Bapty and Stembridge versions, these were old film props ( how old I don't know) but I don't believe S&W made a 3" and 4" barrel on these guns. The Webley is a much more interesting (cinematic) revolver as it is a top break (Spielberg/Lawrence of Arabia) and seems a more interesting piece. For what it's worth.

Post by **Cajunkraut** » Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm

micsteam wrote:I enjoy the Webley as being an Indy gun, it does make sense, but Indy's gun changes per adventure as he loses it or it gets confiscated here and there. I'm a Raiders fan and I love the S&W HE 2nd Model, I have one from WWI, and I'd love to come across a piece that I wouldn't feel guilty cutting down. I think these cut down versions of the HE2 which are the Bapty and Stembridge versions, these were old film props ( how old I don't know) but I don't believe S&W made a 3" and 4" barrel on these guns. The Webley is a much more interesting (cinematic) revolver as it is a top break (Spielberg/Lawrence of Arabia) and seems a more interesting piece. For what it's worth.

I hear ya, Mic. The Webley is absolutely respected for its history and cinematic allure. It just seems that an all-American adventurer making his mark on the globe would make an equally iconic American pistol his first choice. Steranko's original concept of a 1911 in a US M1916 holster is a great example.

And you're correct, the 1917 and HE2 weren't originally offered with the shorter barrels. For what it's worth, each of mine were purchased post-surgery.

micsteam · Post by **micsteam** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:17 pm

Thanks Cajun, but I do think a 4" was a possibility although I've never seen one. If it was offered at the time it would have had a half moon sight not a modern ramp sight like the Raiders gun. Good discussion !

Post by **Cajunkraut** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 1:06 am

micsteam wrote:Thanks Cajun, but I do think a 4" was a possibility although I've never seen one. If it was offered at the time it would have had a half moon sight not a modern ramp sight like the Raiders gun. Good discussion !

Thanks, Mic! See my February 2015 post in this thread:

I've often thought that the Raiders revolver was originally supposed to be a S&W Victory Model (also a common US military pistol for that era) due to its nearly identical looks and factory 4-inch barrel, but that the 1917s were substituted due to the wider availability of .45 caliber blanks. Just like the Hi-Power was originally supposed to be a 1911.

Post by **Michaelson** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:39 am

Guess you'd also have to factor in the thought that the Victory model didn't even exist until the Lend-Lease arrangement during WW2 when they had to crank out millions of guns in record time, but than HALF the equipment in Raiders wasn't period correct anyway, so why not a Victory?

I had one, and mine was a production nightmare. One chamber wasn't drilled right, and so it split lead when that chamber was fired, making it about as dangerous to someone standing next to me as anyone in FRONT of me, and was pretty bad on paper at any distance. It was originally issued for military patrol and militia men on harbor patrol, as well as a back up revolver for pilots and the like, but wasn't all that liked by service men.....who preferred a solid Colt .45 on their hip or in a shoulder holster.

I've always thought the Colt .45 should have been in Indy's holster the whole time myself. Period correct and made more sense for what was going on and who was carrying it. JMO, though.

Ah well, it was all movie magic, so who cares about authenticity?

Regards! Michaelson

Post by **Cajunkraut** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 1:13 pm

Michaelson wrote: I've always thought the Colt .45 should have been in Indy's holster the whole time myself. Period correct and made more sense for what was going on and who was carrying it.

As in a 1911? Steranko's original vision, and I couldn't agree more.

Post by **Michaelson** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 1:25 pm

Yep!

Regards! M

Tibor · Post by **Tibor** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:06 pm

I think they concentrated on using revolvers as they look more vintage. A lot of people think the 1911 is a modern gun because people think of semi automatics as "modern", though obviously not.

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:45 am

The propmaster told me back in the last 80's the reason they did was the availability of similar blanks on both sides of the Atlantic with the rental guns they had available. If they had been concerned with period correct continuity, they wouldn't have changed guns in mid-gun fight in the bar scene. (His words, not mine.)

Blanks for the Colt 1911 just weren't all that common or available in England on set at the time.

Regards! M

ChrisMD · Post by **ChrisMD** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:33 am

Michaelson wrote:The propmaster told me back in the last 80's the reason they did was the availability of similar blanks on both sides of the Atlantic with the rental guns they had available. If they had been concerned with period correct continuity, they wouldn't have changed guns in mid-gun fight in the bar scene. (His words, not mine.)

Blanks for the Colt 1911 just weren't all that common or available in England on set at the time.

Regards! M

When I first heard this I looked into it a little deeper. It also appears that back then they had trouble getting 1911s to cycle with blanks. My research pointed to most 1911s used in movies pre 1980s were what they call "flash paper" guns which are still very common on sets nowadays. I found it pretty darn interesting. Whether it's 100% true to Indy I don't know.

Post by **Cajunkraut** » Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:03 pm

Michaelson wrote:Guess you'd also have to factor in the thought that the Victory model didn't even exist until the Lend-Lease arrangement during WW2 when they had to crank out millions of guns in record time, but than HALF the equipment in Raiders wasn't period correct anyway, so why not a Victory?

OR...a Colt New Service revolver, which is period accurate, offered with a 4 inch barrel, medallion grips, a lanyard swivel, has a large N-style frame, and has a unique front sight nearly identical to Indy's Stembridge.

Post by **Michaelson** » Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:18 pm

That's what the NRA magazine 'The Rifleman' at the time THOUGHT was in Indy's holster, and even did a photo spread of the gun laying on a leather jacket, fedora and belt.

The New Service is one of my FAVORITE big bore revolvers of the period too.

The only real weakness it had was Colt's design of leaving the ejector exposed out the front of the cylinder, leaving it prone to be bent in combat conditions. If bent too badly, you couldn't eject spent shells, making the revolver pretty much nothing more than a glorified club.

Regard! M

Post by **Cajunkraut** » Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:43 pm

Michaelson wrote:The only real weakness it had was Colt's design of leaving the ejector exposed out the front of the cylinder, leaving it prone to be bent in combat conditions. If bent too badly, you couldn't eject spent shells, making the revolver pretty much nothing more than a glorified club.

Makes sense. Wouldn't that be the 1917/HE2's weakness too, even with the partial shroud?

Texan Scott · Post by **Texan Scott** » Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:02 pm

Practicality, what would Indian Bones carry around in gear, in the middle of nowhere? PPK...

Post by **Michaelson** » Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:03 pm

Not so much, Cajunkraut, as they at least had a clip attached to the barrel that protected the end of the rod up until after WW2, then they enclosed the rod in a recess.

Not so on the Colt. It's just hanging out there....and they did that on ALL their revolvers for literally decades.

Regard! M

Post by **Cajunkraut** » Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:56 pm

Mountaineer · Post by **Mountaineer** » Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:36 am

Michaelson wrote:Not so much, Cajunkraut, as they at least had a clip attached to the barrel that protected the end of the rod up until after WW2, then they enclosed the rod in a recess.

Regard! M

I'm not wanting to step on toes, but I think you need to flip the order on when S&W added/removed the 'full-shroud' barrel underlug on it's N-Frame revolvers. I've been down this rabbit hole elsewhere and I'll gladly pass on what I've learned here as well.

This information is for the full-sized, S&W N-Frame revolvers, which were an up-sizing, if you will of the K-frame. As for their K-frame revolvers, S&W had been making those with a two lock design (front of ejector and rear of cylinder) since the S&W Military & Police Model of 1902.

S&W added a full length, shrouded underlug on its 1st Model New Century "Triple Lock" revolvers, which were N-frame revolvers made between 1908-1915. The "Triple Lock" was seen as providing extra safety to the user as .44 Special (granddad to the .44 Magnum) was a hot round and the typical locking areas, front and rear of the ejector/cylinder respectively, may not have been enough to hold things together. S&W later realized the third lock was unnecessary and dropped it from the design.

This is where the 2nd Model, Hand Eject comes into play. The 2nd Model HE is also where the ejector lost its fully-recessed underlug, leaving just the nub for the front locking pin. These look just like K-frames of the day, only bigger to handle the larger cartridges/calibers. The S&W M1917 would fall under this model.

Background: The third lock was a spring loaded pin, housed in the bottom, back end of the underlug, near the frame which engaged a tab on the cylinder crane/yoke when it was closed into the frame. Since the lock was deemed unnecessary and machining the full length lug only added time to production, the entire full length underlug was dumped from the design. The front lock, at the ejector's tip, remained. I've also seen it written where once WW1 started the S&W (and Colt) revolvers got pressed into U.S. service, military minds believed the full underlug could also be a liability in combat as it could collect mud, so it was not included on our martial revolvers for this reason. (You might find Canadian/British WW1-era S&Ws that were 1st Models with the full underlug AND triple lock since they started fighting and needing revolvers long before we did.)

The S&W 3rd Model HE (starting in 1926) reintroduced the full, recessed underlug. The triple lock was just left out of the design. Oddly enough, this model could be had with a 4-inch barrel from the factory. Personally, I think this is the model which should have been in the film, but whatever.

One you hit the S&W 4th Model HE, Model of 1950 (starting in, you guessed it, 1950) you get things like some updated internal parts, but the full-length underlug is still there. Later in the 1950s, S&W would drop the HE title and just numbered its revolver models, i.e. Model 25, 29, etc; yet the full underlug was still there.

Also, Brazilian-contract revolvers, even with their 1937 (and later) dates would have fallen into a production date range with the 3rd Model revolvers, they were made with excess parts from the WW1 contracts and old-stock 2nd Model parts.

Again, this is for the N-frame revolvers. Really, there's only about 11 years (1915-1926) of the total production time for Hand Ejectors (1908-1950/55-ish) which saw barrels with just the nubby lock at the front of the ejector on the N-frame revolvers. However, part of those years were war years so production of those models could be somewhat high.

I've never seen a K-Frame revolver with a full, underlug shroud. I'm not saying they never added a full shroud to any of those, I've just not seen it.

Post by **Michaelson** » Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:15 am

Not sure whose toes you think you're stepping on, old friend.

My comment was a generalized remark and not a detailed one as you put forward....but you completely hammered in the nail I already placed, and I thank you for taking the time to type all that.

My point was Smith gave more thought to the lockwork and protection of the ejector rod in combat revolvers than Colt did during that period of time.

Regards! M

Mountaineer · Post by **Mountaineer** » Fri Feb 19, 2016 1:08 pm

Michaelson wrote:Not sure whose toes you think you're stepping on, old friend. My comment was a generalized remark and not a detailed one as you put forward....but you completely hammered in the nail I already placed, and I thank you for taking the time to type all that.

My point was Smith gave more thought to the lockwork and protection of the ejector rod in combat revolvers than Colt did during that period of time.

Regards! M

I worry about stepping on toes, because more often than not, when it come to firearms, they have their own myths and misconceptions, and there are people who believe quite strongly in frequently opposite directions. Then everything gets heated.

I've been made a somewhat fan of S&Ws revolvers (Colt gets my auto-loader vote) so it wasn't a chore to type. Just wanting to pass on some knowledge because I'm not a fan of firearms misconceptions.

You're 100% correct too, that era of Colt revolvers just don't look "right" do they?

Post by **Michaelson** » Fri Feb 19, 2016 2:52 pm

It looked like Colt was trying, but just couldn't totally let go of their SAA days....and after the miserable failures of their Lightning and Army/Navy .38's, well, it wasn't their best time...though they were winning national shooter championships with the big New Service .45's at NRA sponsored events.

Old Colt actions are smooth as glass, but I wish I had a quarter for the number times I've had to assemble, take apart, then RE-assemble a Colt Police Positive from the 20's trying to fit a cylinder stop. Almost always trial and error. I actually got very good at it, but only because I HAD to do it so many times to get that part to mesh with all the OTHER parts in the frame.

They're touchy in timing, all parts have to be exactly fitted, and the parts were easily breakable, including springs.

Perfect target weapons, but HIGH maintenance.

Regards! M

Mountaineer · Post by **Mountaineer** » Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:15 pm

This supports what I remember reading somewhere at some point: Colts were better target revolvers, but the S&Ws were better for fighting. Or something to that effect.

Thanks again, Knower of Things. Much appreciated.

(Also: Of course, this evening I find a K-frame with the full shroud. The Model 19 in .357 Magnum, introduced in 1957. So yeah, more recent K-frames also have full shrouds guys.)

Post by **Michaelson** » Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:28 pm

chenricy · Post by **chenricy** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 8:07 pm

OK so bottom line:

Should I cut a 5 1/2 barrel to 4 inches on my S&W m1917 because it's like the one in the movie?

I bought it strictly to look like the movie, but the gunsmith said for a 100 year old gun to be cut I would DECREASE accuracy and power because the bullet gas has less distance to travel. He asked me why and of course I said pathetically "because of a movie?" lol.

Anyone did it and regret it? Authenticity counts for me, but making a gun worse so it looks pretty IN A HOLSTER (that i can't wear to anything) is not a strong argument...

ChrisMD · Post by **ChrisMD** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 11:43 pm

chenricy wrote:OK so bottom line:

Should I cut a 5 1/2 barrel to 4 inches on my S&W m1917 because it's like the one in the movie?

I bought it strictly to look like the movie, but the gunsmith said for a 100 year old gun to be cut I would DECREASE accuracy and power because the bullet gas has less distance to travel. He asked me why and of course I said pathetically "because of a movie?" lol.

Anyone did it and regret it? Authenticity counts for me, but making a gun worse so it looks pretty IN A HOLSTER (that i can't wear to anything) is not a strong argument...

Forget performance. Think about history. Indy was all about preserving history. Chopping the barrel on a 100 year old gun is destroying a physical piece of history. If were taking votes, mine is LEAVE IT ALONE!!!

Post by **Cajunkraut** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:35 am

chenricy,

With all due respect to your gunsmith, there are plenty of factory 4 inch-barreled revolvers (.45 ACP and beyond) that are well respected for their accuracy and power.

I think the answer is, it depends. Condition might come into play. Is the gun a beater/shooter anyway? Will you expect a return on your investment one day? If so, is it feasible to source a second barrel to modify in order to preserve the original? Per Chris, is the gun's history a priority? You already mentioned that you bought it strictly as a movie gun.

Since you asked, my 1917 and HE2 were purchased as "rack grade" guns (at best) with previously modified barrels. So no tough decisions to make. The previous owners and I specified them as Indy guns. The allure for me is that they are modified. That's what identifies them as the guns of Indiana Jones. I probably wouldn't have taken an interest in these particular revolvers to begin with were I not a Raiders fan.

At the end of the day, it's your pistol. Do whatcha wanna.

chenricy · Post by **chenricy** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 12:27 pm

Dang you both make sense lol! I think the best middle ground I can do is find an extra barrel and cut that down to 4. This way I have the best of both worlds!
Thanks t
For the input.

micsteam · Post by **micsteam** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:18 pm

Sorry if I'm coming into the discussion a little late guys. Just for general info, the Victory Model is a .38 revolver in, I believe, the K frame made for in or slightly before WWII mostly issued to pilots. Mountaineer great technical post on the fully shrouded and tip shrouded differences on the S&Ws !! Oh and I stand corrected the 1930 38/44 Heavy Duty had a full shroud and was a .38 in the N frame, this was also mistaken as the Raider revolver for years.

Mountaineer · Post by **Mountaineer** » Tue Mar 08, 2016 6:57 pm

Thanks micsteam. You're correct, the Heavy Duty was an N-framed revolver (sized to take the 44, and technically 45) barreled and bored for a 38.

Chenricy, I'd not cut it. I'd consider buying one already cut, but would NOT ever do it to a revolver under my care.

As for "buy another barrel and have it cut", I've considered what you're suggesting and once you find a period-correct, pinned barrel, you need to find a suitable ramp blank to have shaped, fitted, and silver soldered to the barrel. You should add the cost of rebluing the piece because the two parts probably will not match. THEN you should consider the gunsmith costs (usually $25-50 per hour) to have all this done. In my attempt I figured I'd be about 1/2 way to the cost of a whole other revolver. So I gave up on this quest. Additionally, the gunsmith is correct, you've now decreased the value of the original to the point where you'd never get back what you've spent on it, even around here. Eventually I bought one which had been cut and had all the work done by someone else. It turned my stomach when I got it because it was a U.S. Property and not a Brazilian revolver.

If you're dead-set on cutting one down, buy a modern S&W 1917 from their released "Classic" line and use it. The parts are much more available than the old ones.

Ah yes, parts. The additional piece no one considers, until you have a part break. If an internal part breaks on the 100-year old piece, good luck finding replacements. I broke the hand on one of mine and it required a new one, fitted by a gunsmith, otherwise the revolver is a paperweight. I was lucky, because the hand is one of the few modern aftermarket parts you can buy for these old guns and have fitted. (The springs being the other parts that will work.) You can occasionally find old-stock stuff, but you pay for it.

Again, modern stuff is cheaper and more readily available in the long run. It's your revolver, so do as you will, but for me the decision is easy.

Why a 4" barrel?

Why a 4" barrel?

why a 4" barrel

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re:

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?

Re: Why a 4" barrel?