1934 K22 Outdoorsman experience

You might be silly for passing it up, but it is a severe irritation to my backside when someone will not allow a function test on an obviously used gun. Now, if that same revolver has never been turned after it left the factory, that is a different story. If said gun has not turn line on the cylinder, I would not want to put one there. There is a huge difference in a true collector quality gun and a shooter.

Having said that, I have purchased a good number of guns from on-line auction sights and obviously did not have the opportunity to function test that gun before purchase. To date, I have not been disappointed in any of those purchases. I think if I had the chance to buy a very nice K-22 Outdoorsman first year of manufacture for a good price, I would not pass it up because I could not perform a function test.

Here's my K-22 Outdoorsman that was shipped in 1939. It was purchased on-line and I am very happy with it.

Master Blaster said:

Am I being silly by passing on a model I never see for sale locally?

Click to expand...

I don't think you are being silly. It's a gamble. I've bought a few old revolvers online. Two worked out great. One is debatable, but really only meant as a relic anyway. One was very disappointing as the pictures made it look nicer than it was.

If you intend to shoot it, function check is important. Is the seller worried you're going to dry fire it and damage it?

Howdy

I won't buy a used revolver that I have not handled personally, checked that the hammer does not push off, and checked the timing personally.

Of course it all depends on the price. For an old K-22, if the price was low enough, I might take a gamble on it.

Like this old K-22 from 1932. The finish has lots of wear, and the grips are incorrect replacements. I only bid on it because the price was ridiculously low. I walked out the door with it for $500, and it is the most accurate 22 revolver I have.






Otherwise, If I can't inspect it properly, I put it down and walk away.

Master Blaster said:

The seller is prohibited from removing the lock by corporate policy. This is due to a customer loading a gun in the store and blowing their brains out at the gun counter.

Click to expand...

Jeez. That's messed up.

Given the fatal calamity that took place in that store I can understand that management is very cautious ... however , it should be allowed that the sales guy can at least demonstrate the basics such as cylinder rotation and endshake while locked up , gap measurement , proper resistance to push off and so on.

I don't know how they can sell guns with the trigger lock kept in place and an "as is" no return policy. What is the asking price? If the general condition is good - including screws looking unturned , I might take a hard look if there were a real good price on an Outdoorsman. (Man o man , they are great shooters!) Factor this in : a K frame gets a pretty light workout from shooting .22 .

Alright alright - If the finish and screws look good , suggesting no abuse or corrosion --- I just might be willing to get past the handling restriction for a shot at an early Outdoorsman. They are not exactly growing on trees.

Again - Price? Picture? Oh - is the front sight bead steel looking or gold?

Buy it. If you get a lemon you have a really nice lemon. If the price is reasonable then you might still end up being ok with some very minor repairs. S&Ws ain’t cheap to fix, but they aren’t bad either.

If the price was right, I'm sure I'd take the gamble. I've bought a good many guns from a pawn shop chain that has a trigger lock on every gun and policy is the locks do not come off for any reason in the store. I actually bought a Model 10-7 Snub this weekend from that chain. You can open the cylinder, but that's it. I've never bought one that wound up having a problem. I did buy a Colt trooper recently from an individual who knew almost nothing about guns. It was left to him by his grandfather and had been sitting in a drawer for over 40 years or at least that was his story. When I pulled back the hammer, the cylinder spun freely and wouldn't lock. Going by his story, I figured it was just the cylinder lock that was gummed up. Used this as a reason to lower my offer by $100 because of the problem and he lowered the price. Figured my local gunsmith could fix it easy enough and normally charges me $50-75 for retiming a Colt, so I was covered. Got home, sprayed a little Kroil on the lock and in 5 minutes gun functioned flawlessly. Guess I've been lucky, but I'll gamble on a good deal probably quicker than most.

the factory won't repair that gun anymore. it is too old. i tried already with my early fifties k-22. my pistolsmith took care of the problem.

luck,

murf

If it had a timing type problem, I'd just as soon let a good gunsmith take care of it as send it to Smith even if they would work on it. Factory work generally takes a lot longer than I'm willing to wait. I am lucky to have one of the most respected gunsmiths in the country right here in town and I'd trust him as much and probably more with an older Revolver, especially Colts. For some reason he seems to enjoy working on Colts more than Smiths.

That looks great.

I am drooling over those grips.

Howdy Again

It appears to me the front sight blade has been replaced. This is the type of front sight that usually came on the old K-22s. It is called a Call sight, after the S&W employee who designed it. The bead, either gold or silver, sometimes ivory, is set into a hole at the rear face of the blade. These sights were pinned in place, so replacing them was easy.






Be sure to bring a tiny screw driver to adjust the rear sight. It is not the same as the modern Micro Click rear sights. Decide which direction you want the rear sight to move. Back out the screw on that side, then push the sight over with the screw on the other side. Then snug up the first screw. Don't force anything. I can see the hammer has the Regulation US Pat Off marking on the rear. This was S&W's way to try to prevent cheap imports from being imported into this country. Typical of the 1930s. The rear of the trigger probably has the same marking.






Here is another K-22 from 1935. This one has the standard service grips of the time.

Fine Looking Revolver. Bet it shoots as good as it looks. I've never been disappointed in the accuracy of a S&W .22 Revolver and most of the time have been pleasantly surprised.
Good thing about the revolvers, they don't seem to be as picky about the ammo as much as .22 autos. I recently picked up a 4 inch model 18. All I had on hand to try it out was some cheap Remington Golden Bullets. Think its the cheapest .22 that Remington sells. I was amazed at how accurate it was. For giggles, I mounted a red dot tube on it using a Weaver No Drill mount. At 15 yards, it was basically shooting in a quarter sized cluster. We then started shooting at metal gongs at 75 yards. It was a hoot! The bullet barely had enough power to move a 6" gong but we were hitting it 9 out of 10 times. Now I'm looking for a 8 3/8 Model 617. I want to mount a permanent red dot and do some more playing at long range.

Mine is from the early 50's and not a beautiful example like the OP has. It's a way better shooter than I am.

Mr. Driftwood ,

Man , I'm slow tonight.I kept going back to the image of the front sight and wondering why it looked odd to me...
That sight isn't a bad one to have on an old .22 revolver , other than not being original. Any idea what/where it came from?

Mister Master , you have a very fine old shooter there. I've been relying on my modern 17 for a while now ; after seeing yours I think it's time to take my '31 K22 out for a spin. Gee , I wonder what '34 K22 Outdoorsmen with alternative front sights are going for these days...?

Just wanted to jump in and say those are some nice looking K22s posted in here! Looks like the gamble paid off.

On that note, I've bought one S&W revolver (late 70's Model 15) online so far, and it worked out fine. My opinion, ready to be changed with information from others with more experience, is that older S&Ws are far less likely to need work than Colts.