S&W 29-2 became a 57 ??

[henry0reilly]

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/834402000

S&W had no explanation about how a frame stamped 29-2 was overstamped with 57 0 but it seems to have come from the factory that way.

Anyone ever seen such on other revolvers?

 

[alfsauve]

May have been a customer requested conversion.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

I would postulate that the very earliest 57s were assembled on already extant 29 frames.

 

[The Evangelist Cowboy]

I would postulate that the very earliest 57s were assembled on already extant 29 frames.

This ^^^ it is not unfathomable to see since they were on the same frame size and some worker dropped the ball with the stampings. The gun was still in spec beyond that and they sent it on to the shop.

 

[Riomouse911]

The 57 (1964- 1982) and 29-2 (1961-1982) model years overlapped substantially so the use of a 29-2 frame is certainly a valid possibility early on.

A 4” 57 is one of my grail guns... but this one may be out if my price range so it'll be going to a lucky bidder elsewhere .

Stay safe.

 

[gotboostvr]

I'll never say never when the question regarding a unique Smith and Wesson is "did it leave the factory this way" but I do like to see a letter from Roy Jinks before I buy the story.

 

[Riomouse911]

I'll never say never when the question regarding a unique Smith and Wesson is "did it leave the factory this way" but I do like to see a letter from Roy Jinks before I buy the story.

True, a new cylinder and barrel and voila! M-57.

 

[Mike C2]

I have a 4 & 6” model 57’s. Both first year and the 6” very early. It is stamped 57. More likely that a 57 was repurposed for a .44 mag because of the Dirty Harry craze.

Never say never, but the 57 was a premium product and IMO, unlikely to have been built on a 29-2 by the factory. But we all know things. Went on at the factory that can’t always be explained. And if someone was tired of the .44 and wanted to move to a .41 having the existing gun converted might have made sense.

 

[CajunBass]

It's not unusual to find a S&W that's mis-stamped. Happens more than you might think. You've got a bunch of frames stamped 29...you need a few 57's. You grab existing stock and move forward.

I've got a Model 13-3 that must have been made during the transition period between -2 and -3. It's a -3, but under the markings you can see where a -2 was restamped as a -3. (This one also has the old two piece box, where a -3 would have normally had the later one piece box.) Smith and Wesson never throws anything away.

 

[Slamfire]

More likely that a 57 was repurposed for a .44 mag because of the Dirty Harry craze.

I remember that period, and I remember you could not find a M29 even if you brought a basket of money to the LGS. The Dirty Harry movie spiked sales of S&W44 Magnums and I have no doubt that what you propose is the most probable reason for the over stamping.

As long as the dimensions, materials, and heat treatments were the same, the frames would be identical except for some hand stamped number. Still, it would be interesting to know if this pistol was all factory.

 

[Charlie98]

A 4” 57 is one of my grail guns...

Patience, Grasshopper! It's worth the wait!

 

[Charlie98]

When did S&W go to the N-prefix? I have a 58 S-prefix numbered 313xxx... the one in the OP wouldn't have been far behind it, production-wise....

 

[StrawHat]

S&W makes batches of things and stores them. The frames all start as forgings and as this or that model is needed a frame is grabbed, machined and marked. Commercial 1917s are found with military acceptance marks because they were bought back after WWI when the contract was cancelled. I have a 25-5 that started as a 25-2 (or maybe the other way around) There was a batch of 25-2 revolvers Model of 1955 with the barrel roll stamp “Model of 1950”. The decision was made to sell them as is rather than scrap the barrels. S&W is in the business to make money.

Mis-stampings are out there. And they do not command a premium.

Kevin

 

[Apuesto]

Many S&Ws were misstamped. The same production lines where used for all the N frames, and some frames could have been stamped as 29s already by the time they called to switch over to produce 57s. I have seen a number of examples where S&W didn't even bother correcting misstamp.

Nothing wrong with the gun, but nothing terribly rare either.

 

[Chad Carroll]

Yep, I have one exactly like this. Mine is a 1975-76 Model 57 41 magnum with no more than 25 rounds since then and under inspection you can clearly see the 29-2 under the 57-0 stamp.

 

[Chad Carroll]

Oh and this came from the factory like this. Its been in the family since brand new in 75. Confirmed.

 

[bangswitch]

When did S&W go to the N-prefix? I have a 58 S-prefix numbered 313xxx... the one in the OP wouldn't have been far behind it, production-wise....

It was around 1970, I think, when the letter went from S to N. My M57 no dash dates to 1968 or 69 and is S319xxx.

Seems much ado about very little, converting a M57 to a M29, or vice-versa. There's only 0.02" difference in the caliber, the .44 Mag is actually 0.430, whereas the .41 is truly 0.410. I have both, so I know what the difference is like when shooting one or the other. Between the two, I actually prefer the M57, but the M29 has many more loads available when reloading for it.

 

[22-rimfire]

I have a 4" nickel Model 57 I'd sell at current market price. It is in near mint condition.

Also have a Model 57-5 Mountain Gun which is my usual high powered woods carry gun. The nickel pretty much stays home.