The S&W 1913

Brubz

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2021
Messages
501
Location
Centerville
Have any of you ever owned or fired the S&W
1913? Is the .35s&w ammo even available?
Saw on an auction site that one sold for $600.
I was surprised that this historic gun went for so little
 
The 35 caliber Smith & Wesson is a rare gun. S&W made less than 10,000 of them before switching to the 32 caliber automatic. They made less than 1,000 of those. But it has never commanded the price that an equally rare Colt automatic would. It's hard to say why. It may be because it was really a poor design, with an underweight bolt, awkwardly placed safeties, and no actual advantages, whereas even the earliest Colt 38 ACP automatics, despite their lack of safeties and odd take-down system, were Browning designs. They functioned well and their ammuntion was more powerful than 38 Special. In light of the Colt Model 1911 that they led to, they can clearly be seen as steps on the road to something better. The 38 ACP Pocket Hammer model, in particular, was a useful weapon. The S&W 35, despite interesting (if not functional) features, led only to the 32 S&W automatic, and that was a dead end.

I think S&W collecting is just not as intense or prestigious as as Colt collecting. Maybe that is changing, because of Colt's long absence from the handgun scene, depsite its recent small-scale return, but that's the way it has been during my collecting life.

A few more points: First, using 32 ACP in a 35 S&W is not a good idea. It is more powerful than 35 S&W, and the 35 caliber pistol's bolt was already underweight for the 35 cartridge, which meant it was opening too fast and with too much force. That already made for some poor functioning. 32 ACP just increases that, and is semi-rimmed instead of rimless (which 35 S&W is) to boot.

Second, It seems to me that there is no need to call it the Model 1913. S&W never called it that, and with S&W's plethora of modern 4-digit model numbers, it's a bit confusing. S&W only made one type of 35 caliber automatic pistol, and nobody else did, anywhere, ever. But I suppose many, many people have never heard of it, so this point is debatable.

Finally, the best reference I know of about the 35 S&W is an article by Donald Simmons in the 1976 Gun DIgest Annual, titled: "Smith & Wesson 35 Auto Pistols – A History for Collectors". It is very thorough. You can find old Gun Digests on Ebay, and Gun Digest sells a PDF download of this whole edition in their online store for $10. There really ought to be something more recent than 1976, but I don't know what it is.
 
Last edited:
The 35 caliber Smith & Wesson is a rare gun. S&W made less than 10,000 of them before switching to the 32 caliber automatic. They made less than 1,000 of those. But it has never commanded the price that an equally rare Colt automatic would. It's hard to say why. It may be because it was really a poor design, with an underweight bolt, awkwardly placed safeties, and no actual advantages, whereas even the earliest Colt 38 ACP automatics, despite their lack of safeties and odd take-down system, were Browning designs. They functioned well, their ammuntion was more powerful than 38 Special. In light of the Colt Model 1911 that they led to, they can clearly be seen as steps on the road to something better. The 38 ACP Pocket Hammer model was a useful weapon. The S&W 35, despite interesting (if not functional) features, led only to the 32 S&W automatic, and that was a dead end.

I think S&W collecting is just not as intense or prestigious as as Colt collecting. Maybe that is changing, because of Colt's long absence from the handgun scene, depsite its recent small-scale return, but that's the way it has been during my collecting life.

A few more points: First, using 32 ACP in a 35 S&W is not a good idea. It is more powerful than 35 S&W, and the 35 caliber pistol's bolt was already underweight for the 35 cartridge, which meant it was opening too fast and with too much force. That already made for some poor functioning. 32 ACP just increases that, and is semi-rimmed instead of rimless (which 35 S&W is) to boot.

Second, It seems to me that there is no need to call it the Model 1913. S&W never called it that, and with S&W's plethora of modern 4-digit model numbers, it's a bit confusing. S&W only made one type of 35 caliber automatic pistol, and nobody else did, anywhere, ever. But I suppose many, many people have never heard of it, so this point is debatable.

Finally, the best reference I know of about the 35 S&W is an article by Donald Simmons in the 1976 Gun DIgest Annual, titled: "Smith & Wesson 35 Auto Pistols – A History for Collectors". It is very thorough. You can find old Gun DIgests on Ebay, and Gun Digest sells a PDF download of this whole edition in their online store for $10. There really ought to be something more recent than 1976, but I don't know what it is.
I have also heard it was sometimes refered to as the
S&W mod. 35. Though of course that number was used for a revolver much later
 
I turned down a fairly clean example for $350 recently. It was a neat historical curiosity, but awkward in the hand and I wouldn't be able to resist trying to shoot it with ACP rounds....and would feel bad if that ended up destroying it.
Better for it to go undamaged to a collector- I collect shooters.

These pistols never seem to have been shot enough with anything to have been destroyed. Despite what I said about using 32 ACP in a 35 S&W being a bad idea, I have never seen one in such a state that a couple of magazines would damage it significantly. But I wouldn't do it as a regular thing, and I wouldn't expect good feeding or ejection.

I've actually had a 35 S&W for over 30 years, and while I usually like to shoot the guns I buy to find out what they are like, I have never done it with that one. I have some loose rounds of 35 S&W, but I didn't want to risk a stuck bullet in the barrel from firing elderly ammo.
 
Last edited:
Why compare the .35 SW to the .38 Auto?
It is a lot closer to .32 ACP and .32 SAP.

I don't feel that I did compare 38 ACP to 35 S&W. You are right; they are not comparable cartridges. My point was that 38 ACP was a pretty good 38 caliber cartridge, even compared to 38 Special. Meanwhile, 35 S&W had no advantages at all over its competition, which was the 32 ACP. 35 S&W was very similar but arguably inferior because it was less powerful.

(Unless you count being rimless as a significant advantage for the 35. And I don't think that it was for the kind of guns it was intended for. Even in those early days, Savage made 10 round double stack magazines that worked just fine with 32 ACP, semi-rims and all.)

My larger point was that the early Colt 38 ACP autos were decent functional guns with useful ammuntion, even if they had some design issues, like no grip or manual safeties. The S&W 35 was neither, partly because the 35 S&W cartridge had nothing going for it.

What S&W intended to be a significant advantage of the 35 cartridge was its "half-mantled" construction: it had a metal jacketed nose, for good feeding, but the shoulders of the bullet were bare lead, which was intended to reduce barrel wear. I guess that at the time, revolver shooters were claiming that the FMJ bullets of automatics would wear out barrels faster than the lead bullets of revolvers, so S&W went to this length to accomodate them. As far as I know, no one else has ever gone down that particular road again.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top