Comments on: How to photograph a gun bore http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/25/how-to-photograph-a-gun-bore/ Firearms not Politics Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:38:33 +1300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Daniel E. Watters http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/25/how-to-photograph-a-gun-bore/#comment-11436 Daniel E. Watters Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:03:36 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6890#comment-11436 Actually, I also prefer the S&W revolvers over their auto pistols. I've just been inside too many of them to forget what they look like. The only S&W autos to turn my crank were the various 3566 models and the Super 9. These were all special single-action variants of the 5906, and were offered in the ill-fated .356 TSW. The .356 TSW was roughly a 9x21.5mm loaded to USPSA Major Power Factor. Major was 175pf back in those days. By all rights, the .356 TSW should have killed the .357 SIG in childbirth. The .356 TSW was more powerful as it was loaded to higher pressures. Since it could use 9x19mm magazines, the .356 TSW would have offered a much higher ammunition capacity in many models over the fatter .357 SIG, which required .40 S&W type magazines. However, S&W and Federal only wanted to market the .356 TSW as a competition round. (Back then, TSW meant "Team S&W".) The 3566 Limited was briefly approved for Limited Division as enough pistols had been produced and the factory ammunition could make Major as the rules required. However within a week or so, the USPSA Board of Directors changed the rules to mandate a .40 caliber or higher in order to score Major in Limited Division. This of course killed whatever interest there was in using the 3566 Limited as a competition pistol. There was a really nice Open Division 3566 variant built in conjunction with Briley. (Briley's head pistolsmith Claudio Salassa and the S&W Performance Center's head pistolsmith Paul Liebenberg had worked together back when they lived in South Africa.) But no one in the US really wanted to compete using anything other than a M1911 variant once the widebody frames became available. The Super 9 was a commercial export model. It was basically an economy model of the 3566 Limited. Gone were the fancy 3566 stepped slide contours, two-tone finish, and magwell funnel. The Super 9's 5" barrel had a standard 3rd Gen. muzzle profile instead of being machined straight for the spherical bushing of the 3566. In addition, the Super 9's long slide had a standard Novak rear sight dovetail with an aftermarket adjustable sight instead of the 3566's BoMar sight. The version I encountered had three barrels: 9x19mm, 9x21mm IMI, and .356 TSW. One interesting thing I found was that the sear for the single-action Super 9 was originally meant for the double-action only models. I want to say that it used a standard hammer as well. The 3566 as with the other S&W single-action autos of its day used what looked like a cropped version of the Model 52-2 hammer. Actually, I also prefer the S&W revolvers over their auto pistols. I’ve just been inside too many of them to forget what they look like. The only S&W autos to turn my crank were the various 3566 models and the Super 9. These were all special single-action variants of the 5906, and were offered in the ill-fated .356 TSW.

The .356 TSW was roughly a 9×21.5mm loaded to USPSA Major Power Factor. Major was 175pf back in those days. By all rights, the .356 TSW should have killed the .357 SIG in childbirth. The .356 TSW was more powerful as it was loaded to higher pressures. Since it could use 9×19mm magazines, the .356 TSW would have offered a much higher ammunition capacity in many models over the fatter .357 SIG, which required .40 S&W type magazines. However, S&W and Federal only wanted to market the .356 TSW as a competition round. (Back then, TSW meant “Team S&W”.)

The 3566 Limited was briefly approved for Limited Division as enough pistols had been produced and the factory ammunition could make Major as the rules required. However within a week or so, the USPSA Board of Directors changed the rules to mandate a .40 caliber or higher in order to score Major in Limited Division. This of course killed whatever interest there was in using the 3566 Limited as a competition pistol.

There was a really nice Open Division 3566 variant built in conjunction with Briley. (Briley’s head pistolsmith Claudio Salassa and the S&W Performance Center’s head pistolsmith Paul Liebenberg had worked together back when they lived in South Africa.) But no one in the US really wanted to compete using anything other than a M1911 variant once the widebody frames became available.

The Super 9 was a commercial export model. It was basically an economy model of the 3566 Limited. Gone were the fancy 3566 stepped slide contours, two-tone finish, and magwell funnel. The Super 9’s 5″ barrel had a standard 3rd Gen. muzzle profile instead of being machined straight for the spherical bushing of the 3566. In addition, the Super 9’s long slide had a standard Novak rear sight dovetail with an aftermarket adjustable sight instead of the 3566’s BoMar sight. The version I encountered had three barrels: 9×19mm, 9×21mm IMI, and .356 TSW. One interesting thing I found was that the sear for the single-action Super 9 was originally meant for the double-action only models. I want to say that it used a standard hammer as well. The 3566 as with the other S&W single-action autos of its day used what looked like a cropped version of the Model 52-2 hammer.

]]> By: Vote For David http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/25/how-to-photograph-a-gun-bore/#comment-11402 Vote For David Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:26:04 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6890#comment-11402 Daniel E. Watters, Before I shot that pile of guns (state turn-in, dozens of similar ones), I couldn't have even told you what make they were. I never have been a big fan of the S&W self-loaders, though I don't really have anything against them. Their revolvers, now . . . you could persuade me to part with some money for some of their revolvers . . . if . . . I had any extra money. :( I'm just glad <i>somebody</i> (you) out there has this sort of knowledge squirreled away so they can snag a bargain @ the gun show. Daniel E. Watters, Before I shot that pile of guns (state turn-in, dozens of similar ones), I couldn’t have even told you what make they were. I never have been a big fan of the S&W self-loaders, though I don’t really have anything against them. Their revolvers, now . . . you could persuade me to part with some money for some of their revolvers . . . if . . . I had any extra money. :(

I’m just glad somebody (you) out there has this sort of knowledge squirreled away so they can snag a bargain @ the gun show.

]]> By: Daniel E. Watters http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/25/how-to-photograph-a-gun-bore/#comment-11395 Daniel E. Watters Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:25:20 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6890#comment-11395 David: I was guessing. It is hard to determine the relative barrel length and bore size from the photo. What could be determined was that it was a S&W 3rd Generation pistol with an earlier pattern widebody frame, indicative of the 9mm or .40. The clues were the dovetailed front sight, ball profile muzzle, stepped frame, and the internal rails inside the frame's dustcover. The first two clues rule out the 2nd Gen. S&W. Early (pre-dash) 4506 and 4516 had stepped frames, but lacked the internal rail. Their frames' dustcover are merely notched inside. You can see what that looks like in the other S&W pistol you've photographed. The frames of the early compact single stack .40 (4013 and 4053) also shared the same dustcover features with the frames of the dash-series 4516. My mistake was assuming that it appeared to be a compact model. The only compact, stepped-frame, widebody S&W were the 6900 series and the Performance Center "Shorty Forty" The PC models used straight muzzles combined with a TiN-coated spherical bushing mounted in the slide. David: I was guessing. It is hard to determine the relative barrel length and bore size from the photo. What could be determined was that it was a S&W 3rd Generation pistol with an earlier pattern widebody frame, indicative of the 9mm or .40. The clues were the dovetailed front sight, ball profile muzzle, stepped frame, and the internal rails inside the frame’s dustcover. The first two clues rule out the 2nd Gen. S&W. Early (pre-dash) 4506 and 4516 had stepped frames, but lacked the internal rail. Their frames’ dustcover are merely notched inside. You can see what that looks like in the other S&W pistol you’ve photographed. The frames of the early compact single stack .40 (4013 and 4053) also shared the same dustcover features with the frames of the dash-series 4516.

My mistake was assuming that it appeared to be a compact model. The only compact, stepped-frame, widebody S&W were the 6900 series and the Performance Center “Shorty Forty” The PC models used straight muzzles combined with a TiN-coated spherical bushing mounted in the slide.

]]> By: Vote For David http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/25/how-to-photograph-a-gun-bore/#comment-11392 Vote For David Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:16:03 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6890#comment-11392 Thanks Steve, but I didn't make myself! Thanks Steve, but I didn’t make myself!

]]> By: Steve http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/25/how-to-photograph-a-gun-bore/#comment-11386 Steve Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:49:30 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6890#comment-11386 David, you are on heck of a good gun photographer, those UZI photos are great! David, you are on heck of a good gun photographer, those UZI photos are great!

]]> By: Vote For David http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/25/how-to-photograph-a-gun-bore/#comment-11361 Vote For David Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:39:14 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6890#comment-11361 Funny business: the link is broken . . . even from within blogger, logged in as me! Maybe it's just my network. Anyhow . . . The UZI is a Model 45 . . . more pics here. If the links start working again. http://votefordavid.blogspot.com/2009/05/gun-porn-imi-uzi-model-45.html Daneil E. Watters, I'm pretty sure it's a 4043 ;) http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=131632308 Funny business: the link is broken . . . even from within blogger, logged in as me! Maybe it’s just my network. Anyhow . . .

The UZI is a Model 45 . . . more pics here. If the links start working again.
http://votefordavid.blogspot.com/2009/05/gun-porn-imi-uzi-model-45.html

Daneil E. Watters, I’m pretty sure it’s a 4043 ;)
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=131632308

]]> By: Steve http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/25/how-to-photograph-a-gun-bore/#comment-11336 Steve Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:48:27 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6890#comment-11336 Daniel, opps, I updated the post on my computer but forgot to upload it to the blog. Yep, of course the Mini-UZI does not have a slide ;) Daniel, opps, I updated the post on my computer but forgot to upload it to the blog. Yep, of course the Mini-UZI does not have a slide ;)

]]> By: Daniel E. Watters http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/25/how-to-photograph-a-gun-bore/#comment-11335 Daniel E. Watters Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:46:40 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6890#comment-11335 Yes, the Mini-Uzi appears to be in the photo underneath the comment. The photo mirrored here is clearly a S&W 3rd Generation pistol. Judging from the other photos, it is probably a 6906. Yes, the Mini-Uzi appears to be in the photo underneath the comment.

The photo mirrored here is clearly a S&W 3rd Generation pistol. Judging from the other photos, it is probably a 6906.

]]> By: Vote For David http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/25/how-to-photograph-a-gun-bore/#comment-11319 Vote For David Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:12:23 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6890#comment-11319 Geez Steve, I'm blushing over here. That particular photo is of a S&W 4000 series, Probably a 4053 or 4043. Geez Steve, I’m blushing over here. That particular photo is of a S&W 4000 series, Probably a 4053 or 4043.

]]> By: Steve http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/25/how-to-photograph-a-gun-bore/#comment-11312 Steve Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:09:09 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6890#comment-11312 Drew, ah thanks, of course that was not the uzi Drew, ah thanks, of course that was not the uzi

]]> By: Drew http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/25/how-to-photograph-a-gun-bore/#comment-11310 Drew Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:46:42 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6890#comment-11310 Mini Uzi? 1911? Mini Uzi? 1911?

]]>