S&W 52-1 38 special wadcutter?

S

surveyor

New member
I saw one and it intrigued me, was in pretty good shape, no barrel wrench or box, 2 mags, and thumbrest target grips, wide grooved trigger shoe.

I'm not concerned about the 5 rd mags, or the fact it is in 38 special wadcutter, as I'm going to load for it, and have components anyways.

I saw that the -2 engineering change was for a extractor.
But it is what it is, a pre 1970 52-1, the single action on it was very nice.

I saw some posts elsewhere about -2, being better suited for shooters, as well as modifications to allow the mag to hold 6 rds, to enable uses in other games than bullseye.

So I'm trying to find out more about it as the siren song it is singing is getting louder.

Since it is an autoloader, I'm guessing that case length may cause feeding issues,
But I can trim cases if need be.
 
Last edited:
There was a lot of care put into every 52 as Smith would not let a bad one out of the factory. The result was an outstanding pistol but something there was low demand for and never a money maker.

If you can get it reasonable, do it; you will not be sorry. I know I would never sell mine.
 
The only real difference -1 to -2 is the extractor. The -2 is the short hook with coil spring as for the 9mms.

The only thing about loading for mine is that it needs a roll crimp over the flush wadcutter for good feeding. A taper crimp will stub out against the ramp.
 
Yep, a roll crimp is the way to go. And be sure that the wadcutter is flush with the rim. Model 52s in my experience are pretty sensitive to case length. One of my favorite loads is 2.9 grains of Bullseye behind a 148 grain Speer HBWC (it should be noted here that I read a report once detailing the performance of a hollow-based wadcutter bullet having the center portion separate from the projectile, causing a dangerous barrel obstruction. Though I have fired thousands of HBWC bullets and have never experienced such a potentially catastrophic event, the report caused me to switch to solid-based bullets. No downside and "better safe than sorry" was my rationale).
 
FWIW, I have had good success with 2.7 grains of Bullseye and a solid base wadcutter. Yes a roll crimp is necessary, over the bullet, of course, not in the crimping groove as would be done for a revolver.

Jim
 
The only thing about loading for mine is that it needs a roll crimp over the flush wadcutter for good feeding.
Click to expand...

I had one (52-2) for a few years. I didn't roll my own ammo, and I had big problems finding wadcutter ammo that would fit in the magazines!! :eek:

If you don't do handloading, it's a difficult gun. Sweet shooting when you have the right ammo.
 
I've only shot one M52. Owned by an acquaintance who loved to tell people, "Got it, love it, ain't SELLIN' it!"

When we discussed handloads, he said seating the wadcutter flush with the case mouth was non-negotiable, but that the piece never malfunctioned from an overlong case. Said he only trimmed cases in pursuit of tighter groups, not better reliability.

He was a big fan of the 2.7/Bull's Eye/148 HBWC load. He said the load worked well on small game, as did 3.0/Red Dot/148 HBWC. YMMV

I doubt that you'll have even a small twinge of buyer's remorse, if you pick up that one for sale.
 
I have some 148 DEWC's that dad cast up and shot back in the 1960's,
As well as molds for them, I load bullseye anyway, and load for 38 spec, but mostly 158 swc,

So between the siren song it is singing, and the components on hand, it won't take much for me to adopt it and give it a good home.

Thanks for the load info, and comments on it.

I have never shot bullseye before, I guess now there is getting less reasons for me not to get into it.
 
"I had big problems finding wadcutter ammo that would fit in the magazines!!"

I am not sure of the problem, but the Model 52 was designed to use factory wadcutters or handloads with the bullet seated entirely within the case. Most commercial wadcutter reloads at that time were intended for revolvers, with the crimp in the crimping groove of the bullet; that results in a COAL of around 1/10 inch longer than the case and those rounds won't fit the Model 52 magazine.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top