S&W Model 52

[Bmi48219]

Plated wadcutters are not recommended…..

Why or by whom?

[nuclearcricket]

I am also curious as I got a good deal on a bunch of them
Sam

[Kai]

This has always intrigued me. Other than liking to play with the various 38spl / 357 molds I've always wanted a M52. With the price they bring just can't help but wonder why? I get it if they are no longer mfg. And can only assume they are accurate. Just wanted to get those who have owned and shot.

My 52 is the most accurate handgun in the safe and there are quite a few. Being a Smith it's obvious the trigger is fantastic. Using mid range (low power) wadcutter ammo, the action is very smooth with the slide spring being very "soft". A child could rack the slide. Being intriqued as you are I would highly recommend you get yourself a 52. You certainly won't regret it. No they are not cheap in price but they are not cheaply made either.

[DeadWoodDan]

I have a wish list and every time one of these gets in front of my eyes I just can't help but want it...of course that list is long.

[dverna]

When the 952 was introduced I came close to getting one. I had always regretted selling the 52-2.

At about the same time, I found a used Clark .38 at a good price. The Clark is a better gun.

The M52 may have been the most accurate factory semiautomatic CF of its time. It was displaced in Bullseye by Clark’s and then the .32 S&W in the Walther GSP. We never Ransom rested a GSP, so it’s 50 yards accuracy is unknown to me.

[rintinglen]

I knew a fellow who kept his loaded as his home defense gun. He said he figured a 38 wadcutter in the eye ought to stop any trouble maker in his home

[Bmi48219]

Plated wadcutters are not recommended and you can shoot a flush 148 dewc for practice. Bullseye--231--and 700x are recommended powders.

Again, what’s wrong with ‘plated wadcutters’ in a 52?

[garandsrus]

I bought a 52 several months ago and really enjoy shooting it. I have a second magazine and the barrel weight. It was a grail gun for me for quite a while.

[rockrat]

Guy came in our local gun show with a 52 but with only one mag. Probably 99% if not for missing the factory grips. Had a set of RH thumb rest grips on it. He was asking $1000 for it. If he had two or three mags and the factory grips, it probably would have followed me home.

[Ia.redneck]

I heartily agree with 22cf45, it is unforgiving of poor follow through. Great gun tho!

[Green Frog]

Guy came in our local gun show with a 52 but with only one mag. Probably 99% if not for missing the factory grips. Had a set of RH thumb rest grips on it. He was asking $1000 for it. If he had two or three mags and the factory grips, it probably would have followed me home.

rockrat,
If it had included the factory grips and two or more mags you could have just about doubled the price, give or take. Then again, factory grips can be had for about $100 plus or minus, and each original mag will set you back another $200. so you could have been into the "package" you describe for about $500 more and still been a few hundred below market. That might not have been such a bad deal if you would be willing to do a little searching.
Froggie

[Bmi48219]

rockrat,
If it had included the factory grips and two or more mags you could have just about doubled the price, give or take. Then again, factory grips can be had for about $100 plus or minus, and each original mag will set you back another $200. so you could have been into the "package" you describe for about $500 more and still been a few hundred below market. That might not have been such a bad deal if you would be willing to do a little searching.
Froggie

I’m of similar mind about the 52-2 mentioned in post# 8. I took a closer look at it last week. It’s not ANIB, having a few minor scratches. Only has one magazine. And it has been there for 8 months.
In this age of polymer, high capacities, strikers, rails and optics ready slides, a single stack model 52 (or any other bullseye pistol) doesn’t appeal to a large segment of the buying public, especially when the price approaches four digits.

[Winger Ed.]

Being what it is, in addition to its shortcomings, nobody but a caster and/or re-loader would buy it
for anything close to its value.

But if its been in the case that long, a bargain my be there to be had.
Nobody at the retail level likes dead inventory.

[gunther]

Ed: Colt wad gun magazines are in the same ballpark, price-wise, and the feed lips are fragile. The owner was happily surprised when the Mec gar magazine worked un-modified.

[rintinglen]

@ BMI The rumor that I heard was that there was a concern that the plating would flake off in the bore and become copper fouling. I stress that this was a rumor, that I heard from a fellow who didn't own a 52. I personally put this one just about next to the Bigfoot sightings as far as how much credence I give it. That said, mine has seen nothing but lead, Remington HBWC, when I could get them, cast when I couldn't. I have never owned a centerfire autoloader that would out shoot it when I had Remington factory WC ammo in it. I know people who swear by the Clark conversions, but my observation is that the Colt's are more finicky. And more costly.

[nuclearcricket]

I don't know about some plated bullets but I do know that Berry's bullets have about .003" of plating on them per side. I would think it would take a lot to make that flake off and for all the faster wbwc's are pushed I don't think that will happen. Even if it does, a good cleaning should solve the problem.
I guess I will just have to haul mine our and run a box full through it and see what turns up on the patches
Sam

[Rockindaddy]

After trying out a S&W Mosel 52 try a SIG P210 Target. The SIG is a great piece of workmanship!

[6string]

When the 952 was introduced I came close to getting one. I had always regretted selling the 52-2.

At about the same time, I found a used Clark .38 at a good price. The Clark is a better gun.

The M52 may have been the most accurate factory semiautomatic CF of its time. It was displaced in Bullseye by Clark’s and then the .32 S&W in the Walther GSP. We never Ransom rested a GSP, so it’s 50 yards accuracy is unknown to me.

I agree with Don here, and his earlier post. A lot of folks look at the M52 through rose-colored glasses, or they’ve never shot Bullseye or Int’l (ISSF) Centerfire competitively.
Gil Hebard did a test (perhaps better called a research paper) on the Model 52. He systematically tested an exhaustive list of loads, plus match grade factory HBWC ammo, properly using a Ransom Rest (something often overlooked). Through the course of firing literally thousands of rounds using four different documented guns, he produced literally one single group that was comparable to the best work using a 38 1911 conversion by the likes of Clark, Giles, Dinan, etc. (That group is often shown out of context and is highly misleading!)

His conclusions were pretty much as follows:
-The model 52 is a “10 ring” gun, meaning with preferred loads it is reliable for 3”-3.25” groups at 50 yds. Better groups are flukes that cannot be repeated through further testing.
-The model 52 is not a reloader’s friend. It is super finnicky. Bullet choices are strictly flush nose wadcutters. Button nose wadcutters, that often shoot very well in conversions, can’t be loaded in a model 52 mag.
-The model 52 trigger uses a hinged trigger and transfer bar that precludes a crisp, two stage trigger (with the wonderful “straight through” feel) that can be acheived with a top drawer 38 wadcutter conversion. And, yes, anything less than perfect follow-through will decimate your scores badly! But, if you like a roll trigger and practice your dry firing, though, you might really like it!
-One very good thing was, he showed how specific guns shot, in a statistical manner, over the course of being fired thousands of times. One big plus of the model 52 is that it’s accuracy did indeed stand up over time!
Admittedly, many of the 1911 wadcutter conversions do need regular tune-ups to shoot their best. (And, by best, I mean about half what a model 52 can do!) But, it’s a LOT easier to get the needed parts!
Gil Hebard published his work in Gun Digest in the early 60s, then reprinted in his later Pistol Shooters Treasury.
If your serious about the model 52, and can accept the unvarnished truth, get a copy! Gil was a good writer and he objectively puts forth the pros and cons.

Here’s one more observation. The model 52 occasionally appears in the hands of competitive shooters in some rather far-away countries. Despite my comments that might sound a bit derogatory, it was a good effort for an “out of the box” target grade centerfire semi-auto pistol from a major manufacturer. I never saw a .38 wadcutter 1911 built by anyone outside of the USA! So, a model 52 makes sense in that context. But, especially if you shoot the International discipline, the .32 wadcutter guns like Walther GSP or Pardini HP32 are much better.
My choice for a European made centerfire wadcutter target pistol? Either of these all steel classics: Sako Triace (.32 cal only) or the SIG-Hämmerli P240 (.32 or .38 cal).

[georgerkahn]

I am privileged to own a no-dash Model 52. It is a joy to load and shoot. My mould is the one designed and marketed by Hensley & Gibbs specifically for this pistol -- their #527, listed as a ".38 S&W Special 4-Cavity .358 148 grain WC mould for the S&W 52". I've had my 52 since the mid-1970s, and it truly was my best friend for many years of Bullseye competitive shooting. I exclusively used Bullseye powder, with a specific amount (I choose to not divulge any precise loads) significantly less than 3 grains. All cases need be trimmed to precise length, and the bullets need be seated (wad-cutter shape) so their tip is precisely in line with the case's edge.
No more than an added comment here, but I'd shoot the rim-fire leg with my S&W Model 41, and on a few occasions, believe it or not -- my total score for the evening was HIGHER from the 52 .38! Not by much -- but, imho, this attests to the beauty of this arm. Mine is an early model -- serial number lower than 55,000!
"YES" -- quite a few gunmakers sought to "make a better mousetrap", and yes -- I sent my Model 41 to Clark Custom for enhancement (worth the money!!!).
BUT -- for ME -- the out of box, but with Herrett grips as only mod -- to say that I've been happy with my 52 would definitely be an understatement!
A "last" added note is I have several magazines for mine, all made by S&W. Years back, for "kicks & giggles" I used a toothpick to apply drops of (yellow) paint to the bottom of each mag -- e.g., one dot on 1st mag, two dots on 2nd, and so on. It very well might be "me" -- but I queued my mags after that, and to my shooting -- same ammo and same everything else -- I noted a consistent, albeit wee bit of target performance -- dependent upon which mag I used. Again, maybe just me, but after I noted this I tried "queuing" mags in my 41 and other semi-autos -- with ZERO performance change; this phenomena JUST with my 52 .
geo

[catmandu]

I am privileged to own a no-dash Model 52. My mould is the one designed and marketed by Hensley & Gibbs specifically for this pistol -- their #527, listed as a ".38 S&W Special 4-Cavity .358 148 grain WC mould for the S&W 52".
geo

George,
If you don’t mind it would be terrific if I could get an answer or two from you.
1) I was told the early Mod 52 (no dash) were converted 9mm barrels so their groove diameter was .355 to .356. And that was why the H&G specific mold was made at a smaller diameter than the H&G 50.
2) I thought the H&G Mod 52 mold was the 251.

I have a Mod52-1 and I am very fond of it. It likes REM 148 HBWCs or Zero/Rose Dist. Anything else is a step down in accuracy. I also have numbered my mags and there is a difference. Could you please tell me more about the dimensions of your bore and the HG 527?
Thanks in advance.

Paul