Do you have any definitive information on the Smith & Wessons used in Raiders of the Lost Ark? Well, thanks to Dr. Brody, the following personal testimony is about as definitive as you're likely to get:

"Two Smith and Wesson revolvers were used in the filming of Raiders of the Lost Ark. The one used at Elstree studios and in Tunisia was rented from Bapty's in London and will be known as the Bapty gun. The S&W used in Hawaii and for the close up in Indy's home was supplied by Stembridge Gun Rentals of Glendale, California.

The Bapty gun is a S&W Second Model Hand Ejector, in .455 Eley calibre as used by the British Army during The Great War(WWl) when the British needed every handgun they could get chambered in that calibre.
The Bapty gun had the barrel cut from the standard 6 1/2" to a handier 4" length,using a Baughman ramp style front sight. It also featured the gold medallion grips used from 1908 to the mid 1920's.

If we apply this to Indy's "world", most of the British contract S&W revolvers were sold back to the USA after the war as surplus. Many were converted to the easily obtainable, in the US, .45 Colt cartridge. Many of these conversions were performed at the S&W factory which is identifiable by the serial number being re-stamped on the rear of the cut back cylinder. The Bapty gun was used in all scenes except two.

The Stembridge gun is a 1917 S&W which is the Second Model modified for the US Government when they decided that entry into the war was unavoidable. As there were not enough 1911 Colt pistols in inventory, a device called the half moon clip, holding three rounds of .45 ACP, was devised to allow chambering and ejecting the rimless cartridge in a revolver. The 1917 S&W featured a 5 1/2" barrel, the Military version having plain walnut grips, with the later commercial 1917 wearing non-medallion checkered grips, as seen in the "Hand it to Belloq" and the closeup scene. The Commerical Model also had the S&W trademark on the left side of the frame below the cylinder release latch. The Stembridge gun was used in the two above mentioned scenes only.

Both of these fine revolvers were fireable. The Stembridge gun was loaned to me by Syd Stembridge for a magazine ad I did for my company, Special Weapons Products, in 1985. That was when I took the photo that is on the Indygear site(on my coffee table yet!) and before returning it I stopped by the range(couldn't resist) and found that with the requested"high front sight" it shot low and a bit to the left. The "band" on the Stembridge gun is where the tip of the barrel was masked off for cleaning, which includes removing the bluing, so the silver solder would hold the reshaped front sight securely. They just didn't bother to reblue the barrel. The standard front sight was removed from the cut off 1 1/2"of barrel below the curved base, reshaped, a small extention soldered on, and attached to the slight flat that was machined on the top of the barrel.

On a side note, Syd told me their revolver was rented by Lucasfilm for Temple of Doom. If you look at the scene where Indy is shooting out of the back window of the car, you can just make out the un-blued "band" on the front of the barrel." Dr. Brody

I'm having difficulty finding the Smith & Wesson Hand Ejector 2 Revolver. Is there a close substitute?Consider the following alternatives:

The S&W Model 10: The model 10 is a K frame, where the larger "brothers" were talking about here are N frames, the largest that Smith made and still makes. The K frame is also the frame of the Model 13 .357 (beefed version of the model 10 but with a bull barrel), and the model 19 .357. The .357's will fire the .38 S&W (though I would fire a lot of it, as the bullet would have to "jump" about a quarter of an inch through the cylinder before it hit the forcing cone of the barrel) the .38 special in standard and most +P pressures, and of course the .357 magnum. The model 10 will fire the .38 S & W and the .38 Special standard pressure load, no +P pressures advised (*not always recommended). The old Model 10/Military and Police W.W.II Victory models did indeed come with a lanyard ring on the butt. You can have one added easily by a gunsmith on any others, though. They are a pretty common item through parts companies. The model 10 fires standard load .38 Special ammo, readily available anywhere in the U.S. All you're doing is picking up the smaller brother of the N Frame. Another thing, the old model 10's are WORLDS different in price (than the Model 28), being in the $200 range in almost mint condition.

Even if you can't find an old one, pick up a new one and have an old butt swivel on by a competent gun smith. I've had done before. Get the "skinny" barreled version, though, not the "bull" barreled version. The 4 inch skinny version is based on the original 1898 design, but with new metallurgy. Let me offer a little more advice...find a S&W 4 inch model 28 .357 magnum...it is over the 10 in resell value, correct size and frame, lower ammo cost but MUCH more powerful, correct profile, and a DIRECT descendent of the Indiana Jones revolver, the HE2.

The Model 28: Please note that Model 28 is substantially cheaper and more easily obtainable than the HE2. The very first .357 every produced was the Smith and Wesson .357 model 27, back in 1935, and it was indeed an N frame. They were produced right up through the 1980's. Let me offer a little more advise, if you're looking for a true Indy appearance but not the price freight of the .44's....find a S & W 4 inch model 28 .357 magnum. It is the satin blued version of the original model 27, it's a true N frame, they were also called the Highway Patrol Special. They look EXACTLY like the Indy revolver, but the model 28 is only about half the price of the comparable model 27, simply because of the fit and finish, and of course the "historical" notoriety that the 27 has being the very first .357 ever produced. The 28's would indeed have rear adjustable sights. If you REALLY wanted to go all out, you could have a gunsmith make changes to the sights and make it a fixed sight gun, but personally I think that little bit of difference would not do anything to help. The front sight is just a hair higher than the New Century, but like I said, not enough to detract from the appearance. I have held both in my hands, have sold the 28 as a gun dealer, and except for the grips, there is no apparent difference to the eye or heft to the hand.

The HE2 has the smaller frame lined grips, where the 28 has the larger hand filling version. These are easily replaced, as Smith made them for years and years, and the frame has not changed, so all you'd have to do is find the smaller magna version hand grip panels and put them on the newer gun. As I recall, Indy's version has the rubber version rather than the wood, and those would be extremely difficult to find. I would personally recommend the 28--correct size and frame, correct profile, and a DIRECT descendent of the Indiana Jones revolver (the HE2). Original model 27/28 was build ON the HE2 frame in 1935, so you can't get any closer than that without finding the HE2 itself.

I'd buy a 28 in a New York minute if I had the loose cash to do so with absolute no regrets, and it would suit my Indy purposes to a tee, that's how strongly I feel about this particular revolver. Michaelson

My $0.02: The Smith and Wesson M1917 seems to be more common than the HE2, and you can pick up a good "shooter" for around $300. Also, although slightly smaller, the .38 Caliber Smith and Wesson "Victory Model" looks almost the same, and I have seen these advertised for as cheap as $50. If you have smaller hands, this would be a good choice. A nice gun. They were produced in quantity for WWII. Pick up a copy of The Shotgun News or The Gun List, and check pawn shops, etc. Abner

Does the semi-circular shape of the HE2 make a difference? Also, Is the draw speed any quicker with the Model 28? The semi-circular shape would not detract from the appearance in any way. The semi circular versions were made for non-adjustable sighted revolvers, supposedly to help cut down on reflected light to the eye when target shooting, as well as aiding in pulling from the holster. Never worked for me. As to the newer sight being a hindrance in holster work, no, it doesn't affect the speed in the pull at all. I know, it is the same sight as on the model 29 .44 mag, and I've owned 2 of those in past years. Michaelson

Would adding a lanyard loop detract from trade or reselling value of the gun? No, adding a lanyard would actually ADD to the resale value. A lot of police departments back in the 50's and 60's purchased these guns for departmental use, and had them made WITH lanyard loops installed by the factory. They abandoned the guns and traded them in for model 19s because the 28 was so heavy, and just didn't ride that well on a belt in a car. Big frame, you know. Michaelson

The gun Indy used in the Cairo basket chase scene looked slightly different than his normal revolver in Raiders. Why? A new forum writer recently wrote me regarding a noted slight change in appearance in the gun in the Cairo basket chase scene. I agree with him, and admitted that that particular gun also bothered me for many years. It does have a very close approximation to a Smith model 10 .38 special, but the bore is just to big to my eye.

The gun you see Indy use at the Flying Wing, though, is indeed back to form as the HE2, as seen tossed into is luggage at the start of the movie. Is this second weapon an old pre-War model 10? No....
...In checking this out, I spoke to Mr. Lee Kepler, who has been connected with the gun industry in Hollywood for many years. He told me that there were actually two Indy Smiths used in the movie, both were HE 2's, one was a .45 ACP which was pretty much used as the close up gun (the one that he "lost" to Belloq at the beginning of the movie, and the shooter (as seen in the basket chase and flying wing shootings) was a .455. According to Mr. Kepler the .455 had a different appearance that can be spotted according to the front strap (shiner) and bluing wear." Michaelson

Is the Temple of Doom gun really a Colt New Service or is it a Smith & Wesson? According to Lee Kepler, a noted connection we've had with this hobby since the beginning, the revolver that used in the car chase was actually the Raiders Smith Hand Ejector model 2, in caliber .455. The gun seen tossed out the window was supposedly a rubber Colt New Service. Apparently the prop master couldn't come up with the Smith substitute, so for the quick shot, just used a Colt New Service in the "stunt". So the answer is to the question is yes, and yes! Michaelson

The Webley MkVII looked so cool in Last Crusade, yet I hear it's a clunker. Should I buy one? I've owned Webley. Solid guns. Heavy heavy heavy. (get the idea?) If it isn't a .45 ACP, you'll play hob trying to have it cut for the round, as that service just isn't done anymore, except by very high class specialty gunsmiths for lots of bucks. Webley's are built like trucks, but are getting a little difficult to find parts for, especially here in the U.S. I've owned them, fired them, carried them, and would own another again if I found one in excellent shape for little money.

However, I'm not that big a fan of the Webley. I personally think that the writer who put one in Indy's holster should have been pistol-whipped with one. I've written my opinion several times on the forum. The gun is too heavy for long travel, the rounds to hard to find, and the gun is just to big for anything but battle field usage, as it was originally intended and designed for. Why in the world this monster has been embraced by Indyfans is beyond me. I would own one again only for the novelty of the item, and the fact that it is definitely a real piece of historical armament. I am not a fan other wise. They aren't that accurate, and with the redrill to .45 ACP, they're even worse, considering that the bullet is slightly smaller than the original .455 British. If you want to lob lead down range, why not throw grenades? Michaelson

I have just purchased a Webley Mark VI in .455 Should I go ahead and fire the gun, or just keep it as an Indy collectable? To quote a gun book I have at my house, "The Webley Mark VI revolver is a tough as a lorrie". As long as you shoot ammo that is factory loaded, and I am not aware of any +P loaded .455, since only old guns were ever chambered for this round, and the gun checks out with your local gunsmith, go for it! I'd just be concerned as to the availability of the .455 ammo, as most boxes I've priced are pretty hefty for 50 rounds. Where there is a pretty weak spot in the Mark IV, the same problem does not exist in the big Mark VI, so I don't think you'll need to worry about it shooting loose. Michaelson

The MKVI Webley seems no larger, or not even as large, as most .44 Magnums. If Dirty Harry could carry a .44 Magnum around semi-concealed, why not a MkVI for Indy? A comparison size wise between the Webley and, using your model of choice, a S&W model 29 .44 mag. Now bear in mind we're comparing two weapons that were designed almost 100 years apart, and with two completely different sciences to support, and to be supported by. What in the heck do I mean by that? The Webley was designed for use by the troops of her majesty Queen Victoria in the 1870's and used black powder rounds. Smokeless powder had not been invented or improved enough for use until the early 1890's. Black powder is explosive and used this technology to move a very heavy bullet down the barrel, where smokeless powder is considered much safer in terms of not being explosive but capable of a rapid burn instead, creating a more positive source of ignition rather that the rapid expanding fire ignition of the black powder round. The metalurgy of the 19th century was not the grade of strength of the 20th century inventions, and companies had to over engineer the weapons around the black powder rounds that existed. The theory was the more mass to hold the controlled explosion, the safer the weapon. Strength of the molecular structure of the steel was not a factor at that particular time. If you want a comparison, check out the hunting rifles of that same period compared to the current offerings. The rifles of today are almost 1/2 the size of those huge rifles of that time period and yet fire a much more powerful selection of rounds than were offered at that time. The Smith 29, on the other hand, was designed and produced in 1955. The metalurgy was there for the power of the .44 mag. bullet, so you could down size the frame of the weapon with out sacrificing the strength of the frame, while at the same time stand the monstrous pressures of the .44 mag round. The Webley was used right up to the end of the 1940's, and was upgraded to use with smokeless powder rounds, but Webley never downsized the frame of the weapon itself. It was still made to the same specs of the 1870's revolver, and is probably 1/4 larger than the standard model 29 with a 6 inch barrel. It was also heavier than the 29 fully loaded, simply because they never change the frame size, and even though the steel is much improved, the frame was as massive as it ever had been with black powder. As I said in the FAQ, for a field piece it was unsurpassed as a military weapon, as you have less muzzle flip with a heavier weapon and therefore any follow up shots will be much more accurate with such a weapon. Not so with the model 29, as it's muzzle flip with a full .44 mag load is tremendous, but it was never designed or intended for the field combat situation like the Webley was made to do. Michaelson

In regard to accuracy of Webleys, I have a MkIV .38 and a S&W Model 13-4. I find the S&W to be more accurate, but I believe this is due to better sights, and a better trigger pull, rather than anything inherent in the pistols. It might be due to me. What is your opinion? The model IV you have will always take a back seat to your Smith. Why? Because it was designed for the British .380 revolver round that was a 200 grain full metal jacket bullet that was equal (according to the books) to the Webley .455 round in terms of stopping power. The .38 S&W round that we can pick up anywhere and fire through these surplus guns are not the same or give as the .380 British, and therefore will never stabilize in your barrel. I know, I used to own one too. Though it fired well, it sure wasn't a target weapon. You Smith, on the other hand, fires the rounds it was designed for, and the target accuracy, though other factors figure in, are only as good as the shooter behind the gun. I know that one too, as I ALSO own a model 13. Now THAT'S a nice Smith! Michaelson

How do you know that the Webley is chambered for .45 instead of .455? I have to cheat and state that the .45 conversion info was from a Guns and Ammo "Q & A" column I read back in '89 that stated it was the .45 ACP conversion, and simply because that was what they needed for their 5-in-1 blanks on the set.

Of course, as I said before, new information has been coming to light recently, and I'm beginning to believe that the G&A article may have been incorrect, considering the revolver from the first two movies was a .455, and the blanks were available for it. I'm now wondering why they'd change from the .455 in the Webley myself. If I had to make an educated guess based on what we know today, I'd say that the Webley was more likely to have been in .455. When we see Indy break open the revolver on the beach and see that the cylinder is empty, I just don't recall seeing the tell tale signs of the cutting for the half/full moon clips that would hold the .45 ACP's in place. With this new information to consider, I now believe it was a .455, but the article in '89 did say it was converted. Michaelson

Can someone fill me in on the Webley .45 ACP conversion? All of the converting of .455 Webleys to .45 ACP was done in the '50's and '60's by U.S. importers, to facilitate selling them on the U.S. market. These were not military conversions.

I'm not sure I agree with the .455 Webley conversion statement, but only because I personally know an old gun smith who has been active in the craft since the late 1930's and has records of a few conversions by his father (who he learned his trade from) occurring in his shop in the early '30's. He stated that most of those Webleys had somehow drifted south from Canada into our part of the country (I'd LOVE to know the story behind that tale, as I've never run across any myself here in Tennessee, but that's what he said). I do agree that it definitely was not a military conversion on that particular gun, as U.S. gun owners viewed the big Webley with disdain, and from stories I've been told by veterans coming back from W.W.II, a lot of them went over the side in New York harbor when a rumor went from ship to ship that barrack bags would be checked and all war trophies not enemy captured and documented would be seized and the individual found with same put in the brig. Lots of Webleys took a swim during that time period! Michaelson

I heard that 9mm Browning HiPowers are often used in films instead because they take blanks easier. Is Indy's backup gun actually a Colt .45? The original idea was to have Indy carry the big Colt 1911 A1 in the first drafts, but in later revisions it was determined that the Browning model 35 (Highpower) should be put in it's place, as the acquisition of blanks and adapters would be much easier for the movie prop man to obtain, considering they were shooting the movie on two different continents. The actual scene, according to Lee Kepler, was to show Indy go to his desk while talking to Marcus (just before going after the Ark), pull out the big Smith in the rag AND the Browning and determine which gun to take. He would have determined to take both, and toss them into his suit case. It was decided to cut the scene short, and he only pulled out and tossed the one revolver in the shot. His explanation of how he obtained the P-35 was to say he got it in a poker game with a Belgium officer. This would be logical, as the P-35 was only adopted and put into military contract with European forces technically 1 year before Raiders even took place. It would be extremely doubtful that Indy could ever find one in the commercial market at that particular time. The interesting thing about the comparison between the Colt .45 ACP and the P-35 .9mm is that the .45 holds 7 rounds, where the .9mm holds 13. If you take the time to actually count to number of times Indy fires the semiauto in the Nepal gun fight, the count conforms with the number of rounds held in the big Colt. If he had a fully loaded P-35 when he pulled it out of his pocket, he probably would not have had to reload during the fight at all. But after all these years of debate, it has finally been determined that was the P-35 that he pulled out at Nepal and on the freighter, and the additional behind the scenes explanations only came about within the past few weeks. Michaelson

Which style S&W 29 is best for my Indy Collection? The early model is pretty much a collector type model, first produced in 1955. Stick with models 29-2 and higher. The 29-2 had the entire cartridge encased in the cylinder, including the rim, as back in the early 60's ammo casings had a tendency to burst under .357 pressures. All they usually did was "pull" the casings of regular .44 specials for the new .44 mag, and they didn't always hold together in .44 mag firing. The 29-2 enclosed the entire shell and protected the shooter from these failures. The 29-3 and higher didn't have this counter bore in the cylinder because the ammo folks got a LOT better in shell strength, therefore Smith started saving money by NOT having to counter bore the head space into the cylinder. Doesn't really matter which one you get in terms of strength, though, I sort of lean toward the -2 model. I've owned both -2 and a -3, and both were nice, but the -2 just seemed to me to be the better quality of the two, since extra machining was performed on the gun. May just be how I saw it. Michaelson

What should I look for when buying an Indiana Jones handgun? Take into account these considerations in selecting an Indy Revolver:

What does the bore look like, bright with good rifling, or dull with pits? Do you plan to shoot this weapon? If not, the barrel doesn't matter, except for any resale value, then believe me, it will!

Make sure that the crane (the piece that holds the cylinder to the frame where it swings out) is flush and has no gaps when you close the cylinder into the gun. If there is any gap, the crane is sprung. Steer clear of the gun. Also, check the head space between the cylinder and the forcing cone (the gap directly between the front of the cylinder and the entry to the barrel) when the cylinder is closed. It should mike between .003 and .006 thousandths on a feeler gage. Anymore than .006, your gun will spit lead out both sides of the front of the cylinder when firing making things VERY uncomfortable for anyone standing next to you. Will also make the gun extremely inaccurate, as the bullet will enter the barrel and keyhole out the front, causing the bullet to tumble. Any less than .003, after the first couple of rounds the fouling from the powder will tie up the cylinder, stopping the cylinder from turning.

As you're holding the gun in your hand, open the cylinder and push on the ejector rod through the cylinder ( the front rod that pushes out the empty brass). Make sure it pushes smoothly and cleanly. Spin the cylinder while it's still out and watch the rod, making sure it's true and doesn't wobble. If it wobbles, the gun has been dropped at some time and the rod is bent. Steer clear of the gun. Those parts were easy to obtain back then, but aren't exactly easy to find now, and if that is bent, you can't be sure that the star at the back of the cylinder hasn't sustained damage too. Lots of things to consider, but well worth the time, and all this stuff doesn't really take that much time.

I could REALLY get deep and tell you to hold the gun upside down, and slowly cock the hammer, watch the cylinder latch (at the bottom of the cylinder between the frame and the cylinder), and watch how far it pulls into the frame, then how quickly it pops back out to the groove on the side of the cylinder to the notch that the latch (or also called cylinder stop or hand) then drops into one of the 6 notches on the side of the cylinder. It should drop about a third of the way into the groove that tapers down to the notch. To soon and you have a scratch that leads to the notch, to late and the cylinder can skip a round if you double action fire the gun. This is called the "timing" of the gun, and is important to the firing of the revolver.

Another test is to fully cock the weapon, the putting your thumb between the hammer and the frame, see if you can push against the hammer with your free hand and make the hammer trip without touching the trigger. You should not be able to. If you can, the sear is worn on the trigger assembly where it is in contact with the hammer. This is dangerous. Steer clear of this gun.

One final test is to hold the gun and grab the cylinder with your free hand. See if it moves. It can at this point when the hammer is in full rest. Now fully cock the hammer, pull the trigger while letting the hammer down with your thumb (don't "snap" it like a cap gun. This is called dry firing a gun, and will get you tossed out of a gun store faster than you can say "Indiana Jones"!) With the hammer now down, and keeping the trigger pulled to the rear, now see if you can move the cylinder back and forth with your free hand. It should not move. This is also part of the timing of the action, cylinder, and alignment of the cylinder to barrel. This is referred to the "lockup" of the revolver, and should be the tightest that the gun is when in the firing mode. If the cylinder slops when this test is done, the lock up (cylinder stop and rear star) is to worn, and not very safe. This can cause the same problem with lead splitting and to much headspace of .006.

Well, now you know enough to be dangerous. I would do these tests, and in plain sight of the owner. If he try's to give a bunch of excuses when one of these tests comes up short, I would give him a counter offer on the gun. If you're successful, take it to a good gunsmith and get the items that failed worked on. You'll have an excellent gun when your done. If all these tests pass, buy it! Michaelson

What are some of the other guns used in the trilogy? In Raiders, the guns shown, in roughly chronological order are: Remington M1875 - revolver that one of Indy's guides/helpers is going to use to shoot Indy in the back. Other guns much in evidence are the P-38 pistol and MP-40 machine pistol, neither of which would have been available in 1936, when the movie is set. Lugers and a Broomhandle also appear, and are much better "fits". Guns are not nearly as evident in Temple as they are in Raiders and Crusade. In fact, Indy's gun is not shown clearly at all. The opening scene, in which Indy is trying to trade the diamond, we see various guns in action. Indy is threatened by one Chinese hood with what appears to be a Smith & Wesson .32 Safety Hammerless. Indy's buddy "He's not a waiter . . ." looks to have a Smith Victory or Pistol #2 .380 - it looks like a K-frame, with a hole in the butt for a lanyard loop. The barrel is a non-standard 3". That guy is is then shot by another of the Chinese hoods, with a Webley & Scott Mk. II .38. That scene ends with one of the hoods trying to gun down Indy with an M1921AC Thompson submachine gun - could be an M1928, since '28's were largely made from '21's. Rick

Some of this information appears courtesy of The IndyFan Forum

*Many of the quotes have been edited (spelling, grammar, and punctuation) to improve clarity.