In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Imprecision of S&W's Bother Me.......
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
The imprecision found on many S&W revolvers bother me but apparently does not bother anyone else. I was at Cabaleas several weeks ago and wanted to buy a Taurus .38 2 inch 5 shot with the totally enclosed hammer. They didn't have any but did have two S&W's that fit that description. Prices weren't too bad so I decided to at least consider the Smiths; until I closely inspected them.
If you looked at the front of the crane/frame contact (looking from the front of the gun on back and with the cylinder closed, hammer down) and if you exert finger pressure on the cylinder as if to try and open the cylinder (but without touching cylinder release button) with both of the Smiths I could see a gap between the crane and frame that would open up and was almost 1 centimeter wide (estimated, not measured).
Now I don't know about you, but I don't want gun parts that are supposed to be "locked" in place to move around almost 1 centimeter. Nor do I want there to be any play in the matchup between the chamber and forcing cone when a round is being fired.
Now I know that when you actually pull and hold the trigger, that 1 centimeter play mostly goes away. And I also know that as the firing pin bites into the primer, that contact makes for a type of "lockup" keeping everything in place long enough for the bullet to successfully exit the end of the barrell. I also know that the "explosion" of the bullet forces the case head against the firing pin part of the frame and also causes a kind of "lockup" that prevents any movement until the bullet exits the barrell.
And I also know that it is a waste of time to argue with what works. But I just plain am bothered by this 1 centimeter play. And if something does work, I want it to do more than just barely work. Ruger and Taurus in recent years have built a latching mechanism in the crane/frame contact area that pretty much removes any movement there.
But when reloaders and just shooters are concerned with a bullet diameter varying by only of a couple thousandths of inches , why is everyone so willing to accept a crane/frame that varying by more than that? Don't they realilze that bullet sitting inside the next chamber to be fired is moving in and out of alignment with the forcing cone by that 1 centimeter also?
I am at the point to whereas I don't believe I want anymore S&W revolvers until they change their design. Comments?
I don't often deal with metric measuements and so I need to probably change the size of the gap to about 1/32-1/64 of an inch in response to a below poster's comment. I meant millimeter at the start
If you looked at the front of the crane/frame contact (looking from the front of the gun on back and with the cylinder closed, hammer down) and if you exert finger pressure on the cylinder as if to try and open the cylinder (but without touching cylinder release button) with both of the Smiths I could see a gap between the crane and frame that would open up and was almost 1 centimeter wide (estimated, not measured).
Now I don't know about you, but I don't want gun parts that are supposed to be "locked" in place to move around almost 1 centimeter. Nor do I want there to be any play in the matchup between the chamber and forcing cone when a round is being fired.
Now I know that when you actually pull and hold the trigger, that 1 centimeter play mostly goes away. And I also know that as the firing pin bites into the primer, that contact makes for a type of "lockup" keeping everything in place long enough for the bullet to successfully exit the end of the barrell. I also know that the "explosion" of the bullet forces the case head against the firing pin part of the frame and also causes a kind of "lockup" that prevents any movement until the bullet exits the barrell.
And I also know that it is a waste of time to argue with what works. But I just plain am bothered by this 1 centimeter play. And if something does work, I want it to do more than just barely work. Ruger and Taurus in recent years have built a latching mechanism in the crane/frame contact area that pretty much removes any movement there.
But when reloaders and just shooters are concerned with a bullet diameter varying by only of a couple thousandths of inches , why is everyone so willing to accept a crane/frame that varying by more than that? Don't they realilze that bullet sitting inside the next chamber to be fired is moving in and out of alignment with the forcing cone by that 1 centimeter also?
I am at the point to whereas I don't believe I want anymore S&W revolvers until they change their design. Comments?
I don't often deal with metric measuements and so I need to probably change the size of the gap to about 1/32-1/64 of an inch in response to a below poster's comment. I meant millimeter at the start
Comments
My question to you is; Why would (you) anyone push sideways on the cylinder while firing a revolver?
Another point: This is a dangerous practice. Only a fool would get any of their digits near the cylinder / barrel gap while firing a revolver.
Edit: (to save a post) I mentioned firing the revolver BECAUSE I don't know anyone that pushes on the cylinder while doing that. I'm sure you can come up with all manner of "test" to show the plausibility in whatever point you are trying to make.
Is your "test" any different then someone that "notices" the rear sight on their 1911A1 moves out of adjustment if they use it to cycle the slide by pushing it (the sight) against a 2x4?
The point is; it is NOT standard practice to push sideways on the cylinder while firing a revolver, so why would you "test" that?
2ND Edit: My answer to your question: The gap isn't there until YOU put it there. It isn't a design feature.
Another Question for you. Are you comparing apples to oranges? As far as I know, Ruger (and their patented "triple lock system) only make forged steel framed revolvers . Were those nasty S&Ws perhaps Alloy? You never mentioned model #'s.
As soon as I can find the required tools, I am going to test my S&Ws to see what force is needed to open this gap of yours.
I'm sure the event you describe only happens if you PUSH SIDEWAYS ON THE FRONT OF THE CYLINDER. That is NOT how I open ANY of the cylinders on my Revolvers. Because the cylinders are LOCKED at the back, this is where I apply pressure to open them.
My question to you is; Why would (you) anyone push sideways on the cylinder while firing a revolver?
Another point: This is a dangerous practice. Only a fool would get any of their digits near the cylinder / barrel gap while firing a revolver.
In my post I mentioned that I was inspecting two S&W revolvers inside a gun store. I should not have to assure you that the guns were not loaded nor were they being fired. So you can rest assured that while there may be "fools" around guns, there were no "fools" in my vicinty. In addition I said nothing about pushing on the cylinder while the gun was being fired. I don't know how you came up with that idea. In addition to that, I myself want a firearm to be solid and put together right. I don't want any unwanted or unnecessary play or movement in the moving parts that is not designed into the firearm for a particular pupose. This means I don't want to have to "baby" a firearm by being careful to only push (if I desired to push) on the "back" of the cylinder and not the "front" of the cylinder.
Apparently you are willing to accept odd and unneeded and perhaps dangerous (lead spitting?) and unwanted movement from your revolvers than I am.
Edited to also save a post. It is odd and unusual for a new revolver to arrive capable of exhibiting a unneeded gap between the crane and the frame. A gap that was not designed into the firearm for any useful purpose. A gap that, by its very existance, opens up the question of what other effect might that unneeded gap be causing when the revolver is in full operation of fireing. Perhaps other effects that are not even noticed because the revolver is being fired. A gap that by its existance proves that the chamber is not as perfectly inline with the forcing cone as might be desired by people like me; but not apparently by others. Some gaps are wanted and needed such as the gap between cylinder and forcing cone. In fact a minimun such gap is required for proper operation of the revolver. There is no need (and in my case no desire) for an unwanted gap between crane and frame.
A well made firearm does not need someone to defend, what appears to be a weakness/defect, by advising someone who discovers that weakness that discoverer should not have been looking for the weakness to begin with. The design/manufacturering weakness simply should not even be found in the firearm at all. The gap does not exist in any of my Taurus or Ruger models. Why does it exist in most S&W's I have examined/owned?
In fact it used to be (may still be) when I shot pistols enough to cause them to show serious wear, when the S&W's got enough wear on them that this gap in question opened up a lot more than what I have described in some of the new ones, at that point the revolver would usually start shaving lead. As the bullet made the jump from the chamber into the forcing cone, because the now serious lack of alignment, the bullet would often shave splinters of lead which could hit the shooter standing next to you. That is a situation no one wants. So, if a brand new revolver comes already having a small version of that gap that caused the lead shaving, isn't that a sign that it probably won't be all that long before you actually have that lead shaving problem?
A direct question for you. If the gap is needed or of no consequence, then maybe I should complain to Taurus and Ruger because their model 85 and SP-101 and GP-100 do not have such a gap.
Get your hands on a Taurus or Ruger and you will see the same movement. The only ones that have the third lock up are the big bore ones, and Dan Wessons.
I have both brands and both have a crane/frame locking device. There is no way to cause the same movement with either revolver.
Since the front of the ejector rod locks to the barrel the gap you described should not exist. Maybe 2 defective guns? Did you bring it to the attention of the store employees to look at?
Jim
Edit to add: Colt double action revolvers lock only at the rear (python included). If you push hard sideways on the front of the cylinder it will produce a gap, but it does not effect their accuracy at all because that is NOT a normal condition while shooting.
It's a very broad brush with which to paint, but I think modern Smiths are made to tighter tolerances than anything from 1900 - to 1990, but the nicities of checkered topstraps, deep bluing and case hardening are long gone.
LIKE DADDY SAID.ITS EITHER GOOD OR ITS CHEAP.