What I am seeing on these parts is ZERO machining, stoning, deburring - all smooth, clean, burr-free and very likely all VERY close to being the exact same size in critical dimensions. I certainly does appear that would reduce assembly time and labor - maybe even have a positive effect on "Friday afternoon guns" and "Monday morning guns.
S&W Model 64-8
- Thread starter Petrol & Powder
- Start date
What I am seeing on these parts is ZERO machining, stoning, deburring - all smooth, clean, burr-free and very likely all VERY close to being the exact same size in critical dimensions. I certainly does appear that would reduce assembly time and labor - maybe even have a positive effect on "Friday afternoon guns" and "Monday morning guns.
What happened to thelipseys 44,,,cracked forcing cone?
No. Two of the chambers were out of time radially and produced two separate groups with two touching and three touching every time I fired five rounds. Two chambers also splattered lead so badly it looked like a guano-splattered cliff-side on a remote island.
Can't imaging a forcing cone on one of those cracking, as they are very thick. Has this happened?
Ive read about it. I have the 327mag lipsey gun.
Awesome shooter!!5 inch barrell,and half lug,,wish it was standard offer.
This was not a GP100, but a Flat Top 44 Special Blackhawk. I' HAVE heard about it in the GP100 44 Special, which still baffles me, as I've never seen or heard of it in a Charter 44 and their barrel is quite thin at the breech-end.
Oops,,,sorry,i was thinking you had the gp.
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
Plastic rebound spring housing........ye gods. Is nothing sacred?
Missionary
Well-Known Member
Plastic!!! Well that will sure turn my head away from any new S&W.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Are you sure it's not MIM?
The black one in the picture in the first post on this thread is MIM.
The black one in the picture in the first post on this thread is MIM.
I will publicly apologize right here and now for misleading everyone. I took a refrigerator magnet and lo and behold I’ve been fooled by my old eyes(again). The little part weighs nothing as well…..
The rebound spring housing is indeed cast steel.
My apologies and Merry Christmas to all!
The rebound spring housing is indeed cast steel.
My apologies and Merry Christmas to all!
Attachments
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
Cleaning revolvers today, an every winter chore. Worked on the S&W Model 1902, a short lived run of only 3 years. Very different from the first Model 1899 for the 38 US Government cartridge.
First with the front locking lug under the barrel, that they patented and still have today. However, it had the small shank barrel thread for the 38 Gov cartridge and the 1902's were the first 38 S&W Specials and needed a bigger shank and frame, that come on the 1905 model, to hold that extra power. See below.
While the lock works on the same principles, there is not coil trigger return spring. Instead there is a flat spring pinned to the front grip strap. It pushes the trigger return slide forward.
All of these are on an early Model 1902 38 Special Target with a 6 1/2 inch barrel and round grip frame, the only kind made before 1905. Haven't shot this one for years, so it is going on the top of the stack to shoot next spring.
There are always changes, some for the better and some not.
First with the front locking lug under the barrel, that they patented and still have today. However, it had the small shank barrel thread for the 38 Gov cartridge and the 1902's were the first 38 S&W Specials and needed a bigger shank and frame, that come on the 1905 model, to hold that extra power. See below.
While the lock works on the same principles, there is not coil trigger return spring. Instead there is a flat spring pinned to the front grip strap. It pushes the trigger return slide forward.
All of these are on an early Model 1902 38 Special Target with a 6 1/2 inch barrel and round grip frame, the only kind made before 1905. Haven't shot this one for years, so it is going on the top of the stack to shoot next spring.
There are always changes, some for the better and some not.
Last edited:
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
The S&W K-frame chambered in 38 Special is an Iconic American handgun.
And as Rick points out, the design has never truly been frozen, it has evolved over it's production run and there have been many changes. The basic form has always remained but the details changed. I would classify most of those changes as improvements.
If I had to pick a point in that history where the design matured, I would say that occured in the early 1960's, after the the numbered models were introduced. The heat treat got better, the lock work looks pretty close to today's guns, there weren't major changes until the late 1990's.
And Rick, NICE REVOVLER !
And as Rick points out, the design has never truly been frozen, it has evolved over it's production run and there have been many changes. The basic form has always remained but the details changed. I would classify most of those changes as improvements.
If I had to pick a point in that history where the design matured, I would say that occured in the early 1960's, after the the numbered models were introduced. The heat treat got better, the lock work looks pretty close to today's guns, there weren't major changes until the late 1990's.
And Rick, NICE REVOVLER !
I took the sideplate off my 1905 handejector,,awhile ago.
It is almost exact same as my 14 no dash.
Except the 1905 has a incredible action,,beleave it was handfit,,back in them days.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
TXTad
Active Member
Not really. The only revolvers they offer without the lock are those without an external hammer. E.g. the Centennial models.
TXTad
Active Member
The broader public is clueless as to the happenings in the gun industry. Nobody who would be outraged at the deletion of the locks isn't already mad at gun companies in general. One thing that is usually only discussed obliquely is the affect that the lock has on sales. It's difficult to quantity, but I suspect that the lock has cost them many millions of dollars in lost sales. From the later 90s until the early 00s when the locks started showing up on everything they had, I usually purchased 1 or 2 new S&Ws per year. After the locks showed up, I haven't purchased a single new S&W, but I have bought quite a number from other manufacturers, as well as older, used S&Ws. I have no problem with the MIM parts, nor the new style barrels. There are a number of revolvers that they sell that I would like to have, but as long as they have the lock and I can find others on the market that I like, there's no reason for me to hold my nose and buy one of the current S&W revolvers. About the only one I want pretty badly is a 4" Model 69, but it still never seems to make it to the top of my list.
Anyway, my point is that from a fiduciary responsibilities point of view, S&W management simply has been working against the best interests of their shareholders for the past two decades.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
The public is clueless in general.
The ignorance of the average American is astounding; their ignorance concerning firearms is only a tiny portion of the multitude of issues they are ignorant about.
I doubt you could find 1 person in 100 that could name their 2 U.S. Senators, the House of Representative member for their district, their state legislators and their local government legislators.
For fun I will occasionally ask someone to name the 9 Supreme Court justices. The average response yields 4 correct names.
For even more fun, ask someone to tell you what percentage of their income they pay in taxes. Almost everyone will toss out a number based on their federal income tax alone. Few people (very few) will include state income tax (if their state has one), A small percentage will list real estate taxes, some will remember sales tax, a few will be aware of state & federal highway fuel taxes. Almost no one will list utilities taxes, excise taxes (alcohol, tobacco and firearms) or any other taxes they pay.
hporter
Active Member
Earlier today, I pulled two S&W 44 specials from my safe and compared them after thinking about this thread. I was pondering my S&W 21-4 (with the Hillary hole) and my S&W 24-3 (no hole) and compared them side by side.
Both are obviously well made. Both are well blued, and a thing of beauty. The 21-4 not only has the hole, but has the frame mounted firing pin too. (I am not a fan of that either, but Ruger has been doing it for ages too.)
I've been wanting S&W to do a run of the model 22 in 45acp. I like the fixed sight N frame models. I asked myself if the hole and the frame mounted firing pin would keep me from giving S&W my money if they were to make another run of them. The answer was no - I would gladly hand over my money for one.
I agree with all those who have stated they prefer the older models over the newer ones. I do too. But I doubt management would ever reverse course and take out the hole, and put the firing pin back on the hammer. I imagine taking out the "safety" feature of the lock would potentially open them up to catastrophic law suits if they did.
I must admit that the only new S&W revolver that I have purchased since the lock debacle was a Nightguard 310 snubby in 10mm Auto. I like short barrels, N-Frames and moon clips - so it was an itch that had to be scratched. Oh - and also a 638 snubby. And yes, it has the hole too.
If we stop buying revolvers, I doubt it would sway management to alter them to something the public wants. It would probably sway management to focus on plastic bottom feeders and plastic revolvers (i.e. cheap to manufacturer and easier to sell).
But the market for revolvers must still be relatively strong for Colt to jump back into the revolver market with both feet. I've been tempted to pickup a new 4" Python, as any hope for ever finding an older one at an affordable price passed a long time ago. I just wish S&W would produce what I want. Ha ha. And please start with the J-Frame or even a K-Frame .32 H&R magnum.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Of the 3 major design changes to newer S&W revolver platforms (MIM parts, Two-piece barrels, and the internal lock) the internal lock is the one that seems to cause the most consternation. The MIM parts are proving to be adequate, if not downright acceptable. The two-piece barrels might actually be an improvement. The internal lock [IL] is where most of the anger is focused. There’s a political aspect to this hatred/annoyance/displeasure. The March 2000 agreement by S&W (then owned by Tompkins LLC) with the executive branch of the federal government (the Clinton administration at that time) was widely seen as betrayal of gun owners by an old house of the gun industry (S&W). Not only is the IL completely superfluous on a modern DA revolver, but its mere presence is also a constant reminder that S&W caved.
S&W paid the price for this betrayal and the value of the company plummeted. About a year after that deal with the devil, S&W was forced to sell out at a tremendous loss. S&W has made a decent comeback. They’ve expanded their product line and revolver sales likely don’t make up the bulk of their profits these days.
As for why the IL remains – it’s not civil liability, it’s public image. S&W is simply fearful that they will suffer a public relations firestorm if they remove a “safety device”. Avoiding vociferous wailing about hating children and producing a dangerous product is why S&W retains that useless IL.
S&W, under a different controlling group, made a deal with the devil and they are now stuck with that decision. Life is a series of decisions and decisions have consequences. Sometimes those consequences are good, and sometimes they are bad.
S&W paid the price for this betrayal and the value of the company plummeted. About a year after that deal with the devil, S&W was forced to sell out at a tremendous loss. S&W has made a decent comeback. They’ve expanded their product line and revolver sales likely don’t make up the bulk of their profits these days.
As for why the IL remains – it’s not civil liability, it’s public image. S&W is simply fearful that they will suffer a public relations firestorm if they remove a “safety device”. Avoiding vociferous wailing about hating children and producing a dangerous product is why S&W retains that useless IL.
S&W, under a different controlling group, made a deal with the devil and they are now stuck with that decision. Life is a series of decisions and decisions have consequences. Sometimes those consequences are good, and sometimes they are bad.