What is it with S&W...

CZ93X62

CZ93X62

Official forum enigma
My late-1970s-vintage S&W Mode 25-2 had a 6-groove barrel. I remember this because it was the first barrel that I ever slugged in my life. Right on the dot at .451". What a shame that the throats ran .455"-,456". I messed about with that thing for close to a year--got nowhere--and down the road it went. A Colt Government Model was much easier to deal with, and it you cast the #452374s with hard enough metal it would feed reliably. It was from this experience that my 'Default Bullet Alloy' was born--half unalloyed lead, half Linotype. I later learned that I was hardly alone in this discovery. It can be a good thing to crawl out from under one's rock from time to time.

My Model 625 (the variant with 4" barrel and Castro District OEM grips) shoots VERY well with castings sized .452" --weights from 200 to 265 grains have been tried, and the gun is STONE ACCURATE. It lays my old duty load (WWB 230 HPs) one atop the other at 15 yards, too. I haven't inquired how many lands and grooves its barrel has, and won't. It doesn't lead up after 200+ round cast bullet sessions--it retains accuracy throughout those sessions. That a' do!

The only aftermarket addition I have given the 625 is a set of neoprene Hogue grips. I cannot abide those OEM grips, the coloration would gag a maggot--pink, powder blue, and off-white.
 
Bret4207

Bret4207

At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
Ian said:
Groove diameter in a revolver is a useless statistic anyway, never needed it. Size your bullets to the throat diameter, check for thread choke with a flashlight or pin gauges, and if the barrel doesn't lead then the groove diameter is small enough.

I have a few S&W revolvers and don't like any of them, never saw what all the worship and hoopla was about. Flame on. Shot a Colt Police Positive once, now THAT was a nice revolver.
Click to expand...
I never saw the hoopla about some Colts, like the SAA. Supposed to be the "best grip" ever designed. Apologies to St Elmer, but they suck! Once again, to each their own. I have, assuming the gods that rule such things agree, 2 New Service 45's and a trio of N frame Smiths coming back to the hacienda before too long. After playing with them a while back, which one is the for sure keeper? The Browning Hi Power!!!!! ;)
 
fiver

fiver

Well-Known Member
much has been written about those colt grip shapes.
and how to deal with them properly.
chuckle.
i think most of that was this is how you shoot these guns to deal with it's recoil, not, this is how a grip should be shaped.
 
CZ93X62

CZ93X62

Official forum enigma
OK--this may be total BS, but I'll lay it out here for discussion. It kinda stands to reason, in a bass-ackwards way--but, whatever.

This has to do with the Colt SAA plow-handle grip's shape and function. This form comes from the earliest Colt single action variants--the 1836 Paterson, the Dragoon/Walker series, the Pocket series. They had the plow handle form, and its genesis was from Sam Colt hisself--the tapering form was specifically designed so that upon firing the revolver rolled up in the hand. This was done so that the barrel was held aloft. enabling percussion cap fragments to fall free of the hammer well more readily and not jam up cylinder rotation when the arm was recocked.

I can get along OK with the plow handles until about 357 Magnum recoil levels--then I want a Bisley grip. My Ruger S/A 357, 44, and 45 Colt variants are all Bisley-gripped. My 1906-made Colt SA x 4.75" in 32/20 is also a Bisley grip form. I have big paws that get along well with those wide-bodied handle patterns.

ETA--'What is it about S&W?' I have no idea. The company just does weird, offbeat things. They are NOTORIOUS for putting too much cartridge in too little platform--e.g., the K-frame 357 Magnums. They got even more ridiculous c.1990 when they started chambering J-frames in 357 Magnum. It took them 45 years to finally get their own 357 Magnum right--the L-frame series.

In short, 5 lands & grooves in their barrels is far from their worst idea. I am glad that S&W builds firearms rather than specialize in dentistry--because that lot would likely extract teeth via the anal vent, knowing their tendencies.
 
Last edited:
D

Dusty Bannister

Well-Known Member
Maybe you could consider that many times the handgun is carried a lot and only shot a little. The carry gun usually is small for less weight for extended carry. Being small and light, many will just load performance 38 special and not the magnum. But there are those that are capable of handling the full potential of the 357 magnum.

This might make the K frame a better choice for those that will never wear out a firearm in their life. But for others, it would be a waste of money better spent for a heavier built gun to deal with the extensive use expected.

Most of us urban dwellers do not need to be prepared to shoot a bear.
 
Matt_G

Matt_G

Curmudgeon in training
Allen, I always enjoy your posts.
You make me laugh.
I didn't know they had ever chambered a J-frame in 357.
Just shaking my head at that one...
 
Bret4207

Bret4207

At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
They made a gorgeous little J frame with a 5 or 6" barrel and target sights in 38 Spec...for about 11 seconds! I saw exactly one., handled it, got it all covered in drool and didn't have the $350.00 to buy it. Yeah. $350.00 and it came with a nice holster. The things you regret!

I know the K frame 357's are supposed to be "carried a lot and shot little" with full house mags, but my 19 is the last of maybe 3 handguns I would ever part with. Using 38's that are sort of 38/44 level or a bit below and she's doing very nicely. But every now and then some 357M stuff goes down range!

Actually I have a barrel of I think 8 gallons full of once fired 38 Spec brass. I also have a progressive press that's new in the box and the idea of loading most of that brass up with a mid range load and something like the 358477 appeals to me. It would work in my Smiths and my Colt Officers Model. Will I ever get around to it? Hope so!
 
Last edited:
P

Petrol & Powder

Well-Known Member
There is a strong force that persuades people to seek explanations for what other people have done. This may be due to the fact that motive helps to add logic where logic is not apparent. People desperately want there to be a motive, so they look very hard to find a motive.

I don’t know why Colt used the plow handle shape on his single action revolvers. It could have been for some entirely practical reason such as the ones others have listed (helps the gun recoil in the hand to position the hammer for ease of re-cocking, It helps spent caps fall away, it is designed to mitigate recoil, etc.) Those explanations may in fact be valid.

OR – Maybe Sam Colt just liked the way it looked!

There’s a clear pattern to the shape of the old single action Colt revolvers. The 1851 Navy had a grip that was similar to earlier models and was well liked and duplicated on the 1873 SSA. Maybe there was some practical reason for that form. Maybe it just sold well, or buyers became accustomed to that form and expected it. However, there’s another possibility that can’t be simply dismissed – perhaps that was just what Colt wanted and he had no reason beyond aesthetics. We may never know.

This desire to know motive is so strong that the desire can be, and often is, exploited. There isn’t a criminal defense attorney on this planet that will avoid mentioning the lack of motive in a case where the motive is murky or unknown. The argument will sound like this, “Why would my client steal? He has plenty of money. There was no REASON for him to commit the crime. The Government can’t tell you WHY he did it! It doesn’t make sense!”. This of course avoids the tricky and uncomfortable fact that the crime doesn’t need to make sense. Motive is not an element the government needs to prove in a larceny case. But the defense attorney knows that people WANT a motive. He is hoping the jury will needlessly focus on the lack of a motive.

I’ll flip it around the other way. You’re walking to your car in a parking lot late at night. A man with an axe is running towards you screaming he’s going cut your head off. He’s about 15 feet away and closing fast. Do you need to resolve what his motive is before you use deadly force?
 
Last edited:
RicinYakima

RicinYakima

High Steppes of Eastern Washington
P&P,

What you say is logical but is it reasonable? First, Samuel Colt of left handed; otherwise all the controls would work for a right handed person without the revolver leaving the right hand. Style and pretty sold in 1840 and especially sells today! You ever looked at the new 1911s being shilled on the internet.

You are correct in that making sense doesn't count. Will it sell and makes us money.

Ric
 
L Ross

L Ross

Well-Known Member
1860 Army feels like, I dunno, sensual? I can point shoot, and shoot thrown targets with an 1860. But how about anyone with a different hand shape, finger length, finger diameter? It may indeed suck canal water.

I am happier than a pig in a wallow that I picked up a Pietta 1860 clone. It has been defarbed and looks just like an old original and is slicker'n than pike slime on a door knob. The man I bought it from kept it in his bedroom dresser drawer. It had been loaded for two years and it went off instantly when I shot it. Can you just imagine coming up against a BP loaded revolver in the hands of a determined foe? Holy Hannah, the blast, the flame, the stench, the flying embers, the velocity of a 140 grain round ball propelled by 28 grains of 3 fg. A hand full of hell, is the best description I can muster.
I built a Dallas Stodenmire belly gun out of an 1860 with an 1851 grip frame. Cut off without a a rammer. I wish I still owned it. That is an amazing little beast. Can't you just imagine a smoldering sack coat? The smell of BP, burning wool, and burnt pork. I think I need to get it back.
 
Last edited:
Rick H

Rick H

Well-Known Member
L Ross said:
1860 Army feels like, I dunno, sensual?
Click to expand...

I just picked up a Pietta 1851 Navy. I am in the process of going through the action, cleaning it up and getting it ready to fire. Let me say as a rule I don't like revolvers with long barrels. 4-5" double action revolvers are my sweet spot. That said this 7 1/2" barreled beauty feels great. I'm going to open up the hammer notch for my old eyes, and lower it some too to try to get the thing to print closer to point of aim at 25 yds than 75 yds as they were designed.
Fun project, making leather for it right now.
 
L Ross

L Ross

Well-Known Member
Rick H said:
I just picked up a Pietta 1851 Navy. I am in the process of going through the action, cleaning it up and getting it ready to fire. Let me say as a rule I don't like revolvers with long barrels. 4-5" double action revolvers are my sweet spot. That said this 7 1/2" barreled beauty feels great. I'm going to open up the hammer notch for my old eyes, and lower it some too to try to get the thing to print closer to point of aim at 25 yds than 75 yds as they were designed.
Fun project, making leather for it right now.
Click to expand...
Big Goose, the highly knowledgeable shooter and talented craftsman that he is, added some coin silver to the 1860's front sight and dialed it in at 25 yards. What frankly amazes me is how well the hammer notch rear sights work! I had a couple of cloned Richard Mason cartridge conversions. Both shot well, but one was perfect, I used to cut playing cards with it at 10 paces when provoked.
 
P

Petrol & Powder

Well-Known Member
Nicely done, Rick.

I'm not much for single action revolvers, (I don't hate them, I just gravitate to DA revolvers) but I've always felt the 1851 Colt Navy was about the perfect form of a SA revolver.
 
Bret4207

Bret4207

At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
I have what I think is an 1851 Navy, never shot it yet. The grip is tiny IMO, far too small for my hands. Am I alone in this take?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.