[Ascot500]

At least in the J & K sizes I have noticed that they have changed the curve of the frame from the rear sight down to the grip transition.
The metal under the sight has also become thicker which I guess makes the frame stronger, but it also makes the gun a whole lot more clunky looking.
The new metal tends to conceal more of the previously gracefully curved hammer.

Guess that will make older Smiths even more desirable.

[unspellable]

One wonders. That area is not one of the weak points in the S&W design. It amazws me how they change this and that where no one wants the changes but never change what everybody does want changed.

[Old Fuff]

You are right, they did change the frame to make the area behing the cartridge head stronger. You can't have ultra-lightweight revolvers using cartridges like the .357 Magnum without doing something. I much prefer the older look (and the older guns) but don't use much ++++++P ammunition in them.

S&W can't win ...

[unspellable]

The principal weak point in the S&W has been using the tail of the yoke cylinder to restrict forward movement of the main cylinder. The tail of the yoke cylinder has a very small amount of bearing surface. This tends to peen down and also produce a groove in the bottom of the main cylinder well. This is aggrevated by a rough finish in the bottom of the cylinder well. Presto digito! You have end shake and have to start putting in shims. (Assuming the revolver did not come out of the box with excess end shake.)

This admits to a relatively easy fix, but S&W has never seen fit to do so. All you would have to do is emulate Colt or the Ruger single action where the cylinder neck bears against the frame to limit the cylinder's forward movement. There is a much larger bearing surface there. That's the real secret behind the Blackhawk taking level II 45 Colt loads while the S&W won't. It's not a question of pressure or cylinder walls at all.

The second weak point in the K frame at least, was too little metal in the forcing cone area, especially at the bottom. This was the point that brought about the L frame.

But I've never heard of the recoil shield being too weak. Adding metal in the area of the hammer slot wouldn't beef it up all that much either. I wonder if the extra metal is to hide the scuffed look the hammer gets from rubbing on the sides of the slot.

[Old Fuff]

Generally speaking you are right about the end shake problem.

However the breech face area takes a direct pounding from the cartridge head, and over time can cause the frame to warp and the revolver to loosen up - - if you combine a lightweight frame, thin topstrap, and ultra-hot loads. One reason for Ruger's excellent reputation for standing up to heavy loads has too do with the way the frame was designed (no sideplate) combined with a very heavy topstrap.

Yes, I am sure they were trying to hide the ugly cosmetics of the MIM hammer, but they probably could have worked around this by making a slight change in the hammer if they wanted to keep the old frame's profile. Obviously they didn't.

I think that Taurus has done somewhat the same thing, for the same reasons. Other then the hammer's spur you can't see much of the rest of its profile because of the way the frame's been beefed up..

[jaybar]

I'll wager that the new profile is at least partially a result of the frame mounted firing pin in the new guns. That little rascal requires about 1/4" more distance between the hammer face and the recoil shield to function. The frame mounted firing pin is held in place by a transverse pin that is correspondingly held in place by the side plate. The side plate had to be made bigger to cover the pin. And don't forget about the little safety lock mechanism that fits into the left side of the frame - it is completely enclosed within the new profile. I'm going to bet that increased strength wasn't a primary factory in the design of the new profile.

[GaryP]

The new metal tends to conceal more of the previously gracefully curved hammer.

Guess that will make older Smiths even more desirable.

Well, I guess it comes down to Looks or Durability, but I prefer the older Smith's and keep them happy by feeding them standard loads; no +p or +P+!
Mine have already lasted 1 lifetime and are sharing their Second Lifetime with me and most likely will share their Third Lifetime with my son when I Croak, and yes, all my Smith's are Shooters. :)



:evil:

[Ascot500]

Hmmm, regardless of the logic, I still think it's bud tugley.

[unspellable]

I have a 29-9 with a friing pin but no lock. I'll have to take a look at it tonight and see if the firng pin accounts for anything.

The "stretched frame" is usually a case of end shake due to the yoke tail cylinder problem. The mechanical engneers around here all tell me a piece of metal subjected to repeated impulse loads will not permanently stretch until just before total failure.

As for frame stress consider the following. I saw a demonstration with an N frame 357 in which the first chamber was fired with a flat ground on the side of it. The second chamber was fired with a slot cut in it from the rear to the midpoint. (Puts the lie to the bolt notch weakening the cylinder.) So far so good, amazing performance on the part of the cylinder but nothing out of the ordinary for the frame. The third chamber was fired into a barrel with NO BORE! That one put a bit of stress on the frame. But everything stayed together and no stretched frame!

[Krag]

Oh my God! It must be another plot S&W has cooked up with the BATF to make our guns detechtable by sensors in those low flying black heliocopters! I'll never buy a S&W ever again!!! :rolleyes:

[unspellable]

The black helicopters have been proven to be a myth from the paranoid crackpot conspiracy theorist element. The real ones carrying out the clandestine government plots are dark green.

[JERRY]

all this time i thought it was for the "new" lock they incorporated.......