The UN-Shrouded Ejector Rod


PDA






Fleetwood_Captain
March 19, 2010, 03:23 AM
One thing I've noticed about a lot of older hand-ejector revolvers is the lack of a shrouded ejector rod.

Considering that people back then tended to be more utilitarian when it came to purchasing a firearm, the lack of a shroud to protect the ejector seems a little counter-productive.

Are there any advantages to having an unshrouded ejector on a revolver?

If you enjoyed reading about "The UN-Shrouded Ejector Rod" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
scratcherky
March 19, 2010, 10:09 AM
Less weight.

sheephearder
March 19, 2010, 12:05 PM
I have read that S&W's sale to England in WWI the British required the shroud be dropped for fear that the mud in the trenches would be a problem. Also the cost of making the gun with out the shroud would be a little less.

Old Fuff
March 19, 2010, 12:31 PM
It's rather hard to bend an un-shrouded S&W ejector rod because it's latched at the front. Colt rods weren't but it hard to strike the rod because the barrel's larger diameter tends to protect it. Smith & Wesson introduced the shroud on their first .44 Special Military model (also known as the "triple lock") because some of the third lock's parts were in the shroud and not because it was necessary to protect the rod. Later it became a style feature on target model N-frame revolvers and Magnums although the third lock had been discontinued.

Hardballing
March 19, 2010, 12:51 PM
What Old Fluff said.

RevolvingGarbage
March 19, 2010, 01:05 PM
With an unshrouded ejector rod, if your cylinder release falls/breaks off, you can pull the ejector rod forward to release the cylinder for reloading.

rcmodel
March 19, 2010, 04:23 PM
The main criticism of the shrouded ejector rod was dirt & mud getting in it and preventing closing.

On the other hand, cops back in the day were known to use their revolvers to whack people over the head with, so the shroud protected it from getting bent when used as a club.

Off all the things that can go wrong with S&W revolvers, an inoperative cylinder release is about at the bottom of the list.
You can still open the cylinder if the thumb piece is lost because the screw stud is still there. The release itself hardly ever never fails.

rc

SaxonPig
March 19, 2010, 05:12 PM
What I have heard is that the Brits hated the shroud (and extra cost of Triple Lock feature) so the 2nd Model was made without the shroud or extra lock.

Cops like the shroud (good for banging heads, I guess) and the 1926 44 Special brought back this feature. It continued on the 38/44 Heavy Duty and Outdoorsman.

In 1935 the 357 Magnum was introduced and the shroud was touted as a deluxe feature. No mention of real usefulness, just deluxe. While many N frames have the shroud, off the top of my head only the 19 (66) and 53 come to mind as K frames that have shrouded rods before the 1980s.

Oh, just remembered the Model 68, a stainless K frame 38 with a 6" barrel and a shrouded ejector. Special order item for the CHP with around 6,000 made.

Many have speculated that the free-standing rods on early Colts were vulnerable to bending but nobody seems to have actually experienced this.

RevolvingGarbage
March 20, 2010, 02:23 AM
Off all the things that can go wrong with S&W revolvers, an inoperative cylinder release is about at the bottom of the list.
You can still open the cylinder if the thumb piece is lost because the screw stud is still there. The release itself hardly ever never fails.

rc

True, but not everyone has a fancy shmancy S&W to work with!

In this pic you see my "replacement" cylinder release I put on the gun after I got it,
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/5743/1022528.jpg

And in this one its missing, having jumped ship while I was shooting the gun in the woods recently.
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/8981/1043077.jpg

Im sure glad my RG has an unshrouded rod or else id be poking a screwdriver in through the frame to reload!

Oro
March 20, 2010, 02:50 AM
I have read that S&W's sale to England in WWI the British required the shroud be dropped for fear that the mud in the trenches would be a problem.

You know, I've read that for years. And it just smacks of an excuse repeated until it has the ring of authenticity. I've got several shrouded N frames, and I've also got an unshrouded .455 Hand Ejector (aka, "2nd Model") from WWI. The "reliability" aspect just doesn't pass the smell test once you've used these enough and in the woods and regular use. The shroud affecting reliability is just a non-starter in my book.

I suspect the real reason was what you said next, that it was purely a cost-saving manuever and the "reliability" angle was just a face-saving statement. Remember, during WWI, armaments were a strictly cash-and-carry proposition. There were no US subsidies, lend-lease program, etc. That was the the reason for the onerous reparations clauses the British and French forced on the Jerries at Versaille. And we all know what that led to... :eek:

lawandorder
March 20, 2010, 10:42 AM
Like Doc P. said it was a cost saving move. Supposedly S&W saved $2.00 a unit by dropping the enclosed ejector rod when they moved from the first model HE to the second model HE.

Public desire, led by a gun shop who was willing to put their $ up front brought the enclosed ejector rod back on the third model HE, also know as the "Wolf & Klar" model in honor of the Fort Worth, Texas gun shop who placed a pre production order for a substantial quantity of the the third models.

Old Fuff
March 20, 2010, 11:30 AM
In 1914 the British entered what became World War One, and quickly contacted Smith & Wesson to see if they could provide then with revolvers chambered to use the .455 Mark II cartridge. The company responded that they could, based on the current .44 Hand Ejector, 1st. Model (popularly known as the triple-lock). With their reply they submitted a sample. The British military said that (1) the supplied sample was too heavy, and (2) they were afraid mud or other fouling might cause the ejector rod and/or mechanism in the heavy underlug to jam.

Smith & Wesson engineers solved both issues (or potential issues) by going to the barrel style used on the Military & Police model, but pointed out there would be a delay in shipments because of the time required to tool up and make new barrels. As the embattled Brits. needed revolvers quickly it was agreed they’d take guns made like the original sample until the newer design could be produced. Deliveries of the “improved” revolver started in June 1915.

(According to Roy Jinks).

Billy Shears
March 20, 2010, 03:08 PM
Whether or not the ejector rod is shrouded or unshrouded, it's next to impossible to bend it while the cylinder is closed. The barrel itself acts as quite an effective guard, and steel of the ejector rod has enough spring in it that when the cylinder is closed, you really can't bend it far enough to induce a permanent bend, because it will hit the barrel before it's bent beyond the point where it would take on a permanent bend. Remember, Colt made unshrouded efector rods from the 1890s to the 1950s, and if this sort of thing had been a problem they would have corrected it long before then.

According to premier revolver smith Grant Cunningham, however, you do manage to bend it far enough while the cylinder is open (which again would probably happen with the cylinder open), you are actually more likely to get functioning problems with the S&W, because the front end bears against the pin that locks to the cylinder at the front. If the rod is bent out of position too far, there can be enough friction to prevent the cylinder turning freely. A Colt's rod, with the forward end floating free as it does, has to bend a lot further before it ties up the rotation of the cylinder.

Guillermo
March 20, 2010, 04:44 PM
We had this discussion a while back and some knowledgeable folks like the Fuffster and possibly Saxon, Oro and others were bantering about.

They explained a lot about how the exposed ejector is not a problem. After a lot of discussion they changed my mind. I now agree with them and believe that unless you like the extra muzzle weight of the shroud, let your rod be naked.

Rexster
March 20, 2010, 07:00 PM
RevolvingGarbage: "With an unshrouded ejector rod, if your cylinder release falls/breaks off, you can pull the ejector rod forward to release the cylinder for reloading."

This is true of some revolvers, but not all, and not the S&W.

tipoc
March 20, 2010, 07:45 PM
During the decades that Colt and S&W battled it out for dominance of the revolver market both companies used a good bit of "negative advertising" against the other. One of S&W's knocks against Colt was that the ejector rods on their guns were more prone to damage than S&W's because they had no front locking lug or were un-shrouded. Colt pointed out that on their snubbies the naked ejector rod had a longer stroke allowing for more positive ejection.

A bent ejector rod (not too common a problem but if the gun is dropped, stepped on, banged, etc.) can tie up a S&W more readily than it will tie up a Colt.

Well known British author Geoffrey Boothroyd in his book "The Handgun" mentions that the British in WWI and WWII preferred the Colt New Service over the S&W N frames. This opinion covered both the shrouded S&W Triple Lock and the unshrouded 1917. The S&Ws were considered too light weight and prone to being put out of action in the mud of the trenches. The heavier New Service was favored. The shroud would become a collecting point for dirt and mud. The M1917 had no shroud but was still lighter in weight and more delicate a gun than the New Service.

Mostly I think the shroud provides a bit more weight up front and it looks good. The M1917, the M10, the M13 and many other service sidearms had no shroud. At the same time the M28, M19 and many others did have a shroud. So, I submit the presence or absence of the shroud has not so much to do with utility in police work than it does looks. For the military the exposed rod seems to have been preferred.

tipoc

RevolvingGarbage
March 20, 2010, 09:54 PM
RevolvingGarbage: "With an unshrouded ejector rod, if your cylinder release falls/breaks off, you can pull the ejector rod forward to release the cylinder for reloading."

This is true of some revolvers, but not all, and not the S&W.

Ah, so I guess I dont know everything then...;)

Does anyone happen to know what, if any other revolvers this does work with?

Guillermo
March 20, 2010, 10:37 PM
I guess I dont know everything then

these guys have shown me the same thing on more than one occasion

humbling

Old Fuff
March 21, 2010, 01:34 AM
Does anyone happen to know what, if any other revolvers this does work with?

Charter Arms (that don't have the ejector rod shrouded) and Hi-Standard to name two...

unspellable
March 21, 2010, 09:01 AM
In regard to the mud in the shroud thing, remember that we are talking about the Triple Lock. It wasn't just simply mud in the shroud as it would be with latter day S&Ws, but mud in the little bits that went into the third latch.

For a long time I had never seen a Triple Lock in the flesh or an illustration of the third latch itself. In more recent times I've had the chance to see a Triple Lock in the flesh. The third latch is quite intricate, there are more modern designs for latching at the crane that are much simpler to produce and probably less likely to jam do to fouling with what ever crud comes to hand.

I have a late production S&W M29 with a ball and detent as a third latch. It locates the crane quite nicely and is far simpler to produce.

Old Fuff
March 21, 2010, 10:38 AM
I have a late production S&W M29 with a ball and detent as a third latch. It locates the crane quite nicely and is far simpler to produce.

At the time Smith and Wesson was more concerned about making the best possible revolver, and the Triple Lock had a number of "nice but not necessary" features, the third positive mechanical lock being just one of them. The fitting of the lock was very precise, because precision fitting of their products was a S&W hallmark. Unfortunately they soon found that they couldn't compeat in the marketplace against others that didn't come up to their standards of excellence. Today "best quality" often takes a back seat to "far simpler to produce." :(

Billy Shears
March 21, 2010, 01:44 PM
At the time Smith and Wesson was more concerned about making the best possible revolver, and the Triple Lock had a number of "nice but not necessary" features, the third positive mechanical lock being just one of them. The fitting of the lock was very precise, because precision fitting of their products was a S&W hallmark. Unfortunately they soon found that they couldn't compeat in the marketplace against others that didn't come up to their standards of excellence. Today "best quality" often takes a back seat to "far simpler to produce."
It's always been that way. That's part of why the superb Remington Model 51 died in the marketplace, competing against the excellent Colt Model M. The Remington was a wonderful little gun, but it's unique mechanism was unnecessarily complicated for the cartridge it fired. It allowed the slide to be lighter, and so resulted in a smaller, sleeker pistol. But that feature wasn't worth the extra cost to most people.

Superb craftsmanship and lots of hand-fitting costs money. That's why a Rolls Royce or an Aston Martin costs what it does. Every product has to find its niche in the marketplace. Products that are literally the best of the best, but which have a price to reflect this, frequently can't compete against something else that's also excellent in its own right, but not so perfectly finished to the nth degree, because the good-enough product costs a lot less, and while the extra finish and all the bells and whistles might be nice to have, most people just can't afford, or aren't willing to pay the extra price that goes along with them.

Oro
March 21, 2010, 01:49 PM
I have a late production S&W M29 with a ball and detent as a third latch. It locates the crane quite nicely and is far simpler to produce.

I don't think that's a "production" feature, but rather an aftermarket addition.

This opinion covered both the shrouded S&W Triple Lock and the unshrouded 1917. The S&Ws were considered too light weight and prone to being put out of action in the mud of the trenches.

That Mr. Boothroyd certainly had some odd opinions. "Too delicate" is not how I'd characterize the .455 Hand Ejector. Time for a photo of one:

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd275/kamerer/S-W/455%20HE/IMGP3202-2.jpg

Guillermo
March 21, 2010, 02:43 PM
"Too delicate" is not how I'd characterize the .455 Hand Ejector

not sure what it is but Boothroyd sounds like a man with an agenda

Anyone new following this thread needs to know that Oro is a very knowledgeable fellow and one of the folks whose word you can take to the bank (Old Fuff is another). His opinion is a lot more valuable than that of some limey author

gunnie
March 21, 2010, 03:20 PM
..."not sure what it is but Boothroyd sounds like a man with an agenda"...

obviously compared to the ROBUST webley. another DELICATE revolver design that S&W pioneered.

gunnie

Billy Shears
March 21, 2010, 04:17 PM
Anyone new following this thread needs to know that Oro is a very knowledgeable fellow and one of the folks whose word you can take to the bank (Old Fuff is another). His opinion is a lot more valuable than that of some limey author
Mr. Boothroyd was author of several published works on the history of firearms, regular contributor to a large number of magazines and specialist publications during his lifetime, a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland and member of the Arms and Armour Society, and was certified as an expert witness in the British courts. He was also the one who persuaded Ian Fleming to change James Bond's armament from the pipsqueak Beretta .25 that Fleming originally armed him with, and became the basis for the character "Q." He was more than just "some limey author" and his opinion carries a great deal of weight as well.

Glock Holiday
March 21, 2010, 05:51 PM
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x42/Glockholiday/ColtDSr.jpg
My 1969 Colt second generation detective special with an un-shrouded Ejector Rod.
Colt produced this shroud less model from around 1927 until 1972.

Guillermo
March 21, 2010, 07:11 PM
He was more than just "some limey author" and his opinion carries a great deal of weight as well.

If the opinion attributed to him here is accurate, he had a skewed opinion of the firearms that we were discussing.

As to why he expressed that the Smiths were delicate I cannot say. National pride? Take out of context? He was paid by a competing manufacturer?


On this one I am a proponent of the gold standard.



(for those without an inkling of Spanish, "Oro" means "gold")

unspellable
March 21, 2010, 07:26 PM
<<<
Quote:
Originally Posted by unspellable
I have a late production S&W M29 with a ball and detent as a third latch. It locates the crane quite nicely and is far simpler to produce.

I don't think that's a "production" feature, but rather an aftermarket addition.
>>>

Nope. It's a standard production feature on more than one model of S&W. In my case it's a Model 29-9. The ball is on the front of the crane. The second latch at the front of the shroud is absent.

On the aftermarket mods I've seen, the ball has been on top of the crane and the second latch is still present..

Billy Shears
March 21, 2010, 07:49 PM
If the opinion attributed to him here is accurate, he had a skewed opinion of the firearms that we were discussing.

As to why he expressed that the Smiths were delicate I cannot say. National pride? Take out of context? He was paid by a competing manufacturer?
His opinion may not have been skewed, it may be based on some experience, who can say? The British bought of lot of Colt and S&W revolvers during WWI, and some of those were triple locks, which did have very finely made mechanisms, especially as regards the cylinder lock up. All it would have taken was a couple of instance of one malfunctioning in the trenches for word to get around. After all, the more intricate a mechanism is, the more liable it is to get out of order, and conditions in the trenches of WWI were far harsher than most handguns will ever see. A problem needn't even be a common one to have this happen. Let it happen even just a few times and word of mouth may put it around.

And his opinion of Webley revolvers isn't simply a matter of national pride. Webleys were robust. True the frames and cylinders wouldn't handle most modern full power cartridges, but it didn't need to be; the .455 Webley round fired a big heavy bullet at the sedate velocity of 650 fps. The Webleys were more than strong enough to handle this cartridge, and the lockwork had a reputation for being very rugged and standing up to even the harshest treatment.

So Boothroyd's comment may not be "skewed" at all when you look at it in that context.

Guillermo
March 21, 2010, 07:57 PM
Billy, I will admit that context is often everything. With that in mind I will reserve judgement until I read what he had to say in context.

I remember watching a movie clip, do not remember the name of the movie. The guy is saying in a high incredulous voice "I killed Vinny? I killed Vinny? I killed Vinny?" (or whoever)

The just then asked the court reporter to read the transcript which read "I killed Vinny, I killed Vinny, I killed Vinny."

Old Fuff
March 21, 2010, 08:22 PM
Mr. Boothroyd indeed was more than just "some limey author" and his opinion carries a great deal of weight in some quarters, but it doesn't change history.

In the Summer of 1914 the British sent S&W a hurry-up order for hand ejector revolvers chambered to use their .455 service cartridge. S&W said O.K., but they would have to build them on a .44 Triple Lock platrorm, and submitted a sample. The Brits. said that the sample was too heavy, not too light, and they were worried about getting mud into the 3rd. lock asembly. However given the war emergency they would accept the Triple Locks until a new lockless barrel could be designed, tooled and put into production.

So in the intrem they got (and issued) some 5000 Triple Lock revolvers. Following this S&W made an additional 69,754 revolvers with no lock and no oversized underlug. The first 5000 apparently served well because they were not withdrawn from service. Those that were still in inventory and serviceable were reissued in 1940 and used during the Second War until enough .38 Enfield, Webley, Smith & Wesson and Colt revolvers were obtained to meet current needs.

A similar revolver, chambered in .45 ACP, with a 1" shorter barrel was used by the U.S. Army during the First World War, under the same conditions that the English were facing. They also had no problems with them being too delicate, and they were reissued during the Second War.

Boothroyd has a right to his opinion, but it doesn't reflect what really happened.

Guillermo
March 21, 2010, 08:29 PM
Boothroyd has a right to his opinion, but it doesn't reflect what really happened.

Old Fuff has spoken...might as well shut down the thread

gunnie
March 21, 2010, 09:19 PM
..."And his opinion of Webley revolvers isn't simply a matter of national pride. Webleys were robust. True the frames and cylinders wouldn't handle most modern full power cartridges, but it didn't need to be; the .455 Webley round fired a big heavy bullet at the sedate velocity of 650 fps. The Webleys were more than strong enough to handle this cartridge, and the lockwork had a reputation for being very rugged and standing up to even the harshest treatment."...

not trying to start a rant. i think you missed my point. if you change out "webley" for "schofield" in your posting, i think you'll see what i mean. the schofield was used by the army as late as the spanish american war, and the phillipine insurection. they were issued in 1875...

i own a delicate S&W new century "triple lock". the frame dates almost a century ago. it still shoots .45 (long) colt standard velocity ammunition without problems...

..."The S&Ws were considered too light weight and prone to being put out of action in the mud of the trenches. The heavier New Service was favored. "...

i think the above mentioned colts were excellent revolvers also. but how exactly would a heavier frame prevent contamination?

gunnie

Billy Shears
March 21, 2010, 10:26 PM
..."And his opinion of Webley revolvers isn't simply a matter of national pride. Webleys were robust. True the frames and cylinders wouldn't handle most modern full power cartridges, but it didn't need to be; the .455 Webley round fired a big heavy bullet at the sedate velocity of 650 fps. The Webleys were more than strong enough to handle this cartridge, and the lockwork had a reputation for being very rugged and standing up to even the harshest treatment."...

not trying to start a rant. i think you missed my point. if you change out "webley" for "schofield" in your posting, i think you'll see what i mean. the schofield was used by the army as late as the spanish american war, and the phillipine insurection. they were issued in 1875...

i own a delicate S&W new century "triple lock". the frame dates almost a century ago. it still shoots .45 (long) colt standard velocity ammunition without problems...

..."The S&Ws were considered too light weight and prone to being put out of action in the mud of the trenches. The heavier New Service was favored. "...

i think the above mentioned colts were excellent revolvers also. but how exactly would a heavier frame prevent contamination?
It doesn't, but a lot of what people "know" about guns is simply perception, and may not reflect reality 100%. Take another example: the supposed impetus behind the 1911 and the .45ACP. Story goes that the .38 Colt was found so lacking in stopping power against the Moros, that old .45 SAAs were brought out of inventory, and cured the problem. Except that's not quite true. It is true that .38 experienced failures to stop against the Moros. But then again, so did the .45 SAAs, and so, for that matter, did the .30-40 Krag rifles (Reportedly Winchester 1897s did well though). But the perception that the .38 was almost totally ineffective, and the .45, when used in it's place "knocked the Moros clean off their feet" became established. It's more perception than reality, and this perception was probably born out of the feeling among the troops that the .38 was vastly inferior to the old .45 cartridge, and never should have been adopted. So, the troops "remembered" things according to their preconceived ideas.

I can see something of the same sort happening with the Triple Lock among the British. British troops used to the heavy, chunky, industrial-ugly Webley, and quite satisfied with its performance see this beatiful, sleek, shiny S&W, with its slender, gracile lines, and multiplicity of finely made parts, and figure it just can't be as rugged. It's just too finely made. And so they become hypersensitive to any hiccup under service conditions, and may even predict problems that never happen. They then "remember" that the S&W was just not us rugged and durable -- especially if they were long-serving professional officers, and later saw a problem [admittedly an easily corrected one] materialize that I have read about in more than one source relating British experience with the weapons: some S&W revolver mainsprings taking on enough of a set, or weakening after many years of service, or even simply getting out of adjustment, so that it doesn't ignite the primer every time, which never seemed to happen in civilian service, but British military ammo had harder than usual primers, and demanded a harder strike. If they then saw anything like this happen, even years later, it could confirm a preconceived bias. And so, in British military circles, the S&W acquires a basically undeserved reputation for being too delicate.

And then along comes Mr. Boothroyd many years later, who wasn't born early enough to serve during WWI, but was born early enough to have become acquainted with men who had served in the trenches. They relate their experiences, and he reports them, not suspecting that what he's listening to is their biases, and slightly distorted memories speaking, rather than hard facts.

Billy Shears
March 21, 2010, 10:27 PM
Whoops! Double post.

Guillermo
March 21, 2010, 10:50 PM
he reports them, not suspecting that what he's listening to is their biases, and slightly distorted memories speaking, rather than hard facts.

it sounds like you are saying that he is wrong and explaining why such is the case while defending him.

BTW, thank you for your posts, I am truly enjoying the discussion and learning a lot

Billy Shears
March 21, 2010, 11:11 PM
it sounds like you are saying that he is wrong and explaining why such is the case while defending him.
Not precisely. I think he was accurately relating what the British perception of the revolver was. Like it or not, somehow the S&W acquired that reputation in British service; there had to be some reason for it. But given the generally sterling reputation of the S&W, I'm offering one possible explanation for why that reputation is not consistent with other people's experience. But it's only a possible explanation. Again, WWI was one of the most horrific wars ever. The British death toll during the war was twice that of WWII, and the environment of the trenches was one of the most hostile in human experience. It really is possible that an environment that harsh revealed defects which went unrevealed by a century of service in police holsters and elsewhere, and that there were some failures of the weapon under those conditions. Without specific incidents, however, we'll never know.

Guillermo
March 21, 2010, 11:22 PM
I think he was accurately relating what the British perception of the revolver was

so you are saying that he was reporting the British perception rather than his own opinion that the Smith was "delicate"

I must have misunderstood from the beginning.

While I am sorry for not paying closer attention from the beginning I certainly have learned a lot from the misunderstanding.

Dave/hoff
March 22, 2010, 12:07 AM
A return to civility at the High Road.

I hope that thousands here will read this thread and learn how a really "High Road" conversation is engaged.

I would offer commendation, but for me to congratulate you gentlemen on just being gentlemen is not necessary. However, thanks are extended.

Guillermo
March 22, 2010, 12:20 AM
Billy, Oro and Fuff are all worthy of respect.

Anytime that you perceive me being any other way you will find that my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek.

Folks like them are what make the High Road an incredible site.

I am a hitchhiker.

BullfrogKen
March 22, 2010, 12:30 AM
Conversations in the revolver section tend to have a bit less bluster than other sections of the board.

Guillermo
March 22, 2010, 12:39 AM
revolvers go round and round in an elegant way, like their owners

Autos are bottom feeding brass chuckers...

:neener:

:evil:

:D

Dave/hoff
March 22, 2010, 01:29 AM
Guillermo, I've enjoyed your posts for a while, especially your exchanges with Old Fuff. I recognize the fun you two have at each others expense.

I agree totally with your "honor roll" of posters, and would submit that rcmodel, Jim Watson, Jim Keenan, as well as yourself and a few others are also deserving a certain amount of deference.

There are others here (who shall remain nameless) whose posts I have learned to ignore.

Guillermo
March 22, 2010, 01:45 AM
I too have a great deal of respect for the posters that you mention.

And yes I like to yank Old Fuff's chain because I know that he will not take it wrong. (even though he hates vintage shotguns)

there are others too

While I appreciate you including me, I must reluctantly admit that I am not in their league

Guillermo
March 22, 2010, 02:10 AM
BTW

I would trade my single malt scotch collection for a gunsmithing and shooting lesson from Old Fuff.

The boy knows some stuff

Oyeboten
March 22, 2010, 05:43 AM
Well, of course the initial S&W 'M&P' ( 'K-Frame' ) of 1899 to 1902, had no shroud and no 'Lug' either, having a free floating Ejector Rod.

Mud or Sand or debris wise, as for a Swing-Out Cylinder Revolver, I would expect that if any foreign matter got into the area where the Crane 'Leaves' close together, it would inhibit or prevent closing and latching the Cylinder, regardless of make.

Checkman
March 30, 2010, 12:17 PM
Well as an aside I like both Smith & Wesson 455 N frames and Webley Mk VI's. I finally got hold of a 455 Hand Ejector Mk II a few months ago. (That took some horse trading) to go with my Mk VI and I am now eyeballing a British Colt Official Police in 38/200 (i.e. 38 S&W). I like those old British military issue revolvers.

Incidentally in defense of the Webley has anyone ever taken one apart and actually looked at it? Reminds me of the AK 47 in a way. Lots of empty space for things to rattle around in. Which makes perfect sense. The Brits needed a revolver that would require minimum maintenance while being carried by officers and NCO's out in the middle of nowhere Africa hundreds of miles away from the nearest supply depot. I can understand why the perception of the S&W Triple Lock was that it was delicate. Especially when compared to the Webley. Right or wrong.

Hi guys I've been gone for almost two years. It's good to be back.

420Stainless
March 30, 2010, 02:16 PM
Are there any advantages to having an unshrouded ejector on a revolver?

My favorite advantage is that many nice old Colt's were made that way. I prefer the look of shrouded models, but I love to shoot those old Colts.

tipoc
March 30, 2010, 08:57 PM
It is true that facts speak loudest.

Boothroyd spoke his opinion based on his battlefield experience and his unquestioned knowledge of English military tastes and experience.

The British, as reported by Boothroyd, preferred the Colt New Service over the S&W Triple Lock or the M1917. They considered the S&W to be a lighter weight and more delicate a gun in comparison to the New Service or the Webley. Where ever they could they got the New Service (It was the weapon of choice for the RCMP for example while Canada was still under the Queen) in preference over the S&W.

Keep in mind that the U.S. military felt the same. For a brief period just prior to the development of the 1911, the U.S. went back to revolvers in .45 Colt and ordered New Services for troops in the Philippines. It also ordered some for use in Alaska.

Now when short of guns and money in two world wars the British took and were glad to get a good many of the "delicate" M1917s and T Locks in .455. (Colt involved in producing the 1911 could not produce enough New Services (M1917) in .455 or .45acp) But it does not change the fact that the Colt New Service was and remains a more robust gun than any produced by S&W at the time. This latter is simply a fact. This is what Boothroyd was addressing.

Most all revolvers proved too "delicate" for the trenches of WWI by the way.

tipoc

If you enjoyed reading about "The UN-Shrouded Ejector Rod" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!