New S&W revolver question

[4v50 Gary]

So I recently saw a new S&W 45 AcP revolver. It had a thinner barrel much like an older production S&W. What struck me as odd is that the ejector rod shroud doesn't have a front locking bolt. OK, so they save three pieces (front locking bolt, front locking bolt spring, retention pin) and some assembly time, but why delete part of the lockup system?

Also on the older S&W revolvers the centerpin is pushed back by the front locking bolt such that the centerpin pushes back on the locking bolt (that connects to the thumbpiece/cylinder release).

Can someone explain the design changes to me?

 

[ArchAngelCD]

The manufacturer is always looking to save money without compromising quality. They don't always succeed. I would write S&W to see what they say.

 

[rcmodel]

They are using a ball detention cran lock instead of the plunger in the end of the ejector rod on some models now.

It was always considered a superior if expensive method, and used extensively on custom built match revolvers.

I imagine that is what you saw.

rc

 

[DPris]

Where did you see it?
Can you do a photo or link?
Is it on their website?

I can't see how the "crane ball" could lock the REAR of the cylinder in place.
Denis

 

[MrBorland]

They are using a ball detention cran lock instead of the plunger in the end of the ejector rod on some models now.

It was always considered a superior if expensive method, and used extensively on custom built match revolvers.

I imagine that is what you saw

rc likely nailed it. It probably uses a ball detent at the front of the yoke, in which case the locking lug under the barrel isn't used. When done correctly, a ball detent is pretty effective, and from what I've seen, S&W factory ball detents are done well.

I can't see how the "crane ball" could lock the REAR of the cylinder in place.

The ejector rod is a 2-piece design - the inner rod locks the rear of the cylinder using a spring that pushes aft against the outer rod. IOW, the locking lug under the barrel isn't what pushes the inner rod into lockup.

 

[DPris]

That would explain it.

I have the ball detent on a couple Smiths, but those still have the front-end ejector rod lockup.
Denis

 

[4v50 Gary]

D Pris - Saw it at Rob's Gun Shop in Colorado. Asking price was $750.

 

[DPris]

Thanks Gary.
Have not seen one.
Custom job?
Denis

 

[Master Blaster]

Was it marked "Performance Center" anywhere?

The ball detent on the crane is a great system and I have it on my Performance Center 627 PC revolver.

If the gun is in good shape and timing is good, $750 is a great price for an N frame Smith, especially with the ball lock up system.

BTW if you look closely at the Ball it will NOT be centered in the V cut in the bottom of the ejector shroud, that is normal and it should rest on the angled side of the V when the gun is closed.

I mention it because that has come up a a question about the ball detent before on THR.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

Nothing New Under the Sun Department:

I came across a big X frame Smith with the ball detent system mounted in the crane a couple of years ago.

This is vaguely reminiscent (not the same) as the yoke lock in the S&W 44 Hand Ejector, 1st Model, commonly referred to as the Triple Lock. This nickel plated Triple Lock shipped in 1915.






The Triple Lock was the first large caliber revolver that S&W made with a swing out cylinder. It was first cataloged in 1908, and it was chambered for the brand new 44 Special cartridge. The Triple Lock was unique in that in addition to latching the cylinder in place at the front and rear of the extractor rod, there was a third latch built into the extractor rod shroud and the yoke. The Triple Lock was also the first Smith to have an extractor shroud, the shroud was there to house the third latch mechanism.

The plunger portion of the third latch was a U shaped part. It was held in place in the shroud by two pins. There was also a small 'button', part of the shroud that protruded slightly forward of the shroud.





Here is a view of the business portion of the plunger. With the cylinder open the spring at the front of the plunger has extended both the upper and lower portions of the plunger out. Notice there is a bevel cut onto the lower portion of the plunger.





A hardened insert was fitted into the yoke. A ramp and a deep hole were machined into the insert.




The Triple Lock had a thumb piece mounted onto the side of the frame just like any other swing out cylinder Smith. Pushing the thumb piece forward disengaged all three latches, just like any other Smith. Since the yoke plunger was a single U shaped piece, when the extractor rod pushed the upper portion of the plunger forward, the bottom portion came along for the ride, disengaging the yoke lock.

When the cylinder closed, the beveled portion of the plunger rode up the ramp portion of the insert, pushing the upper portion back too. As the plunger cleared the hole, it dropped into the hole, and the upper portion of the plunger came along for the ride.

Most experts agree the third latch of the Triple Lock was completely unnecessary, S&W was simply displaying their prowess at making complicated, detailed assemblies. Triple Lock production ceased in 1915, and Smith and Wesson never built another revolver with a third latch until recently with the ball detent system, which is obviously much less expensive to build than the third latch of the Triple Lock.

When the 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model appeared in 1915, the third latch had been eliminated, along with the extractor rod shroud. The Triple Lock sold for $21, the 2nd Model without the third latch sold for $19, a significant cost savings at the time.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Thanks Driftwood. They certainly did a fine machining job around the barrel shank.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

This is vaguely reminiscent (not the same) as the yoke lock in the S&W 44 Hand Ejector, 1st Model, commonly referred to as the Triple Lock.

The difference is the Triple Lock system didn't really work (and the proof is that neither accuracy or durability suffered when they discontinued it.)

The reason is that the detent in the Triple Lock presses BACKWARD. In recoil, the detent tends to compress its spring and unlock. The ball detent presses FORWARD and locks up tighter under recoil.

(Sorry about that -- been off my medication for a couple of days.)

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The difference is the Triple Lock system didn't really work (and the proof is that neither accuracy or durability suffered when they discontinued it.)

The reason is that the detent in the Triple Lock presses BACKWARD. In recoil, the detent tends to compress its spring and unlock. The ball detent presses FORWARD and locks up tighter under recoil.

Is that something you have direct experience with? I have two of them and they both work fine. The springs are pretty stiff and I have not noticed any tendency for the third lock to unlatch when fired.








As I already stated, yes the third latch was not necessary, it did not add anything to the reliability or the accuracy of the design, it was pretty much a marketing ploy. But saying the proof that it did not work is that accuracy or durability did not suffer when the third latch was removed is a bit of a stretch. As I have already stated, S&W was able to reduce the price of the 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model from $21 to $19 which was a pretty significant amount in 1915. That is why the third latch was discontinued. A quick check of an inflation calculator shows $2 in 1915 to be almost $50 today.

This 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model shipped in 1921.





As a matter of fact, S&W had no intention of ever going back to an extractor shroud because they thought it was unneeded and overly expensive. Not until Wolf and Klar placed an order for 3,500 44 Hand Ejectors with an extractor shroud in 1926 did S&W concede that even though unnecessary, a large frame revolver with an extractor shroud would sell.

This well worn 44 Hand Ejector 3rd Model shipped in 1929 and was carried throughout WWII.




Needless to say, the extractor shroud, without the third lock, became a staple of S&W N frame design for many years to come.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Is that something you have direct experience with? I have two of them and they both work fine.

Yes.

The question is how do we define "work?" As I said, doing away with the triple lock did not make the subsequent guns less accurate or less durable. So how can we prove the triple lock contributed anything to the gun's functioning?

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The question is how do we define "work?" As I said, doing away with the triple lock did not make the subsequent guns less accurate or less durable. So how can we prove the triple lock contributed anything to the gun's functioning?

You are arguing with something I never said. If you look back at what I wrote, you will see that I said right up front,

"Most experts agree the third latch of the Triple Lock was completely unnecessary, S&W was simply displaying their prowess at making complicated, detailed assemblies."

Then in my follow up post I said,

"As I already stated, yes the third latch was not necessary, it did not add anything to the reliability or the accuracy of the design, it was pretty much a marketing ploy."

I never said anything about the third lock contributing anything to the gun's function. I simply think the Triple Lock was an interesting divergence from what later became the standard design for all large frame Smiths, continuing the design that had proved so successful with the K frame Smiths.

When I said that my Triple Locks work fine, what I meant was I have never seen any tendency for the third latch to open up in recoil. That is all I meant.

I hope we have cleared this up.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

You are arguing with something I never said. If you look back at what I wrote, you will see that I said right up front,

"Most experts agree the third latch of the Triple Lock was completely unnecessary, S&W was simply displaying their prowess at making complicated, detailed assemblies."

I'm not arguing with anybody -- I'm only pointing out the REASON the third lock contributed nothing to the gun's reliability or accuracy.

 

[Jim Watson]

For that matter, I have seen a high speed photo showing the regular front latch shifted out of engagement by recoil.
Other makes have latches not moving parallel to the barrel and not subject to recoil.

 

[Tallball]

Thank you for the excellent explanation, Driftwood. Now I finally understand about the third "lock". I have been reading references to it for many years, but didn't have any in-depth knowledge.

 

[Jim K]

It's been a while, but I recall seeing the same thing about the front lock disengaging. Remember, that was the first "big bore" hand ejector and S&W apparently found, or at least believed, that the recoil would cause the front locking bolt to disengage under recoil stress. (FWIW, it was in that era that the use of industrial X-rays began; whether S&W used such "new fangled" things, I don't know.)

The yoke lock ultimately proved unnecessary, but the parts are complex and the machining intricate. I doubt the company spent a lot of money and time just to "show off" their workmanship. And it might be noted that the front locks in the Triple Lock are more cylindrical than the usual conical shape of the regular lock. They are definitely meant to keep that yoke in place.

Added later: After another look and some thinking, I wonder if the yoke lock wasn't in fact counterproductive. The front latch was heavier than the simple lock, which would have tended to cause it to open under recoil. The spring cannot be made too heavy because that would make the gun too hard to open normally. So maybe S&W was correct in trying to keep the front lock from opening, but the way it was done might not have worked, plus the additional mass of the lock itself negated the method of fixing the problem.

Jim

 

[farm23]

Thanks for the detailed views of the triple lock. I carried one [we had to supply our own weapons] when I worked as a deputy in a small GA town back in the 50's. I wish I still owned it.

 

[4v50 Gary]

farm23- we certainly take things for granted when we were younger. I should have bought an armload of Pythons when they were $399 including the 38 Special Python.

 

[DPris]

In 1975 I recall being outraged when Colt upped the price on a Python to $250.
"How can they expect people to pay that much money?!?!?!"
Denis