S&W Model 29-2 help

[FiveFiveSixFan]

Hey all,
This would be so much easier with several good pictures but I've been unable to get any close-ups in sharp focus and I don't think I would be able to post them even if I did.

Anyway, looking at this 29-2 from the left side with the cylinder closed, nothing looks amiss. However, when you open the cylinder, there is a visible gap between the frame and the ejector rod shroud into which you can run a folded piece of paper between the frame and the ejector rod shroud up to about the midline of where the ejector rod would be with the cylinder closed.

I never noticed a large gap like this on other S&W's. Is this anything to be concerned about or is it just an esthetic issue?

 

[Old Fuff]

You can relax, it's not a flaw...

When a barrel is screwed in it is supposed to bear on the barrel's shoulder and not on the lug. At one time labor costs permitted the company to fit the barrel so there was no perceptible gap. But as time went on they couldn't afford to do that anymore, so a deliberate gap at the lug allows some leeway when fitting the barrel.

Unfortunately our modern manufacturing environment has required a number of regrettable changes since the middle-late 1960's.

 

[FiveFiveSixFan]

Thanks! Other than that, it seems pretty nice. It locks up tight, timing is fine.

 

[Old Fuff]

I have owned a number of Smith & Wesson's with "barrel lug gap," and they've never given me any trouble either. Minor cosmetic issues I can live with.

 

[Jim K]

Old Fuff is correct, but there is another point. If that area is actually touching, when the barrel heats up the lug expands against the frame and can actually warp the barrel enough that the point of impact will change. The gap prevents that.

Jim

 

[FiveFiveSixFan]

Compared to my Model 66-1 and Model 581, this gap is huge. Those are very subtle, much less than the cylinder-forcing cone gap. I can get a piece of notebook paper which has been folded twice into this one.

I'll have to see how it does at the range. If it is a shooter, almost anything can be forgiven. Thanks for responding; it's really appreciated.

 

[Old Fuff]

You might contact Smith & Wesson's customer service department. It could be that they'd agree that the gap was excessive, and set the barrel back on their dime. You have nothing to loose by asking.

 

[Hawk]

Without waiting till I get home to check SCoSW, didn't the 29-2 have pinned barrels?

I wouldn't have guessed a "pinned" would suffer from "gap-itis" but I suppose there's nothing that would exempt it just due to method.

Still, if everything else checks out, I wouldn't get wound up about it. Even if one were to install "front facing" ball detent lock-up, it'd still work with "folded notepaper" sized gaps.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

The gap on my nickel 29-3 is big enough to insert a business card at the bottom of the shroud. By the time the gap reaches the upper third of the shroud, you can see daylight but it's pretty tight.

Never bothered me at all; I always assumed it was a matter of barrel harmonics not to have a tight shroud base connection.

 

[Old Fuff]

The issue under discussion, if indeed there is one, has to do with cosmetics, and not performance. But when people buy an expensive gun they expect it to "look right," as well as function. This is the sort of thing I can live with, and have - but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

Pinned barrels and counterbored chambers were dropped in .44 Magnums at model 29-3 in 1982.

 

[FiveFiveSixFan]

Without waiting till I get home to check SCoSW, didn't the 29-2 have pinned barrels?

Yes, as Old Fuff mentioned, the 29-2 has both the pinned barrel and recessed chambers.

I'm also with Fuff in the "Form follows function" camp, especially when it comes to firearms, but as also was mentioned, I think there is a reasonable expectation with certain guns, notably with better quality guns, that esthetics matter as well. If you're not going to pay fairly close attention to fit, for example, why design and produce the shroud around the ejector rod in the first place? I think an argument can be made that esthetics had as much to do with that modification as function. For many years and on many fine revolvers, the ejector rods just hung out there connected to a plain lug under the barrel. While I'm sure there were a few ejector rods which ended up bent as a result, I doubt if it was enough of an issue to warrant the switch to shrouded ejector rods.

The suggestion to contact S&W CS was a good one and I'm going to try to get a few good, clear pictures to send to them.

 

[Oro]

I wouldn't have guessed a "pinned" would suffer from "gap-itis" but I suppose there's nothing that would exempt it just due to method.

S&W quality suffered pretty dramatically after Bangor Punta acquired them. It got better in the 80s. "Pinned and recessed" is not what it's cracked up to be. The quality of an individual gun is more important than whether it's "pinned and recessed" or not. I've said it many times and I'll say it again, I'll take, on average, any gun from the 80s over any gun from the 70s. Quality was, on average, better then. I'd prefer a gun from the 50's until mid/late 60s over either.

Also, note that shrouds and "recessed" only occured on Magnum calibers for the most part. In and of themselves, they aren't indicators of any quality benchmark or building standards.

This gap sounds pretty normal for an N-prefix 29-2 and isn't outside of the normal production standards, as others have noted.

 

[Old Fuff]

I'll take, on average, any gun from the 80s over any gun from the 70s.

Oh I fully agree... those made during the 80s were better...

You do mean 1880s don't you?

 

[FiveFiveSixFan]

I finally got a few pics. They're not nearly as good as I was hoping for but it does show the gap I've been attempting to describe.http://www.thehighroad.org/images/attach/jpg.gif
http://www.thehighroad.org/images/attach/jpg.gif

 

[Oro]

Unfortunately our modern manufacturing environment has required a number of regrettable changes since the middle-late 1960's.

I believe Old Fluff's comment says it succinctly. It's not beyond the range of what came out of the factory. Worse than "average" but not outside the bell curve.

Oh I fully agree... those made during the 80s were better...

You do mean 1880s don't you?

He He. I don't mean to say that the hand fitting and attention got better. But the new CNC machinery installed then helped get products more uniform so the LACK of personal attention was less of a problem. I completely agree that the highly skilled personal attention of revolversmiths to each gun ended about the time of the Tet Offensive and has never returned...

 

[FiveFiveSixFan]

Thanks, Oro. I guess I'll go see how it shoots!

 

[Old Fuff]

But the new CNC machinery installed then helped get products more uniform so the LACK of personal attention was less of a problem.

Not always. CNC machinery can turn out mistakes too if it isn't watched, and the finished parts carefully inspected. At one time some owners were complaining about the triggers flopping around in their S&W-made 1911 style pistols. When I checked it out I discovered that the slot on the frame for the trigger's fingerpiece was out of tolerance on the high side, while the fingerpiece itself was undersized. The tolerance stack resulted in more then usual up & down play. Of course the pistols were shipped anyway.

I could mention more, but enough is enough.