S&W New Model 19 Detent

1 Yes
2 Yes
3 No.

I think the current Model 19 is the best ever. I always thought of the Model 19 as a 38 that could shoot 357's. The current 19-9 is a 357 that can shoot 38's.



The ball detent can be seen just below the ejector rod channel. Note also the lack of a "flat spot" at the base of the forcing cone found of the older Model 19's. Sorry for the poor picture.

That is one of the "Classic" Smith and Wesson's that I hope I get a chance to buy one day in a 4" barrel length.
I have one of their "Classic" Model 57- something that is a real shooter and I have no problem with it at all. I really like it. Actually I love it, I treat it like it is a vintage except I shoot it any time I feel like it.
Yes, I would rather have a vintage S&W model 57 but I could afford this one when I bought it.

Edit to add: I believe I could learn to love that Model 19.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the Model 19 isn't the detent is pushed to the REAR by the spring to latch? This means when the gun recoils, it recoils AWAY from the detent -- which is an UN locking motion. Now I don't say it always unlocks at the moment of firing -- but it just might.

If it were built the other way, with the detent being pushed FORWARD by the spring, it would lock tighter on firing.

CajunBass said:

1 Yes
2 Yes
3 No.

I think the current Model 19 is the best ever. I always thought of the Model 19 as a 38 that could shoot 357's. The current 19-9 is a 357 that can shoot 38's.

View attachment 926520

The ball detent can be seen just below the ejector rod channel. Note also the lack of a "flat spot" at the base of the forcing cone found of the older Model 19's. Sorry for the poor picture.

View attachment 926521

Click to expand...

As one who hasn't looked at the newer (post 1980-82 guns) much, and especially the post lock "classic" models, what problem is the ball detent supposed to fix?. I have a M19-3, have always considered it a .357 that could shoot .38's. I've fed mine a diet of mostly magnum 158 JHP loads since I've had it, along with quite a few of the purported forcing cone cracker 125's over the 7 years I've owned it. I reload, and it's one of my favorites to take to the range. Never had a single issue with it, locks up tight as a speedo on Dumbo, and it had been shot quite a bit before I got it. It's my 2nd M19 and 3rd K-frame .357 (also once had a M66-1). Both of them also had many magnum loads through them, no issues. They were 'almost new' when I had them, it was back in the early 1980's.

@ tightgroup tiger: What's a new M57 classic going for these days? Ain't none of them cheap. That was always one of my unicorns, until this past week. Picked up a really nice no-dash 57, and my butt is still stinging where my wallet is.

bangswitch said:

As one who hasn't looked at the newer (post 1980-82 guns) much, and especially the post lock "classic" models, what problem is the ball detent supposed to fix?

Click to expand...

The same problem recessed chambers was supposed to fix -- the problem of persuading buyers they were getting something special.

bangswitch said:

As one who hasn't looked at the newer (post 1980-82 guns) much, and especially the post lock "classic" models, what problem is the ball detent supposed to fix?

Click to expand...

Going way out on a limb here, since I have not handled one of these in person, but if the spring plunger has somehow modified the diameter and shape of the gas collar on the front of the cylinder, that is probably the reason for the lack of a clearance cut on the bottom of the forcing cone. The clearance cut, which has been on all K frame 38s since 1905, thins the forcing cone in that area, which can lead to the forcing cone splitting with high velocity 357 Magnum ammunition.

Here is a photo of the flat on the bottom of the forcing cone of a Model 13-2. Notice how it thins the metal, possibly leading to a split forcing cone.






Here is a photo of the gas collar on the front of the cylinder of the same Model 13-2. That is the reason for the clearance cut on the bottom of the forcing cone.






Question: Can anyone supply a similar photo of the front of the cylinder on the current Model 19? I would like to see how S&W got away without the flat on the bottom of the forcing cone.

The ball on the frame



The detent on the crane (yoke)



Moving the thumb piece forward unlocks the rear of the cylinder only.

If I remember correctly, the ball/detent lockup was required to accomodate the redesign of the gas ring area at the front of the cylinder to make room for the full diameter barrel shank.

Redesigned gas ring area



Paul

tightgroup tiger said:

That is one of the "Classic" Smith and Wesson's that I hope I get a chance to buy one day in a 4" barrel length.

Edit to add: I believe I could learn to love that Model 19.

Click to expand...

That's a 4.2" barrel on mine. At first it looked funny to me, but I suppose I've grown used to it. I've got almost a fetish for a 4" barrel revolver myself.

"I wonder if S&W will use it on other model revolvers?"

It's on my model 69

I think the 69 was where the doohickey showed up first.

I really like that new model 19. I like that the barrel to cylinder interface no longer has the forcing cone issue. The barrel barely extends through the frame.

I think we need some kind of an engineering exchange with some of these gun companies and folks that seem to know more than the engineers that design these various suspicious guns. Perhaps these professionals could be taught a thing or two...

jski said:

Ol’ Jerry Mucilek states the the new stainless steel sleeve barrel design is both a manufacturing win because it reduces costs and a customer win because it allows for tighter tolerances when setting the cylinder gap.

Is that a fair claim?

Click to expand...

Do you expect any of us to dispute Jerry's word?

My first handgun purchase was a 4” Model 19 my senior year of high school. My dad did the paperwork for me as I was only 17 at the time. I still have it and it’s still a beauty. That photo makes me think it might need a friend.

Elkins45 said:

My first handgun purchase was a 4” Model 19 my senior year of high school. My dad did the paperwork for me as I was only 17 at the time. I still have it and it’s still a beauty. That photo makes me think it might need a friend.

Click to expand...

Of course it does. Like you, my first handgun was a Model 19...probably a -4, although I knew nothing of such things in those days. Alas, I was young, and got bit by the IPSC bug and traded it off for a Golt GM 45. So these days my -9 shares shelf space with a 19-1 from 1961-62 or so.

I think all the 4” barrels that are now 4.2” are for Canadian sales. I think they have a minimum barrel length requirement for import. It does give a tiny bit more sight radius .

The new guns are nice, if they catalogued a 4” Model 57 Classic I’d be putting one on layaway immediately.

I do like the nostalgia of the “pinned and recessed” guns, but sellers of those are starting to demand a real premium so they’re getting out of my reach.

Stay safe.

Howdy

I'm actually not sure if my Model 19-3 or my Model 17-3 was my first cartridge revolver. Bought them both in 1975, but I don't remember which one came first. So I will say that my Model 19-3 was the first centerfire revolver I bought. Had a couple of C&B revolvers before that, but the 19-3 was my first centerfire revolver.

Anyway, I would like to ask a favor of those of you who have one of the new ones with the spring plunger that secures the front of the yoke.

Could somebody take a caliper and measure the diameter of the ejector rod, the part that protrudes in front of the yoke?

The diameter of the ejector rod on my 19-3 is almost 1/4". .243 to be more exact. My guess is a rod this diameter was necessary because it was hollow, with the plunger that secures the front of the rod into the latch under the barrel running through it. The opening measures about .135 in diameter. The gas ring on this model is actually part of the yoke. The gas ring was moved to the front of the cylinder with the 19-4 in 1977. Regardless, the gas ring measures .430 in diameter.











The amount of 'flat' on the underside of the forcing cone of K frame revolvers varied over the years. I have a bunch, and the amount of the clearance cut varies on them. Sometimes there was more metal removed, sometimes less. The flat on the underside of the forcing cone of my Model 19-3 is quite minimal. Meaning that the reduction in thickness of the forcing cone at the bottom is quite minimal.






This Model 13-2 has more metal removed, consequently the metal is thinner at the bottom of the forcing cone than on my Model 19-3.






Regardless, the crux of the matter is that with the cylinder closed on my Model 19, the clearance between the bottom of the forcing cone and the top of the gas ring appears to be in the vicinity of .005 to .010 or so. I can't get a feeler gauge in there, I am just eyeballing it.



I can see by some of the photos posted so far there is a clearance cut on the top of the gas ring on the new Model 19s. At least it looks like a clearance cut to me.

I suspect that is why the clearance cut on the bottom of the forcing cone has been eliminated, because of the clearance cut on the top of the gas ring.

Am I barking up the wrong tree here? Is the gas ring clearance cut the reason the flat on the bottom of the forcing cone has been eliminated?

I'm also wondering if the diameter of the ejector rod has anything to do with this. Clearly, a solid ejector rod will have less parts than the spring loaded rod that runs through a more 'traditional' S&W ejector rod. Less parts means less cost to manufacture.

I have some experience in designing mechanical assemblies that use spring plungers and ball plungers. They are a very cost efficient solution. There are many, many standard designs of spring plungers and ball plungers on the market and many of the smaller ones only cost a dollar or two. The one Smith is using does not look to me to be a 'standard' off the shelf spring plunger, but having them made up in quantity I'll bet they are still quite inexpensive. Much less expensive than the 'traditional' S&W extractor assembly with the hollow ejector rod and the spring loaded rod in the center.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying S&W has 'cheapened' the design, S&W has been cutting the cost to manufacture since 1857. This is just one more example of a long history of cutting the cost to manufacture.

Anyway, if somebody could take a measurement of the diameter of the solid ejector rod that would be interesting.

Thanks

CajunBass said:

Of course it does. Like you, my first handgun was a Model 19...probably a -4, although I knew nothing of such things in those days.

Click to expand...

My first centerfire revolver was also a Model 19-4 with a 6" barrel. I still have it.

I cracked the forcing cone in the early 1980's and S&W replaced the barrel on their dime.

I've treated the revolver more carefully after the barrel replacement.

In recent times, I've added a 2-1/2" 19-4 and a 4" 19-5 to round out the collection.

I might need to invest in a Model 19 Classic to get the updated barrel modification.

I've got two older M19's a 4" -3 (my first revolver) and a 2&1/2" -5. I treat them a little gently, but they still see some near magnum loads occasionally. I snagged a spare barrel and a spare cylinder though, just in case one needs fixed some day in the future.

Once upon a time, I had 4 M19's;


I'd really like one of the new ones, but if I'm shooting full bore magnum loads anymore, I just use my 4" 686-0. I'm glad to see they beefed up and brought back the M19's though, it's too good of a gun to be regulated to the history books.

Smith & Wesson invented this feature and introduced it first in the Smith & Wesson .44 Hand Ejector 1st Model New Century in 1908 which was known as the "Triple Lock." Elmer Keith called that, "the finest revolver ever made." The Dan Wesson revolvers also have a similar feature, and so does the Ruger GP-100.

What is the purpose of this detent?
To hold the cylinder in place.

Why didn't the previous Model 19's have it?
Because they were held by a detent on the forward end of the ejector rod. The "Triple Lock" had both forward ejector-rod and crane detents like a belt and suspenders. The first lock is the one at the back of the ejector rod which is common to all double-action revolvers.

Why did S&W move the detent from the forward tip of the ejector rod to the crane?
Because it allowed for a thinner ejector rod which was necessary to give the barrel a larger outside diameter within the low height of the K-frame's cylinder window. In older Model 19's and 66's, the bottom of the barrel was shaved flat to give clearance to the fatter ejector rod.

Should S&W use it on still more revolvers?
Well, according to what I've read, the Army requested S&W delete the crane detent on the original Triple Lock because they were concerned about the combined mechanisms being too demanding in precision and cleanliness to operate and that slight damage like a bent ejector rod could create problems for the Triple Lock. Whether this is accurate or true, I don't care to speculate. The late Model 19, 66 and 69 aren't triple-locks anyway. We know that a lock on the crane has been working for Dan Wesson and Ruger for many decades without issues. To answer whether S&W should switch more of their revolvers over to this design, we'd want a compelling reason to fix something that hasn't been broken for over 100 years. Apparently, S&W acknowledged that the Model 19/66 did have a design weakness which they first addressed by introducing the Model 586/686 in 1980, and then by revising the 19/66 with these detents in 2018 and 2014. It must have also made sense to do this when enlarging the barrel in an L-frame to accommodate .44 Magnum in the Model 69. I think the 69 was introduced in 2015, but I'm not sure. It's not clear what benefit the detent would provide any of their other revolver designs that aren't pushing the limits of barrel diameter within the frame size. Nevertheless, adding detents to the crane is a service that gunsmiths have been offering as a custom option for a long time. Power Custom sells the fixtures and detent parts as a kit that is available from them or through Brownells.

Does the sleeved barrel offer customers something better?
It can. It certainly makes it easier for lower skilled workers to install barrels at the manufacturer. Dan Wesson made their sleeved barrel design so that customers could install the barrels themselves. I've bought too many S&W revolvers with excessive barrel-to-cylinder gap with non-sleeved barrels to believe that they will be consistent and precise. Do the sleeved barrels come with better gaps? You'll have to measure them yourself with a feeler gauge before you buy. If it is a tight gap, it doesn't really matter if it's sleeved or not. If the gap is big, it's not practical to reset it yourself so the sleeve is only making the job easier for S&W. So what the sleeves can do for customers is give them the option of designs where the shroud is not steel or where it has shapes that would not be practical to machine on the same piece of metal as the rifled bore. Examples are the 686 and 629 Competitor models with the channel for adjustable weights; the R8, TRR8, 329PD, 340 PD all with aluminum shrouds. Other Performance Center models have barrel shrouds with what seems to be only aesthetic features like slab sides, but that is still made possible by the sleeve and shroud design. It should be noted that Ruger is also offering sleeve and shroud barrels with the LCR and the Super GP-100 at least. If Ruger is offering anything practical as a result it is saved weight through the use of an integral aluminum frame/shroud on some LCR's and the cutouts on the Super-GP100's barrel shroud.

jski said:

It does make it harder to open the cylinder.

Click to expand...

That's true, at least at first. As I've used mine over the couple years I've had it, that's smoothed out and I don't even notice it anymore.

gotboostvr said:

I'd really like one of the new ones, but if I'm shooting full bore magnum loads anymore, I just use my 4" 686-0. I'm glad to see they beefed up and brought back the M19's though, it's too good of a gun to be regulated to the history books.

Click to expand...

When S&W stopped making the Model 19 in...2000 or so, I never figured I'd be able to buy another brand new, in the box, never owned by anyone else, Model 19 again. Like so many things I didn't really appreciate buying something new until I couldn't. I think I already had four Model 19's in the safe at the time, but I wanted a "new" one. I bought the one I have just as soon as my dealer got one in.

Same thing with the 2020 Python. I never thought I'd be able to buy another NIB Python.

Now if only someone will start making Harrington and Richardson, Model 999's again.