Loosening the strain screw on a S&W Model 22?

You just had to post that picture of a like-new .38 1905 Hand Ejector didn't you. (Old fuff is turning green and suffering from lust).

So far as target shooting and thumb-cocking the hammer, the difference between the short vs. long actions in terms of lock time isn't enough to make a meaningful difference. But target shooters (or anyone who did most of they're shooting using the single-action mode) found the short-action easier to cock. Custom gunsmiths, such as the old King Gunsight Co. in California did a good business installing short-cocking actions in both Colt and S&W revolvers, and that included the old Colt Single Action Army. As a result both Colt and Smith & Wesson developed short hammer-throw lockwork for their most popular target revolvers. Smith & Wesson went so far as to offer an optional kit with a different hammer and trigger that completely eliminated the double-action feature and shortened the hammer rotation even further. You could order a revolver from the factory with this installed, or buy the kit and convert your own short-action K-frame revolver.

But by this time revolvers were ending the trail as prefered center-fire target guns as shooters switched to self-loading pistols.

I mentioned the importance of the mainspring's bow. When it is set correctly the weight of the pull actually decreases as you get toward the last quarter of the stroke. This is especially true with long-actions.

These days when you talk about long-action S&W revolvers people look at you funny. The last ones were made around 1947, and generations of shooters have come along that never saw one of these guns, and have no idea what one is talking about.

Ignorence is bliss...

That is a purdy picture Oro!

The screw must be locked down tight for ultimate reliability. Even then blue loctite wouldn't hurt. You can either shorten it or drill and tap crossways for a set screw to lock it down.

OldFluff,

Thanks for explaining it - the lock-time answer never did make sense to me, since the time was pretty meaningless in my opinion. So it really was about the cocking action? I agree it does take a little extra action.

That .38 is not the most expensive S&W I own (one of the cheapest, actually), but it is one of the most satisfying. It also came with a gold box and a custom-made floral-tooled western holster.

Whenever I see a long-action S&W, I look MUCH closer - they are so satisfying to shoot, and the workmanship is usually outstanding by most standards.

I'm sure these guys at wolff are all wrong, how dare they sell different springs. Maybe you should email them and tell them how wrong they are to change things they shouldn't.

Remember just because it isn't for you doesn't make it wrong, it just means I don't do things the same way you do.

Click to expand...

Actually, Wolff says basically the same thing Old Fuff did, namely that it can be done and it works, but for critical purposes, the factory set things as is for a reason: From the Wolff website: "For most target and non-critical applications, we recommend the TYPE-2 spring which is reduced power. For critical applications such as law enforcement, we strongly recommend the TYPE-1 spring which is factory equivalent in strength."

the thing about those pre-war actions...they've been getting shot for 70 years. That'll smooth 'em out a little.

the thing about those pre-war actions...they've been getting shot for 70 years. That'll smooth 'em out a little.

Click to expand...

You would think so, but I've handled examples that were like-new-in-box, and found them to be as smooth as others that were well used.

Ya. My experience too. I think they've been worked over though. The odds that a barely shot 80 year old revolver is as untouched as a barely shot 2 year old revolver is not quite the same odds.

But I do believe the older stuff is better quality fit and finish. THat much is obvious.

After examining the internals of some of the pre-war examples I'm sure they hadn't been used much, if any, and there was no evidence of any aftermarket polishing - which usually stands out like a sore thumb.

One difference that was noticeable. The sides of the hammers and triggers had been highly polished BEFORE they were case hardened. That ended during World War Two and wasn't resumed.

Sure.

that would go right along with a superior glossy bluing job. But there's no reason to believe that a bluing job or the sides of the hammer and trigger should improve function tremendously. There's no doubt that humans with more sensitive fingertips and eyeballs and greater workmanship pride were on the assembly lines a couple generations ago.

Call it eastern europeanism that existed in blue collar labor at the time. Call it what you want. Call it a decline in consumer intelligence and hence a decline in demand for quality. Whatever happened...computers, third world induction into the manufacturing process, dumbing down of the average consumer, globalism, whatever. The shiny-ness of stuff has declined. Art deco era was the heyday of fit and finish of machined products. When I was a kid, the average household vacuum cleaner was more impressive than a top of the line glock of today from a machinists/forgers perspective.

High polish on the sides of the lockwork were just part of the picture. I could write a long thread about numerous but now forgotten "little" changes that were made to the mechanics. But they all contributed to how the action felt.

But you have a valid point about worker ethics. But so long as the Wesson family owned the company (1965) management went to great lengths to keep they're workers in a "big happy family" environment.

During the late 1930's they literally almost ran Smith & Wesson into bankruptcy rather then lay off or discharge any employees.

Today's manufacturers can't wait to outsource anything and everything to somewhere overseas. Perhaps there is a connection between this and worker attitudes.

You should do that thread.

I wasnt' aware of that tendency of S&W but I'm not surprised. That was normal in the first half of the 20th century. and normal in the more successful companies up through the jimmy carter era and a little beyond. Maybe they weren't successfull because of their actions, but were able to cling to those ways because of their success. If you know what I mean.

My grandpa used to say that he kept his empoyees through bad times and invented work for them out of pure selfishness. He didn't want to see them quit and go work for his enemies after he taught them everything they knew.