The basic design of the model *40 and *42 revolvers goes back to 1887, when S&W introduced an enclosed hammer, top-break revolver they named the “Safety Hammerless,” or “New Departure” model, and it was so successful that it remained in production until 1940 or’41.
The current revolvers were the brainchild of Col. Rex Applegate, who was experienced in all manner of close combat. They remain the best option for a pocket-carried revolver.
That said, while the design is a classic one, over the years not all have been created equal. Quality control has at times been excellent, and not so much at others. The best actions require careful fitting of the parts much more then they need to be polished because with use they will burnish themselves.
An additional problem is the expectation some users have concerning how light and action they can get and still retain absolute reliability. Others are unaware that the hammer and trigger pivots are located in the same place as the exposed hammer guns that have both single and double-action options. As such they are not optimal for the best possible double-action only. Ruger’s new LCR has a better out-of-the-box trigger pull largely because it was designed from scratch to be double-action only.
Even fewer know that a truly professional tune-up involves a lot more then polishing the lockwork and changing out the springs for lighter ones. For example, if the cylinder doesn’t turn in a perfectly concentric circle, or there is a misfit between the hand and ratchet teeth, or the hammer and trigger aren’t centered in the frame, you may polish your heart out with very little improvement.
So while it would be unfair (and untrue) to say that any present or recent models are junk, it would be reasonable to suggest that each one be taken on an individual case-by-case basis. While it is true that many if not most of them can be improved to some degree, too many people try to go about it the wrong way.
The current revolvers were the brainchild of Col. Rex Applegate, who was experienced in all manner of close combat. They remain the best option for a pocket-carried revolver.
That said, while the design is a classic one, over the years not all have been created equal. Quality control has at times been excellent, and not so much at others. The best actions require careful fitting of the parts much more then they need to be polished because with use they will burnish themselves.
An additional problem is the expectation some users have concerning how light and action they can get and still retain absolute reliability. Others are unaware that the hammer and trigger pivots are located in the same place as the exposed hammer guns that have both single and double-action options. As such they are not optimal for the best possible double-action only. Ruger’s new LCR has a better out-of-the-box trigger pull largely because it was designed from scratch to be double-action only.
Even fewer know that a truly professional tune-up involves a lot more then polishing the lockwork and changing out the springs for lighter ones. For example, if the cylinder doesn’t turn in a perfectly concentric circle, or there is a misfit between the hand and ratchet teeth, or the hammer and trigger aren’t centered in the frame, you may polish your heart out with very little improvement.
So while it would be unfair (and untrue) to say that any present or recent models are junk, it would be reasonable to suggest that each one be taken on an individual case-by-case basis. While it is true that many if not most of them can be improved to some degree, too many people try to go about it the wrong way.