Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy
For some time now I have wanted to do a photo essay comparing a modern Stainless Smith and Wesson revolver built with MIM parts to a more traditional Smith made with forged and machined parts. The idea is to go through all the parts, showing the differences as well as the similarities between the parts made with the two different technologies, as well as showing engineering changes made to traditionally machined parts.
First a small disclaimer. I am an unabashed admirer of the older revolvers. The oldest Smith in my collection was made in 1863, and I have at least one revolver made in every decade since then up to the 1980s. My favorites are those made between about 1905 and about 1940. But I try not to get overly carried away with the romance of the older guns. I believe they were made using the most up to date equipment and technologies of their time, but if S&W had found a better, quicker, or smarter way to build their products, I'm sure they would have done so. I also recognize the need for any manufacturer to drive out as much cost as possible from their products, in order to remain both competitive and profitable.
The comments and observations I make on this thread are my own, based on my own knowledge of manufacturing practices. I do not claim to be an expert, and some of my comments may turn out to be opinions based on my own prejudices.
I do not intend this to be a 'how to' thread on how to disassemble a Smith and Wesson, nor do I intend it to be a gunsmithing primer. It is merely meant to be a comparison of the parts of two revolvers, separated by a few decades of manufacturing technology.
Please feel free to comment. And feel free to correct any incorrect statements I make, as long as you know you are correct. I only ask that no one else post any photos on this thread, I would like to keep all the photos my own, if possible.
***************
So let's get started. The two revolvers I have chosen for this photo essay are a Model 17-3 that I bought new in 1975, and a Model 617-6 that I bought used a few years ago.
This is my Model 17-3. It cost $125 in 1975. The Model 17 was the evolutionary successor to the K-22 revolvers of the 1930s. When S&W changed over to the current model numbering system in 1957, the K-22 became the Model 17. This one is a typical 17-3; blued steel, three screws, six shot fluted cylinder with recessed chambers, six inch pinned barrel, short throw action, micrometer click adjustable rear sight, and factory Magna grips.
I bought this Model 617-6 a few years ago. I bought it pretty much as a lark, I had been competing in a steel plate match and I needed to get off eight aimed shots in 15 seconds. I could not do that with my six shot Model 17. The Model 617 was introduced in 1989 as a Stainless version of the full lug Model 17. This one was made in 2003. Three screws, ten shot fluted cylinder with recessed chambers, six inch unpinned full lug barrel, micrometer click adjustable rear sight, one piece rubber grip.
One of the first observations we can make, other than the presence of the lock, is the curve at the upper rear of the frame on the 617 is different from the same area on the Model 17. Notice how the hammer is more obscured by the frame on the 617. The reason for this will be made clear later when we talk about the firing pin.
******************
Another difference between the two guns that jumps out at me is the 'ledge', or rib that is milled into the frame of the Stainless gun. This feature is what prevents the cylinder from falling out of the gun. Without it, when the cylinder is opened, the cylinder would slide backwards right off the yoke and fall out of the gun. This feature first showed up in 1998 with the 617-3. It predated the lock by a few years. This feature always jumps out at me like a sore thumb on modern Smiths and I always know that they are relatively new models.
Here is the feature that the 'ledge' replaced on the older guns. It is a stud, pressed into the frame from the inside and protruding outside the frame. After being pressed and staked into the frame, the contour of the stud was shaped to keep the cylinder captive in the frame. I have one old Smith that was refinished a little bit too aggressively and the cylinder can slip past the stud when the gun is open if I am not careful.
Although I personally prefer the aesthetic of the older style stud, this is the type of feature I am talking about that manufacturers can use to drive cost out of their products. Installing the stud into the frame would have taken several operations. Milling the ledge onto the frame only costs a few lines of CNC code.
***************
Now let's look at the grips. The Model 17 came with standard walnut Magna grips. Held on by one screw through the grips and a roll pin pressed into the grip frame.
The 617 has a one piece rubber grip. The emblems molded onto the side are similar to the old S&W medallions, but the grip was actually made by Hogue. It is fastened to the grip frame by a single screw coming up through the bottom of the grip and screwed to a floating 'stirrup' that is pinned to the frame. Clearly a much more economical approach to grips, but in my opinion this grip is just an ugly blob of rubber. My opinion of course.
The grip frame of the 617 is the round butt style that S&W seems to have gone over to for most of their revolvers today. Incidentally, that extra recess in the grip frame at the bottom of the main spring makes installing the spring much easier than in the old days. The spring can be dropped into place with no tension on it at all, and then the strain screw tightens it up and secures it in position. With the older style grip frame one often had to persuade the spring into position in its narrow slot at the bottom of the grip frame. This is the type of excellent engineering that drives cost out of the product by making it easier and quicker for an assembler to install the spring.
That's all for now, more to come, hope you enjoy it.
For some time now I have wanted to do a photo essay comparing a modern Stainless Smith and Wesson revolver built with MIM parts to a more traditional Smith made with forged and machined parts. The idea is to go through all the parts, showing the differences as well as the similarities between the parts made with the two different technologies, as well as showing engineering changes made to traditionally machined parts.
First a small disclaimer. I am an unabashed admirer of the older revolvers. The oldest Smith in my collection was made in 1863, and I have at least one revolver made in every decade since then up to the 1980s. My favorites are those made between about 1905 and about 1940. But I try not to get overly carried away with the romance of the older guns. I believe they were made using the most up to date equipment and technologies of their time, but if S&W had found a better, quicker, or smarter way to build their products, I'm sure they would have done so. I also recognize the need for any manufacturer to drive out as much cost as possible from their products, in order to remain both competitive and profitable.
The comments and observations I make on this thread are my own, based on my own knowledge of manufacturing practices. I do not claim to be an expert, and some of my comments may turn out to be opinions based on my own prejudices.
I do not intend this to be a 'how to' thread on how to disassemble a Smith and Wesson, nor do I intend it to be a gunsmithing primer. It is merely meant to be a comparison of the parts of two revolvers, separated by a few decades of manufacturing technology.
Please feel free to comment. And feel free to correct any incorrect statements I make, as long as you know you are correct. I only ask that no one else post any photos on this thread, I would like to keep all the photos my own, if possible.
***************
So let's get started. The two revolvers I have chosen for this photo essay are a Model 17-3 that I bought new in 1975, and a Model 617-6 that I bought used a few years ago.
This is my Model 17-3. It cost $125 in 1975. The Model 17 was the evolutionary successor to the K-22 revolvers of the 1930s. When S&W changed over to the current model numbering system in 1957, the K-22 became the Model 17. This one is a typical 17-3; blued steel, three screws, six shot fluted cylinder with recessed chambers, six inch pinned barrel, short throw action, micrometer click adjustable rear sight, and factory Magna grips.
I bought this Model 617-6 a few years ago. I bought it pretty much as a lark, I had been competing in a steel plate match and I needed to get off eight aimed shots in 15 seconds. I could not do that with my six shot Model 17. The Model 617 was introduced in 1989 as a Stainless version of the full lug Model 17. This one was made in 2003. Three screws, ten shot fluted cylinder with recessed chambers, six inch unpinned full lug barrel, micrometer click adjustable rear sight, one piece rubber grip.
One of the first observations we can make, other than the presence of the lock, is the curve at the upper rear of the frame on the 617 is different from the same area on the Model 17. Notice how the hammer is more obscured by the frame on the 617. The reason for this will be made clear later when we talk about the firing pin.
******************
Another difference between the two guns that jumps out at me is the 'ledge', or rib that is milled into the frame of the Stainless gun. This feature is what prevents the cylinder from falling out of the gun. Without it, when the cylinder is opened, the cylinder would slide backwards right off the yoke and fall out of the gun. This feature first showed up in 1998 with the 617-3. It predated the lock by a few years. This feature always jumps out at me like a sore thumb on modern Smiths and I always know that they are relatively new models.
Here is the feature that the 'ledge' replaced on the older guns. It is a stud, pressed into the frame from the inside and protruding outside the frame. After being pressed and staked into the frame, the contour of the stud was shaped to keep the cylinder captive in the frame. I have one old Smith that was refinished a little bit too aggressively and the cylinder can slip past the stud when the gun is open if I am not careful.
Although I personally prefer the aesthetic of the older style stud, this is the type of feature I am talking about that manufacturers can use to drive cost out of their products. Installing the stud into the frame would have taken several operations. Milling the ledge onto the frame only costs a few lines of CNC code.
***************
Now let's look at the grips. The Model 17 came with standard walnut Magna grips. Held on by one screw through the grips and a roll pin pressed into the grip frame.
The 617 has a one piece rubber grip. The emblems molded onto the side are similar to the old S&W medallions, but the grip was actually made by Hogue. It is fastened to the grip frame by a single screw coming up through the bottom of the grip and screwed to a floating 'stirrup' that is pinned to the frame. Clearly a much more economical approach to grips, but in my opinion this grip is just an ugly blob of rubber. My opinion of course.
The grip frame of the 617 is the round butt style that S&W seems to have gone over to for most of their revolvers today. Incidentally, that extra recess in the grip frame at the bottom of the main spring makes installing the spring much easier than in the old days. The spring can be dropped into place with no tension on it at all, and then the strain screw tightens it up and secures it in position. With the older style grip frame one often had to persuade the spring into position in its narrow slot at the bottom of the grip frame. This is the type of excellent engineering that drives cost out of the product by making it easier and quicker for an assembler to install the spring.
That's all for now, more to come, hope you enjoy it.
