Cylinder Rotation

[dullone]

This question just came to mind, on double action revolvers do the cylinders on all makes and models rotate in a common direction???


All my revolvers (2 Rugers, 2 Smiths and a Taurus) all have their cylinders turn counter clockwise when looking at the gun from the back end.

I saw a picture of a Charter Arms revolver and from the way the stop notches and leads were cut it appeared that it would rotate clockwise.

 

[XTrooper]

Colts rotate clockwise.

 

[dbmjr1]

No. Smith and Wessons, along with the clones, rotate in the wro, . . . other direction from Colts, Rugers, Dan Wessons and other quality firearms.

This is a concern if you plan on shooting your revolver at distances of over 1,500 yards, as the left hand rifling and the torque of the cylinder rotating in the wrong direction, will multiply the error of the spinning of the earth. Of course, in Australia, this is not a problem.

 

[HexHead]

The new S&W Bodyguard .38 cylinder rotates clockwise. Nice to see them finally get it right.

 

[JRH6856]

This is a concern if you plan on shooting your revolver at distances of over 1,500 yards, as the left hand rifling and the torque of the cylinder rotating in the wrong direction, will multiply the error of the spinning of the earth. Of course, in Australia, this is not a problem.

Not a problem if you turn around and shoot in another directions.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Oh please, not that tired old argument about which one rotates the right direction. Smiths rotate counter clockwise because the hand is on the right side, Colts rotate the other direction because the hand is on the left side. They are built opposite. The force of the hand rotating the cylinder is not enough to force the yoke open, unless the cylinder is bogged down with gunk.

 

[Jim K]

And the hand is put wherever the designer chose to put it, based on the general design of the lockwork.

Jim

 

[45lcshooter]

My nagant pistol, Uberti 45lc, Pietta black powder, Plinkerton 22 all spin clockwise. Come to think of it, all the revolvers i've owned over the years all spun clockwise from the shooters standpoint

 

[BSA1]

Driftwood Johnson is commenting on the debate in gun rags B.A. (before autos) about which is made stronger; S&W's or Colts.

It was as endless of debate back then as the 9mm vs. 45, Glock vs 1911's debate are today.

p.s. Just for the record the Colt cylinder rotation is stronger.

 

[el Godfather]

Driftwood Johnson is commenting on the debate in gun rags B.A. (before autos) about which is made stronger; S&W's or Colts.

It was as endless of debate back then as the 9mm vs. 45, Glock vs 1911's debate are today.

p.s. Just for the record the Colt cylinder rotation is stronger.

Based on what?

 

[savit260]

There are examples of Colt's that rotate counter clockwise, and examples of S&W's that rotate clockwise. Rugers go both ways depending on if it's a single action or double action model.

The general rule is typically Colt's clockwise, S&W counter clockwise.

 

[dbmjr1]

Dan Wesson's solution to securing the cylinder is superior to both Colt and S&W's.

I'm a huge Colt fan. I joke often about S&W's cylinders revolving the wrong way. Even though I have a 10-6 and a Rossi. Fact is that Skeeter liked his S&W's and that's enough for me.


Oh, and while a 9mm might expand, a .45 will never shrink.

 

[savit260]

I would add that when loading an extra round or two in a swing out cylinder double action, the clockwise rotation is a lot more intuitive than the counterclockwise rotation.

Seen many a shooter load the last two of a box of 50 in a S&W and go click, click, click.

 

[Old Fuff]

p.s. Just for the record the Colt cylinder rotation is stronger.

Based on what?

Based on Colt advertising of course.

Back when... They claimed that cockwise rotation helped keep the crane tighter against the frame, and increased accuracy.

How dare you doubt them... !!

 

[788Ham]

Amen Old Fuff, amen !

 

[PJSprog]

While many of us grayer shooters have heard and read this "tired old argument" beat to death, many newer shooters have not. For many of them, it's a valid question.

Personally, I still get a kick out of it ... especially the responses from us old grouches. Frankly, that's 99.44% of the reason I read this thread.

...and for the record, I'm a S&W guy.

 

[rswartsell]

In the days before shrouded ejector rods, this issue did apparently convince Smith and Wesson to add a locking underlug with a spring detent where the Colt ejector rod was left "bare". The counterclockwise momentum of the Smith cylinder used the mass against the lockup of the cylinder where the Colt clockwise rotation was in harmony with the crane's locked position.

Was there enough of a practical reason to justify this? If not why the added expense of production?

 

[Shawn Dodson]

The easiest way to visually tell which direction the cylinder turns is by looking at the bevel on the cylinder stop notch. The cylinder turns in the direction of the bevel. The bevel can be thought of as an "arrow" that points in the direction of rotation.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Was there enough of a practical reason to justify this? If not why the added expense of production?

Because it is simply a better design! The end of the ejector rod is protected. This is a S&W Model 1899. The last Hand Ejector that Smith made before going to the underlugs in 1902. I can assure you that hand on this gun does not try to open the cylinder. It just does not apply that much force. As I said earlier, if the cylinder is gummed up and resists rotating, that is one thing. If the cylinder is free to spin, the yoke ain't going to be wedged open.

 

[SeanSw]

My H&R 929 Sidekick would also turn clockwise, if it turned at all. Something is amiss.

 

[Old Fuff]

Well according to Colt's advertising....

Smith & Wesson's were prone to unlocking if one rested their thumb on the cylinder release thumb piece and the revolver pushed rearward in recoil. They even claimed to have hi-speed movie film footage to prove it.

It is great fun to read 1920's and 30's catalogs from both companies as they go after each other with no holds barred.

 

[rswartsell]

Thanks Fuff!

Knew I could depend upon you for context! And Driftwood, I had my tongue in my cheek and as usual your posts are highly illuminating. Did you ever think you might have a knack (talent) to be a pretty easy to read gun-writer?

I think the trick is trying to find someone to pay you even when you tell the truth.:banghead:

P.S. You will find far fewer vintage Smith revolvers with bent ejector rods than Colts. The real reason IMHO for the underlug.

 

[Jim K]

Hi, Driftwood,

If you have not pulled the sideplate on that 1899, I suggest doing so. It is an education on how far S&W has come in improving their lockwork over the years, while at the same time making it simpler and less expensive WITHOUT changing the overall frame shape (frames made for the lock excepted, of course). The old time assemblers must have had microscopes for eyeballs!

Jim

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Hi Jim

Yes, I did take the side plate off of the Model 1899 a while ago. I even took some photos demonstrating how the trigger lever and rebound lever worked together to wedge the hammer back not too differently than the rebound slide does when the hammer is at rest.







Yes, ya gotta hand it to the S&W engineers, they really knew what they were doing. Sorry, I have to apologize for the over polish my 1899 was subjected to when it was refinished.

 

[Jim K]

Did you also notice the tiny spring and plunger in the cylinder stop and that the trigger-hammer interface does not have the second engagement that provides the S&W with a non-stacking trigger pull. IMHO, that change was sheer genius!

Jim