Cylinder Rotation

[Old Fuff]

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!

Yup, and I agree with you. That's one reason I prefer the older revolvers that have a "long action."

I've also noticed that Ruger copied the feature you mentioned in their new DAO LCR series of pocket revolvers. No surprise that the trigger pull gets rave reviews.

 

[rswartsell]

^Amen.

 

[Flechette]

I don't know if this is an official complaint about S&W counter-clockwise rotation, but long ago I had a .44 Mag S&W that kicked hard enough to start pulling the bullets out of their casings that were still in the cylinder. After a couple of shots the bullet came out far enough to touch the front of the barrel/frame and effectively jammed the revolver

It took a bit of work to get the cylinder to even open!

I think that such a jam would be easier to clear if the cylinder rotated clockwise as the stuck bullet would not have to cross the forcing cone to open the cylinder.

This is one of the reasons I have a fascination with break open revolvers: such a jam would be easy to clear.

Anyone else have a similar jam?

 

[JRH6856]

^^^ Lighter load or heavier crimp is an easier fix.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

That is not a problem with the revolver, that is an ammo problem. Bullets pulling out from recoil are due to crimps not holding them in place securely enough. It simply should not happen. The direction the cylinder rotates should not matter because the bullets should not be pulling out.

 

[Jim K]

Hi, Fuff,

Not many folks still on this side of the Pearly Gates remember the big controversy over the "long" and "short" S&W actions. Of course, the Internet was way in the future, but things got heavy in the gun stores and in the pages of the few magazines of the time that published anything about handguns. IMHO, the change was a good one, but some folks never did get reconciled, sort of like the anti-lock people or the old-time southerners.

Jim

 

[Old Fuff]

IMHO, the change was a good one, but some folks never did get reconciled, sort of like the anti-lock people or the old-time southerners.

Well yes, I lived through some of that. At the time bullseye shooting was popular and a force that could drive sales. Colt had an edge, because ways had been found to shorten the thumb-cocking stroke to make cocking quicker. So far as double-action was concerned they often simply eliminated it.

Smith & Wesson had by far, the best out-of-the-box double action, and it was promoted by Ed. McGivern, a famous exhibition shooter during those days. But the bullseye boys proved to have the stronger influence on sales.

Being as that was, just before World War Two started, S&W started experimenting with making a short action, and in doing so moved the location of the hammer stud (pin the hammer rotates on) which improved the thumb-cocking feature at the expense of the D.A. pull. However further development had to be set aside until after the war.

Then they introduced the series of K-22,32 and 38 Masterpiece target revolvers with an improved "click" adjustable rear sight, ribbed barrel, wide spur hammer, and of course the new "short action."

But sometimes you can't win. It wasn't long before target shooter started switching to self-loading pistols. I still say that those long action revolvers offered "the best" double action ever offered on a mass produced revolver.

 

[rswartsell]

To guild the lilly,

Old Fuff has it, but the critics of the "long action" (in a bullseye sense) brought in the "lock time" factor. This is a real issue based on the time between perfected sight picture and the actual ignition of the round. Far more "real issue" for flintlocks and the like with uncertain intervals between spark, pan flash and load discharge but nonetheless real between trigger break and primer strike.

The increased lock time from long action to "improved" would well be measured in nano-seconds in single action, and hard to even quantify in double action with a complete follow through of a superior double action revolver. There isn't any reason that the controversy between the 2 S&W actions for non-Olympic or hardcore bulls-eye shooters would not be germane even today.

 

[Hondo 60]

I owned 6 S&Ws before I had a Colt.
That Colt still seems backwards to me

(OK, I admit, I like the Colt (Army Spl 38) just as much as my 10-5, 38, 65-2, etc)