Is it true that the cylinders of....

[Life During Wartime]

Is it true that the cylinders of Colts and S&Ws revolve in the opposite direction of each other
did the companies intentionally make them that way to be different from the competitor

 

[savage24]

Yes. Colt cylinders rotate clockwise and Smith & Wesson cylinders rotate counter clock wise. I don't know the history of why.

 

[OptimusPrime]

I recall it being a patent and copyright avoidance reason.

 

[rcmodel]

I don't know about that.

It is true they rotate different directions due to similar, but different lock-work designs..

But the designers who were working at S&W and Colt were two different bunches of people.

Early Colt black powder revolvers rotated clockwise.

And early S&W cartridge revolvers rotated the other way.

I imagine it had more to do with the natural progression of design in-house then anything to do with patents and copyrights.

However, it could also be which came first?

The patent and copyright.
On the Chicken?
Or the Egg?

It was all happening in Hartford CT at Colt, and in Springfield, Mass at S&W in the mid-1850's, at about the same time.

Its like asking now why airplane pilots set in the left seat, and helicopter pilots set in the right seat??

It's probably to late now to ask why!!

rc

 

[Life During Wartime]

& RC

"Its like asking now why airplane pilots set in the left seat, and helicopter pilots set in the right seat??"

Wow now that bothers me lol

 

[vkeith]

On a revolver with a loading gate like the SAA, wouldn't counter-clockwise be better since the first cartridge loaded would rotate into battery when the revolver was cocked?

 

[BCRider]

Its like asking now why airplane pilots set in the left seat, and helicopter pilots set in the right seat??"

LDW, it's likely because the combination collective and throttle in a helicopter is a major flight control. But with most pilots being right handed it made sense to put the control stick into the right hand for the more delicate control and the only SLIGHTLY less important collective stick into the gentle ministrations of the left hand.

Even this isn't cast in stone though. I can recall riding right seat in a Bell Jetranger on a few occasions.

On a revolver with a loading gate like the SAA, wouldn't counter-clockwise be better since the first cartridge loaded would rotate into battery when the revolver was cocked?

Now don't go and get all "common sense" on us about 150 years after you SHOULD have been there....

 

[peacemaker45]

On a revolver with a loading gate like the SAA, wouldn't counter-clockwise be better since the first cartridge loaded would rotate into battery when the revolver was cocked?

Actually, sort of the other way around, especially since SA revolvers started with cap and ball guns. Going clockwise, you get them nearly all capped before you have to worry about having one under the hammer.

 

[evan price]

Colt used to advertise that their cylinders rotate "The RIGHT direction" (as opposed to the left, like S&W) and that this helped hold the crane tighter against the frame.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

And Colt was correct -- which is why S&W had to have a second lock at the end of the ejector rod.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Colt used to advertise that their cylinders rotate "The RIGHT direction" (as opposed to the left, like S&W) and that this helped hold the crane tighter against the frame.

And Colt was correct -- which is why S&W had to have a second lock at the end of the ejector rod.

Oh gee, I was wondering how long it would take for that tired old argument to surface.

The very first Smith and Wesson 38 Hand Ejector, the Model 1899 did not have the underlug and locking latch at the front of the ejector rod. This one was made in 1902, the last year they made them. Despite the fact that the cylinder rotates in the 'wrong' direction, this one shoots just fine and there is no tendency for the cylinder to open as the hand pushes it around. So much for that argument.

Personally, I think S&W added the latch at the front because it was a better idea to protect the end of the ejector rod from being bumped or whacked, and possibly bent, than leaving it hanging in the air the way Colt did.




Yes, for what ever reason, Colts and Smiths were kind of 'mirror images'. The side plates came off on opposite sides, and the lockworks were laid in to accommodate the location of the side plate, with the hand or pawl, whatever you want to call it, just under the side plate.





The old S&W Top Breaks had the side plate on the left side of the gun, the hand pushed the cylinder around clockwise when viewed from the rear.









Same with the even older S&W Tip Ups. Side plate on the left, cylinder goes clockwise.








As previously stated, Colt (and Remington) Single Action revolvers were evolutionary advances of their older Percussion designs. It makes more sense to rotate the cylinder away from the barrel than towards it. A high cap rotating past the breech and the hammer would not be a good idea.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The very first Smith and Wesson 38 Hand Ejector, the Model 1899 did not have the underlug and locking latch at the front of the ejector rod. This one was made in 1902, the last year they made them. Despite the fact that the cylinder rotates in the 'wrong' direction, this one shoots just fine and there is no tendency for the cylinder to open as the hand pushes it around. So much for that argument.

So explain why Smith and Wesson added the lock at the end of the ejector rod, instead of just providing a guard -- and later went to the Triple Lock (which didn't work.)

 

[.455_Hunter]

Just to add to the confusion- The Colt New Army series advances counterclockwise.

 

[hardluk1]

My DW revolver spin clock wise and my old taurus CC spins counter clock wise.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

So explain why Smith and Wesson added the lock at the end of the ejector rod, instead of just providing a guard -- and later went to the Triple Lock (which didn't work.)

The Triple Lock didn't work? Who says so? They were a beautifully made gun and worked perfectly. Yes, the third lock proved unnecessary and was later dropped. Smith and Wesson made the Triple Lock just as a challenge, to prove they could do it. They only made the one model for a few years, from 1907 until 1915, then dropped the third lock because it was over engineered and not needed. The 44 HE 2nd Model dropped the third lock in 1915 and they never made another revolver with a third lock again. Saved about 50 cents on the cost of making the revolver. It was just plain unnecessary.

Why not just make a shroud without a latch? I dunno, but I can tell you I have seen more Colts with bent extractor rods than Smiths.

Have you actually ever seen a Smith try to open up because of the huge amount of force the hand exerts? It really is not exert very much. You can shoot my Model 1899 anytime you want and you will see that the cylinder does not try to open.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The Triple Lock didn't work? Who says so? They were a beautifully made gun and worked perfectly.

Then explain why, when the Triple Lock was eliminated, no degradation in performance was experienced.

The Triple Lock didn't work because it was backwards. The "lock" was a detent in the underlug, pushed backward by a spring into a hole in an extension of the crane. On firing, the detent became "an object at rest" and the gun recoiled away from the detent, causing it to fully or partially unlock (although spring pressure would cause it to relock after firing.)

In the retro-Triple Lock produced in recent years, the lock was reversed, being a detent in the crane extension pushed forward by a spring. In this version, momentum worked for the gun, causing it to lock tighter under recoil.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

What retro-Triple Lock?

When was this produced and who made it? Really, I'm all ears. Always want to learn new stuff about S&W.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I was hunting in Australia one time and noticed my Colt's cylinder was turning counterclockwise.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

What retro-Triple Lock?

When was this produced and who made it? Really, I'm all ears. Always want to learn new stuff about S&W.

Smith and Wesson produced a series of retro-revolvers a few years ago, including the Triple Lock and the M1917.

 

[skt239]

& RC

"Its like asking now why airplane pilots set in the left seat, and helicopter pilots set in the right seat??"

Wow now that bothers me lol

Same here. I had no idea about either type of pilot.

I know Taurus and I think charter uses counter-clock wise cylinders, who's using Colts unnatural and strange clock wise turning cylinders ?

 

[Hardtarget]

I have Colts and S&W guns. Cylinders in both guns turn the right direction to put a fresh round under the hammer!

I like 'em both and I don't even notice the difference while shooting!

I've wondered if this was because one was engineered by a lefty and the other by a right handed man. Who knows?

Mark

 

[25cschaefer]

I hear they spin the other way in Australia.

 

[s4s4u]

Did S&W ever make a SA gun? Even Ruger SA cylinders spin the opposite of Ruger DA cylinders.

 

[Mauser lover]

because they felt like it...

This answers both the revolver and helicopter/airplane question...

Or, an even better answer,

Get over it! If you don't like one or the other, that is. Pick your favorite, and go with it!

Man, these questions drive me crazy, why do we drive on the right side of the road here, but in British influenced places, they drive on the wron... left side of the road? How about standard transmissions? Who in the world thought it would be a good idea to put that shifter thingy on the steering column? What about left handed people here in the US, or right handed people trying to drive a standard transmission equipped vehicle in the UK?

AAAHHH!!!!! (any answers are welcome)

How about bolt action rifles?? I want a left handed one so I can leave my face on the stock and my hand on the grip, but noooo.... (target rifle)

Okay, what about sub-machine gun charging handles?

Now that you got me thinking, why do Colt and S&W cylinders turn different directions? (mostly)


Yes, they did, a few, actually.
K38 Combat Masterpiece was around in single action.
A few break top revolvers, the ones that come to mind are the "model 3, Russian", and "model 3 American".
Schofield, (spelling?) if separate from the ones named, I am no S&W scholar, by any means...

other early ones.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Did S&W ever make a SA gun?

Certainly. All the early Smith and Wessons were Single Action. They didn't make a double action revolver for the first 35 or 40 years of their existence.