Please Tell Me About Smith & Wesson J-Frame Centennials

[jyl]

I am mostly an autoloader shooter, but recently have gotten interested in a snubby revolver. In particular I'm thinking about the various "Centennial" Smith & Wesson J-frames.

For those knowledgeable about these guns, can I ask a couple questions?

1. I understand the ejector isn't full stroke i.e. it won't fully remove the empties unless gravity or momentum help. How much of a problem is this, really? Did gunsmiths ever lengthen the ejector rod and shorten the shroud, to get a full stroke ejector?

2. I see that the older ones have a grip safety. What are the downsides of having this feature? Is the grip safety reliable? Why was it discontinued?

3. How bad is the recoil and controllability, using standard .38 Spl loads? Right now I'm shooting a mini-1911 (Detonics Combat Master) in .45 cal, and I find that no problem. Will the little J-frame be okay then?

4. If you stick to standard .38 Spl loads, how long will the old aluminium "Airweight" models last? How about the current scandium "Airweight" ones?

5. Can you practice with standard .38 Spl, but carry +P's? Or are +P's going to jam up the gun?

 

[Old Fuff]

1. I understand the ejector isn't full stroke i.e. it won't fully remove the empties unless gravity or momentum help. How much of a problem is this, really? Did gunsmiths ever lengthen the ejector rod and shorten the shroud, to get a full stroke ejector?

With a 1 7/8" barrel you can't shorten the underlug enough to get much more ejector rod. If you point the muzzle up while giving the rod a sharp push the fired barss (and any unfired cartridges) should fall away, although it's not unknown for a inboard case to ge hung up on the left grip. This is a problem with all S&W snubbies, and the solution is to practice and work around it.

2. I see that the older ones have a grip safety. What are the downsides of having this feature? Is the grip safety reliable? Why was it discontinued?

This feature goes back to S&W "Safety Hammerless" - a top-break .32 and .38 model that was made between 1888 through 1940. The grip safety probably wasn't necessary to prevent an unintended discharge, but the feature was unique to these Smith & Wesson, and helped sales. It was eliminated because it wasn't especially popular in later years, was expensive to make, and the heavier recoil of the .38 Special (Over the .38 S&W) was hard on some user's hands. (As an aside, I liked these and sometimes still carry one).

3. How bad is the recoil and controllability, using standard .38 Spl loads? Right now I'm shooting a mini-1911 (Detonics Combat Master) in .45 cal, and I find that no problem. Will the little J-frame be okay then?

If you can hangle the .45 you'll not likely have any problems with standard .38 Special loads.

4. If you stick to standard .38 Spl loads, how long will the old aluminium "Airweight" models last? How about the current scandium "Airweight" ones?

Standard loads won't hurt earlier models, although over time they may develop some cylinder end-shake, but that is easily corrected. Later Scandium models can handle +P .38 Specials with ease. .357 Magnums are another matter in my opinion.

5. Can you practice with standard .38 Spl, but carry +P's? Or are +P's going to jam up the gun?

Yes, and many people do.

Unless weight is a prime reason in making your selection, I would suggest that a steel gun is a better choice. I often carry an all-steel gun in a pocket holster and don't find the additional weight to be any problem. It is however, much easier to ACCURATELY shoot the heavier model. Remember that the double-action only trigger pull will run around 12 pounds, and on a defensive weapon it is unwise to lighten it. This is much different then your .45 pistol.

 

[jyl]

Thank you for the information. The world of revolvers is really quite new to me. My first handgun (given by my dad) was a .22 revolver, but the first handgun I purchased and every subsequent one has been an autoloader. But lately I've been trying friends' revolvers, at the range, and have really liked them.

One more question, maybe a bit off-the-wall - are the components of the various generations of Centennials (and other J-frames) dimensionally identical, so that one could - for example - take two .38 Spl guns and swap cylinders, frames, etc? Perhaps with some gunsmith fitting?

 

[Old Fuff]

One more question, maybe a bit off-the-wall - are the components of the various generations of Centennials (and other J-frames) dimensionally identical, so that one could - for example - take two .38 Spl guns and swap cylinders, frames, etc? Perhaps with some gunsmith fitting?

Yes, no and maybe...

Within a certain model, engineering changes that affected part interchangeability were given a dash-number. So for example we have the model 42 Centennial Airweight as a model 42 (no dash) between 1952 to 1974 when it was discontinued. But it returns in 1990 as the 642, then in 1996 becomes the 642-1 on a new .357 Magnum frame. Between the three, some parts interchange, while others don't.

So the answer to you're question is, "it depends on what particular part(s).

Generally speaking, lockwork parts may or may not need fitting, but major components (cylinders, yokes, barrels, frames, etc. always will require fitting, and once fitted may not work on another gun - but you have to go on a case-by-case basis.

 

[WT]

Just a minor comment. Be aware that the J-frame in .38 Special uses a smaller frame than the J-Magnum frame in .357. Additionally the bbl lengths and cylinder sizes are different. The .357 may not fit in a holster designed for the .38.

 

[Technosavant]

I shot my new 642-2 yesterday. Recoil with .38spl standard and +P is a bit more than my 5" lightweight 1911 in .45ACP, but still very manageable. Accuracy is great. At close defensive range, it is a very easy gun to shoot (my pinky finger curled underneath the butt did get sore after a while though).

As was said, you can't punch out the empties in an instant, but you shouldn't need to reload this thing in a gunfight- if you tip it back and hit the extractor smartly, at least 4 of the 5 will fall right out, you may need to pull the 5th out, but it isn't a big deal.

Honestly, I shot both 125g +P and 130g standard ammo, and noticed precious little recoil difference. Even mixed cylinders were sometimes tough to tell the two types apart.

With a steady diet of any kind of ammo, I don't imagine I will shoot this gun enough over my lifetime to wear it out, and the same could probably be said about the 342. You just aren't going to put a couple hundred rounds through it every range session. Maybe 50 here, 50 more a few months later, and that won't add up to a huge amount.

 

[MillCreek]

I no longer have a S&W Centennial, but do happen to currently own a stainless Taurus 650, the .357 equivalent of the Centennial, with a two inch barrel and shrouded ejection rod. Mine was manufactured in 2004, purchased in 2005, and I have been quite satisfied with it.

Shooting .38, be it regular or +P, is not overwhelming in these revolvers. I use Butler Creek boot grips on mine, and that helps to tame the recoil. I am currently carrying the Speer Gold Dot .38+p 135 grain JHP in it, and have reasonably fast recovery for second and third shots.

This, and my Taurus 651 titanium, are currently my favorite pocket carry revolvers. I am a big fan of the Centennial and Bodyguard style revolvers.

 

[farscott]

Unless weight is a prime reason in making your selection, I would suggest that a steel gun is a better choice. I often carry an all-steel gun in a pocket holster and don't find the additional weight to be any problem. It is however, much easier to ACCURATELY shoot the heavier model.

I wish I had known this fifteen years ago. I bought an M640 in 1989, and I carried it for some time in an ankle holster. Being on the ankle and being a hunk of steel, it was a problem. The M640 was traded for an M642 sometime in the 1990's. My practice qualification scores dropped with the new revolver, compared to the old revolver. The M642 lasted until the M342PD was released in the late 1990's, and my scores dropped further, later rebounding to almost what I could do with the M640. I switched to pocket carry at this time. I carried the M342PD until an injury a few years ago forced me to go back to the Airweight M642 for the lower perceived recoil. My wife took the M342PD, and I later traded the Airweight for an original .38 Special (pre .357 Magnum M640-1) M640 for even lower perceived recoil. My scores reached an all-time high with the second M640, even with the stainless front sight. It is also very easy to carry in a good pocket holster.

 

[Old Fuff]

I haven't had any problems carrying a steel J-frame sized revolver as a pocket gun so long as it's in a good holster. This distributes the weight to a point where I don't notice the difference.

When it comes to shooting, it is hard enough to hit precisely with the heavier gun, and more so with the lightest one. All other things being equal, weight helps stabilize the revolver while pulling that double-action trigger, and dampens recoil for subsequent shots.

Some users seem satisfied if they can hit anywhere (and I do mean anywhere) in the center-of-mass at 7 yards or less. I am not one of them. When the rules of engagement require one to not respond until under attack, or a serious threat of attack, the responder is seriously disadvantaged. Even the latest and most hyped "super-bullet" can't make up for a miss, or a hit that doesn't instantly disable the attacker. This means PRECISE bullet placement, and when that's the case I want all of the advantage I can get.

So I should get a new Ruger Alaskan, right?

Well there might be a time I wished I had, but at the same time I don't want my pants to fall down because my gun is in the side pocket. Obviously some compromise is necessary, but it shouldn't be in marksmanship.