George Hill
Member
My holster is made by Eric of HBE fame:
http://www.hbeleatherworks.com/
http://www.hbeleatherworks.com/
S&W 696 44 special - good or bad?
- Thread starter MrPhil
- Start date
- Status
Mike Kerr
Member
Gewehr98 wrote:
_________________________________________________________
"Kinda sticks out, if you're used to the pretty case-hardened colors of the forged triggers. This is a newer Model 65-5, as imaged by another THR member:"
________________________________________________________
I like that 65. It looks so business like and compact. I like my 65 but the side profile of mine (4") seems to me to have a bit too much length in the frame area. I know that is not the case but at a glance mine appears much more than 1.25 inches longer than the one pictured. I know we are off thread but 65's are interesting to me. Who is the owner of the gun pictured ?
regards,
_________________________________________________________
"Kinda sticks out, if you're used to the pretty case-hardened colors of the forged triggers. This is a newer Model 65-5, as imaged by another THR member:"
________________________________________________________
I like that 65. It looks so business like and compact. I like my 65 but the side profile of mine (4") seems to me to have a bit too much length in the frame area. I know that is not the case but at a glance mine appears much more than 1.25 inches longer than the one pictured. I know we are off thread but 65's are interesting to me. Who is the owner of the gun pictured ?
regards,
Mike Kerr
Member
Gewehr98,
Thanks.
Mike
Thanks.
Mike
revolvergeek
Member
tomthel,
Sometime early '80s Spokehandguns (spl?) did 5 shot .44 spl conversions on k-frames and Speed-Six's. If memory serves me, they would also do .45 colt in the Speed-Six. I have an old Combat Handguns from 1980 or so where they did a write up on them.
Sometime early '80s Spokehandguns (spl?) did 5 shot .44 spl conversions on k-frames and Speed-Six's. If memory serves me, they would also do .45 colt in the Speed-Six. I have an old Combat Handguns from 1980 or so where they did a write up on them.
T
tomthel
Guest
Spokandguns
Revolvergeek:
Got this out of Top 100 Pistolsmiths at American Handgunner:
SPOKHANDGUNS, INC.
Vern D. Ewer
1206 Fig St., Benton City, WA 99320; (509) 588-5255
Wonder if they still do any of the conversions. Curious how they did it as usually the Rugers only go to .44 Spec. I always thought there wouldn't be enough meat in the frame for a larger barrel shank especially on the K frame. My memory in old age could be faulty but I think Trapper Gun in Michigan may have done some .44 Rugers, not sure along with several others, too. Perhaps someone could post some details from the article(s) of the era.
Revolvergeek:
Got this out of Top 100 Pistolsmiths at American Handgunner:
SPOKHANDGUNS, INC.
Vern D. Ewer
1206 Fig St., Benton City, WA 99320; (509) 588-5255
Wonder if they still do any of the conversions. Curious how they did it as usually the Rugers only go to .44 Spec. I always thought there wouldn't be enough meat in the frame for a larger barrel shank especially on the K frame. My memory in old age could be faulty but I think Trapper Gun in Michigan may have done some .44 Rugers, not sure along with several others, too. Perhaps someone could post some details from the article(s) of the era.
surfinUSA
Member
gewehr98,
Those parts are not MIM. They forged parts that have been hard chromed. S&W learned at the beginning of stainless steel guns that a stainless hammer and trigger didn't last long. They used regular forged parts and hard chromed them. this is what is on that model 65. MIM has a sort of case hard look to it .
In fact, that model 65, with its older cylinder release and hammer mounted firing pin was produced long before MIM parts were introduced on S&W guns.
Those parts are not MIM. They forged parts that have been hard chromed. S&W learned at the beginning of stainless steel guns that a stainless hammer and trigger didn't last long. They used regular forged parts and hard chromed them. this is what is on that model 65. MIM has a sort of case hard look to it .
In fact, that model 65, with its older cylinder release and hammer mounted firing pin was produced long before MIM parts were introduced on S&W guns.
SurfinUSA, I'm not saying you're wrong...
But why would they chrome plate a forged hammer and trigger? Case in point, look earlier in the thread at my own 696, with it's forged and color case-hardened hammer and trigger. Then you'd have to account for the plating where it covers the crucial mating surfaces in the lockwork, not a lot of fun.
Something else about MIM parts. My 696 is a 696, without any -1 or -2 behind it. It has the forged trigger, forged hammer, hammer-mounted firing pin, and no silly locking pimple above the cylinder latch. But the cylinder latch itself is MIM. So at some point S&W was subjectively using some of the smaller MIM parts before they went whole hog with the concept, a gradual phase-in, as it were. So you'll forgive me if I don't agree with your last statement about hammer mounted firing pins - they don't automatically rule out MIM parts on S&W revolvers.
But why would they chrome plate a forged hammer and trigger? Case in point, look earlier in the thread at my own 696, with it's forged and color case-hardened hammer and trigger. Then you'd have to account for the plating where it covers the crucial mating surfaces in the lockwork, not a lot of fun.
Something else about MIM parts. My 696 is a 696, without any -1 or -2 behind it. It has the forged trigger, forged hammer, hammer-mounted firing pin, and no silly locking pimple above the cylinder latch. But the cylinder latch itself is MIM. So at some point S&W was subjectively using some of the smaller MIM parts before they went whole hog with the concept, a gradual phase-in, as it were. So you'll forgive me if I don't agree with your last statement about hammer mounted firing pins - they don't automatically rule out MIM parts on S&W revolvers.
the original stainles hammers were not holding up well (galling?) so smith replaced them with the forged parts...but they started getting complaints, because...
the parts didn't match and they would rust
so as a compromise, smith flash chromed the hammers and triggers
same problem they had complaints about when they introduced the 642...the stainless and alloy parts didn't match
the parts didn't match and they would rust
so as a compromise, smith flash chromed the hammers and triggers
same problem they had complaints about when they introduced the 642...the stainless and alloy parts didn't match
sgt127
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,113
And it always struck me as funny, that after the era when they hardchromed the parts so they would match the stainless, they decided the color case hardened parts were OK after all, went back to them on stainless guns and then went to the MIM parts. I prefer the hard chrome, less chance of rust...
- Status
