Howdy
I'm actually not sure if my Model 19-3 or my Model 17-3 was my first cartridge revolver. Bought them both in 1975, but I don't remember which one came first. So I will say that my Model 19-3 was the first centerfire revolver I bought. Had a couple of C&B revolvers before that, but the 19-3 was my first centerfire revolver.
Anyway, I would like to ask a favor of those of you who have one of the new ones with the spring plunger that secures the front of the yoke.
Could somebody take a caliper and measure the diameter of the ejector rod, the part that protrudes in front of the yoke?
The diameter of the ejector rod on my 19-3 is almost 1/4". .243 to be more exact. My guess is a rod this diameter was necessary because it was hollow, with the plunger that secures the front of the rod into the latch under the barrel running through it. The opening measures about .135 in diameter. The gas ring on this model is actually part of the yoke. The gas ring was moved to the front of the cylinder with the 19-4 in 1977. Regardless, the gas ring measures .430 in diameter.
The amount of 'flat' on the underside of the forcing cone of K frame revolvers varied over the years. I have a bunch, and the amount of the clearance cut varies on them. Sometimes there was more metal removed, sometimes less. The flat on the underside of the forcing cone of my Model 19-3 is quite minimal. Meaning that the reduction in thickness of the forcing cone at the bottom is quite minimal.
This Model 13-2 has more metal removed, consequently the metal is thinner at the bottom of the forcing cone than on my Model 19-3.
Regardless, the crux of the matter is that with the cylinder closed on my Model 19, the clearance between the bottom of the forcing cone and the top of the gas ring appears to be in the vicinity of .005 to .010 or so. I can't get a feeler gauge in there, I am just eyeballing it.
I can see by some of the photos posted so far there is a clearance cut on the top of the gas ring on the new Model 19s. At least it looks like a clearance cut to me.
I suspect that is why the clearance cut on the bottom of the forcing cone has been eliminated, because of the clearance cut on the top of the gas ring.
Am I barking up the wrong tree here? Is the gas ring clearance cut the reason the flat on the bottom of the forcing cone has been eliminated?
I'm also wondering if the diameter of the ejector rod has anything to do with this. Clearly, a solid ejector rod will have less parts than the spring loaded rod that runs through a more 'traditional' S&W ejector rod. Less parts means less cost to manufacture.
I have some experience in designing mechanical assemblies that use spring plungers and ball plungers. They are a very cost efficient solution. There are many, many standard designs of spring plungers and ball plungers on the market and many of the smaller ones only cost a dollar or two. The one Smith is using does not look to me to be a 'standard' off the shelf spring plunger, but having them made up in quantity I'll bet they are still quite inexpensive. Much less expensive than the 'traditional' S&W extractor assembly with the hollow ejector rod and the spring loaded rod in the center.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying S&W has 'cheapened' the design, S&W has been cutting the cost to manufacture since 1857. This is just one more example of a long history of cutting the cost to manufacture.
Anyway, if somebody could take a measurement of the diameter of the solid ejector rod that would be interesting.
Thanks