S&W revolver long action versus short action.

Status
Not open for further replies.

tbeb

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Messages
852
Location
Northwest Indiana
I like the double action trigger pull on modern day, S&W model 10's which I understand have a "short action". Do you think I'd like the double action trigger pull on a pre-WWII S&W (one manufactured in the mid 20's) .38 special Military and Police revolver which I understand has a "long action". Or maybe I should ask how the two triggers compare.
 
I’ll put in a vote for the older, “long action†- if, and only if, double-action shooting is you’re style.

The older action cams the hammer further back before it releases it. The longer fall impacts harder.

A lighter action doesn’t always come on the gun - they used heavier springs back then because of primer sensitivity, but the springs can be replaced, and in any case the trigger pull is smooth with no hitches. This is when the hand fitting and adjustments they used to do show up. If you want to see what a truly flawless action is, try one of the old “registered†.357 Magnums made during the late 1930’s. I have owned one, along with a number that were made after World War Two, but none of the later guns could compare with the original one. I have wartime manufactured “Victory Model†.38’s that have smoother double-actions then you find on more recent commercial guns. Can a “short action†be made as smooth and light as a “long†one? Sure. But at a price in reliability. The shorter the hammer fall the heavier the mainspring needs to be, all other things being equal.
 
2 more questions

In the revolver I'm talking about, is the rear sight smaller than the rear sight on like a heavy barrel model 10. Also, in a gun this old is it safe to keep a round under the hammer. I've never seen one. Just kicking around buying one.
 
For double action shooting I much prefer the short actions. For example, I have a mid-1920s vintage M1905 M&P target model. It's DA pull is nowhere near as nice as the pull on my early 1970s vintage Model 15 or Model 28. And the DA pull on the 1938 Brazilian contract "M1917" that I had was atrocious.

The long actions may whack the primer harder, but I've never had a failure to ignite with a short action gun.
 
The last of the commercial "long action" S&W revolvers were made after World War Two, and are sometimes called "transitional models." They had a hammer-block safety developed during the Second World War, which is still used today. They can be safely carried with fully loaded cylinders.

Earlier guns, made before late 1944, usually had some kind of hammer block, but they were not necessarily as dependable as the current one I mentioned above. It is considered a good practice to rest the hammer on an empty chamber with these, although many do not and I cannot cite any actual accidental discharges because of this.

The original design of the "long action" went through various engineering changes between its introduction in 1899 through the early post-war period during the late 1940's. Over this time span sights changed too. The last fixed sight models in K or N frame had front sights that were 1/10" wide with a matching square notch in the rear. Earlier guns had a "U" shaped rear sight notch with a narrow front sight. Clearly, the ones we have today are better. Post war guns with adjustable sights had basically the same ones that are used today.

As a rule of thumb, K frame revolvers were not rated for Plus-P ammunition during this time period. Those built on the large N-frame and chambered in .38 Special or .357 Magnum will handle any of today's loads.

I like these guns because of the smoothness of their actions and the superior fit, finish and workmanship they represent. I have found them to be exceptionally accurate, and the fixed sights are regulated to shoot to the point of aim with standard cartridges at about 20 yards. They are I think, a high point of handgun craftsmanship.

But with all of this said, if you feel the need for Plus-P loads and wide partridge sights you'd probably be better off with one of the later guns, such as your H.B. model 10. They are stronger, and usually have better sights.

But that doesn't necessarily make them better .....
 
frodo527:

The springs in your 1920 M&P target revolver are much heavier then they need to be with today's primers. You are missing out on a good thing.

The 1917 .45 has a mainspring that would do well in a truck suspension. It was intended to fire the revolver even if it was full of trench mud. If you're not still fighting World War One this can also be corrected.
 
"The 1917 .45 has a mainspring that would do well in a truck suspension."

Uhm...

Excuse me, but it's a well-known fact that the Model of 1917 main spring and the rear chassis leaf springs on the GMC M16 truck are interchangable...

In a pinch, while the fit wasn't great, the leaf springs from a Mack AC could also be pressed into service... :)
 
Since the trigger is the same on both the long and short action I have never noticed much difference in the triggers pulls of good ones.

I have seen a few 1917s with horrid trigger pulls, but that's usually due to cruddy internals. A good cleaning usually fixes that.
 
BluesBear:

Yes, the triggers are the same, but the hammers are different and hammer studs (on which the hammer pivots) are located in different places. Otherwise one could convert one style to the other by substituting different lockwork.

There are very few old-time pistolsmiths left who understand how to tune a long-action Smith, but those that do can create a reliable double-action pull that is unsurpassed.

One of the people who explained this too me was Bill Jordan, who had an old M&P that once belonged to a relative who was a doctor and had spent some time in Mexico during the revolution with Pancho Villa. Bill had modified the gun by having a heavy 4-inch barrel mounted to it. While he preferred .357 Magnums for serious carry he treasured this one for exhibition work. He told me it had the best double-action of any revolvers he'd ever owned.
 
Old Fluff, I know the hammers are different. But it's that slight difference in pivot point location that makes those old long actions so SWEEEEEET!

A modern (80s era) S&W target trigger in a 1917 or Outdoorsman makes the best double action trigger pull in the world (In my not so humble opinion). I believe the technical term for this is "Slicker than Snot on a Brass Doorknob". :D
 
I should have elaborated more about the difference in hammer stud location.

Yes, you are right about the single action - in that a combination of a longer, wide-spur with a shorter stroke makes cocking the hammer easier on "80's" period guns.

But when it comes to double-action the "long-action" is easier. I know, I've owned several target-grade N-frame Smith & wesson's with both styles of lockwork.

You'll never know what the ultimate double-action is until you try a pre-war registered .357 Magnum.
 
The springs in your 1920 M&P target revolver are much heavier then they need to be with today's primers. You are missing out on a good thing.

Perhaps, but I don't plan to change anything about it. It's mainly a safe queen, but when I do take it out I just shoot is SA. For DA work I have a Model 15 that is slicker than any revolver I've ever felt (including some custom jobs), except for an acquaintance's Model 19 that was shot so much it had to go back to Smith for retiming -- twice.

The 1917 .45 has a mainspring that would do well in a truck suspension. It was intended to fire the revolver even if it was full of trench mud. If you're not still fighting World War One this can also be corrected.

Not by me, as I traded it off towards a G3 clone. :)
 
Old Fluff, I believe you misread my post.

I was agreeing with you that the long action is MUCH better in double action shooting. If you take an old long action S&W, such as a 1917 Army or a .38/44 Outdoorsman and put a newer, wide target (or combat) TRIGGER in it is becomes absolutely delicious to shoot.

The trigger arc is the same for both long and short actions but the long action is much smoother due to the slightly larger hammer. With the same mainspring tension, it feels slightly softer and smoother, and the hammer, while it may take a few milliseconds longer to fall, really smacks that primer.

As for single action shooting, to me, the long action seems to break crisper. It's more like that "glass rod" feeling that 1911 shooters dream of.

Which is why I am again searching for a nice 1917 S&W.
I just missed one for $250 that was 98% original.
 
Please permit a rather long comment on those pre-war S&W hammer blocks. In the early Hand Ejector models, the only hammer block was the rebound lever, which was powered by a second leaf spring in the grip, in front of the mainspring which was toward the back. It served the initial purpose of drawing the firing pin out of the fired primer so the cylinder could swing out, but provided little protection against a blow on the hammer. Later, S&W developed the rebound slide, a much heavier system which served as a better hammer block as well as rebounding the hammer. The mainspring was moved forward to its current position.

But if the gun were dropped on the hammer, the hammer or its pin could still break and the gun could fire. So S&W developed a true hammer block in the sideplate. The block was part of a flat spring which was loaded to move into the path of the hammer until pushed back into the sideplate by a horizontally moving pin which was shaped as a cam to press back the block. The pin was moved by the hand. It was complex and quite expensive to make and fit.

The next effort was a similar block which was cammed out of the way by a slanted surface on the hand itself; the hand was much wider (front to rear) to provide this surface. This was the system in use at the beginning of WWII.

But note the defect of these systems. They depended on springs to put the safety in the blocking position. A spring failure or dirt could keep the block permanently out of the way of the hammer, and the user would not be aware that the safety was inoperable. They were not "positive" like the Colt "Positive" safety, so much a feature of the Colt revolvers that they named a whole revolver line the "Police Positive". That safety was operated mechanically by the trigger, not by springs, and would not allow the trigger to return unless the hammer block moved into position.

The S&W safety mechanism in use at the beginning of WWII proved deficient. A sailor was killed when he dropped his gun on the hammer. The reports conflict but it would appear the hammer block was frozen into the sideplate and did not spring into position when it should have. Almost literally overnight, Carl Hellstrom designed a new hammer block safety that, like Colt's, was mechanically operated, but by the rebound slide rather than the trigger. S&W has used this safety ever since. Like the Colt "Positive" safety, it will not allow trigger return unless the block is in position, and is sturdy enough to prevent the hammer from moving forward unless the trigger is pulled. Even if the hammer or hammer pin break, the block will prevent the hammer from reaching the cartridge primer.

Jim
 
BluesBear:

I think we are coming from different directions to a point of agreement. I prefer a narrow, smooth-faced trigger, but that's a moot point.

I hope you find a nice 1917.
 
Jim:

I completely agree with your observations on S&W hammer-block safeties. That's why I watch for those relatively scarce K and N frame revolvers that were made after WW-2 with long-actions and the current style hammer block.

As for the older guns, I make a practice of carrying them with the hammer down on an empty chamber.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top