CraigC
Sixgun Nut
And where did he write about this???
S&W revolvers now vs. then
- Thread starter peacebutready
- Start date
- Status
I would like to know the source too Craig. I know he had a Black powder era .45 colt let go with a load of fine Black and a 300gr bullet in the mid 20s and I seem to recall mention of one S&W cracking a forcing cone.
I am always amazed at the scores of revolvers he blew up most of them seem to have been after his death.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I've read nearly every book he's written and that is the only one I recall.
Certainly seems that way.
Same here, I have all of his books and have read much of his other writings. I am of the personal opinion he is one of the more misquoted firearms authors.
He is always credited with pushing things over the limit. As you know, he thought the original Remington .44 magnum loads were too heavy and his famous load is about 100 FPS slower and at a lower pressure.
He is always credited with pushing things over the limit. As you know, he thought the original Remington .44 magnum loads were too heavy and his famous load is about 100 FPS slower and at a lower pressure.
For the bung hurt fanboys
Lest you think I hate Smith and Wesson,
This Fourth Model Hand Ejector is 12 numbers off Ed McGiverns personally selected K frame target & probably on the table when he made his selection.
The fit and finish is impeccible, the action is none finer butter smooth,,,
This plain Jane 14-2 will outshoot it.
This Performance Center 627 X 8 will outshoot them both using .357s or .38s
Lest you think I hate Smith and Wesson,
This Fourth Model Hand Ejector is 12 numbers off Ed McGiverns personally selected K frame target & probably on the table when he made his selection.
The fit and finish is impeccible, the action is none finer butter smooth,,,
This plain Jane 14-2 will outshoot it.
This Performance Center 627 X 8 will outshoot them both using .357s or .38s
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
There's no doubt that modern manufacturing can produce a very accurate revolver. However, if accuracy was the only important factor, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If you think quarter inch tighter groups at 25yds are going to cause folks to choose #3 over #1 or #2, you clearly don't understand.
***Still waiting for you to respond to the above question about Keith blowing up guns. ***
***Still waiting for you to respond to the above question about Keith blowing up guns. ***
It's comments like this that cause things to go awry in these discussions. As usual, the only personal comments and insults come from those who like the new guns.
Onmilo
Ed McGivern owned a number of .38 1905/4th Chg. Target revolvers, the most famous one being serial number 640,792. Since you didn’t post a serial number for a point of reference I will presume this is the one you were referring to, until or if I am corrected. These usually date from 1934. It appears that the one you pictured has seen considerable mileage, and if so that could make a difference.
The K-38 (Target) Masterpiece you pictured is apparently a model 14-2, made between the approximate dates of 1961 to 1967 and apparently has not seen a lot of use – at least I see nothing in the picture to indicate it.
The last revolver is not a stock model, but one that was produced in Smith & Wesson’s custom shop, called the Performance Center. These of course were supposedly given extra-careful attention, and sometimes barrels using specially rifled tubes purchased from a world-class supplier.
In short, I don’t see a fair comparison between these three different guns with substantially different backgrounds. It is also impossible to draw a conclusion about they’re relative accuracy without knowing exactly how they were tested (hand held/bench rest, machine rest, etc.) and at what distance.
Ed McGivern owned a number of .38 1905/4th Chg. Target revolvers, the most famous one being serial number 640,792. Since you didn’t post a serial number for a point of reference I will presume this is the one you were referring to, until or if I am corrected. These usually date from 1934. It appears that the one you pictured has seen considerable mileage, and if so that could make a difference.
The K-38 (Target) Masterpiece you pictured is apparently a model 14-2, made between the approximate dates of 1961 to 1967 and apparently has not seen a lot of use – at least I see nothing in the picture to indicate it.
The last revolver is not a stock model, but one that was produced in Smith & Wesson’s custom shop, called the Performance Center. These of course were supposedly given extra-careful attention, and sometimes barrels using specially rifled tubes purchased from a world-class supplier.
In short, I don’t see a fair comparison between these three different guns with substantially different backgrounds. It is also impossible to draw a conclusion about they’re relative accuracy without knowing exactly how they were tested (hand held/bench rest, machine rest, etc.) and at what distance.
Old Fluff
My point exactly.
No one else has offered anything conclusive either.
640819
27 piece difference, not 12 as stated and these guns were also assembled in what was then the "Performance Center" Department of the plant.
It is well used yet the bore, chambers, and forcing cone are in excellent shape
The 14-2 saw enough use I had to do some part replacing when I received it but the owner was pretty impeccable in caring for it.
Accurate as the gun was, I sold the PC 627 X 8 because the goofy Saf-T-Hammer lock would bind the hammer in double action shooting.
I really should have kept and solved that issue but it also did not work well with the wonder 8 shot full moon clips either.
My point exactly.
No one else has offered anything conclusive either.
640819
27 piece difference, not 12 as stated and these guns were also assembled in what was then the "Performance Center" Department of the plant.
It is well used yet the bore, chambers, and forcing cone are in excellent shape
The 14-2 saw enough use I had to do some part replacing when I received it but the owner was pretty impeccable in caring for it.
Accurate as the gun was, I sold the PC 627 X 8 because the goofy Saf-T-Hammer lock would bind the hammer in double action shooting.
I really should have kept and solved that issue but it also did not work well with the wonder 8 shot full moon clips either.
It somehow makes many feel better in their bones to reflect on the good old days and by association, that all that was made back then was better. Disregard CAD/CAM, CNC machining, robot assembly, laser measurement, FEM modeling, non-destructive testing, metallurgy and metrology, six sigma analysis, hyperspeed simulation, and on and on. Before all of these technologies were available the good old days produced better product nonetheless.
Now I accept that the old stuff may 'feel' better. That before computer modeling, adding weight was the only way to convince oneself that the product would be more durable. And that cost pressure may require a level of optimization that is disturbing.
But old stuff was better? C'mon.
B
Now I accept that the old stuff may 'feel' better. That before computer modeling, adding weight was the only way to convince oneself that the product would be more durable. And that cost pressure may require a level of optimization that is disturbing.
But old stuff was better? C'mon.
B
A well worded response but I must beg to differ on this last point. The ability for quality CNC machines, operated properly and capably programmed will produce far more accurate shapes and forms than a human could possibly achieve. It is no wonder that CAD, CNC and FEM (and it's successors) are the backbone of the new industrial revolution. From an accuracy (and throughput) perspective there is just no way that hand-crafting can approach the accuracy of these machines.
Which is not to say that the human touch, on a piece of wood or metal doesn't produce a result that is much more comforting to the eye and hand.
But I am surely glad that the next airliner I'm on was designed on a computer, machined by a computer, and tested by one as well - with the supervision of a human of course.
Having been someone who created some of the early CAD/CNC technologies in the 80's, I might just be a bit sensitive here...
B
Look for Gun Notes 1 and 2, available at Amazon, maybe. They are Elmer Keith's old Guns & Ammo columns in book form. He was one of the original wildcatters.
JRH6856
Member
But the subject is not airliners. It seems to be focused on S&W revolvers. So pardon the pun but this analogy doesn't fly.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
The problem isn't the technology or that it is bad. Far from it. Modern manufacturing CAN produce a fine product. The problem is in its application. It's not being used to produce better guns, it's being used to produce acceptable guns cheaper. Big difference. That's the difference between a Freedom Arms or USFA and everything else. Because doing it right, even with modern equipment and methods, still costs more than doing it cheap.
Again, it is the application. However, it is worthy of note that the finest firearms being made in the world today are done so by hand.
As stated, we are not talking about airliners. I make my living 365 days a year in the IT business. I know w hat computers are capable of and it is amazing. However, I also know what they are not capable of and I will take an entirely hand-made firearm any ole day of the week and twice on Sunday over one designed, machined and tested by a computer. Therein lies the difference between the two sides. We're not talking about airplanes, surgical instruments or machine parts. We're talking about revolvers. For some they are just tools and they are welcome to all the new S&W's they want. For many others, it's much more than that.
Modern manufacturing can produce something jaw-droppingly beautiful. S&W just chooses not to. Late model domestic USFA's are an example of modern manufacturing at its best. Not its cheapest.
Last edited:
JRH6856
Member
To me, the main point is this: S revolvers in the "golden age" were over-crafted far beyond what was required for aceeptable functionality. Today's methods do not allow for such over-crafting. Form follows function and manufacturing procedures are desigend to produce a product the functions within acceptable parametes. Does acceptable functionality require a sideplate fitted so precisely that the seam is almost indetectible and the plate myst be vibrated out of place by tapping the frame? Or is that functionality met by a side plate that will just fall out with one tap when the frame is inverted? The latter meets the requirements of the designed function, but the former goes beyond that, far beyond. Can such precision be achieved by modern technology? Almost certainly, but it can only be maintained over a production run at great expense. And the demand of the modern market does not allow that kind ot expense.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Absolutely! I am no stranger to CAD or CNC, I was designing parts on CAD and programming CNC machines twenty years ago. I know what they can do and what they cannot do. I also know that one of the ways CNC makes guns cheaper today is that one operator can be monitoring five or more machines at a time, rather than paying a highly skilled machinist to operate one machine at a time. And the other way CNC drives cost out is by running the machines too fast. Open up an Uberti rifle sometime and take a look at the finish of the parts. Rough surfaces, sharp edges, and burrs from feed rates that are too high. High feed rates produces more parts per hour, but the finish is inferior. Yes, it is perfectly true that most surfaces are not contact surfaces, so the rough surface does not make any real difference. But it LOOKS LIKE HELL! And I get tired of getting my fingers cut from the sharp edges left on the parts. If feed rates were not so high, surface finish would be nice, and burrs and sharp edges would be eliminated. Hell, you can make a chamfering pass around a part to break sharp edges, and you can make a finish cut, barely touching the surface, you can even climb mill the whole part if you want, but that is more time spent per part, which is more money.
The company I used to work for had a huge machine shop with lots of great big CNC machining cells. They also used to have a room full of people who did nothing but deburr and break sharp edges. Those people are all gone now.
Yes, CAD and CNC can do wonders, but only when used properly. Open up a USFA Single Action revolver some time. That is a good example of CNC being used properly. Beautiful finishes. They took more time to make the parts. That is one reason USFA used to cost more than Uberti, they put more TLC into their parts.
And while we're on the subject, does anybody here really think S&W was producing that almost invisible fit of the side plate to the frame by using hand cranked machines? They were using pattern following millers, state of the art machines that followed patterns and made intricate cuts. Machinery that had been developed over 100 years ago at place like Robbins and Lawrence, Springfield Armory, and yes, S&W, Winchester, Colt, and all the major arms makers. Yes, the machines were operated by skilled employees, but they were not hand cranking millers to get that fit.
And yes, the fit of the side plate should be almost invisible. Yes, it should require several raps of a hammer handle to loosen it, it should not pop out as soon as the screws are removed.
JRH6856
Member
If you want to look at your options that way, yeah.
But it seems we are not talking about guns and their primary function which is to accurately and reliably put rounds on target. We are talking about human artistry and craftsmanship vs machine efficiency and consistency which is a completely different matter. Guns are just the example under discussion.
rswartsell
Member
Just an FYI, this kind of thing discounts your argument before you even make it. No-one gains anything from this.
I agree with CraigC in my viewpoint in a couple of ways.
1. The "neither fish nor fowl" argument covers the rash of mis-aligned barrels, mis-bored cylinders and other egregious errors of what I will generously refer to as the transition period.
2. It is a completely unproven assumption that all of this potential for industrial precision and accuracy has been harnessed to provide a superior product.
Your argument is flawed by presenting a possibility to be assumed as fact. I have some pertinent questions for you. Are competitive scores at the highest level significantly improved when using the newer Smiths? I would think an easy thing to quantify and record here. This will only be meaningful when comparing apples to apples so I am thinking the NRA Bullseye records old vs. new might do it. No-one was shooting IDPA during the golden era. After that we need some objective comparison, not of the elite examples but of the production line versions. If you do not have a way to compare them objectively, yet you have the answer firmly in hand, then you also have some method of taking your theory to fact.
Might it have anything to do with what you can do with a new Smith against my 1910?
Last edited:
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy Again
Here is an interesting sidelight. I was in the LGS just a couple of hours ago. The owner had one of those huge X frame, 50 caliber, 5 shot stainless jobs out he was showing another customer. Sorry, I didn't note down the model #. But I did ask if I could see it. Now, I will be the first to admit that I am not real familiar with what revolvers Smith is turning out these days. I only own one MIM parts gun, a 617, and to tell you the truth I have not taken it apart yet. That's part of why I asked to see the Big Gun, I just wanted to hold it and examine it.
First thing I noticed was it was difficult to open. I was pushing real hard on the cylinder release slide and the cylinder did not want to open. I tried it a couple of times, each time I had to push real hard on the cylinder release slide before I could pop the cylinder open. So right away I thought, 'hmmm, they sure didn't fit the latch and extractor rod mechanism properly, I should not have to push this hard. Afterall, I have a bazillion Old Smiths, and you never have to push that hard.'
But on further examination I realized there was nothing wrong with the latch. The mechanism had been changed. I realized it when I saw the teeny, narrow extractor rod on the gun. Only about 1/16" or so in diameter. It looked downright wimpy for such a massive gun. But then, mechanical whiz that I am, I realized the whole assembly had been redesigned. The old spring loaded latch at the front of the extractor rod was not there. There was no mechanism inside the extractor rod, no springs and sliding rods, all it needed was that skinny little rod. Instead, there was a spring plunger in the frame, almost like the third lock on a Triple Lock. When I had been trying to open the gun, the latch had been working properly. I just had to push harder on the cylinder than I was used to in order to overcome the spring plunger in the frame. Then the gun would open.
Now, I understand all about simplifying designs in order to drive out the cost of manufacturing. That's why the Triple Lock was only made for a few years, and no Smith ever used its nifty third lock again. The factory saved 50 cents on manufacturing the 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model over the Triple Lock by eliminating the frame lock. And 50 cents was significant in 1916. I realized that's what Smith had done with the Big Gun. By eliminating the sliding spring plunger and its associated springs inside the extractor rod, and substituting a simple spring plunger in the frame, they had driven a whole lot of cost out of the design.
I don't like it. I'm a traditionalist, and I love the old design that was perfected in 1905. But I can certainly understand the economic logic behind making such an engineering decision.
This stuff is all part of a continuum. I'll bet there were folks in 1908 decrying the Triple Lock as some newfangled gadget that would never measure up to the New Model Number Three Top Break. And with every engineering change that came along since, there have probably been sticks-in-the-mud like me decrying the reduction of frame screws from 5 to 4 to 3. I understand completely, reducing the screw count saved money. But I don't like it.
By the way, it is much easier to remove the cylinder stop spring on a 5 screw or 4 screw Smith than it is on a 3 screw. With the first two you just undo the screw and remove the plunger and spring. With the 3 screw you have to first take off the side plate, then you have to unscrew the strain screw, remove the main spring, rebound slide, hammer, pawl, trigger, and cylinder stop before you can wiggle the spring out of its recess in the frame. But the factory saved money by eliminating one screw hole, screw, and plunger.
Here is an interesting sidelight. I was in the LGS just a couple of hours ago. The owner had one of those huge X frame, 50 caliber, 5 shot stainless jobs out he was showing another customer. Sorry, I didn't note down the model #. But I did ask if I could see it. Now, I will be the first to admit that I am not real familiar with what revolvers Smith is turning out these days. I only own one MIM parts gun, a 617, and to tell you the truth I have not taken it apart yet. That's part of why I asked to see the Big Gun, I just wanted to hold it and examine it.
First thing I noticed was it was difficult to open. I was pushing real hard on the cylinder release slide and the cylinder did not want to open. I tried it a couple of times, each time I had to push real hard on the cylinder release slide before I could pop the cylinder open. So right away I thought, 'hmmm, they sure didn't fit the latch and extractor rod mechanism properly, I should not have to push this hard. Afterall, I have a bazillion Old Smiths, and you never have to push that hard.'
But on further examination I realized there was nothing wrong with the latch. The mechanism had been changed. I realized it when I saw the teeny, narrow extractor rod on the gun. Only about 1/16" or so in diameter. It looked downright wimpy for such a massive gun. But then, mechanical whiz that I am, I realized the whole assembly had been redesigned. The old spring loaded latch at the front of the extractor rod was not there. There was no mechanism inside the extractor rod, no springs and sliding rods, all it needed was that skinny little rod. Instead, there was a spring plunger in the frame, almost like the third lock on a Triple Lock. When I had been trying to open the gun, the latch had been working properly. I just had to push harder on the cylinder than I was used to in order to overcome the spring plunger in the frame. Then the gun would open.
Now, I understand all about simplifying designs in order to drive out the cost of manufacturing. That's why the Triple Lock was only made for a few years, and no Smith ever used its nifty third lock again. The factory saved 50 cents on manufacturing the 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model over the Triple Lock by eliminating the frame lock. And 50 cents was significant in 1916. I realized that's what Smith had done with the Big Gun. By eliminating the sliding spring plunger and its associated springs inside the extractor rod, and substituting a simple spring plunger in the frame, they had driven a whole lot of cost out of the design.
I don't like it. I'm a traditionalist, and I love the old design that was perfected in 1905. But I can certainly understand the economic logic behind making such an engineering decision.
This stuff is all part of a continuum. I'll bet there were folks in 1908 decrying the Triple Lock as some newfangled gadget that would never measure up to the New Model Number Three Top Break. And with every engineering change that came along since, there have probably been sticks-in-the-mud like me decrying the reduction of frame screws from 5 to 4 to 3. I understand completely, reducing the screw count saved money. But I don't like it.
By the way, it is much easier to remove the cylinder stop spring on a 5 screw or 4 screw Smith than it is on a 3 screw. With the first two you just undo the screw and remove the plunger and spring. With the 3 screw you have to first take off the side plate, then you have to unscrew the strain screw, remove the main spring, rebound slide, hammer, pawl, trigger, and cylinder stop before you can wiggle the spring out of its recess in the frame. But the factory saved money by eliminating one screw hole, screw, and plunger.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Uh, what???
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,091
What you probably saw was the "ball detent lock" which is standard on many of the P.C. guns with shrouded barrels. It is also a recommended upgrade by many that shoot PPC for increased strength and accuracy. It is not the new standard for all new S&W revolvers, nor is it a cost cutting measure.
Peter M. Eick
Member
As a collector of S&W's from the pre 1957 era, I am fond of them and tend to buy them, but you have to give modern S&W's their due.
My limited experience is that modern S&W's are "statistically" more likely to be more accurate then older S&W's but hands down the fit and finish of the older guns (pre 1940 in particular) is much better. Trigger pulls tend to be better in the older guns also.
My limited experience is that modern S&W's are "statistically" more likely to be more accurate then older S&W's but hands down the fit and finish of the older guns (pre 1940 in particular) is much better. Trigger pulls tend to be better in the older guns also.
rswartsell
Member
Forgive my incredulity Peter,
But I'm at a loss as to what exactly is meant by statistically more likely to be more accurate means. Something like 84% of new manufacture will shoot to a 2" 50 yd. group, while only 72% of old manufacture will? It seems unlikely that you are stating this, so I am confused.
As pertains to the differences in "fit and finish" you seem to attribute the discerned differences to cosmetic factors that do not bear on the specific example's accuracy potential. Could we get down to tasks and state which factors that influence accuracy are benefiting from new production methods?
i.e. precision timing, chamber dimensions, barrel design or execution, lock time, etc.
Help inform an old Luddite. I think there is a merit badge for that. I need the informing because at the moment the only thing I am aware of going in favor of new production is lock time over a long action.
I do not have in my experience a broad range of accuracy potential (as in, you got lucky and got a good one) in old S&W production, and have seen very few handgunners who could actually exceed their potential.
But I'm at a loss as to what exactly is meant by statistically more likely to be more accurate means. Something like 84% of new manufacture will shoot to a 2" 50 yd. group, while only 72% of old manufacture will? It seems unlikely that you are stating this, so I am confused.
As pertains to the differences in "fit and finish" you seem to attribute the discerned differences to cosmetic factors that do not bear on the specific example's accuracy potential. Could we get down to tasks and state which factors that influence accuracy are benefiting from new production methods?
i.e. precision timing, chamber dimensions, barrel design or execution, lock time, etc.
Help inform an old Luddite. I think there is a merit badge for that. I need the informing because at the moment the only thing I am aware of going in favor of new production is lock time over a long action.
I do not have in my experience a broad range of accuracy potential (as in, you got lucky and got a good one) in old S&W production, and have seen very few handgunners who could actually exceed their potential.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
