Are SW cylinders supported as well as Ruger?

[Rmiked]

Ruger (specifically the GP 100) claims 3 point cylinder support being front, middle and rear. I know there are other Ruger revolvers that are the same . How is different from a Smith and Wesson 686 for example? It seems the SW has a spring loaded detent on the end of the ejector rod where Ruger does not. Can someone comment on the pros and cons of these configurations?

[Pol]

Ruger (specifically the GP 100) claims 3 point cylinder support being front, middle and rear. I know there are other Ruger revolvers that are the same . How is different from a Smith and Wesson 686 for example? It seems the SW has a spring loaded detent on the end of the ejector rod where Ruger does not. Can someone comment on the pros and cons of these configurations?

The crane supports the cylinder and ensures the cylinder is aligned with the frame. The lockup points simply keep the cylinder in place. The cylinder stop insures rotational alignment (timing) IOW that the chamber aligns with the barrel at the time of shooting. Three lockup points will not result in a better barrel-chamber alignment any more than a single lock up point.

I think you are concerned about a “non-concern”.

[Rmiked]

Wikipedia offers the following description of Ruger as a superior design to some pistols. I don’t know if SW is the same. In particular when the cylinder is open the crane is a weak point and a pistol can be damaged by imparting undue force on it when loading. That is the issue that was discussed later in the Utube I linked. At this point I’m just trying to determine IF the SW design is the same as the Ruger. Seems to me they both have the crane, cylinder latch and the spring loaded pin on rear of cylinder associated with the ejector.

Wiki: The pivoting part that supports the cylinder is called the crane; it is the weak point of swing-out cylinder designs. Using the method often portrayed in movies and television of flipping the cylinder open and closed with a flick of the wrist can in fact cause the crane to bend over time, throwing the cylinder out of alignment with the barrel. Lack of alignment between chamber and barrel is a dangerous condition, as it can impede the bullet's transition from chamber to barrel. This gives rise to higher pressures in the chamber, bullet damage, and the potential for an explosion if the bullet becomes stuck.[44]
The shock of firing can exert a great deal of stress on the crane, as in most designs the cylinder is only held closed at one point, the rear of the cylinder. Stronger designs, such as the Ruger Super Redhawk, use a lock in the crane as well as the lock at the rear of the cylinder. This latch provides a more secure bond between cylinder and frame, and allows the use of larger, more powerful cartridges. Swing-out cylinders are rather strong, but not as strong as fixed cylinders, and great care must be taken with the cylinder when loading, so as not to damage the crane.[44]

[farscott]

Not all S&W revolvers use the well known locking method with the muzzle end of ejection rod. Some older S&W N-frame revolvers used the "Triple Lock" where the "third" lock was on the crane. Some Performance Center revolvers use a ball detent lock in the crane. The ball detent accomplices the same thing as the "Triple Lock" crane lock with much simpler (less expensive) machining. S&W drops the ejector rod lock when using the ball detent lock.

Considering the X-frame is chambered for the .460 S&W and the lack of stories about S&W cylinders unlatching under recoil since the adoption of the "Endurance Package" in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the S&W cylinder locking system has to be considered suitable for the cartridges for which it is chambered.

[Rmiked]

Is the locking system on the 686 (L-frame) the same as the 629 (44 mag-N frame)? If not , are the locking systems appropriate for their respective calibers?

[Wheeler]

Is the locking system on the 686 (L-frame) the same as the 629 (44 mag-N frame)? If not , are the locking systems appropriate for their respective calibers?

The locking systems have always been appropriate for their respective calibers on Hand Ejector models when using factory ammo that is within SAAMI specs. One example of this would be some of the Buffalo Bore .44 Magnum ammunition that states on the box to NOT use in S&W 29s and 629s. The Ruger revolvers have always been capable of handling heavier loads than their equivalent S&W counterparts. This really only matters when running heavy for caliber bullets or hotter hand loads.

[Spartan1980]

Pol pretty much nailed it above. I would only add that the latch pin on the front of the ejector rod on the S&W is much farther from the rear pin as compared to the Ruger's front lock which is more robust. That gives the S&W more leverage and may end up actually being stronger. I see the difference as moot.

The bigger issue in Rugers being able to handle hotter loads is just heavier overall construction of the frame and the biggie is the cylinder stop notch is rotated to be between chambers in the Ruger while S&W's are on the chamber centerline yielding a much thinner chamber wall at that point. This really comes into play in the .45 caliber. It's shockingly thin even with them being N frame chambering. Not a real huge factor in the smaller ones.

[Pol]

Is the locking system on the 686 (L-frame) the same as the 629 (44 mag-N frame)?

Identical.

[Rmiked]

Pol pretty much nailed it above. I would only add that the latch pin on the front of the ejector rod on the S&W is much farther from the rear pin as compared to the Ruger's front lock which is more robust. That gives the S&W more leverage and may end up actually being stronger. I see the difference as moot.

The bigger issue in Rugers being able to handle hotter loads is just heavier overall construction of the frame and the biggie is the cylinder stop notch is rotated to be between chambers in the Ruger while S&W's are on the chamber centerline yielding a much thinner chamber wall at that point. This really comes into play in the .45 caliber. It's shockingly thin even with them being N frame chambering. Not a real huge factor in the smaller ones.

Are there any known failure of cylinders of the 629 (44 mag) due to cylinder cracking? In other words is the design good even with the cylinder stop notch located in the center of the chamber resulting in the “thin area”?

[Wingate's Hairbrush]

Are there any known failure of cylinders of the 629 (44 mag) due to cylinder cracking? In other words is the design good even with the cylinder stop notch located in the center of the chamber resulting in the “thin area”?We're discussing designs that have existed in similar form anywhere from decades to more than a century. Hard-used and well-proven. You can find anomalous incidents of any kind with anything, but they're exceptions, not the rule.

What are we really discussing here and what are you actually concerned about?

[Spartan1980]

Are there any known failure of cylinders of the 629 (44 mag) due to cylinder cracking? In other words is the design good even with the cylinder stop notch located in the center of the chamber resulting in the “thin area”?

They are fine for .44 Mag but not .454 Casull. It's mainly applicable as to why S&W created the X Frame for the Godzilla Magnums and you won't see any .454 Casull N Frames. Meanwhile Ruger didn't have to worry about it in the slightest for their .454s and .480s in the Super Redhawk. Most folks don't think about it because the S&W frames are plenty strong enough for their chamberings and they just stop considering anything else. They get into trouble quickly when they try to make their Mod. 25 45LC into a .454.

[Rmiked]

I am considering buying a revolver since I sold my 686 about a year ago. I regret it but it’s done. Now that I know the Liberals don’t want to confiscate revolvers, like the semi-autos with magazines >10 rounds, I think having a revolver is smarter to own. I have looked at the Ruger GP100 and really like it. But I am evaluating getting a 44 vs 357 now. I like the 629 especially the 6.5” with full underlug barrel. I recognize the 629 may be 50% more powerful (depending on the round) than a 357 and just want to understand more about the design. I hear you saying it’s so tried and tested it must be a great design.

[Rmiked]

They are fine for .44 Mag but not .454 Casull. It's mainly applicable as to why S&W created the X Frame for the Godzilla Magnums and you won't see any .454 Casull N Frames. Meanwhile Ruger didn't have to worry about it in the slightest for their .454s and .480s in the Super Redhawk. Most folks don't think about it because the S&W frames are plenty strong enough for their chamberings and they just stop considering anything else. They get into trouble quickly when they try to make their Mod. 25 45LC into a .454.

You really sound like you know these pistols well. I understand there is a “rebound plate” under the hammer to prevent it from moving forward if dropped making it “drop safe”. I also understand there is a hammer block which prevents the hammer moving forward if trigger is not pulled rearward. What happens if you are uncocking the pistol on a loaded chamber, trigger is rearward but your thumb slips off the hammer while lowering? If you release the trigger after initially freeing hammer (but hammer thumbed), will the hammer block reposition so that an accidental discharge does not happen?

[Pol]

Are there any known failure of cylinders of the 629 (44 mag) due to cylinder cracking? In other words is the design good even with the cylinder stop notch located in the center of the chamber resulting in the “thin area”?

The "thin area" is not the weakest part of the cylinder. The walls between the chambers are generally the weakest part of the cylinders. When overly hot ammo is fired, the areas between the cylinders end up being bulged. (Normally)

Also, 5 and 7 shot S&W cylinders don't have what you refer to as the thin spot. They are found only on 6 and 8 shot S&W cylinders.

[Spartan1980]

I am considering buying a revolver since I sold my 686 about a year ago. I regret it but it’s done. Now that I know the Liberals don’t want to confiscate revolvers, like the semi-autos with magazines >10 rounds, I think having a revolver is smarter to own. I have looked at the Ruger GP100 and really like it. But I am evaluating getting a 44 vs 357 now. I like the 629 especially the 6.5” with full underlig barrel. I recognize the 629 may be 50% more powerful (depending on the round) than a 357 and just want to understand more about the design. I hear you saying it’s so tried and tested it must be a great design.

If you like the 629 it'll serve you well. They've sold many thousands over many years. Just don't try to turn it into a "Godzilla caliber" and stick with 44Mag pressures which it sounds like you'll likely do. The GP100 is also a fine choice. .357 Magnum is still one of the most versatile handgun rounds ever devised, IMO.

[Rmiked]

I understand there is a “rebound plate” under the hammer to prevent it from moving forward if dropped making it “drop safe”. I also understand there is a hammer block which prevents the hammer moving forward if trigger is not pulled rearward. What happens if you are uncocking the pistol on a loaded chamber, trigger is rearward but your thumb slips off the hammer while lowering? If you release the trigger after initially freeing hammer (but hammer thumbed), will the hammer block reposition so that an accidental discharge does not happen?

[Wingate's Hairbrush]

... I understand there is a “rebound plate” under the hammer to prevent it from moving forward if dropped making it “drop safe”. I also understand there is a hammer block which prevents the hammer moving forward if trigger is not pulled rearward. What happens if you are uncocking the pistol on a loaded chamber, trigger is rearward but your thumb slips off the hammer while lowering? If you release the trigger after initially freeing hammer (but hammer thumbed), will the hammer block reposition so that an accidental discharge does not happen?On a S&W action, yes. The hammer block rides a pin attached to the rebound slide, so its travel is dictated by the trigger's travel -- the block lowers as the trigger is pulled rearward, and returns to "hammer block position" as the trigger resets forward.

You could theoretically have a negligent discharge in decocking from single-action and losing control of the hammer while still holding the trigger back; depending on where the hammer slips, there may or may not be enough momentum to pop a primer.

But the scenario you're asking about constitutes mishandling of the firearm because it's the incorrect method for decocking from single-action, and any kind of firearms mishandling on any kind of firearm can result in a negligent discharge; in other words, this is a user issue, not a design issue, and can't be escaped in some form whatever firearm we're talking about. Mishandling is mishandling and can lead to tragedy.

To safely decock a live S&W revolver: point it in a safe direction, with your finger OFF the trigger and firearm well controlled in hand; firmly take control of the hammer via your thumb on the spur; gently release the action via the trigger while maintaining control of the hammer via your thumb on the hammer spur; let go the trigger and KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF IT, which allows the trigger to return to rest as you SLOWLY AND WITH CONSCIOUS CONTROL lower the hammer.

[Rmiked]

I understand it would be a mishandling event IF you let the hammer go while uncocking. But if the trigger was already released if you accidentally removed thumb would the hammer block re-engage, thereby Preventing an inadvertent discharge? I realize know design features can prevent all accidents. But if you have released the trigger would the hammer block re-engage?

[Spartan1980]

I understand it would be a mishandling event IF you let the hammer go while uncocking. But if the trigger was already released if you accidentally removed thumb would the hammer block re-engage, thereby Preventing an inadvertent discharge? I realize know design features can prevent all accidents. But if you have released the trigger would the hammer block re-engage?

As long as your finger allows the trigger to go back forward, then yes the block will reposition and block the hammer.

[Wingate's Hairbrush]

I understand it would be a mishandling event IF you let the hammer go while uncocking. But if the trigger was already released if you accidentally removed thumb would the hammer block re-engage, thereby Preventing an inadvertent discharge? I realize know design features can prevent all accidents. But if you have released the trigger would the hammer block re-engage?


On a S&W action, yes. The hammer block rides a pin attached to the rebound slide, so its travel is dictated by the trigger's travel -- the block lowers as the trigger is pulled rearward, and returns to "hammer block position" as the trigger resets forward.

[Pol]

As long as the trigger goes back forward, then yes the block will reposition and block the hammer.

The trigger will not move forward unless the hammer moves forward also. The hammer will move forward w/o the trigger moving forward once the sear is disengaged, but the trigger can only be fully forward once the hammer is at rest (or very close to it's rest position).

[Spartan1980]

The trigger will not move forward unless the hammer moves forward also. The hammer will move forward w/o the trigger moving forward once the sear is disengaged, but the trigger can only be fully forward once the hammer is at rest (or very close to it's rest position).

Thanks. Poor wording on my part. I was taking his scenario to mean the sear had released. But I corrected nonetheless.

[whomever]

Just to muddy the waters ... some newer S&W's (M69 for sure, and I think newer M66's) lock at the front via a ball detent on the crane, and not on the front of the ejector rod.

[JTMcC]

Pol pretty much nailed it above. I would only add that the latch pin on the front of the ejector rod on the S&W is much farther from the rear pin as compared to the Ruger's front lock which is more robust. That gives the S&W more leverage and may end up actually being stronger. I see the difference as moot.

The bigger issue in Rugers being able to handle hotter loads is just heavier overall construction of the frame and the biggie is the cylinder stop notch is rotated to be between chambers in the Ruger while S&W's are on the chamber centerline yielding a much thinner chamber wall at that point. This really comes into play in the .45 caliber. It's shockingly thin even with them being N frame chambering. Not a real huge factor in the smaller ones.


The only true data I've seen is from when J. Linebaugh had cylinders tested to failure at H.P. White. The S&W M29 cylinder let go at the same pressures that the Ruger Super Blackhawk cylinder gave up, ie right around 80,000 CUP. The M29 cylinder will withstand the Casull, the frame and assorted small parts certainly won't for any duration.

[Rmiked]

One more SW question. My local gun store has a nice 629 with 6.5” barrel. It is stamped as a 629-6. According to other sources they are up to 629-8? It says the 629-6 came out in 2001 with internal lock. 629-7 in 2005 with 2 piece barrel? And 629-8 in 2006 with slab sided barrel. I never heard of a 2 piece barrel or slab sided barrel. It is possible they are currently producing the 629-6 and the -7 and -8 are just unusual pistols ?

[AdioSS]

I understand it would be a mishandling event IF you let the hammer go while uncocking. But if the trigger was already released if you accidentally removed thumb would the hammer block re-engage, thereby Preventing an inadvertent discharge? I realize know design features can prevent all accidents. But if you have released the trigger would the hammer block re-engage?

Theoretically, yes. In the 686-6, the blocking plate will prevent the hammer from connecting with the firing pin if you move your trigger finger forward, but realistically, the time it takes for the hammer to fall will be shorter than how long it will take for your brain to recognize that the hammer slipped and then react to get your trigger finger forward.

After reading this I pulled out my 686-6 to check my thoughts. That hammer sure does drop fast! If you’re expecting it to slip, then you can catch it. But it is safer to put pull the hammer back all the way back to take pressure off of the sear, then you can press the trigger while still controlling the hammer enough to move the hammer forward just a little bit & totally let off the trigger before slowly lowering the hammer. Doing it this way you control the hammer movement completely. If you simply place your thumb on the hammer & pull the trigger, the hammer will jump forward a bit. During that time is the most likely time when any slippage could occur.

With an unloaded gun try cocking it, hold the hammer back, press the trigger all the way and hold it, then move the hammer with your thumb back & forth several times. You will feel & probably hear when it contacts & compresses the firing pin.

If you think that your reaction time is faster than the hammer dropping you can test it with a pencil dropped down the barrel (erasure end 1st toward the hammer), point the muzzle up, & try several times to just barely grip the sear & get your finger off the trigger before the pencil jumps. I tried & wouldn’t trust myself to do it with a loaded gun.

[Rmiked]

I agree. When I had my 686, I always thumbed the hammer back to relieve pressure off the sear. Then I released the trigger completely. I just never was sure if the block was re-engaged if I were to let my thumb slip. The hammer drops so fast I know I couldn’t stop it. The other factor which to me could only be revealed by testing : what is the minimum distance back the hammer must be to fire a round IF your thumb slipped? At some point letting it down, the hammer spring would be unable to light off a primer if it slipped. Obviously the best practice is to minimize having a cocked revolver and then deciding not to shoot, necessitating needing to uncock it. It happens every now and then.

[03RN]

My one ND was when I was lowering the hammer of my marlin 444 because I hunted right outside my house as a kid.

[03RN]

I also teach, or have taught, to pinch the hammer if you need to lower it. It gives you better control.

[Caballoflaco]

I am considering buying a revolver since I sold my 686 about a year ago. I regret it but it’s done. Now that I know the Liberals don’t want to confiscate revolvers, like the semi-autos with magazines >10 rounds, I think having a revolver is smarter to own. I have looked at the Ruger GP100 and really like it. But I am evaluating getting a 44 vs 357 now. I like the 629 especially the 6.5” with full underlug barrel. I recognize the 629 may be 50% more powerful (depending on the round) than a 357 and just want to understand more about the design. I hear you saying it’s so tried and tested it must be a great design.

If you haven’t shot a .44 magnum I would highly recommend you shoot one first before buying it if that’s possible.
The design won’t make a bit of difference if recoil keeps you from shooting more than a cylinder or two. Also, do you reload? If you don’t, even in good times .44 ammo is around $1 a round in .44 mag and there isn’t really any good factory ammo in .44 special for self defense if you want a lower recoil option s.d.

[Rmiked]

I have shot the 629. When I still had my 686, my cousin had a 3 pistol case in which he stored a 6”-686, 8 3/8”-686 and a 6” -629. He likes SW! I remember shooting at his range standing about 10 ft to the side of him shooting. It was impressive. I am still torn about which caliber to get (357 vs 44). I have dies for 357 and have loaded myself. I routinely load for my 25-06 and 300 Win. But for 9mm, before prices went crazy, I bought factory 9mm ammo. I do want to try deer hunting with a revolver. I like the 6.5” 629 more than the 6”; the full underlug barrel is a classic look. I have also shot some 44 Special. I never have shot my revolver (had 686 for 34 years) nearly as much as 9mm semi (Betetta 92A1). But I did use my 686 to thwart a robbery (2 men attempted to rob me). That one incident impressed me that when someone (an assailant) has to consider adverse personal consequences, their priorities can change , fast. There is something impressive looking about a SS revolver look and the sound of it being cocked in a dimly lit parking lot at 530 AM. It’s not as sexy looking as my Beretta. But it looks very effective. And with Democrats not hating revolvers as “guns of war” with their capacities <10 rounds, I don’t think the Government will be coming for our revolvers. But they are very effective for personal protection. I regret selling my 686. It was the only revolver I ever owned. I don’t like the “Hillary Hole”. But I might can stomach it.

[Pol]

I also teach, or have taught, to pinch the hammer if you need to lower it. It gives you better control.


I guess I'm the odd man out here. On my S&Ws I ride the trigger to lower the hammer. Once the sear is broken, it will re engage at the same point if you allow the trigger to move forward with the hammer. Once the sear is re engaged again, the hammer can be lowered safely by slowly releasing the trigger. Chances of you finger slipping off the trigger is just about zero. I also find it easier to keep my revolver pointing in a safe direction.

I do this as a few of my carry guns have bobbed hammers and cannot be lowered safely with a thumb.