All of the above is why we're all paying premium prices for S&W Revolvers that were made in 1994 or earlier. There were still Craftsmen who took Pride in their work and a company that cared about the product they sold, and the customers who bought those products.
Be Aware-Stay Safe. Gunfighting Is A Thinking Man's Game. So We Might Want To Bring Thinking Back Into It.
That's about my cut off date also. I have a bunch of S&W revolvers built before 1994 and they're all high quality. I have one that is newer (2005?) and one can see a lot of short cuts were made to produce that gun. It functions but it's hard to look at the fit and finish. It has no soul. I'm thinking about selling it and buying an older N frame to replace it.Originally Posted by MDFA
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
The thing that gets to me is that properly done MIM, and the lower cost of high precision CNC machining means that the super fine labor intensive fitting and finishing is not strictly necessary like it used to be. I don’t have a problem with this at all, but it feels like Smith erred on the side of making things too cheaply with a wider band of what they deemed acceptable instead of leveraging these techniques to mass produce higher quality guns with minimal fitting. Guns with previously unacceptably high barrel cylinder gaps and lousy accuracy are usually found “in spec” and returned to customers if they’re sent back. Maybe this also happened when they were still making stuff the old way pre-1994. I wasn’t dealing with Smith customer service at the time, so I can’t say.
I am guessing that there’s some managers in Springfield who have run the numbers on making guns to tighter specs and have come to the conclusion that 95%+ of their customer base is not willing to pay for the premium for doing so, or would even understand what the hell a better fit gun does for them as they shoot patterns at their targets at five yards on their annual range trip. From a business standpoint, it’s arguably the correct call, but I don’t have to like it.
Aside from that, I have had a few QC issues with new out of the box Smiths, but also had a few good guns. But it feels like getting a good new Smith revolver is kind of a crapshoot, and you add those issues to the fact that a lot of their interesting guns come with the damn lock, and I tend to be really uninterested in the new Smith guns. I have a no lock aluminum j-frame and a steel no lock j-frame, and that’s probably about the only new Smith revolvers I will own for the foreseeable future, unless I need to replace those two j-frames I have.
Sadly, about the only reason to buy from an LGS anymore is to inspect or even try before you buy.
https://pacifictoolandgauge.com/firi...ent-gauge.html
PTG looks to have something available with copper inserts in quantities of less than 1000 that might work well for checking firing pin indents.
Interesting, but I wonder if the government will accept results obtained on their coppers. The reason the Olin coppers are so expensive is because of the government's special metallurgical and testing requirements. It's not a matter of just shearing copper wire and forming them in a cold header.
It would be worth it to buy some of their coppers and have Knoop hardness, structures and chemistry done on them to compare with Olin coppers.
If I can get a metallurgy student at VA Tech interested in a project, we just may do that.
Thanks for the link!!!!
The LGS has to make a living somehow and anything they sell is going to be more than the internet price. Personally, it would be worth it to me to inspect the firearm before the sale, especially for a Colt or S&W. I'll pay the 10% to avoid dealing with customer service.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
My apologies if this is a dumb question. As some of the revolver vocabulary is a tad outside the scope of commonly used words, and since I'm an idiot, I'd like to double check I've understood this part correctly:
Does this test apply equally to all revolver brands? The patient in question is a Ruger Speed Six.
When you say "grasping by thumb and forefinger", is any pressure placed on pushing the cylinder rearwards?
Looking at my Speed Six, the spring loaded... center stud? at the rear of the cylinder pushes the cylinder forward when closing it. The cylinder face comes awfully close to the rear end of the forcing cone. I'm unable to confirm whether the two make actual contact, but looking at the cylinder face / forcing cone area against light, when closing the cylinder I am unable to see any light between them. Once the cylinder has snapped closed there is a clearly visible cylinder gap.
How much end shake is considered excessive in this case, and are there any special considerations on measuring it?
The other possible reasons stated do not seem likely, since if I've understood things correctly the yoke/crane screw is a Smith & Wesson part and as far as I know the Speed Six has never been commonly used as a service weapon by any large organization in this country, so being accidentally assembled with parts from another gun seems unlikely. Although this gun is purchased used so who knows what has happened to it in the past. I am unable to compare the gun to another, known good, example of the same make and model.
IDPA SSP classification: Sharpshooter
F.A.S.T. classification: Intermediate
The general inspection procedure for a Ruger is similar, but there are differences in the design, for as you note the Ruger doesn't have a yoke screw.
When closing the cylinder if the gun is fitted up properly it shouldn't matter if you exert forward pressure against the cylinder, as the yoke barrel should stop any forward movement. You can check this by coating the rear face of the barrel with Dychem or by using a felt tip marker where it protrudes into the frame window. If the cylinder rubs against the barrel, the yoke barrel needs to be stretched and the cylinder refitted.
Minimum cylinder gap is pass 0.003"/.hold 0.004 on a .38/.357 of normal production where frequent use of lead bullet ammunition is expected. A contract gun in which jacketed test ammunition was provided as government furnished material, and no use of lead ammunition was contemplated, such as for US Customs and Border Patrol, could be tighter, min. 0.002" pass/0.003" hold.
Over 0.002" end play on a Ruger is excessive. If you can feel any, it is too much. This is the difference between two barrel-cylinder gap measurements, one taken with the cylinder empty, and the other with GO headspace gage ("rear gage") in place. If you don't have a blade gage, insert sized, empty brass in the chambers.
In its heyday the "six" series revolvers were very widely used by multiple US government agencies, US military and the RCMP. as well as numerous state and municipal departments, and foreign contracts.
If this doesn't address your question, feel free to fire away again.
Last edited by Outpost75; 05-22-2021 at 10:01 AM.
My expectations on a new S&W revolver. I have no plans to buy another new one. The new ones I have purchased over the last 25 years have all had something wrong with them. Some so bad I had to send them in for warranty repair and that wasn't satisfactory in most respects. Other I repaired or had to live with. One I traded away because S&W would not repair it, had oversize charge holes and the rear of the bbl was cut on a slant.
The good news is that if you just have ot have one, most can be made to perform as they should. I'm just tired of fighting them.
Reply With Quote