Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: Are SW cylinders supported as well as Ruger?

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartan1980 View Post
    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).

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Pol View Post
    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.

  3. #23
    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.

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    NW Arizona
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartan1980 View Post
    @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.

  5. #25
    One more SW question. My local gun store has a nice 629 with 6.5Ē 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 ?

  6. #26
    Member AdioSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    East Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by Rmiked View Post
    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 youíre 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 & wouldnít trust myself to do it with a loaded gun.

  7. #27
    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 couldnít 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.

  8. #28
    Site Supporter 03RN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    New Hampshire
    My one ND was when I was lowering the hammer of my marlin 444 because I hunted right outside my house as a kid.

  9. #29
    Site Supporter 03RN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    New Hampshire
    I also teach, or have taught, to pinch the hammer if you need to lower it. It gives you better control.

  10. #30
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Away, away, away, down.......
    Quote Originally Posted by Rmiked View Post
    I am considering buying a revolver since I sold my 686 about a year ago. I regret it but itís done. Now that I know the Liberals donít 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 6.5Ē 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 itís so tried and tested it must be a great design.
    If you havenít shot a .44 magnum I would highly recommend you shoot one first before buying it if thatís possible.
    The design wonít make a bit of difference if recoil keeps you from shooting more than a cylinder or two. Also, do you reload? If you donít, even in good times .44 ammo is around $1 a round in .44 mag and there isnít really any good factory ammo in .44 special for self defense if you want a lower recoil option s.d.
    "I don't know if it is a placebo effect or not, but I have a growing feeling of well being that comes directly from my instinctual survival drive deep in my belly centerĒ

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •