|
10-01-2012, 01:20 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Liked 592 Times in 212 Posts
|
|
Factory Experimental 5906 Slide
Please note that this piece is being included to merely show you something that was done experimentally back at Smith in the late 1980’s; shortly after the 5906 was first introduced. It is not intended as a do-it-yourself tutorial for the modification of your own or someone else’s firearm. I am in no way recommending anything like what you see here be done to anyone’s gun; a 5906 or not. Work of any type on any firearm should not be attempted by anyone but a competent gunsmith familiar with the particular weapon involved and it is best that such a person be both certified and authorized by the manufacturer for such efforts. In fact, it is recommended that any work be done only by the factory itself or by someone (or some entity) that the factory itself directly authorizes and recommends. This would include both repairs and modifications.
A little over a week ago, I posted a series of thoughts and comments about the likelihood of a “Mystery” revolver being a legitimate S&W gun from the late 1800’s on another Thread within a different Board on this Site. (Mystery Gun Musings)
In it, I said this about how many things have come out of the factory legally but with something less than traceable and documented histories (I also included the three images I have now attached below):
“…The early (pre-Novak sight) 5906 slide pictured below was made for me at Smith in what at the time was called the Model Shop by some and “Experimental” by others, in order to gauge the response from an ongoing group of known users as to the effectiveness of its full-length but conventionally-patterned serrations during the performance of stoppage (immediate action) drills. Everybody liked them (they gave the user a better purchase and it prompted them to not put their hands near the muzzle like additional front serrations can do) but the company merely chose not to implement the concept. Happens all the time. I liked the idea (and a few other “experiments” the gun contained) so ultimately, I bought it from the company. But if I ever put that pistol out, unexplained at a gun show, I believe that…most people would simply walk by and assume that is was something that a local gunsmith merely “butchered” and not something the factory did “for real”…”
Except for showing it to a few friends in the business and other than mentioning it in some remarks made in a couple of non-public police training programs, I don’t believe that I have ever referenced this slide outside of the environment in which it was originally evaluated. Here’s the story of “how and why” it came about.
As semi-automatics became more popular in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, all kinds of old ideas needed to be reexamined in light of how people were actually fighting with such guns. At the same time, many of the newer concepts coming out of the civilian schools of the era needed to be studied in terms of true practicality and safety. A number of those procedures that dealt with the physical manipulation and cycling of the slide concerned me for either they were lacking in performance or safety, or the gun to which they were being applied left a bit to be desired in its ability to aid the user in their application of them.
One of the biggest and most overlapping issues in these various areas of concern dealt with how to grasp and operate the slide when unloading such a firearm or when attempting to make a malfunctioning semi-auto work again. Even back then, there were pistols available with serrations along the muzzle end of the slide that permitted the shooter to grasp it there in order to rack it. Many people felt that this (or even just the longer smooth slides then common to most 5” guns) would give the operator a larger grasping surface than the smaller serrated zone at rear and it would also keep the various parts of their hand (their fingers, thumb and palm) away from the ejection port and potential harm should a cartridge detonate while it was open. Keeping one’s fingers and thumb away from the rear of the slide also kept them away from any levers attached to that area that could unintentionally be pushed out of their desired or necessary orientation under stress.
While fully recognizing that the generally small and often ineffective number of serrations at the rear of the slide were often more traditional and cosmetic rather than actually helpful, a number of us also felt that putting the hand and fingers of the average officer anywhere near the muzzle while trying to manipulate the firearm under that stress (or anytime for that matter) was not a good idea. So I experimented with a number of “other” ideas while I worked in Springfield and one of them is the slide you see pictured here.
Two of the people in the Model Shop at Smith & Wesson were nice enough to listen to me in this regard and in this version, one of them took the slide I gave him and followed my suggestions to match the standard 5906's serration angle and depth while extending the original pattern on both sides of the piece so that it filled the space from the rear of the ejection port to the rear face of the slide itself. This alteration afforded the shooter a larger and relatively functional surface area at the rear of the slide that kept their hands away from the muzzle and the ejection port as it might have done otherwise had I run things any farther forward in relation to the port.
I say “relatively functional” for a reason. In an effort to keep the serrations sharp after cutting them into the stainless steel, we merely passivated the area (so that it wouldn’t corrode), instead of blasting, tumbling or polishing it as might have been the then-normal procedure in Production at the time. But even so, I never felt that this relatively “fine” (factory) pattern was the best choice for a fighting handgun. As a result, it should be noted that I also built several other test slides in an effort to vet slightly coarser patterns that might have been more effective under certain environmental conditions, or for people whose skin was not as ductile as others, or for people whose sense of touch or feel was more greatly affected/impaired under stress.
I put the gun in the hands of a number of students over a several year period and while I was admittedly biased toward the hope that they would like it, I honestly believe that most of them did. Male or female, large hands or small, thick fingered or thin, dexterous or not, the majority of the people I showed it (and the others) to or allowed its use for various drills, classes and periods of time, seemed to think that it was far more effective than the original pattern. Unfortunately, the company did not and it was never pursued any further.
Next time, I will explain the modifications I made some twenty years ago to the single sided lever that you see installed in this slide for it is very much in keeping with the kind of thing that people on this site still seem to be seeking these days.
Please note that this piece is being included to merely show you something that was done experimentally back at Smith in the late 1980’s; shortly after the 5906 was first introduced. It is not intended as a do-it-yourself tutorial for the modification of your own or someone else’s firearm. I am in no way recommending anything like what you see here be done to anyone’s gun; a 5906 or not. Work of any type on any firearm should not be attempted by anyone but a competent gunsmith familiar with the particular weapon involved and it is best that such a person be both certified and authorized by the manufacturer for such efforts. In fact, it is recommended that any work be done only by the factory itself or by someone (or some entity) that the factory itself directly authorizes and recommends. This would include both repairs and modifications.
|