Part Two of Two
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.
Looking at the attached images below (and those in the preceding, first half of this two-part outline about these efforts), you can see that I reshaped the top half of the combination manual safety/decocking lever to provide only two “steps” (plus the outer “edge” or rim of the lever itself) but each of them is deeper and more sharply defined than those that the factory originally included. While dramatically altering its profile, I didn’t weaken the part. More on that later but here I should tell you that if this configuration had been done on a production basis, I probably would have included small fillets along the inside corners of the “steps” to perhaps make it stronger while leaving the outside edges exactly as seen in the photos. For in my tests, I verified that by exaggerating those remaining and recut ledges (and “edges”) as in the sample seen here, I was able to make them more accepting (tolerant) of the thumb shape and skin type variances that I described in detail in the first installment about this work.
That installment (Part 1 of this 2-Part report) immediately precedes this one. I advise that anyone reading this portion read it in its entirety as well.
Just as important to recognize, however, is that while I gave the lever a more functional and ergonomic shape by retaining and purposely exaggerating the “stepped” surfaces on its the top half, in so doing, I was also able to minimize the concerns over snagging that I would have had, were I to have simply duplicated the large right angle “L” shape that I (then) employed on the lower half, where such a profile did make sense on the upper portion where it did not. Regardless of the appearance of the original component, I did not believe that optical symmetry was the right approach here.
These new “steps” on the top, while specifically more defined in order to better engage the thumb as described, also tended to deflect holster straps and portions of the wearer’s clothing rather than hook on to them like a single 90º cut (as used on the bottom) might do if it was used in this area. The last thing I wanted to have was a gun that could be carried in an “off safe” and immediately fire-able condition to be unknowingly and/or unnoticeably shifted in a non-functional mode through the act of drawing, handling or even carrying the gun itself.
But that hooking effect was exactly what I wanted in regard to the bottom half of the lever, so there I removed the factory “steps” (the raised surfaces) altogether and replaced them with a severe and sharply cut 90º intersection instead.
While the changes I made to the upper half of the lever, resulted in both the deeper crevices (for what in many people, is the softer and fleshier portion of their thumb to flow into) and the sharper and more defined edges of the new steps (to help engage the stiffer and less pliable skin of people whose thumb is calloused through work or altered by age or environmental conditions), what I needed here on the bottom was a 90º “ledge” to not only provide an extremely deep surface for an average size thumb to engage but also an “overhang” (created by this “right angle” crossection) to “hook” those thumbs of a larger diameter as well as those composed of skin that had “hardened” as a result of any one of a number of internal or external conditions.
All of this increased contact area and contact effectiveness was accomplished without increasing the crossection (thickness) of the lever or changing its relationship (profile) to the gun. Therefore, the overall thickness of the gun was not increased although I believe user performance was. Additionally, this and other experiments I performed back then, actually allowed me (in some cases) to thin down the thickness of the lever in order to reduce that overall thickness of the firearm even further.
Ultimately, however, I came to believe that such “thinning” was not necessary and perhaps even undesirable. For while this part doesn’t see much in the way of really severe forces or loads, I was still worried about reducing its thickness in regard to breakage and bending. It is a strong part as designed by the factory and a true reduction in crossection could very well have affected its ruggedness and resistance to damage in the field and/or under severe use. The version that you see here maintains the original factory thickness and I believe it to be the right approach in this regard.
I also believe (and the past two decades could have blurred my recollections somewhat) that the early levers sat differently in relation to the slide than they did in later years. That is, in regard to how “high” their outside and rear, non-user-contact surface(s) stood above the faces of the slides into which they were installed. I believe that the “rear outer faces” of the early ones “sat” lower but still not flush. Additionally, I also thought that the edges of those same non-user-contact surfaces on the early levers were more radiused as well (creating a more rounded and dome-like shape to this part of the lever). But even with that in mind, I still did not find them to be “optimum” for all applications.
Neither condition is much of a problem (if a “problem” at all) in terms of the Duty Gun or Service Pistol that the 5906 was designed to be. But again, with my interest in Concealed Carry, the still somewhat sharp-shouldered step between the rear (trailing) edge of the lever and the face of the slide not only annoyed me aesthetically but concerned me in terms of being just one more surface on which to snag the gun when drawing it from under a covering garment. So if you compare the pictures below to your own gun or to pictures of 5900 Series guns either online or here on this site, you will see that I gently radiused things to try and minimize those matters. However, it is important to note that even in the example shown here, you will see once again that I did not really reduce the crossection of the lever in doing so.
Finally, I believe that the blending of this rear surface from its trailing (rearmost) edge forward through to the new steps that I had cut into the actual “levering” (engagement) surface of the paddle proper, also had some positive effects on the positioning of the thumb when it is first brought to bear on the lever after firing and the decision to decock the pistol has been made. Once more, we must remember that decocking “in the field” is very likely to occur after the user has just fired the gun in defense of their life or the life of another and it is a time of great stress and perhaps one that also involves a limited or impaired sense of touch or “feel”. The last thing we want under those conditions is for the shooter to “clamp down” on this lever (especially if from a less than ideal angle or approach) and be stopped or even impeded by a raised surface that doesn’t really need to be there as they attempt to position their thumb properly on the lever and move it down to the decocking and/or engaged position.
So, that’s what I’ve got and I hope that this presentation spurs further thinking about how this lever (and other controls for that matter) might be better-shaped or designed to work with, and not against, the user as too many of the configurations that I see today (on these guns and others) seem to lose sight of what is really needed to improve performance; especially on a concealed carry gun and especially under stress.
Most people thin things down or polish them out to the point where they are not only of a lower profile and less likely to snag on something nearby but also less likely to work effectively for the user. I’m obviously biased here but I think that this solution succeeds in all of those areas (especially in terms of better performance) and does so without becoming unnecessarily oversized or involving additional support hand surfaces for what a lot of people feel are unnecessary, or at least unlikely, ambidextrous operations (a topic I also discussed recently in regard to another in another Thread on a different Board on this Site: About The Also-Mentioned 1911 Issues.
In any case, I hope you enjoy what I had to say about something that most people hadn’t seen before now.
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.
End Part Two of Two
Last edited by Tom S.; 01-21-2020 at 05:33 AM.
|