|
|
04-06-2011, 11:48 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,995
Likes: 5,005
Liked 7,699 Times in 2,623 Posts
|
|
Inside Early Hand Ejectors (before the trigger rebound slide...)
I had the sideplate off a really early hand ejector today and decided to offer a belated answer to a question that was posed when I showed one of these guns several months ago. At that time I didn't have a good picture to show how the trigger rebound worked in early I-frames.
In the first decade (1896-1906), hand ejectors did not have the trigger rebound slide that most of us expect to see when we take the sideplate off a S&W revolver. Instead, they had a second flat spring that originates in the grip and which is displaced up and to the rear when the hammer is cocked or the trigger pulled. Then as the trigger is released, the tension in the spring pushes it back into position.
The two small-frame revolver lines (M-frame and I-frame) used a design in which a single spring directly drives the trigger return and tensions the hand. Here's a picture of what you see inside a .32 Hand Ejector, Model of 1903. This one was shipped in 1904.
The trigger return spring is anchored at the bottom of the grip frame by the strain screw passing through it. The upper end winds over a pin attached to the hammer, behind the hand, then then bears on a small pawl attached to the back of the hand.
The same design is seen in the tiny M-frame Ladysmith: (That's a reflection on the spring, not rust.)
This small-frame design differs from the trigger return mechanism used in the K-frame revolvers before the advent of the trigger rebound slide with its interior coil spring. Here's a .38 M&P 1902, First change. The shorter flat spring drives a pivoting mechanism that affects the trigger through a lever.
All N-frame revolvers utilize the trigger rebound slide. The rebound slide system was in place by 1906, and the first N-frame did not appear until 1908.
Just for reference, here's a picture of a rebound slide mechanism. I borrowed this from the thread about the cleaned up kit gun I started a couple of hours ago.
Here endeth the lesson.
__________________
David Wilson
|
The Following 17 Users Like Post:
|
bravastar1, Donald Paul, gordonrick, gripper, j38, JayCeeNC, kimporter, Krogen, larry21556, Mike McLellan, PALADIN85020, rck281, RKmesa, Skeetr57, snubbyfan, tlay, zoisrus |
04-07-2011, 12:52 AM
|
Absent Comrade US Veteran SWCA Founding Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: San Diego, CA. USA
Posts: 10,532
Likes: 3,529
Liked 6,883 Times in 2,796 Posts
|
|
David, Excellent post! A very good example of where a picture is worth a 1,000 words! Ed.
|
04-07-2011, 01:50 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,535
Likes: 6
Liked 862 Times in 379 Posts
|
|
Indeed, thank you DCWilson for taking the time and trouble to show these.
Was there any difference in this part of the Mechanism, from the 1899 to the 1902 first change, as seen in your next-to-last image?
While I knew of the presence of the second, smaller leaf Spring on the 1899 and 1902 Models, I have never removed the Side Plate to look and see the details.
Seems quite elegent all in all.
What are the plugs or Rivets seen in the Hammer body of the Lady Smith, and, of the 1902 1st change 'M&P'?
Last edited by Oyeboteb; 04-07-2011 at 01:53 AM.
|
04-07-2011, 02:06 AM
|
|
Moderator
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: N.AZ
Posts: 3,866
Likes: 612
Liked 2,394 Times in 590 Posts
|
|
Thanks David!
I've never had the opportunity to see the innards of some of these and the visual aids are greatly appreciated!
|
04-07-2011, 02:40 AM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,995
Likes: 5,005
Liked 7,699 Times in 2,623 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oyeboteb
Indeed, thank you DCWilson for taking the time and trouble to show these.
Was there any difference in this part of the Mechanism, from the 1899 to the 1902 first change, as seen in your next-to-last image?
While I knew of the presence of the second, smaller leaf Spring on the 1899 and 1902 Models, I have never removed the Side Plate to look and see the details.
Seems quite elegent all in all.
What are the plugs or Rivets seen in the Hammer body of the Lady Smith, and, of the 1902 1st change 'M&P'?
|
I have never had the opportunity to look inside an 1899, but I would imagine the mechanics of the trigger return are the same as in the 1902. Someone please correct me if that's not right.
For the life of me I can't recall the name of those inserts in the hammer body, but they function as spacers. Somebody talked about them on the forum within the last week kor 10 days, so my memory is collapsing even faster than I feared. The inserts stand proud of he hammer by .001" or so on either side, and they contact the frame and sideplate interiors to keep the sides of the hammer from contacting immobile parts and becoming marred.
__________________
David Wilson
|
04-07-2011, 03:27 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 335
Likes: 133
Liked 227 Times in 53 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCWilson
For the life of me I can't recall the name of those inserts in the hammer body, but they function as spacers. Somebody talked about them on the forum within the last week kor 10 days, .
|
I think that was me...lol...chafing bushings I think they are called
__________________
N frame fanatic
|
04-07-2011, 08:56 AM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,995
Likes: 5,005
Liked 7,699 Times in 2,623 Posts
|
|
Yes, that's right.
I'm trying to forget that whole hammer value discussion. As my grandmother used to say, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
__________________
David Wilson
|
04-07-2011, 09:19 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 450
Likes: 7
Liked 27 Times in 23 Posts
|
|
Thank you DC
For giving some of us a chance to see what's inside a revolver many of us will not have an opportunity to own,let alone see inside the side plate. The inner workings are so fascinating to me. The evolution of firearms in the 20th century was amazing!
|
04-07-2011, 10:27 AM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Central IL
Posts: 22,792
Likes: 18,502
Liked 22,389 Times in 8,268 Posts
|
|
Yes David, the 1899 is the same, see below. This one is vintage Jan. 1901.
__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
04-07-2011, 10:44 AM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ocean Shores, WA, USA
Posts: 5,781
Likes: 201
Liked 5,066 Times in 1,769 Posts
|
|
Just for comparison....
Similar solution for similar problem, same era, two different companies. (Colt M1892)
__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446
|
01-20-2014, 10:35 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 154
Likes: 7
Liked 52 Times in 21 Posts
|
|
Inside Early Hand Ejectors (before the trigger rebound slide...)
lets see if this works
i'm resurrecting this thread to see if anyone has a side by side picture of the internals in the cocked position to compare to the fired position or at rest.
thanks guys!
Last edited by Michael J. Spangler; 01-21-2014 at 12:07 AM.
|
01-21-2014, 01:38 AM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: georgia
Posts: 263
Likes: 4
Liked 29 Times in 22 Posts
|
|
should be a sticky!!!
|
01-21-2014, 06:54 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 17,799
Likes: 7,843
Liked 25,705 Times in 8,685 Posts
|
|
Quite interesting David and thank you for posting all the detailed photos. I have never had the pleasure or opportunity to work on one of those old beauties, but now I know what to expect if I ever do.
Looks like the old lock work would be durable enough, but how smooth do they function?
Chief38
|
01-21-2014, 07:13 AM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Central IL
Posts: 22,792
Likes: 18,502
Liked 22,389 Times in 8,268 Posts
|
|
I shot my 1899 just a couple months ago, and recall it was reasonably smooth, but somewhat stiffer in double action. Probably around 10 - 12 lb pull. Single action seemed the same as any K Frame from Pre-War vintage.
__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244
|
01-21-2014, 07:33 AM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,995
Likes: 5,005
Liked 7,699 Times in 2,623 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chief38
Looks like the old lock work would be durable enough, but how smooth do they function?
Chief38
|
My .38 M&P 1902/first change is a delight to shoot. I actually think the rebound slide system, however reliable it is, has the potential to feel rough or draggy in DA operation because of the grime that can get down inside the slide. I have also found the occasional oversize coil spring in rebound slides that a DIY gunsmith did not realize was .01" too wide. Now those are rough guns!
My early M1903 .32 HEs (a compact fixed sight model and two target revolvers) work just fine with the flat trigger return spring.
Ladysmiths are a constant irritation to me because I keep buying specimens that are capable of reliable operation only if they get some TLC. In first and second models the work has involved problems with the foremost end of the trigger return spring, which I have found in some guns to be either worn (too short, and capable of disengaging from the pawl on the hand) or already "repaired" by previous owners (too long, which does astonishing things to the inner surface of the sideplate when the spring flexes to the side rather than simply up and down in the designed plane of operation). These worries don't apply to the third models, of course, which had the rebound slide system. But then the third model Ladysmiths have other potential problems involving hands, forcing cones, bent center pins in the ejector rods, and so forth.
Unsolicited advice:If you are thinking about setting up an Orphan Ladysmith Rescue Station, make sure you have the emotional strength to deal with disappointment and enough calluses on your fingers to protect you from jabs, slices, pinches and all the other things that can happen to fingers trying to work with small parts under more spring tension than you might have predicted.
__________________
David Wilson
|
01-21-2014, 10:30 AM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Michigan Western UP
Posts: 12,965
Likes: 3,047
Liked 14,346 Times in 5,471 Posts
|
|
My only problem with Ladysmiths is that I have to remove my finger from the trigger in order for the mechanism to full reset. Just not enough room between the trigger guard and the trigger to leave my finger in place. Mechanics are tiny clones of the Model 99s and 02s.
__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515
|
01-21-2014, 10:53 AM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Inman, SC USA
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 95
Liked 649 Times in 372 Posts
|
|
David: Very clear pictures of the early mechanisms. Although not mentioned above, the pictures also show the difference in the earlier cylinder stops, which simply pivot about a pin without the reciprocating and pivoting motion of the later cylinder stops which caused the appearance of the 5th screw in the trigger guard.
These early guns also used a single stage double action system where the double action worked entirely off the sear strut on the hammer. The difference between the early and later double action can be seen clearly in the picture of the gun with the rebound slide, where the double action starts on the sear strut, then transitions to a notch in the rear of the trigger working directly on the hammer. That is what gives the later S&W revolvers the super smooth double action.
__________________
Tom
1560
Last edited by Skeetr57; 01-21-2014 at 11:05 AM.
|
01-21-2014, 11:29 AM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,995
Likes: 5,005
Liked 7,699 Times in 2,623 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadin
Just for comparison....
Similar solution for similar problem, same era, two different companies. (Colt M1892)
|
Great photo. Those who are unfamiliar with Colt interiors should note the untensioned leaf spring attached to the rear of the hand. The original Colt right-side sideplate had a pin that stuck out for that spring to push against. Reinstalling a sideplate involves sliding the unit into position from the left so that the pin can snag the hand spring and keep it properly positioned when the sideplate is pressed down and tightened. Two of three early Colts that came to me had broken or bent hand springs. Fortunately it is a simple repair, involving either manufacturing your own spring or just buying a new hand from Numrich. They still had some the last time I needed one.
__________________
David Wilson
|
01-21-2014, 05:31 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 5,519
Likes: 936
Liked 6,456 Times in 1,326 Posts
|
|
David
Here are some pictures of the levering mechanism. This first picture shows the parts
from two revolvers, along with their springs.
This next picture shows the mechanism disassembled, so that you see both pieces.
The inner piece has a little roller on the end of it, and that fits inside the trigger.
This next picture shows the inner lever inserted into the rear of the trigger.
The last picture shows the mechanism assembly inserted into the rear of the trigger.
Regards, Mike Priwer
Last edited by mikepriwer; 01-21-2014 at 05:34 PM.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
01-21-2014, 05:57 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 13,995
Likes: 5,005
Liked 7,699 Times in 2,623 Posts
|
|
Thanks, Mike. Those pictures do make it clearer how the whole assembly worked.
__________________
David Wilson
|
01-21-2014, 06:13 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 2,992
Likes: 1,026
Liked 2,937 Times in 1,078 Posts
|
|
Thanks David et al. I just bought (one hour ago) my first 1902 1st change in beautiful shape. I'm dying to take a peek under the hood. I have some questions about the cylinder stop, but they'll wait until I can start a thread about my new gun (serial #17332) complete with pictures. Thanks again.
__________________
Why, I aughta.....
|
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|