|
|
12-07-2011, 11:53 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,056
Likes: 1,586
Liked 4,084 Times in 595 Posts
|
|
Pre-12 Airweight... questions
I recently added a model pre-12 Airweight to my collection of snubbies. This one still has the original matching s/n alloy cylinder. I'll take some pics soon and post them.
Does anyone know what the production numbers were for the pre-12's? This one shipped in October of 1953.
Based on the fact that many were returned to the factory for replacement steel cylinders and others "blew up" or frames cracked... any idea of survival numbers for these alloy cylinder models?
Thanks!
__________________
Linda
SWCA #1965, SWHF #245
|
12-07-2011, 01:58 PM
|
US Veteran SWCA Member Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: upstate SC / Mtns SW Va
Posts: 4,789
Likes: 3,064
Liked 9,875 Times in 1,986 Posts
|
|
I don't any answer's to your question, but very interested to hear from others.
Here's mine in the same Alum cyl config.
Charlie
|
12-07-2011, 01:58 PM
|
SWCA Member Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: AZ
Posts: 94
Likes: 1
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
|
|
Linda: Most of the early ones I have seen still retain their alloy cylinders. I've had 1/2 doz of these over the last 20 years and they all had slightly deminished finishes, but retained the original cylinders. I wonder how many were actually returned to the factory.
|
12-07-2011, 07:45 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,936
Likes: 511
Liked 1,971 Times in 508 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandwtrader
Most of the early ones I have seen still retain their alloy cylinders. I've had 1/2 doz of these over the last 20 years and they all had slightly deminished finishes, but retained the original cylinders. I wonder how many were actually returned to the factory.
|
I wonder more how many really "blew up" or otherwise sustained damage in normal use with ordinary ammunition. Despite the gospel that has been handed down over the years on how unsafe it is to shoot these (including both the K- & J-frame Airweights), I've yet to see actually documented a single failure, either catastrophic or minor, attributable to the cylinder's alloy construction.
I solicited any anecdotes to this effect in a thread back in July ( Chiefs Special Airweight Question) with nothing conclusive coming of it.
__________________
SWCA #590
"Colligo ergo sum"
|
12-08-2011, 05:52 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 17,824
Likes: 7,853
Liked 25,747 Times in 8,701 Posts
|
|
I have to say that I am NOT a "Safe Queen" fan at all, but when it comes to the vulnerable aluminum M12's I would probably not shoot it much and if I did I would use some wimpy hand loads.
Chief38
|
12-08-2011, 06:11 AM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Posts: 19,251
Likes: 11,929
Liked 20,598 Times in 8,583 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goony
I wonder more how many really "blew up" or otherwise sustained damage in normal use with ordinary ammunition. Despite the gospel that has been handed down over the years on how unsafe it is to shoot these (including both the K- & J-frame Airweights), I've yet to see actually documented a single failure, either catastrophic or minor, attributable to the cylinder's alloy construction.
I solicited any anecdotes to this effect in a thread back in July ( Chiefs Special Airweight Question) with nothing conclusive coming of it.
|
I too have only heard the myths. In observation all the damaged guns I've seen had cumulative damage like cracks; none were catostrophic failures! I'm not saying there weren't any and if there are you know those would normally be kept to hang on gunshop walls as conversation pieces, right?
__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819
Last edited by Hondo44; 12-08-2011 at 06:27 AM.
|
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:17 AM.