I recently acquired at auction a non-functioning .22 Ladysmith Third Model with adjustable sights. The photos and description both made clear that the gun had problems, but the gun angel on my shoulder whispered in my ear that they were reparable. The gun angel has never led me astray, so I rolled the dice.

Known issues were the yoke's failure to latch closed, failure to stay cocked in single-action, and a likely carry-up problem (many obvious hammer strikes on the cylinder face that lay nowhere near the charge holes). I thought that fixing the hand or hand spring might cure both the carry up and latch problem; I guessed that the hand was not retracting fully, thus preventing the cylinder from closing. I also figured stoning the hammer and trigger contact points would fix the push-off problem (or fall-off, actually, because the gun would not hold cocked position).

The hand was indeed the major issue. It had been broken and incompetently welded, then shaped inappropriately as well. I had in the parts pile a bent-frame third model LS that I bought as a cannibal gun a few months back; the gun angel told me to buy that one too, so she must have known this target LS would be coming along in the near future. I took the hand out of the can-gun and put in the target LS. I discovered that one of the stirrup cradles had broken off the mainspring, so I swapped the mainspring too. Redressing the hammer and trigger (proper technique is discussed in the Gunsmithing FAQs) took care of the push-off problem, and the gun now functions again.

There is some residual cylinder play I don't like. The detente pockets are worn on the deep sides, a common weakness of well-used guns made before the additional hardening process was implemented in 1921. The ratchet may need some attention as there are a couple of charge holes where alignment is not as good as I'd like. I may be able to tighten up this looseness if I am careful. There is a fairly large B/C gap, but I can live with it. Endshake is not a major problem.






The target Ladysmiths are uncommon, so many may not have had a chance to look at the rear sight up close. Here's a top view showing that it is really just like any other adjustable rear sight of the pre WWI era.

And beside it is the sadly mangled original hand that kept this gun from working.




Serial number 23609, shipped September 1914. No blue left, some corrosion pits on frame, cylinder and barrel. Bore and chambers are actually pretty good, as are the frame interior and action now that the hand and mainspring have been replaced. The stocks are obviously very worn. Before the hand broke, this gun had experienced extensive use. Thank heavens nobody ever tried to shoot LR or high-vel ammo in it. The forcing cone is undamaged and the long thin barrel unbulged. ADDED LATER: That has to be the wrong ejector rod knob. That doesn't even look like a S&W knob to me.

I don't know how many of these target Ladysmiths were produced. Based on the rarity with which I see references to them, I think not over a thousand and quite possibly not more than a few hundred. The only target Ladysmiths I know are third model guns. I have never seen a first or second model Ladysmith target.

So on balance, a mostly successful rescue project.

__________________
David Wilson

David, As far as I know, 3rd models are the only target models, and they are all 6 inch barrels. Even rarer are the 6 inch service sighted 3rd models. I have number 23652, which is also a "donor" target gun, being in very rough condition, and I recently donated the hammer from it to another member to restore his gun. Parts piles are lifesavers sometimes! Ed.

Just when I was feeling smug about getting a new barrel on my 22 HFT rebuild, David comes along and trumps it with a Ladysmith Target. Way to go, David (he says as he slinks back to his corner. ) Congratulations on another historically significant find and a good save as well.

Froggie

removed PC

Can't wait to hear how it shoots (with .22 short CB subsonics of course). I've shot my standard config Ladysmith 3rd and it's a hoot.

__________________
Chris
SWCA #2243 SWHF #292

David,

Hope you are well, I was curious can you post a pic of the hammer mounted firing pin for me? I had a thread going about them recently and no one had a pic of a ladysmith hammer to show me. Also, being that you seem to collect the little ladies, have you noticed any variations in the hammers between the three model changes?

Thanks

Thank you all for your comments. I will definitely be shooting this one, and maybe another one (a second model) that I am also trying to bring back to life. I have a couple of boxes of primer-only Colibri rounds that I will use to test them.

Froggie, I am kind of envious of your rebarreled HFT. You now have a serious compact .22 shooter, and my gun here is just a lightweight toy compared to yours. (Though I suspect this Ladysmith could be used safely for rat work during wintertime barn safaris.) I still don't have a knockabout .22/32 with a six-inch barrel, though I do have one really rough Kit Gun that I can shoot without fear of reducing its value. That KG was another let's-see-if-I-can-fix-this project in which I had to fight through some serious rust and frozen-screw problems before I got it working again.

__________________
David Wilson

Sorry these photos are a little soft. The macro function on my camera doesn't let me get quite as close I'd like to.






Without opening up some guns to compare, I would guess that the first and second model hammers are interchangeable, but the third model hammer is probably not adaptable to earlier guns, and the earlier hammers cannot (or should not) be used in the third models. The first two models utilized a flat trigger-return spring, and the third model uses the trigger-return slide with internal coil spring. The top of the slide has a boss that interacts with the bottom of the hammer in way that causes the hammer to return to a rest position after the trigger is released, and it also serves as a kind of hammer-block safety (though of course improved hammer blocks were developed in later years).

EDITED TO ADD: I should point out that the M-frame hammer design may be deceptive at first glance. While the surfaces of the hammer nose are angled with respect to the hammer body, the long face of the hammer nose strikes the cartridge rim squarely and parallel to the rear face of the cylinder. The vertical axis of the hammer actually leans forward quite a bit after the hammer has fallen, and the hammer nose needs to be configured to account for that.

__________________
David Wilson

David,

Thank you, I look forward to it. Also very interesting info on the lockwork and backward compatibility of the 2nd model with the 1st model hammer. I assume the M Frames are somewhat different internally than other S&Ws due to the small size, and changes in design due to the cylinder release, is this correct? That being asked, I'm also curious how did the change from the Colt style cylinder release latch to the underlug pull-pin style affect the little ladies on the inside?

Regards

Jesse, there are some interior photos of a first model LS in this thread:

.22 HE First Model (Ladysmith), low S/N

And this thread has some interior photos of a second model LS, but this is not a really good study thread because the trigger spring is incorrectly formed and the cylinder stop is missing.

A challenging second model Ladysmith

The biggest difference between the first and second model interiors is that the frame-mounted latch (the "Colt" button and its attached mechanism) is simply deleted. In the photos in the first thread I mentioned you can see it behind the hammer resting in its groove in the frame like the bolt on the usual thumb-release models. There is actually a horizontal section in the face of the recoil shield that moves back when the button is pulled to the rear. This frees the fixed center pin so the cylinder assembly can swing out. This is an unnecessarily complicated system that must have been expensive to produce and perhaps fragile to maintain. I can see why the company went to the front pull-knob cylinder release in the second and third models.

In the later models, the center pin in the cylinder assembly is pushed into the hole in the recoil shield by the force of the spring that drives the plunger in the front locking lug. When that release knob is pulled forward, lesser spring tension around the center pin allows it to move forward, unlatching from the hole in the recoil shield and allowing the cylinder to swing out. Thus the spring tension in the Ladysmith cylinder assembly is exactly the opposite of what it is in other hand ejectors -- at rest the Ladysmith center pin is pushed forward in its shaft, whereas it is pushed to the rear in the I, K and N frames.

I hope I have described this clearly enough. It's easy to see when you have one of these guns in your hand and watch the different pieces move as you operate the action.

Internally the Ladysmith actions are not that different from other hand ejectors. The parts are just smaller. There is one interesting difference in the first and second models concerning the spring tension on the cylinder stop. In most hand ejectors and the third model Ladysmith, the yoke shaft is monolithic and the spring tension on the cylinder stop comes from the plunger and spring that lie behind the screw in front of the trigger guard. On the early Ladysmiths, the yoke shaft is not monolithic. The button, which is the part of the shaft behind the groove where the front sideplate screw rests to keep the yoke from sliding out of the frame, is a separate piece that slips into the yoke shaft on top of a coil spring. It is that spring pushing the button to the rear that forces the cylinder stop to pivot up and lock the cylinder in position.

I probably need to start a thread that illustrates different aspects of Ladysmith operation. They are fascinating little guns.

__________________
David Wilson

David,

I sincerely appreciate your informative answer, you always go above and beyond in answering any queries people have. As for an M-Frame thread, that would be very cool!

Salutations

Bravo, another nice resurrection!

Have you considered a reblue for that one as a shooter? Or is surface damage too much?

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Great job of bringing one of my grail guns back to life. I'm still kicking myself over passing on a 6" fixed sight gun, minus forcing cone, that the LGS had sitting around for years.

Bob

What, and lose all the original collectible value? Isn't that a mortal sin on this forum?


ROTFL!!!!! This one really would benefit from a little finish just to help stave off surface rust. If David is going to shoot it or even carry it around much, I think it would benefit from at least a quick pass with the cold blue before significant oiling. In reality, the rarity and desirability of the piece are established, so further efforts to "rescue" it will simply stabilize what's already there. JMHO, YMMV!

Froggie

David

As you know I watched that auction out of curiosity. Worse you could have done was had another parts gun. Bringing this one back to life is even better. Does this mean that the gun angel is standing down for now?

__________________
Dennis
SWCA #2409, SWHF #353

The surface is pretty irregular, and I don't think this one is a candidate for a refinish. There's a little more rust that can come off the surface. After that's gone I'll just keep it as an occasional shooter, make sure it is well oiled, and store it wrapped in a silicone cloth.

__________________
David Wilson

Thank you for your post. I love it when a piece of history is perserved for future generations. BRAVO!!!

The gun angel has given me standing instructions for some models in particular price ranges, but I think she's likely to take a break from day-to-day advice for a while. Before departing on vacation she advised me to buy a 952-1 that I saw on the consignment shelf in my LGS. It's in a thread over in the semiauto section right now. A S&W automatic is not one of my usual interests, and a PC semiauto is way out of my ordinary line of march. The angel kind of chewed me out when I seemed hesitant to take her recommendation, so I said yes just to stop the nagging. As soon as I got it home, I was glad she had insisted.

__________________
David Wilson

I hear ya - I keep telling myself that I need to take a breather but keep hearing the same voice - she sure gets around! There are a lot worse addictions!

Happy hunting,

__________________
Dennis
SWCA #2409, SWHF #353