Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Smith & Wesson Revolvers > S&W Hand Ejectors: 1896 to 1961
o

Notices

S&W Hand Ejectors: 1896 to 1961 All 5-Screw & Vintage 4-Screw SWING-OUT Cylinder REVOLVERS, and the 35 Autos and 32 Autos


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-24-2020, 08:33 PM
Rolland Rolland is offline
Member
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Camp Verde Arizona
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default 1917 action question

I have a 1917 military marked pistol that the hammer will not rebound so as to clear the firing pin. Are these models supposed to rebound, if so what could I look for. The gun appears almost new does have a lot of semi dried lube in the action but before I strip it down. Marks are crisp and clear as is the marking on the grip panels.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-24-2020, 08:48 PM
bigmtnman's Avatar
bigmtnman bigmtnman is offline
Member
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Colorado USA
Posts: 2,347
Likes: 5,903
Liked 8,831 Times in 1,699 Posts
Default

Yes..the hammer should "rebound". You probably have a weak spring that needs to be "stretched" or replaced. The experts will be along shortly.
__________________
Y. B. Ord & A. Ree
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-24-2020, 09:07 PM
Modified's Avatar
Modified Modified is offline
SWCA Member
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Flathead Valley, Montana
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 2,555
Liked 12,612 Times in 1,809 Posts
Default

The first thing to do with a gun like that is a disassembly and thorough cleaning. Dried old lubricant can cause all forms of bizarre behavior. Before jumping to any other conclusions you will want to do that, I bet it will sort you right out.
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Like Post:
  #4  
Old 10-24-2020, 09:31 PM
Wiregrassguy's Avatar
Wiregrassguy Wiregrassguy is offline
SWCA Member
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: AL Wiregrass
Posts: 7,201
Likes: 34,562
Liked 10,739 Times in 3,659 Posts
Default

Welcome to the forums from the Wiregrass!

Guy
__________________
Guy
SWHF #474 SWCA LM#2629
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-24-2020, 09:35 PM
Golphin's Avatar
Golphin Golphin is offline
Member
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Micanopy Florida
Posts: 1,536
Likes: 6,645
Liked 2,476 Times in 948 Posts
Default

Welcome and you came to the right place as there are a bunch here you and I can learn from.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-24-2020, 10:26 PM
StrawHat's Avatar
StrawHat StrawHat is offline
SWCA Member
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 5,994
Likes: 9,195
Liked 13,468 Times in 3,976 Posts
Default

Give it a god cleaning and then re-evaluate the situation.

If you don’t want to take it apart, remove the grips and give it a good spray of carburetor cleaner while cycling the action.

Kevin
__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #7  
Old 10-25-2020, 12:14 AM
mh51 mh51 is offline
SWCA Member
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: central Texas
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 2,756
Liked 1,281 Times in 634 Posts
Default

Another option without disassembly is a sonic cleaner. Remove the grips and then clean it for at least 30 mins. Gummy or dried grease will cause all kinds of minor issues that are easily fixed.
__________________
Mike H
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-25-2020, 04:41 AM
dsf dsf is offline
Member
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Escaping CA to OR in 2024
Posts: 1,166
Likes: 1,141
Liked 1,424 Times in 577 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolland View Post
I have a 1917 military marked pistol that the hammer will not rebound so as to clear the firing pin. Are these models supposed to rebound, if so what could I look for. The gun appears almost new does have a lot of semi dried lube in the action but before I strip it down. Marks are crisp and clear as is the marking on the grip panels.
Does the trigger reset?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-25-2020, 09:27 AM
mikerjf mikerjf is offline
Member
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 1,857
Likes: 2,232
Liked 2,930 Times in 1,091 Posts
Default

I saw a vid of Hickok45 firing a 1917 by hitting the hammer spur with a 2x2... how does that work if the hammer rebounds?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-25-2020, 11:16 AM
tenntex32's Avatar
tenntex32 tenntex32 is offline
Member
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: North Central Texas
Posts: 1,283
Likes: 925
Liked 2,173 Times in 836 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikerjf View Post
I saw a vid of Hickok45 firing a 1917 by hitting the hammer spur with a 2x2... how does that work if the hammer rebounds?
It works in that manner due to the original S&W M1917 examples not having a physical hammer block. They simply have rebounding hammers that rebound under spring tension only. That spring tension can be overridden if enough force is applied.

On later era commercial and Victory S&W models (made before and during WWII) you may typically find a physical hammer block installed on the sideplate as well as a different style wider ramped hand that deactivates the sideplate hammer block as the hand moves upward when the hammer or trigger are pulled rearward. (Of course you can still find post-WWI commercial models built on spare WWI M1917 frames as well as post-WWII Brazilian models built on spare WWI M1917 frames that do not have a hammer block.)

The hammer block mounted on the sideplate wasn't as reliable as hoped for and eventually S&W settled on a sliding bar style hammer block that was deactivated by the trigger return spring housing's rearward movement when the hammer or trigger are pulled rearward. The sliding bar hammer block will also have a slot and milled area on it's sideplate to allow for it's added width/function.

The first pic is of an actual WWI era U.S contract M1917 not having a hammer block safety. The second pic is of a commercial M1917 from the 1930s having the hammer block installed on the sideplate and it also has the wider "ramped" hand to operate it. The third pic is of a 28-2 having the sliding bar hammer block with slotted sideplate. (Note the wider ramped hand is no longer present with the sliding bar hammer block.) The sliding bar hammer block is usually associated with very late WWII and post-WWII manufactured revolver examples.

Just to clarify, while they all have the rebounding hammer feature, as you can see there was an evolution from no hammer block, to a sideplate mounted hammer block, and then to the sliding bar style hammer block.

HTH,
Dale

Last edited by tenntex32; 10-25-2020 at 04:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-25-2020, 05:00 PM
JH1951's Avatar
JH1951 JH1951 is online now
US Veteran
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: South-Central PA
Posts: 3,901
Likes: 19,082
Liked 6,473 Times in 2,027 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SixgunStrumpet View Post
The first thing to do with a gun like that is a disassembly and thorough cleaning. Dried old lubricant can cause all forms of bizarre behavior. Before jumping to any other conclusions you will want to do that, I bet it will sort you right out.
^^^^ Precisely what SixgunStrumpet said.
I bought a like new, beautiful 1917 several years ago at an on-line auction. I was stunned with the condition when I finally laid hands on it. My heart fell when I was playing with it at home, as the action would not operate properly. It was inconsistent and somewhat binding. A good cleaning and lubrication resolved the problem 100%. Lord knows that I did not want to fiddle with the screws and sideplate on a mint condition example.

I use Berkbile Varnish Remover from the auto parts store. Spray the internals, work the action, repeat, turn upside down, repeat, and repeat until the fluid coming out is free of debris. Actually, I do that after removing the stocks and soaking it in a mix of ATF, Marvel Mystery Oil, and acetone for several days and working the action occasionally. I put it in a ZipLoc bag with the solution and rotate every couple hours. After all the solvents, etc., if you have compressed air, it will help to blow out any remaining solvents. At the end, a few drops of good oil worked in to the action from the top and bottom is recommended.

Please keep us posted with your progress. I hope your results are as good as mine.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #12  
Old 10-25-2020, 06:44 PM
Rolland Rolland is offline
Member
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Camp Verde Arizona
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Thanks for all the help, I found the main spring screw had been backed out half way, the trigger spring had two coils cut off and I think the biggest problem is the sear on the trigger has been cut short so it does not fit into the hammer slot. It still does work but the action is rough and hard to work. I did replace the trigger spring but will need to find another trigger to make it work properly. The first photo Tenntex32 posted helped to see the parts relationship. It appears some one tried to "inprove" the action an just made a mess of it.
If anyone is interested I can take the sideplate off and photograph the part I am talking about on the hammer/trigger fitting.

Last edited by Rolland; 10-25-2020 at 08:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-25-2020, 06:53 PM
handejector's Avatar
handejector handejector is offline
Administrator
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 27,014
Likes: 7,107
Liked 48,566 Times in 9,218 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenntex32 View Post
It works in that manner due to the original S&W M1917 examples not having a physical hammer block. They simply have rebounding hammers that rebound under spring tension only. That spring tension can be overridden if enough force is applied.
The hammer does rebound by the action of a spring, but once it rebounds, it is blocked by steel, not a spring.

I have never seen a rebound slide that can be moved rearward by pushing the hammer. The little flat on bottom of the hammer is resting on the little flat on top of the slide. Both parts have a sloped cam that allows the slide to push under the hammer with spring pressure so that the two flats meet, but once they are flat to flat, steel is holding steel, not a spring holding steel.
If a gun fires by hitting the hammer when it is at rest, the hammer must break or bend at the toe, or the hammer stud has to shear or bend substantially.
I suppose I have to say that an S&W could be so worn at the two flats that there would be enough slop to let the hammer nose contact the primer, but I have never seen it happen.
__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Last edited by handejector; 10-25-2020 at 06:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-25-2020, 08:57 PM
MG34/bar MG34/bar is offline
Member
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Reno NV
Posts: 237
Likes: 468
Liked 502 Times in 177 Posts
Default

Handejector,

What happens without a hammer block is that “foot” of the hammer partially crushes the rebound slide, creating enough “give” that the firing pin can reach the cartridge primer. The rebound slide is steel and looks substantial, but it is hollow for the interior spring Nd can be damaged but a fall (on the hammer) from even as little a height as three feet. This is well covered in Charlie Pate’s book on secondary handguns of WWII ( Appendix “F”).
I often carry 1917 type revolvers but I only carry the ones with either type of hammer block safety with a full 6 rounds. I happily carry the WWI revolvers in my “woods walks” but with only 5 rounds in the cylinder and an empty chamber in front of the hammer.
Hope this helps.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-26-2020, 10:05 AM
handejector's Avatar
handejector handejector is offline
Administrator
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 27,014
Likes: 7,107
Liked 48,566 Times in 9,218 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MG34/bar View Post
Handejector,

What happens without a hammer block is that “foot” of the hammer partially crushes the rebound slide, creating enough “give” that the firing pin can reach the cartridge primer. The rebound slide is steel and looks substantial, but it is hollow for the interior spring Nd can be damaged but a fall (on the hammer) from even as little a height as three feet. This is well covered in Charlie Pate’s book on secondary handguns of WWII ( Appendix “F”).
Dale,
Your own words are now refuting this statement about a gun firing by merely overcoming spring pressure:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenntex32 View Post
It works in that manner due to the original S&W M1917 examples not having a physical hammer block. They simply have rebounding hammers that rebound under spring tension only. That spring tension can be overridden if enough force is applied.
I'm skeptical about the slide being crushed. I have not been speaking about theory here. I'm speaking about over 50 years experience in working on old S&Ws and dealing in old parts. I've seen hammers break as I spoke about. I've seen hammer studs shear off or bend as I spoke about. I've never seen a slide get crushed. I suppose it is possible, but I've never seen it.
I've also read Pate, and I see references to broken hammers, references to hammers and frames distorted by the old hammer block, but no references to crushed rebound slides. Can you point out where in Appendix F?
__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #16  
Old 10-26-2020, 11:48 AM
Old Corp's Avatar
Old Corp Old Corp is offline
Member
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Coastal NC
Posts: 2,936
Likes: 2,339
Liked 4,673 Times in 1,599 Posts
Default

The last M1917 I acquired was in very, very good condition.

Did notice the action was sluggish and like nearly every firearm I acquire, once I got it home, I disassembled it for a thorough soak and cleaning.

Once the sideplate was off, I found the insides all but packed with what appeared to be black axle grease. It was so well-installed, I flipped the frame around, looking for a Zerk fitting.

A couple of days soaking in kerosene, and scrubbing all parts with a toothbrush, the goo went away and all parts were like new.

You just never know what those who came before you were thinking.....
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMGP2152.jpg (112.1 KB, 14 views)
__________________
Ret'd LEO
SWCA #2275
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #17  
Old 10-26-2020, 12:10 PM
tenntex32's Avatar
tenntex32 tenntex32 is offline
Member
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: North Central Texas
Posts: 1,283
Likes: 925
Liked 2,173 Times in 836 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by handejector View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG34/bar View Post
Handejector,

What happens without a hammer block is that “foot” of the hammer partially crushes the rebound slide, creating enough “give” that the firing pin can reach the cartridge primer. The rebound slide is steel and looks substantial, but it is hollow for the interior spring Nd can be damaged but a fall (on the hammer) from even as little a height as three feet. This is well covered in Charlie Pate’s book on secondary handguns of WWII ( Appendix “F”).
I often carry 1917 type revolvers but I only carry the ones with either type of hammer block safety with a full 6 rounds. I happily carry the WWI revolvers in my “woods walks” but with only 5 rounds in the cylinder and an empty chamber in front of the hammer.
Hope this helps.
Dale,
Your own words are now refuting this statement about a gun firing by merely overcoming spring pressure:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenntex32 View Post
It works in that manner due to the original S&W M1917 examples not having a physical hammer block. They simply have rebounding hammers that rebound under spring tension only. That spring tension can be overridden if enough force is applied.
I'm skeptical about the slide being crushed. I have not been speaking about theory here. I'm speaking about over 50 years experience in working on old S&Ws and dealing in old parts. I've seen hammers break as I spoke about. I've seen hammer studs shear off or bend as I spoke about. I've never seen a slide get crushed. I suppose it is possible, but I've never seen it.
I've also read Pate, and I see references to broken hammers, references to hammers and frames distorted by the old hammer block, but no references to crushed rebound slides. Can you point out where in Appendix F?
Umm............you may be the big gorilla around these parts but last time I checked MG34/bar doesn't speak for me.

Look, over the years I have read a few accounts of S&W examples not having the hand operated/sideplate hammer block nor the sliding bar style hammer block firing when dropped with the hammer down. Upon closer inspection no apparent damage was found to the revolver's action. No hammer nose breakage, no hammer stud breakage, no hammer toe breakage, and no apparent damage to the top of the rebound slide. (Of course there are examples where similar configured revolvers may have also fired when dropped due to breakage, wear, improper action work performed, etc....and I am not discounting that either.)

Could those folks have been lying, well sure anything is possible. But let me ask you something, let' say for the sake of conversation they weren't lying, then what gave?

Obviously S&W felt the need for a physical hammer block between the hammer face and frame, and in my very humble opinion for good reason(s).

For those that truly don't understand the role of the interaction of the hammer toe with the rebound slide, yes by design it is supposed to prevent such a thing from happening when the revolver is dropped........and that includes if dropped when the hammer is down and when the hammer is cocked. If you drop the revolver with the hammer cocked and the single action sear doesn't hold then the rebound slide is supposed to move forward under it's strong spring tension (since a finger is not holding the trigger back) and beat the hammer back to their rested positions. Once forward it's interaction with the hammer toe (once the hammer toe eventually catches up to it) should prevent the hammer from going far enough forward to set the round off. This is also why it may be of some importance to leave the rebound spring in it's proper weight so the rebound slide can reliably beat the hammer toe back to their rested positions if a cocked revolver is dropped.

Not meaning to be argumentative, but I feel revolvers without an actual hammer block between the hammer face and frame still have the potential for firing if dropped in such a manner as to be high enough for inertia to start the rebound slide rearward slightly and if the hammer was also physically impacted when dropped. (Once again we can respectfully agree to disagree on this point.)

Does it mean I can reliably duplicate just such an incident without actually damaging one of my examples? I dunno really and I ain't looking to do so anytime soon. But it doesn't mean I automatically discount others' who may claim to have had it happen to them.

No disrespect meant to you in the slightest and I do hold your 50 years+ experience with S&W revolvers in the highest esteem.

Last edited by tenntex32; 10-26-2020 at 02:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-26-2020, 03:00 PM
handejector's Avatar
handejector handejector is offline
Administrator
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 27,014
Likes: 7,107
Liked 48,566 Times in 9,218 Posts
Default

Duhhhhh.............
Embarrassing- I did not notice I was arguing with two different people.


Senior moment, I guess.


Yes, we do have to disagree on the drop firing with no damage to the parts in a gun with a rebound slide. Perhaps those you read did not realize they had damage for some time. A guy once brought me a Mod 31-1 with an action that was sometimes a little glitchy. It worked in both DA and SA, but occasionally did not cock for SA reliably. It had a hammer stud that was broken. When the stud broke, it broke deep into the flange, and that formed a rounded end on the stud riding in a dimple left in the flange. The stud was pretty well held captive by the sideplate recess and that dimple, and the gun usually worked!


I'll also remain skeptical on the slide moving in a dropped gun. It just does not have enough mass to overcome the spring.


On dropping a cocked gun-
I would not count on the slide beating the hammer home. Because the trigger was not pulled, the sear should catch on top of the trigger, pushing it into the forward position, which will also aid in the return of the slide, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.


The rebound slide was never intended to be a safety, IMO. The hammer rebounds so that the hammer does not rest on a live primer, and so that the firing pin is withdrawn from the primer dent allowing for easy cyl rotation and easy opening of the cyl.
__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-26-2020, 03:32 PM
MG34/bar MG34/bar is offline
Member
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Reno NV
Posts: 237
Likes: 468
Liked 502 Times in 177 Posts
Default

Handejector,

MG34/bar here (my name is Joe). Directing your attention to the cited appendix “F”, on page 345, an ordnance corps memo dated 8 Sept 52 explaining the need for the hammer block safety, notes, “...the additional strength afforded by the hammer block is necessary for re-sistance (sic) to unusually heavy blows. The rebound slide is hollow and can be crushed, as was the case in a Naval accident.”
This information is also noted in the John Henwood book America’s Right Arm, p.62, wherein he explains that The problem with the old hammer block that moved into the path of the hammer from the side plate via spring pressure was that sufficient dirt and cosmoline could overpower the spring and render the block inoperative. That condition would then duplicate the condition of early Model 1917 revolvers without any type of block at all.

Joe
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-26-2020, 03:35 PM
tenntex32's Avatar
tenntex32 tenntex32 is offline
Member
1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question 1917 action question  
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: North Central Texas
Posts: 1,283
Likes: 925
Liked 2,173 Times in 836 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by handejector View Post
Duhhhhh.............
Embarrassing- I did not notice I was arguing with two different people.


Senior moment, I guess.


Yes, we do have to disagree on the drop firing with no damage to the parts in a gun with a rebound slide. Perhaps those you read did not realize they had damage for some time. A guy once brought me a Mod 31-1 with an action that was sometimes a little glitchy. It worked in both DA and SA, but occasionally did not cock for SA reliably. It had a hammer stud that was broken. When the stud broke, it broke deep into the flange, and that formed a rounded end on the stud riding in a dimple left in the flange. The stud was pretty well held captive by the sideplate recess and that dimple, and the gun usually worked!


I'll also remain skeptical on the slide moving in a dropped gun. It just does not have enough mass to overcome the spring.


On dropping a cocked gun-
I would not count on the slide beating the hammer home. Because the trigger was not pulled, the sear should catch on top of the trigger, pushing it into the forward position, which will also aid in the return of the slide, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.


The rebound slide was never intended to be a safety, IMO. The hammer rebounds so that the hammer does not rest on a live primer, and so that the firing pin is withdrawn from the primer dent allowing for easy cyl rotation and easy opening of the cyl.
No worries on the senior moment thing, I'm getting there at a rapid rate myself.

While I do not disagree with your opinion regarding the intention of rebound slide itself (under spring tension) not being a safety, I cannot discount the fact that it's design with regards to it's interaction with the hammer toe was possibly S&W's attempt to provide some measure of safety with regards to the revolver being dropped with the hammer down or cocked.

Obviously things didn't work as well as hoped for and we eventually wound up with the addition of the hand operated/sideplate hammer block.........and when that didn't work out as well as hoped for it was changed to a sliding bar style hammer block.

Of course I too would never bet my life on dropping any loaded revolver and it not going off. Simply not a very wise thing to do.

Awhile back I read a post by someone who had a S&W with a sliding bar hammer block..............or so they thought. It was dropped inadvertently out of it's holster and it went off. Upon closer inspection the sideplate was removed and it was found that the sliding bar hammer block had simply been been removed. The thinking was the revolver had had some work performed by a gunsmith who had felt the sliding bar hammer block was redundant and thus it was removed. (IIRC this particular gunsmith was known to do so.) Obviously it is not redundant and I feel it an addition to whatever design features were (possibly) already built into the revolver with regards to safety.

Last edited by tenntex32; 10-26-2020 at 05:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
625 action question cbore S&W-Smithing 5 04-11-2018 02:08 PM
An action question toad67 S&W Revolvers: 1961 to 1980 6 06-16-2015 01:34 PM
A 1917 that didn't see any action. gripper S&W Hand Ejectors: 1896 to 1961 43 03-18-2013 04:17 PM
1917 Long Action binds up just before release bubbajoe45 S&W-Smithing 1 02-24-2010 12:30 AM
642-2 action question r2d4 S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 10 01-30-2010 02:26 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:45 AM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)