|
|
04-01-2010, 02:24 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times in 24 Posts
|
|
Change gas ring from yoke to cylinder--improvement or cost-cutting?
I am wondering what your thoughts were on this, was it an improvement, cost-cutting, or maybe cost-cutting that results in an improvement (maybe a little easier to clean)?
__________________
Aaron Terry
|
04-01-2010, 02:27 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 11,907
Likes: 10,039
Liked 10,047 Times in 4,758 Posts
|
|
I never worried about the cost aspect. It was a big improvement for the Model 19, as far as I was concerned, and that was all I cared about.
|
04-01-2010, 02:52 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times in 24 Posts
|
|
M29, can you elaborate on the improvement aspects?
__________________
Aaron Terry
|
04-01-2010, 03:40 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 11,907
Likes: 10,039
Liked 10,047 Times in 4,758 Posts
|
|
Back when the change was made, my Model 19 would become very hard to cock, and almost impossible to shoot double-action after firing a box or so of cast bullet handloads (generally with Nr. 2400 or W231 powder, but the particular powder didn't make much difference). When you took the gun apart and cleaned the crud (bullet lube and what not) from the yoke and cylinder, you were immediately back in business. The -4 engineering change did seem to help, but it took me years to realize it. I was not buying many guns then.
The problem was not pronounced with jacketed, factory ammo, so we all just put up with it. This cleaning was no big chore. It just had to be done. Using the gun in gunked-up condition would put more stress on the little parts, like the hand, ratchet, etc., than is necessary.
|
04-01-2010, 03:54 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times in 24 Posts
|
|
Thanks. I was trying to decide between a 19-2 and a 19-4 in 2.5". I already own a 4" 19 and 4" 66 (both no dash). I have heard that the 19-4 is more resistent to "gunking" but I don't have any direct experience with it. Sounds like you say it could make a difference.
__________________
Aaron Terry
|
04-01-2010, 04:34 PM
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 11,907
Likes: 10,039
Liked 10,047 Times in 4,758 Posts
|
|
Aaron, if it is worth anything to you, especially for a gun to use with cast bullets, I would buy the 19-4. Of the whole mess, they are my favorite.
|
04-01-2010, 04:47 PM
|
|
Moderator
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: N.AZ
Posts: 3,837
Likes: 579
Liked 2,308 Times in 576 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by aterry33
...I was trying to decide between a 19-2 and a 19-4 in 2.5"...
|
FYI - 19-2s had the gas ring on the cylinder. The only 19s made with the gas ring on the yoke were the later -3s. Even the early -3s had the gas ring on the cylinder.
Your 19 (no dash) will have the gas ring on the cylinder and depending on the serial number of your 66, it could too.
|
04-01-2010, 10:02 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The SW Va Blue Ridge
Posts: 17,471
Likes: 88,955
Liked 24,779 Times in 8,481 Posts
|
|
The early M66 revolvers were prone to binding when fired rapidly. IIRC, this was in part because of the gas ring and possibly due to the type of stainless alloy used.
__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!
|
04-01-2010, 10:10 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 9,291
Likes: 33,746
Liked 10,946 Times in 3,945 Posts
|
|
Quote:
... I would buy the 19-4. Of the whole mess, they are my favorite.
|
Using "mess" in the most positive meaning of the word, I'm sure.
__________________
They lack our altruism.
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|