Okay...I'll bite on this one, because I know there are many others out there that won't ask this question. I will swallow my pride and stupidity and ask.

Exactly....what was the "New Yoke Retention System" and "Radius Stud Package"? I believe it had something to do with changing the operation/fitment of the hand and possibly the hardening of some components on the frame and in/around the yoke system.

I have been away from Smith's for a long time and just entered the picture again after these changes were made.

The simplest answer is always the best....anybody have one?

Snubbiefan:

I sent you an email with some info regarding your question.

I just received it....have looked at it and it seems to explain it all in great detail. I plan to "study" on the reading material a while to absorb it all, but I think it completely answers my questions.

THANX!

Please share once you find out. I don't have a clue what it means.

__________________
Centennial Every Day

bg can send you an e-mail. It's a rather long read....but eventually gets down to what it means. The yoke assemblies use to be hand-fitted. The new yoke retention system with the spring-loaded screw allows for heat treating the yoke components to make them stronger. The assembly process no longer requires the hand-fitting that would remove heat-treated material....thus the end result is a stronger system. Other components within the lock-work were radius'd (took the square edges off) to reduce friction. The hand was modified to eliminate the "trigger kick-back" and there were a few other mud-flap-and-fender-skirt things done......all to reduce the effects of severe recoil and allow the production of smaller frame guns that could hold-up to the energies produced by such loads.

bg...I beg your forgiveness for likely not exactly explaining all the details, but I think the answer I was looking for was.....this all reads to me like it was a good thing and not some production short-cut. It all makes sense to me.

Doesn't sound like it conflicts with anything my ignorant self has heard, but I'll bet it would be useful to a lot of folks if Bill Graf could copy whatever he e-mailed and post it on this thread, it would be useful to a lot of folks, long or not.

I will let Bill chime back in and I will ask him if I can "edit" the publication and post it. It came from a 1958 article and takes you through a pretty serious history of changes and the reasoning behind those changes. I DO NOT want to infringe on Bill's work, but I think I could cut the meat out of the coconut and answer the specific question that I asked in the #1 post. Bills article from a magazine is much too lengthy to post as a whole here.

Let me know Bill....or simply post away.

U know....I think I can sum it up this way and bg (or anyone else) can correct me if I am wrong. The dash-numbers pretty well indicate what was done to the gun and when. For instance, the 686-1 (1986) received the radius stud package. It was not until the -3 (1988) in which that particular model received the improved yoke retention system. So....one must draw the conclusion that these changes would have been incorporated at various times in various revolvers and the explanation of the dash-number should indicate that.

The new yoke retention system is simply the yoke screw with the plunger that allowed the installation of heat-treated yoke components that did not have to be hand-fitted, thus the heat-treatment remained intact.

The radius package involved installing the trigger and hammer studs in countersunk holes in the frame that matched the radiused (That is the way it's spelled in the article.) finish on the studs. I am by no means a machinist, so don't ask me what that means. I know in common-language it means "rounded edge or corner", but that's as far as I can go with it. Thank goodness...I have never had a broken trigger or hammer stud so I have not had to face repairs in those two places....and hope I never do.

I was going to post, but the info is from a Handloader magazine and Shooting Times, so I want to make sure I can post the excerpts from the articles without getting into trouble for plagiarizing or "stealing" someone elses writings.

Would a moderator please tell me if I can do so without getting into trouble?

Bill....that is the reason I wanted to check it out with you as well. Maybe by "summations" above will suffice. Maybe someone could more adequately explain what they did to the trigger and hammer studs. I think we now understand what the "new yoke retention system" is and that it was an improvement and not a production short-cut as some consider it to be. That "dinky" little plunger on the yoke screw actually self-adjusts to the rod, which has been machined to a final stage and then heat-treated....and does not require any further tampering by hand-fitment.

(Let's try posting this again, couldn't last night)

Just follow this:
http://smith-wessonforum.com/announc...-material.html
If that article(s) is online, you can post a link to it.
Like snubbiefan says, if you are able to summarize or paraphrase the information, you could post that.

snubbiefan has done a good job of explaining it in words (as long as they are theirs) but for those who need pictures (like me )

New yoke and yoke screw


and the old style


Floating hand is on the left, old style on the right.

You "done good" Mister Moderator and I swear before Buddha (I don't swear at God and I apologize to any Buddhist here) that the words I used were mine.

Thanks for the pictures.

Okay, our moderator came up with some photos that will help. Thank you.

For those who want the articles, they are:

The transition to the “enhanced” Model 29 took a few years. Brian Pearce wrote a good article covering the transition period for Handloader No. 241 (June 2006) titled: “Handloading the Smith and Wesson Model 29.”

And:

Shooting Times magazine: look for the article from the September 1989 issue by Dick Metcalf titled: “S&W’s Model 29, Redesigned With strength in Mind.”

Neither are online, so I could not post a link to them.

I apologize for posting on a year old thread, but I have been looking for Dick Metcalfs article on the 29 with no luck, does anyone have a copy of the Sept 89 Shooting Times ? or another source?