Some time ago I was cleaning two Mod. 34-1 revolvers and removed the side plate from each one. I noticed the rod over which the mainspring is installed was different on each one in the way they connected to the hammer, one has a fork on the hammer end and the other has a round knob, yet they were both 34-1 revolvers. This difference constitutes a big improvement in the smoothness of the two trigger pulls. (This make sense?) I prefer the round knob as opposed to the fork type for that reason and wondered if this is identifiable without having to remove the side plate? Did I miss something as far as an Engineering change? Thanks, Sam

__________________
Sam
S&WHF 333 S&WCA 2198

This wasn't a big enough change to constitute an engineering change. The ball ended srut is the older and the forked style the newer. You didn't say which has the higher SN, it is possible the hammer of the one required replacement and the old dstly was not available so the hammer and strut were both replaced. My recollection is this change took place around 1964, so somewhere in the 300,000 to 400,000 SN range.

Alk8944, thanks for the information and actually I'm not sure of the serial # differences, only evident difference between the two, other than the serial numbers was the butt shape, and I am sure that is no indicator. May I assume (Oh yes, I know what that causes) a model marked no dash has the older ball attachment? Thank you,

__________________
Sam
S&WHF 333 S&WCA 2198

A no-dash (How's that for redundant, LOL) Model 34 would be an Improved I-Frame gun 1960 or earlier. It would be generally safe to suppose it had the ball-end strut, unless it had a hammer replacemeny sometime in the late '60s or 1970s, then it could have either depending on what parts had been available at the time.

I do agree with you about the early type strut. Just like many features of earlier guns this just has a cachet about instead of the cheaper, but functional, fork and pin.

Alk8944, you have been most helpful and I appreciate your input. My opinion only, but if an individual is seeking out the small frame .22 LR caliber revolvers, he might as well obtain the examples with the smoothest actions. Your information will certainly improve the chances of finding a revolver constructed before the cost cutting changes were implemented and by someone who was proud of his craft.

__________________
Sam
S&WHF 333 S&WCA 2198

Smith has made many minor changes to their products and have not constituted a model designation change. If they were to change their numbers for every minor difference, we would be up to Model 10-55 or 60-84. They usually only do a model change for a significant variation.

chief38

Sam,

You do not have to remove the side plate to determine which spring strut junction is used in the Model 34 (Model of 1953 New I frame). Just remove the grip on one side and cock the hammer to see it.

I have several I frames with ball/socket and fork/pin styles and have never noticed a difference in trigger pull. More than your two gun sample is probably needed, there's normal variations between guns so a larger sampling is likely more definitive. For example your ball/socket gun may have had more trigger time, a tune-up, etc.

It is well known however that the old I frame with leaf spring has a noticeably better trigger pull than the later coil spring guns.

The two serial #s of your guns would help us understand a little better when the transition of styles too place by serial # if you care to share. Thx,

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819