I also posted this in the general forum, but thought it may get some response here as well.

The subject is the ejector rod spring in the J-Frame AirLites. Can that be "altered" (weaker) a bit to allow for a little less wear-n-tear against the aluminum frames. As in possibly easing the tension on the pin that rubs the frame on closing. This would also make it easier for the wife to operate the thumb-piece.

I think what I should be referring to is the center-pin spring. AND, would it require a like reduction of the bolt spring to ensure cylinder lock-up.

I am not familiar with the "NEW" Air Lites made recently, but quite familiar with the older (pre-lock) era guns. Assuming that the spring tension is about the same as the older ones, I would NOT change the spring. First off, I never gave a second thought about the ejector spring being too heavy (kind of a non-issue to me), and I would be concerned that a lighter spring just might not have enough resistance under the recoil in a light weight J-Frame Revolver.

That area of the gun tends to gunk up relatively quickly (I do routinely flush it out with solvent) and you would be surprised how much gunk comes out after shooting the gun for a while. A lighter spring just might be affected by that gunk, un-burnt powder, etc.

Seriously, if you feel that the ejector spring on your particular gun is too heavy, I would have it checked out, because that is one complaint that I have not heard as of yet. Maybe there is something caught in there and compressing the spring. It's worth a look.

Chief38

It's just the "nature" of the gun Chief. I have 2 of these pre-locks, they are both extremely clean and work like a clock. It's just not that much beef in that tapered area of the frame where the pin first engages the frame on closing the cylinder on these little guns. My 686 and 617 feel about the same, but they close against stainless steel.....not a piece of aluminum. Let me make it clear that I am talking about the center-pin spring and not the extractor spring.

I just have long-term affects on my mind. Heaven forbid...I happen to have a 38-special light-weight by another name and the center-pin force is noticeably less. Forgive me for the sacrilege, but it's the only other light-weight I have to compare it with.

The center-pin spring PN: 070630000 is the same for the 317 and the 640, 642, 440 family, etc.

The wear you are talking about after an initial wear in, seems to not get any worse. The bolt spring on that gun is fairly light and usually the bolt lock can be pushed to the rear when the cylinder is locked up. I surely would not lighten the center pin if you ever plan on shooting +p loads.

Understood, but this is a 317....22LR and will never see anything much hotter than a CCI mini-mag. The center-pin is very small and is cutting a very noticeable "trench" in the area of first contact with the frame on cylinder closing. Some of this early wear may be the finish coming off this area and not aluminum as the gun is coated.

The reason I mentioned the bolt spring was that I had considered lightening-up the center-pin spring and if I had lock-up issues, it seems to me the bolt spring could also be lightened to account for the reduced effort from the lowered center-pin spring allowing it to properly seat.

In the 317, the center-pin is steel (of course) and this bearing area where it first meets the frame is aluminum, either very soft or it's the finish wearing.

I agree the bolt-spring is fairly weak and all it has to do is keep the bolt and thumb-latch from rattling. I likely will not try to lighten that. All that has to happen here is the center-pin to engage the hole in the frame on closing....and stay there while firing. I am not talking about getting it "floppy" loose and I realize it has to have enough strength to force the bolt back out of the hole and keep the center-pin firmly in the hole.

The various revolvers have various strengths of center-pin springs, but I just don't see the need to have one in the 317 that needs to be as strong as a +p capable revolver. The spring in the 317 is the same as the spring used in the 640 and 440 family, yet is a different PN than the model 63.

Maybe I see a call to Smith in my future to see why they decided the center-pin spring had to be so strong.

Don't worry about it. It's fine just the way it is. Nothing bad is going to happen. If you spring it lighter you will cause real problems.

Not being a SA Drail...I promise, but do you own a model 317 and if so, what is the approximate round count? I would love to hear from someone that has a high round-count 317 that has experienced hundreds, maybe thousands of closings make some comments.

I don't have any doubts at all that the gun will continue to function, even if it did dig a trench through the frame. There is a picture of a large frame on the forum here somewhere that had been cut clean through the first 1/4 inch or so and was still going strong. It just bugs me to see this "trail" forming this early and it is already much worse than my well-fired 617 or 686...they hardly have a mark. Yep...I realize I am dealing with an alloy in the 317.

Maybe if you posted a pic, you might get more luv. I will say this, on my vintage 1994 model 442 which has had the cylinder opened and closed many hundreds of times there is hardly a drag line (silver against black). On my newer circa 2011 642 there is a drag line (silver against silver) but I can't snag it with my thumb nail. On my much newer, as yet unfired (other than the factory), 317 there is a very noticeable drag line that is easily snagged with my thumbnail. Guessing I would say this cylinder has been opened about 100 times as an absolute max and is probably more like 50 times. I would rate the groove to be .0005" to .001" deep. More than any revolver of any material that I own.

__________________
NRA Benefactor

I have sent an e-mail to Smith to ask them why they thought such a strong center-pin spring was necessary and asked their opinion on a substitution and part number suggestion. I explained the issue in great detail. No answer yet....and yes...I was very polite.

Removal of the spring is a no-brainer, so I am taking one to the hardware store tomorrow to see if I can find a couple of other springs in lighter weights that I can play with just for giggles. If I find one that works, I plan to use it as opposed to gnawing a trench in the frame and ease thumb-piece operation for the wife. The "other" lightweight that I have feels much softer and if it will fire 38-special +P loads without flying apart...I see no reason why the spring cannot be lightened a bit in this powerful 22LR.

I will try to get a good pic, but I don't think it's necessary....you have the same thing I do and the pin-trace can be "felt" all the way across the back-strap from the edge of the frame to the bolt-hole.

First of all, no I don't think you are a SA. We're all friends here. And no, I don't own a 317. I don't own any handguns with an aluminum frame. I retired from smithing before the aluminum/polymer craze took over. The weight of an all steel handgun has never been a problem for me. And yes, I have carried N frames and 1911s all day for years. But maybe I'm just weird. I think the bottom line here is (as you mentioned) a steel part wearing on an aluminum surface. The only way I see to reduce the wear is to polish the tip of the cyllinder locking pin and possibly to have a hard anodized coating applied to the frame. (which I think S&W did but it is apparently thin and has worn through) And someone else mentioned that it should become self limiting once it reaches a certain depth and the force is applied over a wider area. If it continues to cut a deeper groove then S&W needs to stand behind their warranty and replace the frame. I don't really think it will cause a functional problem but it would be one more reason that I am not crazy about aluminum framed handguns. All of the S&Ws I have from the 70s and 80s in carbon and stainless steel have barely developed a groove from the pin riding over it for many thousands of cycles. You can certainly try to reduce the spring tension on it but I believe the wear is always going to take place. It is possible that someone at S&W dropped an incorrect spring into the gun. Please let us know what S&W has to say about this. Aluminum is a wonderful material for certain applications but I don't think it's ever going to be adequate for something like a handgun and I know a great many will disagree with me.

No harm meant...no harm done. I agree we're all friends here just "broadcasting" our problem, be it actual or perceived and I realize many of them are perceived. Mine may be. I have actually polished and re-shaped the center-pins on other lightweights as you suggested. It's just that in this little gun, the issue is showing up sooner. I have taken a close look at the end of the pin and I expect it will get some "attention". Blunting (and polishing) the end of the pin will go a long way toward spreading the wear across a wider area on the recoil shield.

You are much more experienced in these areas than I am....let me ask you this question. Do you really think lightening the center-pin spring a small amount would really effect the lock-up of the gun under 22LR recoil? The PN for the spring is the same used in the 38-special in some models. The ejector rod locks with the latch on the end under the barrel, so it also comes into play in keeping spring-force on the center-pin, not at rest, but it has to be pushed forward to unlock the center-pin as well. It seems to me that leaving that part alone, polishing the pin and lightening-up the center-pin spring a bit would help. My issue is actually two-fold here. If I can lighten the spring a bit, I can also take some pressure off the thumb-latch for the little lady.

I have two of these expensive little cap-pistols and they are both no-locks. I seriously doubt that I would get a no-lock 317 frame back from Smith & Wesson if I did send it in at some time in the future. I would like to preserve what I have.

Our worries are over. I received an answer from S&W and they said don't worry about it..."all the alloy J-frames did this". They informed me the center-pin was steel and the recoil shield is aluminum, so the center-pin would wear the recoil shield. Now...isn't that a revelation!

I had asked for an engineering answer as to why they thought the same strength spring was necessary in the 22LR. I did not want a metallurgy course.

I have already changed the spring and shot several cylinders full through both mine. The lock-up is positive, stays that way and I expect it will stay that way unless I figure out a way to get a 357 magnum round in this thing. There is another spring at work here that makes lightening the center-pin spring possible. The ejector rod latch is also spring-loaded and applies force to the end of the center-pin.

I would entertain installing a stronger spring in the ejector rod latch as opposed to putting in a Godzilla-like center-pin spring. Who cares if one scars-up the end of an ejector rod, they can be had fairly cheaply, but the NL frames can't.

I love their answer. "Yeah, we knew the steel pin would cut a groove in the aluminum but who cares!" Oh well, people wanted aluminum so they gave it to them. I really do think that once it reaches a certain depth it won't go much farther. I would polish that pin's tip to about 1500 grit and line the groove with some moly grease.

It's pretty apparent to me they have done something with the lightweight frames over the past few years. I made it a point at the local gun show this past weekend to look at all the AirlLte's I could find and the wear on the older blued models is much less pronounced than on the newer unfinished models. I think the frame material is softer on the recent guns or they have gone with the stronger center-pin spring in all the J-Frames.

I even took a look at the Taurus stuff and felt the pressure on the center-pin in some of their UL models and found it to be considerably less. Still some noticeable pin-trails, but not as bad as the Smith's.

I'm with Drail on this as well....even though I own three recent model AirLites and love them, it's a price we have to pay to have the aluminum frame. I think that if I were to have another AirLite, it would be an older model, which I think is made from better stuff.

On the other hand....this could likely be a problem that doesn't exist and it doesn't matter a twit as long as one does not plan to use it as a routine range-gun. Obviously, the wear occurs on cylinder opening-and-closing and not during actual shooting or carrying and I'd bet it will wear to a point and slow/stop. I do plan to polish my center-pins and have already reduced the spring-strength on the center-pin. I guess this will just have to satisfy me.