Ladysmith care and feeding.
- Thread starter teletech
- Start date
StrawHat
Member
I know almost nothing about these little revolvers except I may have to get one to match up with my New Century or one of my Model 1917s, just for fun.
From what I have learned they are a seven shot cylinder chambered for the 22 Short or Long. The sights are basic and fine (as in tiny). Actually the whole revolver is tiny, almost whimsical!
Given that this is an old model chambered for an obsolete cartridge, could a new version of it be produced? Perhaps a 5 or 6 shot cylinder chambered for the 25 Auto, or is the barrel not large enough in diameter to handle that big brute of a cartridge?
Kevin
From what I have learned they are a seven shot cylinder chambered for the 22 Short or Long. The sights are basic and fine (as in tiny). Actually the whole revolver is tiny, almost whimsical!
Given that this is an old model chambered for an obsolete cartridge, could a new version of it be produced? Perhaps a 5 or 6 shot cylinder chambered for the 25 Auto, or is the barrel not large enough in diameter to handle that big brute of a cartridge?
Kevin
Yes, the sights are so tiny as to be laughable and the gun itself is sufficiently lilliputian to be challenging to get a good firing grip on.
It would be pretty trivial to make a new version in .22LR given the new metallurgy. In fact, I've wondered if simply a new made barrel might be enough to allow the use of .22LR rounds without damage.
.25 auto would have much less market appeal as it would change the look of the gun dramatically. The fluting on the cylinder yes, but also the shape of the hammer and the whole barrel/yolk size and shape due to the increased bore. Plus the .25 hasn't got enough of a rim to run in a revolver with reliability.
Might as well go with an I-frame and get the "power" of the .32SWL in what is still a very compact package.
StrawHat
Member
Did not consider the size difference of the two cartridges would result in a different look.
As for the rim, or lack thereof, chamber it like they did the 1917, to headspace on the case mouth.
Good suggestion, I have one with a 3 1/4” barrel.
Kevin
Using a 1917 without AR brass or moon clips is annoying since you have to pick out the fired rounds, nobody is going to intentionally buy a revolver that won't eject. The partial rims of the .25 *might sometimes* eject, but that still isn't going to do anything for a market and even moon clips won't win you many friends.
.22LR is the only thing that will really work.
That said, I can imagine a 7-8shot .22Magnum in an I frame, or perhaps a .30SC 6-shot, but that's a different discussion.
I'd originally changed the barrel to see if a replacement would be more accurate and reduce the deposits at the forcing cone. In the process I discovered the old forcing cone was not cracked, but was badly distorted.
I just put the new barrel on "temporarily" to see what happened but I didn't go through the full tuning process.
The accuracy of the new barrel was somewhat better but still quite lackluster. It did solve the forcing-cone build-up problem, but on inspection it had almost no cone cut.
Then I got distracted for a month or so, intending to buy a forcing cone reamer for .22. Then in a fit of pique I pulled the barrel and made up a mandrel so I could just cut a cone on the lathe. Then cleaned up the angle on the forcing cone and when I turned the barrel around noticed the crown was well off true. So I re-crowned the barrel while I was at it.
All reasonable things for a barrel the factory never fit to a gun to need.
Needless to say, I'm excited and cautiously optimistic that the next trip to the range will see yet better accuracy.
Obviously, I'm not expecting match accuracy and also not expecting to shoot this gun a great deal, but still I feel that for a fair condition gun there's no reason not to take it out and enjoy it.
I just put the new barrel on "temporarily" to see what happened but I didn't go through the full tuning process.
The accuracy of the new barrel was somewhat better but still quite lackluster. It did solve the forcing-cone build-up problem, but on inspection it had almost no cone cut.
Then I got distracted for a month or so, intending to buy a forcing cone reamer for .22. Then in a fit of pique I pulled the barrel and made up a mandrel so I could just cut a cone on the lathe. Then cleaned up the angle on the forcing cone and when I turned the barrel around noticed the crown was well off true. So I re-crowned the barrel while I was at it.
All reasonable things for a barrel the factory never fit to a gun to need.
Needless to say, I'm excited and cautiously optimistic that the next trip to the range will see yet better accuracy.
Obviously, I'm not expecting match accuracy and also not expecting to shoot this gun a great deal, but still I feel that for a fair condition gun there's no reason not to take it out and enjoy it.
Last edited:
Just so you know, no original Ladysmiths had a forcing cone- there not being much metal there in the first place. Betting recrowning will make the bigger difference- I'm curious about the results you get at the range.
Well, darn. I wish I'd known that. I cut a very shallow one, so I don't think it will hurt me considering my use of extremely low power ammo.
I think that with the almost total lack of recoil you could just clamp a Lady Smith grip frame in a couple of hardwood blanks drilled to match the studs for inserts.
Biggfoot44
Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,060
- Reaction score
- 1,596
I was looking for info on a H&R revolver I picked up the other day and came across this in a reprint of a 1908 Sears catalog:
The ad says highest grade 22 cal revolver made taking 22 cal rimfire cartridges and gives the part numbers for those cartridges in the chart below:
What a surprise! 22 short and long but loaded with black powder!
Now we come to the lowly H&R that I was looking for info on:
Not only will it accept shorts and longs but also long rifle in either black or smokeless powder!(although the only smokeless is the 22 short)
Soooo, if you happened to be around back then and were looking for a 22 revolver which would you pick, ignoring what you know now about collectability vs shootability.
I don't have a Ladysmith, if I did it would be pictured with the H&R Premier. I'm betting they are about the same size.
If I were around in 1908 perusing the Sears Roebuck catalogue , the big question would be did I have about $5 or $11.20 to spend !
Adjusted for inflation , that would be something like $140 vs $ 350 , a significant difference .
And H&R's weren't " lowly " , they were a solid mid priced gun . In modern context , an H&R would be equivalent to a Mossberg M500 shotgun . And if I remember my sketch recall of H&R history , by 1908 , they had recently upgraded to approve for Smokeless accross most of their product line .
I got to the range with the rest today.
I actually just set it in the inserts for the J-frame and tightened it until it felt solid.
Groups were nothing to write home about, about 5" was the normal for the CCI CB shorts and that was the most accurate round of the ones I tested. Still, ~5" at 25 yards isn't the least accurate handgun I've used by any stretch.
The rest only works at the rifle house of the range I use, so I'll have to shoot the shorter distances off the bench by hand. Still, it's useful to have this information and it certainly does suggest some improvement over the 4.3" at 15 yards I was seeing.
DWalt
Member
Several weeks ago, I chronographed 10 rounds of CCI .22 Short SV in a revolver having a 4” barrel. Average MV was 773 ft/sec with a SD of 23 ft/sec. Seems to me that should be safe to use in a Ladysmith.
