Why The Ejector Rod Shroud?

CptCurl

CptCurl

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
1,515
Reaction score
6,391
Location
Fincastle, VA
Please forgive me in advance for asking this question as it probably reveals ignorance and may have been discussed on prior occasions.

My question is this: "Why the ejector rod shroud?"

I fully understand that on the New Century Triple Lock the ejector rod shroud served a mechanical function. It housed the rod extending back to the frame that serves as the third lock.

I have read that the British military disliked the ejector rod shroud on their .455 Triple Locks because it could become fouled in muddy trenches and thus prevent the revolver from closing fully. In response, S&W did away with the third lock and did away with the ejector rod shroud. The Second Model was born.

Then comes the Model of 1926, or Third Model. I'm fuzzy on this one. I seem to have read that Wolf & Klar was instrumental in the design of this model, which would imply that they were intent on having an ejector rod shroud restored to the barrel. There is no third lock, and it would seem the ejector rod shroud is entirely superfluous in its absence.

Nevertheless, S&W evidently found success in this appendage, even though it's a useless vestige of the First Model.

So my question is "Why?"
* Did Wolf & Klar see it as a "retro" Second Model hearkening back to it's Triple Lock parent; and thus, a marketing device?
* Is there some mechanical function I have overlooked that somehow made the Model of 1926 a better revolver than the Second Model .44? If so, why wasn't the ejector rod shroud applied to the entire line of hand ejectors?

It reminds me of fins on a 1961 Cadillac.

Someone please give me the history and the "why".

Thanks in advance,

Curl
 
Register to hide this ad
The shroud is mostly found on large frame revolvers, or mid-frame revolvers chambered in hot or fast loads. I think it is at least in part a taming mechanism to control recoil or muzzle flip. I think it also helps with balance regardless of the level of recoil involved. My impression is that the larger the frame, the further to the rear the center of mass moves. The shroud (and in the extreme cases, the full underlug) is a way of keeping more weight (and thus the center of mass) forward. This is more important for long distance work, so the military-designated revolvers can be produced in a shroudless configuration without compromising accuracy at the distances likeliest to be involved when they go into use.

But this could be a "just-so" story. This is how I think of the design, but I have never read a discussion of the company's rationale for the shrouded ejector rod.
 
David,

I had considered the effect of the added mass on balance and muzzle flip. However, I think the heavier barrel contour and wide rib on top of the K38 Target Masterpiece (and others) is a more direct way to accomplish the purpose. Likewise, as you mention, a full lug under the barrel is also a method (and this involves enclosing the ejector rod). But the 1926 had a thin barrel, much like the later 1950 Target models, and a thin rib.

Therefore, in my thoughts I had rejected (perhaps erroneously) balance and muzzle flip as the motivation behind the non-functional ejector rod shroud.

. . . but I have never read a discussion of the company's rationale for the shrouded ejector rod.
Click to expand...

Your statement makes me feel a little less timid about my question. I was afraid I had missed something that everybody else knows.:)
 
Your assumptions and facts are all correct including about Wolf and Klar who was pressured by Texas lawmen, big fans of the heavy frame Smith, to return the lug. My understanding was that they liked the protection of the extractor by the shroud (unofficially for cracking heads but sounds like myth to me), and mostly for its improved balance.

The Brit's issue with the shroud was more conjecture than fact. Remember they chose the Webley self loader over Browning's 1911 for their 1st military auto pistol. But their officers purchased Colt 1911s in 45 ACP! And soon the Brits were begging Colt for every 1911 they could purchase, eventually in their own 455 round, besides scouring our country for every Commercial model they could buy!

I prefer the shroud for it's balance, recoil supression however slight and improved pointability. But I also like the look and prefer it to the current full lug by a country mile. Just my take, you'll get others.

Hope that helps,
 
Last edited:
Hondo44 said:
My understanding was that they liked the protection of the extractor by the shroud (unofficially for cracking heads but sounds like myth to me) . . .
Click to expand...

I thought about the "cracking heads" thing also, but then I considered that by far the most common service revolver in the S&W line is the M&P. I bet more heads have been cracked by an M&P than all the other S&W revolvers combined. So if S&W wanted a better head cracker, why wasn't the shroud put on the M&P?

I hope I'm not sounding argumentative, because I'm not. We are all thinking alike. This is a question that has rattled around in my feeble brain for years.:confused:
 
I'm a slow typer, I see some other discussion has already arrived.

I forgot to mention that Smith originally dropped the third lock unrelated to the Brit's request due to competitive cost. I believe, don't quote me, they saved about $2.00 to get it down to the Colt New Service level.
 
The shroud protects the ejector rod from damage. If the rod gets bent, the revolver will not function. Back in the old days in Texas (1920s -1980s) it was very common for law enforcement officers to not wear uniforms. The badge was pinned on the shirt or worn on a badge holder that went in the pocket with the badge hanging in front. The gun belt usually only had the revolver, 6 or 12 rounds of ammo and maybe a pair of handcuffs. Usually, only the city police wore uniforms and carried batons on their belt. If someone got out of line or resisted, it was not uncommon for an officer to pull out his revolver and club them over the head. On firearms that had the ejector rod exposed (like the Colt New Service) this usually resulted in a bent ejector rod and sometimes a bent barrel. You would always try to hit them with the frame in front of the trigger guard, but it didn't always work out that way.

The shroud not only protects the ejector rod, it also seems to stiffen the barrel. The extra weight helps with recoil. I think recoil reduction was Smith & Wesson's original reason for adding the shroud to the Triple Lock.
44 Special was very popular with law enforcement officers in Texas in the 1920s. They wanted the ejector rod shroud so Wolf & Klar placed a large enough order that Smith & Wesson added it back to the 44 Special but without the third lock of the triple lock. The 38/44 Heavy Duty, the 357 Magnum and the Highway Patrolman were very popular with law enforcement, partially because of the shroud. Colt finally saw the light and put a shroud on the Python and Diamond Back as well as the later Trooper Mk III. I think one of the reasons the Model 58 41 Magnum was not as popular as it should have been was the lack of the shroud. They should have made it look like the heavy Duty.
 
I understand the shroud was put there to protect the ejector road in case someone bumped their head on your revolver.


Best regards,
Nick.
 
Disclaimer:
In the time it took me to type in Roy's quotes, a lot of other folks have made contributions. Please be understanding if I have unknowingly repeated some of their information!

CptCurl said:
I have read that the British military disliked the ejector rod shroud on their .455 Triple Locks because it could become fouled in muddy trenches and thus prevent the revolver from closing fully. In response, S&W did away with the third lock and did away with the ejector rod shroud. The Second Model was born.
Click to expand...
I have seen that before and used to believe it myself, but now believe that it is erroneous.

Here is an excerpt from Roy Jinks:
From a Roy Jinks letter regarding the WWI British Contract, dated 10/28/2008:
“To enable the factory to begin immediate production, the British Government gave consent to have the first 5600 revolvers manufactured in the same design as our .44 Hand Ejector First Model (called the Triple Lock).

Upon receipt of these revolvers, it was determined that they were excessively heavy. They were then modified by removing the extractor rod housing and replacing it with a small locking lug.”
Click to expand...

Also, in his book, The History of Smith & Wesson, Mr. Jinks writes about the HE1 (TL):
The cost of manufacturing the barrel with the extractor shroud and third locking point proved more expensive than the conventional barrel that locked the front of the extractor rod as a locking lug. Therefore, after producing only 15,375 .44 Hand Ejector First Models, the decision was made to discontinue production of this expensive barrel and locking system to keep the price competitive.
Click to expand...
From the above, I take it that the Brits wanted HE2s all along, and only took HE1s because they had an immediate need for handguns. So great was the need in fact that they also bought New Service revolvers from Colt chambered for the British service round:
ColtNewService.jpg
 
I cant belive I am the first with the right answer! It appeared first on the triplelock. The bottom of it was hollow with a pin that ran through it for the third lock. The british in world war one had smith do away with it to save a few bucks plus they claimed it was too finely fitted and dirt could jam the gun. Smith did away with it and the 2nd model didnt have it. Wolf & clare had smith bring it back and its been back every since. I love it BUT it really isnt necessasary and really just dead weight. Yeah, I know it can be argued it protects the ejector rod. What I dont like is the full length ejector rod houseings on the L frames on longer barrels. Go`s for the 6" python too. As they say, each to his own.
 
Bill Jordan said of the model 19, the shroud is there "in case somebody bumps their head on it". That's a good enough explanation for me.
 
Col. Rex Applegate and others have cautioned against using the handgun as a club; it can be damaged. Rex showed in Kill or Get Killed how to slap sideways, esp. with an autoloader, lest the dust cover be damaged.

Elmer Keith said trhat the shroud should be on all S&Ws, as almost a trademark. It does look good on many models, another key factor that lets S&W charge more. It gives a Model 19 more of a "premium" look over a M-15.

The Ruger GP-100 balances better for me with the full underlug than does the M-686.

BTW, Bill Jordan also said that it's easier to convince a jury that you didn't shoot a felon too much than that you didn't club him too hard.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Smith & Wesson Hand Ejector First Model (Triple Lock) Revolver A Comparative Rarity
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
rct269
R
StrawHat
Triple Lock Cylinder
Replies
10
Views
917
steelslaver
steelslaver
Burnston
A Potent Pre-War
Replies
4
Views
570
S&W ucla
S&W ucla
StrawHat
New Century Cylinder
Replies
0
Views
298
StrawHat
StrawHat
quinn
Wolf & Klar Display at SWCA 2021 Symposium
Replies
4
Views
529
S&W ucla
S&W ucla

Latest posts

Back
Top