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

__________________
Curly
SWCA #2599; SWHF #626

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 Wilson

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.

Your statement makes me feel a little less timid about my question. I was afraid I had missed something that everybody else knows.

__________________
Curly
SWCA #2599; SWHF #626

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,

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

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.

__________________
Curly
SWCA #2599; SWHF #626

Naw, it's there to open beer bottles from before there were twist off caps...

I hadn't thought of that! Why not shoot the caps off?

__________________
Curly
SWCA #2599; SWHF #626

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.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

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.

Not only does it protect the rod and add weight out front, but it just plain looks cool!

I haven't tried the beer bottle thing.. can I borrow a Model 19 or 27 and see?!

__________________
"I also cook."

I just thought it was there because it looked cool. I never liked the way that Colt ejector rods just dangled in mid-air which could be why I never bought a Colt.

I understand the shroud was put there to protect the ejector road in case someone bumped their head on your revolver.


Best regards,
Nick.

__________________
NICK-SWCA-NRA BENEFACTOR LIFE

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!

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:
Also, in his book, The History of Smith & Wesson, Mr. Jinks writes about the HE1 (TL):
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:

__________________
You're shy a few manners.

This looks cool too:



Does it have a function other than looks?




P.S. I learned to drive on a 1961 Cadillac very similar to this one! So yeah, I think it's cool.

__________________
Curly
SWCA #2599; SWHF #626

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.

Just for the record, the ejector rod lug on a model 58 has been known to leave pretty good lump on those heads that bumped into them too.

__________________
Eccentric old coot

I assume that you are talking about the fins. They are there to control yaw. Duh.

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.

The roads were much safer in those days!

__________________
Curly
SWCA #2599; SWHF #626

"Why the ejector rod shroud?"

The answer is really simple and right there in front of us.
So it doesn't look like a Colt.

__________________
CSM, U S Army(Ret) 1963-1990

Exactly! They do look very cool but they certainly have a purpose....above Mach I.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

...and to look better than a Colt.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

I think it's telling that when the Model 22 came back to life in 2005 as the Thunder Ranch model and then in the Classics Series as a 4" it has the shroud, a feature that I don't believe was ever offered on the originals and therefore not even authentic (if I'm correct).

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

Cpt,

Not at all argumentative, great topic and good discussion. From what I hear not a few M&Ps ended up with bent frames. A great old gunsmith here in town was also the armorer for local law enforcement and I've seen him with his big lead hammer whackin' bent Smiths back into alignment as he was taught at the S&W schools.

I don't think S&W gave a 2nd thought to headcrackers, like Roy always says: what they wanted was to move product out the door, period.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

The M22 and the pre M22 were the basic 1917, updated with the short action. No ejector rod shroud.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

People hitting handguns with their heads didn't stop in the '40s. as this Model 10-8 shows.

Attached Images

IMG_1134_edited.JPG (64.5 KB, 120 views)

__________________
Field Researcher. IGC

I don't think an ejector rod shroud would have prevented that damage.

__________________
Curly
SWCA #2599; SWHF #626

It is because the shroud protected the ejector rod when using the gun as a club.

I knew an old-old cop who had a shroud shaped piece of steel welded to a Colt New Service for that very reason (he said it was cheaper than buying a triple-lock).

__________________
6/23/2022

I don't know why, but I have always liked the look and always prefer a 19/66 over a model 15/67 because of the shroud. Same for N frames. Just cant get excited about one without the shroud!

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

So you agree. I didn't think there was any Model 1917 pre or post war, pre Mod 22 or Mod 22 with a shroud. My Dad never could find a 45 ACP
1950 Target and finally had S&W target sights added to his pre mod 22. He always wished it had a shroud.

Thank you,

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

The Model 22-4 has a shroud on it's 4 inch tapered barrel.

I believe that most cops will, if the urgent need arises, smack an attacker with whatever they have in their hands at the moment, as will most people when surprised by an unexpected attempt at hostility. I broke a General Electric walkie talkie over a fellows jaw once. It was what we call 'exigent.' Our elected sheriff had recently banned our batons, so... Radio $600 1983 dollars, hickory baton $10. Some of my coworkers begn to ask me about my "whapper talkie."

My S&W revolvers with ejector rod shrouds are too pretty to use as a cudgel.

I always thought it was some broad scheme thought up by R&D at S&W whereby they knew they could somehow command much higher prices in the future on guns with the shroud. Coz by-golly they sure do command higher prices as a general overall rule of thumb! Am I right or what.

Roger

I think this is probably the most correct. The shroud made the N Frame look more robust -- a common thought is that S&Ws were/not as strong as Colts. It was not on the 2nd model and 1917 because cost was most important.

If any S&W revolver was going to be build for head-beatablity I would suspect it would have been the 1917.

The design cue was propagated to the Combat Magnum to provide visual evidence that this was a more powerful weapon than the M&P.

An old Skeeter Skelton article mentions a New Mexico merchant who used his Colt Bisley's hammer as a beer bottle opener. I tried it and it worked great, but i won't do it again (Yeah. I know these were twist offs). Maybe I'll try it with my S&W 3rd Model .44!

...that guy Bisley knew that a man was in big trouble without a six gun...and that a man was in EVEN BIGGER TROUBLE without a bottle opener...

Bisley is a place, not a man. It was the primary range for British marksmanship matches for many years, may still be, to the degree that shooting is allowed there.

Webley, Colt, and S&W all built guns for use there. You can spot the Webleys by their 7.5-inch barrels instead of the usual four or six-inch service barrels. They also had honed actions and usually better finishes than the service models.

A man named Walter Winans shot some top scores at Bisley, using S&W New Model No. 3 topbreak .44's.

A wise man once said,"If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck."
My version says,"If you have to use a perfectly good handgun as a club, you've not only screwed it up, you've cross threaded it."
But it all starts with," The plan was perfect till,,,,"

__________________
Field Researcher. IGC

I guess I'm one of those that walks against the flow, I have always felt the shroud on N frames to be big and bulky. At the same time K frames with or without a shroud just looks right. For me a 5" M&P is perfection in a revolving type hand gun.

It is a most handy gun and a pleasing sight:

__________________
Curly
SWCA #2599; SWHF #626

And a perfect example, very nice indeed!

D R

Thanks for your kindness!

__________________
Curly
SWCA #2599; SWHF #626

CapCrul.
Great gun and great PICs !!
My personal taste runs to pics of guns after firing a box of ammo through them.
I believe that .38 M&Ps and Model 10s are like potato chips. You can't have just one.

__________________
Field Researcher. IGC

Yes, and fortunately S&W made a good many of them for us!

Thanks for your comments.

__________________
Curly
SWCA #2599; SWHF #626

This morning I did a recap of reasons given for the ejector rod shroud. According to my interpretation of the responses, here's the count:

* Added mass for recoil control, muzzle flip. 2

* Cracking heads. 8

* Improved pointability. 1

* Open beer bottles. 1

* Looks cool, doesn't look like Colt. 4

* S&W marketing gimmic (maybe should be lumped with the entry immediately above). 1

So at this point, by popular vote, cracking heads and looking cool are way out front!

Early on I opined that if the reason were mass and balance one would expect barrel contour and weight to be a better method. In support of that, compare the Model 13 to the Model 19.

__________________
Curly
SWCA #2599; SWHF #626

This has been a worthwhile thread with good info in it. I learn a lot around here--the level of knowledge around this place is impressive. My knowledge base about S&W is mostly this place and the big book, the SCSW.

The head crackin' thing seems off to me. I'm not saying it's wrong. I don't know. It just seems weird that Smith and Wesson engineers would have a meeting discussing how to make their premier revolvers into better clubs...

My sentimental favorite is the beer opener.

I was not willing to accept "cracking heads" as the reason behind the re-introduction of the ejector rod shroud, but a little digging turned up the following:

From Smith & Wesson, 1857-1945 (Jinks & Neal; A. S. Barnes and Co., Inc. - 1966), in reference to the 44 Hand Ejector Third Model (Model 1926 Hand Ejector Third Model):
"This model was made up and introduced on a special request of Wolf & Klar of Fort Worth, Texas, who took the first 3500 made and had exclusive sales rights at first. They liked the heavy barrel lug of the New Century and thought that it would sell well. It turned out that they were right."

And from Jelly Bryce, Legendary Lawman (Ron Owens - 2003; Turner Publishing Co., Paducah, KY):
"This shroud was to become an especially attractive feature for law enforcement officers. If they occasionally found it necessary to use their guns to hit suspects over the head or dropped the gun, the exposed extractor rod could become bent, making it impossible to use it to eject spent shells or possibly even locking the cylinder closed and making reloading impossible. The thick metal shroud very much decreased the chances of this type of malfunction."

"...Smith and Wesson got a large number of inquiries about production of a new model again featuring the shrouded extractor rod. The inquiries indicated a large interest especially from law enforcement agencies in the Southwest."

"The inquiries took on more meaning when Wolf and Klar, a company in Fort Worth, Texas, that did a large business with lawmen, placed an order for 3,500 of the guns with the shrouded extractor rod."

And so, make that 9 votes for cracking heads.
TL

I must admit I'm becoming convinced on "cracking heads."

I think the motivation came from Wolf & Klar. The proper question is what motivated that firm. Evidently, Texans with the notion of cracking heads.

Then I suppose S&W found that the ejector rod shroud sold well, maybe for other reasons, e.g. "looks cool" or "identifies with magnum". So at that point it became a sales gimmick. Somehow S&W decided to put the shroud on the .38/44 HD. Probably "cracking heads." It then migrated to the .357 Mag. At that point it was off and running.

To make my point, do you think anybody ever cracked a head with a Model 53? The shroud is totally a gimmick on that handgun.

So at this point I would rank the reasons first, as "cracking heads", courtesy of Wolf & Klar and their constituency; and second, "market appeal" recognized at some point by S&W.

Am I wrong?

__________________
Curly
SWCA #2599; SWHF #626

As fine a revolver as the M -10/13 is I’ve never had the attachment to them, I do to the assorted K and N frames with the ejector rod shroud feature. IMO the under barrel shroud adds a balance to the revolver; it defines the classic L/E revolver as well as offering protection to the all-important ejector rod. I also believe that the smith and Wesson marketing department understood how the under lug set apart it's "combat revolvers" in the mind of many potential owners.

I’ve owned a number of M-19/66’s over the years, and my only regret is I made the mistake of selling, trading, or giving away several. I'm still on the hunt for the elusive,to me, 2 1/2" M-19 preferably in the P & R variant.