When was that transition?

Or, conversely, should one that shipped in August 1929, serial number 501470 be fired only with standard velocity ammunition or is high velocity an acceptable choice?

The transition was about this time frame, but I cannot recall exactly when.

If I recall a discussion on this topic, the recessed cylinders were OK for beefy .22s?


I'd be happy to push it before I send it to you?


Mark

__________________
When words fail, music speaks.

Yes, the recessing of the chambers was for the high velocity ammo. It is just about the possibility of the case head blowing out which is rare with modern brass. Many modern 22 cylinders are not recessed.The HFT cylinders before and after they were recessed are the same strength.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

That’s what I seem to recall as well.

I usually fire standard velocity ammunition, which is more accurate in these, anyways, but I was wondering if this revolver could fire the high velocity ammunition safely?

Are the chambers recessed?

If this can fire high velocity .22LR rounds, it would be the only Smith & Wesson I own that could safely fire this round.

This one is not recessed. M

__________________
When words fail, music speaks.

It’s probably much wiser to stick to standard velocity rounds in this revolver—and more accurate, too.

Colt Woodsman .22 semiauto pistols were also modified to safely use HV ammunition.

Here's the story on blown rims:

They came to be in the early 20's. Panic reigned supreme---especially at Remington---the designated culprit. Both Remington and S&W (and perhaps other lesser lights) went to work seeking solutions. The difference in their respective approaches arose from the fact the Remington folks had been to Problem Solving School-----and the S&W folks had not. (Just about the very first thing that gets beaten into your head at Problem Solving School is to be absolutely certain you know what the REAL problem is---lest you expend valuable resources solving symptoms or apparent problems.)

So--------Remington stopped buying cheap brass, opting instead for the high priced spread. Problem solved!

S&W, on the other hand, came up with recessed chambers---the Straight Line Single Shot being the very first handgun so blessed.

Remington gets the credit for solving THE REAL PROBLEM.

S&W gets the blame for making a whole bunch of handguns with recessed chambers----and their attendant cleaning difficulties.

True story---perhaps embellished a bit here and there just for sport.

Are recessed chambers safer than not? Certainly----but when's the last time you experienced or even heard about any .22 Long Rifle ammo blowing a rim? As for me, it's been never---within the last 70 years or so.

Ralph Tremaine

I actually like .22L instead of LR, pleasant and not as loud, I shoot all of them down to the cb cap.

Attached Images

images(1).jpg (6.6 KB, 36 views)

__________________
When words fail, music speaks.

AFAIK, modern 22LR ammo is the last of the "balloon" case designs. The original reason for recessed cylinders was to provide more support for balloon cases - to contain potential blowouts around the rim of the balloon-style cases.

Early 357 magnum and 44 magnum cases were designed just like modern 22LR cases. These high-pressure ammo designs needed the recessed chambers to ensure that the pressure was contained in the event of a "blow out" of the brass around the cartridge rim.

When magnum balloon-head cases were replaced with modern solid-head cases for the high-pressure rounds, like 357 & 44 magnums, recessed cylinders became irrelevant in practical terms.

S&W continued to produce magnum revolvers with recessed cylinders into the 1980's - even though the original reasons for recessing cylinders had been obsolete for decades.

Or at least that is my understanding of the evolution of revolvers and magnum cases. Anyone with a better understanding, or more info, please feel free to correct me. I'm always willing to learning something new...

__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I've never seen a ballon head .357 or .44 Magnum cartridge.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

Have you ever seen a million dollars?

__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

Actually, I have.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

Only on my bank statement.

I don't get it.
Rimfire is rimfire.
Folded head is not balloon head.
Balloon head was headstamped S H for Solid Head by UMC.
Somewhere in there we got the term Semi-Balloon Head but I don't know if that means a case with less primer pocket protrusion into the interior.

I have not heard of balloon head .357 Magnum, all Phil Sharpe says is that it is strong for high pressures and has a better shaped combustion chamber.
Colt did not take long to chamber the SAA and New Service for .357 and they did not think a recessed rim was needed.

I have seen .22 rimfire cases with blowouts through the rim, so I think recessed chambers are still needed.
I have seen 9mm cases with blowouts through the extractor groove.
I have seen split revolver cases.
I have not seen a .357 or other revolver case blown out through the rim or even in the web just ahead of the rim.

FWIW, I’ve recently seen case head ruptures in 22lr and 22 mag revolvers (Taurus and Colt) that did not have recessed charge holes, resulting in chain fires and or deformed cases in neighboring charge holes.

__________________
213th FBINA

Actually, I have experienced blown 22 rims (as well as full length case splits) more than once over the last 30 years or so. First one I can remember was a Remington 22 in a Ruger MK II pistol. Blew most of the case head off and jammed the action. Thought it was a freak event but later had two case rims from the same box split in a revolver. Scrapped the rest of the box.

Since then, I have had a few more case rim failures with other brand 22's in both rifle and handgun. Some of which I blame on factories cranking up production due to the increased demand that hit us in the 2000's and 2010's. I suspect quality control may have gotten a little lax at times............. Contributing to my opinion on this was the years I spent working as a retail ammo dealer, I've seen way too many obvious defects come out of boxes to have complete faith in quality control and had to deal with occasional factory recalls on bad lots of ammo.

This has been over 50 years ago. Back then I was coaching a kids .22 rifle team. I had a deal with a local hardware store to buy .22 SV ammo at wholesale prices. He usually got CCI for me. Once, his supplier sent him Federal SV so I bought several bricks. I normally bought only a few bricks at a time, as I lived nearby the store and could buy ammo every day if I needed to. We had problems immediately with circumferential rim cracks. Not every round, but maybe a few rounds per box. And in every rifle (we had five rifles). I wrote Federal about the splits (no eMail then) and they asked me to send back what I had left, which I did. Later, they sent me a free case. Those replacements were OK. No explanation of the problem. I suppose it was a metallurgy issue.

I've seen a lot of .22rf cases that have blown out at the rim.
Trouble is that you can't always tell right away if it's the ammo or the rifle's fault.

The case mfg must be a deep draw process done in multiple steps. The temper of the brass very important both when starting, during and when completed as the stuff work hardens easily.
Too brittle when completed and left that way would be very bad I suspect.
Thickness would be important especially in the rim also.

Then there's the gun itself. Many RF's have a firing pin that's shaped to puncture the rim. Being too sharp and pointy, some will puncture rims quite frequently. Join it together with some ammo that has questionable specs as above and you have a real problem.

Bolt actions, Single shots, etc generally contain the cartridge within a rim recess. Either in the bbl or the breech face.
But gas released by a punctured rim can follow the firing pin/man spring channel back to the shooters face and it isn't pleasent.
It can blow the extractor off a bolt as well.

There's 24k PSI in those little .22LR's. The same in StdVel and HV ammo..

FWIW, Colt changed the Mainspring Housing to a case hardened one and upgraded the recoil spring in the Woodsman in 1933 so they could handle
HS .22LR ammo.
The MS Housing is what the slide slams back against in full recoil.
They also sold those componets as a package for owners to upgrade their own early pistols.

ID the early StdVel only ammo MS Housing..it has an oval with checkering within it at the top of it in the arch where the web of your hand fits.

The HS ammo upgrade MS Housing simply has Horizontal parallel grooves in that position.
No border of any kind around the grooves.

If I had a dollar for every time I’ve said, “The first step in any problem-solving process is to define the problem” I’d have…well…many more dollars.

__________________
Mark Lathem

Truth be told, I've never seen either - a million dollars OR 357 balloon head cases.
I've just read that they existed WAY before my time.
Preventing rim blowouts was the purpose behind the recessed cylinders in magnum revolvers. But again, that is just what I've read - I wasn't there when S&W decided to recess their magnum cylinders.

__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

I have a bag of ballon head .44 Specials that I bought just to have. I haven't loaded any and doubt I ever will.

The cash I saw was actually around $3,000,000. It was kept in a vault in Kabul back when I was a contractor in Afghanistan. It was quite impressive, seeing all those stacks of $100 bills. We paid all of our bills in cash & the Afghans would only take new money. In a lot of third world countries, the government would issue new currency and the old bills were worthless.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

FWIW, .22/32 HFT cylinders were heat treated in 1920 around serial number 321,000. The charge holes were recessed in April of 1935 around serial number 525,600. I do however have several guns listed in my database after 525,600 where the chambers are NOT recessed.

I once reported, in error, to the authors of the SC of S&W that I had a gun in the mid 300,XXX range with recessed chambers. I failed to realize that this modification was probably done when the gun went back to S&W as was evidenced by the * before the serial number. I think that they have corrected this error in subsequent editions.

I would not be concerned with high velocity ammo in any S&W .22 made after 1921.

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

I own S/N 238317 which went back to Springfield 2/12/1962 for a new cylinder with recessed chambers...Total charge with a new cylinder stop, rebluing, freight and tax was $22.93...I have a letter being processed right now for that gun......Ben

__________________
Cogito, ergo BOOM!...

So, I am guessing that heat treating of the cylinders in 1920 beginning around 1920 led to the second statement that any S & W .22 can digest high velocity ammunition without a hitch.

I had not seen that statement before. Is that the general consensus? Can others support, modify, or refute?

In 1962 $22.93 was more than a week's pay for me.