25-5 targeting issues

[Eralph]

Some years back I picked up a very clean 4" 25-5 (pinned barrel, N prefix ser.#), in .45 Colt.
I shoots 5-6" high at 20 yards. I replaced the .146" rear sight blade with the shortest (.126") option, but it still shoots high. It does this with a variety of loads, including factory ammo and hand loads. These same loads shoot accurately from a 625-6 Mountain Gun, and from a number of SAAs and lever rifles. I sent it to S&W and they returned it to me with arear sight blade from a J frame and a paper target with a nice 5 rnd. group, presumably to show me that they'd fixed the problem. Only the holes in the paper were from a .38... Not pleased.
Last month I came across another 25-5, later production. This one has the same problem! does anyone know if this common issue?

 

[armorer951]

Has anyone suggested installing a taller front sight?

 

[M29since14]

In my limited experience, yes, it is. There is no way to replace the front sight except milling it off, cutting a groove in the base, and pinning in a new blade. Unless you can do the work yourself... expensive.

Not long ago a poster here showed an steel insert he had made that replaced the red insert in his Model 29 front sight. He made it to duplicate the sight picture of a Patridge blade. If you’re really good with a file, that approach might be an option.

 

[BigMuddy]

Yes, common problem. The shorter rear sight blade fixed mine. Not the best option but lighter bullets will hit lower. There are a lot of good 200 grain bullets available. Maybe give them a try.

Dan

 

[ameridaddy]

In my limited experience, yes, it is. There is no way to replace the front sight except milling it off, cutting a groove in the base, and pinning in a new blade. Unless you can do the work yourself... expensive.

Not long ago a poster here showed an steel insert he had made that replaced the red insert in his Model 29 front sight. He made it to duplicate the sight picture of a Patridge blade. If you’re really good with a file, that approach might be an option.

My 8-3/8" 25-5 had the same problem and it also had .457" cylinder throats, so I bought a 6" 25-9 with good .4525" throats, but still shot 5-6" high. I believe that S&W used Mod 29 .44 barrels with integral front sight bored out to .45 caliber, and the much lower 45 Colt velocity gives a 5-6" high group at 25 yds.
I had a guy do just what you described, cost $150 to mill off the sight and make a slot, then had a machine shop wire EDM (4) .320 sight blades to go in the slot at $46 each. The cost would come down for more sights, as much of it is in the setup.
Not cheap, but works well.

 

[6string]

My 8-3/8" 25-5 had the same problem and it also had .457" cylinder throats, so I bought a 6" 25-9 with good .4525" throats, but still shot 5-6" high. I believe that S&W used Mod 29 .44 barrels with integral front sight bored out to .45 caliber, and the much lower 45 Colt velocity gives a 5-6" high group at 25 yds.
I had a guy do just what you described, cost $150 to mill off the sight and make a slot, then had a machine shop wire EDM (4) .320 sight blades to go in the slot at $46 each. The cost would come down for more sights, as much of it is in the setup.
Not cheap, but works well.

Hi Ameridaddy,

Great Stuff!
You not only fixed your gun, you upgraded that S&W to overcome one of the worst cost savings initiatives that the company ever conceived.
For years, S&W revolver shooters enjoyed the option to change out the front sight on their target sighted models. To me, losing the ability to change out a Patridge, to a McGivern or Call sight, not to mention fine tune the amount of light showing between the front sight blade and the rear sight notch, was much worse than the loss of recessed cylinder chambers on the magnums (although that was sad, too!).

Very kind of you to post the technical drawings for everyone to see (and, perhaps, replicate??).

Jim

 

[Nightowl]

I have a most wonderful 25-7 five inch barrel Smith, perfect action and very smooth, although a bit heavy. It also shoots high, about 3 inches at 7 yards. I do not like the lower rear sights, so will just continue to shoot it as is.

 

[ameridaddy]

Hi Ameridaddy,
....
Very kind of you to post the technical drawings for everyone to see (and, perhaps, replicate??).
Jim

Thanks for the kind words. Anybody who wants those dwgs is welcome to them - PM me.
I should probably check them - I see a couple of things I should make clearer. They were drawn in Solidworks, but I could send out other formats to anybody who'd like them.
I also still have (3) of those Patridge sights I'd sell for my cost @ $45 each. They'd come down to about $32 if I made a batch of ~50

 

[M29since14]

That’s really interesting, Ameridaddy... but you didn’t let us know who could do the installation. I’d be interested.

 

[M29since14]

...To me, losing the ability to change out a Patridge, to a McGivern or Call sight, not to mention fine tune the amount of light showing between the front sight blade and the rear sight notch, was much worse than the loss of recessed cylinder chambers on the magnums (although that was sad, too.

I couldn’t agree more. S&W could have improved things by adopting a truly interchangeable FS, as they did later with the Classic DX. Instead, we got the abomination of the integral front sight with red ramp, which only played into the hands of the “red ramp haters” D), and left the rest of us without any option to fix out-of-whack guns that never should have left the factory in the first place. This is what happens when a gun company is run by people that obviously don’t comprehend that the first object in shooting is hitting.

 

[jimmyj]

Consider using a lighter bullet

 

[oddshooter]

Yep, lighter and faster is one option. That definitely changes the POI down several inches.

Been there, done that.

Prescut

 

[Eralph]

OK, I'm new to the forum, so I hope I am doing this correctly...
First, thanks to everyone for the quick responses.
- I have looked into a taller front sight blade and I have a local gunsmith/machinist that can do that. But I'm trying to make that my last ditch option.
-Lighter and faster bullets... had not considered that. I will try it. On that topic, I have been loading .451, .452 jacketed, plated and hard cast and even some soft .455 250 grn. I assume .452 is optimal, but any input there?

 

[M29since14]

If your 25-5 is an older one with exit bores in the cylinder around .455” (or larger), I’d use the biggest bullets suitable for your brass, chambers, and exit bores.

 

[ameridaddy]

That’s really interesting, Ameridaddy... but you didn’t let us know who could do the installation. I’d be interested.

A gunsmith named Jeff May in Northern Virginia did the work for me about 4 years ago. He also engraved a Gadsden flag on my AR magwell.
We used a sight pin from S&W to anchor the sight on my gun, but it was a tad too short. I'd recommend using a #54 drill bit dressed to length for a flush fit, or else dome the ends and let it stand proud.

On installation, be sure to get the sight, which should be a light press fit, located exactly where you want it fore and aft, full down on the boss, then fixture the gun to drill the pin hole. Do NOT pre drill the pin hole in the sight. You must peck the bit, all the way through, else it will break.
My sight was .320 above the sight boss on the barrel, a bit high, but I wanted to be sure to have enough to file off if need be once I worked up the accuracy load for the gun. I also need to decide whether I want a six-o'clock hold for bullseye or point of aim at some other distance. Once there, I can file or not, or else change the rear sight leaf.

website: US Tactical | Custom Gunsmithing and Laser Engraving in Northern Virginia
By appointment only
703-217-8781
[email protected]

 

[Drm50]

Not had that trouble with S&W but was common with Old model Ruger SBH as long as you wanted to shoot 100yds you were ok. If you wanted to sight in for practical range front sight was to short and rear would bottom out.

 

[CH4]

What’s the height of everyone’s front sight? I’ve only fired a few rounds from my 5” 25-9 and 4” 625-6 MG using 210 grain silver tips and 255 grain cast and didn’t remember anything being unacceptable. Guess I need to shoot em more.

 

[rockquarry]

I bought one of these guns new forty or so years ago, probably not long after they came out. I've gotten used to the 255 grain Lyman #454424 having an impact several inches high at 25 yards. I tried several lighter cast bullets, around 200 grains, which would bring the point of impact to where it should be. For some reason (maybe rifling twist rate?) the light bullets all displayed poor accuracy in comparison with the heavy bullet.

 

[M29since14]

...For some reason (maybe rifling twist rate?) the light bullets all displayed poor accuracy in comparison with the heavy bullet.

That was my experience. I never found anything that shot close to point of aim with the accuracy I was looking for. (Shooting cast bullets.) Who wants to shoot lightweight bullets in a .45 Colt, anyhow?

 

[ameridaddy]

That was my experience. I never found anything that shot close to point of aim with the accuracy I was looking for. (Shooting cast bullets.) Who wants to shoot lightweight bullets in a .45 Colt, anyhow?

The other thing I found wrong in my 25-5 besides .457-.458 cylinder throats was substantial thread choke when I slugged the barrel. I had Smith fit a new cylinder which had .4525 throats, but I still could not get a group under ~5"-6" off a bag at 25 yds. I've read that if you find the right mix of bullet diameter, bullet hardness and case pressure (velocity) that the bullet will obturate after passing the thread choke. ??? My experiments were limited, but I always had a 45 Colt scattergun after every effort. I may go back to it, try a Taylor throat, but right now it's a shelf queen.

 

[M29since14]

...My experiments were limited, but I always had a 45 Colt scattergun after every effort. I may go back to it, try a Taylor throat, but right now it's a shelf queen.

If you can find a .45 Colt bullet with a hollow base, like the old Remingtons, your group size should improve. I’ve thought of buying a custom mold with hollow-base Keith design, but have never devoted the money to the project. I’d guess the size and shape of the hollow-base might be very important.

Those old .45s were just a mess, in my opinion. They may have shot well enough (”acceptably” ) with something like Remington factory loads, but I could never make mine shoot with my .45 Colt loads that worked fine in other brands of guns owned by my friends. JMHO, I’d skip the “Taylor throat.”

 

[rockquarry]

While my 25-5 shoots high with heavy bullets and it has the big chamber throats, it's relatively accurate as long as bullets are sized to .454" or larger. I also switched to HS-6 powder which provides a little better accuracy than the standard Unique load I used for many years.

I also have a '94 Winchester Trapper .45 Colt with 16" barrel that I bought new in 1990. Haven't figured out yet what this gun is good for, but it shoots so accurately even to 100 yards despite the crude open sights, I just can't part with it.

However, I have little interest in the .45 Colt cartridge these days, much preferring the .44 Special. I can see no practical advantage for choosing the .45 Colt over the .44 Special, but choices, and not necessarily practical ones, are what makes all this intriguing and enjoyable.

 

[DanGee]

Does the current 25 Classic have the same sight problem mentioned above? I have been tempted to get one.

 

[sceva]

My 25-5 4", non pinned with correct throats. shot fine for me.

I guess I got lucky

 

[jaymoore]

I have had several (and still have three plus a .455 that's been reamed to take .45C as well as .455) .45 Colt chambered S&Ws but only the first gave any sort of major accuracy dramas. That 8 3/8" barreled early 25-5 had large throats but shot the hollow based 0.456" diameter WW swaged 255gr lead bullets very well indeed. None have had POI dramas. From 4" barrels and up.

However, I do take a very high grip! So much so that the hammer spur will generally touch the web of my hand, both in DA and SA. (Often corrected by trimming off some of the hammer spur, esp. with revolvers shot primarily DA.) The higher grip definitely has an affect on POI, moving the impacts lower.

BTW, most of my 25/625s in both .45 ACP and .45C shoot the 200gr #68 H&G LWSC bullets extremely well. (Except for some powder position sensitivity dramas in .45C out past 50yds with my old favorite, WW231.) Well enough that I shot my first 30+ score in IHMSA Field Pistol (25 to 100 yard CoF.) with a 625-7 several years back.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

well, now I have to dig my M25 out and shoot it. it's been a long time but I am headed to a shooting afternoon later in the week. I was trying to decide which handguns to take. You made it easy. Stay tuned!

 

[SuperMan]

S&W went to the one piece milled front sight about 1980 just before they dropped the pinned barrels and recessed chambers in the Magnum handguns... I had two 1980 vintage Model 57 4" guns. The early gun has a pinned in blade, the later gun is one piece.

One thing they also probably didn't consider is that if a customer dropped their gun and broke the front sight, the whole barrel had to be replaced...not that they probably cared.

Don't know who came up with the sight calibrations for their revolvers but as I hold dead center on a target splitting a bullseye in half, just about all my adjustable sight guns have the rear blade bottomed out. I am wondering if this is a leftover from when everyone shot bullseye and were taught to balance the bullseye on top of the front sight..that is all I can think of.

But S&W is not alone...Ruger did the same thing with their Blackhawk revolvers back in the 1960s...the front sight was too short on them also until about 1969 when taller ones were finally made standard...

As to the cylinder throats...no .45 S&W revolver, Colt or ACP, can hold a candle accuracy wise to their .41s... I have probably had 50 657s and 57s and everyone has been a tack driver...the 45s...not so much.

Truly sad...and absolutely no reason for it...

Bob

 

[M29since14]

...As to the cylinder throats...no .45 S&W revolver, Colt or ACP, can hold a candle accuracy wise to their .41s... I have probably had 50 657s and 57s and everyone has been a tack driver...the 45s...not so much.

Truly sad...and absolutely no reason for it...

Bob

I’d have to agree with that. Anyone who doubts that S&W knew how to make an accurate revolver need only take a close look at a Model 57. I’ve always thought S&W felt hidebound to adhere to old dimensions standardized years early in the .44 and .45 caliber guns - dimensions not desirable in modern revolvers. With the .41, they had a clean sheet and they used it well. Of course our objections as handloaders probably were of little interest to the factory. I’m not sure how that stubbornness was overcome, if it was at all.

 

[BigMuddy]

The other thing I found wrong in my 25-5 besides .457-.458 cylinder throats was substantial thread choke when I slugged the barrel. I had Smith fit a new cylinder which had .4525 throats, but I still could not get a group under ~5"-6" off a bag at 25 yds. I've read that if you find the right mix of bullet diameter, bullet hardness and case pressure (velocity) that the bullet will obturate after passing the thread choke. ??? My experiments were limited, but I always had a 45 Colt scattergun after every effort. I may go back to it, try a Taylor throat, but right now it's a shelf queen.

Had the same issue with a 6” 25-5 pinned barrel gun. Didn’t do anything with the huge chamber throats but fire lapped the barrel for the thread choke. 100 lapping Bullets made this gun a great shooter with lead Bullets, even sized .452. It shoots SWC’s best.

This gun shot jacketed Bullets well before any work done. The jacketed slugs will “spring back” after passing through the tight spot but lead won’t. Lapping is messy but not hard.

Dan

 

[jaymoore]

....As to the cylinder throats...no .45 S&W revolver, Colt or ACP, can hold a candle accuracy wise to their .41s... I have probably had 50 657s and 57s and everyone has been a tack driver...the 45s...not so much.

Truly sad...and absolutely no reason for it...

Bob

I subscribe to the theory, I have been a .41 Mag fan from the start, but it seems each revolver's build quality has more to do with it's accuracy than the theory. Given a choice, I'd rather shoot IHMSA with a .357 or .41 but, contrary to my desires, the .44s and one .45 Colt have given better results so far. But that's with non jacketed projectiles. Can't seem to get good accuracy life using jacketed. OK to great for a couple of thousand rounds, then scores start to drop. Hard enough to find a revolver (other than Freedom Arms cubic money squandering devices) that shoots well for long range, very annoying to have it "die" just as you are getting it well dialed in!

At 50 yards or less, I think .45 Colts are as good as anything for most folk, once the loads are dialed in. And for some reason, more enjoyable. Perhaps because there's less temptation to make them earsplitzenziloudenboomers?