Anyone else think Colt cylinder release is inferior to S&W?

[aterry33]

I own far more S&W revolvers than anything else, but I have a great respect for Colt revolvers, especially the Python and SAA.

However, I don't understand the thinking behind the Colt cylinder release. There may be a reason, but it doesn't make sense to me. For me, pressing forward with your thumb while using the fingers of your opposite hand to push the cylinder out is a much more natural motion on the S&W. The Colt requires you to pull the cylinder release back, which in my opinion is an awkward motion, much more difficult under stress. You are pulling on the release and pushing on the cylinder, as opposed to pushing on both.

Does anyone else feel this way?

 

[feralmerril]

I dont. But the first few of my DA revolvers were colts. So I was used to it from the start. Now I am equaly at ease with either one. Also we carried colt offical polices at work for the first half of my career.

 

[Evil One]

Try releasing the cyl on a Dan Wesson or a Taurus Raging Bull...


Jim

 

[WC145]

Who cares? They don't make them any more, they are what they are.

 

[aterry33]

Who cares? They don't make them any more, they are what they are.

So by that logic, we shouldn't discuss guns that aren't made anymore..

 

[Black_Sheep]

The S&W release design has better ergonomics. Not that the Colt design is particularly bad, the Smith is simply easier to manipulate IMHO...

 

[tom turner]

Black Sheep nailed it, using a word that didn't exist when the S&W latch was initially designed . . . better ergonomics.

FOR US LEFTIES . . . there's only one cylinder latch design that works at speed in competitions . . . the S&W. Colt and Dan Wesson latches, plus a few more, are real "deal breakers" for lefthanders.

Tom

 

[Evil One]

Trigger finger push on the latch?


Jim

 

[Onomea]

In their old ads, pre war, I think, Colt used to claim their cylinder release superor because one wouldn't inadvertently release the cylinder when putting the gun into one's pocket. Marketing hype, sure but seemed apropos so I mention it.

As for me, I think I prefer the S&W push to the Colt pull, but not by all that much.

 

[Stevie]

I like Colt DA revolvers, and don't mind the cylinder release at all.

The durability of a Colt action is something I do consider inferior to an S&W. That said, my newest Colt is like a 1954 model, don't own any coil spring Colts. They might be tougher.

 

[sipowicz]

Same here...and I think the Colt looks nicer...and if I were worried about which latch is faster, I'd go with an auto..

 

[Mickey D]

Now let's compare the two with Ruger's push in latch, which was my first revolver 27 years ago.

 

[bmcgilvray]

I can't do those Rugers Mikey. The Smith & Wesson latch is familiar like a comfortable pair of jeans but the Colt is fine as well.

How about that Webley, guys?!

 

[aphelion]

It all depends on what you are used to. The Colt latch isn't any harder to use. Plus it is easier on the thumb on hard recoiling revolvers. A lot of skin had been deposited on S&W thumb latches over the years.

Actually, the Colt system may have an advantage, if only a theoretical one for most loads. The inertia of the Colt mechanism during recoil actually leads to more positive lockup of the cylinder and crane, where the Smith is actually trying to unlock during recoil. Back in the days when people were trying to use M29s for silhouette, some were finding that their 29's cylinders were unlatching when using loads with heavy bullets. But even with lesser calibers and loads, the Smith locking mechanism is trying to unlock during recoil.

The Colt design has some other advantages, too, such as what side of the cylinder axis the hand is on. And the Smith design has its deficiencies if you expect to get a lot of rounds out of one. Plenty of pluses and minuses with both designs. Both designs are very dependent on correct fitting from the start if there is going to be any durability.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

I thought that the Colt was slower, until Mas Ayoob told me how to use it. The Colt cylinder latch is released by pulling back with the inside (right side, looking from the top) of the first thumb knuckle (starting at the tip of the thumb) with the thumb bent to about 90 degrees. This is a very easy and natural motion, and is at least as fast as releasing the cylinder on a S&W. The only problem is that the two actions (for the two revolver makes) are not identical, but I'm not sure which manufacturer to blame.

 

[woodsltc]

As long as it opens the cylinder I don't see an advantage of one over the other.................S&W, Colt or Ruger. I shoot all of them and have no problem transitioning from one make to another.

Don

 

[dmar]

I think the S&W and Colt releases work fine, but the Colt's provides a more 'positive' (better grip/purchase) movement; and it looks better, too... I also find the S&W 'flat latch' is worse in this regard than the Colt and standard S&W latches; my thumb tends to slide right off it sometimes. I do think that the Ruger release is probably the best of them all...

 

[Texas Star]

Ruger has the best cylinder release. S&W's can bark your thumb in recoil. I've had them actually draw blood!

It isn't Colt's cylinder release that bothers me; it's their lack of a front lock.

T-Star

 

[dmar]

Ruger has the best cylinder release. S&W's can bark your thumb in recoil. I've had them actually draw blood!

It isn't Colt's cylinder release that bothers me; it's their lack of a front lock.

T-Star

Good point on the S&W bloodletting tendencies, those .357 J-frames can be tough if you're not paying attention...

 

[Evil One]

Personally... I think the ruger design is best, followed by S&W, then colt.


Jim