Ball detent on Performance Center guns

[American1776]

I have two performance center revolvers. A model 657 snub nose and a 627 5'' barrel. They are very nice.

I noticed that the ball detent 'friction' that keeps the yoke/crane engaged up front varies from revolver to revolver. My 657 has a very secure ball detent, so that when I release the cylinder, it takes a pretty good push outward on the cylinder to get it open.

My 627 ball detent require less 'pop' outward on the cylinder to open the action. While it doesn't flop open when I push the cylinder release, all it needs is a slight push and the cylinder opens.

Does it matter how 'stiff' the ball detent engages? I would imagine that the stiffer the ball detent, the more secure the cylinder is kept shut when the gun is fired. However, is a really stiff detent needed? The revolver is still locked into place at the rear (and Colt pythons ONLY lock at the rear), and the locking bolt also aids in keeping the cylinder in place when the gun is being fired.

As long as the detent provides SOME or A LITTLE resistance, is that good enough?

 

[TAROMAN]

Oil pressure, blood pressure, detent pressure.
As long as you have some, all's good.
My new 69 is very light in that area, doesn't seem to be a problem:

 

[calmex]

I have two performance center revolvers. A model 657 snub nose and a 627 5'' barrel. They are very nice.

I noticed that the ball detent 'friction' that keeps the yoke/crane engaged up front varies from revolver to revolver. My 657 has a very secure ball detent, so that when I release the cylinder, it takes a pretty good push outward on the cylinder to get it open.

My 627 ball detent require less 'pop' outward on the cylinder to open the action. While it doesn't flop open when I push the cylinder release, all it needs is a slight push and the cylinder opens.

Does it matter how 'stiff' the ball detent engages? I would imagine that the stiffer the ball detent, the more secure the cylinder is kept shut when the gun is fired. However, is a really stiff detent needed? The revolver is still locked into place at the rear (and Colt pythons ONLY lock at the rear), and the locking bolt also aids in keeping the cylinder in place when the gun is being fired.

As long as the detent provides SOME or A LITTLE resistance, is that good enough?

My opinion, as you may or may not know, is totally unqualified. I am not an engineer, I would not even play one on T.V., and I won't even wear a red shirt. Scotty may have been Canadian in real life, but so is Shatner and I prefer to wear green-gold shirts over red ones as I stumble through my time on the planet.

Oops, got off track again. Allergy medicine. Anyways, the whole point of the ball detent is to keep the cylinder from moving outwards (to the left) when the trigger is pulled through. Colt revolvers rotate left-to-right (or clockwise, from the shooter's point of view) and so the hand is exerting pressure on them that drives them into the frame. Thus, they need no front-end lockup because the very act of pulling the trigger is locking them up.

S&W revolvers rotate the other way, and the hand pressure during the trigger stroke is pushing them open. In my totally unqualifed, not even wearing red on any part of me opinion, if you can take your UNLOADED revolver and point it in such a way that you can see the yoke and frame mating surfaces and then pull the trigger double-action (preferably slowly) and NOT see any tendency for the yoke and frame connection to open up then everything is fine.

If there is some opening up, the ball detent is not holding everything as securely as one might like.

My totally unqualified opinion. By no means does it make me right, it's just how I think about it and it's the "test" I'd take on my own to assure myself that all was fine.

 

[American1776]

Thanks for the opinions guys.

I forgot that the Colts rotate the other way. I had a Colt Trooper (original, not Mark III), and remember that feature of the 'wrong' way spin.

I would imagine that fast double action shooting, especially with the big heavy N-frame cylinder, puts more outward stress on the locking mechanisms due to momentum.

I would say that with the gun in full lock up, if I press outward on the cylinder, the gap between the yoke and frame stays constant, unless I really push hard (something I'm inclined not to do a lot of).

 

[shottist]

As I understand things the Ball detent is designed to push forward under the recoil pulse of the revolver thus increasing the force to keep things locked up. Its tension while at rest needs only be sufficient to keep the cylinder assembly in place.

 

[calmex]

Thanks for the opinions guys.

I forgot that the Colts rotate the other way. I had a Colt Trooper (original, not Mark III), and remember that feature of the 'wrong' way spin.

I would imagine that fast double action shooting, especially with the big heavy N-frame cylinder, puts more outward stress on the locking mechanisms due to momentum.

I would say that with the gun in full lock up, if I press outward on the cylinder, the gap between the yoke and frame stays constant, unless I really push hard (something I'm inclined not to do a lot of).

I do not believe that fast or slow double action shooting will change the amount of "push" against the cylinder. What might cause more push is if you had a high primer and therefore were required to exert more force to pull the trigger through. But again, the actual force being transmitted to the ratchet teeth would stay the same since the extra force you are applying is being used to overcome the resistance of the primer scraping on the chamber-face. So who knows? Not me, that's for sure.

If using some empty casings in the gun, normal double-action strokes cause no opening of the yoke/frame gap, I'd say you're good to go.

But again; I'm just a schmuck who uses S&W revolvers as much as opportunity allows and my opinions can be wrong. If someone comes along who says I am, I won't be offended. I just think that if your revolver is not "opening that gap" right now, then stop worrying about it and concentrate on things that really matter.

Like, for instance (just to give you an off-the-cuff example); is your rear-sight leaf exactly the height you want it to be so that when sighted-in at 25 yards it's almost screwed right down to bottoming on the frame? If it isn't, how much more leaf-height do you need? Should one white-outline, or not white-outline? I can spend days pondering things like this...although again, that might be another thing that could be traced back to the allergy medicine.

Allergy medicine;
- can make me drousy, even the ones that say they won't.
- can make me bitchy.
- can make me get angry over the smallest things.
- can make me worry about things that are really not important (like sight-leaf height).
- can make me wonder if whatever I just decided was truly a "Custer Decision" or just an "Allergy Med Decision."

 

[American1776]

I do not believe that fast or slow double action shooting will change the amount of "push" against the cylinder. What might cause more push is if you had a high primer and therefore were required to exert more force to pull the trigger through. But again, the actual force being transmitted to the ratchet teeth would stay the same since the extra force you are applying is being used to overcome the resistance of the primer scraping on the chamber-face. So who knows? Not me, that's for sure.

If using some empty casings in the gun, normal double-action strokes cause no opening of the yoke/frame gap, I'd say you're good to go.

But again; I'm just a schmuck who uses S&W revolvers as much as opportunity allows and my opinions can be wrong. If someone comes along who says I am, I won't be offended. I just think that if your revolver is not "opening that gap" right now, then stop worrying about it and concentrate on things that really matter.

Like, for instance (just to give you an off-the-cuff example); is your rear-sight leaf exactly the height you want it to be so that when sighted-in at 25 yards it's almost screwed right down to bottoming on the frame? If it isn't, how much more leaf-height do you need? Should one white-outline, or not white-outline? I can spend days pondering things like this...although again, that might be another thing that could be traced back to the allergy medicine.

Allergy medicine;
- can make me drousy, even the ones that say they won't.
- can make me bitchy.
- can make me get angry over the smallest things.
- can make me worry about things that are really not important (like sight-leaf height).
- can make me wonder if whatever I just decided was truly a "Custer Decision" or just an "Allergy Med Decision."

Thanks for the thoughts.

For me, a u notch or not doesn't really matter. Sighting in this revolver, or any other carry gun, I just make sure at 15 yards it's either POA or 6'oclock.

 

[American1776]

As I understand things the Ball detent is designed to push forward under the recoil pulse of the revolver thus increasing the force to keep things locked up. Its tension while at rest needs only be sufficient to keep the cylinder assembly in place.

I did read that a while back on another thread.

I'm not sure exactly how the mechanics of that is supposed to work, but if that's how it works, then it's a very good design.

 

[Big Cholla]

Aside from the very learned contributions (above) by calmex and others, IF the ball indent lockup on your particular handgun bothers you, it is a simple matter for a pistolsmith to just add a second ball indent. That would cure that particular problem for you and bring peace of mind. ......

 

[frankcr]

How well does it shoot?

Several factors could affect the fit of the detent including angle of seat, spring tension, depth of ball, etc. I would not get hung up on this as long as the revolver functions properly.

 

[robert1804]

I have two performance center revolvers. A model 657 snub nose and a 627 5'' barrel. They are very nice.

I noticed that the ball detent 'friction' that keeps the yoke/crane engaged up front varies from revolver to revolver. My 657 has a very secure ball detent, so that when I release the cylinder, it takes a pretty good push outward on the cylinder to get it open.

My 627 ball detent require less 'pop' outward on the cylinder to open the action. While it doesn't flop open when I push the cylinder release, all it needs is a slight push and the cylinder opens.

Does it matter how 'stiff' the ball detent engages? I would imagine that the stiffer the ball detent, the more secure the cylinder is kept shut when the gun is fired. However, is a really stiff detent needed? The revolver is still locked into place at the rear (and Colt pythons ONLY lock at the rear), and the locking bolt also aids in keeping the cylinder in place when the gun is being fired.

As long as the detent provides SOME or A LITTLE resistance, is that good enough?

If your 657 takes a good push to open, have you looked to see if the bolt is flush with the blast shield when the cylinder is open? I have four ball detent S&W's, all open very easily. I have a 586 that had a bolt that was slightly below flush when the cylinder was open. That will definitely make the cylinder harder to open.

 

[nossew]

My 627 Pro with no ball detent works fine so I don't think you have to worry about tension too much.

 

[foytfoyt]

I wonder if the detent really serves any function at all, other than providing a nice "feel" when you close the cylinder...

If it is important to anyone from a strength point of view, it's worth noting that many Ruger revolvers have a true positive lock at the front, not a spring loaded detent.

It is a very clever mechanism, which is tied to the cylinder release via a linkage running through the center of the cylinder assembly. I never paid it much attention, until I recently took apart my Super Redhawk. The downside is the wobbly feel of the ejector when pressed, although it is not a strength issue.

I own more S&W revolvers than Ruger, so true triple locking is not a make or break feature to me.