notsofast
Member
When a P&R k frame has a bit of cylinder side to side play, what’s going on? I don’t want to let this go if it can cause some issues that aren’t readily noticed
Thanks
Thanks
Cylinder left & right movement
- Thread starter notsofast
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Some gauge between the cylinder stop and cylinder notches is normal.
Side to side play of the cylinder assembly when it is closed could be due to many factors including wear and tear on the center pin or center pin recess in the breechface, wear of the yoke barrel, normal wear on the extractor rod/front locking bolt interface.....among other things.
It's virtually impossible (no pun intended) to judge the severity of the problem without being able to examine the gun. Perhaps you could get an opinion from a trusted gunsmith in your area?
Side to side play of the cylinder assembly when it is closed could be due to many factors including wear and tear on the center pin or center pin recess in the breechface, wear of the yoke barrel, normal wear on the extractor rod/front locking bolt interface.....among other things.
It's virtually impossible (no pun intended) to judge the severity of the problem without being able to examine the gun. Perhaps you could get an opinion from a trusted gunsmith in your area?
Last edited:
How much play do you have with the hammer cocked?
Have you compared the side to side play with another Smith Hand Ejector?
Have you compared the side to side play with another Smith Hand Ejector?
I don’t have it in hand, it’s an online for sale gun. The appearance from the pics says to me it’s either neglected or maybe abused. It’s a very desirable model that in very good condition would claim a 1k price. The seller is asking a price comensorite with its condition and claims it to have good timing and lockup with a bit of cyl side to side play. I’ve become a bit of a sucker for rough condition Smiths and all of those have been as described yet functionally very good. So I was hoping this post might tell me if I was biting off more than I could chew
A revolver that has a bit of cylinder play in it when the hammer is in its “home” position, then tightens up with the hammer cocked is concidered good or just diagnoses the actual problem?
A revolver that has a bit of cylinder play in it when the hammer is in its “home” position, then tightens up with the hammer cocked is concidered good or just diagnoses the actual problem?
Last edited:
dfariswheel
Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2001
- Messages
- 1,474
- Reaction score
- 1,055
Like most modern revolvers, the S&W is specifically designed to NOT tightly lock the cylinder.
This allows the bullet passing from the chamber into the bore to force the chamber into alignment with the bore.
Even in revolvers that seem to lock tightly there's still enough backlash built into the action to allow the necessary movement.
The only revolvers that tightly lock the cylinder when the trigger is pulled are the old Colt action like the Python, Detective Special, etc.
The S&W, Ruger, Dan Wesson, and the newer Colt's like the Mark III and later are designed not to lock up with the trigger pulled, so pulling the trigger and holding it back and trying cylinder tightness is not a valid test on these brands and models.
The test for excessive side to side rotation of the cylinder are...
1. Is the revolver accurate?
2. Is the revolver spitting bullet metal out the barrel-cylinder gap.
If both are good, it's good to go.
If a revolver is badly worn but is otherwise okay, but it bothers you, a new cylinder locking bolt can be fitted.
This allows the bullet passing from the chamber into the bore to force the chamber into alignment with the bore.
Even in revolvers that seem to lock tightly there's still enough backlash built into the action to allow the necessary movement.
The only revolvers that tightly lock the cylinder when the trigger is pulled are the old Colt action like the Python, Detective Special, etc.
The S&W, Ruger, Dan Wesson, and the newer Colt's like the Mark III and later are designed not to lock up with the trigger pulled, so pulling the trigger and holding it back and trying cylinder tightness is not a valid test on these brands and models.
The test for excessive side to side rotation of the cylinder are...
1. Is the revolver accurate?
2. Is the revolver spitting bullet metal out the barrel-cylinder gap.
If both are good, it's good to go.
If a revolver is badly worn but is otherwise okay, but it bothers you, a new cylinder locking bolt can be fitted.
Last edited:
I agree with most of what you say except the two parts above.
But I didn't say HOLD THE HAMMER BaCK and check for play, so I have to respectfully disagree. And how is that informative on a Colt or any other revolver? Please explain.
The cyl is certainly locked on a S&W when cocked or before hammer let off in DA.
Also the cyl hand has a lot to do with if the cyl may or may not have any play depending on the tightness of the hand.
Last edited:
dfariswheel
Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2001
- Messages
- 1,474
- Reaction score
- 1,055
I probably wasn't too clear.
ANY revolver should lock up the cylinder when cocked in SA or the trigger is pulled in DA, before the hammer drops.
The old Colt actions like the Python use a cylinder hand that forces the cylinder tighter into lockup as long as trigger is pulled. This was Colt's famous "Bank Vault" lockup.
In the old Colt's the harder the trigger is pulled the harder the hand forces the cylinder so there's no cylinder looseness.
(Use common sense, you can damage the action by pulling too hard).
Revolvers like the S&W and later Colt's have hands that bypass the ejector ratchet after the cylinder is started turning.
Once the revolver is cocked the hand can't force the cylinder any tighter.
In the old Colt's the length of the hand is the critical factor.
In S&W and most all other DA revolvers the width of the hand is what's critical because it's the side of the hand that pushes the cylinder into lockup.
Again, most modern revolvers are designed so the cylinder will have slight rotational movement to allow the bullet to force the chamber into alignment with the bore.
The old Colt's hand forced the chamber into alignment before the hammer dropped, so the cylinder was tightly locked in perfect alignment with the bore, (as long as the action was in adjustment).
The advantage of the old Colt action was since the bullet entered the bore centered the bullet was not deformed and the accuracy was better.
The disadvantage of this was the increased cost of the hand fitting required to build the gun.
It was the slightly better Colt accuracy and single action trigger pull that was the reason that back in the revolver Target shooting days the Colt's held all the records and were used by most all top shooters.
In the S&W the disadvantage is the bullet strikes the forcing cone off-center and that causes some deformation of the bullet, and less accuracy.
The big advantage is the action requires much less hand fitting labor and that holds the cost down.
It's the high price of hand labor that's why Colt's old action models were mostly discontinued in 1969, and S&W is still building essentially the same action today.
So, when the old Colt action is cocked and the cylinder is locked pulling the trigger forces it into tighter lock and alignment with the bore.
The S&W when cocked and the cylinder is locked pulling the trigger does't force it any tighter. The cylinder has slight movement so it can self-align with the bore.
ANY revolver should lock up the cylinder when cocked in SA or the trigger is pulled in DA, before the hammer drops.
The old Colt actions like the Python use a cylinder hand that forces the cylinder tighter into lockup as long as trigger is pulled. This was Colt's famous "Bank Vault" lockup.
In the old Colt's the harder the trigger is pulled the harder the hand forces the cylinder so there's no cylinder looseness.
(Use common sense, you can damage the action by pulling too hard).
Revolvers like the S&W and later Colt's have hands that bypass the ejector ratchet after the cylinder is started turning.
Once the revolver is cocked the hand can't force the cylinder any tighter.
In the old Colt's the length of the hand is the critical factor.
In S&W and most all other DA revolvers the width of the hand is what's critical because it's the side of the hand that pushes the cylinder into lockup.
Again, most modern revolvers are designed so the cylinder will have slight rotational movement to allow the bullet to force the chamber into alignment with the bore.
The old Colt's hand forced the chamber into alignment before the hammer dropped, so the cylinder was tightly locked in perfect alignment with the bore, (as long as the action was in adjustment).
The advantage of the old Colt action was since the bullet entered the bore centered the bullet was not deformed and the accuracy was better.
The disadvantage of this was the increased cost of the hand fitting required to build the gun.
It was the slightly better Colt accuracy and single action trigger pull that was the reason that back in the revolver Target shooting days the Colt's held all the records and were used by most all top shooters.
In the S&W the disadvantage is the bullet strikes the forcing cone off-center and that causes some deformation of the bullet, and less accuracy.
The big advantage is the action requires much less hand fitting labor and that holds the cost down.
It's the high price of hand labor that's why Colt's old action models were mostly discontinued in 1969, and S&W is still building essentially the same action today.
So, when the old Colt action is cocked and the cylinder is locked pulling the trigger forces it into tighter lock and alignment with the bore.
The S&W when cocked and the cylinder is locked pulling the trigger does't force it any tighter. The cylinder has slight movement so it can self-align with the bore.
Thx, I understand what you were saying about the Colt action difference. But actually, it sounds to me the (old) Colt action was contradictory being locked tighter leading to ignition, or why would they have (need) forcing cones?
I don't even see any advantage to the Colt action difference, because once the cartridge is fired, and trigger released, all the supposed advantage (more marketing hype perhaps) immediately goes away and cyl play comes into play to take advantage of the bullet/forcing cone alignment of chamber and barrel.
The advantage of forcing cone bar/cyl alignment far outweighs slight bullet deformation. And if it's not slight, the gun needs repair.
Therefore, any perceived (theoretical?) improvement could very well be a disadvantage. Because if there's any slight play when cocked, it may provide the cyl a head start on the movement to align chambers to barrel. Just using cognizant logical reasoning, albeit all very trivial, bottom line.
Although cyl play at full cock is non-existent in many of my dozens of S&Ws, negligible in the rest.
I've competed for years and years and never saw the Colt superiority (alleged) in accuracy come to fruition, in fact hardly ever saw any Colt revolvers used (semi-auto Colts, yes). Or especially in the record books where there are many many records held by S&W revolvers. But we're not going to resolve that here.
Thanks for the education and discussion,
I don't even see any advantage to the Colt action difference, because once the cartridge is fired, and trigger released, all the supposed advantage (more marketing hype perhaps) immediately goes away and cyl play comes into play to take advantage of the bullet/forcing cone alignment of chamber and barrel.
The advantage of forcing cone bar/cyl alignment far outweighs slight bullet deformation. And if it's not slight, the gun needs repair.
Therefore, any perceived (theoretical?) improvement could very well be a disadvantage. Because if there's any slight play when cocked, it may provide the cyl a head start on the movement to align chambers to barrel. Just using cognizant logical reasoning, albeit all very trivial, bottom line.
Although cyl play at full cock is non-existent in many of my dozens of S&Ws, negligible in the rest.
I've competed for years and years and never saw the Colt superiority (alleged) in accuracy come to fruition, in fact hardly ever saw any Colt revolvers used (semi-auto Colts, yes). Or especially in the record books where there are many many records held by S&W revolvers. But we're not going to resolve that here.
Thanks for the education and discussion,
Last edited:
dfariswheel
Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2001
- Messages
- 1,474
- Reaction score
- 1,055
"I don't even see any advantage to the Colt action difference, because once the cartridge is fired, and trigger released, all the supposed advantage (more marketing hype perhaps) immediately goes away and cyl play comes into play to take advantage of the bullet/forcing cone alignment of chamber and barrel."
The bullet has already left the barrel long before you can release or even ease off the trigger.
At the instant of ignition and the bullet moving into the barrel the cylinder is still tightly locked.
No matter how well aligned a forcing cone is still needed otherwise a lead bullet would shave metal off against a sharp edged bore.
"Although cyl play at full cock is non-existent in many of my dozens of S&Ws, negligible in the rest."
Even though a S&W appears to be tightly locked at ignition, S&W designed in enough action backlash to allow the small amount of needed movement.
Since Colt's have no backlash or movement because of the hand pressing against the cylinder and keeping it tightly locked, the Colt's will eventually impact shorten the hand and it'll need maintenance to restore timing.
The hey-day of the DA revolver as a Target pistol was from the early 1900's to about the mid 50's, after which the automatic took over.
In the glory days of the 20's through the 40's the Colt Officer's Models and the Colt Shooting Master ruled the matches.
Colt's held all the records and the top winners used Colt's.
By the early 50's the auto's took over and what few revolvers you'd see were pretty well divided between S&W's and Colt's, but revolvers were never used by the winners by that time.
The bullet has already left the barrel long before you can release or even ease off the trigger.
At the instant of ignition and the bullet moving into the barrel the cylinder is still tightly locked.
No matter how well aligned a forcing cone is still needed otherwise a lead bullet would shave metal off against a sharp edged bore.
"Although cyl play at full cock is non-existent in many of my dozens of S&Ws, negligible in the rest."
Even though a S&W appears to be tightly locked at ignition, S&W designed in enough action backlash to allow the small amount of needed movement.
Since Colt's have no backlash or movement because of the hand pressing against the cylinder and keeping it tightly locked, the Colt's will eventually impact shorten the hand and it'll need maintenance to restore timing.
The hey-day of the DA revolver as a Target pistol was from the early 1900's to about the mid 50's, after which the automatic took over.
In the glory days of the 20's through the 40's the Colt Officer's Models and the Colt Shooting Master ruled the matches.
Colt's held all the records and the top winners used Colt's.
By the early 50's the auto's took over and what few revolvers you'd see were pretty well divided between S&W's and Colt's, but revolvers were never used by the winners by that time.
Last edited:
Ahh, way before my shooting time!
Thx again, very informative!
Thx again, very informative!
