-FYI- Model 69 and 66-8 ball detent design
- Thread starter 500swmag
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
500, I am blown away that you joined in 2003 and this is your first post. You have a lot more self control than me, lol. 
Good info on why those ball detents look weird. Discussion on this topic has been spirited.
Good info on why those ball detents look weird. Discussion on this topic has been spirited.
Ashlander
Member
Nice visual aid. Thanks!
Spirited is not the word! Seriously, S&W's Performance Center produced 3 snub Mag revolvers (629, 657, 627) with a ball-detent forward lockup.
Can anyone post a picture of this earlier lockup for comparison with the 69's system?
Can anyone post a picture of this earlier lockup for comparison with the 69's system?
Uh, nothing on file that's turned up yet, but even the big PCs have had ball "locks" up front for years.
Note the lack of an underlug plunger on this mid-'90s PC:
All that front end locking junk on S&Ws after the Triple Lock have been more "Kind Thoughts" (think "Marketing Ploy") than anything truly functional. Extractor rod locks have too much "slop" in the system to do much real good. (If it were a true locating feature, then all of the under- and over-rotated barrels would create real dramas!) All the important stuff happens at the back of the cylinder. (Unless you're talking Brand DW, etc.)
I am tempted to say: "Bring back the REAL Triple Lock!" But all that would do is add cost without truly improving anything.
Last edited:
Maybe all the various internet-engineers will consider your explanation and calm down a bit... ?
Maximumbob54
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 7,202
- Reaction score
- 1,928
I guess I just got lucky with my 327 R8 because while it's not perfect in the center and is in fact slightly off it's not by nearly as much as any of the new guns have been pictured. It's actually hard to see that it's not perfect centered. The new guns are so off center that at a glance it's a little shocking.
i'd usually rather listen than talk.500, I am blown away that you joined in 2003 and this is your first post. You have a lot more self control than me, lol.
Good info on why those ball detents look weird. Discussion on this topic has been spirited.
You're welcome.
Just trying to provide some facts and put folks concerns to rest.Maybe all the various internet-engineers will consider your explanation and calm down a bit... ?
Performance center has the luxury of tweaking. In standard production we can't afford the extra fitting time so it needs to go together without fiddling.
buck460XVR
Member
With all the whinnin' about the "bad lookin' poor design ball detent" on another online forum, I had my youngest son who is a third year engineering student look at the pics posted there and he explained to me how and why he thought it was a correct design, even tho it didn't look right to the average Joe. His remarks mirrored yours. Thanks for validating that my money going towards his education, is going to good use. BTW...I have two P.C. firearms, A .460 Compensated Hunter and a L.H. .44 Magnum Hunter with the ball detent lockup and they are great guns, and both are scarey accurate.
Respectfully, l dont need an engineer to tell me what is right and what is not...lt needs to look good too. l know rubber grips and rubber stocks on rifles.shotguns.handguns are tougher.. But they dont look right or feel right to me..l prefer wood..
l had wanted a 69 until l got the chance to feel and see 2 69s and a Mod 66 at Nickols Store outside Rock Hill recently...The sight of that ball being off center turned me off to both models.. My desire was quenched
l had wanted a 69 until l got the chance to feel and see 2 69s and a Mod 66 at Nickols Store outside Rock Hill recently...The sight of that ball being off center turned me off to both models.. My desire was quenched
Appearance over substance?
A lot of great things in life from good women to good used guns get overlooked because of how they look. Sometimes wanting things as you 'think' they should be makes you miss out on some really great experiences. I remember I bought a few bottles of cheap Spanish wine as a gift and it turned out to be a fantastic present for a couple of wine lovers I gave it too. To me they looked like some old, moldy, dusty bottles that didn't sell in the back of a liquor store, but the old owner sad trust me this stuff is great, it is not moving because idiots want a cute bottle.
The reason some 'new' things are better, is because, they are.
riverrat38
US Veteran
I will take an offset ball detent over a ground off forcing cone (flat spot) every time.
For both form and function considerations.
Best,
Rick
For both form and function considerations.
Best,
Rick
71firebird400
Member
Looks are subjective. Function is not.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,020
- Reaction score
- 7,102
I understand your point from the point of view of the entire pistol or revolver. For example, people often say that Hi-Point firearms are ugly, but they work. I happen to agree on that point. I would not buy that make of firearm because the appearance of the whole pistol is, in my opinion, "just not right."
That said, you really have to look for it to even see the "issue" that so many have made of the ball-detent lock-up on the Model 66 and 69. I personally cannot see how it detracts from the lines of the revolver in the least, especially if it helps to maintain a tight lock-up.
I suppose everyone is free to buy or not buy for whatever reason, but I simply do not agree that the ball-detent lock-up is so ugly and so detracting from the overall appearance of the revolver that an otherwise great firearm should be rejected because of this non-existent issue.
And, personally, I am very grateful that the OP created this thread to put an end to the "hobby-engineers" who seem to know so much about gun design, yet are not employed at S&W or any other gun company. This thread follows a previous one about a buyer who got the same response from S&W's customer service, and I for one, appreciate the fact that this Forum Member, who rarely posts, took the time to speak to this issue.
Thank you.
44_wheel_gunner
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2014
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 13
Please excuse my ignorance, since i am new to this forum...
Question: Is "500swmag" actually an engineer who works for S&W? and was his post meant to be the official word from S&W about the ball detent?
Question: Is "500swmag" actually an engineer who works for S&W? and was his post meant to be the official word from S&W about the ball detent?
JAREDSHS
Member
was wondering the same thing-----how about it "500swmag" ?? what say you?
Maximumbob54
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 7,202
- Reaction score
- 1,928
I have actually wondered the same thing. There is no way possible this system of lock up is holding any serious pressure on the action to keep anything tight. I know the pressure on the ejector rod can effect the trigger pull and on older models the rod could work loose and make the action hard to open. So I get that they wanted something else but this seems like an expensive way to move on and doesn't even do much. On the PC guns I guess it's a show of quality like "look what we can do" but on the regular production guns I just don't get it.
David R
Member
I think the ball detent is an accuracy thing. The cylinder is always held in the same place every time its fired by spring pressure. IF the crane can move then it may be in a different spot each time the cylinder is turned and fired. This is only if its loose. EVERYTHING is a little loose allowing for clearance and tolerance. This ball detent keeps everything in its place each shot.
This way it is continuously keeping light pressure on the crane to keep it closed the same every shot. Consistency? Yup. It will still work the same when the revolver has had many thousands of rounds through it.
If the ball were exactly in the groove, it would not keep the slop out.
It makes total sense to me and I like it.
To each his own.
David
This way it is continuously keeping light pressure on the crane to keep it closed the same every shot. Consistency? Yup. It will still work the same when the revolver has had many thousands of rounds through it.
If the ball were exactly in the groove, it would not keep the slop out.
It makes total sense to me and I like it.
To each his own.
David
I think S&W revolver fans are, by definition, traditionalists. Nothing wrong with that at all...I speak from first hand experience. But the glass bead finish keeps the model 69 from being what I would call a revolver in the Smith and Wesson traditional vein, anyway. What made me want one at first was the low price on an all steel L frame .44 magnum Smith and Wesson revolver. If it can take the pressure, I don't really mind that a minor visual aspect isn't in the traditional vein. Just my opinion.
But the glass bead finish keeps the model 69 from being what I would call a revolver in the Smith and Wesson traditional vein, anyway. What made me want one at first was the low price on an all steel L frame .44 magnum Smith and Wesson revolver. If it can take the pressure, I don't really mind that a minor visual aspect isn't in the traditional vein. Just my opinion.
CleanHarry
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 42
Call for 500's credentials... Employment at Smith and Wesson.... Crickets... Um.... Crickets...
I have friends who can create that drawing you posted....
Are you saying that is an actual Smith and Wesson design illustration?
I have friends who can create that drawing you posted....
Are you saying that is an actual Smith and Wesson design illustration?
As far as my comments and "expertise". All I can claim is having been employed many years ago by one of S&Ws current competitors for the pistol market. And having a mechanical engineering degree that's mostly wasted as I've been machining aircraft powerplant bits and pieces for a couple of decades.
As far as this discussion goes I'm mostly a trigger puller and tinkerer. Have been pulling apart S&Ws for ages. Usually manage get 'em back together at some point...
As far as this discussion goes I'm mostly a trigger puller and tinkerer. Have been pulling apart S&Ws for ages. Usually manage get 'em back together at some point...
Mark F
Member
I can't imaging why (or how) anyone would squabble over the Model 69's front ball detent lock-up. First off, unless you're looking for it, it's not readily noticeable. Second, it ensures precise seating of the crane every time the cylinder is closed. That is Function before Form. I defy anyone to take an existing L Frame and convert it to a 44 Magnum, it will be an absolute disaster in the making.
The Engineers at Smith & Wesson did their due diligence to ensure that this generation of L Frame exceeds safety parameters set forth.
My Model 69 has the best lock-up I have ever seen in a revolver and I have full confidence that it'll last a life-time. Here's an actual photo of the ball detent in my 69. What's not to like??
The Engineers at Smith & Wesson did their due diligence to ensure that this generation of L Frame exceeds safety parameters set forth.
My Model 69 has the best lock-up I have ever seen in a revolver and I have full confidence that it'll last a life-time. Here's an actual photo of the ball detent in my 69. What's not to like??
Attachments
I would think this topic has been fairly beaten to death by almost anyone's standards but one final thought comes to mind in looking at the drawing and that is that the revolver would be a lot harder to open if that ball did seat all the way in the detent - and then a lot of folks might find it necessary to complain about that!
The design seems like a step in the right direction, as far as keeping the cylinder in the proper position. The forward lock on the ejector rod always struck me as good protection for the rod, but probably of very little use in keeping the cylinder exactly where it should be. From what I can see, if I could stand to have one more S&W .44 Magnum, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Model 69.
The design seems like a step in the right direction, as far as keeping the cylinder in the proper position. The forward lock on the ejector rod always struck me as good protection for the rod, but probably of very little use in keeping the cylinder exactly where it should be. From what I can see, if I could stand to have one more S&W .44 Magnum, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Model 69.
It reminds me of the fairy tale, "The Emperor's Clothes". Everyone comments on how wonderful they are, but ...................
As I said, if the " v " notch is not important, why have it ? The crane lock up on a Ruger SP 101 has the S&W beat by a long shot.
As I said, if the " v " notch is not important, why have it ? The crane lock up on a Ruger SP 101 has the S&W beat by a long shot.
a bit more
The ball detent serves to hold the yoke closed tight to frame during carry up, preventing charge hole misalignment when the gun fires.
a bit more information
The X-frame uses a ball detent in the yoke (as you know)
and it is set up nominally .008" offset center to ensure the
ball detent is always pushing the yoke against frame.
-500
Wasn't ignoring your post, just saw it when I was catching up on posts.
Not sure I understand non-issue comment.
The ball detent serves to hold the yoke closed tight to frame during carry up, preventing charge hole misalignment when the gun fires.
a bit more information
The X-frame uses a ball detent in the yoke (as you know)
and it is set up nominally .008" offset center to ensure the
ball detent is always pushing the yoke against frame.
-500
Originally Posted by cochise
If the "notch" is a non issue, why even have it ?
Not sure I understand non-issue comment.
The ball detent serves to hold the yoke closed tight to frame during carry up, preventing charge hole misalignment when the gun fires.
The point I was trying to make is the Machining of the "V". If pressure against the ball is all that is required you certainly do not need a V notch set. A flat rod would accomplish that. Looking at it, one would assume a V notch is there to lock the ball in place. If that is not the intent, then no need for the "V". You don't have to have it.
Did I make my point clear as mud ?
If the "notch" is a non issue, why even have it ?
Not sure I understand non-issue comment.
The ball detent serves to hold the yoke closed tight to frame during carry up, preventing charge hole misalignment when the gun fires.
The point I was trying to make is the Machining of the "V". If pressure against the ball is all that is required you certainly do not need a V notch set. A flat rod would accomplish that. Looking at it, one would assume a V notch is there to lock the ball in place. If that is not the intent, then no need for the "V". You don't have to have it.
Did I make my point clear as mud ?
Similar threads
- Locked
