Is the S&W Front Locking Bolt a Gimmick?

[rct269]

I've gone through three S&W catalogs from the 20's and 30's where they brag about more than a few features of their revolvers----figuring they'd brag about this particular feature (and more than a few were about the difference berween S&W and Colt)----and nary a word was spoken about it.

So no help there!

Ralph Tremaine

 

[steelslaver]

I Like the lug. BUT it you actually check the operation of a S&W with the lug removed, you will see that the yoke doesn't move away from the frame despite the direction the cylinder turns . It is redundant. But redundant is often a good thing. I also believe it helps protect the ejector rod from damage even without the shroud.

Look it is out on the end of the rod, the lug itself has some needed clearance to go in and out, it's fit in the end of the rod isn't very tight. Take a loose rod with no center pin and stick a loose lug tooth an 1/8" inside the rod sometime. Take an empty S&W revolver with a 4" or longer barrel, look at the front of the yoke and press sideways on the front of the cylinder and it will move a tiny bit out. Watch it while cocking the hammer and it won't move out.

I have made several Smolts. Installing a lug in a colt barrel would be possible but a real pain. I did install ball detents in the yokes. I have a model 69 with the factory ball detent. When I take the cylinder off the yoke and reinstall the yoke minus cylinder it don't take much pressure on yoke tube to open the yoke

Is the front lock a good thing. Yes. Is it really necessary. No

I am going off to work for a while. In May I will take my ransom rest to the range with a couple of revolvers. Fire a group from each then remove the front lug tooth from each of them and repeat and see just how much effect it has.

 

[alwslate]

It isn't all about the rotation and the crane staying put when the gun is cocked. The Colt extractor rod is more easily bent because it is unsupported at the end. Read an article many years ago in the American Rifleman Magazine about the military tests of the S&W and Colt .38 cal revolvers for issue in WW2. The Colt was found to be less durable and regulated to stateside guard duty while the Victory S&W went to war.

 

[pharmer]

Ruger had it on the "Security/ Service Six." They went in a different direction with the GP series. Joe

 

[SmithSwede]

Thanks for the input. Keep it coming, since this is an interesting topic.

I’ve also got a French Model 1892 service revolver. It is just like a Colt in that there is no front locking lug for the extractor, its cylinder rotates clockwise, and it has the “bank vault” lock up where the hand holds the cylinder firmly in place when the trigger is held back.

But the cylinder opens to the right.

Colt would criticize S&W because its counterclockwise rotation should force the left opening cylinder out of position. Well, the French rotated it clockwise like a Colt, but with a right side opening cylinder.

I think what this means is the real locking is done by the pin at the rear of the cylinder.

 

[glowe]

I Like the lug. BUT it you actually check the operation of a S&W without the lug removed, you will see that the yoke doesn't move away from the frame despite the direction the cylinder turns . It is redundant. But redundant is often a good thing. I also believe it helps protect the ejector rod from damage even without the shroud . . .
Is the front lock a good thing. Yes. Is it really necessary. No . .

Agreed! I believe that the rod could bend if subjected to a dropping force, but more difficult with a large S&W rod than a small wire rod used by Colt. Lug minimized the possibility of bending the hollow tube. Also, eliminated the catching of the free ejector knob while trying to holster the gun.

 

[BC38]

Agreed! I believe that the rod could bend if subjected to a dropping force, but more difficult with a large S&W rod than a small wire rod used by Colt. Lug minimized the possibility of bending the hollow tube. Also, eliminated the catching of the free ejector knob while trying to holster the gun.

I think this explanation makes the most sense.
If they both contain the same amount of material, a larger diameter tube is harder to bend than a smaller solid bar.

That the forward lug eliminates "snagging" the ejector rod during holstering also makes sense.

Though having a second locking point in front of the cylinder doesn't hurt and could actually be a benefit - by helping to keep the cylinder firmly closed and aligned against the rotational force of the hand is trying to push it open.

 

[DWalt]

I will make another observation. Many WWII era BSRs were “snubby-ized” in the postwar period by shortening the barrel by cutting it behind the barrel lug, leaving nothing to support the extractor rod tip. I have never seen anything suggesting that it had any negative effects. I am one of those in the “Nice to have but not essential” camp. Or at least that a lug provides no immediately obvious benefit.

 

[Oldengineer]

Way back in the mid-80’s, working as an engine design engineer, we decided to delete the 5.0L V8 connecting rod oil spit hole. It saved about 8 cents per rod in manufacturing costs. Very soon after that, piston galling and subsequent compression loss warranty surfaced in a storm. It was a real bad idea, but cost reduction pressures ruled.

My point of this story is that deleting features that have quality implications is usually bad business. Smith was a direct competitor with Colt, and perhaps the front lock was viewed as way to differentiate Smith as a better, higher quality firearm. Definitive data may have come from the Marketing Folks!

Tom H.

 

[Tex1001]

I have several S&Ws (and Rugers) with the front lug. I have
tweaked them all to correctly actively assist lockup alignment.
Essential? Dangerous? No.
Helpful? I believe so.
In my career I have seen quite a few lugs (Some on NIB
revolvers) that did nothing. Installed incorrectly.

I Like the lug.

It is redundant. But redundant is often a good thing. I also believe it helps protect the ejector rod from damage even without the shroud.

Is the front lock a good thing. Yes. Is it really necessary. No

 

[gscrasher]

My 66-8 2.75 inch, locks up at the yoke with the new ball detent system.
No connection between shroud and front of ejector rod at all.

 

[cgt4570]

I have 2 customs with removed front locking lug. I added a ball detent to both, just to be on the safe side.
I also shoot my several 1899's without worry, but have to wonder if the Navy was the driving factor for the 1902 adding the locking lug for their second order. I have one each of the Army and Navy 1899's and the Navy 1902.

 

[okto]

Seems to me that the front locking bolt on a S&W revolver doesn't really do anything useful.

Redundancy, for one. Two is more than one. If one lock breaks, you have another lock. If the spring around the locking pin gives up the ghost, for example, the front locking plunger will hold the pin locked into the frame.
For another, if all the locking is at the rear, and something whacks the cylinder from the side, that force is all going into twisting the yoke. Remember these were designed as fighting guns, and one of the things I’ve noticed about fights is stuff often gets banged up. The front lock means that force can get directed into the frame and the barrel lug, allowing the yoke to rotate rather than twist.

And that design has a lot of potential downsides.

Like what? I don’t think I can think of one.

I have 2 customs with removed front locking lug. I added a ball detent to both, just to be on the safe side.

You removed the lock…to replace it with a different lock? What’s the reasoning there?

 

[smoothshooter]

I think it is a good thing.

 

[Taj]

Ive had that in a couple of my pistols cause more trouble than what its worth. the cylinder was harder to close so I removed it. As far as accuracy couldn't tell a difference. Colt doesn't use one.

They only cause issues if not set up correctly. IF properly fitted, you don't even know they are there. S&W did have some hi-speed video of the guns being fired with and without and chose to keep them. Some of the newer revolvers are using the ball detent yoke lock. Not everyone is happy about that.

 

[Rick Leslie]

I have no empirical data but I agree with the premise about cylinder rotation direction. I've always liked Smith over Colt for this reason.

Now a spoiler... what about Dan Wesson. Only one lock on the crane and their accuracy rep is well known. (I know it's mostly the tensioned barrel.)

 

[Crookedcreek]

I can't vouch for the accuracy and/or source of the information, but years ago I read the purpose of containing (locking?) the ejector rod end had simply to do with ensuring ejection of spent cases, nothing to do with cylinder rotation direction, accuracy, lock-up or? 'Military & Police' use could result in occasional 'rough handling' and dropping on hard surfaces. A bent, unsupported, ejector rod may not prevent cylinder rotation, but it could certainly prevent one from reloading for the next 'volley' in the battle, whether on the street or battlefield. Maybe that is what decided the S&W in favor of Colt(?).

 

[RebCop]

It's designed to help keep the cylinder in the gun on firing. Yes Colt doesn't have one because the cylinder release in the Colt mechanically blocks the cylinder from coming out. Tighten it if there is a problem or even shorten it a little.

 

[Crookedcreek]

Some additional thoughts/opinions from another forum can be found here:
The exposed ejector rod. Is it a problem? | Colt Forum

Maybe the answer is 'All the above!'.

 

[kiyoty]

Front lug needed?

Generally read without posting- find I learn more with my mouth shut, but this one is interesting.
I shot PPC for many years in Master/High Master class. Used three highly modified Smiths, built by custom revolver smiths. All had very heavy barrels, sight ribs, the works. All had no front lugs, with the rod deeply set in a protective recess, and all three had ball type crane locks. All were extremely accurate. Didn't keep track of rounds fired with the first two, but on the last I recorded 11K rounds per year for 5 years for 55K rounds total. I then sold it to a friend who shot it until he also retired. It still locks as solid as it did as new. Anyone who has shot PPC knows that the guns are not treated gently, with many reloads done under a clock. Granted, only mild wadcutters are used, but that's still a lot of shooting and manipulation.
Point is, would a gun with no front lock have held up so well? The builders put those front locks in for a reason. I'd be inclined to think they were probably right.