Just out of curiosity...?

[alwslate]

Seen several over the years. A friend's 66 was pretty loose. The general
consensus back then was that the 19 was more durable than the 66.
I have a 38-44 that was a bit loose until I replaced the hand and cyl.
locking bolt.

 

[45Wheelgun]

I have seen several over the years, but they are the exception rather then the rule. End shake is one of the first things I check in a gun I am considering. It is rare to find an issue, but when you do...time to move down the row.

 

[Art Doc]

Why would a 66 be more fragile than a 19? Generally stainless is tougher than carbon steel and otherwise the two are identical.

 

[Texas1941]

Why would a 66 be more fragile than a 19? Generally stainless is tougher than carbon steel and otherwise the two are identical.

It is my understanding that they do have different characteristics. Stainless steels do tend to be tougher, as far as machining goes. But resistance to cutting is only one aspect of durability. Ad to that, there isn't one specific stainless steel alloy, but many. Just like carbon steel.

If you remember when stainless 1911's first came out (the AMT Hardballer was the first I had, but there may have been others before that), there was a real issue with galling, The frame rails and the slide rails would try to adhere to one another as they moved in the cycle. The result was the creation of little shallow divots. We tried all sorts of different lubes (including Crisco), but the problem was with that stainless steel alloy.

I have several stainless steel S&W revolvers and I note that all of them have carbon steel internals. I believe that there have been some revolvers made with stainless internal parts; the collectors and historians would know better than me. But I suspect there is a reason for that. Cost may be one, but I also suspect that there are performance issues as well.

FWIW

Charles

 

[madmikeb]

It's my understanding that to eliminate the galling in 100% stainless firearms they varied the composition of the alloy of any moving parts that rubbed together. Although all my newer stainless firearm do have carbon steel innards.

 

[Larry from Bend]

I had to send this 17-no dash back to S&W for excessive end shake ---- but I had shot it for nearly 40 years.

This 60-1 was what I'd call loose (play in the cylinder) the day it left the factory --- but it's accurate as can be so I decided to leave good enough alone.

 

[alwslate]

Why would a 66 be more fragile than a 19? Generally stainless is tougher than carbon steel and otherwise the two are identical.

Stainless and carbon steel are far from identical. Remember,
steel is machined before heat treating. Stainless is very hard
to machine; doesn't cut cleanly and gets very hot. Carbon
steel can be heat treated to provide great strength and wear
resistance. Many years ago a gun shop owner told me that
the md 60 would get loose faster than a md 36 when fired
with hot loads. He said he tested both with a file inside the
grip frame and that the 36 steel was harder. He even insisted
that he had seen 60s damaged by the old hot Super Vel 38 sp
loads but never seen this in a 36.

 

[Gary7]

Stainless and carbon steel are far from identical. Remember, steel is machined before heat treating. Stainless is very hard to machine; doesn't cut cleanly and gets very hot. Carbon steel can be heat treated to provide great strength and wear resistance. Many years ago a gun shop owner told me that the md 60 would get loose faster than a md 36 when fired with hot loads. He said he tested both with a file inside the grip frame and that the 36 steel was harder. He even insisted that he had seen 60s damaged by the old hot Super Vel 38 sp loads but never seen this in a 36.

Pass the salt shaker...

 

[Dave T]

Has anyone ever bought a used S&W that wasn't tight?

Earlier this year I bought a 1938 vintage 38/44 HD from one of the internet gun auctions. It was described as well used and it was. Some end shake and pretty bad timing but very smooth from years of use. No "bank vault" in this instance.

My gunsmith has it fixed and tuned up. I'm looking forward to getting it back and putting it through its paces.

Dave

 

[pharmer]

My previous carry gun, a 3" 65-3 has had a cornucopia of rounds as well as IWB duty for over a dozen years. All kinds of wiggle in every direction. Deadly accurate and 100% reliable. Don't see a problem. Joe

 

[M29since14]

So many threads about recent acquisitions start off with "this gun has zero end-shake and locks up like a bank vault."
Has anyone ever bought a used S&W that wasn't tight?...

Well, I have seen a ton of S&Ws (including .38s) that needed mechanical attention, if that is what you mean - and not all of them used. I have a few of them in my safe that I could pull out for demonstration.

As Pharmer says, most of them still shoot pretty well, though you continue the process of battering them to death at an accelerated pace as you do so.

As for the old "locks up like a bank vault" line, I realize the statement is literally theatrical in nature, but my experience is that, given the geometry and tolerances involved, it is a poor choice for a play on words not meant to be humorous.

 

[Slyk54]

I have handled at least one Ruger Security Six that had, for me, that "welded to the frame" lock up- of course the seller (gun show) seemed to know what he had, and was asking about twice the going rate for the gun.

I have currently an old Colt "Army Special" that locks up nicely- although I don't shoot that gun- too old for me to be comfortable shooting it (1916 date of origin) and it will probably be for sale soon-

I haven't actually seen this process; how involved is the repair job of putting shims into a S&W to tighten it up and remove the end shake? Anyone have pictures or reference to a website that does?

Thanks!

 

[stiab]

Has anyone ever bought a used S&W that wasn't tight?

I have not, but I've turned down lots of used S&W's that were sloppy. The most recent one was a 7-shot .357 mag Mountain Gun at a pawn show in Kernersville, NC. Way too much cylinder movement in every direction with the hammer lowered. As to S&W in general, it varies greatly by gun, and not necessarily because of use. My M38-2 and 625-6 do literally lock up like a vault, but none of my other Smiths do.

 

[john traveler]

Slyk54,

Installing shim washers to correct excessive endshake is simplicity itself. It is actually an expedient alternative to the more traditional yoke stretching and refitting of the cylinder on the yoke.

The shims are washers in assorted sizes, nominally 0.002" inch each. You install them by removing the crane retaining screw, removing the crane and cylinder assembly, and removing the cylinder. The shims go into the cylinder center hole to take up the excessive endshake, and you reassemble.

The point of this action is to restore the cartridge head-to-recoil shield clearance and the barrel-to-cylinder gap to specifications, and thus minimize the cylinder endshake.

 

[mitchell]

Well, Last year I bought a (1958 and very used) M-17 on gunbroker that is really loose. Lots of endshake and spits from a couple of chambers. The gun was filthy when I got it and after the first cleaning the extractor fell off the rod...I really need to get it to David Chicone to fix it.

I just bought a 1967 vintage 15-2 a couple of days ago and it's not super tight but OK in my book. Not much endshake, but the lock up isn't nearly as tight as my 1968 M-36. That one is a 1968 model that I inherited that has less than 200 rounds on it.

I paid $350 each for the two Ks. The 17 does have the original target grips though and is incredibly accurate.

 

[ralph7]

i have seen more than a few of the 625's made in the late 80's that had excessive crane to frame slop brand factory new.

 

[Casehardn]

Yes. I came across a 19-5 at a local gunshop about a year ago and ran it through the list of things you do. Cylinder was loose front to back upon full lock up.
Waited 6 months and found a 19-2 that was much better.

So yes, conditions do vary, and holding out for what you deem to be acceptable is worth it.

 

[Sgt 127]

I suppose the definition of loose is subjective. I've bought brand new Smiths, particularly during the late 70's-early 80's that would qualify as loose straight from the factory. If you find that gun used now, it would be just as loose, if not more so. Usually I fix them myself with an oversized hand and just stretching the yoke a little. Most of them worked well enough and, would likely continue to serve without any tinkering.

In all honesty, though, I have rarely found a Smith that truly locks up like a bank vault. The repair guys, at armorers school would get mad at you if you built them up too tight. A well fitted Python or Diamondback, truly locks up like a bank vault, at full lock up, the cylinder feels like it is welded to the frame. I have a mint Colt 1917 that locks up like that. But Smith and Wessons? Not really.

 

[Zebulon]

People on Gun Forums "tend" to read alot first and then include the "good stuff" when selling or describing guns of their own. I've been shooting handguns for almost 25 years and last week Ken Kelly of Mag-Na-Port finally explained to me what "end-shake" actually was. (Thank you Ken)...Why did it take so long to understand the term? Easy...I never had a gun that gave me any problems and I didn't need to know what it meant. About a year ago, I began to notice that nearly every revolver listed in the Classifieds carried with it the assurance that they were tight as a drum and had no end shake....Now I can be assured that no matter what the mutt might suffer from..it sure won't be "end shake" Zeb