Late 50s s&w K22 shells stick

[Gundog1]

I inherited this K 22, which Smith and Wesson advise me with a 1958 from the serial number but my own research would suggest that it's probably early to mid-1957. There is no model number on the cylinder frame just a numerical number which is 52331. The serial number is K3242xx. I have tried two different brands of 20 too long rifle shells, Aguila, and Winchester super X, and after firing the shells are stuck in the cylinder and require me to tap firmly on the ejector rod. The gun has been thoroughly cleaned.
Not sure about the year if anyone can help me with that but it is a four screw model with a 6 inch barrel. any thoughts about what the issue might be with the shell sticking would be appreciated as the gun shop did not have any recommendations. Thank you.

 

[JP@AK]

K 22 . . . no model number . . .
serial number is K3242xx

Smith and Wesson advise me with a 1958 from the serial number but my own research would suggest that it's probably early to mid-1957.

It very likely shipped in 1958. It is right on the cusp of model numbers appearing. On the K frame target models, the first known appearance of a model number by serial number goes like this:
K-38 Masterpiece Model 14 (a special order unit) - K314496
.357 Combat Magnum Model 19 - K316819
K-22 Masterpiece Model 17 - K326533

All of those shipped in 1958.

 

[Tom S.]

My first effort would be to clean the cylinder holes with a bronze brush held in a slow speed drill motor and some solvent like Hoppes. I would follow this up with some polish such as Flitz on a cotton mop. Thoroughly clean afterwords with denatured alcohol, then see if rounds still stick. As with all revolvers, point the muzzle skyward when ejecting spent shells.

If the problem persists, you may need to ream the charge holes or have someone do it for you. If you do it yourself, use lots of oil, run the reamer slowly and never run it in reverse. Feed the reamer into the hole very slowly until it bottoms out or reaches the desired depth, depending on the design of the reamer.

 

[Doug M.]

Not an unknown problem. IIRC, Elmer Keith mentioned this sort of problem S&W .22s in "Sixguns". My memory might be faded, as it has been 30+ years since I read it.

 

[Walter Rego]

If Tom S's suggestion for cleaning the chambers doesn't solve the problem, there is a long thread in the Gunsmithing section that discusses the causes and solution. I would certainly read it carefully and then decide if you want to have a competent gunsmith ream the chambers, or if you are mechanically inclined do the job yourself. Here's the link:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-sm...tion-22lr-s-ws.html?highlight=chamber+reaming

 

[MajorD]

As mentioned tight chambers are a common problem on many S&W 22's

One thing I would suggest is try different ammo ( that Winchester garbage l won't shoot unless someone give it to me for free, the Mexican aguila is actually a much better product in my experience)
But you may find some brands that are easier to chamber and extract.
My preference in order:
I have great luck with most European made ammo ( eley, SK ,Lapua,Norma) though it in most cases is significantly more expensive
For ammo from the western hemisphere
CCI
Aguila
Federal

I don't even waste my time with the worst quality 22 ammo available ( tie for worst Winchester and Remington)

Also you may find standard velocity ammo may load and extract easier than high velocity ammo as well.
( if not aware the vast majority of commonly available ammo in the states is high velocity)

 

[Culina]

I had the same problem, polishing the chambers helped, and using the Federal Copper plated ammo also helped, CCI mini mags still need a sharp whack to eject the empties.

 

[JH1951]

Gundog1, welcome to the Forum!
The "sticky" cases are likely the most common issue with the K-22. Many, many instances can be resolved with a good polishing of the chambers and the identification of ammunition that provides better results. I have had good luck with older ammunition, (but that is in limited supply) and generally use CCI standard velocity with good results. Current production Winchester and Remington do not give me good results at all.
Best of luck with your inherited K-22. They are a very well made piece and you will likely grow to appreciate it when you get paired up with some good ammunition.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Polishing chambers and/or chamber reaming is not always the answer, although I understand from past posts on this subject that it often is. I have had a couple of pre-34 revolvers with ejection problems which I believe were a result of chamber erosion just forward of the case mouth. Whether I believe correctly or not, the problem does not exist with CB Longs, Winchester Mark III (!) Match, or ANY CCI ammo.

I also have a 1958 pre-17 which has a significant ejection problem with ONE ammo brand.

 

[StrawHat]

Polishing MAY solve the issue, reaming will solve it.

Kevin

 

[StrawHat]

… I have had a couple of pre-34 revolvers with ejection problems which I believe were a result of chamber erosion just forward of the case mouth…

If the erosion is ahead of the case mouth, it will not have any effect on the fired case.

Kevin

 

[Gundog1]

Thank you all for your comments and advice and obvious expertise. I will try those recommendations.
Regarding the year of production of this model, from the research, I've done the ATF required model numbers be placed on handguns in mid 1957. Because there's no model number on my K 22 I suspect that it is a masterpiece model. A gun dealer who shipped it to me, believed it was the model 17. I doubt that is accurate because there is no model number stamped on the yoke of the cylinder. If that is accurate information, then this revolver would've been manufactured prior to mid 1957 . what do you think?

 

[JP@AK]

Thank you all for your comments and advice and obvious expertise. I will try those recommendations.
Regarding the year of production of this model, from the research, I've done the ATF required model numbers be placed on handguns in mid 1957. Because there's no model number on my K 22 I suspect that it is a masterpiece model. A gun dealer who shipped it to me, believed it was the model 17. I doubt that is accurate because there is no model number stamped on the yoke of the cylinder. If that is accurate information, then this revolver would've been manufactured prior to mid 1957 . what do you think?

It had nothing whatever to do with the ATF. In June, 1957, S&W management decided to assign model numbers to their handguns. It was strictly a business decision and was not driven by any law or regulation. Model numbered guns did not leave the factory until 1958 and, on some models, they didn't appear until later.

I think what has you confused is the 1968 Gun Control Act, which required serial numbers on all newly manufactured firearms in the U.S. This was 10 years after S&W made the decision to use model numbers.

One other thing. The Masterpiece name applied to the K-22, K-38 and K-32 remained in place after model numbers came into play. The K-22 Masterpiece simply became the K-22 Masterpiece Model 17.

 

[.38SuperMan]

MajorD mentioned different brands are more prone eject easily. I've found Federal and Armscor to eject easily. CCI works well too.

It's not just the K22 that has issues. My wife's 317 was a problem and I had some sticking in my 617 also. What I do is give each a thorough cleaning each range trip. If I have a carbon ring I can't remove I use an oversized bronze brush like a 25 caliber. It requires a bit of energy to brush the chambers with an oversized brush but it helps. Besides a good cleaner I use a patch with carburetor or brake cleaner on it. The solvents seem to really cut through the carbon ring.

Best of luck!

 

[USBP SW]

I have owned a significant number of Smith and Wesson revolvers that experienced the problem you describe, several of them were k-22's. Reaming the chambers will cure the problem but in my opinion was more than needed. I also own Rugers I looked into the chambers of the Ruger revolvers that had no extraction problems and noticed that they were very rough. I decided that polishing the chambers was not the answer. I felt that the most appropriate fix was to remove the burrs left by machining the recessed chambers and extractor cutout. I did it by using a small round hard Arkansas stone, just along the edges of the chambers. I have done this procedure on several K-22's, 22/32's, 29-2 and a 57, I never experienced any extraction problems thereafter. Of course, if that doesn't cure the problem, you can still turn to reaming the chambers.

 

[raljr1]

I find that nickel plated 22 brass doesn't seem to give me the same problems. I had a Browning buckmark that would not chamber brass 22 cartidges, no matter the manufacturer, but would chamber and eject nickel plated brass without issue.

Of course I have several thousand brass 22 rounds and they stick in my Smiths...

Robert

 

[Alk8944]

For the sticking brass read post #2 under this thread: Has anyone seen this problem - 351PD

This is a question asked by someone weekly it seems!

 

[Gundog1]

OK, thanks for the recommendation. I read that. I was at the range yesterday and fired three different types of ammo. One of them was CCI and the other was federal regular target and federal match grade loads. The match grade loads were a little sticky to put into the chamber and stuck and required more force to extract after fired than other rounds . none of them eject easily. That being said, I did fire two or three rounds, and then was able to easily eject those two or three and the rest of the unfired loads.
I put a wire brush on the electric drill and ran it through several times in each chamber and then polished them after cleaning again with break free CLP we'll see what happens next time. I'm at the range! I'm not overly optimistic about resolving this without reaming. pretty new to the hand gun game, and will see.
Regarding dating the pistol , Smith & Wesson apparently decided in mid-1957 to start putting model numbers on their revolvers. I've read one review where this occurred in September 1957. On another website regarding serial numbers my pistol would be dated to 1958 and that's what Smith And Wesson told me when I called them directly with the serial number. that's probably incorrect or somethings inconsistent since there's no model number on my revolver and if Smith started putting model numbers in September 1957 then that was overlooked with this revolver, or the serial number and build and ship dates are different/in accurate. This is a known problem as I understand it. There have been guns reported with earlier serial numbers, but not shipped until a year or two later which confuses the date of production with the date of shipment. Will update once a fire the pistol again after machine brushing and polishing.

 

[JP@AK]

Regarding dating the pistol , Smith & Wesson apparently decided in mid-1957 to start putting model numbers on their revolvers. I've read one review where this occurred in September 1957. On another website regarding serial numbers my pistol would be dated to 1958 and that's what Smith And Wesson told me when I called them directly with the serial number. that's probably incorrect or somethings inconsistent since there's no model number on my revolver and if Smith started putting model numbers in September 1957 then that was overlooked with this revolver, or the serial number and build and ship dates are different/in accurate. This is a known problem as I understand it. There have been guns reported with earlier serial numbers, but not shipped until a year or two later which confuses the date of production with the date of shipment.

I highlighted the key word in your first sentence. Management decisions are seldom (if ever) implemented immediately. There are lots of reasons for that. But it is a fact that we have never found a single model marked gun (of any model) that left the factory with a model number before 1958.

I've seen the September date as well. It allegedly applied to the Model 10 .38 M&P. I have no way of knowing whether any Model 10 revolvers were actually model marked in September, 1957, but it seems to me that the story is probably apocryphal. In any case, model marked guns certainly did not ship until various times in 1958.

Regardless, since we are not talking about fixed sight K frames in this thread anyway, you should look at the information I posted previously. For your convenience, I'll repost it here.

On the K frame target models, the first known appearance of a model number by serial number goes like this:
K-38 Masterpiece Model 14 (a special order unit) - K314496
.357 Combat Magnum Model 19 - K316819
K-22 Masterpiece Model 17 - K326533

All of those shipped in 1958.

Your K-22 is 2300 numbers lower than the lowest known serial number on a Model 17. I don't think you should assume that the model number was simply "overlooked" on your revolver. It is much more likely that when yours came down the line, they had not yet started model marking the K-22 Masterpiece.

To restate the obvious, even if they did mark some Model 10s in September, 1957, that certainly does not mean they were model marking all models that early. It is a near certaintly that they were not.

 

[JP@AK]

Here's something else:

You wrote:

There have been guns reported with earlier serial numbers, but not shipped until a year or two later which confuses the date of production with the date of shipment.

That's not necessarily the case at all. The reason is that they were not assembled in serial order either.

It is true that revolvers were shipped out of serial order. But many people don't know that the same is true for assembly.