Model 60 NY-1 Docs.....

[RM Vivas]

I'm working on a presentation () on the NY-1 family of Smith & Wessons and came across this document in my archive. It is the fax notice sent to all commands on 12MAY89 ordering the immediate cessation of use of the Model 60 NY-1 by all MOS.

It's been a ---long--- time since I went through some of these filing cabinets and I'm finding all manner of goodies.


Best,
RM Vivas

 

[RM Vivas]

Best,
RM Vivas

 

[MajorD]

I have seen mention of this issue in the past by you and others. I have to wonder how the hundreds of thousands of civilian market model 60’s seem to not have an issue, but the special nypd version was defective? Can you shed some technical light on why this particular model had issues?
I always appreciate reading the long history of S&W and its association with the NYPD - I do hope to someday trip over one for sale

 

[RM Vivas]

As it was explained to me:

Inside the revolver, on the interior LEFT frame is a stud, integral to the frame, the the hammer pivots on. The other end of this stud fits into a hole in the sideplate.

In the NYPD guns, the Department maintained that this hole was oversized and that the mainspring exerted enough force to cause the stud to bend slightly, taking the hammers path out of true. The Department further maintained that if the sideplate hole did not have excessive play, it would support the end of the stud properly and this wold not be an issue.

Why did this not happen with the regular production guns? Mainly because they were for non-LE sales and were SA/DA.

Again, as it was explained to me: By removing the hammer spur, the overall weight/mass of the hammer was decreased. The decrease in mass changed the amount of force with which the firing pin would hit the hammer. It wasn't an issue during testing, but it was determined that the amount of force the lightened hammer generated was close to, but not entirely, within the specs for consistently reliable ignition.

Since the weight of the hammer could not be increased, the answer was to have the weight of the mainspring increased so as to have the hammer strike with more force. This heavier mainspring, however, put more pressure on the hammer, thus more pressure on the hammer stud pin, and that caused the pin to flex just enough that, if the hole in the sideplate were oversized, would allow the stud to shift out of true and bind the hammer.

I can't say this is what the actual issue was. I'm merely relating what the cadre at the Firearms Unit related to me. S&W, of course, according to their lawyers, interpreted the situation differently. I'm only repeating what the Department told me and what their internal records reflected. I am sure that the factory version is somewhat different.

The factory did recognize that financial discretion was the better part of reputational valor and decided to eat the cost of replacing the guns.

Best,
RM Vivas

 

[Mannlicher]

I have a three inch Model 60, DAO that supposedly was a turn in from NYPD. I bought this used from a local shop, and have carried and used it for over 20 years now. It has been flawless.

 

[two-bit cowboy]

Thanks for bringing this topic to light, Robert. Great information that answers many decades-old questions.

 

[RM Vivas]

I have a three inch Model 60, DAO that supposedly was a turn in from NYPD. I bought this used from a local shop, and have carried and used it for over 20 years now. It has been flawless.

Send me the s/n. I have a list of the ones that were returned to factory, re-furbished and re-sold.

Best,
RM Vivas

 

[MajorD]

RM thanks for the explanation. I can see where this could happen.

 

[walkin' trails]

I have a three inch Model 60, DAO that supposedly was a turn in from NYPD. I bought this used from a local shop, and have carried and used it for over 20 years now. It has been flawless.

I have one identical to that. I bought it brand new in 1990 from a shop in Imperial Beach, CA. Saw another at a Walmart gun counter a few months later in eastern LA county. I was under the impression it was just a run of Model 60s S&W did for marketing variety, but then again, it could have originally been done for a law enforcement contract. It would be interesting to know.

I hated those Hogue grips. Mine now wears a set of Herrett’s.

 

[MajorD]

From what I understand S&W took all the recalled guns and released then on the civilian market, often replacing the DAO parts with conventional DA/SA parts, and in at least a few cases replacing barrels with a 3”. So in the long run I bet S&W still made some money off them

 

[Mannlicher]

Send me the s/n. I have a list of the ones that were returned to factory, re-furbished and re-sold.

Best,
RM Vivas

PM sent, and thanks

 

[RM Vivas]

I actually have a post on the SWCA forum with a letter from Jinks exposing what became if the returned guns. Because the San us from the SWCA journal, I only post the image in the SWCA forum.

I’ll summarize it and list it here in a day if so. Also, I found a letter from another collector where he described the markings on the bi. Look Abel for the resold guns. I’ll post that too.

Best,
RM Vivas

 

[Mannlicher]

I actually have a post on the SWCA forum with a letter from Jinks exposing what became if the returned guns. Because the San us from the SWCA journal, I only post the image in the SWCA forum.

I’ll summarize it and list it here in a day if so. Also, I found a letter from another collector where he described the markings on the bi. Look Abel for the resold guns. I’ll post that too.

Best,
RM Vivas

there are other markings on the butt, numbers, a sticker with a number and some other stuff, if that would be of any help

 

[Pat the Gunsmith]

As it was explained to me:

Inside the revolver, on the interior LEFT frame is a stud, integral to the frame, the the hammer pivots on. The other end of this stud fits into a hole in the sideplate.

In the NYPD guns, the Department maintained that this hole was oversized and that the mainspring exerted enough force to cause the stud to bend slightly, taking the hammers path out of true. The Department further maintained that if the sideplate hole did not have excessive play, it would support the end of the stud properly and this wold not be an issue.

Why did this not happen with the regular production guns? Mainly because they were for non-LE sales and were SA/DA.

Again, as it was explained to me: By removing the hammer spur, the overall weight/mass of the hammer was decreased. The decrease in mass changed the amount of force with which the firing pin would hit the hammer. It wasn't an issue during testing, but it was determined that the amount of force the lightened hammer generated was close to, but not entirely, within the specs for consistently reliable ignition.

Since the weight of the hammer could not be increased, the answer was to have the weight of the mainspring increased so as to have the hammer strike with more force. This heavier mainspring, however, put more pressure on the hammer, thus more pressure on the hammer stud pin, and that caused the pin to flex just enough that, if the hole in the sideplate were oversized, would allow the stud to shift out of true and bind the hammer.

I can't say this is what the actual issue was. I'm merely relating what the cadre at the Firearms Unit related to me. S&W, of course, according to their lawyers, interpreted the situation differently. I'm only repeating what the Department told me and what their internal records reflected. I am sure that the factory version is somewhat different.

The factory did recognize that financial discretion was the better part of reputational valor and decided to eat the cost of replacing the guns.

Best,
RM Vivas

I was a licensed gunsmith in NYC at this time. I worked at Alpine Arms in Brooklyn and did warranty work for S&W and Colt. Your statement agrees with my experience and knowledge at the time. I never had a failure of the frame stud in a non NY-1 Model 60. The fit of the hammer pin in the sideplate hole was never a press fit in any
S&W revolver, let alone a J frame. The broken hammer pins I examined were
broken off the frame but the remains of the pin staking on the frame were never loose or rotated.

 

[wheelyfun66]

I thought the "immediate cessation of use of the model 60" was an order to replace them with semi-auto pistols, ha!!
I love this forum for such in-depth discussion regarding so many different aspects of the S&W revolver, and this discussion definitely taught me something I hadn't known...
Respect to y'all for taking the time to post such rich info!

 

[RM Vivas]

I was a licensed gunsmith in NYC at this time. I worked at Alpine Arms in Brooklyn and did warranty work for S&W and Colt. Your statement agrees with my experience and knowledge at the time. I never had a failure of the frame stud in a non NY-1 Model 60. The fit of the hammer pin in the sideplate hole was never a press fit in any
S&W revolver, let alone a J frame. The broken hammer pins I examined were
broken off the frame but the remains of the pin staking on the frame were never loose or rotated.

I was friends with Nat. I was there the night the range burned.

Best,
RM Vivas

 

[haywood]

I recently picked up a used 2” 60. While cleaning it I found 2 stickers under the grip. I can’t remember if I was a number or letter but one was green and the other white with red circle, I think. It’s been a while. What got my attention was in the yoke next to the 60 model number the -2 seems to have been attempted to have been grounded away. It’s very hard to see, but I’m thinking I can still see a - 2 there. Serial number begins with a BBT

 

[The Big D]

Send me the s/n. I have a list of the ones that were returned to factory, re-furbished and re-sold.

Best,
RM Vivas

Very interesting info and story behind it. Thank you.

Have a M60, NY-1 purchased from a Forum member years ago. Can I send you its serial number to ascertain if it was refurbished?

NOT creating any issue with the seller. In fact, the gun has performed flawlessly. Simply want to know more about it.

On the road and no access to it immediately but could fwd s/n to you in a few days. Please let me know.

Thank you, again!

PS: I no longer carry it regularly. My LEOSA card certifies semi-autos only.

Be safe!