October Handloader Magazine Article on new Smith M19

[bph9]

Do you agree with the Author?

Author states that the new M19 no longer locks at the ejector rod end but at the crane and breech end. Supposedly this makes for a stronger lock up.

Barrel is larger in diameter and extends less into the cylinder window to prevent forcing cone cracking.

Bluing is not as high polish as previously done.

Double and single action pull is rougher and heavier. Is it because of MIM casting use or is it because of less workmanship or both?

Accuracy is "respectable" with newer two piece barrel. Does he mean less accurate than previously manufactured? A picture of one of his groups is given. It did not impress me. So what has been your own experiences with the accuracy of the newer 2 piece barrels as compared with the old one piece barrels.

 

[crotchetyoldman]

My 64-8 shoots decently: not like my 14-3, but I didn't expect that from it. I think my time away from wheel guns is a bigger factor than two piece vs one piece. I'd think you'd need someone with a number of old models and comparable new models and a bench rest to do side-by-side comparisons to have more than a "gut feel" answer.

 

[Tom S.]

Double and single action pull is rougher and heavier. Is it because of MIM casting use or is it because of less workmanship or both?

No, it is not because of the MIM parts. It is more likely because of the machining or debris left inside the gun. I have done work on several guns with MIM parts and they are easier to smooth out than their predecessors. In fact, they generally do not require smoothing as machined parts did/do. However the frames are still machined on the inside and I've seen everything from burrs to rough machine surfaces. After that is addressed, replacement springs are the final answer, but that was also the case on older S&W's and I wonder if the Model 19 they were comparing it to had any work done to it, including dropping in a set of reduced springs.

 

[rockquarry]

Do you agree with the Author?

Author states that the new M19 no longer locks at the ejector rod end but at the crane and breech end. Supposedly this makes for a stronger lock up.

Barrel is larger in diameter and extends less into the cylinder window to prevent forcing cone cracking.

Bluing is not as high polish as previously done.

Double and single action pull is rougher and heavier. Is it because of MIM casting use or is it because of less workmanship or both?

Accuracy is "respectable" with newer two piece barrel. Does he mean less accurate than previously manufactured? A picture of one of his groups is given. It did not impress me. So what has been your own experiences with the accuracy of the newer 2 piece barrels as compared with the old one piece barrels.

This is the way Wolfe Publishing used to do it, and maybe they still do...Contact the editor, he will forward your questions to the author who should respond directly to you. Forum response here may be beneficial, too, but contacting the author through the editor is the best way to get the answers you seek.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

I have a new M19-10 Classic "no lock." The author is mostly correct. Yes, it no longer locks at the ejector rod end. It has a ball lock on the inside of the frame where the yoke meets the frame and the ball lock engages a divot in the yoke.

The barrel is a little larger in diameter but this is mainly because new Smiths have 2 piece barrels - inner barrel sleeve and outer shroud.

The steel isn't polished to the degree older guns were, so the bluing isn't quite as nice as a result...but still pretty nice.

The trigger on mine wasn't too bad out of the box. SA averaged around 4.5 lbs and DA averaged around 12 lbs, but it was always smooth. It's not a result of either MIM parts or lack of workmanship, it's due to the spring force used. Part of the reason is because when Smith changed from a hammer nose to a frame mounted firing pin, spring force needed to increase slightly to ensure no light strikes because changing to the frame mounted firing pin very slightly robbed energy from hammer strike vs the firing pin being mounted on the hammer. However, spring force doesn't need to be as heavy as it is from the factory to prevent light strikes. The other reason is lawyers and litigation and dumb laws that causes triggers to be heavier than they once were across many gun manufacturers. I changed my mainspring to a Wolff reduced power replacement and the rebound slide spring to a 13lb Wolff as well. Now my SA pull is a shade over 3lbs and my DA pull 8lbs, both very smooth and nice. I made no modifications to the hammer and trigger; they were fine as-is.

Accuracy-wise, it's always a roll of the dice. Some guns always shoot great and some don't, and this isn't new; the old Smiths were no different. In theory, the new 2-pc barrel has the potential to shoot better because that design puts the barrel in tension just as it did on the old Dan Wesson revolvers with replaceable 2pc barrels that had a great accuracy reputation. My new M19 shoots pretty decent but isn't a tackdriver. With the gun rested, I get around 2" - 2.5" 6-shot groups @ 25 yds with ammo it likes.

 

[Thaddeus Beauregard]

Here is what the front yoke ball lock in the frame of the M19-10 looks like. It locks into the yoke when closed. I think it's a superior design vs a lock on the end of the ejector rod because it helps stabilize the front of the cylinder... at least in theory. My fairly new M69 also has the same ball lock in the same location. My M627 has a similar one in the front of the yoke that locks into the end of the underlug on the lower end of the barrel shroud. I much prefer the ball locks on the yoke like this.