BOOKS, boys- The BOOKS!
Anybody ever heard me preachin' that?
I don't understand WHY, in a field where a $250-300 gun is now considered a CHEAP gun, people won't invest around a hundred dollars in the 3 MAJOR works which will give you myriads of data-
Neal & Jinks: modern reprint $50 on ebay
History of S&W by Jinks: what? $20-25??
Standard Catalog: $30-35??
It seems everybody just wants to get on the net and ask instead of reading/learning. Hell, we don't even have to REMEMBER- just ask again tomorrow if you forget!
In 25 more years, nobody will even be able to read. Or compose a sentence. We will simply post pics. We will sit down at the computer, put electrodes on our heads, and communicate telepathically! No keyboard! I guess we won't even need to POST the pics, just think them into cyberspace!
The net is wonderful for sharing/spreading FACTUAL observations and new data, but it should not become a substitute for the BASIC knowledge which began with Neal & Jinks more than 40 years ago. The TROUBLE with the net is that it is just as easy to spread BS in the form of old wive's tales, illogical conclusions, rumors, etc.
We all know that SCSW, and other books, contain some errors that have now become fact to the poorly informed. Supica and Nahas have very graciously made an errata list available- print it, USE it, and make corrections IN YOUR COPY so you don't have to constantly refer to it.
I feel better now......
The rant over, this might be a good place to share a few points I learned from books and observation- the archaic way.
Chafing bushings were quite common in HE's early on. They seem to have first appeared in the 1903 32, and the 1905 38 and 32/20. They are in the 2nd and 3rd Ladysmith's. According to Neal & Jinks, they have nothing to do with FRICTION, but instead were intended to protect the FINISH on hammer and trigger from rubbing wear. They were, therefore, in the first N frames of 1908- the TL. They carried over into the 455 2nd models. They are in all 455's I have ever opened- both 1st's and 2nd's.
They were dropped from the K frame 1905-4th change in 1915. I PRESUME they were dropped from the I frame sometime around this time, but may have continued longer. I do not know if they continued through the end of the 3rd Ladysmith in 1921.
For a long while I thought it was only on Triplelocks. But then I noticed in the Neal & Jinks book, back in the radiograph x-ray section, there appears a 2nd model .44 that has the hammer. So, anybody know any other models it was used on?
Look again- I do NOT see that in my Revised Neal & Jinks. I DO see a 455-2nd with the bushings showing. HOWEVER, they DO appear in some of the earliest 44-2nd's. I just opened an extremely early 44-2nd(shipped 1917) to confirm this- it has them on hammer and trigger. I believe they are very short-lived in this model, and were gone before 1920- I THINK.
They do NOT appear in 1917's, most 44-2nd's, or 1926's
as far as I know.
Another point on action length- did you know the earliest hand ejectors were actually "shorter action"
on double action than what we saw on later models?? They are still about as long on SINGLE action, but the hammer falls much sooner on double action than it does on later models. This, by the way, is why the 455's have such an awful, HEAVY mainspring- if you look at WW I era Brit ammo, you will see a rather large BERDAN primer. They are NOT especially hard, just big, and BERDAN. The big, heavy Webley hammers that travel far had no trouble double action, but the shorter throw double action on the S&W took a heavy mainspring.
The double action throws were LENGTHENED on S&W's with the 1917, the 44-2nd's. I THINK it was the 1905-3rd's for the K frame. 3rd Model Ladysmith. Not sure which I frame 32, but I think they were the last to be lengthened- maybe just before or after 1920.
This was accomplished by adding the "double action takeover" to the trigger. The hammer is first lifted by the trigger pushing the double action sear, then a lower point on the trigger "takes over" by pushing a lower point on the hammer toe. The hammer falls off of this lower point. On earlier models like the TL and 455-2nd's, the hammer actually falls from the double action sear, having NOT come back as far. This further travel meant the hammer hit harder without having to have such a heavy mainspring. S&W was ALWAYS improving.
You might want to print this, cause I ain't typin' it tomorrow!
