venom6, good to hear the revolver did it's job. I noticed in the owner's manual they did say to use lighter fluid or other "high octane" solvent to keep the chambers clean of oils and lubricants. After reading your post, I think I'll swab after every 2 cylinders full with 90% isopropyle alchol. Learning more every day. Thanks
S&W Model 53 Revolver .22 Rem. Jet
- Thread starter Sh0ot15T
- Start date
The no drill scope mount will leave permanent damage to the finish on your gun. I have a few guns that are drilled and tapped but the holes don't go completely through the top strap. When you reinstall the rear sight there is no evidence of the holes. If you really want to add an optic that would be a good option.
StrawHat
Member
Regarding the erosion in the throat of the bore. Would it not be possible to freshen the throat? It should not need much removed to return it to like new condition.
Kevin
Kevin
You're correct! However, it is not an easy task! The amount removed from the face of the barrel must be exact, because of the pitch of the thread, so the barrel will clock correctly when tightened. The barrel breech face must be cut back to establish the correct BC gap so this means the forcing cone must be recut. Then you must shorten the ejector rod, so the cylinder lock works properly. In short, the job must be accomplished by a competent gun smith, not Bubba's gun shop! S&W does not have ANY new barrels! This is why, for those of us that like and shoot the mod53, we go the extra mile to shoot good reloads and only buy guns with no barrel erosion.
jcelect
StrawHat
Member
Thank you. I had not considered removing metal from the breech of the barrel hence effecting the bc gap. I merely thought the forcing cone could be refreshed. I see that might not work.
Kevin
Venom6
Member
Ha! I was hoping nobody would notice the reference to the 35 gr. Vmax. Yes, it is .224", which I'm sure will get me "beaten from the fort." As you all know, the Jet generally utilizes .222" or .223" bullets. I have several boxes of each left, but having once run out of bullets in a different context long ago and far away, have developed something of a hoarder's mentality when it comes to bullets, powder, and primers.
Both Kent Bellah back in the day, and Brian Pearce more recently, have said that SOME Jets can digest .224" bullets. The test, according to them, is to measure the chamber throats by attempting to insert a bullet from the front. If the throats will accept the bullet, you're probably good to go. So I did, and it does. Lane Pearce (sic) wrote a column in Shooting Times wherein he referenced a Sierra "data sheet" on the Jet utilizing .224" bullets. He went on to say that if you can slip a .224" bullet into the neck of a case fired in YOUR gun, you're GTG. Notice that Lane said that, not me. Notice as well that the 35 Vmax with the blunter ogive was intended for the likes of the Hornet, so the jacket is thinner. So I commenced to experiment cautiously, and I stopped when I got 1650 fps chronographed, and it works fine. But that's just me, and my gun, and I absolutely do not recommend anyone else try it.
Both Kent Bellah back in the day, and Brian Pearce more recently, have said that SOME Jets can digest .224" bullets. The test, according to them, is to measure the chamber throats by attempting to insert a bullet from the front. If the throats will accept the bullet, you're probably good to go. So I did, and it does. Lane Pearce (sic) wrote a column in Shooting Times wherein he referenced a Sierra "data sheet" on the Jet utilizing .224" bullets. He went on to say that if you can slip a .224" bullet into the neck of a case fired in YOUR gun, you're GTG. Notice that Lane said that, not me. Notice as well that the 35 Vmax with the blunter ogive was intended for the likes of the Hornet, so the jacket is thinner. So I commenced to experiment cautiously, and I stopped when I got 1650 fps chronographed, and it works fine. But that's just me, and my gun, and I absolutely do not recommend anyone else try it.
Venom6, thanks for explaining that. Though, I don't plan on trying. Also, you shouldn't be beaten up for trying something different. Supplies are hard to come by, and as re-loaders we are smart enough to carefully see if something is even possible. I have a Terrier, .38 S&W. However I run .357 diameter bullets quite accurately out of it. I say, "experiment, but carefully". No need to go to extremes, the great Elmer Keith blew up a lot of guns to come up with the .44 Mag. We're NOT Elmer Keith.
Walter Rego
Member
The throats of my Model 53 measure 0.225" with a minus .0003 pin gauge. Which means they are close enough to 0.2247" for practical purposes.
It's not the cylinder throats that I'm concerned with, it is the bore dimensions. The gun was designed for 0.222" bullets. S&W's reasoning for that is unknown. Typical .22 caliber bullets in 40 and 45 grain weights designed for the .22 Hornet and Hornet velocities will be lightly constructed so I'm not worried about shooting the .223" Sierra 45 grain Hornet bullets, figuring they will swage down the bore without causing problems. But I'm not as comfortable shooting .224" bullets.
The 35 grain Vmax bullets are undoubtedly lightly constructed too but I wouldn't use them unless there really, really are no other options.
It's not the cylinder throats that I'm concerned with, it is the bore dimensions. The gun was designed for 0.222" bullets. S&W's reasoning for that is unknown. Typical .22 caliber bullets in 40 and 45 grain weights designed for the .22 Hornet and Hornet velocities will be lightly constructed so I'm not worried about shooting the .223" Sierra 45 grain Hornet bullets, figuring they will swage down the bore without causing problems. But I'm not as comfortable shooting .224" bullets.
The 35 grain Vmax bullets are undoubtedly lightly constructed too but I wouldn't use them unless there really, really are no other options.
maxfam
Member
Back to scope mounting. This is my 17-3 with a discontinued Burris no drill mount and discontinued Burris Mikro scope. Scope came in 2x & 3x. Mount & scope can still be found. I put Mylar between scope mount and frame, have not removed but BELIEVE, it has caused no marks, and if it has, I'll let my sons worry about it. Already have a 53 with a 1.3 Bushnell scope. If not, I would find the Burris setup.
Attachments
Last edited:
I had one of those Burris no drill mounts on a Model 57, I didn't put it there, it came on the gun when I acquired it. No idea how many 41 mag rounds were fired with it on the gun but when I removed the mount there was zero finish damage or any sign that it had ever been on the gun. I wouldn't worry too much about damage if it is mounted properly.
Jeff
SWCA #1457
I also shoot the .224 Harvey K Chucker, a wildcat designed by Jim Harvey at about the same time the 22 Jet came out. He would chamber any 22 cal S&W K frame you sent him. His original suggested loadings called for a .224 Sisk bullet. These are long gone! I have switched to the 35 gr V Max because it is short and fits the K frame cylinder. I also had a 17-6 converted to this caliber. I have not run any rounds over a chrono yet, but the 50yds accuracy was impressive with the first loadings. In regard to the Jets, I have a stash of the .222 jet bullets, so I have not tried the V Max in any Jets(YET).
jcelect
maxfam, 22highpower: Base arrived yesterday, installed very easy. Came with no instructions. I first tightened the "clamp" around the frame, then the rear screw. The reason was, I noticed as the rear screw was tightened it seemed to raise the front of the base. Figured by tightening the front clamp then the rear screw it would put more tension on the clamp and aid in keeping it stationary. Any movement would cause wear marks. Now I just need the weather to cooperate and warm up a bit so I can finally shoot it.
My bank account would have easily resisted, even actively rejected and thrown up a barricade if I tried to buy that one...
...Ben
Did the OP ever come back about the pre29 with 5.5" bbl?
Or did one of you already PM him and snagged it
Would love to see pics and/or confirmation that it was truly a factory 5-1/2" pre Model 29.
Evidently I'm surrounded by the wrong LGS and pawnshops in this area. Some very nice estate sales but none in the last few years with top grade stuff.
Jus wondering (and drooling)
Or did one of you already PM him and snagged it
Would love to see pics and/or confirmation that it was truly a factory 5-1/2" pre Model 29.
Evidently I'm surrounded by the wrong LGS and pawnshops in this area. Some very nice estate sales but none in the last few years with top grade stuff.
Jus wondering (and drooling)
Spray the cylinder with brake cleaner or lighter fluid before firing....Must degrease or the brawl will bind. if clean and degreased, the brass will literally fall out.
terry
That's what I've been told, as well as the owners manual states the same. One person suggested 90% isopropyl alcohol. Another would be acetone and laquer thinner. I plan on using gun swabs with alcohol to wipe out the cylinder(s), and wipe down the rounds. One person also sugested doing that every couple cylinders. My question is, if one should back out, how do you solve the problem?
Nope, not as they came from the factory. People have talked about modifying them to shoot 22 mag, but I haven't seen any threads posting results from anyone who has actually tried it.
Venom6
Member
Writing in the July 1977 issue of Shooting Times, Dick Metcalf said that he found despite meticulous and scrupulous degreasing of both ammunition and chambers, his Jet would lock up by about the third cylinder-full, and he would "...push the cylinder release-latch completely forward and tap the cylinder gently but firmly with the heel of the hand. If this doesn't work,...put a small protective piece of cloth over the gun and tap the unlatched cylinder with a small wooden or rubber mallet until it opens. Don't try to knock it loose with one sharp blow..."
In July of 1961 the NRA test report said it "...requir(ed) force to open the cylinder and (to) eject the spent cartridges."
In the July 1969 issue of handloader the author states opening the cylinder "requir(ed) a sharp slap with the heel of the hand."
Elmer Keith said he needed to tap on the ejector rod with a "soft pine block" to eject empties (Aug. 1961 "Guns").
I recall other contemporary reports admitting to the use of a rawhide mallet to open the cylinder, though I wouldn't recommend it.
In July of 1961 the NRA test report said it "...requir(ed) force to open the cylinder and (to) eject the spent cartridges."
In the July 1969 issue of handloader the author states opening the cylinder "requir(ed) a sharp slap with the heel of the hand."
Elmer Keith said he needed to tap on the ejector rod with a "soft pine block" to eject empties (Aug. 1961 "Guns").
I recall other contemporary reports admitting to the use of a rawhide mallet to open the cylinder, though I wouldn't recommend it.
Wow, I guess I've just been really lucky with mine. I've only taken it to the range a couple of times, but I shot a whole box of mild reloads both times and had no problems like what others are describing. Maybe someone polished the chambers on mine?
Reloads is the key word here! S&W went to Remington asking for a round with a 40gr bullet that would go 2400fps from a 6" handgun. Remington produced the 22 Jet but didn't quite make the 2400fps. This is the round that causes all the problems with the S&W mod 53. When people reload this round with today's manuals and powders the tendencies is to download a little which solves all the problems! I am willing to bet if you ran your reloads over a chrono you would be well below 2300fps!
jcelect
Venom6
Member
Right. 2400 fps was wildly optimistic. Remember this was in the days before chronographs were in wide use by us hobbyists. Several respected gunwriters have suggested that problems are much reduced with loads below 1800 fps.
In response to informed suggestion, S&W actually REDUCED the degree of chamber polish in an effort to mitigate the problem of cases backing out. It was hoped the rougher chambers would grab the cases better. Didn't seem to help much. As we all know they finally threw in the towel.
In response to informed suggestion, S&W actually REDUCED the degree of chamber polish in an effort to mitigate the problem of cases backing out. It was hoped the rougher chambers would grab the cases better. Didn't seem to help much. As we all know they finally threw in the towel.
Last edited:
I have sever thousand rounds of R-P brass and as long as I keep my loads down I don't have any problems. I also purchased a bunch of PRVI loads before I got the Remington brass and never had any problems. The hard part of reloading is finding 40 gr bullets. You can easily resize 224 bullets using a bullet sizer to 222 BTW
