S&W No. 3 Early Barrel Catch, Cylinder Retainer Conundrum

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,


I have an relatively early Number 3 American and I was making
a new extractor return spring for it and I was intrigued by
something I read in regards to the early cylinder retainer and
barrel catch. In the Neal and Jinks book: Smith & Wesson 1857
- 1945 A Handbook for Collectors on page 160, it says:

"The bottom of the extractor housing was drilled with a vent
or oil hole until between serial numbers 1450 and 1537, at
which time it was eliminated. Within this same serial range
the barrel catch and cylinder retainer were changed. The old
type catch had a flat bottom section below the catch screw
in conjunction with the cylinder retainer having a flat upper
surface. The new type catch had a round bottom section
below the catch screw in conjunction with a cylinder retainer

having a notched upper surface." [Emphasis Added]
​

I have a No. 3 in the 2200 range and I have the round bottom
barrel catch BUT the cylinder retainer has the flat upper surface.
I'm pretty sure the barrel catch is original, having the correct
assembly/fitting code that matches the rest of the gun and
has the rounded bottom under the screw but my cylinder
retainer is the older type with the flat top surface. This doesn't
agree with the statement from the Neal and Jinks book. Has
anyone else observed this situation before?

Also, I've never seen an example of the "flat bottom" barrel
catch before. Can someone post a pic of one?


Cheers!
Webb

 

[iby]

I have no clue as to your question but thanks for your post.
I thought maybe this section of the Forum had gone extinct

 

[mmaher94087]

Extinct, no. Folks are at Tulsa this weekend. I can't help, my 1st American is in the 5600 range.

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,


Thanks for the reply. I agree this site has been quiet recently
and I attributed it to the election jitters but now that it's over,
I am hoping it will pick up.

Getting back to my question, the cylinder retainer may have
been replaced at some point but why would one replace it with
an older one? I think it could be a thrifty Company wishing to
use up older parts but this doesn't agree with the Neal & Jinks
book.

Of course, since that book was published, new information has
come to light that make some of the information relayed in
the book has been shown not to be completely accurate. This
might be true in this case but without more corroborating
evidence, it's just a theory. That is why I posted here to see
if anyone else has noticed this.


Cheers!
Webb

 

[iby]

I wish I could go to the Tulsa Show

 

[mmaher94087]

Home alone! I'll bet that there are answers to your question, but the folks don't want to (or are afraid to) disassemble a 140+ year old revolver to answer. I'd like to know the answer too.

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

Home alone! I'll bet that there are answers to your question, but the folks don't want to (or are afraid to) disassemble a 140+ year old revolver to answer. I'd like to know the answer too.

There could be a lot of Truth in what you say. I can appreciate
that there are people that would be hesitant to touch their
"baby" for fear of damaging something. I, on the other hand,
have always been one to take things apart. I wanted to know
how they work. And I've been doing it since I was three years
old. It is part of the learning curve and the experience has
served me well. BUT there were many failures to get them
back together when my age was in the single digits range
but I learned from those experiences.

I understand there are people that lack mechanical intuition
and therefore are afraid they will damage something or they
lack the proper tools to do the job. In my case, I've had 60+
years of experience plus the accumulation of tools that gives
me the confidence to try. Still, failure is Always a possibility.
I'm just thankful I have the tools to fix what I break.



Cheers!
Webb

 

[iby]

Tools..Yes
Parts...????

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,

Tools..Yes
Parts...????

Well, having the RIGHT tools, one can make the parts (provided
one has drawings or a sample to measure for the dimensions
for making the parts). This has been part of my quest in re-
pairing these nifty old No. 3's.


Cheers!
Webb

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,


I have been taking some pics to illustrate another problem and
solution, I hope. In doing so, it took the opportunity to make
pics of a problem I have with the current cylinder retainer. It
rubs the cylinder when in place. If you look at the pics, you can
see it and why it rubs.


Cheers!
Webb

 

[mmaher94087]

It definitely rubs. Is the cylinder retainer bottomed out in the slot in the top strap? Is it flat? I think someone inserted a small flat blade screwdriver between the retainer and top strap then pried the retainer loose which bent it.

 

[wlw-19958]

Hi There,


Yes, I know it is rubbing and has been for some time. At this
point, I haven't determined the route cause but it is either
bent or the seating surface of the part was improperly machined.

I'll check this later. Right now, I'm trying to get a hold of AT&T
customer service.


Cheers!
Webb