SOLVED-Lost Single Action - Model 63

[Mtwoodson]

I took my .22 Model 63 to a class today because I could shoot 10-cent ammo instead of the expensive .357 or .45 stuff. After 5 shots single action, the hammer wouldn't stay cocked for a single action shot. It would still fire double action, but try as I might, no single action. I've never had the side plate off a Model 63, but probably will tomorrow or the next day. Any thoughts on what I'll find?
Thanks
And FWIW, I finished the class with a 3"SS GP100 that ran like a top.

Problem and solution explained below in post of June 1, 9:31 PM

 

[MichiganScott]

Possibly crud build up on the single action sear. It's also possible that the single action sear has been damaged.

I've never seen one actually worn to the point that it wouldn't hold the hammer. It's usually the fault of someone monkeying around with a hone or file trying to lighten the single action. You don't touch it doing a normal action job.

Good luck.

 

[ontargetagain]

That could happen from not enough tension on the mainspring so check the tightness of the strain screw.

Karl

 

[Nesmith]

No strain (screw), no gain

I think the Model 63 uses a coil mainspring, so there will be no strain screw to tighten. I second the earlier post about the probable cause being a build-up of crud - .22 ammunition can create a lot of crud. Nice 63, by the way.

 

[Freischütz]

My 22-4 wouldn't cock single action but worked double action. Cause was a broken trigger pin.

 

[gwpercle]

If you take the side plate off be aware there is one part that can and will , if you tilt the gun to one side, fall out. Be sure to look at this part, see how it fits in there and do not loose it.
The gun will not work if this part is not put back in and put back in the correct way. The first time it happened I didn't think I was ever going to get it back in correctly!
I think it is called the hammer block, I know it is the only part that will fall out when you turn the gun over....everything else stays put.
Gary

 

[ontargetagain]

By the diagrams on Numerichs website the 63 has a flat mainspring but I don't know better to say different as to the reference that it could be a coil spring so 'do' look for a loose strain screw if it does have a flat mainspring

The 'hammer block' is an important safety part however I have not seen it be a component necessary for the function of a revolver. It will fall right out because it does not attach to anything, rather it simply lies over and indexing pin on the return spring slide. When you put it on slide it up all the way then when attaching the sideplate use the groove in the sideplate as a follower up along the hammer block to seat the plate without disturbing the position of the hammer block.
Karl

 

[TucsonMTB]

Solved? What was the solution/cause for your issue, sir?

Inquiring mindlets want to know . . .

 

[Mtwoodson]

Thanks all for the advice and comments.

I started the process by removing those pretty aftermarket oversize grips. Lo and behold, without doing anything else, single action was back. It seems that the grips shifted and the hammer spur was contacting the upper edge of the stocks. They must have ridden up just a teeny tiny bit, but it was enough to stop full travel of the hammer. A little bit of work with a fine rasp and emery cloth relieved the upper edge of the grips enough to allow full travel of the hammer.
So in summary, the root problem was operator error, again, because I'm the one who initially fitted and installed these grips.

And FWIW, the Model 63 does use a coil spring.

 

[garbler]

Well glad your whole again but your situation brings up an issue with grip panel screws and interference with S&W revolver springs, etc.

Case in point would be the 1988 Model 625 and perhaps later. Anyway the factory couldn't make this model fast enough as the pin and plate shooters just gobbled up the initial runs. The factory was not only unprepared for the supply and demand load but also QC. As odd as it may seem these guns were shipped with black rubber Pachmayer grips where the screw actually hit and interrupted the mainspring about 3/4 the distance of it's full load cycle. Trust me when I tell you trying to build a smooth and manageable DA pull is impossible with something like this. Nevertheless the factory continued to "correct" the hard spot in the DA pull and never once changed or acknowledged this glaring mistake.

 

[ontargetagain]

Thanks all for the advice and comments.

I started the process by removing those pretty aftermarket oversize grips. Lo and behold, without doing anything else, single action was back. It seems that the grips shifted and the hammer spur was contacting the upper edge of the stocks. They must have ridden up just a teeny tiny bit, but it was enough to stop full travel of the hammer. A little bit of work with a fine rasp and emery cloth relieved the upper edge of the grips enough to allow full travel of the hammer.
So in summary, the root problem was operator error, again, because I'm the one who initially fitted and installed these grips.

And FWIW, the Model 63 does use a coil spring.

thanks for the coil spring confirmation, I am not familiar with this model but it is one I would like to spend some time with
Glad you issue was a basic fix and you are again enjoying the gun!
Karl

 

[ontargetagain]

Well glad your whole again but your situation brings up an issue with grip panel screws and interference with S&W revolver springs, etc.

Case in point would be the 1988 Model 625 and perhaps later. Anyway the factory couldn't make this model fast enough as the pin and plate shooters just gobbled up the initial runs. The factory was not only unprepared for the supply and demand load but also QC. As odd as it may seem these guns were shipped with black rubber Pachmayer grips where the screw actually hit and interrupted the mainspring about 3/4 the distance of it's full load cycle. Trust me when I tell you trying to build a smooth and manageable DA pull is impossible with something like this. Nevertheless the factory continued to "correct" the hard spot in the DA pull and never once changed or acknowledged this glaring mistake.

I had a set of the S&W Pachmayr grips that were included with a model 14 I bought and when I tried them on the gun I noticed that I could not insert the grip screw through the handles without interfering with the mainspring!

 

[MichiganScott]

Glad you got it working. Now that you've got your mind made up to do it, remove the side plate, clean and re-oil that sucker.

By the way. the proper way to remove the side plate is to remove the screws and then hit the frame under the grips with plastic hammer or wood block. Do not pry it off.

 

[Green Frog]

I think this has to be a matter of Numrich using a generic diagram, because AFAIK the Model 63, being a stainless J-frame that was introduced fairly late in the pantheon of 20th Century S&Ws, always came with a coil mainspring. Of course anything is possible, I even inquired once about converting a J-frame to flat mainspring, but the work involved was pretty prohibitive for my skill level and pocketbook.

Froggie

By the diagrams on Numerichs website the 63 has a flat mainspring but I don't know better to say different as to the reference that it could be a coil spring so 'do' look for a loose strain screw if it does have a flat mainspring

The 'hammer block' is an important safety part however I have not seen it be a component necessary for the function of a revolver. It will fall right out because it does not attach to anything, rather it simply lies over and indexing pin on the return spring slide. When you put it on slide it up all the way then when attaching the sideplate use the groove in the sideplate as a follower up along the hammer block to seat the plate without disturbing the position of the hammer block.
Karl