The fit of factory N frame stocks: A Study

[mrcvs]

I have never really gotten into collecting Colt First Generation Single Action Army revolver grips because the fit of the grips to various revolvers, as randomly fitted, is extremely poor. That is, the chances of a grip fitting a particular revolver is unlikely, in my experience.

In my collecting of Triple Lock and one .44 Hand Ejector Second Model revolvers over the years, I have replaced a sum total of two stocks on Triple Lock revolvers over the years. One came with totally incorrect stocks. Took one set I have collected over the years, placed them on this Triple Lock and a perfect fit. Second Triple Lock has condition issues, had a poorly fitting set of Mother of Pearl stocks, and I replaced them with a poor condition set of N frame stocks—and a nearly perfect fit, not being quite 100% attributed to the rough life these stocks have led.

I have collected about a dozen pre 1920 N frame stocks over the years, largely because my past experience of limited sample size (n=2), suggested with nearly 100% confidence that the engineering at Smith & Wesson was so good that the fit of all N frame stocks was such that by this 1908 to 1920 interval, any randomly selected set of stocks was interchangeable with another set and would fit any randomly selected revolver precisely, within reason.

And so, I just did an experiment. I randomly selected 7 sets of stocks and a control revolver to see if my long perceived theory was correct. (Spoiler: It is not!)

First: The control revolver, a 1916 production .44 Hand Ejector Second Model revolver, with factory original stocks, correct serial number penciled in on the backside of the right stock.

 

[mrcvs]

And the results: Three of the seven stocks could not even be placed flush to the revolver without additional fitting.

 

[mrcvs]

And, four of the remaining pair do not fit precisely, light showing between the frame and the top of the stocks.

 

[mrcvs]

And so, this does not make me as enthusiastic about collecting these stocks, for obvious reasons.

And, what advice have you about how to fit these stocks properly, especially if there is light between the top of the revolver and the frame?

 

[schutz5]

No advice here but these are good observations by which to notice whether subject N frames are wearing originally fitted stocks!

 

[StrawHat]

Since the oversized stocks were sanded to fit the frame and then the right panel numbered to prevent loss or mix-up, there a few options for getting them to fit. For the stocks that show light up by the stock circle, elongated the locator pin hole and shifting them up, MIGHT, help. But that could change the way the stocks fit the frame. Adding a bit of tape or similar to the stock circle would camouflage the gap.

Other things can be done but they are less easy and more intrusive to the wood.

Kevin

 

[Heinz]

Thanks for posting. Interesting information

 

[22hipower]

Interesting and the findings are perhaps not to be unexpected given that in that period S&W did fit the stocks to the frames. Which is why, I think, they numbered the stocks. The variance shown in your sample though is more than I would have expected. Possibly the results would be different with a different frame? Thanks for sharing your findings.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

 

[mrcvs]

The variance shown in your sample though is more than I would have expected. Possibly the results would be different with a different frame?

The results certainly demonstrated greater variation than I would have expected since I expected none whatsoever. I’m sure since the frames have now been determined not to be a constant, the fit will vary amongst these seven sample sets of stocks used for the study, more or less, one way or another, based on the specific revolver.

 

[glowe]

We have discussed this for a long time and the logical reason why stocks from other guns are never guaranteed to fit the next one is that both steel and wood were removed to obtain the perfect fit. Quality of this operation varied by the workman doing the job, their expertise, and experience. Also, remember that the forging was just that, a large chunk of steel that looked something like a frame. Lots of steel was ground off to get down to the proper measurements and did not change much since the first hand ejector was forged. Workmen were responsible for their own pieces of equipment and made their own jigs, fixtures, and gauges. Bottom line is that until the 1980s, no two finished frames were exactly the same.

Even in the 1950s, forgings looked nothing like the finished product.

 

[glowe]

This article from a 1950s Gun Digest is perhaps the best chronicle of the progression of the manufacture of S&W revolvers from billet to finished product. Look closely at the workmen and equipment to see what actually happens on the journey. Click on each page and then magnify to see all the details of the operations.

Raw Steel to Smith & Wesson (Pic HEAVY)

 

[quinn]

And here you see why I subscribe to this forum. Thanks as always for the enlightenment!

 

[DARE]

I have three pre-war N frames that came with incorrect grips. A .357 Magnum that shipped in December 1935 had Diamond Targets. Acquired a set of pre-war Magnas that fit pretty well. A .44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model that shipped in June 1926 had some plastic stags on it. Think the 2nd or 3rd set I tried fit well. The ones that did not fit were small.
A Triple Lock that shipped April 1916 had MOP stocks. Think I tried at least 10 sets before I found a good fit. All of the poor fits were small.

 

[mrcvs]

I have three pre-war N frames that came with incorrect grips. A .357 Magnum that shipped in December 1935 had Diamond Targets. Acquired a set of pre-war Magnas that fit pretty well. A .44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model that shipped in June 1926 had some plastic stags on it. Think the 2nd or 3rd set I tried fit well. The ones that did not fit were small.
A Triple Lock that shipped April 1916 had MOP stocks. Think I tried at least 10 sets before I found a good fit. All of the poor fits were small.

So how do you ever sell the off hand set and keep a forum member happy, having no idea what the fit is like? I sold a very nice set, when I wasn’t even really wanting to sell at all…

So, it seems like your batting average isn’t all that good, being 1 in 2 or 3 and then one in 10. Mine, I thought was 100%, but it’s really now 0%. The set I put on the heater Triple Lock revolver didn’t fit great, and I attributed it to the hard life these stocks have led. The other set I affixed to a Triple Lock I bought once with Cokes on it actually doesn’t fit as well as I thought, as small slivers of light are evident I hadn’t noticed before.

OR, maybe I shouldn’t sell any of the dozen or so sets of stocks I own and, next time I need a pair, hope my odds are greater than one in a dozen or so, and a pair I have actually fits decently.