saturner1
Member
My rod has a flat end and round end. Which way does it go in? Flat face to the outside or round?
Thanks,
steve
Thanks,
steve
Last edited:
Trigger Stop Rod Question
- Thread starter saturner1
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Bullseye Smith
Member
Flat out is the best
If you are speaking of the rod that is sometimes found inside the rebound slide spring - rounded end goes in first
500 Magnum Nut
Member
And the square end will rest on the stud.
The round pin end and the round stud don't like to rest against each other too well....
RightWinger
Member
can I make a trigger stop out of a SS tig rod? I was thinking of using 1/8 inch tig rod, can these be used on models other than N frames?
500 Magnum Nut
Member
I guess it will work or use the shank of a drill
RightWinger
Member
Just out of curiosity, why did only the N frames have the trigger stop, this seems like something great that the L frames could benefit from as well.....
john traveler
Member
If I had to make a guess, the trigger stop rods were not incorporated in the L frames as a cost reduction factor.
If you notice, in the long and glorious history of S&W revolver production, all the engineering changes have resulted in cost reduction and labor savings: elimination of the "bug" screw, 5 screw to 4 screw to only 3 screws holding the sideplate, elimination of the barrel pin, changing to MIM triggers, hammers, extractors, and internal parts, cast-in frame lugs, and so on.
The elimination of a trigger stop rod means little to most shooters. In a service, home protection, and sporting revolver, it means nothing. It's original purpose after all was to accomodate the precision target shooters that wanted a crisp, backlash-free single action trigger.
If you notice, in the long and glorious history of S&W revolver production, all the engineering changes have resulted in cost reduction and labor savings: elimination of the "bug" screw, 5 screw to 4 screw to only 3 screws holding the sideplate, elimination of the barrel pin, changing to MIM triggers, hammers, extractors, and internal parts, cast-in frame lugs, and so on.
The elimination of a trigger stop rod means little to most shooters. In a service, home protection, and sporting revolver, it means nothing. It's original purpose after all was to accomodate the precision target shooters that wanted a crisp, backlash-free single action trigger.
Bullseye Smith
Member
John you are right, and going on that I can't figure how the two piece barrel can be cheaper? Do you know, looks like alot of extra machine work to me.
john traveler
Member
Bullseye,
I've only seen pictures of the the newer two-piece barrels, so this is mostly guesswork:
The traditional S&W revolver fabrication consisted of drop forging the barrel blank, roll engraving, straddle milling the rib, milling the underlug, drilling the locking bolt holes, turning the shank and threads, drilling and reaming the bore, broaching the rifling, and lapping the bore, fitting, polishing, and bluing, with lots of gaging and inspections in between operations. LOTS of machine steps needing specialized tooling and fixtures. Time, and labor intensive to fabricate, requiring skilled labor to fit and install the fixtures, tool up the machines, and assemble completed revolvers. This was true up to about a generation ago when cnc machines completely replaced the old skilled labor-intensive parts making and fitting. A cnc screw machine, for example can be programmed to do everything imaginable to a piece of raw bar stock, and all the operator has to do is load and unload the bar stock, check cutting fluid and lubricant levels, and press the right buttons to start/stop machining operations.
The newer two-piece barrels are basically shrouds fitting over an actual inner barrel. The inner barrel itself looks like a simple screw machine fabrication, turned, ground, and threaded from rifled bar stock. The shroud or outter barrel can be investment or MIM cast since it takes no real firing stresses except at the barrel shank end where it bears against the receiver and the muzzle end where it presses against the inner barrel. Minimal machine work to the shroud. If this is true, then the outer "barrel" is relatively cheaply made and eliminates all the previously expensive machine operations of forging, grinding, milling, broaching, drilling, etc, etc. Most all of the cosmetic and functional surfaces are cast to minimize machining steps.
In a previous life, I studied manufacturing and machining operations for the aerospace industry. Much of it is still there when I have to think about it.
I've only seen pictures of the the newer two-piece barrels, so this is mostly guesswork:
The traditional S&W revolver fabrication consisted of drop forging the barrel blank, roll engraving, straddle milling the rib, milling the underlug, drilling the locking bolt holes, turning the shank and threads, drilling and reaming the bore, broaching the rifling, and lapping the bore, fitting, polishing, and bluing, with lots of gaging and inspections in between operations. LOTS of machine steps needing specialized tooling and fixtures. Time, and labor intensive to fabricate, requiring skilled labor to fit and install the fixtures, tool up the machines, and assemble completed revolvers. This was true up to about a generation ago when cnc machines completely replaced the old skilled labor-intensive parts making and fitting. A cnc screw machine, for example can be programmed to do everything imaginable to a piece of raw bar stock, and all the operator has to do is load and unload the bar stock, check cutting fluid and lubricant levels, and press the right buttons to start/stop machining operations.
The newer two-piece barrels are basically shrouds fitting over an actual inner barrel. The inner barrel itself looks like a simple screw machine fabrication, turned, ground, and threaded from rifled bar stock. The shroud or outter barrel can be investment or MIM cast since it takes no real firing stresses except at the barrel shank end where it bears against the receiver and the muzzle end where it presses against the inner barrel. Minimal machine work to the shroud. If this is true, then the outer "barrel" is relatively cheaply made and eliminates all the previously expensive machine operations of forging, grinding, milling, broaching, drilling, etc, etc. Most all of the cosmetic and functional surfaces are cast to minimize machining steps.
In a previous life, I studied manufacturing and machining operations for the aerospace industry. Much of it is still there when I have to think about it.
Similar threads
