Unpinned Model 63 No Dash?

[Bhfromme]

Hopefully some of you can help me understand what I found today. In my endless quest for ammo I walk into an off the beaten path gun shop and under the glass I see this old 4" Model 63. Course I need another revolver like I need hemorrhoids but after a few minutes I break down and ask to look at it.

Turns out it's a no dash in real fine condition. But it's unpinned. With a three letter prefix serial number BAF62xx. I check the catalog and learn the no dashes start with the M prefix then around 1980 they convert to the dreaded three letter prefix. Then in 1982 the -1s start and that's when they went to unpinned barrels.

Can find no reference in the catalog that helps date the three letter prefixes. All it says is the three letter Model 63s start around 1980. But it's unpinned which puts it in 1982. But it's a no dash which means it should have a pinned barrel. A transitional gun maybe? I don't really care what it's worth because it's going to be a shooter and I'll never sell it but I would at least like help understanding the mystery of an unpinned no dash Model 63. Can anyone help me out here?

 

[murphydog]

The model 63s were all over the place with SNs and engineering changes. There were unpinned model 63s which should have been followed by the 63-1, but 63-3s seem to be much more common.

This prefix is likely from 1988 - maybe an older frame assembled into a complete gun well after it 'should' have been. Clear as mud.

 

[Engine49guy]

I remember trying to figure out 63 revisions years ago and getting a headache.
I kinda look at it this way, since all model 63's have recessed cylinders the deletion of the barrel set pin was not a change of any part.
In other words the parts on a non pinned 63 from 1984 will all interchange with a model 63 from 1978 so there was no reason to make a revision change.

 

[hkcavalier]

The deletion of the barrel pin wasn't tied to a revision change. Just like there are lots of -4 K frames with or without the pin.

 

[ColbyBruce]

I have one like the OP’s. Mine was thrown from a moving vehicle. I bought it for the cylinder, intending to have the cylinder fitted to my 650. The factory repaired the 63.

 

[THE PILGRIM]

Very desirable Gun, IMO.
I wouldn’t get tangled on year, dash, etc.
Price and condition.
Would I buy it?
I already have 2.
I might!

 

[Bastogne71]

I do not believe that Smith & Wesson ever stamped a model 63 with a dash one irreguardless of if it had a pinned or non-pinned barrel. In years of owning and seeing m63’s at gun shows or stores, I have never seen one marked with a dash one. On Gun Broker today, there are 10 model 63’s without a pinned barrel listed, five of which are are marked M63 without a dash. Three others are dash 3 or 4 and two are unknown (no picture or description). If anyone can prove me wrong ( won’t be the first time) please post a picture of a M63-1 for me.

The Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson vol. 4 shows BAF as 1988 on page 491.

The 4” model 63 is my favorite 22 revolver! Did you get the one we’re discussing? Pictures would be nice!

 

[Bhfromme]

I do not believe that Smith & Wesson ever stamped a model 63 with a dash one irreguardless of if it had a pinned or non-pinned barrel. In years of owning and seeing m63’s at gun shows or stores, I have never seen one marked with a dash one. On Gun Broker today, there are 10 model 63’s without a pinned barrel listed, five of which are are marked M63 without a dash. Three others are dash 3 or 4 and two are unknown (no picture or description). If anyone can prove me wrong ( won’t be the first time) please post a picture of a M63-1 for me.

The Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson vol. 4 shows BAF as 1988 on page 491.

The 4” model 63 is my favorite 22 revolver! Did you get the one we’re discussing? Pictures would be nice!

Good info, thanks. According to Murphydog above the BAF prefix puts my 63 in the 1988 ballpark which would make it a -1. Those were bad years for Smith which probably explains the issues I had yesterday getting the spent cases out of it. Been reading lots of stories referencing bad quality control in the 80s and 90s until Saf-T-Lock took over around the turn of the century.

Shot this one yesterday for the first time and although the accuracy is spot on the cylinder sticks closed and I had to jimmy it to get it open a few times, especially as it heated up. Hoping a good smith can figure out what that's all about. Anyway. Good info. Beautiful revolver regardless of when it was made. No pics of the yoke but I'll attach what I have.

 

[Hondo44]

The dash 1 change of deleting the pinned barrel was ordered in 1982.

When would the -1 stamped frames and/or unpinned barrels/frames be expected to show up? Anytime from after 1981 and on, but not regularly until the drilled barrels and/or frames only stamped Mod 63 (no dash) were used up and newer frames (if any) stamped Mod 63-1 began to be assembled.

Were any newer frames actually stamped 63-1 prior to the order for the Mod 63-2 frame stamping? We'll only know when and if we see a Mod 63-1 stamped frame.

A mystery? Not at all. Actually only a curiosity about an absolutely routine happenstance of S&W production. Just a SNAFU: "Situation Normal All........" Is that not a criticism of S&W? Not at all, just a statement of reality about minutia only us collectors care about!

 

[Bhfromme]

And my reference to QC issues in the 80s was not meant as a slam on S&W. All large businesses go through mergers and acquisitions and periods of mismanagement. Just is what it is. And if I can get the cylinder to open without sticking on my 63 I'll love it just as much as my older revolvers!

 

[Hondo44]

Give us details on the cyl sticking issue and likely we can help you with that.

 

[Bhfromme]

Yesterday I took a couple hundred rounds to the range and as the revolver started getting warmer it seemed to become proportionately harder and harder to open the cylinder when it was full of spent cases. The gun was super clean so it wasn't an issue of carbon buildup. It opens fine when it's cold and empty but as it warmed up it was a little sticky even when empty.

I couldn't determine if it was the release button or the actual cylinder binding. Might be a combination of both. Also there were two or three times when I couldn't get the hammer back to shoot single action until I opened and closed the cylinder a couple times. Had two or three failure to fires in DA that were troubling as well. All in all, even though it was super accurate and I want to love it, the revolver was a major disappointment. There's a good smith in my area and I'm thinking I'll let him take it apart and see if he can see where it's binding.

 

[Hondo44]

Don't take it anywhere or apart yet, you need to do some simple observation and trouble shooting first!

I suspect one of two things:

The front face of the cyl is dragging on the end of the barrel at the barrel/cyl gap. Hold the gun sideways to a light source with the hammer down and cyl empty. Check for a light space between the barrel and cyl face. Do you see a space of light between them from top to bottom? check for the light space on each of the 6 chambers. If not the bar/cyl gap is too tight. This issue gets worse when the bar and cyl get hot.

If there's no problem there, the 2nd most common problem is that the extractor rod center locking pin is a slight bit too short. With cyl open push the center pin all the way forward flush with the extractor star on the rear face of the cyl. Does it protrude slightly at the front end of the extractor rod? It should be for easy opening with the thumb latch. If not the extractor rod is too long; let the center pin retreat to the rear and take a few file strokes to the end of the rod.

Let us know the results.

 

[Bhfromme]

I get all sweaty imagining taking a file to anything, much less to one of my beloveds.

 

[Hondo44]

I get all sweaty imagining taking a file to anything, much less to one of my beloveds.

Understood! But what I'm talking about is about as highly technical as picking up dog poop. And besides, if you look at the parts that need fitting/filing you see the file marks of the factory assembler that did it at the factory.

But before we get ahead of ourselves, and before you get queasy, tell us what you find. We can walk you thru proper technique step by step.

 

[bigmoose]

If not the extractor rod is too long; let the center pin retreat to the rear and take a few file strokes to the end of the rod.

Could this also present as an extractor rod that has loosened a turn or two?

 

[Bhfromme]

Understood! But what I'm talking about is about as highly technical as picking up dog poop. And besides, if you look at the parts that need fitting/filing you see the file marks of the factory assembler that did it at the factory.

But before we get ahead of ourselves, and before you get queasy, tell us what you find. We can walk you thru proper technique step by step.

Cylinder spacing seems ok. I think big moose is onto something. I'll take it to the best smitty around these parts and have the extractor rod discussion with him. At the range yesterday I had a gut feeling it was the rod not clearing the frame.

You guys are the best. Thanks for your help and I'll be sure to report back after I have my guy look at it.

 

[Nightowl]

If it is a tight barrel/cylinder gap, it will be easy to see on the front of the cylinder. After several rounds and it heats up enough to become an problem in opening, there will be scratches on the front of the cylinder where it binds with the back of the barrel.
Have you checked under the extractor for unburned powder when you have the sticking problem. It is common for .22 ammo to be dirty and it gets under the extractor, and binds the cylinder. One way to slow this down is to send the muzzle straight up before extracting empty cartridges. You might also check the headspace. Sometimes it becomes harder to completely insert .22 cartridges into the charge holes, which makes it harder for them to turn in the cylinder. It takes only a very, very small amount to make the cylinder hard to turn.

 

[Bhfromme]

If it is a tight barrel/cylinder gap, it will be easy to see on the front of the cylinder. After several rounds and it heats up enough to become an problem in opening, there will be scratches on the front of the cylinder where it binds with the back of the barrel.
Have you checked under the extractor for unburned powder when you have the sticking problem. It is common for .22 ammo to be dirty and it gets under the extractor, and binds the cylinder. One way to slow this down is to send the muzzle straight up before extracting empty cartridges. You might also check the headspace. Sometimes it becomes harder to completely insert .22 cartridges into the charge holes, which makes it harder for them to turn in the cylinder. It takes only a very, very small amount to make the cylinder hard to turn.

I did notice the ammo I was using was filthy dirty. I'll give the gun a good scrubbing and fire a hundred rounds of copper plated round points through it and see how it opens.

 

[Bhfromme]

Just wanted let you guys know. Gave my 63 a good thorough scrubbing and took it to the range with some copper plated rounds and that little gun was a champ. Cylinder was snapping open like you write home about. No issues opening even when it got real warm to the touch. Today was a much better day. And wow is that thing accurate. Makes even me look like fairly good shot and that's going some.