Ammo for Lady Smith

G

gyvel

New member
Some of you S&W collectors out there have more experience than I do with the Lady Smith. My general feelings are that they are from the transitional black-smokeless powder era and are really not suitable for modern HV ammunition.

I was wondering if they are safe to shoot with modern .22 short standard velocity, or should one just stick to CB caps?
 
Last edited:
My general feelings are that they are from the transitional black-smokeless powder era and is really not suitable for modern HV ammunition.
Click to expand...
+1, and realize that the gun is actually chambered in .22 Long, not .22LR. However, the chambers are long enough to accept .22LR ammo, and the cryptic, non-standard "*.22 S&W CTG.*" barrel inscription doesn't help explain this. :rolleyes:

One of the Roy Jinks books reports that many of these guns were damaged when they were new by owners who didn't realize that the gun isn't strong enough to handle .22LR. Firing any .22LR load repeatedly - even standard velocity - will split the forcing cone at the 6 o'clock position, and I've seen several Ladysmiths that were "pre-split". :(

IIRC there was a thread about firing a Ladysmith on the S&W forum a couple of years ago, and the consensus was this:
  1. Stick to CB caps or other primer-only loads such as Aguila Colibris.
  2. Do NOT fire the gun double-action. The DA mechanism is fragile and replacement parts are made of Unobtanium. ;)
 
I'll go one better.

In even halfways decent condition these little guns bring some serious prices.

I wouldn't fire one no matter what.
 
In even halfways decent condition these little guns bring some serious prices... I wouldn't fire one no matter what.
Click to expand...
About half the replies on the S&W forum started with a statement like "If you're crazy enough to actually do it, and nothing I say will change your mind..." ;)

My opinion? If you want a nifty old Smith .22 that you intend to shoot, you want a .22/32 Heavy Frame Target aka "Bekeart". They're bigger and easier to hold, the sights are nice, they're very accurate,you can use garden-variety .22LR ammo, and the I frame lockwork is strong enough to withstand regular use. Best of all, prices are reasonable- generally under $700 unless the gun is unusually pristine. There are also a fair number of shooter-grade guns floating around; I suspect many of the original buyers actually used them. :)
 
And all your responses have confirmed my thoughts: That the gun is not suitable for shooting any type of modern .22. (BTW, I had read that they were originally chambered for .22 Long, and NOT lr.)

It's a pity that this little gem can't be recreated; I think they would make great little plinkers. I guess the closest thing was the Rossi that was available about 50 years ago or so, but they were cast Zamak.
 
Considering that the cylinder of the Ladysmith is only the size of a quarter, they are not exactly strong guns. And considering that a good one can bring over $4000, I think I would find another plinker.

FWIW and strength aside, no, I don't think they would make a good plinker. They are just too small and hard to get a grip on. Few people who have not handled one really understand how small they are, thinking of them as like a 22/32 Kit Gun or even a K-22. Not so; they are TINY! They make those guns look big!

Jim
 
A friend has one that looks extremely good at first glance.
Close examination shows the forcing cone is cracked.

I figure it spent many years in a bureau drawer until somebody inherited Grandma's pistol and loaded it up with LRs.
 
In the 1960s, Rossi recreated the Ladysmith as the "Princess." They were chambered in .22 LR. Very neat little guns. Unfortunately, they weren't the best made guns.

IMG_1261.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top