Can someone explain why x amount of screws makes a gun more valuable?

That was baaaaad! :rolleyes:

Some of the folks might have noted my post on the Ladysmith I acquired. At the time I did the pictures, I thought I had misplaced the upper side plate screw, but it turned out it had been missing before I bought the gun.

I found out that (believe it or not) the upper sideplate screw for a pre-Model 10 will fit the Ladysmith. Those screws are like gold these days, but I did get one and only had to shorten it a bit because the Ladysmith frame is thinner. I couldn't get a nickel plated one, so I took off the blue and it looks, not really OK, but not too bad.

Looking at the lockwork of the Model 1899, it is amazing that S&W has managed to make such a large number of improvements without (up to the "lock") changing their basic frame outline and shape. The aim has always been to improve and simplify the lockwork, while keeping costs down. (Some would say "making it cheaper" but what is really wrong with that?) I can't see that any of those changes made the gun less reliable, less accurate, or less functional. Some folks may get all bothered about using coil springs or MIM parts, but if I can buy a gun for $600 that is as good or better than one that would cost $3000, why should I mourn the days of tiny pins and springs and assemblers who went blind working under gas lamps?

Jim
 
Incidentally, the recessed cylinders had a very practical purpose. They were used on .22's because up to the post-WWII period, burst case heads in .22LR were fairly common, and many rifles and revolvers in that caliber had recesses for the heads or some other system. Iver Johnson, for example had its "Sealed Eight" system with rims around both the front and rear of the cylinder, to protect against both burst heads and lead spitting. (The front rim had an opening for the forcing cone so the cylinder could be removed for cleaning.)

When S&W developed the .357 Magnum, they were in uncharted territory and some cartridge makers were still using the old "balloon head" cases, which could spell trouble if they used them for the new high pressure cartridge. So S&W went to the side of caution and recessed the chambers to contain any gas escape. They could have dropped the recess sooner but by that time it had become a hallmark of the .357 and something people expected.

Jim
 
Looking at the lockwork of the Model 1899, it is amazing that S&W has managed to make such a large number of improvements without (up to the "lock") changing their basic frame outline and shape. The aim has always been to improve and simplify the lockwork, while keeping costs down. (Some would say "making it cheaper" but what is really wrong with that?) I can't see that any of those changes made the gun less reliable, less accurate, or less functional. Some folks may get all bothered about using coil springs or MIM parts, but if I can buy a gun for $600 that is as good or better than one that would cost $3000, why should I mourn the days of tiny pins and springs and assemblers who went blind working under gas lamps?
Click to expand...

True to a point. As long as the cost savings are passed on to the customer. What I forgot to mention in my description of the design changes from five screw to four screw to three screw is I doubt if any of the cost savings were passed on to the customer. Of course the actual savings was probably only pennies per unit.

Incidentally, a few months ago I was wearing my S&W hat in a local store and an employee mentioned that his father had worked in the S&W plant for many years. (Springfield is not all that far from where I live) I said I would love to get a chance to talk to him. The fellow replied that his father wouldn't want to talk about his work life at S&W. He said it had ruined his father's eyes, and his hands. Bad eyesight from all those years of close work and arthritis from all the hand work. And this was long after the era of gas lamps.
 
Keeping costs down may not mean passing savings on to the customer, it may mean not having to raise prices to meet inflation or demands for increased wages. (Of course, in pre-union days, such demands usually resulted in instant dismissal, at least in less skilled trades.)

I am sure that even today assembling revolvers is not an easy job, and when I look at something like the cylinder stop of a Model 1899, I really have a combination of pity and admiration for the men who put those guns together.

Jim
 
Try this one on for size. I own a M&P manufactured early in 1902. It's one of the M&P's without the ejector rod lock and it's a "pre 5 screw 4 screw". :D
 
Try this one on for size. I own a M&P manufactured early in 1902. It's one of the M&P's without the ejector rod lock and it's a "pre 5 screw 4 screw".
Click to expand...

I already mentioned that.

"The very first 38 caliber side swing revolvers made by S&W in 1899 had four screws holding down the side plate and no screw in front of the trigger guard. But in 1905 the internal mechanism went through major changes, and the Five Screw Smith was born."

Here is a photo of my Model 1899, one of the pre-five screw four screws.

Model1899.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top