Question about S & W revolvers
- Thread starter TWOSHOES
- Start date
straightShot
New member
No S&W bashing?
What's going on here? We're talking about S&W and nobody has jumped up and screamed, yet?
Okay...while I have time and before someone gets on the bashing bandwagon...
I really, really like my K-frame, model 19-5, early '80s Smith...Even though I don't fire it as much as I should, it's still a very good wheelgun...
straightShot
What's going on here? We're talking about S&W and nobody has jumped up and screamed, yet?
Okay...while I have time and before someone gets on the bashing bandwagon...
I really, really like my K-frame, model 19-5, early '80s Smith...Even though I don't fire it as much as I should, it's still a very good wheelgun...
straightShot
straightShot....I will gladly bash the company in it's present iteration.
I also appreciate the fine handguns they have made.
Your 19-5 isn't a a "very good wheelgun", it is an excellant gun. Just because it was made in 82 or later doesn't detract from it's perceived value....cept for those who like recessed chambers.
Sam....fingers crossed re the S+W sale.
I also appreciate the fine handguns they have made.
Your 19-5 isn't a a "very good wheelgun", it is an excellant gun. Just because it was made in 82 or later doesn't detract from it's perceived value....cept for those who like recessed chambers.
Sam....fingers crossed re the S+W sale.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Here, Straightshot, just for you...
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=66498
BigG,
Sorry, the Python is my candidate for the UGLIEST revolver ever produced. Ventilated rib on a revolver? BARF!
The full underlug would make sense if S&W were still producing revolvers primarily for target shooting, but that's been a thing of the past pretty much for the last 30 years.
I'll NEVER comprehend why the reintroduction of the Model 16 had the full underlug.
I seriously thought about getting one and having the barrel milled to a standard profile, but then I found out how much it would cost...
No thanks.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=66498
BigG,
Sorry, the Python is my candidate for the UGLIEST revolver ever produced. Ventilated rib on a revolver? BARF!
The full underlug would make sense if S&W were still producing revolvers primarily for target shooting, but that's been a thing of the past pretty much for the last 30 years.
I'll NEVER comprehend why the reintroduction of the Model 16 had the full underlug.
I seriously thought about getting one and having the barrel milled to a standard profile, but then I found out how much it would cost...
No thanks.
straightShot
New member
I understand
Mike Irwin & C.R.Sam:
I did take the time a while back to sit through our local city council meeting and then confront our mayor during the audience participation section at the end. Our mayor decided to sign the HUD agreement on his own as a spokesman for our city.
I mentioned, with the cable TV tape rolling, that it was up to the city council to make policy decisions such as this and not the mayor. He wormed around and deferred to the city manager about it only being a 'two paragraph' agreement on child safety locks. Sheez. Then his partner started blabbering.
It was a three page agreement. I did get to see him squirm in his chair for two weeks on reruns, so that made me feel a 'little' better.
I know that I should have followed up by producing the agreement at another meeting and reading it to show that it was more than just some trivial agreement on 'child safety locks', but I didn't. True politicians would lie to the camera, anyhow.
I just had to voice my displeasure, and I did. It made me sick to think that my city appeared on HUD's list, and I'm not one to be shy when I think that some elected official is doing something outside the scope of his duties.
Needless to say, I don't buy new Smiths, but my fingers are getting tired typing, so I'd better go...
straightShot
Mike Irwin & C.R.Sam:
I did take the time a while back to sit through our local city council meeting and then confront our mayor during the audience participation section at the end. Our mayor decided to sign the HUD agreement on his own as a spokesman for our city.
I mentioned, with the cable TV tape rolling, that it was up to the city council to make policy decisions such as this and not the mayor. He wormed around and deferred to the city manager about it only being a 'two paragraph' agreement on child safety locks. Sheez. Then his partner started blabbering.
It was a three page agreement. I did get to see him squirm in his chair for two weeks on reruns, so that made me feel a 'little' better.
I know that I should have followed up by producing the agreement at another meeting and reading it to show that it was more than just some trivial agreement on 'child safety locks', but I didn't. True politicians would lie to the camera, anyhow.
I just had to voice my displeasure, and I did. It made me sick to think that my city appeared on HUD's list, and I'm not one to be shy when I think that some elected official is doing something outside the scope of his duties.
Needless to say, I don't buy new Smiths, but my fingers are getting tired typing, so I'd better go...
straightShot
Regarding Robertthe41MagFan's post on the strength (or weakness) of the Model 29 -- "If you want a strong gun, find a S&W 629-3 or better." What are the limitations of the 29-3? Is this one of those that will shoot or shoot loose? S/N is AZL7### if that helps date it.
My info has the 29-3 introduced in 1982 with elimination of the counterbore. Unfortunately you indicate 1988 is the year they were "fixed". Should I limit this to Magnum lite loads or not worry? TIA
[Edited by riverdog on 05-16-2001 at 01:16 AM]
My info has the 29-3 introduced in 1982 with elimination of the counterbore. Unfortunately you indicate 1988 is the year they were "fixed". Should I limit this to Magnum lite loads or not worry? TIA
[Edited by riverdog on 05-16-2001 at 01:16 AM]
Mike,
Just a couple of notes. I have one of the early (1961) Pythons (I inherited it - wouldn't pay their price when I could have a M27 for less). The finish is absolutely superb (love the Colt Royal Blue), and probably accounts for half the price of the gun! The full lug and ventilated rib were in fact intentional, the early Pythons were targeted to replace the Colt OM as a target revolver (back when folks still used revolvers as part of the NM course). This is why there were even runs of them made in .38 Special chamberings. I suspect the .357 chambering in the Python was more of a marketing ploy than anything, at the time Colt didn't have any Magnums in their line. The first model Pythons almost all went to the target line, fired single action for the most part. As such they are superb shooters. (mine IS more accurate for SA fire than my 27-2 or 627PC - - but only if the shooter is capable of using the capabilities, which I no longer am). The full underlug does make sense for a target gun, don't like it on others myself. The only full underlug guns I've got are the 625-5 Classic and the 696. With the .45 Colt in an N frame and .44 Special in an L frame it might be slightly helpful in reducing muzzle climb, but the five inch skinny barrel half lug N frame still balances better in the hand (at least for me).
Oh, and on the original topic, yes, a 1988 or newer 29/629 is much better for Silhouette events. There was a problem with really heavy loads in the early N frame .44 mags. Of course only the die hard Magnum shooters ever saw these problems.
Just a couple of notes. I have one of the early (1961) Pythons (I inherited it - wouldn't pay their price when I could have a M27 for less). The finish is absolutely superb (love the Colt Royal Blue), and probably accounts for half the price of the gun! The full lug and ventilated rib were in fact intentional, the early Pythons were targeted to replace the Colt OM as a target revolver (back when folks still used revolvers as part of the NM course). This is why there were even runs of them made in .38 Special chamberings. I suspect the .357 chambering in the Python was more of a marketing ploy than anything, at the time Colt didn't have any Magnums in their line. The first model Pythons almost all went to the target line, fired single action for the most part. As such they are superb shooters. (mine IS more accurate for SA fire than my 27-2 or 627PC - - but only if the shooter is capable of using the capabilities, which I no longer am). The full underlug does make sense for a target gun, don't like it on others myself. The only full underlug guns I've got are the 625-5 Classic and the 696. With the .45 Colt in an N frame and .44 Special in an L frame it might be slightly helpful in reducing muzzle climb, but the five inch skinny barrel half lug N frame still balances better in the hand (at least for me).
Oh, and on the original topic, yes, a 1988 or newer 29/629 is much better for Silhouette events. There was a problem with really heavy loads in the early N frame .44 mags. Of course only the die hard Magnum shooters ever saw these problems.
Mike Irwin
Staff
SW627,
I'm fully aware of WHY the Python was set up as it was but, even with the Royal Colt finish on it, it's STILL BUTT UGLY.
A good friend of mine has one of the Pythons that was factory made to be single action only. Pulling the trigger advances the cylinder, but nothing else.
It's a dream to shoot, but it's still butt ugly.
I'm also aware of the manufacturing changes, I was just busting on Robert for making it sound as if the P&R 29s were nothing but junk.
I'm fully aware of WHY the Python was set up as it was but, even with the Royal Colt finish on it, it's STILL BUTT UGLY.
A good friend of mine has one of the Pythons that was factory made to be single action only. Pulling the trigger advances the cylinder, but nothing else.
It's a dream to shoot, but it's still butt ugly.
I'm also aware of the manufacturing changes, I was just busting on Robert for making it sound as if the P&R 29s were nothing but junk.
Chris McDermott
New member
There is a reason for using a pin to help retain the barrel. When you tighten the barrel to the frame, the area of the barrel under the threads gets compressed, reducing the bore diameter. By letting the barrel be only finger tight, and prevented from turning with the small pin, there isn't this compression of bore diameter.
Which barrel do you think will be more accurate, one which starts with a smaller bore diameter, then gets larger letting the bullet rattle around, or one that has the same uniform diameter end to end?
The recessed cylinder chambers started on rimfire revolvers before WWII. With rimfires, it's a safety measure to have the rim recessed into the cylinder. S&W added them to the 357 magnum when it was introduced because the pressures where so much higher than any other caliber previously put into a revolver. When S&W finally realized they weren't necessary, they removed them from the centerfire magnums, but the rimfires still have recessed chambers.
Which barrel do you think will be more accurate, one which starts with a smaller bore diameter, then gets larger letting the bullet rattle around, or one that has the same uniform diameter end to end?
The recessed cylinder chambers started on rimfire revolvers before WWII. With rimfires, it's a safety measure to have the rim recessed into the cylinder. S&W added them to the 357 magnum when it was introduced because the pressures where so much higher than any other caliber previously put into a revolver. When S&W finally realized they weren't necessary, they removed them from the centerfire magnums, but the rimfires still have recessed chambers.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"DATED" design?
Hum...
Who's still in regular production?
Hum...
Who's still in regular production?
Smith is making P&R 29's with half underlug? That N frame design was developed in the '30's, as I recall. And it looks like Colt will be reviving it's 70's Python design soon. I like 'em all. Only problem I have is with the Ruger DA's. Compared to the S&W's and Colt's, Ruger DA's are strong but just plain ugly. That Redhawk looks like it was designed by a plumber and oughta have hot water runnin' through it.
Mike Irwin
Staff
PKAY,
To the best of my knowledge, NO Model 29, which is the blued version of the .44 Mag., has had a full underlug.
The N-frame actually saw first life around 1908, when the New Century revolver was introduced in .44 Special.
To the best of my knowledge, NO Model 29, which is the blued version of the .44 Mag., has had a full underlug.
The N-frame actually saw first life around 1908, when the New Century revolver was introduced in .44 Special.
Agreed, Mike, but your "still in regular production" model 629 has full underlug unless I am mistaken. I thought the N frame was developed for the Model 27 and its immediate precursor to handle the magnum pressures. Have to check my S&W Handbook. Sheesh, better get my ducks lined up if I'm gettin' in a pissin' contest with ya. Where's "SmithGuy" when I really need 'im?
Mike Irwin
Staff
Pkay,
You're losing me, here.
The Model 29 is still in production.
The Model 629 is still in production.
The difference is stainless steel and a full underlug on the 629.
The basic gun remains the same. The lockwork, frame shape, etc. is essentially the same as it was in 1950. There have been some minor manufacturing changes, and of course the "strengthening" that was done in 1988 for the .44 Mags., but essentially the same process has been going on with the Python.
Essentially cosmetic and minor engineering changes that don't affect the overall design of the gun. I can pull the trigger out of a 1960s Model 29 and drop it into a 1990s 629 and it will fit, and work (but as with any replacement critical part, may need a little fitting).
By the time the precursor of the Model 27 came about (the original .357 Magnum, as it was known, in 1935), the N-frame had been in production since at least 1908 in the following calibers:
.38 Special/.38-44 (.38/44 was the same as the .38 Spl., but loaded to much higher pressures. Essentially, the first .38 Spl. +P.)
.44 Special (the original chambering for the New Century Triple Lock)
.45 Smith & Wesson (pretty uncommon). I got to fire one of these a couple of years ago.
.45 Colt (fewer than 50 are known, very valuable)
.455 Webley for shipment to the British & Canadians during WW I.
.45 ACP, for use by the US military as the Model 1917.
Supposedly there were also some made in .22 Long Rifle, but I've never seen one. I suspect they would be quite valuable.
There may be other calibers that were also chambered in N-frames prior to 1935, but I don't have my books at the office.
You're losing me, here.
The Model 29 is still in production.
The Model 629 is still in production.
The difference is stainless steel and a full underlug on the 629.
The basic gun remains the same. The lockwork, frame shape, etc. is essentially the same as it was in 1950. There have been some minor manufacturing changes, and of course the "strengthening" that was done in 1988 for the .44 Mags., but essentially the same process has been going on with the Python.
Essentially cosmetic and minor engineering changes that don't affect the overall design of the gun. I can pull the trigger out of a 1960s Model 29 and drop it into a 1990s 629 and it will fit, and work (but as with any replacement critical part, may need a little fitting).
By the time the precursor of the Model 27 came about (the original .357 Magnum, as it was known, in 1935), the N-frame had been in production since at least 1908 in the following calibers:
.38 Special/.38-44 (.38/44 was the same as the .38 Spl., but loaded to much higher pressures. Essentially, the first .38 Spl. +P.)
.44 Special (the original chambering for the New Century Triple Lock)
.45 Smith & Wesson (pretty uncommon). I got to fire one of these a couple of years ago.
.45 Colt (fewer than 50 are known, very valuable)
.455 Webley for shipment to the British & Canadians during WW I.
.45 ACP, for use by the US military as the Model 1917.
Supposedly there were also some made in .22 Long Rifle, but I've never seen one. I suspect they would be quite valuable.
There may be other calibers that were also chambered in N-frames prior to 1935, but I don't have my books at the office.
Mike Irwin
Staff
PK,
As I said, I don't consider the dropping of the pinning & recessing, the moving of the gasring from the yoke to the cylinder, etc., to be anything more than minor engineering changes.
The basic design is STILL in production, and has been since the LAST major updating of the design (the lock work) around 1948 or so, which incorporated the short-throw target hammer and, on post-war production guns, the new hammer block mechanism.
I'm not nearly as familiar with Pythons as I am with S&Ws, but I'm pretty certain that if you count EVERY minor change that went into the manufacturing process, the Python of today is as far removed from the "original" Python as today's 29s are.
The overall outline of the gun is the same. The lockwork is, essentially, the same, and operates in the same manner.
Everything else is pretty much window dressing designed to make the gun less expensive to manufacture.
As I said, I don't consider the dropping of the pinning & recessing, the moving of the gasring from the yoke to the cylinder, etc., to be anything more than minor engineering changes.
The basic design is STILL in production, and has been since the LAST major updating of the design (the lock work) around 1948 or so, which incorporated the short-throw target hammer and, on post-war production guns, the new hammer block mechanism.
I'm not nearly as familiar with Pythons as I am with S&Ws, but I'm pretty certain that if you count EVERY minor change that went into the manufacturing process, the Python of today is as far removed from the "original" Python as today's 29s are.
The overall outline of the gun is the same. The lockwork is, essentially, the same, and operates in the same manner.
Everything else is pretty much window dressing designed to make the gun less expensive to manufacture.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Hey Sam,
Do you know the words to "Getting your keister wrapped around an unimportant axel"?
I can play it on my gitbox, but I don't know the words.
Do you know the words to "Getting your keister wrapped around an unimportant axel"?
I can play it on my gitbox, but I don't know the words.