smith and wesson classic line.

[upstate81]

Do the new smith and wesson classic line revolvers come with no dash model numbers and hammer mounted firing pins? My buddy bought a model 36 last night that has no pinned barrel and and says only model 36 on it. It has no Hillary hole which ive read is an option on some of these guns. The gun doesnt have the diamond grips like shown on the website. Serial number prefix is BAE which i cant seem to find in the book i did see BEA however. I believe this is a new example of the famous chiefs special. Any thought?

 

[laytonj1]

Serial number prefix is BAE

That serial prefix dates it to 1988.
Production of the Chiefs Special began in 1950. In 1953 they dropped the trigger guard screw and in 1955 the upper side plate screw. In 1957 it became the model 36. The diamond grips ended around 1968 and S&W dropped the pinned barrels around 1982. It was discontinued (except for occasional special runs) in 1999. Years later they brought them back with the new Classic Series with the extra side plate screw, diamond grips and internal lock.

Jim

 

[Slamfire]

I miss the hammer mounted firing pin and the pinned barrel. I hate recessed cylinders, hard to clean out. I called S&W and asked about the hammer mounted firing pin. I prefer the hammer mounted firing pin because that mechanism provides more energy to the primer, assuming same strength of mainspring. Mechanisms that use transfer bars, the impact energy gets reduced through inefficient energy transfer between parts. Call it entropy: in every energy conversion, you loose energy. Therefore, the direct strike of a hammer mounted firing pin is more likely to provide positive ignition, even as the mainspring weakens. The old Colt SAA was an example of a mechanism with a massive surplus of hammer strike force. Big hammer, huge arc, and a hammer mounted firing pin. That pistol had a reputation for igniting cartridges even in the coldest weather. Frontier cowboys liked it, and one reason was, as long as you could thumb the hammer back, it would fire. The trigger could break, even other parts, but as long as you could manually rotate the cylinder in place and thumb the hammer back, the thing would go bang!

Anyway, S&W said frame milling for the hammer mounted firing pin required a special dedicated machine, that was expensive, and it is now gone. It is not coming back. I always "felt" better having a pinned barrel, never had a barrel unscrew, but having a pin there reassured me that it was not going to unscrew as long as the pin was in place.

 

[upstate81]

Ah ok well that sums it all up thanks for the help.

 

[michael t]

All my S&W have a proper firing pin and most have pin barrels I don't want these new models . I want 13, 15, 19 , 36,37, 49 and so on. A good used can be bought same or less than these new ones.

 

[upstate81]

I didnt see that pre fix anywhere in the book. Can someone cite the page number?

 

[upstate81]

Also seems odd its a no dash gun. However in the book it states that the -1 guns were only in 1967 with a 3 inch heavy barrel. So does that mean all other 36s were marked as 36 no dash until 1988 when the -2 came about?

 

[MrBorland]

I prefer the hammer mounted firing pin because that mechanism provides more energy to the primer, assuming same strength of mainspring. Mechanisms that use transfer bars, the impact energy gets reduced through inefficient energy transfer between parts.

Just to be clear - S&Ws with a frame-mounted firing pin don't use a transfer bar. They utilize a hammer block, same as S&Ws with hammer-mounted firing pins. A hammer block and transfer bar are very different, the former being a safety device that doesn't participate in the FP strike of the primer when the trigger's pulled.

As far as hammer-mounted FPs being more efficient, that's debatable. The frame-mounted FP still offers a direct strike. Some small energy is absorbed by the frame-mounted FP's spring, but some small energy is absorbed rotating the hammer-mounted FP into position when it strikes the frame, so it's probably a wash. My suspicion is that the frame-mounted system is more efficient, since the hammer is a bit lighter, and therefore faster, which helps reliability.

 

[carguychris]

Also seems odd its a no dash gun. However in the book it states that the -1 guns were only in 1967 with a 3 inch heavy barrel. So does that mean all other 36s were marked as 36 no dash until 1988 when the -2 came about?

Yes, that is exactly what it means.

The Model 36 is unusual in that S&W did not give it a new dash number upon elimination of the barrel pin in 1982. It continued to be produced in no-dash and -1 form despite the change.

To further confuse matters, a 3" tapered barrel was also used on the no-dash gun. Only the 3" heavy barrel was the -1. This throws some folks off because they don't realize the difference, or that more than one type of 3" barrel was even offered (both are quite uncommon).

I'll admit that I'm ignorant with respect to the hammer-mounted firing pin, but I can tell you that the guns in the Classic line are NOT built the same as a gin-yu-wine vintage Smith. They have "The Lock" and the J frames are built on the elongated J Magnum frame introduced in 1996. Notably, the new frame design has the cylinder retaining lug (known as the frame lug in S&W parlance) built into the frame rather than being a separate and much smaller part that's pinned in place; on the new guns, the lug is a tapered projecting vertical rib along the port side of the frame. Lastly, the laminated "Dymondwood" stocks don't really look the same as the solid wood stocks on the older guns; for lack of a better description, they look too perfect.

I hate recessed cylinders, hard to clean out.

Good thing that the M36 was never produced with those.

The recessed cylinders were only used on pre-1982 non-L-frame centerfire Magnums, and on almost all post-1935 rimfire Smiths, including today's production.

My suspicion is that the frame-mounted system is more efficient, since the hammer is a bit lighter, and therefore faster, which helps reliability.

Correct. It's also much easier to fit replacement pins, and there's no need to shape the firing pin bushing to accommodate a pin that's traveling in an arched path.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I didnt see that pre fix anywhere in the book. Can someone cite the page number?

I assume you are talking the Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson by Supica and Nahas? I have the 3rd edition open in front of me. On page 400, under All Other Revolver Models, for January of 1988 the listing of prefixes is AYE-AYM. For July of 1988 the listing is BBF. That leads me to assume that BAE occurred sometime after AYM and before BBF. All caveats regarding assumptions hold true. Plus, note the disclaimer at the top of the page that SN start dates are approximate, and 'not all serial prefix letters were used to completion.'

Yup, according to SCSW the Model 36 no dash was made up until 1988 despite numerous engineering changes, including omitting the pinned barrel.

Anyway, S&W said frame milling for the hammer mounted firing pin required a special dedicated machine, that was expensive, and it is now gone. It is not coming back. I always "felt" better having a pinned barrel, never had a barrel unscrew, but having a pin there reassured me that it was not going to unscrew as long as the pin was in place.

They gave you an incomplete answer. In the old days, before CNC, many operations at S&W were performed on machinery dedicated to performing one specific task. Milling the slot in the hammer for the hammer mounted firing pin was probably done that way. One guy would have fired up that machine and milled dozens of hammers in one sitting. Plus the hammer would then have to be drilled for the rivet that held the firing pin in place. After all that was done, the hammer had to be heat treated for the classic S&W Case Hardening. Then it all had to be assembled.

Milling the slot in the frame for the firing pin to pass through may also have been a separate operation.

But what they didn't tell you is it is just CHEAPER to produce hammers that don't have firing pins in them. Hammers today are made by the Metal Injection Molding (MIM) process. Part of the cost savings with MIM parts is they are designed to emerge from the process as finished parts, without any further machining operations necessary. So it is simply CHEAPER for S&W to make MIM hammers today, that are completely finished, without needing further machining and assembly to pop a firing pin in place. Adding the frame mounted firing pin is also CHEAPER.

Here is a photo of the firing pin assembly removed from a Model 617-6. All that had to happen to the frame was drill a stepped hole for the firing pin and spring to sit in, and a cross hole for a retaining pin to secure the firing pin in place. The retaining pin is held in place when the side plate is screwed in place. This is called 'driving the cost' out of manufacturing. Bottom line is, S&W saves money producing revolvers this way.

P.S. I agree that probably very little energy is lost smacking a separate firing pin. Springs are very carefully specified. The return spring for the firing pin and the associated friction probably does not eat up much of the mainspring's energy.

 

[Slamfire]

But what they didn't tell you is it is just CHEAPER to produce hammers that don't have firing pins in them. Hammers today are made by the Metal Injection Molding (MIM) process. Part of the cost savings with MIM parts is they are designed to emerge from the process as finished parts, without any further machining operations necessary. So it is simply CHEAPER for S&W to make MIM hammers today, that are completely finished, without needing further machining and assembly to pop a firing pin in place. Adding the frame mounted firing pin is also CHEAPER.

You provided a better explanation than S&W. It was all about the cost savings.

Here is a photo of the firing pin assembly removed from a Model 617-6. All that had to happen to the frame was drill a stepped hole for the firing pin and spring to sit in, and a cross hole for a retaining pin to secure the firing pin in place. The retaining pin is held in place when the side plate is screwed in place. This is called 'driving the cost' out of manufacturing. Bottom line is, S&W saves money producing revolvers this way.

Great picture!

 

[laytonj1]

That leads me to assume that BAE occurred sometime after AYM and before BBF.

That's how I interpret it.

Jim

 

[upstate81]

Thanks a bunch guys. Yes thats the exact book i was referring to. I have it but was thrown off by not physically seeing the serial prefix. Will be much easier to navigate through the book next time i need it. I did think it was odd not having a dash and no pinned barrel. Now i know if i see a 36-1 to buy it without hesitation!