Which manufacturer makes the simplest DA revolvers?
- Thread starter Oleg Volk
- Start date
, whose designs are mechanically simplest? Does that simplicity translate into improved longevity or no?SW has the cleanest design of all. easiest to work on and tune up the triggers. Their main problem right now is they don't fit their guns properly any more during the manufacturing process (which is why I'm paying a "nearly new" price for a used one).
Longevity is the result of :
1) how well the parts are made
2) how well they are put together.
IMO, none of the major makers are doing a good job at that lately.
Longevity is the result of :
1) how well the parts are made
2) how well they are put together.
IMO, none of the major makers are doing a good job at that lately.
Dfariswheel
New member
For sheer simplicity, it doesn't get much simpler than the Colt Trooper Mark 3/King Cobra. There are very few parts, notibly fewer than S&W.
The Colt's are basically a hammer, trigger, bolt, and transfer bar.
Master gunsmith Jerry Kunhausen is of the opinion that the Colt transfer bar guns, may well be the strongest DA revolvers ever.
The Colt's are basically a hammer, trigger, bolt, and transfer bar.
Master gunsmith Jerry Kunhausen is of the opinion that the Colt transfer bar guns, may well be the strongest DA revolvers ever.
I am most familiar with Smith and Wessons and Ruger and know little about Colts, Dan Wessons, or Webleys (for sure). I get the point about parts being well-designed and well-fitted, i.e. Smith and Wesson, and I understand that the Ruger manufacturing process leaves a bit to be desired in the fitting area sometimes, IMO, but I don't quite get the dismissals of Ruger from the "simplest" category. What is the reason for the prompt dismissal of the Rugers from the list? Just curious and wanting to expand my knowledge.
Robert Foote
New member
I'm not sure that 'simplest' means anything in this context (as per bountyh's post). DA revolvers may be 'simple' to the eye, but let something subtle be out of whack and the fun begins--even with a S&W. Rugers were essentially designed to be thrown together and work, and unless severely abused do. I admit to having been puzzled by at least one Ruger, and it took the factory two tries to get it figured out, too.
I think it comes down to good design, quality and fitting also. There was a reason why S&W owned the police market when the revolver was king. To me the whole issue was summed up a few years ago when an old gentleman in CA (!) used a Model 10 that had not been fired in 50 years to drop a burglar. So in one package you had a gun that Ed McGivern could set records with or leave neglected for five decades--and both found it good. It was also good enough for Jim Cirillo to drop 3 BGs all of whom were shooting at him. (Makes me suspect that the Glock is over-rated...)
I think it comes down to good design, quality and fitting also. There was a reason why S&W owned the police market when the revolver was king. To me the whole issue was summed up a few years ago when an old gentleman in CA (!) used a Model 10 that had not been fired in 50 years to drop a burglar. So in one package you had a gun that Ed McGivern could set records with or leave neglected for five decades--and both found it good. It was also good enough for Jim Cirillo to drop 3 BGs all of whom were shooting at him. (Makes me suspect that the Glock is over-rated...)
Blue Duck357
New member
"Simple" can have different meanings to different people as well.
Low parts count does not necessarily impress me. If you make a removable side plate like S/W you've just raised your parts count by 3 on modern revolvers (plate +2 screws) and added several new areas to worry about tolernces in. But on the other side you've just made the gun MUCH more "simple" to work on if you ever want to tune it or change a part than a solid frame design.
On a prison tour I got to see a zip gun an inmate had made. 6" pipe-endcap-nail-rubber band. Pretty darn simple but I was not impressed
Low parts count does not necessarily impress me. If you make a removable side plate like S/W you've just raised your parts count by 3 on modern revolvers (plate +2 screws) and added several new areas to worry about tolernces in. But on the other side you've just made the gun MUCH more "simple" to work on if you ever want to tune it or change a part than a solid frame design.
On a prison tour I got to see a zip gun an inmate had made. 6" pipe-endcap-nail-rubber band. Pretty darn simple but I was not impressed
Hand_Rifle_Guy
New member
Internally, Webleys are VERY simple. They have fewer moving parts than almost any other gun. The flat mainspring does things with both ends at once, like trigger return and hammer rebound.
Webley's have no sideplate. So much for Ruger's "advanced design."
Of course, some of the Webley's simplicity comes from the fact that some of the parts aren't INSIDE the gun, like the frame-latch. That's got a flat V-spring hanging on the outside of the frame to run the thumblatch. V-springs? On the outside? That's like, snaphaunce-level technology!
Curiously, after the Mk. I, the cylinder release system turned into this Rube-Goldberg assemblage of screw-secured cams living on the OUTSIDE of the gun that hold the cylinder on it's axle. The MK. I just has a great big coin-op screw run crosswise throught the frame just ahead of the holster ears. It runs through the axle shaft and holds the cyllinder forward against the end of the barrel. Somehow that seems simpler than a cam that operates a stirrup-sorta thing that drops to release a ridge on the cylinder, allowing it to be removed. And the cam is held on by yet ANOTHER screw, thats threaded into the center of the frame pivot screw. That's two screws to lose in the field, little ones. Oh well, I guess it worked, as every Webley since has the cam-operated cylinder retainer.
I don't get it. But since things like the frame latch and the cylinder retainer setup are on the gun's exterior, that makes for less "stuff" cluttering up the inside. The Webley's got a hammer, to which is attached the hand, and the cylinder locking bolt. (Webley's have two bolts: the other one's on the trigger.) The hammer is run by the sear, which is run by the trigger. And the Webley hand presses on the cylinder ratchett at the point of ignition, Locking it solidly in place for accuracy, just like a Colt.
WITHOUT Colt fragility, I might add. I have a Webley Mk. I built in something like 1889. The rifling is pretty tired, but the mechanism is crisp, the trigger pulls are excellent, and Webleys are well known for their fortitude under stress. Contemporary Colts like the Lightning and Thunderer DA revolvers were not so blessed.
That's six internal moving parts, counting the mainspring. S&W's have the same set, but they also have a rebound slide and spring, a transfer bar, and right through the middle of that is the cylinder latch mechanism. How is that simpler?
I can take the Webley trigger proup apart with a mainspring clamp, or even a pair of pliers. Two screws, trigger and hammer, and all the parts are loose. S&W's want you read the Kunhausen book first. And COLTS. You can't even watch them run with the sideplate off. They have a STRANGE mechanism.
Webley's are the simplest, inside. Their design qualifies as elegant. And it remained unchanged for a sixty-odd year service life. I dropped a WW-II vintage surplus Mk. VI barrel onto my 1913-vintage Mk. IV with NO fitting. Oil it up, and Plug 'n Play. I suspect the innards will interchange, too. Early American guns just didn't do that. The had to be fitted together from bins of parts by skilled fitters. They'd cobble together a set of parts that worked well together. Webley's just seem to work. Even the grips interchange, regardless of the fact that the Mk. I has a pronounced prawl at the top of the grip, which the Mk. IV lacks. The locating pins, the radius where the grip meets the frame, and the birdshead grip profile are all almost identicle. They're certainly shootable.
Smith's action changed. A bunch. Colts when through three different lockwork systems before they gave up completely.
"To make things complicated is simple, but to make things simple is most complicated."---Georgiy Semenovich Shpagin, the man who designed the PPSh-41 submachinegun.
He has it right. So did Webley & Scott.
Webley's have no sideplate. So much for Ruger's "advanced design."
Of course, some of the Webley's simplicity comes from the fact that some of the parts aren't INSIDE the gun, like the frame-latch. That's got a flat V-spring hanging on the outside of the frame to run the thumblatch. V-springs? On the outside? That's like, snaphaunce-level technology!
Curiously, after the Mk. I, the cylinder release system turned into this Rube-Goldberg assemblage of screw-secured cams living on the OUTSIDE of the gun that hold the cylinder on it's axle. The MK. I just has a great big coin-op screw run crosswise throught the frame just ahead of the holster ears. It runs through the axle shaft and holds the cyllinder forward against the end of the barrel. Somehow that seems simpler than a cam that operates a stirrup-sorta thing that drops to release a ridge on the cylinder, allowing it to be removed. And the cam is held on by yet ANOTHER screw, thats threaded into the center of the frame pivot screw. That's two screws to lose in the field, little ones. Oh well, I guess it worked, as every Webley since has the cam-operated cylinder retainer.
I don't get it. But since things like the frame latch and the cylinder retainer setup are on the gun's exterior, that makes for less "stuff" cluttering up the inside. The Webley's got a hammer, to which is attached the hand, and the cylinder locking bolt. (Webley's have two bolts: the other one's on the trigger.) The hammer is run by the sear, which is run by the trigger. And the Webley hand presses on the cylinder ratchett at the point of ignition, Locking it solidly in place for accuracy, just like a Colt.
WITHOUT Colt fragility, I might add. I have a Webley Mk. I built in something like 1889. The rifling is pretty tired, but the mechanism is crisp, the trigger pulls are excellent, and Webleys are well known for their fortitude under stress. Contemporary Colts like the Lightning and Thunderer DA revolvers were not so blessed.
That's six internal moving parts, counting the mainspring. S&W's have the same set, but they also have a rebound slide and spring, a transfer bar, and right through the middle of that is the cylinder latch mechanism. How is that simpler?
I can take the Webley trigger proup apart with a mainspring clamp, or even a pair of pliers. Two screws, trigger and hammer, and all the parts are loose. S&W's want you read the Kunhausen book first. And COLTS. You can't even watch them run with the sideplate off. They have a STRANGE mechanism.
Webley's are the simplest, inside. Their design qualifies as elegant. And it remained unchanged for a sixty-odd year service life. I dropped a WW-II vintage surplus Mk. VI barrel onto my 1913-vintage Mk. IV with NO fitting. Oil it up, and Plug 'n Play. I suspect the innards will interchange, too. Early American guns just didn't do that. The had to be fitted together from bins of parts by skilled fitters. They'd cobble together a set of parts that worked well together. Webley's just seem to work. Even the grips interchange, regardless of the fact that the Mk. I has a pronounced prawl at the top of the grip, which the Mk. IV lacks. The locating pins, the radius where the grip meets the frame, and the birdshead grip profile are all almost identicle. They're certainly shootable.
Smith's action changed. A bunch. Colts when through three different lockwork systems before they gave up completely.
"To make things complicated is simple, but to make things simple is most complicated."---Georgiy Semenovich Shpagin, the man who designed the PPSh-41 submachinegun.
He has it right. So did Webley & Scott.
Bulletproof D/A mechnisms...
Oleg,
I don't quite know where everybody else is coming from on this, but as far as modern designs go, the Rugers since 1973 are both the simplest and the best, and yes this does translate into longevity- and ease of parts replacement when necessary, without complicated fitting. While the actions on the aforementioned guns are entirely servicable, they are not on par with a slicked-up S&W DA. Neither are they things of beauty. But who cares? They were designed to be just what they are- accurate, hell for stout, reliable to a fault and long-wearing. They met these design parameters quite admirably, and if you were gonna drop me in the wilderness somewhere for 5 years with a thousand rounds for one gun only, it'd be a fixed-sight Ruger D/A revolver.
Oleg,
I don't quite know where everybody else is coming from on this, but as far as modern designs go, the Rugers since 1973 are both the simplest and the best, and yes this does translate into longevity- and ease of parts replacement when necessary, without complicated fitting. While the actions on the aforementioned guns are entirely servicable, they are not on par with a slicked-up S&W DA. Neither are they things of beauty. But who cares? They were designed to be just what they are- accurate, hell for stout, reliable to a fault and long-wearing. They met these design parameters quite admirably, and if you were gonna drop me in the wilderness somewhere for 5 years with a thousand rounds for one gun only, it'd be a fixed-sight Ruger D/A revolver.