Why the shrouded ejector rod on magnums

The S&W Model 65 doesn't have a shrouded ejector.
Click to expand...

Model 58, 41 Magnum has no shroud. You don't know your revolvers very well.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming this is directed towards me? As stated in my second post, I'm referring to snub nosed revolvers. To my knowledge, neither the 65 not 58 were offered in a barrel length of 2.5 inches or less.
 
Without knowing the history or intent, and just looking at them, the first thing that comes to mind for me is how the ramped shroud would prevent snagging on the rod when holstering one.
 
This thread is educational. If someone had asked me earlier I would have guessed it was added to protect the ejector rod and prevent snagging on it.
 
he S&W Model 65 doesn't have a shrouded ejector.
Click to expand...

Model 58, 41 Magnum has no shroud. You don't know your revolvers very well.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out in my earlier post (Post #7) S&W revolvers intended for military and/or police use do not have the shroud.

Further, the third lock originated with the New Century .44 Special. The intent was to insure crane alignment, which, as has been pointed out, has proven to be unnecessary.

Bob Wright
 
In my younger days, I have to say that I had little interest in a revolver than did not have a shrouded ejector rod. That changed with some of the old Colts. But I still prefer the shrouded ejector rod but do not require the full length shroud of say the S&W 686 or 617 or Colt Python. The N frame Smiths are just about right.

I doubt a new revolver by a major manufacture would come with an unshrouded ejector rod as they are simply preferred over the non-shrouded versions.
 
Personally I like the shrouds. They look cool.

But on a combat handgun it's wiser to not have them due to mud and debris getting stuck in the crevices.

Deaf
 
I hate shrouds... I'm sad there is no new Smith revolver in 357 without the shroud... like the beloved 13 I stupidly traded for a 686
 
But on a combat handgun it's wiser to not have them due to mud and debris getting stuck in the crevices.
Click to expand...
Combat handgun? Do you mean on the battle field? The only mud and debris I worry about getting into the shroud of my pocket carry S&W 36, is when I fall down due to old age. That is the closest most of us will come to combat. :p Either that, or if there is mud and debris in my gun, it is because I have already lost the combat.
 
It is a matter of definition. I consider them shrouded myself. Could be wrong, but that is my view.
Click to expand...

Here are some definitions in case you are struggling:
Un-shrouded (M36)
SW36_1_1.jpg


Shrouded (M66)

SW66-4.jpg


Shrouded with full under-lug (M686).
002-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
No struggles on my end. You'll notice on your picture of the M36 that there is no protection beneath the ejector rod... hence un shrouded.
 
No struggles on my end. You'll notice on your picture of the M36 that there is no protection beneath the ejector rod... hence un shrouded.
Click to expand...
Maybe that is why I labeled it as "un-shrouded"?
 
Howdy

There were only three Smith and Wesson side swing revolvers made with no protection for the extractor rod at all; nothing for the front of the rod to latch to.

The 32 Hand Ejector 1st Model (Model of 1896, this one shipped in December of 1896)

32HE1stModel02_zps24dfc040.jpg





And the 38 M&P Models of 1899 and 1902. This Model 1899 shipped in 1902. Yes, it has been refinished.

Model1899.jpg





By 1905, S&W made major changes to the lockwork of the M&P, and the first underlug appeared to latch the front end of the extractor rod. This 38 M&P Model of 1905, First Change left the factory in July of 1906.

MampP5inch01_zps8b5013a7.jpg





Judging from the hammer and front sight shape on this diagram, this cutaway view dates from just before the M&P changed its name to Model 10. The lug under the barrel is called out as the Barrel Lug in this illustration.

Cutaway_S_W_38sp_M_P_zpsda25bd32.jpg





As I stated earlier, the shroud first appeared with the Triple Lock in 1908. Nomenclature seems to vary. The Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson goes back and forth calling it the Ejector Shroud and the Extractor Shroud on various pages.

Nickel plated Triple Lock from that shipped in October of 1915.

triplelocknickel05_zps00475b76.jpg




But for some reason, rather than calling this a Full Length Shroud, the SCSW calls this a Full Lug.

Model 617-6 that shipped in July of 2003. The only MIM parts/Lock/Full Lug Smith that I own.

model617-6_zps562f28e0.jpg
 
Last edited:
This is a bit after the fact I understand, but there are at least 2 examples of Magnum round Smith & Wesson revolvers that do not in fact have a shroud. The Model 13 is a .357 mag that has an exposed rod (.357 version of a Model 10 (other than caliber which includes a slightly longer cylinder, it is identical with a 3 inch barrel as the shortest option) or a shroudless, fixed sight version of a Model 19). Also, the Model 58 is a shroudless, fixed sight version of the Model 57 in .41 mag. It was intended to be a desirable option for law enforcement, but so it was toned down and cheaper than the 57. However, most departments turned it down due to recoil. I do believe the San Francisco Highway Patrol did allow the Model 57 to be used as a sidearm for officers, but I don't know if any other department did or not. Hope this helps (years after the fact).
 
I learned something new with this thread. Did not know about the mud and debris thing.



I was always partial to the shroud because "why not?". I figured the protection was worth it. But the mud and debris aspect is the answer to that question.
 
I've seen some old model Smiths that shot .45ACP and some Colts without shrouded ejector rod.
Being old the looseness might have been to inattention to good lube but the bent ones, I'm sure pocket or a holster edge caused some bending.
Shrouding and the ejector rod is protected.
 
This is easily explained. An exposed ejector is a bad idea. An expensive magnum gun can be fitted with a shroud without adding much extra to the price. It could even be soldered on as the barrel is fitted, but it still costs money.

Only a few of us will remember that some rifles in the past weren't drilled for scopes. Now, many of them don't have iron sights
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top