Why the shrouded ejector rod on magnums

[1911_Hardball]

Why shrouded ejector rods?
When Bill Jordan was consulting with smith & Wesson on the development of the Model 19 he suggested the shroud and was asked that very question by a Smith & Wesson employee.
His answer was something like "To protect it in case someone accidentally bumps his head on my gun."

 

[Jim Watson]

Bill Jordan also said "It is often easier to convince the coroner's jury that you did not shoot somebody too much than it is to show you did not hit him too hard."

 

[dgludwig]

One somewhat esoteric advantage an unshrouded ejector rod might have over one that is shrouded is if the ejector rod somehow gets slightly bent while the cylinder is open. In such an albeit unlikely event, the cylinder associated with the bent ejector rod could be closed on an unshrouded revolver. It would be well-nigh impossible to close the cylinder on a revolver with a shroud having an even slightly bent ejector rod.

 

[tipoc]

Thread started over 2 year ago, but what the heck!

As stated the shroud first showed up on the N frame Triple Lock--New Century. Chambered in the non magnum (because there were no magnum rounds yet) 44 Spl. and a few other rounds. When WWI began S&W began clambering the the guns in 455 for the British.

The British, as said earlier, found that they fouled easily in the trenches, dirt and mud in the shroud. Geoffery Boothroyd tells us that the British (some of them anyway) favored the Colt New Service which was not only unshrouded but also heavier and stronger. "A real man's gun" Boothroyd called it.

Neither the M1917 by Colt nor S&W had a shroud. Both had long favorable service lives in a number of wars and places.

The 38/44 Heavy Duty and the Outdoorsman both had Shrouds and they were in 38 Spl.

Then S&W did it with the 357 Magnum. That gun also had the raised rib on top of the barrel that increased the weight of the barrel for better recoil control.

It took S&W and Colt awhile to figure out that heavier barrels helped in recoil control and they preferred it in some guns.

The shroud increased the weight, protected the ejector rod (the latter here was a selling point against Colt), looked good and was a marketing point against competitors. An S&W trademark bit of flair. An M19 looks so much better than an M13 in part because of the adjustable sights and the shroud.

tipoc

 

[44 AMP]

Personally, I think the British saying "mud in the trenches" was the reason they didn't want a shroud was just the excuse used to save a few shillings...

Face it, every revolver has a lot of holes, slots, and openings where dirt can get in. The British Webley literally opens in half, leaving a HUGE area for mud etc. And the British were fine with that....

trench mud..riiiiight...


(not saying it wasn't a valid concern, but EVERY revolver is at risk that way, and the British Service revolver (top break) was worse than the S&W, to my way of thinking...)

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Personally, I think the British saying "mud in the trenches" was the reason they didn't want a shroud was just the excuse used to save a few shillings..."

Having actually had an S&W jam because of debris in the ejector rod housing, I have no doubt that the British actually knew what the hell they were talking about.



"Face it, every revolver has a lot of holes, slots, and openings where dirt can get in. The British Webley literally opens in half, leaving a HUGE area for mud etc. And the British were fine with that...."

And, almost universally, those holes are EASY to get schmudtz OUT of again because they're wide open, bored through, etc.

The ejector rod housing isn't. It's a catchment area that takes time and effort to get schmudtz out of.

In a lot of ways, the break-top Webley was far EASIER than the S&W to clean because it was so wide open.

 

[tipoc]

It may be just a bit more trouble to get mud and grit out of this area of the New Century...






Than this area of a New Service...



But that's just me.

tipoc

 

[Ibmikey]

Ericktalksalot, San Francisco does not have a highway patrol, the PD did at one time equip their officers with the mod 58 41 mag but they proved unsuccessful as the average officer could not effectively handle he magnum load. The revolvers were traded in to a police supply for 38 caliber ( as I recall) and the LE supply that took them on trade stopped at our dept. where I and several other officers purchased a sample clearly marked "San Francisco P. D. I loaded the cartridge down and my example shot quite well but as all good things it was traded off years ago.

 

[briandg]

I seriously dislike one of my Colts. It has no ejector rod shroud, so no front luck. I don't consider a hand to be an effective lock, it offers nothing that binds it in place the only try lock is the rod into the breech face. The cylinder actually has a little play.

Shroud and triple lock should have been a standard all along. Maybe it was unnecessary, but doing things the way that they should be done isn't always completely necessary.

 

[Model12Win]

The 65s were made w/o shrounds. Works fine.

Modern .357s are all overbuilt mostly. The gun companies think "mo' steel" equals "mo' betta" as it were. Look at a GP100, it is a boat anchor for the .357 S&W Magnum cartridge.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy Again

A short history of shrouds under the barrels of large frame S&W revolvers.

The 44 Hand Ejector 1st Model (Triple Lock) had to have the shroud because it housed the mechanism for the 3rd lock.

Yes, the British did complain about mud getting into the area where the extractor rod sat under combat conditions.

Triple Lock production ended in 1915. It was immediately followed by the 44 Hand Ejector 2nd Model, which lacked the 3rd latch and therefore did not need a shroud. Why did S&W choose to put the 3rd latch in? Nobody really knows. Yes, it was unnecessary. It also added to the cost of the revolver. Roy Jinks states in his book, The History of Smith and Wesson, that eliminating the Triple Lock mechanism brought the retail cost of the 2nd model down to $19 from the $21 price tag of the Triple Lock.

This 44 HE 2nd Model shipped in 1921.

In 1926 Wolf & Klar, a large Texas S&W distributor placed a large order for 44 caliber revolvers. It seems the idea of an underbarrel shroud had taken hold, and Wolf & Klar specified they wanted underbarrel shrouds with this order, despite the fact that the 3rd latch was now long gone.

This well worn and refinished 44 Hand Ejector 3rd Model shipped in 1929 and was carried by an officer during WWII.

When the 38-44 Heavy Duty, the predecessor to the 357 Magnum, was developed in 1930, it along with the 38-44 Outdoorsman had the under barrel shroud.

This 38-44 Heavy Duty shipped in 1931.

After that, pretty much all the N frame Smiths came with an underbarrel shroud.

44 Hand Ejector 4th Model, that shipped in 1955.