Won this rust locked up S&W 1917 snubbie at auction yesterday

[Mike Irwin]

Oh boy, where do I start...

"As to whether the sideplate was supposed to be crosshatched like that on its backside I have no idea."

I do. No, it's not. Someone did that at some point in the sideplate's life. It was not done at the factory.

"My hammer block is a long piece that follows a long slot on the left side of the revolver..."

No, not it is not. That is the cylinder release. Yes, it blocks the action from being operated when the cylinder is out of battery, but once the cylinder is in place it does NOTHING to block the hammer and prevent accidental firing of the gun. It is not a hammer block safety.

Your gun MAY be one of the ones that was made without a hammer block safety. I'm looking at the clearest picture you have of the sideplate, and it doesn't appear that it has the wing hammer block safety.

As such, you should never carry a round under the hammer.

 

[Bill Akins]

This is the first S&W 1917 I've had apart. Owned one 30 years ago, didn't have it long, never had it apart. Just got two recently and this is the first time I've been inside a 1917.

I do get what you're saying Mike, but then what about my hammer rebounding back to a safe position when I release the trigger? Doesn't that part that rebounds the hammer also function to block the hammer unless the trigger is depressed?



.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Doesn't that part that rebounds the hammer also function to block the hammer unless the trigger is depressed?"

Yes.

But, unlike a properly operating wing hammer block or the L hammer block, it won't block the firing pin from hitting a primer if there is a critical failure of the hammer itself.

If there is no hammer block safety, or the wing safety is malfunctioning, and safety depends on just the rebound hump, a strong enough blow on the hammer spur could break the hammer above the rebound and allow the firing pin to impact a primer with sufficient force to fire the gun.

This is what happened to the sailor that I mentioned.

The wing safety and the L safety are both designed to operate so that, when the action is at rest, there is a chunk of metal physically in between the frame and the face of the hammer.

With that there, there's no way for the firing pin to hit a primer even if the hammer fails in some manner.

 

[Bill Akins]

I see. Good to know. Thanks for that info Mike. I'll just carry five loaded cartridges in it to be safe unless I'm loading and then going to immediately be shooting.


Also I couldn't remember exactly what the back of that S&W logo'd backplate looked like. So I dug it out of the baggie I have stored it in, and it isn't crosshatched at all. Those are little tiny kind of rectangular looking bump marks on the back of it. In my photo it looked like it was deeper crosshatched, but it isn't. Little bumpmarks that you can barely feel that make a design that in my bad photo looked like deeper crosshatching.
Not sure what those little bump marks are for. But when I run my fingers over them I can barely feel them. They appear to have been tooled into the back of the sideplate at the same time as the two circular marks since they seem to match the same tooling depth done on the outside of the circular tool marks. Like I said, it looks factory to me. I don't think they would have been done after factory, because being so shallow they can barely be felt, they serve no purpose I can think of. So I don't see why anyone would do it after factory. Maybe it was a wartime expedient or something to speed up production or something, where it was easier to mill them out like that rather than have the side totally flat? I actually have no idea. There is a number stamped in the cutout for the cylinder pawl on the sideplate. It is 3551. Does that tell you anything?



.

 

[Bill Akins]

Sure am having fun restoring this snubby 1917 S&W revolver.

Latest update for today.

Laid a half sheet of 220 grit, wet/dry sandpaper on the very flat counter top, then flat sanded the sideplate till all the pits were out of it. Then did the same flat sanding using 600 grit. That got all the pits out of the sideplate and got it ready for buffing.

My deburring/polishing scotchbrite wheel came in today. Got it installed on my buffer motor and in about a half hour had the frame cylinder, yoke and a few other parts de-pitted and almost buffed out. Then I took the scotchbrite wheel off and went back to my fabric wheel with white rouge for the high polish.

Buffed some more using that. Got everything highly mirror polished until I could see my face and teeth clearly in it. Here's some pics.....

Yep, even buffed/polished out the lanyard ring. Ejector rod too (but not the knurled part) but forgot to include it in the pic. For anyone new reading this without following the rest of this thread, this is NOT a nickel nor stainless revolver but is the "in the white", highly buffed out, polished carbon steel, of the 1917 S&W.....

When I was looking at the below pic, I wondered what the heck was that round thing in my sideplate? Then I realized it was the flush mount ceiling light fixture reflecting in my sideplate! Lol.

In this below pic you can see the bill of my baseball hat and the lens of the camera (that looks like a barrel muzzle) reflecting back from the sideplate as I took the picture.....

It is so mirror finish shiny now it is hard to take pictures of it since everything relects off the highly polished surfaces.....

Only spent about maybe an hour or so tops (sometimes lose track of time working in the shop) using the scotchbrite wheel and fabric wheel to get the surfaces to this condition. Looks pretty good. But I still can turn it in the light and see a few tiny lines in the frame exterior, so I'll be buffing it some more til I'm satisfied with it.

I'd post some more after I am completely finished with the buffing to my satisfaction, but since my camera won't even do justice to what I've buffed so far, it would be fruitless. So the next time I'll post is after I get it hot tank blued and all finished.

I have it in a flat pan in the house. It won't rust between now and tomorrow when I will buff on it again til I get it just like I want it. Then when I am satisfied with the buffing, I'll wash it off good with hot soapy water to get all the buffing rouge off it, then dry it with a hair dryer, then immerse it in oil in the pan to prevent the air from hitting it til I can get it to someone to hot tank blue it.


All for now.



.

 

[Webleymkv]

If the replacement sideplate has the slot for the newer style sliding hammer block, is there any reason why one could not simply install the newer style hammer block into the gun and thus make it safe to carry fully loaded? I'm thinking that, because the newer style sideplate is already there, all one would need is the hammer block itself and possibly a newer style rebound slide. Of course adding later-style parts hurts the collector value, but the gun's value is almost entirely as a shooter at this point anyway.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Interesting thought.

You'd definitely need a new rebound slide, one with the stud on it that activates the "L" hammer block.

I hadn't considered this before, but I think that's exactly how Springfield and Smith & Wesson modified about 50,000 K frames during the last year or so of World War II.

The only isssue I can think of off the top of my head would be the rebound slide's dimensions.

This is an older 'Long Throw' action, virtually all of the N frames made with the L hammer block are the short throw.

I don't know for certain if the long throw rebound slide has different dimensions or not, but that would be easy for me to check out as I have both long and short throw action N frames at home.

 

[Bill Akins]

Yesterday I installed a Wolf reduced power spring kit in my other S&W 1917 that's in matte nickel. It gave me a dramatic difference in double action trigger pull. So since I had the factory hammer spring and trigger return spring now as extras from my matte nickel 1917, I felt safe in working on the springs in my restored, highly polished "in the white" S&W 1917 snubby barrel. Figuring if I messed up its springs, I had spares to replace them.

So I took two coils off the factory trigger return spring and with my bench grinder I removed some metal off both sides of the factory hammer spring. Buffed the edges and cold blued the metal where I cut grinded and buffed it, then reinstalled them in the revolver. Worked very well. Not quite as slick and lightened as the Wolf kit on my other 1917 S&W, but very close. I didn't want to take off too much. You have to be careful to not take too many coils off the trigger return spring or remove too much metal from the hammer mainspring else you make them too light and ruin them. It's easy to remove metal but impossible to put metal back on a spring if you remove too much. Very happy with the results of both the Wolf reduced spring kit and my own home modified springs. Double actions are very slick and easy now. But not too easy. Want those primers to always pop when struck.

I gauged the trigger pull of both my matte finish 1917 and my polished snubby 1917, against my blue commercial 1917 and the commercial model was already just as slick and easy to pull as the Wolf springs in my matte nickel one were. I haven't been inside the commercial model yet, but I can tell it either has the Wolf spring kit in it, or else it has had work done on the action, because it is the slickest of all three so I don't need to mess with its springs at all.

I recommend the Wolf reduced power spring kit. And you can do almost the same thing modifying the factory springs....but be careful to not remove too much when modifying the factory springs and make sure you have spares before you try it.


Also this week I received the shot out rifling barrel that Smith and Wesson forum member "Jack the Toad" sent me to get the front sight off of to put on my snubby barrel. Heated the barrel and front sight up with my torch and the sight fell right off. Cleaned it up good and will be attaching it to my snubby barrel real soon. Will posts pics when I get it attached.


.

 

[newfrontier45]

Barrel looks like 4" to me and I wouldn't call that a snubby.

You definitely paid too much for it. The only saving grace is the Sambar stags. Without them, you would paid waaaaay too much for it. Makes me wish I had posted an ad in the classifieds for my completely worn out .38-44 a couple years ago instead of selling it at a gun show for $150.

Although it does look like a fun project. I talked to Hamilton Bowen about "fixing" a Triple Lock that had been cut to 3.5" and he said there was no elegant way to replace the front sight.

 

[9mm]

How did you clean that up? did you boil it and removed the rust that way? I got a old rust bucket 32 revolver that my grand father gave me, it was his dads ccw in the 50-70's or so. The timing is way off and doesn't lock up. I just like to remove the rust and look nice.

 

[Bill Akins]

NewFrontier45 wrote:
Barrel looks like 4" to me and I wouldn't call that a snubby.

You definitely paid too much for it. The only saving grace is the Sambar stags. Without them, you would paid waaaaay too much for it. Makes me wish I had posted an ad in the classifieds for my completely worn out .38-44 a couple years ago instead of selling it at a gun show for $150.

Although it does look like a fun project. I talked to Hamilton Bowen about "fixing" a Triple Lock that had been cut to 3.5" and he said there was no elegant way to replace the front sight.

I can't account for what it looks like to you NewFrontier45. But it isn't a 4 inch barrel. It is just a tad under 3.5 inches from the front of the cylinder to muzzle. Anything under 4 inches I call a "snubby". Perhaps your opinion of a "snubby" is different and that is fine. But compared to its original 5.5 inch barrel, it being cut down to a 3.5 inch qualifies it in my mind as a "snubby" compared to its previous 5.5 inch barrel.

I have to respectfully disagree with you when you say I paid too much for it. I constantly monitor firearm auctions all the time. And not just at Gunbroker. Have you checked to see what 1917 S&W's are going for? Between 7 to 8 hundred just for a worn shooter! I don't think $350.00 for mine was too out of line in relation to the prices they currently go for. You say that "the only saving grace was the sambar stag grips". Really? So in your opinion the revolver was worthless and only worth the grips? Did you look at the fine condition I have this revolver in now that I have shown in this thread with just a little work on my part?

In light of you selling your (worn out or not) 38-44 for $150.00 a couple of years ago, that indicates you don't know the prices these antique S&W's go for. There are collectors at the Smith and Wesson forum that would have been happy to give you almost double what you sold yours for. By your own admission of making a mistake underselling yours, perhaps you shouldn't be too quick to judge me or be critical for my buying one for $350.00 (that I have since turned into a jewel) before you first brush up on what they are selling for. To you it may be a "worn out gun". To someone else with the ability and knowledge, it may be the start of an easy restoration project that will be worth much more when finished.

The only valid thing is I am happy with it, happy with what I paid for it, and happy how it turned out with my restoring it. Have I gotten better deals in the past? Sure. As an example I recently bought a real nice matte nickel 1917 from my cousin for $350.00 also. That was a better deal than the $350.00 I paid for my "snubby". But what I paid for my "snubby" 1917 wasn't out of line either in my opinion and according to what they sell for.

"Elegant" is a subjective term in the eye of the beholder. But I know how you can replace your front sight on your 3.5 inch barrel triple lock so it looks just like it did before only on a shorter barrel. Like I am doing, get yourself another shot out barrel of the same vintage and manufacturer and remove the sight off it. You may have to cut the sight off and file its bottom flat. Then mill or file a shallow flat onto the top of your barrel just big enough for where the sight will sit, correctly align the sight and silver solder the sight onto the barrel. It will look just as "elegant" as it did before only on a shorter barrel. Not hard to do. If I can do it, anybody can do it.



.

 

[Bill Akins]

9mm wrote:
How did you clean that up? did you boil it and removed the rust that way? I got a old rust bucket 32 revolver that my grand father gave me, it was his dads ccw in the 50-70's or so. The timing is way off and doesn't lock up. I just like to remove the rust and look nice.

Nope I didn't boil it. First I cleaned it in mineral spirits, then rubbed the heaviest rust off with a wood block and oil (like my old Marine drill instructor taught me to do). Then I did a lot of just rubbing it with my fingers with oil and a rag to smooth and get more surface rust off. You'd be surprised how much rust you can rub off with just your fingers with oil and a rag. Plus that will show you by doing that where any burrs or rust spots are just by feel without even looking at it. Which will help you later on the buffing wheel when you are looking to buff out burrs and the worst rust spots. You will remember where they are because you felt them hundreds of times while you were hand rubbing it.

Then I bought this scotch brite deburring wheel to install on my bench grinder from Enco......

Which you can get the same one at this link......
http://www.use-enco.com/CGI/INSRIT?PARTPG=INLMKD&PMPXNO=34189197&PMAKA=PL505-6161

The scotch brite deburring wheel can actually give you a mirror buff polish too. But it takes off material much faster than a standard fabric buffing wheel using rouge will. Really makes the rust removal and polishing process go much much faster. I removed most of the rust using the deburring wheel. Actually most of it was surface rust that looked bad but wasn't really that deep and for the most part buffed off easily with the deburring wheel. It looked much worse than it was. Some people not realizing might think it was a piece of rusty junk, but I recognized that it wasn't. If you know how to fix things you can get a good deal on something that just needs a little TLC restoration that will come out great and be worth much more than others may have realized.

Then I used my dremel motor tool to buff out the spots I couldn't reach with the deburring wheel. Then I went over the whole thing using my standard fabric buffing wheel using rouge to give it that high mirror polish it has now. I actually buffed it out again a second time using my fabric wheel with rouge because I cold blued it after the first buffing and wasn't satisfied with the cold blue finish, so I buffed the cold blue off it. It looks like a highly polished nickel plated gun now. It is so smooth, feeling it in the hand feels like a super smooth old bar of soap. And someone once told me that's how a fine old revolver should feel. Mine looks and operates like a jewel now.

So 9mm, just get yourself that deburring wheel and a standard fabric wheel and some rouge, and perhaps use a small buffing tool in a dremel, and you too can get all that rust off your rusty .32 that your grandfather gave you, and polish it to a beautiful mirror finish. It's not hard at all to do. You will be surprised at how beautiful you can make what previously looked ugly and others not knowing better, thought it was just a rusty old piece of junk scrap.

Then you can elect to either keep it highly polished "in the white" (polished bare steel) like I've decided to do, or else cold blue it or have it hot tank blued. It is hard for rust to form on a very smooth highly polished surface like this. Rust likes pits and craters to form in. It has a harder time taking hold on a very smooth surface. I've decided to keep mine "in the white". That way I never have to touch up a worn finish and if it ever does get a spot on it, I can easily buff it back out to a mirror polish again without having to worry about messing up the finish or re-finishing it again. There are fellows at the Smith and Wesson forum that have said they have kept their revolver likewise polished up "in the white" for five years and never had any rust form on them as long as they kept them rubbed down and oiled. As much as I handle and rub this one practically every day, rust will never have a chance to take hold. It's kind of nice not having to worry about the finish. It it get a scratch on it, I can just buff it out to mirror polish again without worrying about a finish. It's a good grade of steel to begin with and won't rust easily anyway once highly polished.

Anyway, that's the answer to your question of what I did to clean mine up 9mm. Get you that scotchbrite wheel from Enco and a standard fabric polishing wheel (and rouge) that both fit on a bench grinder and you'll have a ball like I did bringing that old rusty revolver back to a thing of beauty. Give it a try. As you can see from what I did....it works.


.

 

[Dragline45]

I have all my stainless revolvers polished up to a mirror finish, only problem is it becomes an obsession keeping it like that. When polished to such a high mirror finish it will show scratch marks even from things like blue jeans rubbing across them. Needless to say I go through a lot of mothers mag polish. But like you said its good to know anything short of a chunk gouged out can usually be repaired with some mildly abrasive wet-dry and some polishing compound.

 

[newfrontier45]

Sorry Bill, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. No, I didn't undersell mine. The mistake was paying $200 for it. By the time I paid to fix it, I would've easily had more invested in it than I could've bought a nice one for. No sir, only a sucker would've paid me double for it. I was lucky to get $150 for it. Just like the guy you bought yours from was lucky. I'm not trying to pee in your cornflakes but you did post this whole project on the internet. You're gonna get opinions from all directions. Mine, after 25yrs of buying and selling guns as my primary interest and passion, is that you paid too much for it. As has been stated, the going prices of whole examples is irrelevant. If I walked into a shop and saw that sixgun sitting there, rusted and locked up, with a price tag of $350, I would shake my head and walk away. Was only six months ago that I paid as much for a mechanically perfect, uncut, unmodified, slightly freckled model 27.

I have to respectfully disagree with you...

A respectful disagreement wouldn't be so riddled with condescension.

But I know how you can replace your front sight on your 3.5 inch barrel triple lock so it looks just like it did before only on a shorter barrel.

Yes, I'm sure you know better than the finest revolversmith extant.

...happy how it turned out with my restoring it.

Yes, that is the only important thing but that's not a restoration. Maybe if you don't know the difference, that explains this little disagreement.


I also hope you polished that thing with the sideplate in place.

 

[Bill Akins]

I don't understand why you are accusing me of being condescending NewFrontier45. I don't believe I have written anything to be so. You do indeed want to pee in my cereal or you wouldn't be so tritely criticizing me about about what I paid for my revolver, calling me "condescending" and then rudely telling me things like "Yes, I'm sure you know better than the finest revolversmith extant ", ....when I never claimed to know more than that person does.

NewFrontier45 wrote:
Sorry Bill, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. No, I didn't undersell mine.

Yet you wrote this below....

NewFrontier45 wrote:
Makes me wish I had posted an ad in the classifieds for my completely worn out .38-44 a couple years ago instead of selling it at a gun show for $150.

When you wrote you "wish" you had sold it in the "classifieds" for more money, a reasonable person would assume that shows you regretting underselling it and not selling it for more money. Maybe that wasn't what you meant, but that's what you wrote.

NewFrontier45 wrote:
By the time I paid to fix it, I would've easily had more invested in it than I could've bought a nice one for.

"By the time I paid to fix it....".
That's the difference here. I didn't pay someone to fix mine. I fixed it myself. I don't learn anything having someone else fix my guns.

NewFrontier45 wrote:
No sir, only a sucker would've paid me double for it. I was lucky to get $150 for it. Just like the guy you bought yours from was lucky.

I guess you'd think there would be a lot of "suckers" at the Smith and Wesson forum then, where a lot of knowledgeable people regarding Smith and Wessons are, because they are always looking for antique 38-44's in any condition and willing to pay good money for them. It may not be what you meant, but from what you wrote, clearly you think I was a "sucker" too for my buying mine for the price I paid from the "lucky" seller. That's kind of rude isn't it? Yet you accuse me of being condescending.

NewFrontier45 wrote:
I'm not trying to pee in your cornflakes but you did post this whole project on the internet.

Yet that is exactly what you are doing. Along with being rude and wanting to argue about something that isn't worth arguing over. What do you care what I paid for it? That should be irrelevant to you. This thread is chiefly about its restoration, not what I paid for it.

NewFrontier45 wrote:
You're gonna get opinions from all directions. Mine, after 25yrs of buying and selling guns as my primary interest and passion, is that you paid too much for it.

You're entitled to your opinion. Just as I am entitled to my opinion from buying, selling and working on guns for the past 40 years also as my primary interest and passion. If you want to think I was a "sucker" who paid too much for it. Okay. You can think that if you want. I'm satisfied with what I paid for it and unlike yourself who mentioned you would have to pay someone to fix yours, I fixed it myself and am satisfied with what I paid for it and how what I fixed and the whole project has turned out thus far. So if I am very satisfied and happy and it's no skin off your nose, why give me grief?
Unless you just want to argue and indeed pee in my corn flakes.

NewFrontier45 wrote:
As has been stated, the going prices of whole examples is irrelevant.

Because something "has been stated" doesn't make it accurate nor true. That's just one person's opinion. I believe the going prices for "whole examples" does have an impact on examples that aren't completely "whole" as well as has an impact on the cost of parts for those guns. Except for my barrel being cut shorter, mine was a "whole example". But you're entitled to believe what you want.

NewFrontier45 wrote:
If I walked into a shop and saw that sixgun sitting there, rusted and locked up, with a price tag of $350, I would shake my head and walk away. Was only six months ago that I paid as much for a mechanically perfect, uncut, unmodified, slightly freckled model 27.

That's your prerogative. Leave it for someone like me who can fix it theirself and who would be happy with it. As long as you aren't paying for it and fixing it, if someone restores a firearm back to beauty and perfect operating condition, a reasonable person would think it was neat that someone did that. Rather than find fault with their decision to buy it and restore it.

My earlier quote below...

Bill Akins wrote:
I have to respectfully disagree with you...

Your below quote....

NewFrontier45 wrote:
A respectful disagreement wouldn't be so riddled with condescension.

But your words you wrote alluding to me that I am a "sucker" for paying what I paid....that isn't condescending. Okay.

Instead of being happy for me when I am quite satisfied with what I paid and how my project is turning out, instead of just reading and enjoying the project playing out to its fruition, instead of finding interest in my helpful posting of how I am doing it and the different scotchbrite wheels and methods I've used to do the project that I've posted to be helpful to others who might want to do a similar project, instead you can only criticize what I paid for the revolver and then accuse me of being condescending and then further on being very rude.

My earlier quote that was to be helpful to you in replacing your front sight on your triple lock.....

Bill Akins wrote:
I know how you can replace your front sight on your 3.5 inch barrel triple lock so it looks just like it did before only on a shorter barrel.

Your rude and CONDESCENDING response NewFrontier45....

NewFrontier45 wrote:
Yes, I'm sure you know better than the finest revolversmith extant .

Okay let's analyze that NewFrontier45. Here is what you said earlier regarding that.....

NewFrontier45 wrote:
I talked to Hamilton Bowen about "fixing" a Triple Lock that had been cut to 3.5" and he said there was no elegant way to replace the front sight.

Then here is what I wrote trying to help you....

Bill Akins wrote:
"Elegant" is a subjective term in the eye of the beholder. But I know how you can replace your front sight on your 3.5 inch barrel triple lock so it looks just like it did before only on a shorter barrel. Like I am doing, get yourself another shot out barrel of the same vintage and manufacturer and remove the sight off it. You may have to cut the sight off and file its bottom flat. Then mill or file a shallow flat onto the top of your barrel just big enough for where the sight will sit, correctly align the sight and silver solder the sight onto the barrel. It will look just as "elegant" as it did before only on a shorter barrel. Not hard to do. If I can do it, anybody can do it.

Nowhere in that did I say I knew more than Hamilton Bowen. But according to you, you did not say if Mr Bowen gave you any options for replacing the front sight. You just said he said there was no "elegant" way to replace one.
I did not contradict Mr Bowen, I just tried to give you one option of how you could do it. I even said I didn't know how "elegant" it would be because "elegant" is in the subjective eye of the beholder. Yet now you want to accuse me of me saying I know more than Mr Bowen when I never said that, and you even use a sarcastic smilie. It appears you just want to argue and be rude for no reason. If you don't want to avail yourself of the option I suggested to install a front sight on your triple lock, then don't. Leave it without a front sight. It doesn't matter to me. I was just trying to give you a suggestion option of how you could install a front sight that is like the front sight I have removed from another shot out rifling snubby barrel that I am going to use on my snubby revolver. And for my trouble you accused me of me thinking I know more than an accomplished revolver-smith like Hamilton Bowen and used a sarcastic smilie at the end of your accusation.

Next you wrote.....

NewFrontier45 wrote:
that Bill Akins wrote....
I'm happy how it turned out with my restoring it.

Following that you wrote....

NewFrontier45 wrote:
Yes, that is the only important thing but that's not a restoration. Maybe if you don't know the difference, that explains this little disagreement.

If you recognize that I'm happy with it and what I paid for it, then if you recognize that then why do you continue giving me grief and criticizing me for what I paid for it? Do you enjoy doing that? As far as whether or not it qualifies as a "restoration", well I consider it to be a restoration. It was rusty and locked up when I got it, and I RESTORED it to perfect operating condition and polished it out beautifully. I frankly don't care if you consider that not being a "restoration" or not. And you telling me "maybe if you don't know the difference"....isn't being TRULY condescending on your part is it?

This isn't a little disagreement. This is you just wanting to tell me how much of a "sucker" I was for buying the revolver, how I "paid too much", show how if it were YOU that you would have been so much more intelligent and would have walked away from it (even though by your own admission you don't fix your own revolvers while I do), be rude, call me "condescending" accuse me of thinking I know more than Hamilton Bowen, and basically pee on my thread. Well you accomplished that. Happy now?

NewFrontier45 wrote:
I also hope you polished that thing with the sideplate in place.

Yes I did. Because to not do that, the edges of the sideplate and frame edges where the sideplate goes, would have a rounded edge from being not buffed while together and no longer match up as well after buffing unless buffing was done with the sideplate on the frame.

I very much appreciate your concern that I buffed it correctly. I know how much interest and concern you have for my project and that you just want to be helpful. (Is it my turn to use a sarcastic smilie?)

I try to be helpful and friendly with everyone. But sometimes people just want to argue and pick something apart for no valid reason even if they don't have a dog in the race. I don't understand people like that. Tell you what NewFrontier45, if you think I was a "sucker" and paid too much, if you think my project isn't a valid "restoration", if you think I am "condescending", if you think, that I think, that I know more than Hamilton Bowen (when I never said I did), if my revolver is just a hunk of scrap junk to you worthless except for the Sambar stag grips that were on it, then there is a wonderful thing you can do on the internet. You have the wonderful option to just ignore the thread and go read elsewhere. Or you can post, being disruptive, rude, argumentative and pee on that person's thread for no reason. What a person does in that regard shows everyone here their character.

You can continue to be disruptive and rude, but I'm done wasting any more of my time responding to you. I'm just going to continue to update on my project's progress as it progresses and ignore you from now on. If you want to continue in the vein you have, I'm sure the moderator will take care of it.


.

 

[Bill Akins]

Here's my latest progress.

Smith and Wesson forum member "Jack the Toad" (George) was kind enough to send me his old shot out rifling cut snubby S&W 1917 nickel barrel so I could get the front sight off it to use on my 1917. Very nice of George to send that to me. He saved me having to fabricate/mill out a front sight.

Since his barrel had also been cut, in order to reattach the front sight, a flat had been milled on his barrel just barely big enough for the base of the front sight to fit into and be silver soldered. I heated up the front of the barrel and sight and the sight came right off the barrel. Kept some heat on it and wire brushed off the silver solder both from the sight and barrel. Both came out nice and clean. Here's a few pics of his old barrel with the front sight I took off it.

Note the flat milled in the top of his old barrel that the sight fit down into.
(Sorry guys, I've checked, and there is no closeup setting on my cheapo camera. But you can get the idea good enough)

So what I've got to do now is to get to the store soon and get some silver solder since I'm out of it. Then position my revolver and barrel in my mill, align the front sight to the rear sight, then mill the shallow flat on the barrel. Got to make sure the flat is level across the top of the barrel too and carefully mill it so it is just barely big enough for the front sight base to fit down into. Then heat the barrel and sight and let the silver solder flow into the crack where the heat will pull it under and around the base of the sight.

Since I've decided to keep my revolver unfinished, but highly polished "in the white", I'll just keep the nickel plate that's on his old sight and not remove it through reverse electrolysis nickel plating. That will really simplify things. Since my highly polished "in the white" revolver almost looks like it's nickel plated, the actually nickel plated front sight goes perfect with it. I scotch taped the front sight to my barrel just to get a rough idea of what it would look like. It's a little higher than it will be when finished, but I think it will look real good. Here's a couple of pics of the sight scotch taped to my barrel.....

I'll post some more when I get to the store and get some silver solder and get my milling done for the barrel flat and the front sight soldered on.



.

 

[DFrame]

Thanks for the update. That sight looks good.

 

[Bill Akins]

Thanks Dframe. I'll post about it again once I mill the flat on top of the barrel and get the front sight soldered on. Then I'll put a #17 Ace trigger shoe on it and since I've already lightened the spring tension on both the hammer mainspring and the trigger return spring, the restoration should be complete at that point. Then it will be fun time and shooting it.



.

 

[dnsharpshooter]

very cool project, looks very nice

 

[MLeake]

Forgive the stupid question, but... I thought white steel was very susceptible to corrosion. Are you going to treat it in some way?

If not, maybe nickel plating wouldn't be a bad idea?