Cas City Forum Hall & CAS-L
CAS TOPICS => The Darksider's Den => Topic started by: LonesomePigeon on April 13, 2024, 09:27:08 AM
-
Yesterday I went to the range and one of my range buddies was there with a Uberti 1875 Remington single action revolver chambered in .45 Colt. It also had an extra cylinder chambered in .45 ACP. He said he said the .45 Cowboy Special fits perfectly in the .45 ACP cylinder and he was using it to fire the .45 CS. I did not know this was possible. Is it possible? Can you fire .45 CS from a .45 ACP cylinder? I keep thinking maybe I misunderstood my friend.
-
:) Lonely Pigeon ;)
Nope. You did not Miss-Understand. Actual case length of the Cowboy 45 Special and the 45 ACP are the same. 45 ACP head spaces on the case mouth to give the same cylinder/frame head space as a standard rimmed case (NOT 45 AR) and the Cowboy 45 Special head spaces on the rim with the same same chamber depth as the 45 ACP. Should be able to run them interchangeably. I DO!!
-
That's way cool. Gives me a reason to get a .45 ACP cylinder.
-
You don't need an ACP cylinder, 45 Cowboy special works perfectly in a regular 45 Colt cylinder.
-
Non swingout cylinder revolvers that are built to allow single loading of 45acp cartridges will fire either 45acp or 45cs however double action revolvers, the 1917 colt /smith and the Model 25 /625 smiths. They are cut for 45acp in moon clips or 45Autorim but will not fire loose 45acp/45cs as there is too much space between the case and firing pin. Just to clarify. I have a confused NWMP Colt NS that will fire loose 45acp or 45cs but the barrel says .45Colt. Bubba’s Canadian brother.
-
Does anybody know what the throats would be on a .45 ACP cylinder?
The reason I ask is because my 3rd Gen Colt's regular .45 Colt cylinder has .455 - .456" diameter throats. If the .45 ACP has .451 - .452" throats I bet the Cowboy Special could be a tack driver.
-
Lonesome,
I can give you two sets of dimensions for S&W .45 ACP revolvers.
- I have had only one newer Model 25s with tight Ø.453 throat openings at the front of the cylinder, but most were Ø.454
- I had fixed sight 1950 Model 22s with Ø.454 throat openings at the front of the cylinder.
- I have had Model 1955 S&Ws (later called Mod 25) with Ø.453 throats (corrected per mister QUALITY CONTROL...AAAARGGGH)
- I currently have two unmounted spare cylinders for M1950, M1955 or Mod 25s (basically Model 22s or 25s) with Ø.454 openings (corrected per mister QUALITY CONTROL...AAAARGGGH). I have those spares because I used to fit an extra cylinder in .45 Colt to Model 25s, 1950s or 1955s, I have those two left, I may have cranes for them as well. I would have to look.
- Most if not all of the .45ACP cylinders started out with a Ø.482 chamber opening at the rear
- The .45 Colt chamber is Ø.487 to Ø.489 at the rear depending upon the reamer and the Ø.454 throat is perfect for them.
In the S&W the .45 ACP chamber has the headspace step the case mouth butts up against, the .45 Colt chamber has the typical revolver leade and throat which is a gradual transition.
So there is no short answer for a S&W. But all actually shot very well, I really couldn't tell much difference between the Ø454 and Ø.453 throats, especially with lead bullets. Out of a Ransom Rest with match 185gr or 230gr jacketed bullets (if you squinted real hard) the accuracy might have been 1/2" better at 25 yards and at 50 it was a wash again. The previous was probably a fluke, but the older 1950 barrels were reputed to be more accurate, I never proved it with a Ransom Rest.
As I said 30 or 40 years ago adding a .45 Colt cylinder was a common "conversion" or cylinder addition. Finally S&W started making the 25 in .45 Colt, I don't know if you could get one with two cylinders except from the Performance Center and those were special order.
I don't know if you personally could tell the difference between the larger and smaller throats especially with Lead Cowboy loads, either way, enjoy them.
I can send pictures with gauge pins if you wish, but I'm not home for a few more days now. I just have files on my drive I carry with me.
~Mako
-
... (later called Mod 25) with Ø.253 throats [/li]
[li]I currently have two unmounted spare cylinders for M1950, M1955 or Mod 25s (basically Model 22s or 25s) with Ø.254 openings. ...
Is this what they call the new math? ;)
Sorry, I can't help it, I was in quality control for 25 years.
-
My 625 smith [.452 boolits] is very accurate. When I bought a beautiful used 45colt Anaconda I found that it patterned instead of grouped. Why I got a deal. After much experimenting I eventually discovered that .454 boolits would group, any other diameter would pattern.
-
My 625 smith [.452 boolits] is very accurate. When I bought a beautiful used 45colt Anaconda I found that it patterned instead of grouped. Why I got a deal. After much experimenting I eventually discovered that .454 boolits would group, any other diameter would pattern.
Ed,
Five questions:
- Have you measured the diameter of the exit throats on the 625? I'm curious as to the size.
- And, do you know what general date the revolver was produced/purchased?
- What diameter bullets were you trying in the Colt before you settled on Ø.454?
- I'm assuming those were lead bullets at the Ø.454 diameter, what weight and bullet shape?
- Have you measured the diameter of the Anaconda's chamber throats?
I am not a SAA expert, but I do have one 1st Generation .45 Colt made in 1896. The only other SAA pattern pistolas I have are a pair of USFAs in .38 spl the kids used. Too bad they are out of business now.
This I do know:
- The Gen 1 SAA used Ø.454 bullets (Lead of course)
- Gen 1 ran through 1940
- Gen 1 rifling groove diameter was Ø.454
- In 1956 with the advent of the Gen 2 the groove diameter was changed to Ø.452 (some say Ø.451)
- There have been discussions and arguments by both collector and shooters over whether or not all Gen 2 cylinders have smaller throat diameters to accommodate the new smaller diameter bores.
- Gen 3 models began in the late '70s, again I don't know the groove diameter. (Ø.451 groove diameters?) Main difference was in the barrel threads and the cylinder bushing.
- There really isn't a 4th Gen of SAA, though some people will call it that because they went back to the removable cylinder bushing, Colt's doesn't differentiate and the collectors usually don't.
Now to the Anaconda, I beg your patience, but I have a short story:
I suspect they were/are still using some of the same (old) tooling and equipment to drill and ream the cylinders for both the SAA and the Anaconda. In 1998 during a tour of the revolver line they were using a multiple station (at least 3 to my memory) vertical boring/reaming machine (probably custom built for Colt's) with 6 spindles per station. They were using it as a vertical drilling and reaming machine. It was ancient, it still had the pulleys on it to allow it to be run from overhead shafts. But, I was told by the accompanying engineer the machine had been "modernized" after WW2 to have it's own electric motor. I remember it well because they were using it to only drill one hole at a time, and after the 6 chambers were drilled it was passed to another worker to the right and then he reamed the chambers one at a time. It was set up for the Anaconda, but I was told they also did SAAs on it. I remember because of the inefficiency and I mentioned that they could use "DREAMERS" if they were only roughing the chamber and reaming the throat. I was told by the worker on the machine very forcefully, "I DRILL, he reams". I was waved off by the engineer I was with and the union steward who was with us began protesting me being there.
So that story was just to let you know I wouldn't be surprised if the tooling is shared between those two revolvers still and further more it wouldn't surprise me if the cylinder throats were Ø.454 or actually larger, which is why your revolver was more accurate with that size bullet.
So, the problem with not knowing the actual groove diameter or the throat diameters really crop up with jacketed bullets. I don't know of any Ø.454 Jacketed bullets readily available for retail purchase, so you will be limited to Ø.452 max pistol bullets (not .45 Rifle bullets). The pressures can spike when forcing a jacketed bullet through a small bore or even a small throat. I don't think you will have any problem with Ø.454 bullets in a pistol with a .452 rifling groove and if that is what it likes then that is what you should shoot. However I suspect your cylinder throats are probably Ø.454 or larger.
The S&W M1950 was a target pistol used by even the Army shooting team for the ".45 Caliber Pistol" portion of the Bullseye matches and Colts in .38 Special were commonly used in the '50s and '60s for the "Centerfire" Portion. And, as I reported in a post above, many 1950 and 1955 (25s) had/have Ø.454 throats and they are very accurate. However those match pistols were required at the time to shoot ball ammo and it was Ø.451 and they are very accurate. There are a lot of factors and some weapons just like a certain weight or diameter.
I hope I didn't muddle too much or bore you. Good shooting to you and if you have those measurements it would help me as a student of all things that go "bang".
~Mako
PS All content is subject to Quality Control checking and proofing by Abilene...
-
:)Hey !! ;)
As has been alluded to above, there can be/are certain relationships that have to be consider when one is selecting one's particular projectile. Principle of course, the the relationship of the Cylinder Chamber Throat to Bore (groove diameter). This comes especially to the forefront when considering lead projectiles. With out knowing the specific bore diameter, bullet selection becomes a "crap shoot"
Also of huge importance are the chamber Throats. Primary purpose of the throat is to maintain bullet alignment from the cartridge to the bore. The problem enters when the throat is sub bullet/bore diameter. After one determines Bore, then a projectile, half a thou or a full thou over groove diameter is recommended. Then the Throat should be the diameter of the projectile perhaps plus half a thou. If the throat is sub-size, it will first act as a tiny "bore obstruction" boosting chamber pressure and increasing "felt recoil." Then the Throat swages the bullet to that sub size and the bullet just kind of rattles down the bore, increasing leading and contributing to inaccuracy. Usually.
So how is it then, when we swage a Round Ball down in the Chamber, well sub bore diameter, the stupid thing will group just fine. Shooting just as accurate as most suppository shooters. Atz Oxymoron. Really. So, why don't we just skip ALL of this super technical fecal matter and just load Roun Ball in our Suppository Shooters???
Harrumpff
-
:)Hey !! ;)
So how is it then, when we swage a Round Ball down in the Chamber, well sub bore diameter, the stupid thing will group just fine. Shooting just as accurate as most suppository shooters. Atz Oxymoron. Really. So, why don't we just skip ALL of this super technical fecal matter and just load Roun Ball in our Suppository Shooters???
Harrumpff
Spoken like a true Moss Back... a Curmudgeon extraordinaire... Our Coffin Maker.
When you only get a contact patch like this on these two Ø.454 (or Ø.457, I can't remember now) Balls driven down the barrel of a a Gen 1 SAA you can get away with almost anything. I'll look up the diameters when I get home. That was 12 or 13 years ago.
(https://i.imgur.com/AIXLXlt.jpeg)
The only man I know who uses iron Banded wheels on his truck instead of a pneumatic tires.
And you are correct, there are a few variables. The Throat probably being number one and the groove diameter being number two in importance.
"There's a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?"
~Mako
-
Does anybody know what the throats would be on a .45 ACP cylinder?
The reason I ask is because my 3rd Gen Colt's regular .45 Colt cylinder has .455 - .456" diameter throats. If the .45 ACP has .451 - .452" throats I bet the Cowboy Special could be a tack driver.
Lonesome and the rest,
I have been cooling my heels and perusing files on my computer and posts from over a decade on this site, I found my information on the Gen 1 Colt I have.
(https://i.imgur.com/EZ6mNor.jpeg) (https://i.imgur.com/s4H9sfO.jpeg)
I don't remember the topic anymore it might have been a discussion about Conversion Cylinder dimensions, but I was measuring bores and cylinders. That cylinder will pass a Ø.455+ gauge pin but not a .456. The grove diameter is definitely Ø.454 as measured on those two balls, the land diameter would accept a Ø.442- pin all of the way through, but the Ø.442+ pin was tight and stuck after about 1 inch.
That's my revolver, it is a "family gun". It was made in 1896 and is not marked as a Smokeless "approved" frame. 1896 was the "transition" year. However, it does have the push button cylinder pin release. I have heard arguments and read a couple of books considered to be the authority on SSAs that the buttons started to replace the screws as early as 1892 and was phased in as Colt's had their frames already set up one way or another.
So, I guess my point is that the older Colts used to be relatively tight in the throats considering they used Ø.454 bullets. It seems the modern revolvers S&W and Colt's actually often have looser throats compared to the original revolver it was chambered in when you considering the bullets were Ø.454 back then. A Ø.455 throat to a Ø.454 bore is about as perfect as you could ask for.
~Mako
-
:) WHAT?? Curmudgeon?? Extraordinaire?? Why Sir, I'll have you know I strongly RESEMBLE that. 8) So There. And I prefer STONE wheels ::) And Coffinmaker is ONE WURD!! Take That :o
Which brings about one of my Buggaboos and annoyances whilst practicing the Dark Art of Gun Plumbing. RUGER. Purportedly the most superb of superb of Single Action tools. Hornswagel. I never met a Ruger I liked. Ruger be famous, or infamous for delivering their marvelously magical Vaqueros with grossly undersize throats. In any caliber. What crap. They ALL needed the throats reamed.
Hummmmm. Plastics. Really?? Plastics. I Am Reviewing The Situation (Stoled famous movie line). Burma Shave
-
And Coffinmaker is ONE WURD!! Take That :o
Oh wow!! Mako is one wurd too, we must be related.
~Mako
-
Brotherhood of Long Lost Cousins perhaps?? Could it Be?? Zounds!!
-
Just one note on actual S&W 1917 revolvers. Their barrels have rifling set up for FMJ bullets. Unless you use a very hard cast bullet, it will not play well with non-jacketed bullets.
-
Just one note on actual S&W 1917 revolvers. Their barrels have rifling set up for FMJ bullets. Unless you use a very hard cast bullet, it will not play well with non-jacketed bullets.
Deacon,
Who told you that?
~Mako
-
Deacon,
The reason I ask about the statement "Their barrels have rifling set up for FMJ bullets. Unless you use a very hard cast bullet, it will not play well with non-jacketed bullets" is because there is a lot of “common knowledge” floating around the internet and it even pervades the S&W collectors community. Once it is said it gets repeated without evidence or even measurement.
The M1917 started out as an “Americanized” version of the S&W the British bought chambered in the .455 Mark II Webley cartridge, it was basically a S&W Hand Ejector (First Model). Now go look up the dimensions for a .455 Webley, they are larger than the .45 ACP. Some of the early M1917 revolvers in .45 ACP even used that original .455 Webley barrel, you have to know the vintage of a M1917 to even guess what the rifling dimensions might be.
BUT, then they started producing barrels specifically for the .45 ACP and it will surprise you to know what the land and groove dimensions were. The ones I have measured have the Lands at Ø.443 or Ø.444 and the Grove diameters were Ø.454 or Ø.455. They can argue all they want, I have actual measurable barrels and the tools to measure them.
SOOOOO… What does shallow groove mean? Shallow as compared to what? The Nominal dimension for the Lands on a National Match 1911 .45 ACP barrel are Ø.4410 +.0015/-.0000 for the lands and Ø.4505 +.0015/-.0000 for the groove. That means the nominal groove depth is .00475”. Sounds pretty shallow when you look at it that way. You can take a DEAD SOFT H&G 68 200gr SWC and almost stack the holes (a bit of an exaggeration) at 25 yards using a Ransom Rest. The Jacketed 230 Match and 185 Jacketed Match ammo really don’t do any better.
Look at this illustration: This is what Kimber was using 29 years ago when Jerico first started making the 1911s.
(https://i.imgur.com/0Qcc7fy.png)
Does anyone say the 1911 barrel with a .00475” groove cannot shoot anything except Jacketed or HARD lead bullets?
I have rebarreled a S&W 1917 and have the M1917 barrel around somewhere in my mountain of boxes from storage. I have owned a couple as well, I mainly shot either lead 230gr bullets or H&G 68 SWCs through them. Based on the one I put a shortened 1950 barrel on and my experience with shooting a lot of S&W .45 ACP revolvers I can tell you the barrel rifling is pretty much the same as you find on a S&W 1950, a S&W 1955 and the current Model 25s which are just the new numbering for the 1955 (the 1950 became the Model 26). The major differences are the barrel profile and rib changed from the M1950 and remains the same today on the Mod 25. The other difference is that the newer M25 and M625 no longer have the pin through the threads on the top of the barrel extension locking it to the frame.
Look at these pictures:
(https://i.imgur.com/xYVcmLpl.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/YlEdk4X.jpeg)
Both barrels are M1950, I no longer have any loose 1955 barrels. Both of those barrels have a Land diameter that will pass a Ø.443+ gauge pin and the groove diameter is Ø.453- That is a groove depth of .0050” (sounds awfully close to .00475”, but then again, what is 250 millionths among friends?) Those cylinders will pass a Ø.454+ gauge pin.
A tuned M1950 or M1955 will also shoot incredibly tight groups with almost anything you stuff in them. They even shoot well (but not as good as .45ACP) when .45 Colt cylinders are added to them. That is with the same bullets too. The advantage of the .45 Colt is that you can shoot those 250gr bullets and even heavier if you have a mind to. I even have box of .45ACP loaded with 250gr bullets around here somewhere. They don't feed reliably in a 1911 but shoot "okay" in a revolver, they were loaded decades ago and I ran across them during a move.
Deacon, this is no reflection on you, you're just repeating what the "experts" say it is... It's too bad they are not diligent students or good at collecting data. I’m sorry, but I get a bit tired of reading things I know there is no basis for. I know I don’t know everything (not even a trillionth of a fraction of everything) but there are some things I do know. I also know there is a LOT of bad advice, conventional wisdom and “that’s the way it was done back then” for Black Powder. Most of it is WRONG.
I think I will start a topic of "Things we all know, but are wrong about Real Powder". But not now, I would get pissy about it.
I'm sorry, but I've been cooped up in a convention center, got home late yesterday and just finished "doctoring" 2 one week old chicks who had "Pasty Butt", replaced 3 Guinea Keets that didn't make it from last week and it seems to have made me grumpy.
I almost swallowed my tongue at the Farm Store early this morning when I was getting replacements (they guarantee them within reason), and the guy at the register asked if I wanted to "exchange" the Keets for new ones. The woman next to him just rolled her eyes. I told him, "I don't think you would have wanted me to bring those in and slap them on your counter..." Well I do get some simple pleasure from people's obtuse reasoning...
~Mako
-
I have 3 of the beasts and had at least three more S&W 1917s over the years. I too, thought it was hogwash, but... I have seen that the 1917s with US marked barrels all needed 454 lead bullets OR hard cast 452s or FMJs to group decently. The 2 Colt 1917s I have had did not exhibit this behavior. I have not had any commercial built S&Ws in .45ACP, so I cannot speak for them.
-
Deacon,
Good to know. I have had to "relearn" or learn for myself many things over the years. It seems the older I get the more I learn that I didn't know.
Good on 'ya.
~Mako
-
I got curious and dug up those heavy .45 ACP bullets I had run across a few weeks back. The ones I have were loaded by one of my friends for a 1950 and it uses:
- LYMAN/IDEAL 452423 .45 CAL 242 GRAIN (actually weighs 244 gr) bullets
- 6.0 Gr of unique which in almost all manuals except for the old Lyman manual of 1970 is a .45+P load
- CCI 300 Primers
- and any piece of brass he scrounged up
Leon noted it as "Very Accurate" which means it actually was. I don't know where you could get those bullets or the mold today.
(https://i.imgur.com/ebzxIL6.jpeg) (https://i.imgur.com/BDPpApM.jpeg)
I have some data on 250gr and 255gr .45 ACP and ,45 Auto Rim somewhere as well, I need to find my .45ACP revolver notes, they are in a notebook somewhere and not in a computer file.
Those are SOFT lead bullets that weigh 244gr, the cast bullet in 20:1 or WW would be 242gr. Leon was experimenting with a soft lead Ø.452 bullet to work in the Ø.454 Groove Bore he had. We also tried Ø.453 and Ø.454 sized bullets (I think the Ø.454 were "as cast") but they bulged the case if the case was normally sized. We tried all kinds of things, but to get them to chamber an all of our revolvers (and even 1911s) you dad to use a standard full die with the standard expander. If I remember correctly one of the carbide dies we had made them too tight and we were using asteel die. Back then Carbide dies were not even that common, I think they came out in the late '60s and were expensive at the time. You can't tell from the photo but that case has a slight swell in it, there is a slight taper on the old RCBS .45ACP steel sizing dies to match the .003" diameter difference on the case from front to rear.
I don't know how any of you use carbide dies to size 9mm brass but that makes them "straight walled", 9x19mm has a 0.011" diameter difference from front to rear, that's a lot, it is a true tapered case. That is one of the reasons a .38 Super is inherently more accurate than a 9x19 with reloaded ammunition in a correctly chambered barrel (there are other reasons as well). The .38 Super is actually a true straight wall case. The 9X23 Win (same length as the .38 Super) isn't as accurate or as "clean" as the .38 Super either, it fouls out a lot sooner. Lot's of little details there.
Back to the .45 ACP which is an almost straight walled case. With soft bullets the Ø.452 worked just as well as the Ø.453 sized bullets, and the Ø.454 leaded the forcing cone. I believe those were the days before the cheap Lee push through dies were common and we had to buy dies for the Lyman Lube sizer and you had a hard time getting anything other than Ø.452 or Ø.458. Those others were "custom" (maybe the Ø.454 was available) and you had to wait for them.
I had to look the mold up, but I know it was a Lyman Mold. I also know it was throwing a heavier bullet than the mold spec with 4 Hbn lead. I have some of those unloaded bullets somewhere, also 250gr and 255gr that I was using for the "conversion cylinders".
~Mako
-
Mako, MP Molds makes the 454-423 Plain Base Solid which looks very similar the the Lyman 452423 .45 cal 242 grain bullet.
https://www.mp-molds.com/product/mp-454-423-pb-solid/
I do have this mold from them. Although it says .454" mine always seem to drop closer to .452" with plain lead or 1:20. I haven't used it much, I usually use the Lyman/Ideal 454190.
-
Does anybody know what the throats would be on a .45 ACP cylinder?
The reason I ask is because my 3rd Gen Colt's regular .45 Colt cylinder has .455 - .456" diameter throats. If the .45 ACP has .451 - .452" throats I bet the Cowboy Special could be a tack driver.
Are you asking about Colt cylinders?
…however double action revolvers, the 1917 colt /smith and the Model 25 /625 smiths. They are cut for 45acp in moon clips or 45Autorim but will not fire loose 45acp/45cs as there is too much space between the case and firing pin. …
Sorry, my experience with ACP revolvers finds this to be incorrect, at least with S&W. Yes, the double action revolvers are indeed, cut for the use of moonclips. But, the ACP cartridge will still headspace on the case mouth and fire. It will not extract or eject because there is no rim. That is why the moon clip was developed and patented by S&W. For S&W, building a revolver to fire the 45 ACP, was easy. Getting the cartridges out of the cylinder, in an efficient manner, was the hard part.
At the request of the Army, S&W permitted their competitor, Colt, access to the moon clip so they could also design a revolver to fire the 45 ACP cartridge. Colt promptly stuck their foot in it by cutting the chambers straight through, no throat. This prevented the revolver from using loose ammunition. Once the Army discovered this, they made Colts correct the problem and fix any revolvers returned to them. Considering they were also building the Model 1911, they should have know how to cut a chamber.
Just one note on actual S&W 1917 revolvers. Their barrels have rifling set up for FMJ bullets. Unless you use a very hard cast bullet, it will not play well with non-jacketed bullets.
Yes, indeed, the rifling is cut just as the Army specified it be cut, for Hardball. However, target competitors soon figured out how to make the ACP revolver competitive…with lead bullets. Hard lead bullets are really not an answer to this problem. The proper size bullets are what matters. My personal load development has shown that a .454 diameter cast bullet, with a long bearing surface, produces great accuracy in a lot of revolvers. And very good accuracy in the rest. Here is the bullet, on the left.
I have more than a few ACP revolvers. I do not try to find a specific load for each one. Instead, I have found one load that gives acceptable acceptable accuracy in all of them. The SAECO 453 over a hardball dose of powder.
…
The M1917 started out as an “Americanized” version of the S&W the British bought chambered in the .455 Mark II Webley cartridge, it was basically a S&W Hand Ejector (First Model). Now go look up the dimensions for a .455 Webley, they are larger than the .45 ACP. Some of the early M1917 revolvers in .45 ACP even used that original .455 Webley barrel, you have to know the vintage of a M1917 to even guess what the rifling dimensions might be…
~Mako
Who told you that?
The S&W Hand Ejector First Model, aka New Century, aka Triple lock, was introduced to the Army in the 45 S&W Special cartridge. Once the Army chose the Model 1911 in 45 ACP, S&W introduced the New Century to the public chambered for the 44 S&W Special. The British Army was a bit short of sidearms to fight WWI so they contracted with S&W to buy revolvers chambered for the 455 cartridge. Even before the first shipment of the Triplelock was delivered, the British Army complained it was too heavy and the complicated mechanism would jam in the mud of the trenches. S&W redesigned the revolver and produced the Second Model Hand Ejector, less the third locking mechanism, less the shrouded ejector rod. It was this revolver that was used to create the Model 1917 (or Government Model as it was called in the factory). Joseph Wesson realized the US would be dragged into WWI and in 1915 tasked a group of engineers to build a revolver that would fire AND eject the 45 ACP cartridge.
The 45 ACP Second Model Hand Ejector, aka Model 1917, was the result.
… BUT, then they started producing barrels specifically for the .45 ACP and it will surprise you to know what the land and groove dimensions were. The ones I have measured have the Lands at Ø.443 or Ø.444 and the Grove diameters were Ø.454 or Ø.455. They can argue all they want, I have actual measurable barrels and the tools to measure them.
~Mako
The barrel dimensions were specified by the Army. Did the barrels you measure have the Army acceptance stamps on them? Unfortunately, many of the 455 First Model Hand Ejectors, aka New Century, aka Triplelocks, were rechambered for the 45 ACP cartridge. These were not ever accepted by the Army.
The Model 1917 was also the first S&W revolver to have a heat treated cylinder. It was a requirement of the Army.
… Does anyone say the 1911 barrel with a .00475” groove cannot shoot anything except Jacketed or HARD lead bullets?
I have rebarreled a S&W 1917 and have the M1917 barrel around somewhere in my mountain of boxes from storage. I have owned a couple as well, I mainly shot either lead 230gr bullets or H&G 68 SWCs through them. Based on the one I put a shortened 1950 barrel on and my experience with shooting a lot of S&W .45 ACP revolvers I can tell you the barrel rifling is pretty much the same as you find on a S&W 1950, a S&W 1955 and the current Model 25s which are just the new numbering for the 1955 (the 1950 became the Model 26). The major differences are the barrel profile and rib changed from the M1950 and remains the same today on the Mod 25. The other difference is that the newer M25 and M625 no longer have the pin through the threads on the top of the barrel extension locking it to the frame.
…
~Mako
At some point, when the Model 625 was introduced, the rifling was changed. It reverted to the common S&W 5groove rifling. I am not sure if the rifling pitch is different from what the Army required. Also in the 625 series, S&W engineers decided to go the route of Colt and cut deep charge holes that REQUIRED the use of moon clips. But, that was sporadic enough as to be poor quality control.
Kevin
-
Who told you that?
The S&W Hand Ejector First Model, aka New Century, aka Triple lock, was introduced to the Army in the 45 S&W Special cartridge. Once the Army chose the Model 1911 in 45 ACP, S&W introduced the New Century to the public chambered for the 44 S&W Special. The British Army was a bit short of sidearms to fight WWI so they contracted with S&W to buy revolvers chambered for the 455 cartridge. Even before the first shipment of the Triplelock was delivered, the British Army complained it was too heavy and the complicated mechanism would jam in the mud of the trenches. S&W redesigned the revolver and produced the Second Model Hand Ejector, less the third locking mechanism, less the shrouded ejector rod. It was this revolver that was used to create the Model 1917 (or Government Model as it was called in the factory). Joseph Wesson realized the US would be dragged into WWI and in 1915 tasked a group of engineers to build a revolver that would fire AND eject the 45 ACP cartridge.
The 45 ACP Second Model Hand Ejector, aka Model 1917, was the result.
The barrel dimensions were specified by the Army. Did the barrels you measure have the Army acceptance stamps on them? Unfortunately, many of the 455 First Model Hand Ejectors, aka New Century, aka Triplelocks, were rechambered for the 45 ACP cartridge. These were not ever accepted by the Army.
Kevin
StrawHat,
You are correct, the M1917 is a Second Model. I should have said the original S&W Webley .455 Mark IIs were 1st models and the M1917 and the British Production revolvers were 2nd Model. As I wrote before, I am not a hardcore S&W collector. What I know about them is from modifying them. I'll admit I'm more interested in the technical package than the collector minutia (now the Colt's Conversion Revolvers is a different matter, I am very interested in the details and every variation).
We were interested in heavy bullets and also adding a second cylinder in .45 Colt. On some of the "conversions" I used two crane/cylinder assemblies (just swap out the entire Crane/Cylinder assembly), on others kept it to one crane assembly, just cylinders/Extractor Rods, gas rings, spacers for the extractor rods. But they all needed a new extractor/ratchet (they have to be modified) to set the recoil shield length for the .45 Colt, usually a modified a .44 spl 1950 (no counter bored chambers), you can also use a Mod 27 or 28 Extractor because the counter bore goes away as you open it up to accept the larger diameter cartridge (you can't use Mod 24 or Mod 29 because of the counter bores), new gas rings, move the barrel back, re-cut the clocking pin slot, a spacer for the extractor rod. A lot of work, now you can just buy a model 25 in .45 Colt.
To answer your question about early model dimensions, I have never had a 1st Model (or an early 2nd model I was aware of) available to measure, so I don’t know what the early barrels measured. The guys who were the hardcore 1917 nuts were the ones who told me about some of the early 1917s having the Webley bore dimensions. I don't normally trust someone just telling me but they are hardcore 1917 nuts. I also know Pete has at least one Commercial Model 1917, I know the one I examined had a better finish and not marked as gov’t property. Pete has some expensive toys.
I'm not the 1917 nut that several of my friends were/are, I tended towards the Mod 25s and M1950s. As you can see from my photos I still have a couple of 1950 barrels and cylinders with Cranes in my parts bins. All of the 1917 barrels I ever measured are more or less the same as the 1950 and Mod 25 barrels. I know I have measured at least four, and yes, they were all originally government property guns and had all of the appropriate inspector stamps on them. The 1917 barrel I removed and replaced with a shortened 1950 barrel had problems which is why it was replaced. I never measured it, I guess I need to find it, and measure it now.
I don't have production drawings for the M1917 barrels, do you have one or a complete or partial drawing set? If you have the barrel drawing number I may have a way to retrieve the document, I don't have a technical data package list for the M1917 drawings. You stated that the barrels were inspected to the government specifications, they must have a greater range or a nominal shift for at least the bore dimension. I'd be very interested in what that spec. was.
I'm curious as to what you consider a "Hardball" cut barrel. I know exactly what the Army considered a “Hardball” cut barrel for the 1911 which of course is the original Mil-Spec for the .45ACP barrel rifling. This is from the Army Rock Island Arsenal drawing 7791193 for the 1911A1 Barrels. This drawing has a 1961 release date but I have seen older ones and they are the same. The national match rifling is actually where the Kimber barrel drawing specifications came from that I posted above in reply #18.
(https://i.imgur.com/cTmRWH7.png)
I can tell you the S&W barrels (both M1917 and later models) I have measured are actually above the 1911 mil-spec rifling dimensions in the Groove diameter. On later commercial 1950 and 1955 revolvers the Groove Diameters are usually Ø.453 and the Lands (Bore) are Ø.443, which does not meet the 7791193 dimensions of Ø.450 +.002/-.000 and Ø.442 +.002/-.000. What I don’t understand is why everyone keeps calling these “Hardball” rifling or jacketed bullet rifling dimensions. They are just standard rifling dimensions. the ratio from the Bore to the lands are typical of modern barrels, the groove depths on pistols that were designed to shoot jacketed bullets run groove depths of .004” to .006”.
I have measured at least one M1917 barrel with Groove diameters as large as Ø.455 and can’t swear to it but I think they all tend to normally run Ø.453 to Ø.454. I know this because of the loads Leon and Britt were working up, those cartridges with the 244gr bullets were part of that. They ran larger soft lead bullets because the throats ran large and the bores did too. They had a bunch of "shooters" and one other friend Pete, has serious collection of guns he doesn't shoot, he also collects Colt Commandos.
What do your barrels measure? And your chamber throats? How did you or do you measure them?
I don’t have air gages at my disposal anymore and have to borrow an Optical Comparator or toolmakers scope if I do a bore optically. I have to resort to gauge pins and slugged barrels for the most part now. I have a micrometer somewhere with internal anvils made for bore measurement but I don’t always trust the measurements, you have to be perfectly centered in the groove and do it under a scope to make sure you are in the center of the grooves, any lean or touching the groove wall and you are off. I didn’t know they had gone to 5 grooves on the 625s, you couldn’t use that mike on a five groove and slugging a barrel with odd numbers is hard too. Why did they change, was it because of the Stainless galling during rifling and dropping a groove to minimize friction?
I have never been able to get a set of the 1917 drawings or the S&W .45 drawings. I have complete sets of the drawings for the 1911a1 (plus the set I detailed from the models) I also have drawings for the National Match Slides and Barrels they would send out for production quotes.
You’ll get a chuckle out of this, in 1973 the last National Match slide contract was actually built by IMI. I actually have the military drawing sets from them and slide drawings in Metric and annotated in HEBREW!
Back in the ‘90s the last Frames the Army purchased (for general use) were from 1947, they just rebuilt them or in the case of the AMU they also bought some frames from Colt’s (I don’t know when they bought the last of them.) I used to sell Hammers and Sears to the Colt’s Custom shop, the last ones I manufactured were for the Series ’80 and they had to send me prints so I could add their “safety shelf” (not a “half cock” they would cut you off in the middle of a sentence if you said “half cock”). After that we sold some Series ’80 Hammers in the aftermarket, or I should say we offered them, we sold very few and just sold the stock we had from the 1st run. I have those Colt’s drawings around somewhere.
~Mako
-
Strawhat, I just tried a couple rds in my 625 smith and you are correct. Non moon clip 45acp will fire along with C45S. I would not have thought that with the extra room needed for AR or moon clipped brass. Thanks for the info.
-
StrawHat,
I have another thing that you might have some insight to. I Don't know if you have ever looked at the SAAMI specs for the .45 ACP, they have two, one is for a "Match" chamber. BUT, there is also a strange specification for the .45 Auto Rim. Look at the bullet diameter and the huge allowable throat dimension. Oddly they have a smaller Groove diameter of Ø.4512 +.004/-.000 and a larger Bore diameter Ø.444 +.004/-.000 than the standard or match chamber .45 ACP. That has to be the direct result of the S&W chambers and information they had on the original 1917 specifications.
I mean the bullet diameter can run from Ø.446 to Ø.452 (??????) and the throat in the cylinder starts at Ø.4555 and runs to Ø.4595. I have no idea how they got that, but there is a reason.
(https://i.imgur.com/HcE2RKL.png)
Comments?
~Mako
-
Strawhat and Mako, I have truly enjoyed this information on the 1917s, as I love these guns. I am gonna order up some .454 bullets to try out in mine. If either of you two still have a take off barrel I would like to get it from you for a project gun.
-
StrawHat,
I have another thing that you might have some insight to.
…
Comments?
~Mako
Mako,
Much of what you deal with is miles beyond my ken. I do however know others, like you, who may have these answers and I have posed some of your questions to them. As they get back to me, I will post here.
I do understand tolerance and tolerance stacking. I have seen grossly huge and equally small throats on revolver cylinders. The small ones can be cut larger, the large ones, not easy to remedy.
I found it interesting your comment about IMI. I never thought about drawings having to be translated!
Kevin
-
Strawhat and Mako, I have truly enjoyed this information on the 1917s, as I love these guns. I am gonna order up some .454 bullets to try out in mine. If either of you two still have a take off barrel I would like to get it from you for a project gun.
You’re welcome! Any knowledge I take to the grave is wasted. Much better if it is shared.
Barrels? What style are you wanting?
Kevin
-
You’re welcome! Any knowledge I take to the grave is wasted. Much better if it is shared.
Barrels? What style are you wanting?
Kevin
Looking for a pencil barrel that I will cut down to 4-4 1/2" and put a banded front sight on it.
-
I will see what I have.
Kevin
-
Deacon,
The only good N Frame barrels I have are those two 1950 barrels which are not "pencil" profiles and a 6 1/2" barrel that came off of a Model 27. I do have at least two K-Frame model 10 barrels (4 inch), one might be a model 15 barrel.
The 1917 barrel that I have somewhere was replaced because if actually had a swell in it about 2/3rds the way down. You don't want it. We suspect someone shot a squib and then another on top of it. It shows how strong an N-Frame is...of course it was probably a low pressure target load. It was a gun show purchase and he didn't realize it for some time. It was a refinished gun because it was parkerized, I have no idea if it was an arsenal rebuild or someone had it done later, it wasn't pitted or anything, just a bad barrel (and I had to replace the hand). That was the first gun I ever put a zinc phosphate finish on, it's actually pretty easy, you just have to plug the bore and chambers (some people don't).
~Mako
-
…
~Mako
Mako,
I posted on another forum and got this reply,
The S&W spec. sheet date 1918 list the rifling as 6 grooves and one turn in 15 inched. I hope that helps. They list all the spec.s if you need them. Roy
As more replies come in, I will post.
Kevin
-
I posted on another forum and got this reply,
Quote from: Roy G. Jinks;141985502
"The S&W spec. sheet date 1918 list the rifling as 6 grooves and one turn in 15 inched. I hope that helps. They list all the spec.s if you need them." Roy
Kevin
Stawhat,
Thanks, but that is just the twist rate and the direction. The standard 1911 twist rate was 1:16 and a LEFT hand twist. We changed it to Right Hand so the torque of the bullet traveling down the barrel would rotate towards the right as the shooter looks at it, thus pushing it INTO the hand since most shooters are right handed and you are able to control it better. Now almost all 1911 barrels are Right Hand twist.
Which direction was the rifling twist on the S&Ws? Actually the twist rate and the direction are not that interesting to me, the bore and groove dimensions are what everyone has been talking about on this subject. On this thread, it has been stated the S&W 1917s had rifling for hardball which insinuates shallower grooves for jacketed bullets. Because of that "hardball" bore some were advising soft lead bullets didn't do well.
A 1 inch difference in rotation per foot is not enough to of a difference to cause any measurable difference because of soft lead bullets, and the twist direction has no influence. Where did the Roy Jinks quote come from? I have his "History of S&W". I don't have his "Smith and Wesson, 1857-1945 A Handbook For Collectors" or the books put out by the Smith & Wesson Collectors Association, perhaps it appeared there?
Does someone have the actual dimensions? They will be something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/cTmRWH7.png)
I've posted what I have measured on 1917s, 1950s and 1955s (M25), but I'm curious as to what the official Army Inspection print was that has been suggested as the "standard" we should be discussing. Or even what Roy or the Collectors Association says the original S&W prints stated.
Thanks for that information, what else can you find?
~Mako
-
:) YEPPER ;)
YESSIREE ... BOB. PLASTICS could be a real serious boon or is it Boom. There is a Canadian out fit has developed a process for making Building Blocks that are sort of like Lego(tm) blocks. Primary material is recycled plastics. Any color, ground up fine and mix'd with a touch of concrete. Strong as hell, cheaper than building a house with wood, and with packaging, an endless supply of raw material. Good tip there MAKO. May have to think an investment.
I also have a real nifty set of .45 Conversions, built on 1860esque Pietta frames. Currently have three separate barrel sets for 'em. Set 'em up with ACP Cylinders so I could shoot ACP cases and C45S cases interchangeably. Works a treat and loaded with 130Gr Barnstormer bullets, recoil is on par with Suppository .38s. Super FUN!!