Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
T-dave: I get it, and anything you can do that piques the interest of younger folks in history is a good thing!

Dave T: I got my 1st smartphone a couple years ago when the service ceased for my old flip-phone.  When I text, I have to look through a thousand different emojis to find the simple smiley face and frowny face, and those are almost all I use.  :) 
2
"...almost 60 percent of my demographics are now Millennials and younger, so I adjust the vernacular..."

Dave,

You and I have discussed this before and I conceed you are right. But...I'm with Abilene in not liking the modern, computer related terminology.  (smile...'cause I don't do Moji's, or how ever you spell it!)

Dave
3
The Darksider's Den / Re: .45 Cowboy Special
« Last post by Baltimore Ed on Today at 08:20:41 AM »
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.
4
CAS City Classifieds / Re: ISO Uberti 1873 rifle toggles
« Last post by John Barleycorn on Today at 08:18:23 AM »
Email me at barleycornoutfitters@gmail.com
I have some
5
Morning y'all.
Coffee and tea are hot.

'Tis 25 and sunny. High of 64 and blustery.

Slim
6
The Darksider's Den / Re: .45 Cowboy Special
« Last post by Mako on Today at 03:56:04 AM »

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 working on them, modifying them and working out the optimum hand loads for them.

We were more interested in heavy bullets and on the 1955 models adding a cylinder in .45 Colt. On some of the "conversions"  I used 2nd Crane with spacers for both (just swap out the entire Crane/Cylinder assembly), on others 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 .44spl 1950 , you can also use a Mod 27 or 28 Extractor (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 models, I have never had a 1st Model (or an early 2nd model) 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 know Pete has at least one Commercial Model 1917 and perhaps two, 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 need to find it.

I don't have production drawings for the M1917 barrels, do you have a set?  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.



I can tell you the S&W barrels (both M1917 and later models) I have measured are actually above mil-spec rifling dimensions in the bore.  On later commercial 1950 and 1955 revolvers the Groove (bores) are usually Ø.453 and the Lands 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 M1917 barrels with bores 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 them and one other friend Pete, was a serious collector of those and the 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 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.  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
7
Thanks Abilene, almost 60 percent of my demographics are now Millennials and younger, so I adjust the vernacular to fit the SEO better. This hobby has almost completely skipped the last 2-generations and I'm trying to do my little part to help work on that.  One of them said something to me that really stuck. He said "You Gen-X'ers and the Baby Boomers call us a bunch of idiots and wimps because we don't know a lot of this stuff but the truth is, half of us didn't even have dads, and most of the other half didn't have dads who could teach us this kind of stuff. The closest a lot of us get to even having a dad or getting mentoring is from watching videos and reading articles from older guys like you."  I think that for way too long, the younger generations have been treated more like the enemies to this hobby than the heirs to it.  I took a hiatus from the site to finish my main book (624 pages and 150k+ words), and in the process, wound up with enough material to get the other 3 books in the series well underway. It has been a fun project pursuing a lifelong passion, but now that my daughter is away in the Army, I want to do something more meaningful than just hanging out with my rancher buddies all the time. I've been talking about this long enough; now I want to see if I can at least put a dent in it.
8
very interesting, thanks.  BTW, I hate the word hack - way too modern.  :)
9
The Darksider's Den / Re: .45 Cowboy Special
« Last post by StrawHat on Yesterday at 08:17:55 PM »
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
10
CAS City Classifieds / Re: 56-50 Spencer New Starline 50 pcs
« Last post by Horn_Ridge on Yesterday at 08:09:58 PM »
I'll take them - sending PM.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk
© 1995 - 2023 CAScity.com