Smith & Wesson History

The Smith & Wesson Hand Ejector, Military & Police (Model 10), and K-Frame revolvers have been in continuous service for more than one hundred and twenty years. This is the single most successful revolver of all time. While there are more glamorous, more powerful, and more accurate revolvers, none are more reliable. The K-Frame was designed as an in-between size, a bridge between the .32 caliber I-Frame and larger .44 and .45 caliber revolvers.

The K-Frame was originally chambered for the 38 Long Colt and then the 38 Special cartridge. In the 1950s the Combat Magnum was chambered in 357 Magnum. Other cartridges including the 22 Long Rifle, 22 Magnum, 32-20 Winchester, 38 S&W, and 9mm Luger have been chambered in the K-Frame. These revolvers have had the same general shape, size, and operation since 1899. Anyone capable of using one could use another, although the internals have been subject to considerable changes.

Some of these changes have been in order to increase safety, others to make manufacture more economical. Two recent situations have combined to spur me to form up this report. First, I was called to work on a nice six-inch barrel S&W Military & Police circa 1935. The revolver was well preserved with most of the finish remaining. The proprietor informed me it came into his shop with a hitch in the action.

One of his employees attempted to fit new parts into the action to fix it with the result being one of the worst actions I have ever felt. It turns out the fellow had mixed parts from a junked post war gun—a short action revolver—and attempted to fit them into the older long action gun. The result was a monstrosity that somehow cycled and fired, but not well. It was only a matter of time before it would have locked up or broke something.

The second incident was the purchase of a modern Classic Revolver Series Combat Magnum, about as different a revolver from the original Military & Police as possible. I decided to look over the K-Frame and enlighten myself and the reader as to the differences in these revolvers. If you have a bin of S&W revolver parts, and many of us do, you need to be able to determine what parts fit if you have an old part that is a good start to match. I learned that a mix of parts can be beneficial.

I have kept notes on revolvers and revolver work over the years and can’t recall repairing a modern S&W revolver due to an issue involving normal wear or a manufacturer’s defect. The repairs have been due to abuse save for those on very old or hard used revolvers. I think that is quite a record. The revolvers that were repaired due to wear have been over forty years old. On one occasion, a hunter packing out a deer had deer blood run into the action which was rusted by the time he noticed.

On other occasions the action was brutalized by a ham-handed or incompetent gun butcher. Even then, a S&W revolver that had been improperly repaired may not have needed much more than a spring replacement or a few internal parts replaced. I do a refresher whenever I order parts and fit them. As an example, recently I was called to fit a trigger. Generally triggers are interchangeable between generations up to the modern guns.

These generations begin with the often-called 5th Change about 1905 and continue to the few transitional type revolvers turned out in 1946 before the new short action was introduced. The short action guns were very consistent in parts interchangeability well into the 1990s. The pre-war or long action hammers differ in that the hammer stud (the stud on which the hammer must pivot) is in a different place than in the later Far

model revolvers, so there is no easy conversion of one to the other. The long action featured a longer hammer throw. Conventional wisdom states that the longer throw and heavier mainspring was necessary due to lower quality ammunition and harder primers. As far as safety and hammer blocks, the older generation S&W revolvers were generally safe to carry fully loaded but the only hammer block was actually a rebound lever in early revolvers. The rebound lever is powered by a kind of second mainspring.

This rebound was necessary to ensure the hammermounted firing pin was drawn out of the primer and returned to the at-rest position so that the cylinder could be opened. The rebound slide later developed is far superior. The mainspring was also repositioned. The rebound slide could break, at least in theory, if the revolver were dropped on its hammer. Far Smith & Wesson developed a more efficient hammer block that was mounted in the side plate.

A later development was a small block that cammed out of the safety position by a small, slanted surface on the hand itself. By the beginning of World War Two this wider hand was in standard use. These systems were complex and difficult to fit and depended on springs for safety. I have never seen one out of whack simply from shooting, however, a failure of the springs or even debris trapped in the action could prevent this safety from working.

Despite such a failure, the revolver could still be operating and firing normally and such a safety defect would not be apparent in normal use. Colt, in contrast, featured the positive hammer block. The trigger could not return to its forward position unless the hammer block was in place. Anew S&W hammer block was put into production near the end of World War Two. The new safety block was similar to the Colt Police Positive Special safety but locked by the rebound, not the trigger. It was a big step forward.

After a number of Military & Police revolvers were built, the shape of the bottom or foot of the hammer was changed to allow for a longer travel. The early models were shorter action than the 5th Model from 1905 forward. After 1905, the standard improvements of this type were used until the postwar short action revolvers were introduced. These early hammers do not fit later model revolvers unless the safety block was removed—a very bad idea.

From the introduction of the post-war short action all the way to the last models with a hammermounted firing pin, the hammers are the same. Some have a target-type spur and some are nicely checkered but they are interchangeable. There are two types of sears in the early model revolvers. One has a nicely curved front while the sec-

The same procedure is used when working this revolver as the K-Frame. ond has a flat front. I have noted they interchange with each other, with the flat and curved component simply being a difference in appearance. Once you progress into the post-war short action guns there are again two types of sears with two different widths. One is serrated and 0.265" wide while the 0.240" wide sear seems to be encountered in Airweight revolvers, although this isn’t a rule.

Early triggers do not have the hand lever pin for the hand spring. Rebound slides are the same in the same generation Kand N-Frame revolvers. As a rule, springs are much more readily interchangeable than any other part. Just the same, old springs are not easily measured for strength and it is questionable to use them in another handgun. Modern extra power springs are ideal for use in older, well-worn revolvers.

In other words, when a revolver has a bit of wear but still functions, extra power action springs take up slack in the action. A common problem with all Smith & Wesson revolvers was once that the ejector rod would unscrew itself during handling and firing. This problem was solved. The S&W ejector rod was changed from right hand to left hand thread sometime around 1960.

The majority of problems occurring with K-Frame revolvers after 1955 were the result of stretching the limitations of the revolver by chambering it in 357 Magnum. The original idea was to fire twenty rounds of 38 Special for every Magnum with 38 Special used in training. Later liability and training concerns dictated the use of full power Magnum loads in training. The result was a number of problems.

Frames did not crack but they stretched, which is also common with J-Frame Airweight guns used with +Por +P+ 38 Special ammunition. Forcing cones erode with fast burning powder while slower burning charges of powder are less offensive. The K- Frame was simply not envisioned to withstand the pounding of Magnum cartridges. The yoke design, which went into production in 1899 with few changes, required a flat section at the forcing cone and this is where the wall was thinnest.

Forcing cones suffered erosion and if they were not thoroughly cleaned and scrubbed free of leading from soft lead wadcutter ammunition, the result was greater pressure when Magnum loads came screaming through them. End shake was also common; end shake bushings help these wobbly cylinders. This problem seldom occurs with 38 Special revolvers, save for those used long and hard by enthusiastic handloaders!

A big move by Smith & Wesson was the introduction of the L-Frame revolver. This revolver features the K-Frame grip and butt but a larger, more robust frame and heavy under-lugged barrel. The L- Frame stood up to the pounding of Magnum loads much better. The competing Ruger GP 100 is even stronger by most accounts, if not quite as smooth. S&W dropped the Model 19 in 1999 and the Model 66 stainless Combat Magnum a little later. In general, medium-size revolvers are stronger and more durable than ever.

Smith & Wesson reintroduced the Model 19 and Model 66 a few years ago. These are true K-Frame revolvers. The new revolvers have proven popular but they are also not the same revolver that was discontinued. A big difference is the manner in which the cylinder locks up. The locking detent under the barrel that locks up on the ejector rod is replaced by a detent on the crane that locks into the frame. This is a very rigid system that locks the crane up tight.

The rear adjustable sights and red insert front sight are the same as the early Model 19 only in appearance. The rear sight is removable with a much larger screw that the older sights and the front sight is pinned in. Gone is the pinned barrel or the later unpinned barrel. A "pinned" barrel refers to S&W revolvers that feature a pin as addition insurance to avoid the barrel rotating.

The new Combat Magnum features a stainless barrel inside of a blued or stainless barrel shroud, in common with other modern S&W revolvers. The difficulty of properly lining a barrel and sights in the proper north and south alignment during assembly is neatly solved with the new system. The top strap of the new revolver is optics ready with a proper mount. The hammer and trigger of the newer revolvers are MIM (Metal Injection Molding) and seem to work OK, but they are not forged parts.

The 4.25" barrel allows the revolver to be sold in Canada, where the barrel length must be 4.25 inches for legal sale. This is a good thing as the combination of a longer barrel and the deletion of the front lockup allows for a longer ejector rod and greater leverage for cartridge case ejection. The gas ring design in the new Combat Magnum makes for a tighter lockup and seems tighter than an L-Frame I had on hand.

This modification allows for greater room in the frame and anew forcing cone design with stronger walls. The new lockwork results in some confusion as the S&Wis not a transfer bar safety design in the same manner as the Ruger. Rather, the firing pin rides in the frame and the rebound/hammer safety is below the firing pin. The frame-mounted firing pin should withstand the Far force of Magnum loads better and relieves some of the need for a separate rebound to lock the hammer back enough to open the cylinder.

The new Combat Magnum cylinder is just enough longer to allow loading the heaviest cast lead bullets including 178-200 grain loads. The top strap is slightly thicker than early Model 19 revolvers. The top strap is also longer but only enough to provide about 0.07 more sight radius, although adding the 0.25" longer barrel provides a total of 0.32" more sight radius than the original Model 19.

As for working the action of the S&W Combat Magnum, circa 2020, I would advise caution in smoothing the mating surfaces of an MIM hammer and trigger. Metal Injection Molding parts seem to work well in normal firing but I have no experience in attempting to polish the surfaces. While the same technique will apply to older revolvers as far as taking care in polishing the mating surfaces of the hammer sear and trigger, the MIM parts give me pause. I will replace springs and little else.

Perhaps someone has experience they would share on this subject. I do know that under as much magnification as I have available the MIM surfaces appear much less smooth, with some having a pebbled look. I suppose over time the surfaces may smooth or burnish but I am not yet certain. Unlike forged parts, MIM is produced by fusing metal parts together and they are then held together by a binder. There are issues for me in attempting to polish a metal that does not have high

density or 100% density. But then, I use stones rather than a Dremel for such work. S&W Grip Frames Smith & Wesson K-Frame grip frames have changed little over the years. The original grip frame was what is called round butt. While it is beyond the scope of this report, discussions usually end up agreeing that the round butt grip is good for cupping the hand around the grip for fast shooting while the square butt grip is best for slower target shooting.

The round butt has been offered in every generation, even the Combat Magnum with four-inch barrel. After about 1905 the square butt, which was introduced after the round butt, became the majority frame offered. The two-inch barrel revolver was usually offered in both styles. By the end of the original K- Frame run, most frames were square butt. With the new design pistols in the Classic series, the K- Frame became all round butt.

The revolvers were offered, however, with a square butt type grip, termed a "conversion grip". This allows the use of a standard round butt grip frame and the square butt grip in some revolvers without manufacturing two different frames. This means that there are three types of stocks for the K-Frame from beginning to current production, without regard to design and finish. These are the round butt, both the first and the latest of grip sizes, square butt grips, and the square butt conversion grip.

S&W grips differ a great deal in style. As an example, anew piece of information is that the common Magna stocks are not all the same. While checkering and diamond style grips differ, standard Military & Police grips of different generations also differ in thickness. The 1950s style grips, as an example, are not as thick as 1960s grips, something often overlooked by collectors. S&W K-Frame revolvers are an interesting study. While they are all similar in dimensions the internal parts, sights and grip frames differ.

This is something we must understand before working on these handguns. Other S&W Revolvers As a general rule S&W double action revolvers follow a similar line of development. The K-Frame and the large frame N-Frame were changed on a similar schedule from pinned barrels to non-pinned and then shrouded barrels. Finally, they were all changed to the new barrel and ignition system. There are differences even among modern revolvers. As an example, the modern Custom Shop revolver doesn’t lock up on the crane.

Rather, this 686 Plus locks up in the traditional pattern with a detent under the barrel. So, be ready for variations. Another variation on the S&W revolver that is very popular is the J-Frame. The J-Frame revolver uses a coil spring rather than a leaf spring, resulting in no tension screw in the front strap. Is this always true? Not when the small frame revolver is an I-Frame. I am surprised that so many collectors and shop owners do not quite understand what an I-Frame is.

Prior to the development of the J-Frame, the I-Frame was S&W’s small frame revolver. Offered as a six shot in .22 and .32 calibers, including the original Kit Gun, the I- Frame was a very popular revolver. A five shot version in 38 S&W, a near obsolete short cartridge, was also offered. This revolver originally used a leaf spring and tension screw. After World War Two the new introductions from S&W included the J-Frame revolver, the original 38 Special Chief’s Special we all know.

The I-Frame was heavily modified to become the Chief’s Special. The I-Frame received anew coil spring action as the "improved I-Frame". This transition occurred in the mid-1950s along with the half moon front sight becoming a ramp sight. Eventually, I-Frame production was halted in 1962 and all .32 and short .38 caliber revolvers were J-Frame types. These revolvers are still in wide use, at least in my area, and will need your attention from time to time.

S&W revolvers are definitely NOT all the same and you must correctly identify the revolver to order parts or do the work. Safety Lock Revolvers While the politics of the HUD (Housing and Urban Development) agreement that took place between Smith & Wesson and the company’s then British owners and the Clinton administration are disturbing, the facts of the gun lock are important to gunsmiths.

S&W went from a majority position in firearms sales to poor sales and near bankruptcy, selling out at a fraction of their worth to an American company. The gun lock represents this debacle to many who want nothing to do with the lock. Others don’t follow politics but are concerned with reliability. It has been an unpopular addition to the S&W revolver. The lock is operated by a small key. The key blocks the hammer. The lock is turned to engage a cam on the inside of the sideplate.

The cam bears against a locking piece with a raised stud. When the cam is rotated the stud raises into the locking position. A stud on the lock butts into a groove in the hammer. This stud binds on the hammer and locks the revolver in place. When activated the stud neatly fits into a recessed notch in the left side of the hammer. The trigger cannot move as the hammer is locked. The hammer is stabilized as the result is the rest of the hammer is locked in place.

The cylinder latch is not locked as a result of the lock being applied. A problem is that little pressure keeps the "flag" that is exposed on exposed hammer firearms when the piece is locked from staying in place. I have had the unpleasant experience of a revolver with a safety lock Far S&W revolvers are rugged but Magnum loads take a toll. failing on two occasions.

I shoot a lot, a great deal, and I have as a researcher and writer tended to test all of the modern guns as they are introduced, so most of my recent experience is with more modern S&W revolvers. In one case a revolver failed to cycle. The hammer and thus the action was locked. I saw the flag up and pressed it down with the tip of a screwdriver. The action did not repeat. In another case I experienced a rather odd problem.

The lock had moved just enough to retard hammer fall to the point I was getting light primer strikes. The first was a full size 357 Magnum revolver, the second a lightweight 44 Magnum. Neither had more than 500 cartridges fired in them. It would open the gunsmith or owner up to many liability and legal pitfalls to remove this device from a revolver. There are other ill-considered safety devices found on all manner of handguns to be certain but few have the negative political shadow on them the S&W lock does.

The likelihood of a failure remains low but the possibility is certainly proven. AG