Today's Lesson

[flanman]

I would much rather work on a Python action than a S&W action. While both can be fairly easily taken apart it is a thousand times easier to get a Python action reassembled than a S&W action. Sure it is nice to say yeah I have worked on one of those I would not want to ever have to do it again. Yet I have no fear of working on a Python or other Colt action.

Anyone have disagree?

flanman

[capstan]

I did some work on my model 629 S &W 44 mag and took apart a couple mod. 36's, a mod 66 and a model 15 S &W. I agree it seems easier to take apart and put back together a Colt V spring action ,but maybe Ive just taken apart and put back together a lot more Colts than Smith and Wessons.

[4thHorseman]

Older Colts have more crap in them than a Christmas turkey. I may have to disagree with you on this one. S&W's are easier for me, even easier with the right tools.
I will concede that the workings of an old Colt are close, if not a work of art in their mechanical operations. They are just amazingly "neat".
S&W's have simpler actions and fewer parts.
The ease of manufacturing and less cost for production for S&W's are one reason they are still being made today as Colts are not.

[dfariswheel]

The Colt's seem to come apart and go back together easier then the S&W.

The S&W always requires some clinched teeth to get the rebound and spring properly in and out, and the hammer often is resistant when removing.
You have to watch it to prevent scratching the outside of the frame with the firing pin on the old style guns as you rock the hammer out.

S&W seems to be worse for the rear side plate screw to be rusted and more difficult to extract.

Another trap for the unwary is on the old style guns with the standard fitted screw that retains the cylinder yoke.
It's not getting the screw switched with the lower side plate screw, it's allowing the yoke to move just a fraction forward and the screw chews up the flange on the yoke.

One last sometime problem. Some people tend to operate the action briskly and a lot with the side plate off checking function.
There are holes in the S&W side plate to fit over the frame pins and support them.
With the side plate off, I've seen a few rebound frame pins bent or broken.

Every design has it's little quirks, and possibly since I spent so much time in the Colt's they seem easier.

[Kid Sopris]

I haven't had any problems with either...BUT I cheated..I was taught by a S & W Armorer, and I stayed awake during the Colt Python Briefing, the LASD Range personnel provided to a select few of us. What I don't like are Auto 5 Shotguns.LOL

[bmcgilvray]

Dfariswheel has spoken so the Colt must be easier. For me though the Smith & Wesson is easier. Working on the Colt design is like trying to divine the future by digging around in chicken entrails. I can detail strip one and do the most basic gunsmithing but don't profess to enjoy it.

[MtnSpur]

Another trap for the unwary is on the old style guns with the standard fitted screw that retains the cylinder yoke.
It's not getting the screw switched with the lower side plate screw, it's allowing the yoke to move just a fraction forward and the screw chews up the flange on the yoke.

.

Unfortunately I have a 15-4 that has that very issue, I do believe, as when the crane is open I can rotate the cylinder through 5 chambers but it will ever so slightly bind the rear of the cylinder to the frame on the 6th. The price from a private party was less than a tank of gas (at today's prices) some years ago but it sits in the safe waiting for me to decide what I to do.

[rhmc24]

I'm a kind of one-trick pony. Three tricks, actually, about the only ones I am proficient with are from the early 1900s, the New Services, 1902 & '05 Autos and the S&W .44 DA top breaks. They each have their quirks but all are effective designs for their time. I like the S&W TLs but never had to take any of mine apart.

[dfariswheel]

Unfortunately I have a 15-4 that has that very issue, I do believe, as when the crane is open I can rotate the cylinder through 5 chambers but it will ever so slightly bind the rear of the cylinder to the frame on the 6th. The price from a private party was less than a tank of gas (at today's prices) some years ago but it sits in the safe waiting for me to decide what I to do.

A dinked up yoke flange shouldn't cause the cylinder to touch the frame.
That sounds much more like a bent or "sprung" yoke.
A bent Colt crane or S&W Yoke is like a wheel with a bent axle. The wheel, or in this case the cylinder, it wobbling because the yoke is bent out of line.

This is rather common in revolvers that have been dropped or "Bogarted" by flipping the cylinder open and shut with a flick of the wrist.

[MtnSpur]

A dinked up yoke flange shouldn't cause the cylinder to touch the frame.
That sounds much more like a bent or "sprung" yoke.
A bent Colt crane or S&W Yoke is like a wheel with a bent axle. The wheel, or in this case the cylinder, it wobbling because the yoke is bent out of line.

This is rather common in revolvers that have been dropped or "Bogarted" by flipping the cylinder open and shut with a flick of the wrist.

I suspected as much. Had even thought at one point the fitted screw had been accidently swapped with the rear sideplate screw but was not. Solution would be? I also apologize for semi hijacking, even though briefly, Mr Flanman.