Gunshop Knucklehead and a S&W Model 10

[Phydeaux642]

I had a little bit of time today, so, I decided to drop by a couple of local gunshops to look for a good deal. There is one particular shop that I rarely go to because the owner and his minion seem to think it is beneath them to acknowledge the fact that you stepped into their domain. If you are law enforcement then you're okay and part of the 'club'.

Anyway, there was a S&W Model 10 with a 4" barrel for $250. Well, I was pretty excited and asked to see it. I then began the 'check' as described in the Jim March 'sticky':

2) Thumb the hammer back, and while pulling the trigger, gently lower the hammer all the way down while keeping the trigger back - and KEEP holding the trigger once the hammer is down. (You've now put the gun in "full lockup" - keep it there for this and most other tests.)

3) With the trigger still back all the way, check for cylinder wiggle. Front/back is particularly undesirable; a bit of side to side is OK but it's a bad thing if you can wiggle it one way, let go, and then spin it the other way a fraction of an inch and it stays there too. At the very least, it should "want" to stop in just one place (later, we'll see if that place is any good). The ultimate is a "welded to the frame" feeling.

The guy behind the counter grabs my arm and leans in to tell me that that is not the way you check to see how it locks up. He said, "This gun locks up real tight and the only thing wrong with this gun is a little holster wear", which I found kind of funny since the whole time he was telling me this I was moving the cylinder back and forth. It didn't seem to lock up tight to me.

I'm sure glad there are guys like Old Fuff, Jim March and 1911Tuner here with all of their great info. And, I'm not Old Fuff, so, I left the gun there for someone else to fiddle with. Oh well, I almost had a deal.

 

[LeonCarr]

The guy behind the counter grabs your arm..sounds like Assault to me.

I would have let him have the Model 10 back, and then went to the PD and filed a police report.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[rcmodel]

Holding the trigger back tight is what locks a Colt up tight.
It has very little to do with anything on a S&W.

It's almost as tight just setting there looking pretty as it's ever going to get.

The hand has a slight influence on a S&W, but a Colt depends totally on it.

rcmodel

 

[Jim March]

RCModel, that's true, but there's a BIT of effect so it's still worth it. With Colts it matters a LOT and ditto vintage Charter Arms and a few others.

Some, I can't even recall off the top of my head. H&Rs? No clue.

But part of the appeal of "the checkout" is that the same drill will work with every gun type. This is damned important if you're checking a lot of guns at, say, a gun show.

I will say for sure that gently lowering the hammer with the trigger back as the first poster did is in NO way abusive of the gun and the gun shop owner had no cause to complain, let alone yank it out of his hand.

 

[Phydeaux642]

The guy behind the counter didn't pull the gun out of my hand or even grab my arm in a rough way or anything. The arm grabbing was more of a condescending gesture that said, "You poor, dumb, silly man, that's not the way it's done".

While on the subject of lock-up, how much wiggle is okay in a S&W?
The Colt DS I bought last year is tight as a drum. If a little wiggle is not that big of a deal on a S&W, maybe that gun was priced pretty good. Although, the attitude of the shop employees really bother me at this shop. The shop that I usually buy from actually treats me with some respect, but stuff like that doesn't last long there and I usually miss it.

 

[Dismantler]

Interestingly, there is a shop here in Southern NH where the owner also does not want you to check the guns out. He has a gunsmith in the back and guarantees all of his used guns. But I do not think that it is unreasonable for a customer to want to check the guns out. For some reason, a few shop owners do. Even really nice guns with no problems.

 

[Phydeaux642]

When I bought my Colt DS at Bass Pro's Fine Gun Room, they didn't mind at all that I checked it out. He also told me that the smith there at the store checked before they put it on the shelf. The new gun counter is a different story at Bass Pro. All of the guns have trigger locks and they will not remove them for any reason.

 

[rcmodel]

But part of the appeal of "the checkout" is that the same drill will work with every gun type.

I agree, but you will be looking a long long time before you find a S&W that locks up like a Colt with the trigger held back.
They just don't work the same way as a Colt because of the different lockwork design.

I'd hate to see a new gun buyer pass up every nice old S&W he finds because the cylinder moves a little with the trigger held back.

rcmodel

 

[btg3]

Colts are new to me. Just got my hands on one last week. When it locks up, squeezing the trigger firmly, I noticed that the cylinder gap also closes to nothing. Amazing!

 

[sgt127]

Actually, I have been scolded by Smith and Wesson armorers for building a gun up TOO tight. They prefer everything have a little wiggle room, except endshake. In other words, it shoudln't lock up like a Python,

 

[gruesomenewsom]

this is a great thread guys. after reading this last night i checked the lockup from my python versus my gp100. i was still kinda wary about the python i just bought but she locks up like a rock after re-checking.

 

[Jim March]

It's true, S&Ws and Rugers need a bit of slop, where Colts can't have any. Early Charters work like a Colt, the latest appear to be more Rugerish in this regard.

 

[Old Fuff]

Smith & Wesson, Ruger and Colt double action/hand ejector revolvers are generally similar, but of the three only Colt's are supposed to lock up like a bank vault when the trigger is held back. This is because the hand that rotates the cylinder has two steps, and the lower one pushes against a ratchet tooth pushing one way, while the cylinder bolt is in a notch in the cylinder and this prevents any rotation in either direction.

Is this good? Only when the chamber is absolutely concentric with the bore. During those days when Colt could lavish hand fitting being done by skilled and experienced workmen this was usually the case. At a later time it sometimes wasn't. But a correctly fitted Colt is a joy, and offers exceptional accuracy to match.

Smith & Wesson as well as Ruger revolvers don't have a second step on the hand, and as the hand rotates the cylinder it will pass by the ratchet as the cylinder stop (same as the "bolt" in a Colt) engages the slot in the cylinder. Therefore a S&W or Ruger are locked up as tight as they'll get with the trigger either back or forward.

So is this good or bad? Well both companies point out that a very little rotational movement will permit a slightly out of alignment chamber to center itself with the bore, which is good so long as you don't have "too much of a good thing."

Also be aware that a sprung or loose yoke (Colt calls it a "crane") can cause or exuberate rotational movement of a locked cylinder. So if you feel that there is too much movement check for both conditions.

Checking out a used revolver in a manner that doesn't cause any harm should be a customer's right. If a seller says, "no" I suspect he has a reason, and give him back his gun. If I end up having to make expensive repairs even a low price doesn't make a good deal.

As for new guns: In this day and age are we supposed to think that they are all perfect? I check those too.

 

[Dismantler]

Check those guns fellow shooters. I recently bought a used Model 60 that I did not bother to check over. Well, the cylinder gap is not even, and the cylinder drags against the top of the barrel!

The shop is owned by a very competent gunsmith. I do not know how this one got by him. I took it back. He was not there, but his sales person took it back. They have the choice of repairing or replacing. My trust in the dealer is not an issue, as he once took a jam-o-matic Ruger back, no questions asked. But I could have avoided the hassle had I just looked.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

Many new and some older smiths had uneven b/c gaps due to the face of the bbl. not being true. Those that were not true were tighter at the top. I'm beginning to wonder if smith did that on purpose to cut down on topstrap cutting.

 

[grendelbane]

ditto vintage Charter Arms and a few others.

How vintage does a Charter Arms have to be? I only have one, and I think it was produced in 1983. I think that 4 others have passed through my hands. All were reasonably good shooters, and one 3" .38 Undercover thought it was some kind of a target pistol.

Still wish I had my stainless steel .44 Bulldog. The only Charter left is an Off Duty, and indeed, it does lock up tight, just like my Official Police does.

Strange that I never actually noticed that before.

 

[Jim March]

Up through at LEAST the early '80s they used the tight design. It gets hard to tell after that - during the "Charco" era QC was so spotty it was hard to tell what they were trying to do .

I *think* the Charter 2000s are set up Ruger/S&W style...or the two such specimens I've examined were screwed up!

My late-70s era Undercover is bank-vault-tight.

The problem with the "tight" system is that if it's tight yet not in alignment, Bad Things[tm] happen in a hurry. The Ruger/S&W system tolerates minor wear far better than the Colt/original Charter/God-knows-who-else system.