Author Topic: Freshening up the 629-1. (Read 2060 times)

dbriannelson · « **on:** September 16, 2008, 04:24:38 AM »

On Sunday I ordered an oversized cylinder bolt, an oversized hand, various shim washers and a tool to swage-lengthen the crane collar for the old revolver. It's seen a whole lot of use with heavy loads and I figure it's about time to show it some love and tighten it back up a bit, even though it's perfectly shootable and not shaving lead or anything.

The first job will be to fix cylinder end-shake. The options will be to shim it with a washer or to swage the crane collar. I can either use the 0.002" washers free, or silver or soft solder one or two in place. Silver solder takes a lot of heat, but I don't trust soft solder on guns. I'll probably do the swaging and hold the shim washers for the next time around.

Then comes fitting the cylinder bolt or lock. I have the short slots on the -1 cylinder but don't know if the Powers part I ordered is short or long. I suspect it's long and I'll have to spend some time fitting it to the bolt window and the slots. I sort of wish I could replace the bolt spring with a slightly stiffer one, but haven't seen any such for sale. When I get that far I may decide to go looking.

Then finally I'll fit up the hand or pawl. Right now, if I drag a finger on the cylinder and cock the hammer, a couple of chambers don't completely lock in place. This doesn't happen double-action, nor is it a problem in actual shooting. It does indicate wear of the end of the pawl though. I don't see it as much of problem to fit a new one, but then again lots of things surprise me once I'm deep inside and commited.

There doesn't seem to be any side play in the hammer or trigger, but I may see if 0.002" shims fit with a tightened side plate. Just for drill.

I'm open to advice on this, so let me know what you think.

-Don

John Traveler · « **Reply #1 on:** September 16, 2008, 04:31:01 PM »

If you are going to swage-lengthen the crane cylinder arbor, you will need to get the tool for cutting the end square. Probably a good ide if you just install shim washers too. Soft or silver solder is not necessary to hold the shims in place. They are captured and have no where to go. As for fitting a replacement hand, remember it is the WIDTH of a S&W hand that is adjusted for proper timing, not the length. If you have no evidence of hammer or trigger rubbing against the frame, no shims are needed.

dbriannelson · « **Reply #2 on:** September 16, 2008, 05:15:33 PM »

Thanks.

Didn't know about truing the collar after swaging, but it makes sense. Pretty sure I could make a tool to do that, but it is removing metal. (Bet I could use a case trimmer if I can fit a center to the arbor and have a guide that would fit the ID.)

The washers would be trapped until the next time I cleaned the revolver. Then I'd lose 'em. Putting them in loose would functionally work, but I'm that kind of klutz. Just measured and one 0.002 shim should do it.

I'm going by "Pistolsmithing," by George Nonte. Haven't gotten to the part about fitting the pawl yet, but there was an illustration showing one of them flexed. I'll read it carefully. Seems that the current pawl should have some sideways play if a fatter one is going to fix it ... and yes, it does. Not much, but a little.

No rubbing of the trigger or hammer on this gun. (I do have a little rubbing on a 351PD that I haven't been able to fix, so it may get a washer on the left side of the hammer.)

Again, thanks.

-Don

John Traveler · « **Reply #3 on:** September 16, 2008, 05:45:53 PM »

A dab of moly disulphide grease will hold the shims inside the cylinder.

Your idea of making a pilot to fit your case trimmer and crane arbor is a good one. That is exactly what my trimmer is used for.

I've studied the Nonte "Pistolsmithing" classic too, and as I recall, the example he gave of timing was for a Colt, which DOES rely on pawl length for proper timing and carryup. The S&W design relies on the hand tip to bring up the cylinder, and in the last many degrees of cylinder rotation, it is the side of the hand that binds/pushes/holds the cylinder in position for the cylinder stop to snap up and lock. If you take a look at S&W revolvers that fail to carry up, you will notice commonalities: rotational cylinder slop caused by sloppy extractor fit, worn ratchet, worn hand, worn cyl stop window, or worn cylinder stop. Excessive end play will contribute to faiilure to carry up too. It should be corrected first before attending to the worn hand.

You might want to consider teflon washers against the trigger and hammer studs. You can get those at industrial machinery tooling supply houses.

HTH
John

dbriannelson · « **Reply #4 on:** September 16, 2008, 06:06:07 PM »

I've had a couple of instances where shooting double action the hammer would not come all the way back. The cause, which is obvious now, was that there was zero gap. Not even light. It wasn't until I was sitting down looking critically that I realized the cylinder would move back in the frame window and the lack of gap was caused by peening of that little bearing surface. I'm afraid that when I do move the cylinder back to where it belongs I'll still have only .002 or .004 clearance. I don't expect to do anything about that as far as cutting the barrel though. It seemed to have worked just fine for these last 20 years at that or less.

The ratchet doesn't show any obvious wear, but I'm not sure how I could tell except to mike the lugs on a newer one and compare. I'll have a newer 629-1 in a few weeks, so that measurement's possible.

The stop window is probably worn a little. I'm not one to slap the cylinder closed, but wear is going to happen anywhere metal moves against metal, and I do shoot rapid double-action a lot. I've read somewhere about using a punch and anvil to narrow the window down again, but would rather fit up a new stop if I can make it fit both the window and the cylinder slots. Upsetting the window should be done on the upstream or left side for strength, but that could affect the cylinder alignment, too. I won't be cutting the new stop with a mill bastard file or anything, so slow and easy should let me know if it's possible.

I'll look into teflon washers. The place I work probably has consumable bins of those things.

-Don

John Traveler · « **Reply #5 on:** September 17, 2008, 02:38:33 PM »

Did you get a look at George Nonte's solution for a sloppy cylinder stop window? He recommended fitting a piece of hardened steel over the existing window and SOLDERING it to the frame!!! UGH!

It sorta reminds me of the American Rifleman article on a revolver made by a north Canadian woodsman. It was entirely handmade, of chunks of scrap steel and scrap gun parts. The revolver was chambered for (get this!): .303 British, .30-30, .30-40 Krag, and .30-06 all in the same cylinder!!! It wasn't much to look at, but was functional. Amazing how ingenious some people get when they have a lot of time on their hands!

dbriannelson · « **Reply #6 on:** September 19, 2008, 11:47:47 AM »

Got the washers in the mail. They fit behind the extractor spring, so there's no danger at all of them falling out. Looks like a real good fix, actually. But...

... the end shake on the revolver (now that I bothered to actually measure it) is less than the .002" thickness of the washers. My feeler gauge tells me it's 0.0015". Too small to care about.

Nevertheless, when the slack is taken up (normal forward position of the cylinder), there is zero clearance with the barrel - can't even see light through there. The range is 0.000" to 0.0015" from forward to aft position of the cylinder. I'm a little concerned that there isn't enough gap.

Next I'll mess with the cylinder bolt and see if it makes sense to install it. Then the pawl. I expect that will be necessary because I can drag a finger and keep the cylinder from locking if I go slowly.

It's all a learning experience.

-Don

S.B. · « **Reply #7 on:** September 23, 2008, 03:05:17 AM »

The bolt in a S&W is actually the little piece that is pushed forward to open the cylinder? Personally, I've never heard of an oversized bolt or one needing to be changed out. There are schematics of S&W revolvers all over the internet, make sure your using the correct names. If you add shims you're going to change dimensions in another area. What was your B/C gap to start with and what is your desired dimension(do you shoot mostly cast or jacketed bullets in this gun)? How did you measure your end shake?

dbriannelson · « **Reply #8 on:** September 23, 2008, 05:30:04 AM »

The cylinder stop is oversized.

B/C gap is 0.000". With the cylinder pushed aft it opens to 0.0015". With the cylinder open, the end play remains 0.0015". As I don't have a dial indicator, the former was measured with feeler gages and the latter by confirming that there's no B/C interference with the cylinder held forward while closing. There is no crane to frame play.

I shoot only cast bullets sized to 0.430-0.431".

-Don

S.B. · « **Reply #9 on:** September 23, 2008, 06:13:09 AM »

I'd cut the back of the barrel for .004" B/C. You've got many thousands of rounds before you need any serious work done on this gun. I'd probably continue to shoot it as is?

dbriannelson · « **Reply #10 on:** September 23, 2008, 10:28:22 AM »

Thanks. I am shooting as is, but fouling causes the cylinder to drag after fifty or so rounds, depending on the loads. I'll get Brownell's 90 degree Chamfer Cutter and open the gap to 0.004".

Next problem is still that if I drag a finger on the cylinder and cock it, the cylinder doesn't lock up on two or three of the chambers. Not a problem in actual shooting, but it has the potential to become one. I've got the oversized hand, but haven't fiddled with it yet.

-Don

S.B. · « **Reply #11 on:** September 23, 2008, 11:27:20 AM »

That's a timing problem. Maybe a new hand?

dbriannelson · « **Reply #12 on:** September 23, 2008, 12:57:42 PM »

Got a new hand (Powers, oversized), but haven't got the files to fit it to the window yet. I figure this is a long-term project, like so many others.

Got a new oversized cylinder stop as well, but don't really need it yet.

-Don

S.B. · « **Reply #13 on:** September 23, 2008, 04:37:52 PM »

Not sure I would go with an oversized hand? Regular/new usually works for me.

dbriannelson · « **Reply #14 on:** September 23, 2008, 06:45:20 PM »

Quote from: S.B. on September 23, 2008, 04:37:52 PM

Not sure I would go with an oversized hand? Regular/new usually works for me.

Sounds good, and I appreciate the advice. I'll order one up. I did notice that the tip that contacts the cylinder has developed a bevel that isn't on the hand of my new N-Frame.

-Don

S.B. · « **Reply #15 on:** September 24, 2008, 01:20:55 AM »

S&W has changed the hands a lot over the years, just make sure you get the right one, contact S&W or Brownells to be sure of getting the right one.

dbriannelson · « **Reply #16 on:** September 29, 2008, 04:27:55 PM »

The end shake is solved finally. I used two 0.002" washers under the spring and ended up with a gap of 0.006" and no end shake at all. I'd made a measuring error earlier, but when I sat down tonight and paid close attention to the feeler gages it all came out right.

The hand is another matter. The S&W hand I received is about 0.004" thicker than the hand that's currently in the revolver, so dropping it straight in jams the trigger in the rear position when the trigger is pulled. I believe that lapping a few thousands off the flat side (right side) of the hand is the solution. With nothing but a small Hard Arkansas stone to work with I certainly won't be taking too much material off all at once. This will be attempted over a longer period when I have nothing better to do. It does reliably put the cylinder into a very tight lockup.

I have another hand as well, a Powers oversized one without the lug that rides over the back bevel of the cylinder bolt when the cylinder is out and the bolt is forward. As far as I can tell, that lug doesn't do anything at all if the cylinder is in place and the bolt is aft - the lug rides under the bolt, rather than up the bevel.

S.B., what do you think about that hand?

-Don

S.B. · « **Reply #17 on:** September 29, 2008, 05:01:18 PM »

Put some Diekem all over it, install it and see where it's rubbing? Then hone accordingly.

dbriannelson · « **Reply #18 on:** October 19, 2008, 04:14:30 PM »

Finished it up, finally.

First, the cylinder lock. There was enough rotational play to figure I'd best replace the lock before moving on to the hand. First I narrowed the bit that actually fits the cylinder slots so it would fit the narrowest one. That still left me with 0.004" more metal than the old lock. Then I made sure it fit the frame slot without binding. That took another 0.001" off, and I polished the sides, very slightly beveling the top where it first touches the cylinder slot and polishing the top so it rides along the cylinder smoothly.

This is where it got interesting, because that cylinder lock does several things. There's an edge that has to be lapped so that the lock isn't withdrawn all the way inside the frame or it could stick down and disable the revolver. And the ramp leading to that edge is the one the finger at the front of the trigger rides up push the lock forward to ratchet itself back into place for the next trigger pull. The new part was made with enough material that it was all just a process of removing the right amount rather than having to add any, and this got figured out and adjusted.

Last was the hand. I did use Diekem and found where it was binding. It was a pretty large area, so I borrowed a whetstone and went at it, thinning it another thousandth. Then I polished that face with the hard Arkansas so it was smooth and flat. Lots of messy hand work doing that. Several more fits and tries to make sure I'd gotten to where it wasn't binding. Near the end, only two chambers were still binding the hand and only in single action, and I think that was because of the slight differences in the lugs that the hand engages. I pulled it apart, polished a little more, got a tiny pick and cleaned out the pawl window, put it back together and dry-fired double and single action until I knew that in this perfectly clean state everything works as it should.

To make sure I hadn't screwed up the chamber alignment (shouldn't - the worst it even could be was the amount removed from the lock thickness and that effectively puts it back where the factory made it) I slid some drill rod down the barrel. Not really a good test as the throats are the same diameter as the grooves, but I did it anyway. Then I used an LED pea bulb against the firing pin bushing and looked down the bore and everything seemed to line up as well as my eyeball can tell.

So I've been snapping and grinning and feel pretty good about this. The cylinder locks up with no play at all at full cock and with the trigger pulled. There's still a teensy bit of play when it's all at rest, but noticeably less than before. Feels like a new old Smith & Wesson. I do still have to take it to the range and wring it out completely though.

And I saved a couple hundred dollars and learned a whole lot!

-Don

S.B. · « **Reply #19 on:** October 19, 2008, 04:58:38 PM »

Quote from: dbriannelson on September 29, 2008, 04:27:55 PM

The end shake is solved finally. I used two 0.002" washers under the spring and ended up with a gap of 0.006" and no end shake at all. I'd made a measuring error earlier, but when I sat down tonight and paid close attention to the feeler gages it all came out right.

The hand is another matter. The S&W hand I received is about 0.004" thicker than the hand that's currently in the revolver, so dropping it straight in jams the trigger in the rear position when the trigger is pulled. I believe that lapping a few thousands off the flat side (right side) of the hand is the solution. With nothing but a small Hard Arkansas stone to work with I certainly won't be taking too much material off all at once. This will be attempted over a longer period when I have nothing better to do. It does reliably put the cylinder into a very tight lockup.

I have another hand as well, a Powers oversized one without the lug that rides over the back bevel of the cylinder bolt when the cylinder is out and the bolt is forward. As far as I can tell, that lug doesn't do anything at all if the cylinder is in place and the bolt is aft - the lug rides under the bolt, rather than up the bevel.

[/quote]

Now, if I understood your earlier post about using the .002 (your total adjustment was .004, correct?)spacing washers, you changed the head space while doing this? Do you have a shop manual? Check your headspacing?|

dbriannelson · « **Reply #20 on:** October 19, 2008, 05:07:12 PM »

I don't have a shop manual, but the headspace now is the same as it was with the cylinder pushed all the way back before I began. With one washer there remained a bit of end play. Are you saying that if the second washer was too much it would have moved the cylinder back, reducing headspace?

Is there something else I should be careful of specifically?

-Don

S.B. · « **Reply #21 on:** October 19, 2008, 05:33:00 PM »

Just make sure your headspace is within specs. I think it's suppose to run .006"-.008"? When headspacing is out of spec you can get irregular ignition or misfires or hangfires. With S&Ws when you change one dimension you affect a lot of other dimensions. Remember, this lockwork was designed a long time ago(basically the same since around the turn of the 20 century). I think the .38 special M&P came out in 1899? One of the Ruger Lovers oft mentioned reasons for choosing the Rugers.

dbriannelson · « **Reply #22 on:** October 19, 2008, 05:41:56 PM »

Googled it. 0.060 to 0.068". My rusty feeler gauges say 0.065". (Used a couple different combinations to confirm that. Time to get a fresh set.)

Rim thickness is a nominal 0.060", so that leaves 0.005" behind the standard rim.

Thanks for the advice.

-Don

S.B. · « **Reply #23 on:** October 19, 2008, 05:57:36 PM »

How did you measure it, I measure with empty shells in cylinder from the back of shellheads to the recoil shield? And I think it should measure .006-.008? Remember, you should have the same touch with a feeler gage that you have when measuring with your mike.

dbriannelson · « **Reply #24 on:** October 20, 2008, 02:13:24 AM »

Measured both ways. Without a case it was 0.065", nicely within the 0.060-0.068" range. With a case it was 0.006".

-Don

S.B. · « **Reply #25 on:** October 20, 2008, 02:57:53 AM »

Sounds good to me.
Steve

dbriannelson · « **Reply #26 on:** October 20, 2008, 09:25:19 AM »

Took it to the range over lunch and it all works fine. The double-action feel has changed a bit, with a small step at the end of the pull. I'm pretty sure that's when the lock engages and the hand continues to move up just a tad.

I'm also pretty sure that will get less noticeable as I shoot it more and the engaging surfaces break in.

It is nice to work close to a range.

-Don

S.B. · « **Reply #27 on:** October 20, 2008, 10:20:06 AM »

Give it a couple hundred rounds, they take time to break in all those new parts. Give it a moderate amount of forward pressure(behind the hammer) while pulling the trigger, dry fire, sometimes helps get the trigger to clean up(mate the surfaces)?
Steve

docmagnum357 · « **Reply #28 on:** December 12, 2008, 03:18:29 PM »

I appreciate this thread. i will be doing the same work on a model 19-4 that really is a clunker, but all there.