New S&W Revolver Star Works - How?
Been thinking about the new handgun technology from Smith & Wesson. The new 5 shot .38 +p special which I believe kinda replaces the model J S&W but with some interesting updates such as a polymer frame, a cylinder that rotates clockwise (a first for S&W) and instead of a "hand" that forces the rotation of the cylinder, it has something brand new (I believe it is brand new, I've never, ever seen the idea before). It has a "star" shaped device in place of the hand that causes the cylinder to rotate.
I like the polymer frame for obvious reasons. I like the now clockwise rotation of the cylinder because that rotation causes a tighter lockup with the cylinder, crane, and frame which means that with each and every shot the firing chamber is always more aligned with the barrel/forcing cone than you might have with a counter clock wise rotating cylinder. Reason being that a clock wise rotating cylinder tries to keep the cylinder closed. A counter clockwise rotating cylinder tries to "open" the cylinder.
But I especially like the idea of a "star" causing the rotation of the cylinder instead of the "hand" idea. I have always felt the hand was subject to excessive wear and vulnurable to breaking or malfunction. But I never even dreamed there could ever be an alternative to having a "hand" rotate a revolver cylinder. Now there is.
But I have a question I hope someone can answer for me before I go out and buy one of the new handguns for my daughter. What exactly is the mechanism inside the frame that works to actually turn the "star" so that the star can turn the cylinder? It is possible I guess that internal mechanism that turns the star could be so fragile or complicated that most people would want to stay away from it and stay with the old "hand" design.
Anybody know so that I can either have faith in a purchase or just pass it up? Thanks for any info.
I like the polymer frame for obvious reasons. I like the now clockwise rotation of the cylinder because that rotation causes a tighter lockup with the cylinder, crane, and frame which means that with each and every shot the firing chamber is always more aligned with the barrel/forcing cone than you might have with a counter clock wise rotating cylinder. Reason being that a clock wise rotating cylinder tries to keep the cylinder closed. A counter clockwise rotating cylinder tries to "open" the cylinder.
But I especially like the idea of a "star" causing the rotation of the cylinder instead of the "hand" idea. I have always felt the hand was subject to excessive wear and vulnurable to breaking or malfunction. But I never even dreamed there could ever be an alternative to having a "hand" rotate a revolver cylinder. Now there is.
But I have a question I hope someone can answer for me before I go out and buy one of the new handguns for my daughter. What exactly is the mechanism inside the frame that works to actually turn the "star" so that the star can turn the cylinder? It is possible I guess that internal mechanism that turns the star could be so fragile or complicated that most people would want to stay away from it and stay with the old "hand" design.
Anybody know so that I can either have faith in a purchase or just pass it up? Thanks for any info.
0
-
"I like the polymer frame for obvious reasons."............you need help[:0] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by MIKE WISKEY
"I like the polymer frame for obvious reasons."............you need help[:0]
Its lighter and more impact-resistant than aluminum alloy. In theory, its also probably cheaper to manufacture, though I doubt you're going to see those savings passed along to you by Smith.
Not having tried one, I don't know if I like or hate a polymer wheelgun, but I will say that in my opinion there is no real advantage to going lighter than the 15 ounce standard "Airweight" Smith Aluminum alloy snubnose.
15 oz vs 12 ounces. . .Who cares? You're not going to notice the difference in your pocket, and certainly not on your belt. If anything 12oz just gives you more recoii.
To answer the original question, I haven't looked at the internals of the new Smith revolver, but I'd imagine they're not all that different. I don't see why rotating a "star" should be all the different than moving a hand, and I can't imagine Smith would go to some extremely complicated (implying expensive to produce) lockwork design, over retaining most of what is tried and true.
I think the more interesting innovation on the new revolver is the top-mounted cylinder release. Again, not having tried it, I'm not sure if I like it or not. While you can argue that its "ambidextrous", in reality, the cylinder still only swings out one way, so its really not truly ambidextrous.0 -
TR: Can't speak to the internals, but I can since my company makes some Polymer frames. The "right" plastic will not rust, is strong and light. I use some steel and some polymer. Pro's and Con's:
Con- UV light WILL EFFECT the life of ANY plastic, I don't care if it does have UV additives. Black is the best color to buy.
Pro - Unlike metal, it will not rust. Expansion of the plastic vs. heat is less then metal in most cases, however, plastic will absorb moisture which does change the size slightly (better then metal, but not perfect).
Pro- As above lighter.
Pro - Parts can be glued on and repairs are easy and cheap.
Con - Different grips are not easily available (although some now offer several "standard" options).
Rifles: No brainer, better in every aspect then wood except looks.
Thanks for the S&W information, I will look this up and try to learn something.0 -
The star is rachet hub driven. See Sept. Guns & Ammo 0 -
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
The star is rachet hub driven. See Sept. Guns & Ammo
I'm pretty sure I read that article (can't locate the magazine at present) and of course the story did tell about the "star" and how the star rotated the cylinder. But I am curious about that "rachet/hub" design that you say rotates the star. If all S&W has done is put a "hand" fully inside the frame (recoil shield?) and the hand rotates a hub which causes the star to rotate the cylinder, I myself don't think that is a great improvement and would prefer to continue owning revolvers that have the hand rotate the cylinder directly instead of a hand that rotates a hub which rotates the star which rotates the cylinder.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
The star is rachet hub driven. See Sept. Guns & Ammo
I'm pretty sure I read that article (can't locate the magazine at present) and of course the story did tell about the "star" and how the star rotated the cylinder. But I am curious about that "rachet/hub" design that you say rotates the star. If all S&W has done is put a "hand" fully inside the frame (recoil shield?) and the hand rotates a hub which causes the star to rotate the cylinder, I myself don't think that is a great improvement and would prefer to continue owning revolvers that have the hand rotate the cylinder directly instead of a hand that rotates a hub which rotates the star which rotates the cylinder.
This is a shot in the dark. I waited until someone had something definitive prior to posting..but I digress.
One must assume the 'star' must be turned (to the next chamber) by some sort of pawl/ratchet system.
That takes the action back to the original design. And the original design doesn't utilize an intermediate part. Let's try and figger' this out..
Let's say the hand is internal, and the star is internal. The 'star' would approximate the back of the extractor as we know it, wouldn't it?
Now, what we have here is a revolver with the hand/mating ratchet moved rearward into the frame. That means the ratchet stays with the frame when the cylinder is swung open..so that also means that the 'star' has to index/lock into the cylinder when closed. Perhaps a notched pin? Torx type stud?
Bad vibes on all this. Reads like a manufacturing shortcut, and has at least three extra parts (if my brain is envisioning this correctly).
Again, I waited prior to throwing my guesstimate out into cyberland. Joe0 -
quote:Originally posted by givette
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
The star is rachet hub driven. See Sept. Guns & Ammo
I'm pretty sure I read that article (can't locate the magazine at present) and of course the story did tell about the "star" and how the star rotated the cylinder. But I am curious about that "rachet/hub" design that you say rotates the star. If all S&W has done is put a "hand" fully inside the frame (recoil shield?) and the hand rotates a hub which causes the star to rotate the cylinder, I myself don't think that is a great improvement and would prefer to continue owning revolvers that have the hand rotate the cylinder directly instead of a hand that rotates a hub which rotates the star which rotates the cylinder.
This is a shot in the dark. I waited until someone had something definitive prior to posting..but I digress.
One must assume the 'star' must be turned (to the next chamber) by some sort of pawl/ratchet system.
That takes the action back to the original design. And the original design doesn't utilize an intermediate part. Let's try and figger' this out..
Let's say the hand is internal, and the star is internal. The 'star' would approximate the back of the extractor as we know it, wouldn't it?
Now, what we have here is a revolver with the hand/mating ratchet moved rearward into the frame. That means the ratchet stays with the frame when the cylinder is swung open..so that also means that the 'star' has to index/lock into the cylinder when closed. Perhaps a notched pin? Torx type stud?
Bad vibes on all this. Reads like a manufacturing shortcut, and has at least three extra parts (if my brain is envisioning this correctly).
Again, I waited prior to throwing my guesstimate out into cyberland. Joe
Yep, just as there is no physical way possible to avoid having the hand NOT be permanently attached to the cylinder I can see no possible way for a "rachet" to be permanently attached to a "hub." At least when inside a gun frame. So, if that is true, then what you would have is just that the hand has been moved totally enclosed inside the frame and instead of it directly pushing against the cylinder, the hand (now called a "rachet?") now pushes against this new "hub" which of course would be just the part of the "star" that was inside the frame and that rotates the cylinder.
So, long story short, if all S&W did was to move the hand (now called the rachet) inside the frame, make a piece called a "star" which resides outside the frame, but part of which also goes inside the frame (inside the frame the piece is now called the "hub") and the "hand/rachet" pushes against the "hub" which of course turns the "star" which rotates the cylinder, then you would only have one new part. That part would be the "star/hub."
I don't mind one or two new parts if they make the gun work better. But the downside with the above (if it is is even correct) is that the hand now would be unable to be seen without taking the gun apart. So until you pulled the trigger, you would not know if the internal hand was in working order or not. Now, with the hand outside the frame, it can be quickly and easily check for proper function.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments