| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Smith & Wesson Mk II Hand Ejector: Difference between revisions
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
The ejector rod shroud went away for basically the same reason that the thrid lock went away. However in 1926 S&W would bring back the ejector rod shroud with the | The ejector rod shroud went away for basically the same reason that the thrid lock went away. However in 1926 S&W would bring back the ejector rod shroud with the | ||
introduction of the [[Smith & Wesson 44 Hand Ejector Series#.44 Smith & Wesson 3RD Model "Wolf and Klar Model" (1926-1941)|.44 Smith & Wesson 3RD Model]]. If you should ever come across a genuine Triple Lock be prepared to pay a pretty penny for it (regardless of the caliber). --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:51, 14 October 2010
Reason for the design change.
There are several reasons why the Triple Lock design was changed to the MK II. First of all the cylinder crane lock was found to be clogged up with dirt and mud in the trenches - making it difficult ,if not impossible, for the British soldiers to close the cylinder. When there was no shooting going on this was irritating, but not fatal. But in combat could be fatal. In addition to this very serious flaw the S&W engineers concluded that the third lock wasn't necessary since the 44 frame was strong enough with just the cylinder ejector rod lock and the rear lock. With this revelation the S&W accountants concluded (actually they had been telling management this for several years) that it took too much time and money to machine the crane lock.
The ejector rod shroud went away for basically the same reason that the thrid lock went away. However in 1926 S&W would bring back the ejector rod shroud with the introduction of the .44 Smith & Wesson 3RD Model. If you should ever come across a genuine Triple Lock be prepared to pay a pretty penny for it (regardless of the caliber). --Jcordell 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)