Why the shrouded ejector rod on magnums

[22-rimfire]

In my younger days, I have to say that I had little interest in a revolver than did not have a shrouded ejector rod. That changed with some of the old Colts. But I still prefer the shrouded ejector rod but do not require the full length shroud of say the S&W 686 or 617 or Colt Python. The N frame Smiths are just about right.

I doubt a new revolver by a major manufacture would come with an unshrouded ejector rod as they are simply preferred over the non-shrouded versions.

[Grant D]

All new J frame S&W'S other than the bodyguard and 357 models are unshrouded.

[22-rimfire]

It is a matter of definition. I consider them shrouded myself. Could be wrong, but that is my view.

[Deaf Smith]

Personally I like the shrouds. They look cool.

But on a combat handgun it's wiser to not have them due to mud and debris getting stuck in the crevices.

Deaf

[last]

I hate shrouds... I'm sad there is no new Smith revolver in 357 without the shroud... like the beloved 13 I stupidly traded for a 686

[dahermit]

But on a combat handgun it's wiser to not have them due to mud and debris getting stuck in the crevices.

Combat handgun? Do you mean on the battle field? The only mud and debris I worry about getting into the shroud of my pocket carry S&W 36, is when I fall down due to old age. That is the closest most of us will come to combat. Either that, or if there is mud and debris in my gun, it is because I have already lost the combat.

[dahermit]

It is a matter of definition. I consider them shrouded myself. Could be wrong, but that is my view.

Here are some definitions in case you are struggling:
Un-shrouded (M36)


Shrouded (M66)



Shrouded with full under-lug (M686).

[22-rimfire]

No struggles on my end. You'll notice on your picture of the M36 that there is no protection beneath the ejector rod... hence un shrouded.

[dahermit]

No struggles on my end. You'll notice on your picture of the M36 that there is no protection beneath the ejector rod... hence un shrouded.

Maybe that is why I labeled it as "un-shrouded"?

[22-rimfire]

Just maybe with a bit of attitude thrown in. Have a nice life hermit.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

There were only three Smith and Wesson side swing revolvers made with no protection for the extractor rod at all; nothing for the front of the rod to latch to.

The 32 Hand Ejector 1st Model (Model of 1896, this one shipped in December of 1896)






And the 38 M&P Models of 1899 and 1902. This Model 1899 shipped in 1902. Yes, it has been refinished.






By 1905, S&W made major changes to the lockwork of the M&P, and the first underlug appeared to latch the front end of the extractor rod. This 38 M&P Model of 1905, First Change left the factory in July of 1906.






Judging from the hammer and front sight shape on this diagram, this cutaway view dates from just before the M&P changed its name to Model 10. The lug under the barrel is called out as the Barrel Lug in this illustration.






As I stated earlier, the shroud first appeared with the Triple Lock in 1908. Nomenclature seems to vary. The Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson goes back and forth calling it the Ejector Shroud and the Extractor Shroud on various pages.

Nickel plated Triple Lock from that shipped in October of 1915.





But for some reason, rather than calling this a Full Length Shroud, the SCSW calls this a Full Lug.

Model 617-6 that shipped in July of 2003. The only MIM parts/Lock/Full Lug Smith that I own.

[Erictalksalot]

This is a bit after the fact I understand, but there are at least 2 examples of Magnum round Smith & Wesson revolvers that do not in fact have a shroud. The Model 13 is a .357 mag that has an exposed rod (.357 version of a Model 10 (other than caliber which includes a slightly longer cylinder, it is identical with a 3 inch barrel as the shortest option) or a shroudless, fixed sight version of a Model 19). Also, the Model 58 is a shroudless, fixed sight version of the Model 57 in .41 mag. It was intended to be a desirable option for law enforcement, but so it was toned down and cheaper than the 57. However, most departments turned it down due to recoil. I do believe the San Francisco Highway Patrol did allow the Model 57 to be used as a sidearm for officers, but I don't know if any other department did or not. Hope this helps (years after the fact).

[tubeshooter]

I learned something new with this thread. Did not know about the mud and debris thing.



I was always partial to the shroud because "why not?". I figured the protection was worth it. But the mud and debris aspect is the answer to that question.

[Tinbucket]

I've seen some old model Smiths that shot .45ACP and some Colts without shrouded ejector rod.
Being old the looseness might have been to inattention to good lube but the bent ones, I'm sure pocket or a holster edge caused some bending.
Shrouding and the ejector rod is protected.

[briandg]

This is easily explained. An exposed ejector is a bad idea. An expensive magnum gun can be fitted with a shroud without adding much extra to the price. It could even be soldered on as the barrel is fitted, but it still costs money.

Only a few of us will remember that some rifles in the past weren't drilled for scopes. Now, many of them don't have iron sights

[1911_Hardball]

Why shrouded ejector rods?
When Bill Jordan was consulting with smith & Wesson on the development of the Model 19 he suggested the shroud and was asked that very question by a Smith & Wesson employee.
His answer was something like "To protect it in case someone accidentally bumps his head on my gun."

[Jim Watson]

Bill Jordan also said "It is often easier to convince the coroner's jury that you did not shoot somebody too much than it is to show you did not hit him too hard."

[dgludwig]

One somewhat esoteric advantage an unshrouded ejector rod might have over one that is shrouded is if the ejector rod somehow gets slightly bent while the cylinder is open. In such an albeit unlikely event, the cylinder associated with the bent ejector rod could be closed on an unshrouded revolver. It would be well-nigh impossible to close the cylinder on a revolver with a shroud having an even slightly bent ejector rod.

[tipoc]

Thread started over 2 year ago, but what the heck!

As stated the shroud first showed up on the N frame Triple Lock--New Century. Chambered in the non magnum (because there were no magnum rounds yet) 44 Spl. and a few other rounds. When WWI began S&W began clambering the the guns in 455 for the British.

The British, as said earlier, found that they fouled easily in the trenches, dirt and mud in the shroud. Geoffery Boothroyd tells us that the British (some of them anyway) favored the Colt New Service which was not only unshrouded but also heavier and stronger. "A real man's gun" Boothroyd called it.

Neither the M1917 by Colt nor S&W had a shroud. Both had long favorable service lives in a number of wars and places.

The 38/44 Heavy Duty and the Outdoorsman both had Shrouds and they were in 38 Spl.

Then S&W did it with the 357 Magnum. That gun also had the raised rib on top of the barrel that increased the weight of the barrel for better recoil control.

It took S&W and Colt awhile to figure out that heavier barrels helped in recoil control and they preferred it in some guns.

The shroud increased the weight, protected the ejector rod (the latter here was a selling point against Colt), looked good and was a marketing point against competitors. An S&W trademark bit of flair. An M19 looks so much better than an M13 in part because of the adjustable sights and the shroud.

tipoc

[44 AMP]

Personally, I think the British saying "mud in the trenches" was the reason they didn't want a shroud was just the excuse used to save a few shillings...

Face it, every revolver has a lot of holes, slots, and openings where dirt can get in. The British Webley literally opens in half, leaving a HUGE area for mud etc. And the British were fine with that....

trench mud..riiiiight...


(not saying it wasn't a valid concern, but EVERY revolver is at risk that way, and the British Service revolver (top break) was worse than the S&W, to my way of thinking...)

[Mike Irwin]

"Personally, I think the British saying "mud in the trenches" was the reason they didn't want a shroud was just the excuse used to save a few shillings..."

Having actually had an S&W jam because of debris in the ejector rod housing, I have no doubt that the British actually knew what the hell they were talking about.



"Face it, every revolver has a lot of holes, slots, and openings where dirt can get in. The British Webley literally opens in half, leaving a HUGE area for mud etc. And the British were fine with that...."

And, almost universally, those holes are EASY to get schmudtz OUT of again because they're wide open, bored through, etc.

The ejector rod housing isn't. It's a catchment area that takes time and effort to get schmudtz out of.

In a lot of ways, the break-top Webley was far EASIER than the S&W to clean because it was so wide open.

[tipoc]

It may be just a bit more trouble to get mud and grit out of this area of the New Century...






Than this area of a New Service...



But that's just me.

tipoc

[Ibmikey]

Ericktalksalot, San Francisco does not have a highway patrol, the PD did at one time equip their officers with the mod 58 41 mag but they proved unsuccessful as the average officer could not effectively handle he magnum load. The revolvers were traded in to a police supply for 38 caliber ( as I recall) and the LE supply that took them on trade stopped at our dept. where I and several other officers purchased a sample clearly marked "San Francisco P. D. I loaded the cartridge down and my example shot quite well but as all good things it was traded off years ago.

[briandg]

I seriously dislike one of my Colts. It has no ejector rod shroud, so no front luck. I don't consider a hand to be an effective lock, it offers nothing that binds it in place the only try lock is the rod into the breech face. The cylinder actually has a little play.

Shroud and triple lock should have been a standard all along. Maybe it was unnecessary, but doing things the way that they should be done isn't always completely necessary.

[Model12Win]

The 65s were made w/o shrounds. Works fine.

Modern .357s are all overbuilt mostly. The gun companies think "mo' steel" equals "mo' betta" as it were. Look at a GP100, it is a boat anchor for the .357 S&W Magnum cartridge.