Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Handgun Discussion
S&W questions
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Junior Bonner" data-source="post: 2969225" data-attributes="member: 33416"><p>Could be, could be. He/she has a fascinating job and should be up on the history of S&W. Speaking of which, S&W history is a subject of intense interest for me. I've downloaded several books on S&W, and they crack the lid open, but it's like seeing things in a partially dark room when a door of a lighted closet is ajar.</p><p></p><p>My question is initiated with a statement; S&W held the patent on the bored cylinder of revolvers for about 20 years, and the Model 1, 22 short was the mainstay during the interim. Later, the Model 2 in 32 caliber came out. And so, Colt and everybody else was stuck with cap and ball revolvers until the patent expired.</p><p></p><p>I read that S&W could not move to big bore cartridges because of metallurgy; that the casings were too brittle and couldn't expand and then shrink back as does brass during detonation.</p><p></p><p>However, it looks to me like Colt got it right when the patent expired. Why could S&W not overcome this, before the others did upon the expiration of the patent?</p><p></p><p>Edit: Punchuashion</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Junior Bonner, post: 2969225, member: 33416"] Could be, could be. He/she has a fascinating job and should be up on the history of S&W. Speaking of which, S&W history is a subject of intense interest for me. I've downloaded several books on S&W, and they crack the lid open, but it's like seeing things in a partially dark room when a door of a lighted closet is ajar. My question is initiated with a statement; S&W held the patent on the bored cylinder of revolvers for about 20 years, and the Model 1, 22 short was the mainstay during the interim. Later, the Model 2 in 32 caliber came out. And so, Colt and everybody else was stuck with cap and ball revolvers until the patent expired. I read that S&W could not move to big bore cartridges because of metallurgy; that the casings were too brittle and couldn't expand and then shrink back as does brass during detonation. However, it looks to me like Colt got it right when the patent expired. Why could S&W not overcome this, before the others did upon the expiration of the patent? Edit: Punchuashion [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Handgun Discussion
S&W questions
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom