S&W Hand ejector .455 / 45 conversions

wbaad

wbaad

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
70   0   0
Location
Yorkton, Sask
Hi All,
I picked up a hand ejector in beautiful shape from another nut, and it appears to have the cylinder shaved for .45 acp with moon clips. It looks like it has a proof in the milled area. I was wondering the best way to identify exactly the configuration of this cylinder. I tried some .455 cases in it and the firing pin doesn't touch.
Any tips appreciated
 
Will do. Pretty busy tonight. I'll try to get a pic of the stamp in the machined spot. It has a shoulder in each if the chambers so that rules out 45 colt. Maybe the mark is by the company that did the work.
 
damn sorry, still have to get pics... I see most recommendations are to not use factory ball ammo in these conversions, but that is mostly aimed at webleys. anybody have any recommendations about yay or nay on factory? even if it is ok I will end up using mostly lighter lead loads to keep from stressing the gun too much. Its a shame it was converted or cylinder changed because it is in beautiful original condition otherwise!
 
To the best of my knowledge, the cautions about "shaved" Webleys are not applicable to .455 S&W (or Colt) revolvers subsequently modified for .45ACP/.45AR. In fact, both the S&W Hand Ejector and the Colt New Service were produced for US military use specifically configured to fire .45ACP milspec ammunition in moon clips, starting in 1917 when the US became a combatant in the Great War, so its forces wouldn't have to be supplied with more than one type of handgun ammunition. (Both received the US military designation "Model 1917".) I am not aware that either manufacturer needed to alter the specifications of their cylinders to make them safe for the .45ACP pressures when they started producing Model 1917 revolvers .....
 
Thought that the 1917 45ACP had a cylinder heat treatment specification different from earlier models in 45 colt/445?
R
 
I honestly don't know, but you may well be correct. I do know that one does not hear serious safety concerns expressed regarding either S&W or Colt .455 revolvers which have been "shaved" to accept .45ACP in moon clips ....
 
Slug your barrel before you get too far along. Colt .45 uses .455 inch bullets while .45ACP is .451- if the barrel is the former then regular .45 ACP will rattle down the bore to give "barn side" accuracy. You may be able to compensate with soft lead bullets or using an oversized expander to load the larger bullets. Just need to keep it separate from the auto ammo.

dr jim
 
mine is most definately marked as a .455 so i'll load with correct bullets. does anybody know what smith and wesson used for firing proofmarks in the cylinder? mine has a stamp where it would be shaved. maybe it was just a wartime expedient replacement to meet demand?
 
finally got some photos! the .45 auto casings seem to sit and contact the firing pin just fine without clips as the chambers are reamed properly. There is a small proof/stamp on the "shaved" spot that has a figure with "S24" stamped below. I love the feel of the gun and want to shoot it. even the grips have the matching pencil serial number underneath "41496"


 
Last edited:
I'd vote for 1917 cylinder. You should probably measure the constriction of the cylinder. No point in using the 455 slugs if they come out of the cylinder smaller.
The ejector star would be waffer thin if shaved down original 455 cyl. When the cylinder is open, is there a bit more movement than usual until it contacts the stop on the frame during ejection?
R
 
this is from S&W 1857 -1945 by Neal and Jinks as regards the 1917 . THis model was designed the same as the 455 2nd mode HE except as follows: the bore size was reduced to .4505 inch maximum diameter to accommodate the 45 auto round in half moon clips. the bottom of the barrel and rear of the cylinder were st caamped S, inspector marks guns were serialed from 1 to 175000. nowhere in his description, does he mention any form of special heat treating being used or necessary when this model was in production.
So, in my opinion, the 1917 cylinder would be a tad shorter, and although hard to tell, it sure looks like that is a 455 that has been shaved to take 45 Auto . My two cents worth :)
 
I've seen references to heat treating being required of the military contract for 1917; however, never seen exact specification...

Went and measured a pair of 1917's and the ejector star was 0.085 thick. Measured a 455 mkii and it was 0.086. Given the cylinder movement rearward when open, I doublt that the frame has been shaved at all. So I'll say measure your star. A shaved on will be half as thick. A 45 ACP cylinder will have sharp shoulder to catch the case, while the 455 will have a taper as the case headspaces on the rim.
R
 
and as to cylinder length, I measured a second model HE and a Brazilian contract (1937) from the rear of the cylinder to the front, they were in length 1.588 and 1.544 with, of course, the shorter length cylinder produced for the ACP round. But if your cylinder has not been shaved, it should have a corresponding serial number on its face. we will not even get into looking on the underside of the extractor star, etc etc, :)
 
The cylinder has most certainly been shaved/ replaced. As you can see in the photos no serial is stamped... Extractor appears to be full thickness.
 
In order for your cylinder to be shaved and the ejector star to be full thickness, the ejector cutout would have to be similarily relieved and I doubt anyone would go through that hassle, so I'll stick with replacement cylinder theory. How about a pic down the cylinder? If sharp shouldered for case, it'll be 1917 sourced.
R
 
robin2y said:
Thought that the 1917 45ACP had a cylinder heat treatment specification different from earlier models in 45 colt/445?
R
Click to expand...

According to what I've read, S&W did not heat treat their cylinders until 1917-1918.

Colt was heat treating new service cylinders by 1910 ish

Just like Colt, the actual steel alloys S&W used were trade secrets and today "hercules" alloy steel doesn't mean much on the modern ASME or ASTM scales...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom