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.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Asymmetric Ejector Stars--can someone explain?
- Thread starter JohnKSa
- Start date
As best as I can tell, the old style, with the two pins, S&W for instance, when the hand pushed on the ratchet, all the force was on the pins. The new style S&W, its the flat edges of the star pushing against the flats on the cutout of the cylinder and it "locks" in when pressure is applied.
It may also be easier to manufacture, no aligning and drilling the pin holes.
It may also be easier to manufacture, no aligning and drilling the pin holes.
FrankenMauser
New member
When the cylinder is loaded, it should be the cartridge cases that get the force applied to the ratchet star by the hand. The pins are really only there for alignment with no cartridges in the cylinder.
With the asymmetrical stars, you just don't have to drill and install pins. It saves 4 drill holes, and two pin installations during production. The rest of the machining operations are essentially the same... just with slightly different finished geometry.
I do not know, for sure, why S&W went to asymmetrical stars; but I believe it was simply to shave a dollar, or so, off manufacturing costs.
With the asymmetrical stars, you just don't have to drill and install pins. It saves 4 drill holes, and two pin installations during production. The rest of the machining operations are essentially the same... just with slightly different finished geometry.
I do not know, for sure, why S&W went to asymmetrical stars; but I believe it was simply to shave a dollar, or so, off manufacturing costs.
Jim Watson
New member
Agree with Franken.
The CAM can cut about any shape and this saves the cost of the pin holes and pins.
I don't think it is as strong. A friend broke the newer style star on a 625 in rapid DA for IDPA.
The CAM can cut about any shape and this saves the cost of the pin holes and pins.
I don't think it is as strong. A friend broke the newer style star on a 625 in rapid DA for IDPA.
Frankenmauser is right.
If you look at the development of the rods and stars (comparing guns from the last century till now) you see that the machine work on them gets simpler and in many ways more durable. The early rods were first turned on a lathe and later a slot was milled down part of the length. This slot located the rod in the cylinder. The pins also aided in location of the star ejector and kept it from spinning on the end of the rod. The detail work on the ends of the ejector also helped to aid in location. All that took time to machine. The pins were prone to breakage as well.
The modern design (which evolved over time it seems) eliminates a lot of that detail work and can be stronger.
tipoc
If you look at the development of the rods and stars (comparing guns from the last century till now) you see that the machine work on them gets simpler and in many ways more durable. The early rods were first turned on a lathe and later a slot was milled down part of the length. This slot located the rod in the cylinder. The pins also aided in location of the star ejector and kept it from spinning on the end of the rod. The detail work on the ends of the ejector also helped to aid in location. All that took time to machine. The pins were prone to breakage as well.
The modern design (which evolved over time it seems) eliminates a lot of that detail work and can be stronger.
tipoc
It's just another example of what was once a great revolver manufacturer (S&W) cutting corners and costs. It isn't as good a company as it once was and their revolvers are not as good as they once were either.
Sad commentary on the times we live in. Make it cheeper and charge more for it. The average consumer won't know the difference (according to the bean counters).
Dave
Sad commentary on the times we live in. Make it cheeper and charge more for it. The average consumer won't know the difference (according to the bean counters).
Dave
FrankenMauser answered the question, but I suspect it saved more than a dollar.
Dave T., how do you think companies stay competive and stay in business except by "cutting corners and costs"? I have an S&W M&P made in 1900. I have little doubt that that gun, made today the way it was then, would cost at least $4000 and it would not be as good or as reliable as a modern Model 10. I doubt you would like to assemble that 1900 gun, with its tiny springs and microscopic pins, and if you had to do it you would want a lot of money to make up for the eyestrain.
So you can lament the passing of those old guns, and I agree that they were works of art. But I prefer to have guns I can afford, not ones I would have to admire from afar.
Jim
Dave T., how do you think companies stay competive and stay in business except by "cutting corners and costs"? I have an S&W M&P made in 1900. I have little doubt that that gun, made today the way it was then, would cost at least $4000 and it would not be as good or as reliable as a modern Model 10. I doubt you would like to assemble that 1900 gun, with its tiny springs and microscopic pins, and if you had to do it you would want a lot of money to make up for the eyestrain.
So you can lament the passing of those old guns, and I agree that they were works of art. But I prefer to have guns I can afford, not ones I would have to admire from afar.
Jim