Smith & Wesson mod 25-5 question--please help!

[lathesmith]

I have an S &W model 25-5 from the late 70's/early 80's. It has the pinned barrel. Unfortunately, it also has the grossly oversized cylinder bore/ throats--the throats measure .460 (or more). Amazingly, this gun doesn't shoot too bad as is--but it isn't exactly a tackdriver either. I would like to replace the cylinder with a newer one--these are supposed to have correct size throats and chambers. However, S&W lists a "new style cylinder" and an "obsolete" cylinder for this gun. Does anyone know for sure which cylinder would fit my gun? Or does it matter? Any help would be appreciated...I really like this gun and would like to make it more of a shooter.
Thanks,
lathesmith

[9.3X62AL]

Unsure about the "new" vs. "obsolete" cylinder question. Have you measured the revolver's groove diameter? A .451"-.452" groove would likely be problematic for accuracy with castings, but if it were .456"-.457".......I would try some sort of ogival-form design like #454190 fattened out via Beagling or custom tool acquisition.

After getting the dope on the groove diameter, I would call S&W for a firm answer to your cylinder question. A LOT of 45 Colt Model 25's have this anomaly, and I'm sure your inquiry won't be the first they have addressed.

[square butte]

Lathesmith, will be interested to hear what you find out from S & W. I have two 25-2's, both with similar problems. Have often thought of trying to find a later vintage ACP cylinder, but have not found one readily available. Did not think that S & W could supply one.

[Bass Ackward]

I would call Smith & Wesson and ask for technical assistance. Have the revolver handy in case they ask for a serial number. They may just offer to replace it for free, but it will likely cost you shipping of the gun which isn't.

You may already know this, but these just aren't replaced unless you get extremely lucky. They have to be fitted to the correct headspace and this may require the crane to be pulled or adjusted which could require the barrel to be set forward or back, so they will have to have the gun.

But at least you will know the answer to your question.

[MtGun44]

A friend of mine who is a tool and die maker by profession and serious
S&W shooter and mechanic, replaces the .45 cylinders with .44 cylinders and
rechambers them to proper dimensions for accuracy.

Would take either the factory or a good gunsmith, but it works and
you can sometimes find a .44 mag cyl with the 'fat throat' problem and
get it cheap because it has been replaced.

Bill

[Larry Gibson]

In the mid '70s I got a new M25 and quickly found it wouldn't shoot any bullet, even .454 soft cast ones, under 2" at 25 yards. Shot GI hardball as good as anything else. Now I'd had numerous M1917s of Colt and S&W that would so I was very dissappointed. The throats measured .458-.459 and the groove diameter was .451. I traded that revolver off for a Ruger #3 in .22H which was one of the best trades I ever made. Anyways shortly there after I came into a S&W M1917 that was in excellent condition but had been modified. The top strap was dovetailed for a MMC rear sight and the front sight had been milled off and slotted for a really high blade front sight. It shot quite well and the cylinder thoats measured .451 to .452. I also had a line on a new M25 6" barrel with a groove diameter of .451. I made the deal on the revolver (it was a steal) and put the new barrel on it. I also replaced the MMC rear sight with a Micro. With any well cast FB 190-205 gr SWC over 5.5 gr of Bullseye it will shoot into 1" at 25 yards and into 1.5" with a 452490 GC over 7.5 gr Unique. It shoots much better than my eyes see anymore. I call it a M17/25.

Larry Gibson

[sagamore-one]

I just went through a similar problem the week of Labor day. The good people at Smith & Wesson do have in stock a cylinder with the correct throats but it is not advertised. I was told it is a "Mountain Gun" 45 cylinder. Give them a call on the 800 number.

[lathesmith]

Guys, thanks for the replys so far. I should have mentioned, the barrel is right at .451-.452, no bigger. BC gap is nothing to brag about either, but it is "in spec" at around .005-.006 or so. Chamber size is around .485. In the past, I have used some 300 grain .458 slugs--intended for the 45/70, I am sure--and also some .454 200- and 255 grainers. All of these don't work too bad, accuracy wise, but I just tried the .458's as an experiment really. I was amazed that they chambered freely, and shot better than the .452 250 grain Lyman's I was using. Only problem is, at this size it really stretches the brass, and although the throat fit is better this .458 slug then slams into that .452 barrel, which is not exactly desireable. I am not wanting to hot-rod this thing, I have a Ruger SBH 44 mag Hunter for the big blasters, but I know it should group better than it does now.
Yes, I know that a new cylinder is not a "drop in", it will need to be fitted, but I can get some local help with this. I have thought about giving the factory a call, but my past experience with doing this is not real positive. Their position is that the gun goes "bang" when you pull the trigger, so there is no problem, now quit bothering us. I dunno, maybe I will give them a call just to see what they say....
This gun is in excellent shape, it is worth "fixing" to me. I saw one of these S&W N frames the other day at Bass Pro, and the $800+ sticker price left me in shock--and convinced me this gun is worth spending a little time and money on.
lathesmith

[9.3X62AL]

That 44 Mag cylinder punched up to GOOD 45 Colt dimensions sounds very do-able to me.

[fivegunner]

I too have a S&W 25 and it has the same problem, please post here what S&W said about fixing your Model 25 .:castmine::Fire:

[JMax]

Well lads I have a very clean 629 cylinder and ratchet available if you want to punch it out. Check the want ad section a couple of weeks ago (posted 10/29/07).

[lathesmith]

I decided to give S & W a call today, and the nice man on the phone said they do NOT have any cylinders available for this gun of any type or caliber. Sooo, I may have hit a dead end here. I see, however, that there are obviously a lot of guns that have the same problem mine does. Misery loves company, I suppose...but I would rather have a fix for the problem.
The only work-around I can see is reaming a 44 mag cylinder to 45 Colt. This seems like a lot of trouble, and there are several potential roadblocks. Starting from scratch, I guess...JMax, how early is that 44 mag cylinder you have? Does it have counterbored chambers? What is its exact overall length? With a bit of measurement here, we may be able to at least determine if this is a potential workable strategy, because (unfortunately) there is a lot of interest in this subject.
lathesmith

[MtGun44]

If you are interested, I can ask my friend if there are any particular
pitfalls in reaming the 44 mag cyl up to 45 Colt.

Bill

[JMax]

The cylinder is not counter bored. I'll get a set of dimensions tomorrow evening and will try to post a photo or two. It looks like the photos got attached. Let me know any other dimensions you may want. I'll bring the dial calipers with the cylinder when I get the overall length.

[Dale53]

The practical way to handle this, since Smith is not going to do anything, is to sell the revolver and buy a new 625. My 625-8 is a marvelous shooter. I haven't had it long and probably only have about 1000 rounds through it but MAN!! does it shoot! Plus, it is user friendly (meaning that not only does it shoot well, it helps YOU to shoot it well)! MIne is the 4" Jerry Miculek Special. Through a strange twist of fate, I brought home another one from the Ohio Gun Collector's Ass'n Show last weekend. Now, I have two of these wonderful pieces... The new one came with a Red Dot, proper scope mount and rings, box and lots of full moon clips and RIMZ clips. It belonged to a close friend and I think that he only shot it once (twice at the outside).

The point is, the new 625's have the correct dimensions and work beyond well...

Just a thought as you can spend a lot of money and effort getting one to shoot and NEVER be able to get your money out of it.

Dale53

[testhop]

I have an S &W model 25-5 from the late 70's/early 80's. It has the pinned barrel. Unfortunately, it also has the grossly oversized cylinder bore/ throats--the throats measure .460 (or more). Amazingly, this gun doesn't shoot too bad as is--but it isn't exactly a tackdriver either. I would like to replace the cylinder with a newer one--these are supposed to have correct size throats and chambers. However, S&W lists a "new style cylinder" and an "obsolete" cylinder for this gun. Does anyone know for sure which cylinder would fit my gun? Or does it matter? Any help would be appreciated...I really like this gun and would like to make it more of a shooter.
Thanks,
lathesmith


i dont know if this will still work but i had trouble with redfield scope
and they wanted to charge me to repairit (lifetime warntey) so here is what i did a very close pal of mime ran a deer camp and he was going to a gun show to anverise his camp iask him to put the scope up for sale and ask the same price as a new scope would cost when ask why he would tell the pepole that redfield
wouldnt backl up there scopes on the second day a redfieldrep showed up and took the scope and gave him a new one bad word of mouth at a big gun show
is not good for buiness


tom

[Dale53]

Well, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Smith to do the same. "Ain't gonna happen"!

What I have a problem understanding is on the one hand, an "ignorant" cow hand (note the quotation marks) Elmer Keith fully understood proper dimensions on a hand gun in the 20's and 30's (his book "Sixgun Cartridges and Loads" was printed in 1936). Others, at the time, wrote articles about it complete with tests, etc. Yet, here is the foremost handgun manufacturer in the world still putting out revolvers with improper dimensions that are ABSOLUTELY wrong. In fact, Ruger did the same thing with their .45 Colts (except that problem centered around "too small" revolver throats which, at least, could be corrected).

I was trained as a machinist over fifty years ago and I did not find it difficult to maintain dimensions at that time. The World War II war effort gave nearly ALL U.S. Industry new, modern (for the times) machinery. They also had serious numbers of talented machinists both men and women, AND YET THEY STILL PRODUCED INFERIOR REVOLVERS. Inferior, meaning, not nearly up to potential.

I have been to several NRA Conventions where you can talk directly to some Industry people. Smith would look at you and state that the revolvers did quite well with factory ammo and were not made for "reloads". Revolvers are much more tolerant of dimensions with jacketed bullets and will often do acceptably when they DON'T with cast bullets.

I have to say that the bottom line is this:
Very few of the general public can really shoot. I know that it is not "politically correct" to state this about your fellow shooter. If you doubt this statement even a little, just go to your local range and hang out a while and look at the targets. Now, all of us cannot be NRA Masters but with work, most of us can shoot pretty dern good. For one reason or another, most will not make the effort. So, the Industry relies on the fact that most who buy the revolvers can't shoot anyway and cannot tell the difference. That's my take on it. Pretty sad, isn't it?

Years ago, I knew one of the shop gunsmiths (met him at Camp Perry and we shared a beer now and then). If I had a problem I would go directly to him. He was interested in the product and if he learned that you were a "serious" shooter, he would bend over backwards to make things right. Unfortunately, all good things must come to an end. He is long retired and I have no more contacts at the factory. The point is, they have ALWAYS known how to do it but for reasons best known only to them, they have not done it.

Now, however, the current 625's are just flat marvelous. Praise the Lord! I guess that I should just give thanks that I am still here to enjoy them. I am... in spades!:mrgreen:

Dale53

[lathesmith]

JMax-
yes, please do measure the overall length, overall diameter, and note if the cylinder tapers front to rear, and if possible the rod diameter in front. If I am lucky, this is the same cylinder as the 45, just with slightly smaller holes. Speaking of which, chamber and mouth dimensions woundn't hurt either. Since this cylinder isn't counterbored, it may do the trick. I know this is a lot to ask, but with these measurements I should be able to tell if this is doable, thanks.
Bill, if you can please ask your friend about fitting that 44 mag cylinder. Someone who has done this would know if it is just a cylinder swap with fitting and rechambering, or if more parts have to be changed. If it is just a swap/rechamber, I will try it. If more parts are needed, it may not be practical, because trying to get those parts could put me back where I started, if you see what I mean.
Dale, you do make some good points. I agree, I never have understood why 45 Colt-chambered guns were and are chambered incorrectly. "Production tolerance" as an answer just don't cut it; plenty of other calibers don't have the consistent, predictable mismatches this caliber has been cursed with over the years. I even remember the old myth, still pervasive in the '70's (and even into the '80's and '90's) when I started reloading, that modern manufactured 45 Colt brass was "much weaker" than modern 44 mag brass. Why, I always asked? It sure looked like the same stuff to me! Now I realize that way back when, with ballon head cases, mercuric priming and black powder, there were some structural differences between the two. But this is comparing apples to oranges, and to make matters worse 45 Colt chambers were often grossly oversized, aggravating the problem. Some myths die hard, I guess....
As to the practicality of "fixing" my gun, that remains to be seen. I can agree, it is easy to get carried away with these things, and one must be careful. However, sometimes passion trumps practicality. This ol' gun was my first genuine big bore revolver I ever purchased, and I hate to admit it, but it is kinda special to me(sniff). If I can make it shoot better by spending a reasonable sum, I will; if not, well...I'll see. Besides, I have been wanting to answer this question for several years now; this may be my opportunity. I see several other guys have an interest too, and this may turn into an educational project for all of us. Heck, the state spent more than 40 grand back in the '80's to help me graduate from college, so spending a few hundred to answer a burning question of technical engineering doesn't seem like so much. I am not trying to re-invent the wheel, but sometimes an inquiring mind just has to figure these things out!
lathesmith

[creekwalker]

Sorry to read about your M-25, have heard from others with near the same problem. I had a clunker of a 5" S&W M-27 from circa 1977-78 that I bought new that i got rid of as fast as I could, it was truly shamefull what S&W had done with that revolver. Pretty much turned me off of any S&W for years.

creekwalker

[nicholst55]

The throats on my 25-5 run between .456-.457", and I agree - it isn't like S&W isn't aware of the problem, and hasn't been for decades. They just don't care.

As far as buying a new revolver to resolve the problem, it ain't going to happen - not for me, anyway. I do have a good used M629 cylinder, so maybe I'll just build myself another 'pinto' revolver.

[MtGun44]

We all need to remember that "Smith and Wesson", while in the same
building and under the same name, has been owned by at least 4 different
owners in the last 30 yrs. Several owners put very hardnosed managers
that knew essentially nothing, and cared little, about handguns.

Lear-Seigler was one owner, there was another US company that owned
them, and they were bought out by a British company that apparently
wasn't too knowledgable about guns but was very smart about manufacturing
and realized that most of the old equipment was really worn out and it took
very skilled people to make good guns, and they were losing most of their
skilled people to retirement. The replacements weren't well trained, and I also
think that tolerance were opened up a lot to keep costs down - "don't scrap
it, ship it" mentality. The Brits put huge $$ into new computerized machines
to make the guns in the modern, high quality way, and just about when they
had things modernized and going pretty well they stepped in it BIGTIME in
the political arena. Being Brits, they had no idea of the firestorm that would
occur and the near total loss of sales they would suffer when they made a
deal with the Clintons. You all remember the "I'll never by another Smith!"
comments. Business was so bad that they sold to Americans that are true
gun nuts and also hard nosed business men. This final group is in charge and
has really improved everything across the board. Newer designs, improved
manufacturing methods, and VERY good, accurate guns. They also have
realized that they can make smaller runs of different styles and with the
CNC machines, the setup costs are much less than with the old style machines.
It's a pretty safe bet that the Brits lost their shirts on the deal, modernizing ($$$!)
and then selling at a fire-sale price with sales in the toilet. The new US
management immediately abrogated the Clinton agreement and started mending
fences with customers.

So - the name is the same, but many of the decision makers in the bad old
days (late 70s thru the 80s or more) really didn't care much. The new guys
really DO seem to care, based on the 5 new Smith revolvers that I have
bought since they took over. All are very well made, reliable and accurate
with really proper dimensions.

Bill

[9.3X62AL]

It is good to know that RECENT S&W products seem to have "turned the corner" on dimensional integrity and overall quality. The recent examples I've examined all looked and felt very sound. One of those 625-8s might find its way into the safe some day. A fourth 45 ACP makes zero sense, but I REALLY like the caliber.

[Dale53]

>>>but I REALLY like the caliber.<<<

Me too...:mrgreen:

Dale53

[Dale53]

>>>but I REALLY like the caliber.<<<

Me too...:mrgreen:

Dale53

P.S. Things are really getting tough. We had a club meeting to night at my "home club" and we have a "show and tell" section. A good friend had a couple of revolvers there (brand new, in the box 581 in 6" for $350 and a like new 686 in 8" for $375). Being a friend, I was offered a bit better. However, since I had just bought that extra 625-8 I thought the better of it. Now, if that 686 had been a 6" I really don't know what I would have done. I got lucky that I didn't need either, (I guess...). Lordy, Lordy, so many nice guns and so little time and money... rdm

[BruceB]

...and then they added the *&^%#$@*&^*$% INTERNAL LOCK. S&W thankfully made legions of very fine blue-steel revolvers before the "modern era", and that's the pool where I'll be fishing for my future Smith and Wessons.

The latest-production Smith that I own is a Model 27-6, a mid-90s gun which, although not quite as elaborately-finished as my earlier 27s, is still a very fine revolver indeed. I doubt that anything with "the lock" will ever get house space here.

My own 25-5 showed exactly the same dimensional problems as the others mentioned here. I put it on consignment at a local store, and got back what I'd paid for it plus a couple hundred bucks. Not a bad deal at all, and I do not miss the pesky thing. It was the 'red-headed stepchild', because ALL my other Smiths, a dozen or so, are built correctly from the caster's point of view.

[Pepe Ray]

Really?
"The new US
management immediately abrogated the Clinton agreement and started mending
fences with customers."
Tell me Bill, how/in what way did they do this? I've missed some details somewhere.
Pepe Ray

[MtGun44]

Pepe Ray,

I was at the NRA show just after the sale of S&W to US owners.
They were falling all over themselves to make sure that everybody
there knew that they were not abiding by the limitations that the
earlier management had agreed to, and that they had no intention
of ever going back to the gun control limitations that previous mgmt
had agreed to. I believe I saw some ads in the gun mags to this
effect, and am certain that I read multiple articles in Am Rifleman and
others explaining what had happened.

The fact that you haven't heard means that they haven't gotten the
word out effectively, which is a shame. People did hear the stories
about S&W going along with the gun control crowd, but I guess bad
news travels a lot faster and louder than good news.

I have no stake whatsoever in S&W, just a pretty well satisfied customer,
and glad to see them with modern machinery, gun people in charge and
producing pretty consistent quality, and much improved detail engineering
in many ways. I do know of at least one way that I think they are making
a mistake with 'modern methods', but we'll let that go until it proves good
or bad in the longer term. I might be wrong. :-D

Bill

[MtGun44]

Lathesmith,

Here is what my tool and die maker, S&W gunsmith (and multiple time
state champ in PPC, and silhouette years ago) says about the conversion:

********
The best way to do that is to do the throat first with a reamer .005
to .010 undersize, then to .0005 to .001 over the chamber reamer pilot
size. Next rough and finish ream the chamber (2 reamers) and then
finish ream the throat. The same ejector star assy. an be used if
some tight fitting plugs are made of brass and inserted in 2 or 3
chambers that are not being worked on at the time to stabilize the
star as the chamber is being reamed. As chambers are reamed, larger
plugs need to be made to fit the new bigger size holes while the
remaining chambers are done. Be sure to run all reamers at a slow
r.p.m., use lots of cutting oil and clean the chips off the reamer
often. Manson reamers cut a lot better than Clymer.

*********

He knows a ton more than I do. If you have specific questions, I can
pass them back.

Good luck.

Bill

[lathesmith]

Bill, that gives me all the info I need to get going. Thanks for the input, I will report back on this project if/when I have some results. After doing some checking around I see this is a common problem, and re-chambering a cylinder of smaller caliber is the common solution.
lathesmith

[MtGun44]

Or, if you REALLY wanted to have some fun, you could make a whole new
cylinder from bar stock ! Some would really enjoy this, but for me personally,
I'd rather hit my hand with a hammer three or four good licks. It'd be just
as much fun in the long run and would take a lot less time. :-D

Buckshot would probably do it just because it was cool, and would probably
succeed. :bigsmyl2:

Best of luck, hope it works out great. Seems like reaming up such a small
amount should be pretty straightforward and the reamers should tend to
stay on the same centers as the original chambers.

I think I'm about to buy one of the new Model 22 blued 4" fixed sight round butt
guns. I hope the dimensions are right, but so far all the new S&W revos
that I've bought in the last 5 years have been dead on for cyl throat size.
I'm betting (Literally!) that S&W is still doing it right. Gonna have to fix that
front sight, tho. . . . . . . :roll:

Bill

[lathesmith]

Bill, fabricating a cylinder from round stock would indeed be a challenging (and needless) undertaking. There are lots of S&W parts floating around out there at reasonable prices, thank goodness. I may even "cheat" and get both a 44 barrel and cylinder, and make my Model 25-5 a 44 mag. OTOH, rechambering a 44 cylinder won't be a big deal; the point is there are lots of options here.
I see you are a big S&W revolver fan. At one time I had what I think was a Model 1917 or similar, in 45 Colt. It had a 6 inch barrel, and was somewhat lighter than my 25. It was a great gun, I wish I would have kept it now! I think that Model 22 you are looking at is similar in frame size; fairly light, 45 ACP, 4 inch tube. It ought to be a great one. As long as you get a good one it will be a keeper.
I have a couple of old Model 10's, one a 4-incher from the '50's and the other a Victory model, both in excellent shape. I will probably keep these two to the bitter end, especially the Victory model. Heckuva nostalgia trip there! Classic examples of plain-vanilla working-stiff's guns. Please post if you are able to get your hands on one of those 22's.
lathesmith

[45nut]

lathesmith I believe you had a 1909 Model 45Colt, it was produced to replace the 38's in the Phillipines that were not stopping the muslim extremists of the day,, the Moro's. It was that experience that ended up in the adoption of the 1911 as our duty sidearm.

[leftiye]

Plus 1 on re boring a .44 mag cyl to .45 Colt. I've got a project underway to do the same to a Model 29 (.41 mag to .44 mag, and .44 mag to .45 Colt)and a Model 25-5. Fitting the cyls isn't exceedingly hard. Set the headspace (.002, my preference) by grinding off the flat at the rear of the ejector (if necessary. If your ejector doesn't have sufficient metal Brownells has new ones). Then set the endshake (.001"- my preference)with shims or a crane swager-or by shortening the crane -whichever is necessary(shims and crane ool are available at Brwnells). Finally, set your barrel back (if necesary) to proper (.002" -my preference) cylinder/barrel gap. Don't forget to get a "minimum chamber" reamer to do the reaming with. Then you'll have an accurized .45 Colt while you're at it. Those crane spring ball and detent additions will enhance accuracy too, and can take the place of the frontlockup on a rebarrel job (as on the S&W custom shop hunter models).