Register
Log In
Home
October 26, 2008
Offline
I fully understand what endshake is in a revolver. Are you aware that there are 2 different places endshake can occur? 1 is the cylinder itself and 1 is the crane. Dan Wesson's rarely get cylinder endshake in my experience. I've worked on probably 30 of them. Currently own 11 including a new 715 which showed up with just a minor amount of CRANE endshake when the crane is pushed back it has zero movement it is fully seated on the frame pushing the detent in. All of my other Dan Wesson's are more or less the same along with every other one I've worked on. Most have varying degrees of crane endshake which is fixed by fitting a new oversized crane lock. I have fit many of those the large frames are a pain small frames are easy. The only exception was my Model 40 which did (emphasis on the did) have cylinder endshake which I fixed. I fixed that one by making a fixture that clamps on the collar with a mandrel in the center and swages the collar longer using an A frame press the same way Colt fixes it.
I would be willing to bet .007 would be out of spec if you called Dan Wesson.
October 17, 2017
Offline
Are you saying that with the revolver at rest and cylinder closed, you can press the cylinder to the rear and there is no movement?
October 26, 2008
Offline
3ric said
Are you saying that with the revolver at rest and cylinder closed, you can press the cylinder to the rear and there is no movement?
Yes when the crane endshake is eliminated as much as possible, it still needs to be able to swing out, my DW's have barely perceptible movement. I have not put an indicator on one for a long time but I'd say most are about .001-.002 maybe .003.
October 17, 2017
Offline
Well, I guess both of my DW revolvers are ready for the junk pile. I bought both of them used and didn’t know. Thanks for the information.
October 17, 2017
Offline
The reality is then, that all of the work that went into this topic was for nothing. Totally my fault, as I was going on the theory that most Dan Wesson revolvers were similar to mine. Now that I know mine have both been totally trashed for further use, all of the proposed theories are null and void. My apologies to the forum. This whole thread should be taken down.
October 1, 2009
Offline
just use your thumb to push the crane towards the rear and hold it there. then check for end shake while still holding the crane rearward.
i'll bet you don't have very much end shake then. and if your DW'S are truly ready for the junk pile send them to me! I will help you dispose
them properly.
October 26, 2008
Offline
Nobody said they were junk but if that's what you want to believe go ahead. I was trying to inform you and help you check it to see what it will take to correct it. Whether you want to do anything about it is up to you. Once again call Dan Wesson and find out what they say is the tolerance for endshake total. If they break it down to cylinder and crane then great. Ewk offers small frame crane locks and they're cheap. Large frames can be ordered through DW, numrich (egunparts), jack first and even Ebay.
I will also state that excessive endshake also affects headspace. According to Jerry Kuhnhausen's service manual headspace is to be .062-.070 for a 357 magnum (Colt book not DW but headspace is headspace). So that's .008 total if you have .007 endshake and you were at minimum headspace from the factory you're still ok but if it was not minimum then you're out of spec. Do you occasionally have light strikes or misfires? Especially in DA?
Take it for what it's worth they are your guns not mine but I know I'd be looking into it if they were mine. Push the crane back into the frame with your thumb or hand and hold it there firmly try moving the cylinder. Is it substantially less movement? The movement it has is cylinder endshake everything else is crane.
October 17, 2017
Offline
Neither revolver has any crane endshake. The 15-2 I suspect has seen some HEAVY loads in its history as there are rather deep ratchet marks on the rear of the frame. It has close to .007 endshake. The 15-1 has not seen quite as hard of use, but it still has .006. These are both the older designs that do not have a crane flange. You seem to know Colts so you know what I’m talking about.
I also own a Colt Trooper MK lll that I was recently able to bring back into spec by slightly stretching the cylinder collar. These early DW cylinders have a removable collar that can be shimmed underneath.
The problem I see with trying to bring the cylinder back to almost zero endshake is the spring loaded detent ball pressing the cylinder so tight against the front of the frame. Wouldn’t it tend to grind away both the cylinder collar and the frame with every turn of the cylinder?
October 26, 2008
Offline
I can honestly say I have not worked on a porkchop or an early one without the crane collar. I didn't know that the collar was removable that's a neat feature for sure. It'd make fixing relatively easy because you could swage it the same way Smith's are fixed. Just run the "dull/blunt" tubing cutter around and re-square the face.
My opinion, and that's all this is, the detent does nothing other than provide a latch. As far as setting cylinder position is concerned. As long as the gun is maintained any wear that would occur due to the spring pressure would be minimal. Colt early E/I cylinders also have spring pressure pulling the cylinder forward from the ejector spring and aren't known for excessively wearing.
First thing I'd do is check headspace to give yourself a base line and to find out where the wear has occurred. It'll also let you know if pushing the cylinder back is going to make the headspace under minimum. I assume you know how to check headspace if you've done work on other revolvers. For the sake of just adding information to the forum for someone else I'll give a quick run down.
Grab an empty sized/deprimed case measure the rim write that down let's say it's .055. Put it in the cylinder and close it so it's in the fire position. Now insert feeler gages behind the case (for example. 013) until you find the largest size that'll go in add that to your rim thickness and that is your maximum headspace. So the example #'s headspace would be .055+.013=.068. If you took .004-.005 away (can't have zero endshake) you would end up with a very nice .063-.064 headspace (.068-004 or -.005 endshake reduction) and .002-.003 endshake.
If you have recessed cylinders drop the case in if it sits proud of the recess then measure as outlined. If it sits sub flush you'll need a depth micrometer and no case. Measure depth down to bottom of recess, close empty cylinder insert feeler gages behind cylinder. Largest feeler gage that goes in plus the depth of the recess is headspace. *Only if the case sits sub flush*.
Oh btw yes I do love my Colt's the E/I frame especially. I only own 1 J/V/AA frame a King Cobra that I rarely shoot.
October 26, 2008
Offline
Can I request a picture of the removable collar from you? I would like to have myself familiar with it for the future. Also, I pictured in my mind something long enough that would seat on a c-bore in the cylinder to set endshake. I don't know if you're familiar with the way some of the big name Gunsmith's fix endshake on Ruger Blackhawks but that's what I was picturing.
October 17, 2017
Offline
Having serious problems trying to do this on my iPhone. Can’t find a way to access my photos to post here. If you go to Trigger Shims site and scroll to the Dan Wesson section the photo is there.rn I will swage the cylinder collar the same as I did on the MK lll if it will stay in place (they fit very tightly). If it comes loose I’ll go another route, but I won’t do very much, just enough to snug it up a little. I’ll take more measurements, but I think the 15-1 is probably ok as is. The 15-2 will benefit from a little stretching.
October 26, 2008
Offline
Interesting I learned something today! I would do the Smith & Wesson yoke stretch style fix not the Colt style. Whatever you choose and are comfortable with would work though.
Supporter
Dans Club
March 25, 2013
Offline
There are cylinder assemble available on eBay if all else fails. My DWAS led me to collect a box full of them. My mother was a certified hoarder. She even saved Walmart plastic bags and brie cheese wooden containers. At least my stuff is collectable and going up in value.
October 17, 2017
Offline
Well, I’ve spent many hours rounding up parts to engineer a way to use my Brownells gas ring stretching tool on a DW cylinder collar. I found the collar to be quite a bit harder material than the Colt Trooper MK lll, and it took several attempts to gain just a little improvement, yet I feel it was worth the effort. My 15-2 is now working very much the same as my 15-1.
These early DW’s without the crane flange are an entity unto themselves. I think in the later versions (especially the large frames) subtle changes were implemented that made a tighter lock up possible. Still, I believe my two DW’s are working as intended for their unique design.
Many thanks to all who contributed to this topic. While I’m still unsure about the actual purpose of the spring loaded detent ball in the original DW design, it has been an interesting voyage of discovery.
October 17, 2017
Offline
I have never checked the headspace on any of my 357’s before. My Colt Trooper MK lll is at .058, my DW 15-1 is at .060, and my DW 15-2 is at .061
So, superdan, according to your posts 21and 23, your DW’s headspace would measure .056, .057 or possibly .058 respectively. Is this correct?
October 17, 2017
Offline
I’m really beginning to wonder if only the earliest DW’s (pork chops and the earliest 15-2’s that have the Colt style upper crane leg) have this excessive amount of cylinder travel when fired.
When DW changed the upper crane leg around 1977 to have a flange it would have been an excellent opportunity to make other changes to the design. Perhaps the detent in the center of the ratchet was made deeper in order to bring the cylinder closer to the breech face, yet it would also have to be thicker in order to maintain proper headspace. With the additional thickness of the crane flange being added into the equation it would have been a simple matter of mathematics to set the new parameters.
The large frame DW’s design would have been (as far as the cylinder arrangement is concerned) simply a scaled up version, and therefore I suspect they also would have much less cylinder travel than the original porkers.
This is speculation on my part as I’ve never had a large frame DW or a later 15-2 in my hands. Yet, if true, and I had by chance bought a later 15-2 rather than the one I did, this topic would likely never have been written.
Just how different are these early DW’s? Let’s put it this way: my Colt Trooper MK lll has .058 headspace with the cylinder ratchet resting against the breech face, and my DW 15-1 has .060 headspace with the cylinder ratchet .008 from it.
October 26, 2008
Offline
Forgot to mention for checking headspace only measure the depth down if the case is sub flush. I edited the post to correct myself.
As to my headspace #'s 3ric I grabbed 3 357's and 1 38 special that happened to be closest to me (in my range bag).
They are:
New 715: .062-.063
Monson 715: .065
New 2020 Python: .063
1955 Colt Officer's Model Match: .058
All were measured using the same case that had a .053 rim thickness. The new 715 .009 fit good but .010 would go I'd call it .0095. The Monson 715 has some endshake that I choose to ignore hence it's slightly higher headspace #'s. It shoots fine and hasn't had any reliability issues. It also has not gotten worse so I leave it alone.
October 17, 2017
Offline
superdan, I also used an empty case that had a .053 rim thickness to take my measurements. The Colt has virtually no endshake, and neither do the DW’s unless the cylinder is forced back against the spring pressure of the detent ball all the way to the breech. This distance in these early revolvers is .007-.008 which seems to be a lot, yet they function perfectly and have not gotten any worse since I’ve owned them. If I understand you correctly you’re saying that the more modern DW revolvers have much less travel against the detent ball spring. This would have taken a design change, one possible method I’ve described above. Would you be willing to take some measurements along with me to make some comparisons? I don’t have very precise measuring tools but I’ll make it work. First let’s measure the depth of the ratchet detent, and then the thickness of the ratchet, and finally the LOA of the cylinder. You will have to include the upper crane leg ‘flange’ in this last measurement, and I will not. Very curious to see what these numbers are.
October 17, 2017
Offline
These are the results of the measurements I’ve taken on my two early DW’s. I’ve added a frame window measurement to the list, which is from the front of frame to the rear where the ratchet rests.
Model 15-2 Model 15-1
Detent depth: .045 .045
Ratchet thickness: .210 .205
Cylinder LOA: .798 .795
Frame window: .807 .802
These measurements are as accurate as I’m able to make them, and I suppose they could be a reference point for early DW owners, but the real intent is for comparison purposes to 15-2’s made after the changes to the upper crane leg around 1977. I do not own one of these, so I hope another forum member can provide those measurements for comparison.
October 17, 2017
Offline
Trying to put some closure on this topic even without the final measurements from one of the later 15-2’s that most of you have out there.
Since my early DW’s have right at minimum headspace before the firing sequence begins, I conclude that these early DW’s operate under a different set of parameters than later models. Exactly what these differences are may be difficult to pin down, but at least I feel good about the ‘health’ of my early DW’s. If I were somehow able to shim back the cylinder to a within two thousandths of actual end play the headspace would end up at .055, or even smaller.
My 15-1 is unquestionably the most accurate revolver I own, so as long as it continues to function flawlessly I’m leaving it as is.
BTW I’ve had to make at least the last half of the posts on this topic via my iPhone, so I apologize for any quirky looking anomalies.
1 Guest(s)
