Free-spin pawl on Old Models?

[Ale-8(1)]

Saw this mentioned in another thread.

Is the modification to simply file a little relief on the top end of the pawl applicable to Old Model (three-screw) models?

 

[DGW1949]

After reading your question, I went and looked at my own OM-357....And yeah, it looks to me that you are correct. I reckoned that the problem is the same, so the fix would be the same. Still though, I just had to look...LOL.

DGW

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Well, I kinda suspect it might work but ya never know. I'd like to hear from anyone who has done this successfully.

Not sure I'd do it, but it's always good to be aware of things. I'm not bothered by the "inconvenience" of the OM setup as I learned long ago how to deal with it, as others mentioned in the other thread. In a panic reload situation it might be a more serious issue.

 

[Johnnu2]

Personally, I'd leave it alone.... "Panic situation" is what running shoes are made for...

J.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Personally, I'd leave it alone.... "Panic situation" is what running shoes are made for...

J.

I'm only asking out of curiosity.

Were I going armed for purpose, it would not be with a single-action.

Running shoes? Not a bad idea.

 

[contender]

Interesting question.

With the simple fact a pawl can be replaced,, fairly easily & not an expensive part,, why not a test??? Get a spare pawl, & go to work!

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Interesting question.

With the simple fact a pawl can be replaced,, fairly easily & not an expensive part,, why not a test??? Get a spare pawl, & go to work!

Go ahead and let us know how it tuns out.

 

[DGW1949]

On the other hand, the OM action was not designed out of time like the NM action was, so I don't really see where a reversing cylinder would be much of a benefit....After a good 50 years of shooting OM SA's, could it be that I am missing something?

DGW

 

[Ale-8(1)]

On the other hand, the OM action was not designed out of time like the NM action was, so I don't really see where a reversing cylinder would be much of a benefit....After a good 50 years of shooting OM SA's, could it be that I am missing something?

DGW

Only from the standpoint that it allows you to "back up" if you overshoot (pun) the position that allows the rounds to be entered . . . same reason it's on the newer stuff. Doesn't really bother me, was just curious.

 

[contender]

I might get around to trying it,, one of these years when I have nothing better to do. As I said,, it's never been an issue with me.

 

[Hondo44]

On the other hand, the OM action was not designed out of time like the NM action was, so I don't really see where a reversing cylinder would be much of a benefit....After a good 50 years of shooting OM SA's, could it be that I am missing something?

DGW

Not missing anything. Free spin cylinder not needed on an old model. However if you've ever had a squib load/mis-fire where the primer ignites but not the powder charge, the primer backs out and locks up the cylinder because the main charge is what reseats the primer when the cartridge fires normally. The free spin cylinder makes it possible to rotate the cylinder both ways and work it loose and rotate it to the loading trough and eject the squib load.

But I wouldn't modify the pawl on an old model just for that reason.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Ok, you guys are all right! I just pulled out and examined a bunch of Old Models, both rimfire and centerfire, and not one of them presented a problem with chamber alignment for loading/unloading. You'd have to "overshoot" (that pun again) chamber alignment by at least half of the chamber access to not be able to back it up into alignment with the ejector rod. The Old Models are so designed that if you just rotate the cylinder until you hear the pawl click you can then "back it up" until it's stopped by the pawl . . . perfect for chamber access.

I guess as I mentioned above I've just become so accustomed to this that it slipped what's left of my senior mind. Geeze.

So . . . barring Hondo's scenario, no special pawl modification to OM pawls is required if all mine are any indication. I'll go quietly now.

 

[contender]

I guess it's because I mostly fool with OM's,, that I never felt there was any issue. And NM's,, well, heck,, they have a different action, so I guess I just assumed it to be the way they were.

Don't beat yourself up Ale-8(1)!

 

[Ale-8(1)]

I guess it's because I mostly fool with OM's,, that I never felt there was any issue.

Well, OM's are about all I mess with, so I have no excuse whatsoever.