Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Justin M

Members
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Justin M

  • Rank
    Looks for Match

Profile Information

  • Location
    Freedom, PA
  • Real Name
    Justin Meyer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Why not just shoot Limited or Open with a revolver? I've been shooting revolver for about a year now and it's the direction I'm going for this year. If you want to shoot a dot, shoot Open. If you want to shoot eight round major, shoot Open. If you want to shoot iron sights and eight round minor or pretty much anything else, shoot Limited. Most of the classifiers are low enough round counts to pretty much negate any benefit from the bottom feeders common in those divisions. Not always, but a lot of the time at least. Everybody gets what it seems like they want here. I suspect you would eventually end up with an accurate classification. I feel the same about Single Stack. L-10, Revolver, and SS should all just go away - and SS and Rev are just about the only thing I've ever shot. Revolver won't win either of these divisions, unless a very good shooter shows up in a L1, L2, or just maybe a L3. We had a young kid from the AMU shoot a single stack in Limited at a L2 around here a few years ago and win the division. Of course, it's not the same, but it shows it's possible without jacking up the rules or arguing about silly s#!t or forcing the goons at HQ to do math and s#!t for the classifiers. I don't understand why people worry so much about HOA, bringing more of revolver in, etc, etc, ad nauseam. The only benefit of USPSA over running drills in your backyard, in my simple-minded opinion, is the classification system. I get to shoot against the truly good shooters and see where I end up. I certainly don't do it for the prize money, the hookers, the coke, etc. It's a bunch of middle-aged or older dudes plugging along every Sunday putting up B-class classifiers for years on end. Christ, I'm one of them. If HQ would start promoting a Limited and Open centric game, I bet you would see a lot of folks buying into it over time. The old timers who sat down in Columbia and brought us this game didn't do it to be fair or to simply have fun. It was an experiment to find the best gear and techniques for the the practical application of pistols. Revolver, Single Stack, etc (even a 10 round Production) seem to be truly not the best gear for this practical application. Maybe they can be, but by keeping them in their own divisions, no one is learning how to make them more competitive. I know none of these opinions are popular or even all that well thought out, but I figured I'd add my two cents - since I'm one of the guys showing up at local matches every weekend with a revolver.
  2. How about 929 w/ a 627 cylinder? Use whatever .38 Goldilocks brass you'd like. You also get a 1-10 twist barrel on the 929 vs the 1-18 or whatever comes with the 627.
  3. I agree with that, however, I don't know what the magnitude of change is. A degree or two of hammer rotation vs a hammer that has 70% less mass. The calculus for me is this: Is the slightly heavier pull worth the "extra" room before the trigger comes to a stop worth it. It seems to be worth it for me - at this point. I didn't get a chance to look at the problem 929 this evening. Too nice of a day to stay in shop, fired up a scooter and went out for a ride. Likely tomorrow. I think, and to be clear - I have about zero revolver experience, that we're discussing a couple different things here: 1. The problem with primer ignition (and trigger pull weight) on the "problem" 929. 2. My experimentation with removing the double action "cam" feature on the hammer. I can split the thread, if folks would like to discuss removing the double action "cam" feature. I think it would be interesting to understand experiments/approaches other people have pursued.
  4. We agree. We are still in agreement. Timing is on. Again, that mess that was my first revolver (TRR8) was a complete shitshow and didn't carry up on something like four or five of chargeholes when I bought it. I didn't know any better at the time. Now, it's one of the things that I check immediately. Now, this might be interesting (...as in "hang him, he's a witch"...), but I have been experimenting with removing the double action cam surface. Slightly shorter throw for the hammer, sure, but a little more "buffer" before trigger bottoms out. The first hammer I tried it on was an Apex and it seemed to work well, so I tried it on a couple "Carmonized" hammers. I've got about two or three thousand rounds thru a 929 set up this way. The way I look at it, with the problem 929 it should have at least been reliably detonating Federals at some point with a "Carmonized" hammer set so damn heavy. I'll try a "Carmonized" hammer with the double action cam surface intact (...what, exactly, is the proper name for that?) and see if that produces different results in the problem gun. Thanks.
  5. I'm not sure I should reply, but I feel I must (and it beats working)... What is that "no" for? Are you disagreeing that a Foredom is just a big Dremel? I will be checking out the 929 this afternoon, I hope, to see what I can come up with. So far, this is what I know: 1. Hammer is not cracked. I inspected it as best as I could. Put it under magnification, tested it another gun (627), and - short of magna fluxing it - I believe it to be sound. 2. The hammer was free to move when I installed it. I checked this several times when the problem first came up. 3. I will check firing pin hole location when I get the gun back. 4. I will be checking headspace as well. This was an issue with my first revolver, a TRR8.
  6. I have developed what I believe is a fairly straight-forward method to get to a 4lb trigger on a N-Frame S&W. I'm a pragmatic guy who relishes in routine. I used a 4" 627 to develop my method so as not to screw up any of my "race" guns. Once I had the process, I applied it to a couple of 929s and 627/327s. No issues at all. I suspect this is very similar to how everyone else does it - no new or novel approach here. All parts get stoned and/or hit with the Foredom (big Dremel, sometimes it's a Dremel - if that's closer on the bench), an 11lb rebound spring cut down between 1-2 coils, a Wilson mainspring bent to my particular pattern (I've snapped two S&W mainsprings, so I refuse to use them any longer), a X Frame cylinder stop spring, a Cylinder & Slide firing pin (against all recommendations), a snipped firing pin spring, and a 175-200gr "Carmonized" hammer. All guns, so far, are reliable with Federal 100s - plus or minus a couple ounces of 4lbs. I usually end up moving the pull weight up to between 5 and 6lbs because I happen, for whatever reason, to shoot better points with a slightly heavier trigger. So, buddy asked me to "Carmonize" his hammer and get his new (to him) 929 ready for USPSA. He wants to use Winchester primers, because, um... not sure, but that's his thing, right? I go about my routine to get to a 4lb trigger figuring I'll get it set up at 4lbs, make sure it's reliable with Federal 100s, then up the mainspring until it reliably fires Winchester primers, and balance out the rebound spring. Gun refuses to reliably fire Federal 100s at 4, 5, 6, ... all the way up to about 10lb. It'll fire some, but not all. It'll fire some, but not all Winchester primers at the heavier settings as well. Of course, match in the morning, because that's how this usually goes, right?!. I take out my beautiful, super-light "Carmonized" hammer and throw in an Apex hammer and it starts to work, but still at the heavier settings. Maybe 8lbs give or take. I'm having hime come back this afternoon to try out an Apex pointy firing pin and to check headspace. I cannot figure out what else it might be. My questions: 1. On the Apex pointy pin, why pointed? All things being equal, will that pin give more reliable ignition than a stock or a similar (rounded or blunt nose) firing pin? 2. What else could be going on here? There's no drag on the "Carmonized" hammer, the Apex hammer, the firing pin, etc. Hammer block is laying on bench. Not more than .002" end shake. Not sure where to look. 3. Unrelated, I think, but still might inform some of this: Why does the Apex .22 hammer have more mass? If lighter is better for hammers, why does this change from rimfire?
  7. That seems to be what S&W has done as well. With the forward-facing, cartridge style balls detents the ball/plunger lines up with a "v-groove" and is at "rest" (ie: yoke closed and cylinder in battery or whatever you call it when you're using a cowboy gun) but is a little bit off the deepest part of the "v" so the ball/plunger is acting on the yoke front to back and exerting pressure inward. There's some discussion on it here: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/375590-fyi-model-69-66-8-ball-detent-design.html
  8. For the record, if anyone is interested in doing this it's about .006" difference between the yoke on the 929 and a "regular" 627 yoke. I didn't put a depth mic on them, I'm just going my the shims I used minus the .008" or so I cut off of the center bearing & ratchets to reduce headspace. I used a single .015" die shim.
  9. UPS or Fedex straight to TK (assuming he's an FFL).
  10. Barrel cut down and forcing cone cut. I noticed the crane difference. I've been toying with the idea of making a bushing to put at the end of the yokes to control end-play (cut down the yoke .100" or so and press in a hard steel bushing) for a better, more permanent fitting - in lieu of washers. For now, though, I plan on just using bearing shims like I've been doing. I also had to "tune" that little bump on the frame that keeps the cylinder from flopping off when it's open. Not much, just a bit. I cut about .008" off of the center bearing and ratchets to close up the headspace as well. It's sitting just under .065" now.
  11. I'm doing that same thing. Putting 627 cylinders into two 929s. A revolver shooter, much better than me, had said something about the idea at our sectional. I had been considering it for a couple of reasons. I just walked in from the shop to refill my coffee. First 929 will be done in about 30 minutes, give or take.
  12. Can you still get 929 cylinders from S&W? I looked pretty hard and couldn't find one. I also called, but I'll be the first to admit I'm lacking in "people" skills.
  13. This! This is an interesting observation. Thanks for the insight. Ordering the Power Custom kit and calling it a day. Thanks.
  14. A couple more questions before I set off to work... 1. Has anyone considered using a threaded cartridge-style spring plunger in the "tradional" orientation? Assuming that the most common size is #30 for the drill (Power Custom), a #8 would be an easy fit, although a #10 should be fine as well and offers a bit more nose force. There would be the issue of ensuring the location of the detent allows for a slightly deeper hole. From what I can determine, and there are enough assumptions being made that this is mostly a wild-ass guess, the press fit cartridge-style plunger used in the PC forward facing detents has about 5lbs of nose force give or take. Something like this: https://www.mcmaster.com/#3408a91/=1ds5xy3 2. Again, working from assumptions, the PC style forward-facing detent would seem to be, intuitively, far more effective than the traditional style. It likely exerts far more force on the yoke and this force is (sort of) along the axis of the barrel/cylinder. Is there any observed benefit to this? I'll be honest, at this point, I'm strongly considering the PC style detent. A jig for drilling the crane would be trivial. A jog for notching the barrel while it is still install would not be, but it would possible, I believe. Removing the barrel is always an option, but I'd prefer to come up with a quick bench method.
  15. Once a traditional detent is added (like alecmc suggests), the front spring-loading locking pin (that acts on the end of the ejector) can be removed then? Thanks again!
×
×
  • Create New...