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

Justin M

Members
  • Content Count

    36
  • 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. Justin M

    Trigger Job Question

    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.
  2. Justin M

    Trigger Job Question

    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.
  3. Justin M

    Trigger Job Question

    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.
  4. Justin M

    Trigger Job Question

    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?
  5. Justin M

    Ball Detents

    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
  6. Justin M

    S&W 929 chambered in 9x21?

    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.
  7. Justin M

    New 929 Hammer

    UPS or Fedex straight to TK (assuming he's an FFL).
  8. Justin M

    S&W 929 chambered in 9x21?

    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.
  9. Justin M

    S&W 929 chambered in 9x21?

    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.
  10. Justin M

    S&W 929 chambered in 9x21?

    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.
  11. Justin M

    Ball Detents

    This! This is an interesting observation. Thanks for the insight. Ordering the Power Custom kit and calling it a day. Thanks.
  12. Justin M

    Ball Detents

    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.
  13. Justin M

    Ball Detents

    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!
  14. Justin M

    Ball Detents

    Gentlemen, this is incredible! Thanks so much for the information. I was just getting ready to rig up a dial indicator and try to quantify some of this. I might make a jig to drill out the yoke/crane for the forward facing cartridge-style detent. I'm not sure I can notch the barrel w/o pulling it though. I'm certainly giving it way more consideration now, though, after reading your responses. Is it fair to say, then, that either style of detent (forward facing or traditional) is sufficient and provides similar results?
  15. Justin M

    Ball Detents

    As far as I can tell, there are a couple of implementations of the "crane lock" or "ball detent" for S&W. 1. "Traditional" which puts a ball detent on the top of the yoke/crane and a matching recess on the bottom of the frame directly under barrel. 2. "New" which puts a cartridge-style ball dent on the front of the yoke/crane and a matching recess (v-shaped) on the back of the barrel or barrel shroud. 3. "That one I saw a picture of once" where the ball detent is forward facing, but attached to a boss in the frame (a boss which doesn't seem to exist in other frames) and a matching detent in a recess (again, doesn't exist in other frames) immediately behind the forward edge of the yoke/crane. I've seen pictures of this on S&W 69s. I've never seen it in person. S&W 69s that I've seen in person have the "New" style detent. Generally speaking, the "New" and the "That one I saw a picture of once" methods delete the forward locking bolt usually found in the underlug that operates on/with the ejector rod. With the "Traditional style, the locking bolt that works in conjuction with the ejector rod remains in place (at least from what I've seen). This might seem like blasphemy, but I have to ask... Why do these detents exists? I understand that the common argument is that as the hand pushes the ratchet, the cylinder and yoke might get pushed out to the left. I hate to say it, but I want to call bulls#!t on this. The cylinder is indexed to the frame right where the hand is (by that spring-loaded plunger widget) when the cylinder is carrying up. The cylinder remains indexed when firing, but now also has the cylinder stop holding stuff aligned as well. There is also the bottom "axle" of the yoke/crane that is in the frame keeping things aligned as well. Why do these detents exist? Are they voodoo left over from a simpler time when we were all scared of the sun and only came out our caves to shoot PPC? Is the front locking bolt (that acts on the ejector rod) a vestigial tail from the Triple Lock days? (Please understand I'm trying to understand the mechanics here and not trying to criticize or otherwise insult anyone)
×