Justin M
-
Posts
43 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by Justin M
-
-
On 7/4/2020 at 12:24 AM, Footlong said:
Can the Smith 929 handle 9mm major loads?
Thanks
Chris
I removed the Ti cylinder and replaced it with a SS cylinder from a 627 and it'll handle .357, so...
It was not a simple swap either. However, it wasn't something that the average fellow couldn't do with proper tools.
I wouldn't try 9mm Major in the Ti cylinder, but I can't back that up with any calcs right now.
If you're looking for a major 929, I think it'd be the way to go. When I swapped my cylinders, folks wanted the Ti cylinders, so you might break even - even if you need to pay a gunsmith sort of guy to do the work.
-
I'm not proposing that I'll be using this. Just considering it as a hypothetical. I do, occasionally, shoot a carry gun from appendix - but with a more "proper" holster.
QuoteAs a RO, its not the ULSC part so much its the Make ready. You need to pull it out for that as well ? You gonna sweep yourself with a loaded gun ?
That's a good point. I didn't consider Make Ready. I assume as long as the competitor didn't sweep his upper body/hands when reholstering, he should be good, right? Too early to look it up, but wouldn't the same exception/interpretation that allows for a competitor to dangle his fingers under the muzzle of his traditionally holstered gun allow him to "sweep" his weak hand when his clipping his trigger guard holster back to his belt? I'm not proposing that is a good idea, just a potentially legal one under the rule set.
QuoteIt's still only as much engagement with the gun as a race holster is, really. About the same size as the locking block on the DAA.
That's a very interesting point.
-
For the USPSA divisions that allow for it, can a competitor use a minimal "trigger guard only" style holster such as a RCS Vanguard 2 and can they remove the holster after ULSC to reattach it to the gun and then "holster" the whole affair back into/onto their belt? I'm also operating under the assumption hat the "lanyard" style holsters are a no-go, due to 5.2.1 ("...in a holster securely attached to a belt on their person..."), but I'm not certain that I'd read it as definitive.
5.2.6 ("However, the Range Master may deem that a competitor’s holster is unsafe and order that it be improved to his satisfaction, failing which it must be withdrawn from the match.") seems to be a possible issue as well, depending on the disposition of the RM, etc.
I apologize if this has been covered before, I did attempt a search, but could not find any discussion.
-
Which Shadow 2
in CZ
If I might add one more thing, I have been using an AR15 front takedown pin detent spring (...or whatever it's properly called...) as a replacement for the left hand safety detent spring on my Shadow 2s. It gives way, way more "schnickety" to the safety. That is to say, much more detent and more positive on/off action. I just cut the AR15 spring about in half and replace the OEM CZ spring.
Far less chance of the safety being accidentally moved from one position to another.
-
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.
-
1 hour ago, Makicjf said:
Thanks, ya'll!
The more I think on this, the more sticking with a Smith makes sense. I've asked this question before, but with less specificity: will a 929 function well with 38 Short Colt? I'm aware of the need to resize in a 9mm dies. The possible advantages I can think of are:
1) a .358 bullet in a .357 bbl
2) the 929's I have seen appear to be reamed to headspace 9x21, thus a 9x19 case requires a stiff moonclip to minimize the risk of light strikes. 38 Short Colt brass would headspace on the rim.
3) I shoot more A's with a 6.5 inch bbl than with a 5" or the 4" on the 627 pro I'm shooting now
Possible negatives
1) I'm not certain if the first firing of 38 SC in a 929 will result in sticky extraction due to brass over expanding.
2) I don't think 38 SC brass resized for the 929 will fit in my 627. I'd have to set aside ammo for the 627
Are all of these worth 1.5 inches of barrel over a 627 PC? I'd like the longer barrel, but don't know if the risk is worth the reward. Could {should} I just have a 929 bbl fit to a 627 frame? Would that work?
Lots of questions for wiser minds than mine!
Jason
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.
-
12 minutes ago, Alaskan454 said:
I am an engineer, and I'll say with certainty that unless you did major surgery to alter the geometry of your revolver action, shortening the hammer travel will require a heavier pull. I experimented with these things myself and have settled on the opposite of your approach for mechanical advantage and firm primer strikes. I used to run something in the mid 4# range but actually run a 6.5# gun now.
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.
-
37 minutes ago, alecmc said:
I disagree that a dremel belongs anywhere near a revolver trigger job. -- It has its place in bobbing hammers and chamfering cylinders - but " buffing " parts - Nope.
We agree.
37 minutes ago, alecmc said:Also, In my opinion - there is a difference between making a trigger light, and actually making a trigger smooth. Making a trigger light is easy - a few springs and some federal primers and you have a light trigger. But a smooth responsive trigger is something that takes alot of work.
We are still in agreement.
37 minutes ago, alecmc said:As far as your issue - Make sure that the timing is spot on - If your primer strikes are off center they can also cause light strikes.
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.
37 minutes ago, alecmc said:Also , check to make sure that the hammer is making it's full stroke back, double check to make sure the hammer is actually transitioning off the double action sear , to the double action cam on the hammer , and falling off from there. If you removed too much material from one surface or another it may be falling early and not having it's full potential momentum to light off the primers
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.
-
11 minutes ago, alecmc said:
No.
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.
-
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?
-
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:
-
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.
-
UPS or Fedex straight to TK (assuming he's an FFL).
-
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.
-
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.
-
On 7/12/2018 at 11:04 AM, Daniele said:
MWP , that is exactly what I'd like to do: import it as chambered in 9mm x 21mm or import only the cylinder
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 minutes ago, alecmc said:
Keep in mind if you decide to stick with the forward facing type - you limit yourself to barrel modifications , example - if you ever decide to go with an aftermarket open barrel, or modify a stock barrel - like shaving off the underlug. Not that this is giant deal - just throwing it out there.
This! This is an interesting observation. Thanks for the insight. Ordering the Power Custom kit and calling it a day. Thanks.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
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)
-
On that purple 627, where the sideplate screws Cerakoted? If so, are they just chipped to hell or what happened there? I'll be honest, that would make my head explode.
-
30 minutes ago, GrumpyOne said:
I did a search on Google for cerakoted revolver...it brought up a bunch of images...as for how they hold up? I don't know. I would think the drag mark on the cylinder would be the first place that would wear.
I saw that too. I'm far less worried about the drag line than I am about the cylinder gap blast.
-
Has anyone tried having a revolver Cerakoted before? If so, does it hold up to "competition" use? I've had a couple of 1911s Cerakoted and they have held up just fine. I'm not to sure how it'd hold up from the cylinder gap blast, etc.
Smith 929
in Revolver Forum
Posted
Empirical evidence beats paper every day. No calcs necessary here...