Carmoney

Agree. Just make sure you keep careful control of your Dremel, and don't let it "ZING" along the outside of the cylinder. I have (ahem) heard of that happening....

So is this only going to be a half-day match, then?

Warren, you have been a valuable and forthcoming source of great information and insight over the years--for all of us!

Yes. It gets confusing, but that is what we're talking about here

Remember all the cylinder peening issues that dominated the conversation here for several years? Everybody wanted to blame poor metallurgy from the factory, but the truth is that most of those problems were caused by abusive handling. (And for the record, a practiced shooter can quickly reload with the weak hand without slapping the cylinder closed every freaking time.)

I have been preaching on this forum for 15 years trying to persuade wheelgunners that once you have things set up to your liking, you only take off the sideplate when there is a problem. And problems are pretty rare.

I never understand these efforts to shoot ammo though a revolver that is chambered for something else. If you want to shoot 9mm loads, get a 929. If you want to shoot 38Spl or 38SC, get a 5" 627. If you want to shoot 38Super, get a 627-4 (if you can find one). I'm fairly convinced that some guys are just not happy unless they're doing things differently. (Then again, I suppose we're all a little that way, or we wouldn't be shooting revolvers in competition.)

For a pure competition gun, you can delete the bolt block. It only comes into play when shooting very hot magnum loads. Like the hammer block, it's just one more friction-creating moving part you don't need on a competition revolver. Toolguy knows more about revolvers than just about anybody here, but I don't understand his comment that removing one of these bolt blocks could possibly create a reliability problem. That extended hand pin will cause no issue--the extended part just hangs there in space. BTW, most S&Ws don't have the bolt block. It was originally developed to enhance reliability for the big-bore 29/629 magnum series. Somebody must have decided it was also a good idea for the alloy-frame Model 327, in case they are used with hot magnum ammo.

That amount of crimp is perfectly fine.

There was a range in Iowa years ago where they would burn the shot-up pins in a barrel after the match and guys would cook hot dogs over them. Lead bullet fumes and all. Sorta explains some of the behavioral issues we have seen in many of the older pin shooters!

First off, classifier scores are a pretty poor indicator of match performance--I think we all know that. Revolver went through an inflationary phase a few years ago where too many paper GMs were made. I'm sure I can find classifier stages where a dot would be an advantage. And they would tend to be the more elaborate stages with longer shots--you know, the kind most clubs are too lazy to set up! We tend to shoot the closer, easier, higher HF stages where a dot has little or no advantage (or maybe creates a slight disadvantage), don't we? How many times have we all shot "Can You Count?" for chrissakes? Moreover--classifications are not meaningful in a division where we only have a few people at any given match. We are a heads-up division, now more than ever. Nobody's getting a trophy or prize for Top A or High C or whatever. So who cares? I know right where I stand, and if you've been doing this a while, so do you.

Keep in mind--even if factory Federal ammo does have Federal primers, they will not be seated to below flush like our custom revolver handloads. Back when I was shooting major, I would occasionally want to shoot factory American Eagle white box .45ACP at matches. In order to ensure 100% ignition in my guns with lighter mainspring tension, I would have to re-squeeze them by hand with a priming tool.

Spyderco also sells a ceramic stone kit with a sharp-edged 1/4" triangular stone that works well for dressing ratchets. Slower than a file, but safer because you're not as likely to take away too much material and screw up the ratchet.

A good revolver shooter with decent eyes would run most of the more popular USPSA classifier stages faster with iron sights than with a dot.

If optics are allowed, I will probably continue to run iron sights. I don't think it will change things a whole lot. I will still lose to the same people who can beat me now. And I will still win against the shooters I can currently beat. I predict that allowing optics will not make Revo a de facto optics division. Here's why: Optics are an advantage on longer shots or technically demanding shots. And they are helpful when the pace is slower and the scoring area tighter. **Like in ICORE!!** On the other hand, USPSA shooting is, by its nature, way faster than ICORE and the scoring system is more forgiving to shooting that is somewhat less precise. Also--unlike the various hi-cap USPSA divisions, revolver shooters will have to reaquire the dot every 8 shots. Not easy, especially for those who switch hands every reload. Personally, I'll take irons over optics for the USPSA matches I shoot--at least for now. That said, I voted yes in the poll, because I think allowing optics might bring additional wheels into the division, and because optics might help those with aging eyes stay more competitive and keep shooting longer.

I shot a lot of pin matches with autos in .45 and 10mm, and revolvers in .357 Mag, .44 Mag, .45 Colt, and .45 ACP. I never found any handgun that was more effective on pins than my 8-3/8" Baumannized S&W 27 with 230-gr. logs at a little over 1000 fps.

In all the revolver shooting I've done, I've had that happen to only one gun--my 27-7 that you guys see me shooting at matches on a regular basis. In fact, that particular gun has broken two trigger studs. (Keep in mind that gun's round gun is up in the hundreds of thousands at this point.) The first time it was fixed at the factory, and Mojo fixed it the second time. If it happens again, I will probably just retire the gun, and break out another 27-7 from my stash.

I suspect the BOD is discussing rule changes to Revolver Division without seeking any input whatsoever from those of us who actually participate in that division. Can anybody prove me wrong? MWP, did anybody talk to you about this?

Hell, I Was There!

Nope.

That's a pretty rare bird you got there. It's product code 148120, they made 300 of them in 1999 for Lew Horton.

I felt like I shot a pretty good 5-stage USPSA match last Tuesday night, and when I went back and looked at the scores, I shot 69 Alphas and 22 Charlies. 455 points available, and I got 411 of them. Just a hair over 90%. I do not consciously change my pace to match the stage--I just try to shoot as fast as my sight picture will reasonably allow. Forcing a particular pace will usually result in sub-optimal hits. Or so it seems to me.

Typical. I always knock off the sharp corners on the base of the sight with a file until it finally pops into place. The other option is to drive out the retaining pin and remove the spring and plunger, install the sight and hold it in place and reassemble.

I am assuming this was not originally a DW Pistol-Pac, but rather a nice early DW revolver which has had the other barrels and accessories added over the years? I have always found DW revolvers interesting, but I have never spent the time to do much research on them. I remember lusting over the Pistol-Pac advertisements they used to run in Guns & Ammo back in the '70s.

What are the dates? ICORE website doesn't have it up yet.