Carmoney

....and this one too!

self-edited

I didn't realize you had ever tried any major power factor ammo!

I'm a big proponent of introducing juniors to the sport, and as many of you know I have coached my son Sam through his own junior years. On the other hand (and this is not directed specifically at Alfie), nobody wants to be around a spoiled whiney little brat who doesn't know how to act in public. Unfortunately, there are plenty of those kids out there--and sadly they show up at the shooting range, both as spectators and participants, from time to time.

Put me down on the "tat" side with Ben.

This topic has arisen several times in the past. The last I knew, Cliff was still loading and shooting GAP brass--now, that may or may not have contributed to blowing up his 625PC. Several others (Dan Carden comes to mind) experimented with the shortened brass (both GAP and custom cut ACP brass) and decided it didn't make any meaningful difference. I wouldn't expect any magical improvement from running GAP brass.

Shooting it slowly just gives it time to pick up speed. Hammer those plates off fast!!

I think they do recognize both open and limited snubby. But keep in mind at the IRC, that recognition will only be a plaque or belt buckle. They don't award separate prizes for those categories anymore.

I shoot Zero 230s and Clays as my main revolver match load. Whether or not 4.3 grains is "overkill" depends on the gun. The old 25-2 my kid shoots needs 4.3 grains to reliably make major. Mine only needs about 4.0 or 4.1. Rather than try to make up different loads for his gun and mine, I just load all my match ammo with 4.3 grains and then I don't have to worry about getting anything mixed up. The difference in recoil impulse is no big deal.

Getting back to the original issue--180 violations and the revolver reload--the most common problem I see with guys who do the "switch hands" style of reload is not flipping the muzzle up too far and going past the up-and-down 180 (although I have seen that happen multiple times). The problem I see is the muzzle coming back past the side-to-side 180 when a right-handed shooter is conducting a reload with his body turned or moving to the left. It's not necessarily revolver-specific, either. I see quite a few auto shooters who break the 180 reloading while moving straight left. Regardless of the type of handgun, if your reload method ever causes the muzzle to be pointed somewhat to the left while facing downrange, if you do the same thing while running straight left you will break the 180 plane for sure. It's just something to be very aware of. Or to put it more professionally for Joe: "It's just something of which to be very aware."

That one would be a .45 Colt. Installing a .45 ACP cylinder (if you can fine one) would be possible, but would require setting back the barrel and shortening the extractor rod and centerpin. The longer original .45 Colt cylinder would not interchange. This probably would not make financial sense.

Cool. As one of my original shooting buddies used to say, "Whatever gets you through the night."

Makes sense to me.

Nope, once the hammer disengages from the DA "sear", any rearward momentum is instantly overcome by the mainspring tension and the hammer starts moving forward. Even when you yank the trigger as fast as possible, the hammer won't come back measurably further than it does on a nice slow pull. You can prove this to yourself by locking the gun in a good vise, then placing a metallic or glass object (something that will make a distinctive ringing noise when struck) behind the hammer, just past the point where the hammer can clear the object without touching it on a nice easy slow DA pull. Then yank the trigger as fast as possible. Assuming the vise/gun and the metallic object are solidly fixed in place, you will not be able to "ring the bell." Another revo myth busted!

The bigger ball detents on the S&W PC guns--I agree those work as you describe. But the little ball detents in the Ron Power kit--not so much. Besides, why would I want to create the need to apply more force to open the cylinder? On a Bianchi or PPC gun, where there's a premium on long-range accuracy and speed is much less important--OK maybe. On a USPSA or ICORE gun, where speed reloads are critically important--no way.

Josh, before you spend the bucks on ball detents, ask Mark how he really feels about them. The reason I say that is that the very first revolversmith I ever talked to (Doc Jones from California, who built my custom "Couger" revolver back in the mid-'80s) told me they don't really do anything. Many other knowledgeable revo guys have told me the same thing since. And my own experience with S&Ws seems to bear this out. For what it's worth, I have double ball detents on my oldest 25-2, and I don't think they do a damn thing. Just something to ask about before you forge ahead.

When they quit making the forged cylinder stops, I laid in several spares for a rainy day. But they sit in the parts box unused, because I've had such excellent luck with the MIM stops. One nice aspect of the MIM stops is they don't ever seem to need any fitting work--they drop right in and work just fine. The older forged stops almost always needed to be fit to the particular gun. The MIM stops also have a nice smooth surface, and don't require much (if any) stone work to dress them. So even if the Ti cylinder does accelerate wear on the cylinder stop (and I'm not at all convinced it will), replacing the cylinder stop once every few years is no big deal.

A lot of revolver shooters get way too close to the 180 when they reload with the switch-hands method with the thumb on the ejector rod. I saw a wheelgunner get DQ'd at an area match a couple years ago for that violation. In my view, this is one of the biggest advantages of keeping the revolver in the strong hand and reloading with the weak hand. It is much easier to maintain total muzzle discipline when the gun stays in the strong hand.

Where's Carmoney with the pic? I've quit running that gag at the request of the Jackson family. But since you specifically asked, Pop, I'll post it one more time......

Pulling the trigger faster does not increase the speed or the distance of the hammer fall. There can be no difference between a fast pull and a slow pull in the momentum imparted on the primer. If you're sure this isn't coincidence, you have a timing problem--fast pulls are causing the cylinder to fully carry up, but the slow pulls are not, causing primer hits to be slightly off center on the slow pulls.

I don't think switching to 10mm brass will help at all. Using only Federal primers would obviously be best, but perhaps you don't have a supply of those available. In any case, I would suggest shitcanning the plastic moonclips and hand-seating the primers with a hand-priming tool.

The real key is to shoot it fast enough that it never has time to get moving. On a good run the weights will never fall off the sides!

Anybody who says that hasn't tried the Millett. If the millet so good where would I find a used one? Thanks for all the posts Garett If I knew where to find used Millett target .360s, I'd buy them all. Occasionally you see Millett sights showing up on Ebay and Gunbroker, and of course there are a few scattered on gun show tables. But there is no steady souree.

Actually, Chris, you do touch on an issue that is important when considering how far to hog out those chamber mouths. In the new-style S&Ws, the extractor star (NOTE: jmax reminds us it's called a "ratchet", but I'm going to be talking about the star points more than the actual ratchet part) contributes significantly to proper carry-up. Think about it--when the hand pushes the cylinder around, it's pushing on the ratchet. If the extractor star fits loosely enough that it can rotate slightly before the actual cylinder starts moving, because somebody cut away the "fit" between the star and the cylinder, the hand may reach the end of its travel before the cylinder is fully indexed and the cylinder stop engaged. Now admittedly, usually putting ammo (or empties) in the chambers will make it function like it's supposed to, because now the star has something in there to bear against. But you get the idea. Just another reason not to get too crazy on the chamfer, even on revo models that use moonclips.

They used to sell the square-front Milletts pre-drilled for the most common configuration, but there were quite a few old S&Ws out there with non-standard placement of that front screw, so Millett finally went to the non-drilled "gunsmith" variety only and discontinued the original model. I've installed several of these. Drilling them is not a problem, I've always just marked the location of the hole and used a hand drill to drill the hole, then opened out the top of the hole with a bigger bit to countersink the screwhead. The steel is fairly mild, you won't have trouble drilling it. Make sure to drill the hole just a little bit further forward than you think "looks right"--this will give the body of the sight enough clearance to move through its full range of elevation without binding on the frame.