Carmoney

Dremelogy is a bona fide art form. And there aren't many true artists out there.

Brian, I'm sure I speak for everyone here in wishing you the very best of luck in getting this situation figured out. I'm confident you'll get a handle on it. Mike

Tom, I don't get what you're seeing. I have always felt the GP100 design is very similar to the original Ruger DA design, both of which seem very different from anything made by S&W. ruger.pdf

Roger that!

I don't know much about Redhawks, and have heard of some problems, but GP100s are really good revolvers, I just did the action on a GP for a guy a few weeks ago, and it turned out pretty nice. I like the old Security-Six series even more. I will say this--if I were heading off to a place where I would be cut off from a parts source and gunsmithing tools, I would take a GP100 or Security-Six over a S&W wheelgun every time. As much as I enjoy shooting S&Ws, overall the Rugers are stronger and more bulletproof.

I nominate slflr, for never being afraid to take on "the man."

When Randy's original hammer was introduced, many people had the impression that they simply had to drop the hammer in the gun, and it would magically create a dramatic reduction in the trigger pull. This misapprehension was multiplied when a photo and little blurb about the hammer was published in American Handgunner. Of course, in order to actually derive the benefit of the lightened hammer, you have to adjust the spring tensions lighter--which the lightened hammer allows. I think it's safe to assume the same will be true with the "Randy Rimfire" hammer as well. The new hammer will not automatically reduce the trigger pull, but will allow an extra reduction in the trigger pull weight while still maintaining reasonable ignition reliability. In other words, you can't just buy one of these things and just stick it in there and expect it to do something. It's not often you see anything truly new in the world of the revolver. If this concept works as advertised, it's a real advancement for us. Nice work outta you, Randy Lee!

Eeeeeeww!! (There's never a moderator around when you need one.)

I don't have any way to measure the throat and bore dimensions, but I have the impression that the cylinders and barrels are exactly the same as those used in previous runs of the 627-4. I also have the impression that some shooters had difficulty obtaining 50-yard accuracy with these in the past, particularly if they tried to run .355" projectiles with short bearing surfaces through a tube that was better suited for bigger .357"-.358" bullets. But that's just my impression. Let me clarify something here: I'm not any huge proponent of the .38 Super revolver concept. I don't think there is anything you can do with a .38 Super revolver that can't be done just as well (or better) with a regular ol' .357 8-shot and Short Colts, speaking personally. For some shooters, though, particularly those who are already handloading for .38 Super for other guns they own, the 627-4 is a perfect addition to the stable.

Thanks guys, appreciate the assistance!

Gotcha. Takes all kinds, right?

No offense to anyone intended here, Doug (particularly since it's probably somebody I would know), but that sounds like an unbelievably silly and completely unnecessary ritual. There is no reason the extractor assembly would need removed for cleaning during a match, not even the Handgunner. With that routine, he's asking for trouble. As I said before, in the (very unlikely) event the gun needs cleaned down in there during the course of a multi-day match event, a completely adequate job can be done with a spray solvent without taking the extractor out.

There he is!! Randy, we look forward to hearing more from you on this interesting topic, and I would definitely be interested in trying out one of those 617 hammers when it hits the market.

And you'll be just fine, Tom, right up until you get to those stupid letter and number plates. Then you will curse the fact that you have only 8 rounds in your open wheel. Hi caps rule this match for a reason.

Did the action work on the first one of these yesterday, and I'm pleased to say it tuned up really nice! (The grips still look like shit.)

Last year we had a great race in Revo at A3. Cliff, me, Keith, Jay T., Snertley & Son.....hell, even Ricardo Lopez showed up, all the way from Ecuador! Not sure what happened this year. Part of it may be our focus on this year's "revolver-only" events. Part of it may be the economy.

Interesting. So what we're learning is that centerfire primers pop better with the fast slap of a lightened hammer, but a slower crushing blow works better to set off the priming compound of a rimfire cartridge. I still suspect the hammer throw is longer. I have a feeling the lack of a cocking notch is related to that. Dave?

Well, normally making the hammer heavier just makes it slower, and normally that's the last thing you want to do with a revolver hammer. But rimfires are different in some way that (to my knowledge) nobody has ever explained, because cutting the weight off a 617 hammer definitely does not work like it does with a centerfire rig.

Very interesting. I have always found reducing pull weight on a 617 (and keeping it reliable) to be quite a challenge. Dave, what is different about Randy's hammer that allows the pull weight to be reduced? My guess is that it has a longer hammer fall. Making the hammer fall faster doesn't seem to work with rimfires, so about the only other thing you could change is to make it fall further. Am I right?

Me too. The criticism directed at the pre-fit barrels does not apply to the Kart EZ-Fit product, in my opinion. I have hard-fit a number of match barrels on various 1911s over the years, with excellent results, but I cannot claim that the results of all those hours of labor is really all that much better than the results I get from installing a Kart EZ-fit barrel. Now, it's important to point out that the Kart EZ-fit is not a drop-in proposition. You need the installation kit they sell, and you need to read, thoroughly understand, and closely follow the instructions.

Assuming it has the same type of barrel ramp (C/P, W/N, or unramped), your complete .40 top end will work on a .45 lower, but you will need to swap out the .45 ejector for a 9mm/.38/.40 ejector first.

I need to order some SV mags for my Benny Hill 9mm steel gun. Who stocks these?

The Wessinger tool is fine, but the ol' drill chuck method is much faster and easier. You just gotta make sure to get the drill chuck good and tight so it doesn't slip.

My personal preference would be to hold an ICORE match on Saturday, using ICORE equipment and ammo rules, scoring, and targets.......then switch the targets over to IPSC targets and run a USPSA match on Sunday on the same stages, using USPSA rules and scoring system. This would require having a chrono station, but that is certainly not any huge obstacle. I think it would be an interesting challenge to shoot the same match on back-to-back days with the two different scoring systems--and shooting styles--in play. The top shooters would be those who could keep things reigned in and get the A hits during the ICORE match, then crank up the wick and push the speed during the USPSA match! This format would allow only one King of Revo, the shooter who can truly do it all with the wheelgun. (There were a number of shooters who liked the idea of returning to our classic Single-Stack/Revolver Back-to-Back format, and some commented that perhaps we could alternate back and forth between those two match concepts. We will be considering these options as well.)

You can borrow mine anytime.