IHAVEGAS
-
Posts
4,266 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by IHAVEGAS
-
-
On 3/15/2021 at 1:14 AM, Bakerjd said:
Between the two and only those two, PM9 hands down. I've shot both and IMO the PM9 is the better gun. I currently have a PM9 and a BUL Trophy SAW SS 9mm. Between those two it's a hard choice. Currently I'm liking the BUL better but that may he because it's new and is the tri tone model. And came with lots of extras.
On 3/15/2021 at 3:43 PM, motosapiens said:I had a pm9 for a few years. nice tight accurate gun. slide is a bit heavy for a 9mm imho.
I just got a ruger koenig 45 a couple months ago (prize table), and it is a little nicer in every respect.The implicit assumption that all PM9's or R.Koenig guns are the same quality might be a bold assumption.
-
Have owned 3 I think, the fit on one for a CZ TSO was very sloppy. When they fit I really like them.
-
13 minutes ago, motosapiens said:
the rules say an RO running shooters should also be paying careful attention to the pcc unbagging area? Hmmm. Perhaps my post was unclear.
Or perhaps you are both right. Any sport - rules should be enforced, any sport - referees have to prioritize where to focus their attention and what actions (bagging - scoring - starting next shooter) can be done simultaneously.
-
It seems like one of those accidents waiting to happen things. The table looked like safety tables do at a lot of ranges, it might be really easy to make the mistake of treating it like a safety table.
Not saying the dq is not the shooters fault, but maybe a sign at the table "PCC staging only" or some other similar caution would not be a terrible idea?
-
Different strokes. I like the Lee because the decaping assembly is less prone to pin breakage, C-clip breakage is not an issue and it seems less prone to primers holding onto the pin and being pulled back into the brass. The primers pulling back didn't happen often but when it did it usually messed up the plastic finger on the bottom of the primer tube on my 1050 and it was a pain in the butt to get back going, Dillon's advice was to deform their pin a bit and they mentioned a particular brand of primer that was more prone to the issue. Manually resetting the pin was never a problem for me, I keep the nut tight enough that the pin does not slip unless there is something inside the brass that would be prone to breaking a pin if it did not slip.
Not poo pooing your solution, you know what works for you, just noting a different preference.
-
1 hour ago, ysrracer said:
When I was a kid, Monster Speaker Cable was all the rage. I used Radio Shack cable.
It worked fine.
Subjective judgement without blind testing sells a lot of really expensive stereo stuff, on the bright side it no longer sells a lot of medicines. Medicine adds in the newspapers from way back when are interesting.
1 hour ago, SnipTheDog said:There's perceived value for a thing and then there's the price for that thing.
And raising the price often drives up perceived value. But when there is an honest testing method value judgements can change, https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/24/479163882/the-judgment-of-paris-the-blind-taste-test-that-decanted-the-wine-world
-
1 hour ago, Cherokeewind said:
Sounds like good news:)
It is nice when things start to make sense
.
My best guess on the hammer spring making the problem come back is that the shock of the hammer dropping allowed the pawl to wedge in place a bit worse, that might be baloney but the rest of the problem I think I understand now.
-
Update, last I hope.
With the gun 100% together I still had the problem, I have no idea why putting the hammer spring back in made a difference.
The two positions of the cylinder where I had issues were positions where the pawl was contacting the star sooner than the other 6 positions. I concluded that by pulling the trigger very slowly and seeing a difference in how far the cylinder rotated versus the timing of the cylinder latch.
I noticed also that the star could be rotated more in the cylinder when the cylinder was empty - the empty brass and moon clip reduce free play which seems to explain why I could get binding of the star/pawl with the spent brass/clip installed but could not get things to bind otherwise
Put an angle on the upper left portion of the pawl and polished the heck out of it. Can not get the gun to fail again.
-
12 hours ago, MWP said:
I’ll trade you one for a 929...
929 is working now, too much time and money invested to get it that way to be able to justify (or want to) start over.
-
2 hours ago, Fishbreath said:
Now that's a fascinating finding. I wonder if maybe it's a pawl/ratchet fit issue, then? That's about the only thing I can think of that would be affected by having empties in the cylinder (thus constraining the cylinder's forward/back position more than if it didn't have anything in it).
Between you and Cherokeewind I think you have fixed the problem for me.
With the hammer removed I still had the issue, noticed it was on two spots of the cylinder only. After several pulls of the trigger (it is easy to get a lot of pulls with no hammer spring) the sticking went from 100% in two spots to maybe 70% and it required less force to pull the trigger forward when it did stick.
Very carefully removed some material from the arched underside of the pawl with the Dremel and a small diameter stone and then polished it.
Seems ok now, time will tell. Probably just my imagination but the trigger seems smoother throughout (polished a few other points while I had thing apart).
-
On 5/3/2021 at 1:21 PM, Cherokeewind said:
Try dry firing with empty cases in the chambers just to see if the cases have anything to do with the problem.
When I read that suggestion I thought no way, then I thought well maybe, regardless, the problem is not there with an empty chambers but it is there with fired cases in a moon clip inserted in the gun.
Thanks.
-
10 minutes ago, Thomas H said:
Why not?
115 grain federal factory ammo walks out of the brass bad, don't know about accuracy issues with 355-356 factory bullets on the 929's that slug at .357 but it seems like that might also be a thing. Other thing, my 929 is very accurate but point of aim is more dependent on ammo than any other gun I have owned.
-
22 hours ago, PatJones said:
It's not really tapered any more after you resize the case. Carbide dies make the front of the case parallel sided.
I wonder if all 9mm carbide dies are the same in this regard regardless of brand or age? Digging into it I find stuff like the note below.
I just checked a RCBS .38/.357 carbide die dated 1976 and it has a short carbide ring. And I checked a newer Lee and RCBS carbide 9mm carbide die and they have a carbide ring three times as deep as the old .357 die. So I'm guessing the new carbide dies are tapered and will size the entire case.
I remember having wasp waisted .357 cases with old carbide dies but with the newer 9mm dies I did not have that problem. I looked at my loaded 9mm cases and they are slightly smaller below the bullet but they are not sized excessively near the base.
As a side note I also checked a newer carbide .40 S&W die and its carbide ring is shorter than the 9mm. I think this is because the .40 S&W has less taper.
Bottom line none of the 9mm cases look like the .357 cases sized in my much older carbide die. Meaning the newer carbide dies do not over resize the cases like the older dies did.
NOTE, the Lee deluxe 4 die set has carbide sizing die, a bullet seating die and a carbide factory crimp die. Meaning you will seat and crimp in two different operations and the carbide factory crimp die will size any bulges caused by crimping. The bad news is you do not want to use this crimp die with over sized cast bullets because the bullet will be sized smaller. I prefer using this Lee carbide die set with jacketed and plated bullets over any other die set. "BUT" if you plan to shoot over sized cast bullets you will want another die set.
I also have the Lee bulge buster kit for the 9mm which is a push through die that sizes the base of the case to SAAMI minimum diameter. -
627 , unless I can get the SuperGP 100 lined out with federal primers and less trigger weight. I hate the fragile crane retention method on the Smiths and their tendency to break the extended firing pins - broke my first "unbreakable" pin from TK Custom, they replaced it free and said they had fortified the design so time will tell.
My 929 works now after a pain finding what it would shoot without leading, personal opinion is that tapered brass is not a great choice for keeping bullets from walking in an 8 shot revolver.
-
My 929 shoots the 160 Bayou (or SNS) 0.358 just fine with no leading and as good of a group as I can shoot with a pistol. For 9mm (tapered) brass I am going to switch to a lighter bullet though as I see the rare bullet that has walked forward now and then and I have it in my head that this might be reduced shooting something closer to 130 grain than 160. In my gun 0.356 coated leads up nasty and I start throwing knuckle balls after about 100 rounds.
-
3 hours ago, Brooke said:
Please tell me you're just trolling.
Not at all, "one man's trash is another man's treasure" is I think a very accurate old saying, although a bit harsh or overstated in this context.
I also don't see that there is a right and a wrong value system when talking about luxuries within your means, just different.
-
All of the above input, and any forthcoming input, is appreciated. Will post if/when I get things working, life is getting in the way of gun fiddling at the moment.
-
Pardon my terminology.
The thingy that comes up to mate with the slots in the cylinder was not dropping back down soon enough on one chamber, so the cylinder could not rotate. Again with the 8 shot, getting the star just right for all 8, plus getting the cylinder slots just right for all 8, plus getting the pawl timing at a happy neutral, plus getting the thingy timing at a happy neutral, might be a challenge for the design.
You may have noticed by this point that I am not a revolver smith.
-
Thanks. Will look. It does seem a weird problem.
This gun has been sent back to Ruger already to have a new pawl installed to fix a timing issue (not relevant likely, just for what it is worth). My gut makes me think they pushed the design/precision limits a bit too close to the edge when they went to 8 shots.
-
If I put in a reduced power trigger return spring (McCarbo) the following happens:
During dry fire all is good.
With live rounds the trigger sticks fully back about 1 time in 5, a combination of pushing forward on the trigger and twisting the cylinder one way and the other eventually allows the trigger to return forward.
Would greatly prefer to run the reduced power return spring. Any ideas?
-
4 hours ago, Boomstick303 said:
Did they still give you the penalty after you all realized the fault line was not staked down?
The ground is not level, fault lines are prone to being warped by the weather, the ground looks a bit damp meaning the stake may or may not work up as folks stomp about, and everybody else had to negotiate the same field of battle. I think we just need to learn to lift our feet. From the video it looks like the shooter might have face planted harder if the fault line had not moved.
No snark intended, just sayin it ain't intended to be like astroturf.
-
16 hours ago, Aiden said:
I was reading through this and seeing a lot of the old school suggestions for tightening up 1911 frame rails. Then everyone chimed in...
Back in the old days, you hit it with a hammer until it was better. There was more to it but the principle is sound.
Weld and recut the rails sounds like a solid option if you can find someone who can be precise. That'll tighten up any fit for sure.
At this point I'm not sure if it would be more fun to try and fix it or to take it to gun shows - "yep, this right here is what your $900.00 gets you if you aren't lucky, apparently the factory q.c. check is to turn the gun upside down and if the slide doesn't fall off it is good to go".
Will probably just put it away until my petulance wains.
-
4 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:
Sorry, trying to fully understand this if I ever run into it when I am RO.
This is not meant to be snarky, I honestly admire your desire to know the rules.
The first rule of being an r.o. is don't be a dick.
If you see something that you are certain is not unsafe and you sort of have to work to find a reason to dq - i.e. it is not clearly spelled out to be a dq but things could be interpreted that way - then you might be in violation of the first rule.
-
13 hours ago, shred said:
Squeezing and beating and peening on slide and frame rails was de-rigueur in the 1911 competition world when all you had was sloppy factory guns. Find an old 1911 smith that has the tools gathering dust somewhere and see what they can do.
Sounds like a great thing for me to learn more about. I think I've got an old 1911 gun smithing book laying around somewhere. No implying that I would do it myself but I would like to understand methods and drawbacks. Makes me wonder about GrumpyOne's thought that this could be another avenue of business for somebody with the skills and equipment, you don't need a bullseye gun for IDPA/USPSA but everyone likes an accurate gun.
.
DW PM9 vs Ruger Koenig 9mm
in 1911-style Pistols
Posted
Agreed. Gun to gun consistency is often assumed, no experience with DW here, my experience with Ruger is that they will no hassle warranty it if it is not within their specs but quality control is more similar to mass production than to custom.