AusPPC

Has anyone tried lapping their trigger/hammer shims (i.e. rubbing them lightly on a ceramic stone) to reduce the thickness? I have a situation on my S&W trigger pivot, where adding a final Power Custom 0.002" shim causes binding, but not putting it in allows some slop to remain. I'm asking because 2 thou' is already pretty wafer thin, so wondering if this would damage the shims. My plan would be to lap 3 shims lightly (rather than try and lap 1 heavily) until I get a perfect fit. Thanks for any pointers

Hi from a fellow Aussie wheelgunner From the photo (as a side observation), it looks like the ratchet teeth on the extractor have slight burrs on the edges. That's pretty normal for a factory S&W (my guns had it from new), but what it tells me is that if they are leaving burrs on the critical ratchet, they are probably also leaving them on the extractor itself. Those burrs may well be what are causing binding on some chambers. As was pointed out by someone else, unscrew the ejector rod and remove the extractor, then lightly stone away any burrs you find. Go slowly back and forth using a try-and-see approach. I'd use a stone or file by hand, rather than anything motorised. As an owner of 2 new Smith & Wessons, you shouldn't have to do any of this... but you do

From what I can tell, the seize point appears to be at the end when the rebound slide attempts to push the hammer up and out of the way. The foot of the hammer and the seat of the rebound slide need to be stoned and polished when you run a lighter spring, this allows them to glide over each other upon re-set (this is more critical if you run a heavier hammer spring because now the weaker rebound spring has got to try and overcome it right at the end of the re-set). If it is still seizing with the hammer spring removed, then that tells me that the parts are too rough or not properly lubricated. In my experience, when you drop down to a lighter rebound spring everything needs to be smooth and slick to get a reliable re-set. Also be wary of dry firing too much with the sideplate off, it can bend or break the boss pins.

Upon further inspection (despite earlier checks), it appears I am still getting frame rubbing on the left side of the hammer, as evidenced by abrasion on both the hammer and hammer window. I've now altered the order of the shims (1 x Left & 2 x Right) and relieved the hammer window slightly with a diamond file, and the hammer is striking centrally without fouling any part of the frame. I will monitor for any abrasion which should be easy to detect given the hammer is polished bright. I also checked the firing pin, firing pin spring and firing pin channel and all are clean and unobstructed (a pipe cleaner was useful here). Lastly, as per Toolguy's suggestion, I checked for interference between the hammer foot and rebound seat, and at the full hammer-forward position found there was a clear gap between the two, so no fouling or cushioning occurring there. In short, the only problem re: ignition is frame rubbing, so I think I found the culprit Thank you to everyone for their input.

L and K frame use the same hammer. It will say L frame in the title but in the details you will see k\L frame. https://store.apextactical.com/WebDirect/Products/Details/191686 That's correct, I definitely have an Apex hammer in my K-frame, the website is just a bit cryptic with the descriptions..

It's my wife's job to fill all the primer tubes while I'm at work, so I never get to see the anvils haha. Might be worth checking, though I note the 'clicker' rate at my lowest strain screw setting is pretty consistent at 2% across batches. Interesting you've had problems with the pointed FP's moreso than the rounded. If the pellet is being cracked by seating pressure, then it's possible a rounded pin would distribute the blow more widely across the pellet and improve ignition.

I use Starline brass, so primer pockets are consistent, though I don't apply any uniforming (reaming / swaging) process as the Starlines are factory beveled and run through the press quite nicely.

That's a pretty interesting observation. I compete at a lot of Service / 1500 opens driving long distance and forking out for a hotel when I do, so a 'clicker' would really ruin my weekend which is why with this new revolver I'm working through everything to maintain a reliable 100% ignition rate. I've heard elsewhere about the 'cracked pellet' theory, which seems to make sense given if the anvil is denting the cup it has to be putting a lot of pressure on the pellet. My press setup has no depth setting, and I've extended the punch length such that it will keep seating until the primer is totally bottomed out, or I stop pushing. Hence why I routinely get the dimples. I'll have to load a session using your technique and give it a go Cheers

Oh to be American...

Depends on what you mean by "stock". SW made some bad pins that were too short and those may give worse ignition. SW has made proper length pins in both steel and titanium, so the Ti pins may give a shade better ignition because of reduced mass which gives higher velocity and a bit more strike energy. In general, I doubt very much you will see any significant difference between aftermarket extended pins and GOOD (proper length) stock pins. I didn't and I specifically tested for it. But I was using factory ammo, not reloads and stock hammer and trigger. I guess what I am really looking for is something I've overlooked that might be soaking up a little of the strike energy, enabling me to drop some mainspring weight. Everybody looks for that. The only items I recall regularly doing that are: 1) Primers not fully seated on reloads. 2) End shake on the cylinder which allows it to move when struck. As for: I don't know it that increases ignition or not. It didn't for me, but they were C+S extended pins. The ends were conical as opposed to round on the stock pins. I have extended the seating punch on my press (LNL-AP) and seat primers with it with impunity, so I can only assume they are seated firmly. But I guess there is a reason some use hand priming, though I really can't imagine using any more pressure than what my press delivers with all its leverage. As example, I can see a slight dimple in the centre of the Federals which is the anvil pressing up against the cup - does that typically indicate sufficient seating depth? In regards to end-shake, there is absolutely none on the revolver in question. The whole action has been blueprinted and is tight, as evidenced by the X-ring grouping at 50 yards, so I've ruled out that as a problem. I've installed shims on both the trigger and hammer, and have confirmed the hammer is striking centrally without contact to the frame, and also that the firing pin is protruding sufficiently. Hence my confusion and blaming the firing pin. The variables left to check would be hammer foot / rebound seat interference, and firing pin binding. I'll be sure to report back once I've checked these.

Depends on what you mean by "stock". SW made some bad pins that were too short and those may give worse ignition. SW has made proper length pins in both steel and titanium, so the Ti pins may give a shade better ignition because of reduced mass which gives higher velocity and a bit more strike energy. In general, I doubt very much you will see any significant difference between aftermarket extended pins and GOOD (proper length) stock pins. I didn't and I specifically tested for it. But I was using factory ammo, not reloads and stock hammer and trigger. Thanks, this is useful feedback. So by those results, even with a good (0.495") length factory pin, I would not be improving from the Apex competition pin. That seems to be disputed depending on who you ask. When the extended FP's first came out a long time ago, I tested them on the three model 66 guns I used for comp shooting. I used factory ammo and stock parts with actions lightened by polishing and reduced springs. I reduced mainspring force until I got DA misfires and accurately measured the DA pull weight using both stock pins and extended. There was no difference in performance, but I left the long pins in anyway since I had paid good money for them. Two of them broke rather soon and I chucked the third one and that was the end of extended firing pins for me. There have been posters who claim the extended pins "improved" ignition and maybe they did (in their case). AFAIK, if the pin is correct length (which I think is .495) and there are no underlying issues like excessive end shake, excessive cylinder breech gap, etc, the stock pins work just as well. Indeed. My research so far seems to indicate that it is rare for an extended FP to worsen ignition reliability, all else remaining equal.

Depends on what you mean by "stock". SW made some bad pins that were too short and those may give worse ignition. SW has made proper length pins in both steel and titanium, so the Ti pins may give a shade better ignition because of reduced mass which gives higher velocity and a bit more strike energy. In general, I doubt very much you will see any significant difference between aftermarket extended pins and GOOD (proper length) stock pins. I didn't and I specifically tested for it. But I was using factory ammo, not reloads and stock hammer and trigger. Thanks, this is useful feedback. So by those results, even with a good (0.495") length factory pin, I would not be improving from the Apex competition pin. I guess the only real difference is that the Apex comp FP uses a pointed tip, whereas the factory uses a dome. But essentially, if I'm looking for improved ignition (especially on below-flush primers) I'm unlikely to find it in a factory pin. Cheers I guess what I am really looking for is something I've overlooked that might be soaking up a little of the strike energy, enabling me to drop some mainspring weight. Everything looks and feels good, but I haven't checked the hammer foot / rebound seat as per Toolguys recommendation, so that seems to be the next avenue to explore. This actually makes some sense, given that ('a') I'm running a factory trigger with an aftermarket Apex hammer that would not have been "mated" to each other at the factory, and ('b') I'm running a trigger stop via a setscrew in the trigger guard.

Not sure actually, it is what my gunsmith fitted during the build. I do know that it has had a couple of coils clipped from it, and the rebound pressure is quite light, but never sluggish and has never hung up even when released slowly, thanks to extensive honing and polishing of all contact surfaces. By my evaluation, even for a PPC gun, I would not want to go much lower from where it is now as it seems to be optimal.

Toolguy, you know I checked everything I could think of that might foul the hammer - except that! Thanks for the tip, I will definitely check that as I have had a trigger stop installed and being a PPC gun I run the trigger quite slowly, so its possible the rebound slide isn't getting out of the way of the hammer foot in time. Right now if I run 6.5 pounds I get a 2% light strike rate, but at 7.5 pounds I get 0%.

I know that an aftermarket extended FP is designed to improve ignition reliability. But have any of you found that when returning to a stock factory FP that ignition reliability improved? Or that you could now go down in mainspring tension whilst maintaining ignition reliability? I am running an Apex extended FP (plus Apex DA only hammer) in a smoothed, shimmed and blueprinted K-frame with zero endshake, and finding that my 100% ignition reliability floor is 7.5 pounds, and wondering if I might drop an extra pound by experimenting with a factory firing pin? All primers are Federal seated several thou' below flush. Cheers

Yep this is common with Starline 9mm, the new case is sticking to the flaring insert. After 1 reload they all pass through smoothly.

I shoot PPC 1500 match, and use KN Nill grips, specifically, their "Master II" model in size XL. One of the best investments I've ever made in my shooting, perfect fit and promotes a repeatable grip that actually makes the revolver feel lighter. They're also quite beautiful.

I'm about half way through doing an action job on my 4" GP-100, including honing, polishing, spring lightening and shimming. Let's just say that once you open one up and try to smooth it out, you realise it ain't no Smith & Wesson Very interested to see how nice I can get it.

SDB requires 2 hands (one to feed a case, the other to feed a projectile). LNL AP requires 1 hand, the other always remains on the lever. So there LNL AP is faster, less fatiguing, takes any set of dies, and you can add a casefeeder later if you wish.

Not Dillon, but I have 2 Hornady LNL-AP's, I shoot alot of 9mm and 38 Special, it's just nice not to have to re-set anything, just rock up and start loading whenever you feel like it.

I had a S&W 686 with a barrel misaligned to the frame (was over torqued at the factory). Sent it back and they straightened it up no problem. Very common fault.

Great result and nice medal

Thank you cptgabriel! Those are a great training aid that I've always wondered about. Thanks for sharing

Some great advice in this thread! I shot my way into Master for 1500 Revolver using a factory S&W 686, the red ramp sight is very inconsistent, so definitely agree on going to a patridge front sight (plus using sight black). I was very surprised at the instant score improvements when having a nice square black sight picture. I now regard red ramp sights as novelties cursed by the devil.

I polished the rod so that the spring loaded flicking motion is sharper.