matteekay

Appreciate that. I'm really trying to build this gun for reliability (well, as far as 2011's go) so I might replace it. I like most Fusion parts but this one doesn't seem to be especially well-made.

I'm aiming for a preposterous new year, but otherwise agreed.

Found another problem. The trigger, an aluminum Fusion unit, didn't have an overtravel screw installed. This let it go past where it should bottom out and press further into the sear and disconnector, projecting the disco further into the slide than it should have been able to go. This was also the cause of the double-click on reset; the disco was snapping back into place from an over-extended position. With the overtravel screw in place, not only is the double click gone, but it's literally impossible to get the slide to pause on the disco (even if I pull the slide back, release the trigger, reapply pressure, and ease the slide into the disco; it immediately jumps past it). The pre-break click is still there but I'll fix that with either the EGW unit or by extending the slide channel slightly. This was probably the primary problem all along and I've been hunting down exacerbating factors. So it goes with the 19/2011 platform... On the upside, I'll have a really well-turned gun when it's all said and done.

I'd read that and I'm going to look into it. That's more for solving the pre-break click, right? The double click on reset can happen without the slide, so I'm guessing it's either the disco's fitment in the frame hole or the way the sear spring is interfacing with it.

Good to hear!

Spent some more time on the frame today. It looks like another contributing factor is the hammer strut itself - it fell a little short and tried to sit on the upper edge of the spring cap. I reshaped it some so it's a little less curved and slightly longer but I'll probably replace it just to be safe. Right now, it's all working though. I couldn't get it to lock up and can see daylight between the strut and sear spring. The last thing to solve is an annoying click from the disconnector (both right before the break and right when I begin releasing the trigger - before the true click of the trigger resetting). With the slide removed, I can see the disco "jumps" into and out of place a little. I'm going to give the EGW ball head disco a try and also see if the sear spring is interfacing a little high. I also checked the bushing screws to make sure the grip isn't separating but everything is tight.

Again, really appreciate all of the feedback. I took it apart and it looks like it's a little of both issues; added together, it explains why the slide would get caught. The disconnector is presenting a few thousandths of unchamfered surface when it's in the "up" position, and the hammer strut is very lightly sitting on the sear spring when the hammer is back. I'll do a little fine-tuning and see if that fixes the problem. Thank you all!

Appreciate the replies. Looking at it this morning, it's definitely resting on the disco, but it's the angled edge so it should be able to slide past it. It sounds like the hammer strut is my next part to check out. To clarify - am I trying to reduce the "bow" of the strut so that it doesn't push as far forward (into the sear spring)?

Hey all, I finally got to test fire the 2011 I've been building. It worked well, but I had an intermittent issue where the slide would hang up as long as I had the trigger pinned. As soon as I release a tiny amount of pressure, the slide snapped back into battery. I'm using the Brazos ignition kit, EGW sear spring, and a Para top end; these parts were all previously used in a 1911 I built without any issue. My thinking is that the disconnector might sight slightly higher in the Cheely frame and the slide could be catching on the non-beveled section. If that's the case, am I good to just add a slight radius to the back of the disco to help the slide move past it? Anything else I should check out? As always, thanks!

My pleasure! I should have pulled apart the Charging Rhino when I had one. They're DAO, and I'm curious if they just remove the cocking lever "arm" or if the sear setup is different. My understanding is the sear I photographed is the double-action sear, and that "Y" shaped part that sits behind the trigger is the single-action sear. I need to play with it a little more to confirm. These things are tough to open. The old "bang on the grip" trick we use for S&W's doesn't work too well because the chassis is aluminum (and the banging unseats some of the linkages - ask me how I know).

Understanding full-well that I might be the only person here who's a big fan of these guns... I thought this was interesting, and not something people get to see often, so I figured I'd do a quick write-up. I recently picked up a Rhino 60DS (6") in .40S&W to run next season after competing this year with a 50DS (5"). I had Chiappa install a "competition" trigger in the 50DS when I bought it and I noticed they seemed to be replacing parts rather than tuning anything, so I figured I could swap the kit into the longer gun. It looks like they install a lightened hammer (it still has the normal part number on one side, and a new on on the other) and a spring that's dimensionally the same but rated differently. If you're unaware, the spring drives both the hammer and the trigger return. Factory parts on the left, "competition" parts on the right: The sear has to be swapped from the current hammer to its replacement; to avoid fitting issues, I re-installed the 50DS's sear on its factory hammer and installed the 60DS's sear on the lighter hammer (you're seeing the passenger side of the heavy hammer and the driver side of the light one): Everything installed (this is actually the "before" but I promise the parts did all fit) : Everything seems to function, though I'm taking a trip to the range tonight to confirm. The competition trigger in the 50DS was breaking in the upper 6-lb range; it feels heavier in the 60DS, but that gun has never been fired and probably needs some time to smooth out. I'm planning to keep the 5" in its factory configuration and bring it to matches as a backup in case I run into ignition issues. It's never happened as long as I use Federal primers but I don't mind having the safety net.

One issue I'm running into us that no one who's shipping right now seems to stock my preferred bullet - the .40 200gr RN that SNS casts. Given how precious primers are, I'm not super keen on laddering something new. Anyone here know a company that casts those?

Sexy.

That makes total sense about the internals. I didn't realize you could do aluminum; it'd be pretty slick to have the magwell match the rest of the gun. Really appreciate all the info. I might be reaching out in the next couple months when I'm convinced that my gun runs, lol.

That's awesome - you modernized old-school cool.

This was hugely informative - thanks for sharing! Are there any (steel) parts that can't be hard-chromed? Obviously the slide and frame will work, but what about things like the grip safety, thumb safety, mainspring housing, barrel bushing, etc?

I was very happy with the pricing and service from Brazen Firearms. They did the barrel on the front gun and the slide and some small parts on the rear one: I'm planning to have them finish my limited gun with a mix of TiN and Cerakote once it's ready.

Fair enough. I have a pair of them kicking around; I'll snag a third for the new mag (which will be a Gen 2).

I should have clarified - I'm using 126mm tubes and the Dawson tactical magwell that's designed for IDPA/carry. Do the basepads survive more than one trip to the floor? That was my problem with the Gen 1's. I'm also curious - why do you need to replace the springs in brand new mags? Feed issues?

My 2011 project is almost done so I'm putting together mags for it. I'm wondering if anyone has experience with the various base pads offered by Dawson? It looks like there are three options that would work: the angled IDPA base pads, the standard extended base pad (.100), and the Tactical Advantage base pad. I think these will all fit in the box but I wasn't sure if the angled version provided any advantage over the other two.

Nah, I'm at the mercy of what TK makes. For 9/40, that's only .032 . It's a really good point, though - slightly thicker moons would bring the primer closer to the firing pin and prevent the round from jumping after impact. Any reason you don't use the .040 all the time?

I appreciate everyone's insights. I've run both of these primers in the past (FSPM and WSP) but in different guns. My prior 627 didn't seem to have an issue with the FMSPP and my Charging Rhinos did fine with WSP, but the Charging models actually had a heavier trigger than my current Rhinos. I will probably exhaust my supply of FSPM before I try switching to the Winchesters.

I ordered exactly one week after you. It's a race!

Directions unclear. Thanks for the SPM/SRP info. I've used Fed SP Mags in the past and I have a vague memory of them being a bit stiffer.

Hey all! I'm curious about your experience with the "hardness"* of these primers. Obviously Federal SPP is the gold-standard when it comes to revolver shooting, but I'm trying to hold those in reserve for big matches and the like. I have smaller stockpiles of both Federal Magnum and Winchester SPP that I'm planning to load for practice and locals - has anyone compared the two? Does either light off as consistently as Fed #100's? I'll be "fully seating" the primers on my XL650 regardless of which brand I run. *Hardness meaning "the relative difficulty of a revolver with a light mainspring to activate the primer", not physical hardness