Cherokeewind

Actually, nothing that would be suitable for revolver games....... some very old police duty stuff, holster and speed loader holders that can be (and were at one time) used to hold loaded .45 ACP moons. PM sent.

Sadly, no. I'm not set up, equipment wise, to compete with revolvers. Maybe you could tell me what I might need to enter as a first timer.......... However, I would very much like to go and try to learn from the guys that do compete. Are you planning to be there?

Me too Seriously, thanks for taking the time to participate in this discussion, I did learn a thing or two from it:) Jim

Good Morning, I just did some measuring on revos that I have available to me......... 1 S&W 25-2 2 S&W 625 JM 1 625 Model of 1989 1 625 Model of 1988 3 625 PC To summarize, in each gun an empty sized ACP case, without moon clip, seated against the chamber shoulder with a positive "stop". In each gun, with the same empty case in a Moon Clip (.040 thick), there was a difference in the amount of case standing above the chamber........none of them were the same. In no instance was there .040" difference between clipped or unclipped measurements. In the 25-2 there was significantly less difference in the measurements. In the 625 PCs there was the most difference, but again not .040" difference. So.........what have I learned?? It is probably a really good idea to use the moon clips if running a lightened hammer fall as on a competition revolver (not even considering the extraction factor) but if using the stock set up (heavy hammer fall) reliable ignition should no be a problem (again, no consideration being given to extraction/ejection). As for me, I will continue to use moon clips to facilitate extraction/ejection and to benefit from any reduction in headspace that the moons provide.

Why am I suddenly getting "this site is not secure" warnings when I connect to the forum? Thanks, Jim

Not to be argumentative but the .45 ACP case will headspace on the case mouth in MY 25 and 625s. Fired cases will NOT be extracted by the extractor since the ACP cases don't have the normal rim of cases designed for revolvers (.45 Auto Rim). The comparison of .38 Special/.357 Magnum cases is an entirely different situation. FWIW, the half moon clips that were developed during WWI (I think) were designed to allow ACP cartridges to be extracted from the S&W and Colt revolvers which were used to supplement inadequate supplies of 1911 semi autos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_Auto_Rim

Yeah, I understand what you're saying.....the margin for error is very narrow for a revolver, even those that headspace on the cartridge rim. With the ACP case, excess crimping of the case mouth will cause problems even in the semi autos; much more so in revolvers. I have no experience with 9mm in revos but I do know that the 9x19 case is tapered so there are several factors to be considered regarding headspace: Case length, any crimp that might be applied to the case mouth and the taper of the case. So "plunk" tests are commonly used for 9x19 cartridges to make sure that all parameters are satisfied. I built 1911s for several years so I understand the differences between the two designs relative to firing pin length and hammer striking force. Generally, the hammer striking force on a 1911 is far higher than we would ever have on a revolver; the DA revolver trigger pull would be very high!

Pat, it looks like your picture shows exactly what I explained. You don't have a moon clip on that cartridge yet the cartridge is in place, apparently supported in the position shown in your picture, by resting the case mouth against the shoulder in the chamber, same as a semi auto would. What am I missing?

So it comes down to using ACP cases from the same manufacturer/same lot if possible and uniforming primer pockets like the bench rest rifle guys do......... Ain't gonna happen here:) I'm willing to run a heavier hammer fall if necessary to reliably pop primers in mixed cases. If I were a competitor I would have to take a more serious approach like some one we know (Hi, Dave).

Revoman, Thanks for not understanding my comment:) With years of experience with 25s and 625s I know what the moons are for. My point was that, regarding hammer fall force, the moons aren't a factor when using ACP cases. When using GAP cases the moons would set the headspace since the GAP cases don't reach the "shoulder" in the chambers which are cut for the ACP case.

The .45 GAP cases might allow a lighter action than the ACP cases, if the moon clips do a better job of controlling headspace than is achieved with the variance found in the ACP cases.

I think the moon clips in the .45 are only to facilitate extraction (Makes for faster reloads too). I don't think the ACP headspaces on the moon so the presence or absence of the moons shouldn't be a factor with regard to reliable trigger pull weight.

In my 625's, the cartridges headspace on the case mouth (even when using moons), same as they do in a bottom feeder. What that means is that the variation in cartridge case length can effect the headspace of individual cartridges and, as a consequence, change how hard the firing pin hits the primer. The variation in headspace probably requires a slightly higher mainspring tension than if all the cases were identical. I have no experience with other revos that use moon clips, maybe they headspace on the moon.

Thanks, keep the updates coming:) Now I'm wondering if there is any advantage to using a cartridge that requires small pistol primers rather than large pistol primers. Maybe I need to compare some SPP .45 ACP cases to LPP .45 ACP cases and see what happens.............

Power Custom makes longer firing pins for those old style hammers but they require a bit of work to remove the old pin and install the new one. 6 1/2 pounds isn't so bad:)

The hammer I referred to is the old style with attached FPin.....S&W calls it the "hammer nose".

28 ounces on the rebound spring isn't something that I think I could make work, measuring rebound spring pressure only, with the hammer removed. I could get 2 1/2 pounds to work, maybe. My lightened N frame hammer, with Power Custom extended hammer nose, weighs exactly 1 oz.

I would be happy to help you solve your excess LPP problem:) I measure rebound force with only the trigger/rebound slide/rebound spring installed, attach trigger pull gage to trigger and slowly pull until the trigger reaches max travel. I could reduce the rebound force at least a half pound if I were willing to give up the harder hammer hit and/or the slightly more robust trigger reset that I like.

It seems that hammer "weight" (light vs. heavy/bobbed vs. unbobbed) is similar to the to the light vs. heavy bullet discussion: there is a middle ground between extremely light bullets and heavy bullets (extremely light hammers vs heavy hammers) where the best result are to be had. Comical example: try moving an anvil (or heavy object of your choice) by hitting it with a BB vs. hitting it with a nine pound hammer........ Some of my revos have bobbed hammers but most have standard hammers. I have sorta settled on 3.5 pounds of rebound force and 7 pounds on the trigger pull gage, that means about 50 ounces on hammer fall measured with the hammer held at full cock position the trigger all the way back. I want to be able reliably pop not quite fully seated Fed primers.

Both those points are what I have seen/heard mentioned numerous times and I understand and agree. Has anyone actually measured the decrease in trigger pull or lock time with bobbed hammers vs. standard? It's interesting that Apex has what they call a "mass driver" hammer for .22 rimfire revolvers, causing me to think that there is/may be a point where mass is too low to provide enough impact even with a significant increase in hammer velocity.

So bobbed hammers look cool............ What are the real benefits of bobbed vs. stock hammers? I have several S&Ws with bobbed (Apex and my own work) and don't really see any benefit. Educate me please. Thanks, Jim

+1

Thanks for posting the actual cause of the problem.

Some of the hammer block safety blocks that I have seen need a bit of TLC to remove sharp edges and burrs from part which is obviously stamped, leaving rough edges most of the time. With the Apex hammers, it's sometimes not enough to chamfer the edges of the "flag". The lower part of the hammer "face" needs to be beveled a bit to provide clearance for the flag to clear when the trigger resets. I suspect that this is what Apex is referring to when they mention that "some fitting may be required".

For diagnosis only, assemble the revolver without the safety bar, if everything works properly with the bar absent that's a good indication that the bar is binding/hitting the hammer. Don't leave the safety bar out permanently!