mikeAZ Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 I'm gong slowly, relating what I've found so far..... 1. Removed burrs from the outside of forcing cone, (just cosmetic) 2. Factory moon clips maybe good for practice (very sloppy, the picture may show some of the slop). (New tighter ones are being built locally). 4. Trigger pull was 9 1/2#'s stock (installed the "Black Magic" set up, set @ 5.75 #'s... probably will need to go to just over 6 #'s per Vic P.) 5. Stock hammer assembly weighed 4950 grains on my powder scale, installed one I lightened, weighs 3165 grains= 1785 loss of mass 6. I checked the cylinder with a Clymer 9mm Finish reamer.... looks fine 7. Very slightly opened the cylinder, waiting to see what the new moon clips are like. 8. Factory fire pin was .493, I installed an aftermarket longer firing pin. (Might be too long ?, we will see). 9. All in all, I'm satisfied... What can be wrong with getting a new gun ???.. The 38 short Colt shooting guns I own are just fine, I shoot lot's and lot's of 9mm so that's my main reason for the switch to the 929, I don't see a reason for the other 8 shooter's too switch unless they just want a new toy?, but we want new stuff !!!.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanc Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 (edited) can i ask why you would change the factory firing pin without testing it? edit, also have you chrono'd your production load? does it make it? Edited May 15, 2014 by seanc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bello Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Man o man I want that revolver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxshooter Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 I have two S&W 8 shot 38 super revolvers that I use for both USPSA and ICORE. I have a 929 on order because I just want a new revolver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mese341 Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 i want that gun so badly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeAZ Posted May 16, 2014 Author Share Posted May 16, 2014 Jaxshooter, I'm with you... I also have 2 627's set up shooting 38 short Colt ammo.. I don't see any real gain other than I posted that I shoot lot's of 9mm...PLUS it's a new gun... (Early Christmas present). Seanc, Stock firing pins are reported to be .495..... This one wasn't, why take a chance while I was inside polishing the internals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeAZ Posted May 29, 2014 Author Share Posted May 29, 2014 A little update on the 929... I've put 200 or so rounds thru the 929 ( 147 grain Montana Gold's and Frontier's x TG), don't have any lead sized .357/.356. One thing is going to be the proper "moon" clips for the specific 9mm brass, it's not all the same size in the neck (Who'd a thought). The designer brought me some prototypes in both .032 and .040 thickness. He was thinking was that the .040 would not work (too thick/too tight in the present configuration), he was right.... They drug/bound the gun up at the firing pin, but who knows? maybe just to tight a fit, no slop.., worth a try... I'm brass specific. I have lot's of once fired 9mm nickel plated Federal and Speer brass and wanted to use only that brass if possible. The rule of thumb seems to be for the round has to be able to turn ever so slightly in the moon clip, not be tight as they are with the prototypes WITH the Federal brass (the Speer less so). From what we have learned, the "go" to moon clips will be .032 OR most LIKELY the .035 that he is designing. He is removing a .001 from the casing width from the .032's for further testing. (He made me some moon clips for Starline brass x .38 specials that I had cut to .38 short Colt length that are perfect for that brass)...Just a matter of time and trial.... getting closer....almost there?....The fiber optic sights are on the way from our favorite "site" vendor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOF Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 (edited) Those guns run, what?... $1200? ... and you have to do all this stuff to make them match ready? Where's the magic? And, given that most targets require 2 rounds, why is a single extra round important? It would seem to screw up the shot plan and likely either call for an extra shot on a target on dump a live round on the ground during a reload. I can see 9 being an advantage over 8 in an ICORE 30+ shot steel array. You get to miss more without reloading, but beyond that I'm not convinced 9 is better that 8. Unless, of course, you just want a new gun. That, I can fully understand. Edited May 29, 2014 by GOF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWP Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 There's only 8 holes, in 9mm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B45C22 Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Those guns run, what?... $1200? ... and you have to do all this stuff to make them match ready? Where's the magic? And, given that most targets require 2 rounds, why is a single extra round important? It would seem to screw up the shot plan and likely either call for an extra shot on a target on dump a live round on the ground during a reload. I can see 9 being an advantage over 8 in an ICORE 30+ shot steel array. You get to miss more without reloading, but beyond that I'm not convinced 9 is better that 8. Unless, of course, you just want a new gun. That, I can fully understand. Giggle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOF Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 OPS... my mistake.... please ignore all of the above. But, I still have to wonder why someone who has a perfectly tuned 8 shot .38 SPL figures that spending $1200 or so dollars and then all the extra time & money the tuning requires thinks they're going to get better results in 9mm. I did have a 986 in for T&E. With a number of jacketed factory loads (standard pressure and Plus P) three inch groups were the best I could get that 25 yards, and the gun didn't like 147 loads -- they were around 4.5-inch. I have .38 SPL guns that will do 2 inches for a full cylinder group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWP Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 I'm not sure we think they will be better. The price for a 929 and 627 appear to be the same, with the edge going to the 929 for already having a TI cylinder. If the 929 ever come to market completely, the 929 has appeared cheaper than a new 627 PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanc Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 OPS... my mistake.... please ignore all of the above. But, I still have to wonder why someone who has a perfectly tuned 8 shot .38 SPL figures that spending $1200 or so dollars and then all the extra time & money the tuning requires thinks they're going to get better results in 9mm. I did have a 986 in for T&E. With a number of jacketed factory loads (standard pressure and Plus P) three inch groups were the best I could get that 25 yards, and the gun didn't like 147 loads -- they were around 4.5-inch. I have .38 SPL guns that will do 2 inches for a full cylinder group. I haven't found a load for either of my 627's that will do sub 2" groups. Lately I have been loading alot, multiple calibers. Loading 1 caliber is VERY attractive idea for me at the moment, its worth the money to get rid of the aggravation and time switching stuff around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOF Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 The two inch groups I mentioned were from 6 shot GP-100s .. a four and six inch barrel. I only shoot Classic in ICORE, and SSR in IDPA. They work for me. I can't get that level of accuracy with lead loads from current S&W guns, although I have in the past with older models. I think S&W changed their rifling method somewhere around late 90s, 2000s. They didn't do lead bullet shooters a favor when they did. My last 686 wouldn't group under 4 inches with the same load the GP-100s shoot into two inches. That's not a big deal for IDPA, but it counts in ICORE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanc Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 A little update on the 929... I've put 200 or so rounds thru the 929 ( 147 grain Montana Gold's and Frontier's x TG), don't have any lead sized .357/.356. The gun is reported to have a .355 barrel so why would you want to put .357 lead through it? Honest question, not being a smart ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caspian guy Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Mine came in today, got a chance to handle it a little before I hit the road to go to South Carolina. Trigger sucked as I would have expected but a set of springs will help that a lot. No chamfer to speak of on the chambers so reloading will stink till I get that addressed. Fit and finish seemed fine so I am fairly pleased with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanc Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 A little update on the 929... I've put 200 or so rounds thru the 929 ( 147 grain Montana Gold's and Frontier's x TG), don't have any lead sized .357/.356. One thing is going to be the proper "moon" clips for the specific 9mm brass, it's not all the same size in the neck (Who'd a thought). The designer brought me some prototypes in both .032 and .040 thickness. He was thinking was that the .040 would not work (too thick/too tight in the present configuration), he was right.... They drug/bound the gun up at the firing pin, but who knows? maybe just to tight a fit, no slop.., worth a try... I'm brass specific. I have lot's of once fired 9mm nickel plated Federal and Speer brass and wanted to use only that brass if possible. The rule of thumb seems to be for the round has to be able to turn ever so slightly in the moon clip, not be tight as they are with the prototypes WITH the Federal brass (the Speer less so). From what we have learned, the "go" to moon clips will be .032 OR most LIKELY the .035 that he is designing. He is removing a .001 from the casing width from the .032's for further testing. (He made me some moon clips for Starline brass x .38 specials that I had cut to .38 short Colt length that are perfect for that brass)...Just a matter of time and trial.... getting closer....almost there?....The fiber optic sights are on the way from our favorite "site" vendor. Trying to understand this a little better. Does this thing headspace based on case mouth by design or is it headspacing based on moonclips tension? Little dissaapointed to hear different brass having different dimensions on the rim. I thought that was a spec that just didn't not exist for 38 spec hence all the different moonclips thicknesses for 38 brass... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pskys2 Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) OPS... my mistake.... please ignore all of the above. But, I still have to wonder why someone who has a perfectly tuned 8 shot .38 SPL figures that spending $1200 or so dollars and then all the extra time & money the tuning requires thinks they're going to get better results in 9mm. I did have a 986 in for T&E. With a number of jacketed factory loads (standard pressure and Plus P) three inch groups were the best I could get that 25 yards, and the gun didn't like 147 loads -- they were around 4.5-inch. I have .38 SPL guns that will do 2 inches for a full cylinder group. I haven't found a load for either of my 627's that will do sub 2" groups. Lately I have been loading alot, multiple calibers. Loading 1 caliber is VERY attractive idea for me at the moment, its worth the money to get rid of the aggravation and time switching stuff around. Try Bayou .358 160 RN and about any powder, I use 2.7 Clays, run a taper crimp I'm using .370 and you should see 4" groups, or less, at 50 yards. The 929 should be good with .356 lead, if it has a barrel set for .355 jacketed. The reason some are giddy about the 929, It's a NEW Revolver. Edited May 30, 2014 by pskys2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg K Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Trying to understand this a little better. Does this thing headspace based on case mouth by design or is it headspacing based on moonclips tension? Little dissaapointed to hear different brass having different dimensions on the rim. I thought that was a spec that just didn't not exist for 38 spec hence all the different moonclips thicknesses for 38 brass... One of the selling points for the 9mm was that there was an actual specification for the extraction groove, that's a well and good but not all manufacturers use the specification. Most are fairly close but the brass marked R-P is much looser in a clip, I think it is about .004" smaller than most. Starline and WW are about the same as far as fit. The thicker the moon clip, the less clearance you will have from the back of the cartridge to the recoil shield. To run the .042 clips the gun will need to be modified to keep from dragging on the recoil shield, not worth it to me. Edited May 30, 2014 by Gregg K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeAZ Posted May 30, 2014 Author Share Posted May 30, 2014 I'm just posting on the journey and what I've seen so far.... Look at how many different moon clips are offered for the 627's and the various brands of brass.... If you think 9mm brass is all the same, your misguided....All the little tweaking we do to our 627's are going to be needed to be done on the 929. I'm sure we will have many different solutions to any perceived "problems" and soon the "world" will be full of "929" experts and they are duty bound to post here....I think I've received a well made example of the 929 from the S&W Performance Shop, it's not without annoying minor things that we would change on any revolver we buy because of our wants and needs.... ( 9 1/2 # trigger, sloppy moon clips, sights, etc....). Eventually, I'll get to where I want to be with this weapon. As far as the $1200.00 price tag?, I'm on the "list" for another when they become available....Gregg K is spot on with his explanation, although a little more clearance to the moon clips might allow the cartridge base to slide over the recoil shield as only one or two cases left any slight marks on the dykem?... These are all questions that need to be addressed by trial and error. I'm just posting my observations thus far. I'm not any kind of "expert" nor am I a gunsmith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanc Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Trying to understand this a little better. Does this thing headspace based on case mouth by design or is it headspacing based on moonclips tension? Little dissaapointed to hear different brass having different dimensions on the rim. I thought that was a spec that just didn't not exist for 38 spec hence all the different moonclips thicknesses for 38 brass... One of the selling points for the 9mm was that there was an actual specification for the extraction groove, that's a well and good but not all manufacturers use the specification. Most are fairly close but the brass marked R-P is much looser in a clip, I think it is about .004" smaller than most. Starline and WW are about the same as far as fit. The thicker the moon clip, the less clearance you will have from the back of the cartridge to the recoil shield. To run the .042 clips the gun will need to be modified to keep from dragging on the recoil shield, not worth it to me. No, to say the least modifying the gun for specific moon clips is pretty crazy. Part of this is still not clear to me, does it headspace on the case mouth? aside from being a pain to get out of the charge holes, will it shoot without the moonclip? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOF Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 The 986 I had would not. The cases went too deep into the chambers for the firing pin to even mark them. Moonclips were required for that gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterthefish Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Why a special vendor to design new moonclips? TK Custom has them. And with my 986 I haven't had a fit issue with ANY brass in the TK clips. Some are a little floppy but it's not a liability with the super short 9mm cases like it is with 357s or 38 Specials. I'm looking for a 929 to uncomplicate matters (I.e. make common loading easier) not complicate them, sort more brass, etc... If I wanted to deal with that I'd stick to 38 Short Colt in my 627. Edited May 30, 2014 by peterthefish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxshooter Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 I would most definitely run .357 lead bullets thru the .355 bore. If you want a complete explanation on this see Scheumann Barrel website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Freeman Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 I bought all my 929 moonclips from Tom Killhoffer. They work perfect with all flavors of brass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now