BOLO Tuning for a longer DA pull

[MemphisMechanic]

49 minutes ago, SISIG said:

What is this.

 

People used to run a Type 3 disconnector for CZs back before anyone made a disconnector for the Tanfos. Oldschool tech and required extensive fitting, like reaming one of the pin holes.

 

Made by Cajun Gun Works, I believe.

[FALAR]

CZ disconnector made by Cajun Gun Works.

[SISIG]

On 5/30/2020 at 8:01 AM, MemphisMechanic said:

People used to run a Type 3 disconnector for CZs back before anyone made a disconnector for the Tanfos. Oldschool tech and required extensive fitting, like reaming one of the pin holes.

 

Made by Cajun Gun Works, I believe.

Yikes! Thanks for the info

[sciolist]

I've fit 3 Stock 2's with original style Bolos. First one was drop-in. Second required a good bit of grinding, and I learned a bunch from that. The third one is probably best, except the DA hammer dwell is very short. The gun seems to be 100% with CCI's and I mostly use FSP, so perhaps this is not a problem. If you don't need the extra hammer travel it's just wasted triggering.

 

Rather than screwing up T3's Bolo, I decided to try an R7. I wanted to check it out in general, an also see if I could demonstrate increased hammer travel by removing material from the lower tip. I had to take more off the R7 to get it to work than I expected, but end result was a perfectly acceptable trigger with more pre-travel and a much more pronounced reset. Hammer travel was also better than with the Bolo, but not as long as my other 2 guns. The R7 is also shorter along it's initial vertical dimension than the old Bolos. I measured 0.461.

 

Next I took 0.003 off the bottom tip very slowly, checking fit at each thousandth. That added about 0.06 to the throw the way I was measuring, which seems like a good result, and gut says that's a good place to stop. At that point, the SA hammer would catch DA rather than falling cleanly from the hooks. I removed a bit more from the inside arc, primarily in the forward direction and just a bit under the wing. As expected, the problem greatly reduced and there was a small increase in pre-travel. I experienced something similar with T2's Bolo fit, but was able to completely eliminate it without adding any pre-travel, by pulling the inside arc's radius forward.

 

So my question is, how are all these relationships really interacting? In SA, the hammer just falls from the hooks on the sear. In DA, trigger pushes bar rearward, plunger pushes up on bar, bar pushes back on disco wing, disco bottom rides up frame ramp, disco arc rides on bar saddle, and I gather the top tip of disco rides on the ramp at the underside of the sear cage.

 

Seems like the frame ramp geometry in T3 is significantly different than the other 2 guns. I don't mind grinding through a few discos, within reason. My goal is to reasonably master the ability to fit a disco on the first shot, and really maximize the result for personal taste and the specific frame and internals in question.

 

 

[IHAVEGAS]

.

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by IHAVEGAS

[a2holes]

I took .006 off my R7. I can't really tell for sure but the da hammer is going a little further rearward. I am afraid of bricking the bolo and then having to painstakingly fit the leg of a new one. I measured the factory interupter and it is at about .455 I am sitting at .459 with the R7 so I think I'm going to stop here and test first and see how it goes. Also just installed the 15.5 hammer spring. I have a bunch of federal primers now but do not want to have to have them because that is not something I am interested in having to deal with. I have about a 10 to 20 % DA failure before doing this work and spring change and I had removed the firing pin block saftey. Which I have since fitted but I plan to leave of for the initially reliable testing and early on local  matches. One thing about showing up with a tanfo if everyone is expecting if to be series of  malfunctions

Edited January 1 by a2holes