Round count question

[Makicjf]

I agree. The notch wore in from use.  It's my humble opinion that the new design is not durable enough.

If I was using push loaders, the system might easily fail in 6 months of matches and practice.

Jason

[Makicjf]

My 627 came back from the mother ship yesterday.  The yoke had been replaced. I noticed a few changes.The slip simply said "replaced Yoke".  Firstly, the cylinder release functions far better than it ever did.  Through 2 years of competition and practice the cylinder has always been a bit "sticky" to open ( with the wrong crane/yoke in it in an emergency for the IRC it was almost impossible to open).  This is gone and very smooth.  Secondly the new yoke screw appears to be visibly longer with a much more pronounced point.  The screw also counter sinks more deeply into the yoke screw slot.  My guess is a "bit" more fitting went into the replacement yoke and screw.

  I had just enough time last night to put the lighter hammer spring in a crack off 24 rounds before the world went black.  It functioned perfectly.   My question is this:  I need a second 8 shot competition revolver so I'll have a BUG.  This should avoid the fiasco of running another IRC with a broken, inaccurate revolver that I cant open the cylinder w/o a hammer.   In my frustration, I had decided to wait for the new Ruger 8 shot; though this would be an unknown, the cylinder retention system would not lend itself to catastrophic failure.  However, now that I'm no longer disappointed and frustrated, the 627 PC would be a known quantity.  Moreover , all my gear (holsters, clips etc will fit, which may not be the case for the Ruger).  I'd also have the cylinder retention system upgraded, and if possible have the smith retrofit either the old style screw, or buttress the existing spring system.

Do ya'll think I should wait for the new Ruger or go with the known 627 PC?

 

Jason

[Toolguy]

I would get another Smith. The trigger on any Ruger is way different. I think that would throw you off during a match if you had to switch over. Ruger is a good quality gun, just different. The grip, the balance, the weight are all different. I think trying to go back and forth would be hard to do and still shoot well.

[PatJones]

+1 on the Smith. I've not handled a Ruger with a competition-ready trigger job.

[GrumpyOne]

6 minutes ago, PatJones said:

+1 on the Smith. I've not handled a Ruger with a competition-ready trigger job.

Absolutely. I have, however, handled a Ruger with a trigger pull that I needed a tennis elbow arm brace afterwards.

[Dr. Phil]

9 hours ago, PatJones said:

+1 on the Smith. I've not handled a Ruger with a competition-ready trigger job.

 

Another +1 for the S&W. Best way to go in this situation.

[Makicjf]

Thanks, ya'll!

The more I think on this, the more sticking with a Smith makes sense.    I've asked this question before, but with less specificity:  will a 929 function well with 38 Short Colt?  I'm aware of the need to resize in a 9mm dies.  The possible advantages I can think of are:

1) a .358 bullet in a .357 bbl

2)  the 929's I have seen appear to be reamed to headspace 9x21, thus a 9x19 case requires a stiff moonclip to minimize the risk of light strikes.  38 Short Colt brass would headspace on the rim.

3)  I shoot more A's with a 6.5 inch bbl than with a 5" or the 4" on the 627 pro I'm shooting now

Possible negatives

1) I'm not certain if the first firing of 38 SC in a 929 will result in sticky extraction due to brass over expanding.

2) I don't think 38 SC brass resized for the 929 will fit in my 627.  I'd have to set aside  ammo for the 627

 

  Are all of these worth 1.5 inches of barrel over a 627 PC?  I'd like the longer barrel, but don't know if the risk is worth the reward.   Could {should}  I just have a 929 bbl fit to a 627 frame?  Would that work?

Lots of questions for wiser minds than mine!

Jason

[MikeBurgess]

30 minutes ago, Makicjf said:

 

1) a .358 bullet in a .357 bbl

 

 

you can load 358 bullets in 9mm brass,  I have even shot them out of several of my autos.

[MikeyScuba]

Given the cost of 38sc, I'll take my 929 any day.  I find enough once fired 9mm brass at my indoor range make my match rounds, after that it all goes in the practice rounds bin.

 

I use 165gr 358's too.  That load is ~124pf and the timer had issues picking up the shots last match it was so quiet and soft shooting.  My wife wasn't happy as she had a great run that stage and had to reshoot it.  figures.

Edited December 5, 2018 by MikeyScuba

[perttime]

1 hour ago, Makicjf said:

Thanks, ya'll!

The more I think on this, the more sticking with a Smith makes sense. ..

 

You just need to get one that actually works

[Justin M]

1 hour ago, Makicjf said:

Thanks, ya'll!

The more I think on this, the more sticking with a Smith makes sense.    I've asked this question before, but with less specificity:  will a 929 function well with 38 Short Colt?  I'm aware of the need to resize in a 9mm dies.  The possible advantages I can think of are:

1) a .358 bullet in a .357 bbl

2)  the 929's I have seen appear to be reamed to headspace 9x21, thus a 9x19 case requires a stiff moonclip to minimize the risk of light strikes.  38 Short Colt brass would headspace on the rim.

3)  I shoot more A's with a 6.5 inch bbl than with a 5" or the 4" on the 627 pro I'm shooting now

Possible negatives

1) I'm not certain if the first firing of 38 SC in a 929 will result in sticky extraction due to brass over expanding.

2) I don't think 38 SC brass resized for the 929 will fit in my 627.  I'd have to set aside  ammo for the 627

 

  Are all of these worth 1.5 inches of barrel over a 627 PC?  I'd like the longer barrel, but don't know if the risk is worth the reward.   Could {should}  I just have a 929 bbl fit to a 627 frame?  Would that work?

Lots of questions for wiser minds than mine!

Jason

 

 

How about 929 w/ a 627 cylinder?  Use whatever .38 Goldilocks brass you'd like.  You also get a 1-10 twist barrel on the 929 vs the 1-18 or whatever comes with the 627. 

[BorderShift]

On 12/4/2018 at 8:35 AM, Makicjf said:

  In my frustration, I had decided to wait for the new Ruger 8 shot; though this would be an unknown, the cylinder retention system would not lend itself to catastrophic failure.  However, now that I'm no longer disappointed and frustrated, the 627 PC would be a known quantity.  Moreover , all my gear (holsters, clips etc will fit, which may not be the case for the Ruger).  I'd also have the cylinder retention system upgraded, and if possible have the smith retrofit either the old style screw, or buttress the existing spring system.

Do ya'll think I should wait for the new Ruger or go with the known 627 PC?

 

Jason

As an owner of an 8 shot redhawk, here is what my experience has been. 1 they are built like a tank. 2 with a spring kit 8 to 8 1/2 lbs DA is about the best you will get. 3 even at 8lbs the trigger feels "sluggish" compared to a smith. 4 I have maybe 4k rounds through gun and have had zero issues that were not ammo or user error related.

that said mine is currently at TK customs getting there package done for the 8 shot but with bowen iron sightsight. Is it better than a tuned smith? No, but I like it and that's all I care about.

[mchapman]

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 7:59 AM, Makicjf said:

Thanks, ya'll!

The more I think on this, the more sticking with a Smith makes sense.    I've asked this question before, but with less specificity:  will a 929 function well with 38 Short Colt?  I'm aware of the need to resize in a 9mm dies.  The possible advantages I can think of are:

1) a .358 bullet in a .357 bbl

2)  the 929's I have seen appear to be reamed to headspace 9x21, thus a 9x19 case requires a stiff moonclip to minimize the risk of light strikes.  38 Short Colt brass would headspace on the rim.

3)  I shoot more A's with a 6.5 inch bbl than with a 5" or the 4" on the 627 pro I'm shooting now

Possible negatives

1) I'm not certain if the first firing of 38 SC in a 929 will result in sticky extraction due to brass over expanding.

2) I don't think 38 SC brass resized for the 929 will fit in my 627.  I'd have to set aside  ammo for the 627

 

  Are all of these worth 1.5 inches of barrel over a 627 PC?  I'd like the longer barrel, but don't know if the risk is worth the reward.   Could {should}  I just have a 929 bbl fit to a 627 frame?  Would that work?

Lots of questions for wiser minds than mine!

Jason

Jason, the 357/8 sized bullets work in my 929, and all of my 627's and they even work in my semi-autos. I used the 38 short colts in my 929 with no problems and I was able to resize the brass back to work in my 627's. I am using 147/150 grain bullets with BE86 I make 128 pf, as I use the same load for Icore and Uspsa, something that you can also look at is putting a longer barrel on your 627 Pro, we just did that on one of mine and I'm really liking it.

[Makicjf]

11 hours ago, mchapman said:

Jason, the 357/8 sized bullets work in my 929, and all of my 627's and they even work in my semi-autos. I used the 38 short colts in my 929 with no problems and I was able to resize the brass back to work in my 627's. I am using 147/150 grain bullets with BE86 I make 128 pf, as I use the same load for Icore and Uspsa, something that you can also look at is putting a longer barrel on your 627 Pro, we just did that on one of mine and I'm really liking it.

This is great information.  Thank You!  Do you see better accuracy with the 38 sc in the 929?  I'm wondering if the lack of free bore pays dividends.  If I were to look for a longer barrel for a 627, where would be a good place to start?  

I appreciate all the info!

Jason

[revoman]

On 12/7/2018 at 8:42 AM, Makicjf said:

This is great information.  Thank You!  Do you see better accuracy with the 38 sc in the 929?  I'm wondering if the lack of free bore pays dividends.  If I were to look for a longer barrel for a 627, where would be a good place to start?  

I appreciate all the info!

Jason

PM sent

[mchapman]

On ‎12‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 7:42 AM, Makicjf said:

This is great information.  Thank You!  Do you see better accuracy with the 38 sc in the 929?  I'm wondering if the lack of free bore pays dividends.  If I were to look for a longer barrel for a 627, where would be a good place to start?  

I appreciate all the info!

Jason

I haven't noticed any difference in accuracy from  the 627 to the 929 with the difference in free bore. You might try the classifieds here in want to buy, or check numrichs or gunbroker  for barrels. At times other members here have or have a lead as to where you could get a barrel.

 

[swordfish]

On 11/13/2018 at 5:30 PM, Makicjf said:

  I'm not certain the "V" notch in the yoke is caused by aggressive moon clip insertion. Moreover, even if a push is required, does not a Comp II require a push to release the rounds?  My 625,  610 and 627 all have a v notch:  my 1917  ( made in 1917) does not.  I've not fired it a ton, but at least a 1000 rounds ( or a close number divisible by 6).  I've shot several Outlaw Wild Bunch matches with it.  My reload swap hand reload technique is the same.  I simply drop the rounds.  I exert more force swabbing a cylinder between stages than I ever would reloading with moon clips.  

My inexpert opinion on the V notch in the yoke:  The spring plunger system coupled with yoke screws that do not insert far enough into the yoke coupled with soft steal in the yoke assembly creates the notch.  The 101 year old veteran of WWI, made with wartime production techniques has no yoke notch while all three of my modern S&W's do...

  The perspicacity of this group is astounding : the yoke on my 627 failed utterly on the last stage of a local match 2 days before I was leaving for my first IRC.  I was able to hodge podge a semi functioning revolver with the crane from my 610.  Opening the cylinder was a challenge, it would get tighter by the shot. I'm not certain that my accuracy wasn't affected, but I was able to muddle through the 14 stages with a patched together revo.

It should be back from smith this week.   I think the redesign of the yoke system is to blame, at least partially, for this failure.   I was frustrated enough I haven't fired a revolver since the IRC.

Failing at the perfect time is a very accurate statement!

Jason

 

Oh hey, I know you. hahahaha.

With all this talk about Rugers, ya'll haven't seen Dave's new one, have you? He gets his Rugers down to about 5 1/2 pound pulls. But I think he's probably the only one able to do it. When the new Rugers come out it might be worth picking one up. They certainly support the sport more than Smith. But up until now their products haven't catered to us. That's about to change. If you don't mind spending money to get the action tuned by Dave, a Ruger seems to be a much more robust choice.

Edited December 18, 2018 by swordfish

[Makicjf]

You do know me, we were on the same squad @ th IRC:  me and my broken revolver...: ).   I was thinking about the new Ruger again this morning.  My list for the upcoming year is a 627 PC,  a 929 or the new Ruger.   I am well invested in 38 Shorts so the 929 would be firing those. Has the barrel length been settled on for the new 8 shot Ruger?   The concept of using the same platform between primary and back up makes sense, but I'd also like to try something new. 

Do you know when it will be released?

Jason

[Darqusoull13]

1 hour ago, Makicjf said:

You do know me, we were on the same squad @ th IRC:  me and my broken revolver...: ).   I was thinking about the new Ruger again this morning.  My list for the upcoming year is a 627 PC,  a 929 or the new Ruger.   I am well invested in 38 Shorts so the 929 would be firing those. Has the barrel length been settled on for the new 8 shot Ruger?   The concept of using the same platform between primary and back up makes sense, but I'd also like to try something new. 

Do you know when it will be released?

Jason

I thought you were going to shoot Limited with me? 

[Makicjf]

Once I'm fully healthy, I may shoot both.  

14 minutes ago, Darqusoull13 said:

I thought you were going to shoot Limited with me? 

I think I have a wheel gun addiction, or maybe its just an abusive relationship...  Its hard to quit!  : )

Jason

 

[Mcfoto]

22 minutes ago, Makicjf said:

Once I'm fully healthy, I may shoot both.  

I think I have a wheel gun addiction, or maybe its just an abusive relationship...  Its hard to quit!  : )

Jason

 

 

I hear ya! The good thing is after shooting a wheelie, a Limited blaster seems easy...

[BallisticianX]

The answer is not concrete. Depends on the gun and the variables of original fit, the steel grade treatment variances, and maintenance. So the only realistic anwer is check it regularly to determine if the endshake is excessive, timing is not starting to "slow" up, and visual checks of the ratchet and other parts for signs of peening. Then fix or have them fixed as they arise. 

[MattInTheHat]

Back when I was going at it, I broke one central pin (the hammer pin) one firing pin, and screwed up two yokes, plus I wore a groove to where the yoke retention screw kept jumping out. 

First thing that fails is bending the yoke. My left handed method probably stressed it several times more than right handers, as I was shoving the clip in rather than letting it drop. But still good for many tens of thousands of repetitions. That said, it only takes one bad one.

 

The hammer pin, that had to be sheer wear, about 300k to 500k repetitions. 

Cylinder/gap problems, maybe every 200k cycles, again it isn't wear it's the one time you do it seriously wrong. Pure wear, I just shimmed it and kept going. This isn't Olympic shooting.

Of my 3 .45 revolvers, I've broken all of them. Two were material. Broken hammer pin (500k snaps) and worn out yoke retention channel (probably 500+snaps.) The other was a firing pin that did nothing for me, and I went back to factory. On top of that, maybe 3 times I had to hit the cylinder with a hammer to make it understand what square was. 

 

Long story short, listen to Mike Carmoney about the truth of revolvers, but also appreciate your own particular wear pattern. Ain't nobody builds guns for what we ask of them.

Edited February 9, 2019 by MattInTheHat