S&W 929 or 627...decisions

[Makicjf]

1 hour ago, MWP said:

I haven’t seen any head spacing issues with 929s. What info did you find on that?

   The two 929's I have owned would not appropriately headspace a 9mm taper crimped round without the benefit of a moon clip.  The round would fall to deeply into the cylinder.  The headspace shoulder was cut to deeply for 9x19 brass to headspace on the case mouth.  I read that a 9x21 will headspace without a moon clip.  The net result is in the two examples of the 929 I owned the moon clip was responsible for both headspace and extraction.  This ,in my opinion, is why the 929 requires .040 stiff moon clips;if ones expectation is to reliably fire 9x19 brass w/o moon clips, then the 929"s  I owned  exhibited  head space issues.   

    My 1917, 610 and one of 625's will headspace proper for caliber brass flawlessly, while my 625 JM requires a moon clip for 100% ignition.   My expectation (and preference in Smith revolvers) is moon clips, so I don't mind.  However if I expected the 625 JM to work sans clips, I'd consider it to have headspace issues.

Jason

[RangerMcFadden]

I’m confused. Aren’t 929s supposed to headspace off the moon? I mean, I paid someone to lengthen the chambers!

[Makicjf]

3 hours ago, RangerMcFadden said:

I’m confused. Aren’t 929s supposed to headspace off the moon? I mean, I paid someone to lengthen the chambers!

I don't know, maybe they are intended to be shot only with moon clips.  I'd still posit that a revolver which *requires* moon clips for reliable ignition goes against 103 years of tradition . Most  auto caliber revolvers except the earliest 1917 Colts ( until the government interceded and demanded case mouth headspace) to my limited knowledge, headspace on the case mouth and use the moon clip for extraction.  The moon clip does ,however, augment the strength of the case mouth hold.

Honestly, its semantics:  the 929, in my experience, requires moon clips for proper headspace.  I, personally, concur that that is indicative of a headspace issue, though be it easily resolved by common equipment. Others could reasonably state that the expectation of moon clip use to create proper headspace is perfectly acceptable, intended and intentional, thus no headspace issue exists.   

Intentional or not, the 929's I have owned do headspace on the  moon clip. only.

Jason

 

Edited August 21, 2020 by Makicjf

[revoman]

5 hours ago, Makicjf said:

   The two 929's I have owned would not appropriately headspace a 9mm taper crimped round without the benefit of a moon clip.  The round would fall to deeply into the cylinder.  The headspace shoulder was cut to deeply for 9x19 brass to headspace on the case mouth.  I read that a 9x21 will headspace without a moon clip.  The net result is in the two examples of the 929 I owned the moon clip was responsible for both headspace and extraction.  This ,in my opinion, is why the 929 requires .040 stiff moon clips;if ones expectation is to reliably fire 9x19 brass w/o moon clips, then the 929"s  I owned  exhibited  head space issues.   

    My 1917, 610 and one of 625's will headspace proper for caliber brass flawlessly, while my 625 JM requires a moon clip for 100% ignition.   My expectation (and preference in Smith revolvers) is moon clips, so I don't mind.  However if I expected the 625 JM to work sans clips, I'd consider it to have headspace issues.

Jason

Revolvers do not headspace in the cylinder. All revolver ammunition that can be fired without a moon clip are rimmed cartridges. When someone came up with the idea of shooting rimless cartridges in a revolver the moon clip was invented. If you truly believe that your revolvers headspace in the cylinder there must be something terribly wrong with them if they do not headspace. You need to send them all to me so you will no longer be in danger of a rimless cartridge not head spacing. PM me and I will send you my address

[Makicjf]

1 hour ago, revoman said:

Revolvers do not headspace in the cylinder. All revolver ammunition that can be fired without a moon clip are rimmed cartridges. When someone came up with the idea of shooting rimless cartridges in a revolver the moon clip was invented. If you truly believe that your revolvers headspace in the cylinder there must be something terribly wrong with them if they do not headspace. You need to send them all to me so you will no longer be in danger of a rimless cartridge not head spacing. PM me and I will send you my address

What is the purpose of the shoulder in the cylinder at the start of the throat?

When Colt began building Gov't contract 45 ACP revolvers,they did not create a shoulder thus the round was only held in place by the half moon clip.  The ordnance board insisted that the shoulder to create proper headspace on the case mouth be cut into the Colt's so that loose ammo could be fired. The original intent of the moon clip was to allow for extraction.

All of my auto cartridge revo's , my 1917 Smith, my 5 inch 625 and my 610 will headspace and fire 100%of the time without a moon clip. My 625 JM will not, so, in my opinion has a headspace problem that is masked by the extraction device!

Jason

[revoman]

2 hours ago, Makicjf said:

What is the purpose of the shoulder in the cylinder at the start of the throat?

When Colt began building Gov't contract 45 ACP revolvers,they did not create a shoulder thus the round was only held in place by the half moon clip.  The ordnance board insisted that the shoulder to create proper headspace on the case mouth be cut into the Colt's so that loose ammo could be fired. The original intent of the moon clip was to allow for extraction.

All of my auto cartridge revo's , my 1917 Smith, my 5 inch 625 and my 610 will headspace and fire 100%of the time without a moon clip. My 625 JM will not, so, in my opinion has a headspace problem that is masked by the extraction device!

Jason

That is why the 45 Auto Rim was developed. Try shooting one of those in a 1911. 
The headspace is measured from where the rim on a rimmed cartridge sits on the cylinder to the breechface or the vertical face directly behind the cylinder.

What you are talking about is the cylinder throats and here is an explanation on that. The cylinder throat is to guide the bullet from the cartridge case into the throat of the barrel. 
I am sure that your 1917, 625 and 610 can reliably fire the rounds but extraction would have to be a pain as the extractor has no rims to push against to extract the cartridges. Can you take a video of your shooting one of them and how the extraction works. I would really be interested in seeing that. 
My offer still stands and I would even pay the shipping. ✌

[Jory45acp]

14 hours ago, MWP said:

I haven’t seen any head spacing issues with 929s. What info did you find on that?

I made my original statement after calling 2 revolver gunsmiths who have both worked on quite a few 929's. Their work is well known, they are very knowledgeable and very experienced. Both have web sites and been in the business for decades. I'm not putting their names out because I don't like injecting professionals into online debates where they cannot be there to defend their statements. That being said..... I am sure you have not seen anywhere near nor worked on as many 929's as either of these guys so I'm going with professional opinion as being valid. Do not misunderstand me, I'm not calling anyone out I just simply was passing on some information that I heard from two highly reputable sources about an commonly seen issue in this model. It is not meant to degrade the gun or company as I just obtained one myself. YMMV based on the small number you have seen and that is equally possible you have not come across a bad spaced model yet. 

[ysrracer]

My 929 head spaces on the moon clip. It won't fire with out it. 

[PatJones]

We competition shooters shoot a lot. Our guns are not getting cleaned every 50 rounds. A little room in front of the case allows room for carbon to build up before the moon clips give trouble dropping in. That's why the later 625s require moon clips where the older guns do not.

To be fair, the barrel on the 929 reads "9mm." It does not read 9mm Luger. They appear to be chambered in 9x21, if so there is no headspace problem to complain about.

--
Pat Jones
Firestone CO
USPSA #A79592

[mchapman]

On 8/21/2020 at 4:50 PM, Makicjf said:

What is the purpose of the shoulder in the cylinder at the start of the throat?

 

Jason

That shoulder was incorporated into the cylinder design in revolvers when we started using the style of projectiles that is in common use today. The older black powder and early smokeless revolvers had a straight or smooth cylinder and NO shoulder. This was because the projectile style or type that was used back then was a "heeled" bullet. The exposed lead on the cartridge was the same OD as the brass casing and a stepped down shank portion that was inside of the brass, so a shoulder was not needed. When we changed to the currant style  with the smaller projectile dia the shoulder was needed to do what Revoman said, to guide the projectile into the forcing cone of the barrel to improve accuracy. 38 spcl, 357, 41 mag, and 44 mag have a shoulder just like the 625, the 929, the 986, and the 610 do now days. I don't believe that it has anything to do with headspacing in a revolver.

[Makicjf]

10 hours ago, mchapman said:

That shoulder was incorporated into the cylinder design in revolvers when we started using the style of projectiles that is in common use today. The older black powder and early smokeless revolvers had a straight or smooth cylinder and NO shoulder. This was because the projectile style or type that was used back then was a "heeled" bullet. The exposed lead on the cartridge was the same OD as the brass casing and a stepped down shank portion that was inside of the brass, so a shoulder was not needed. When we changed to the currant style  with the smaller projectile dia the shoulder was needed to do what Revoman said, to guide the projectile into the forcing cone of the barrel to improve accuracy. 38 spcl, 357, 41 mag, and 44 mag have a shoulder just like the 625, the 929, the 986, and the 610 do now days. I don't believe that it has anything to do with headspacing in a revolver.

   I find this conversation fascinating!   I have several Ruger Blackhawks with 45 acp cylinders.  They, for certain, headspace on the case mouth.  When I "plunk" test for any auto pistol, be it Glock, CZ, any 1911 I'm ensuring that the round seats and headspaces properly.  Though some debate exists, in an auto pistol headspace is created by the case mouth and extraction is provided by the extractor. A notable exception is my Glock 20, which holds the brass so snuggly against the breach face I *can* reliably fire 40 S&W , though excessive wear on the extractor due to the extra duty may occur. Headspace in this instance is provided by extractor, because I'm placing a round that is to short to properly headspace on the case mouth. This, in my mind, is what is occurring when my 625 JM requires a moon clip with a taper crimped round;  or when a 929 requires a stiff moon clip to fire 9x19 ammo.  

 

I'm forwarding the thought that a revolver chambered for an auto pistol round, in the absence of a case rim, is in fact 6-8 auto pistol chambers in a cylinder.  Headspace was intended to be on the case mouth(which is the norm in the case of auto pistols) and extraction is provided for by the moon clip.  My thinking on the 929 is very similar to that of the G20 firing 40 S&W, the strength of the extractor (moon clip) must be great enough because the case mouth of 9x19 brass does not reach the shoulder to headspace as an auto pistol, rimless round was intended.   

Honestly, the point is moot:  I simply find the distinction between a rimmed revolver round and an auto round chambered in a revolver to be relevant.   

Jason

 

Edited August 24, 2020 by Makicjf

[mchapman]

1 hour ago, Makicjf said:

.  Though some debate exists, in an auto pistol headspace is created by the case mouth and extraction is provided by the extractor. A notable exception is my Glock 20, which holds the brass so snuggly against the breach face I *can* reliably fire 40 S&W , though excessive wear on the extractor due to the extra duty may occur. Headspace in this instance is provided by extractor, because I'm placing a round that is to short to properly headspace on the case mouth.

Now I am going to just throw this out here, and this is my own personal thoughts about this, unless you case trim all of your auto round brass, regardless of calibur, I have found too wide  of a difference in case length to say that a semi-auto headspaces off of the case mouth all of the time. I think that they headspace on the extractor. This difference is noteable from headstamp to headstamp, it is also apparent from first time reusing [reloading] to the 8th or 10th time reusing even with the same headstamp brass. Bottleneck brass [rifle] grows in length, hense the need to trim the brass after a couple of uses. I have found that straight wall or pistol brass gets shorter, plus I don't know many that reload pistol brass actually trim any cases. Now some may do so, but not many that I'm aware of. So is headspace done on the case mouth or the extractor, or moonclip, or just a tight or dirty chamber?

[Makicjf]

35 minutes ago, mchapman said:

Now I am going to just throw this out here, and this is my own personal thoughts about this, unless you case trim all of your auto round brass, regardless of calibur, I have found too wide  of a difference in case length to say that a semi-auto headspaces off of the case mouth all of the time. I think that they headspace on the extractor. This difference is noteable from headstamp to headstamp, it is also apparent from first time reusing [reloading] to the 8th or 10th time reusing even with the same headstamp brass. Bottleneck brass [rifle] grows in length, hense the need to trim the brass after a couple of uses. I have found that straight wall or pistol brass gets shorter, plus I don't know many that reload pistol brass actually trim any cases. Now some may do so, but not many that I'm aware of. So is headspace done on the case mouth or the extractor, or moonclip, or just a tight or dirty chamber?

In reality,  what you state is most likely how the process functions: combination of all relevant factors, hopefully the tolerances  stack up in a positive way.

Jason

[firewood]

I am by no means a competitive revolver honcho. I have two 929s, one is open the other is iron sight. The iron sight gun will use 0.035 moons, the open 0.040. I use the same headstamp brass, primers and projectile. I have always thought that the guns headspace different. Some revolver guys tell me that they would change one or the other so that I would only need one style (thickness)of moon clip. Maybe a 0.037 moon clips would solve my problem. The 0.040 are a bear to load.

[MWP]

12 minutes ago, firewood said:

I am by no means a competitive revolver honcho. I have two 929s, one is open the other is iron sight. The iron sight gun will use 0.035 moons, the open 0.040. I use the same headstamp brass, primers and projectile. I have always thought that the guns headspace different. Some revolver guys tell me that they would change one or the other so that I would only need one style (thickness)of moon clip. Maybe a 0.037 moon clips would solve my problem. The 0.040 are a bear to load.

What tool are using to load the .040s?

[firewood]

On 8/25/2020 at 12:41 PM, MWP said:

What tool are using to load the .040s?

 

Mostly the BMT Loader. The problem is the machined part that holds the round and the moon clip is starting to elongate from all of the pressure making it difficult to use. Lately I have been using one from the Revolver Supply store, I think I would like to try the one made by TK. 0.040 is a tight fit.

Edited August 28, 2020 by firewood

[MWP]

44 minutes ago, firewood said:

 

Mostly the BMT Loader. The problem is the machined part that holds the round and the moon clip is starting to elongate from all of the pressure making it difficult to use. Lately I have been using one from the Revolver Supply store, I think I would like to try the one made by TK. 0.040 is a tight fit.

It is. I went from BMT to the TK tools. I was wearing out the plastic “top” of the BMT once a year, and I think it’s harder on the moons as well. 

[windfred]

My opinion is that the 929 is a better gun for competition but the 627 is more versatile due to the wide variety of ammo that can be used in it, from really light .38 cowboy loads to my personal favorite hot .357 loads. Plus you can legally hunt with a .357 revolver.

 

If you’re like me whichever one you buy you’ll probably want the other one later. 

Edited March 15, 2021 by windfred

[Lesliet]

On 8/27/2020 at 7:43 PM, MWP said:

I went from BMT to the TK tools. I was wearing out the plastic “top” of the BMT once a year, and I think it’s harder on the moons as well. 

   I've been running into that, too, am at just about the 1 year mark.  Thinking I may try making a new top out of aluminum, and see how that works and lasts. 

[revoman]

6 hours ago, windfred said:

My opinion is that the 929 is a better gun for competition

Why?

[ysrracer]

I've got both, but prefer the 627

 

 

[windfred]

15 hours ago, revoman said:

Why?

Again it’s my opinion, yours may vary and that’s okay.

 I am more comfortable and shoot better with my 929, my unloads and reloads are smoother, I can sight faster and hit better with the longer 6.5” barrel. 
I also shoot production division and use the same load in my CZ and 929. (I was blessed with .355 chamber throats) That makes my reloading faster and cheaper.  I only have the one press and don’t want to change it over to .38 all the time and when I do have to change over I’d rather load .357
 

627 is a excellent revolver also. If I could only have 1 firearm, it would be on the top of the list.

 

 

[pskys2]

11 hours ago, windfred said:

Again it’s my opinion, yours may vary and that’s okay.

 I am more comfortable and shoot better with my 929, my unloads and reloads are smoother, I can sight faster and hit better with the longer 6.5” barrel. 
I also shoot production division and use the same load in my CZ and 929. (I was blessed with .355 chamber throats) That makes my reloading faster and cheaper.  I only have the one press and don’t want to change it over to .38 all the time and when I do have to change over I’d rather load .357
 

627 is a excellent revolver also. If I could only have 1 firearm, it would be on the top of the list.

 

 

Sounds like a valid plan and well thought out.

My solution was to set up my 1050 for 9mm and run a batch of several thousand.  Then it could use a good cleaning and I'd do that and switch the shell plate & sizing die to 38, clean everything and put the 9mm tool head back on.  Since most of the other dies work with both calibers with only a few minor adjustments between the two.  And usually none are needed depending on particular loads.  

If I could settle on a single bullet for both, closest I've come is a .356 145 coated rn.  I do use different powders, but don't have to.

When I was using a 550 it took only a few minutes to change between the two.  

I like your idea and might even give it a try at some point?  

But I started down this road before the 929 and picked the best platform for me.  Someone just starting, yep sounds like you have a wise plan.