mikey357 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 (edited) For anyone who's interested, I did a "Disassemble and Weigh" yesterday...here are the results... Five-inch 625-2...complete gun, 43.2 oz. Cylinder assembly, 8.4 oz/238 grams ...gun has Hogue Round-to-square rubber "Monogrips" installed... Four-inch Model 625-8 "PC"...complete gun, 39.0 oz. Cylinder assembly, 7.7 oz/218 grams ...gun has Hogue rubber round-to-square "Monogrips" installed... Two-and-a-half inch Model 325 "PD"...complete gun, 21.2 oz. Cylinder assembly, 5.0 oz/144 grams ...gun has Hogue rubber "Round-butt" "Monogrips" installed... Four-inch Model 620...complete gun, 37.8 oz. Cylinder assembly, 7.9 oz/225 grams ...gun has Hogue wood "Round-to-square" grips installed... Three-and-quarter inch Model 386 "SC"...complete gun, 18.8 oz Cylinder assembly, 4.7 oz/133 grams ...gun has "Hogue" rubber "Bantam" grips installed... ...the cylinder assemblies were taken off the crane--or yoke--and weighed "Complete", that is, with extractor star, ejector rod, center pin, etc., in place...hope you guys find this informational....mikey357 Edited November 2, 2005 by mikey357 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10mmdave Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 So basicly .7 oz diff between a steel cylinder and a Ti cylinder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waltermitty Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 I'm assuming the third gun listed is a 325 PD instead of a 625 PD (?). That would be the TI cylinder and aluminum frame. That gives closer to 2.7 ounces (~35%) less than the 625-8 (assuming 45 ACP) That's 3.4 ounces (~40%) less than the 625-2. I didn't weigh mine when I had it apart the other day. I'll have to figure out how to get an accurate number for comparison. I can testify that the Ti cylinder *feels* significantly lighter and is very noticable in the gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmoney Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 OK Walt......serious question.....now that you've had a chance to play with it, is the difference in handling worth the cost of the Ti cylinder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waltermitty Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 OK Walt......serious question.....now that you've had a chance to play with it, is the difference in handling worth the cost of the Ti cylinder? Sorry for the late reply Brother Mike. I had to go play guns with Hop in Ft Smith and couldn't get my 'puter to work Friday when I was trying to leave. I really don't have enough rounds through the combination yet to make a definitive statement. I'll have to report back after a few matches. Initially, for people like me with the un-smooth trigger affliction, it feels like it helps calm the gun way down during the jerking and flinching. If you're already smooth and even, you may not get much benefit, but if you're herky jerky like me (had to replace one cylinder already because I had peened the notches beyond reason) it may be something of a help. Hop yanked the trigger on it a few times this weekend, maybe he has an opinion? I'm anxious to get it into one of them 40 round "Open Gun" courses to really push it and see what happens. If nothing else it gives me style points and psychological comfort that I *must* have an edge 'cause my stuff don't even match anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopalong Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 To me it felt more like a well worked 686 vs. a well worked 625......except for grip size ect. worth it? Maybe......If I had a worn out cylinder with all the slots peened and had to replace it anyway.....sure(but that is my personal opinion) Waltermitty sure was happy with it and that is all that matters. HOP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmoney Posted October 31, 2005 Share Posted October 31, 2005 What about chamfering the charge holes on the Ti? I put a mild chamfer on my 646 cylinder without any problems, but I'd want to hog it out quite a bit more on the 625. Walt--what'd you do on yours? Any chamber stickiness problems like we saw on the 646? Randy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waltermitty Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 What about chamfering the charge holes on the Ti? I put a mild chamfer on my 646 cylinder without any problems, but I'd want to hog it out quite a bit more on the 625. Walt--what'd you do on yours? Any chamber stickiness problems like we saw on the 646? Randy? The cylinder came with quite a bevel on each charge hole already, much more than my S&W chamfer job I paid for. I haven't had any stickiness problems, but the surface of the cylinder is definately not as slick as the steel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.carden Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 (edited) Not so smooth surface = slowwww...... reloads !!!!!! Cant have that !!! Edited November 1, 2005 by D.carden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey357 Posted November 2, 2005 Author Share Posted November 2, 2005 Waltermitty--You are correct, Sir...it SHOULD HAVE SAID "325 PD", NOT 625 "PD"...post has been edited...that's what I get for trying to post on the "Midnight" shift!!!....mikey357 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