Wear of stainless compared to carbon steel?

[Cherokeewind]

Have any of you noticed if stainless revolvers show earlier wear (especially peening in the cylinder notches) than carbon steel revolvers?

 

Thanks,

Jim 

[alecmc]

The only 3 cylinder materials I'm aware of used in smith revolvers are :

 

Stainless Steel, Titanium & Aluminum 

 

But Yes, stainless is softer than titanium and will peen easier.

 

Titanium is more resistant to peening ( but not immune ) and is also lighter.

 

As far as I know the aluminum cylinders were only used on (some) model 617s. 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2021 by alecmc

[pskys2]

57 minutes ago, alecmc said:

The only 3 cylinder materials I'm aware of used in smith revolvers are :

 

Stainless Steel, Titanium & Aluminum 

 

But Yes, stainless is softer than titanium and will peen easier.

 

Titanium is more resistant to peening ( but not immune ) and is also lighter.

 

As far as I know the aluminum cylinders were only used on (some) model 617s. 

 

 

Ummm Blued 25's, heck anything before the "6" was added, just about.

And as for the question, I don't think Stainless is softer.  Ever tried to checker a stainless 1911 frame?

But I'm not an engineer.  There are a few who on here who seem to have a lot of insider connections.

[Cherokeewind]

How about you guys who fire thousands of rounds yearly in competition?  What sort of wear/peening do you see on your stainless revolvers vs. carbon steel revolvers?  

[pskys2]

My comparison was between a m29-3 I shot for the first 6 or so years of Revolver Division vs a 625 PC I shot until 2013, probably about the same time and rounds.  I've cleaned up the notches a couple of times on the 29 and once on the 625.  Neither were real bad just had some other issues that "might" have been, but weren't associated.

Say 20k each.  The 627 PC has about the same time and rounds and haven't noticed anything on it.

[Cherokeewind]

Thanks.......maybe the issue is more of a theoretical problem than an actual real life one.

[MWP]

A lot has to do with how you pull the trigger. Early on I wore out a 686 cylinder in dryfire, probably only 80-100k on it. My dad burned up a brand new 625 with dryfire in less than a month, and he’s a D class shooter (just a reference to say how much he probably didn’t dryfire)
 

When I started I pulled the trigger halfway, staging it, then quickly finishing it. After burning up that first cylinder I changed to pulling all the way through without pause, and it appears to damage the cylinder less or maybe even not at all. 
 

There are people who shoot a lot that burn cylinders annually, and there are people who have guns with 7 digit trigger pulls on them without peening. 

[Toolguy]

I think the carbon steel holds up a little better than stainless or Ti. Anything mechanical is going to wear over time. The good news is that you can peen the material back where it came from and start over, multiple times.

 

Use a flat bottom punch and hammer for the side opposite the ramp. Gently tap the material back down, level with the surrounding area. For peening on the ramp, use the side of a 5/16 diameter steel rod laying in the ramp and tap that material back down.

 

A burr on the ramp can make the cylinder stop bounce at just the wrong time, and skip over the notch. Putting the material back where it came from tightens up the notches and reboots the cylinder, so it can go many thousands of rounds longer. 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Toolguy

[pskys2]

11 hours ago, MWP said:

A lot has to do with how you pull the trigger. Early on I wore out a 686 cylinder in dryfire, probably only 80-100k on it. My dad burned up a brand new 625 with dryfire in less than a month, and he’s a D class shooter (just a reference to say how much he probably didn’t dryfire)
 

When I started I pulled the trigger halfway, staging it, then quickly finishing it. After burning up that first cylinder I changed to pulling all the way through without pause, and it appears to damage the cylinder less or maybe even not at all. 
 

There are people who shoot a lot that burn cylinders annually, and there are people who have guns with 7 digit trigger pulls on them without peening. 

It would seem that staging a trigger, which reduces the rotational speed, would wear less than a straight pull through?  But I have no doubt your observations are correct.  Probably has something to do with "staging" then "slamming" that last bit, whereas pulling straight through leads us to a smooth pull and less violence?

 

For speed the straight through pull is a requirement.  For accuracy I will use "staging" at some points but the final pull through is never harsh then, I almost work for a surprise break? on it.  Mixing the two though I've noticed the POI changes a bit, I'm sure due to me, and accuracy is really no different, and at times it seems the straight through pull is more accurate.

So do you still use the staging at any point?  Or have you trained yourself enough that it's a losing technique?

Anytime I can sit and learn before a Master Champion is priceless!  

[Cherokeewind]

1 hour ago, Toolguy said:

I think the carbon steel holds up a little better than stainless or Ti. Anything mechanical is going to wear over time. The good news is that you can peen the material back where it came from and start over, multiple times.

 

Use a flat bottom punch and hammer for the side opposite the ramp. Gently tap the material back down, level with the surrounding area. For peening on the ramp, use the side of a 5/16 diameter steel rod laying in the ramp and tap that material back down.

 

A burr on the ramp can make the cylinder stop bounce at just the wrong time, and skip over the notch. Putting the material back where it came from tightens up the notches and reboots the cylinder, so it can go many thousands of rounds longer. 

Thanks for your comments.

I have actually used the technique you mentioned to repair stainless cylinder notches.  With care the repair isn't noticeable and can be repeated several times.

[MWP]

11 hours ago, pskys2 said:

It would seem that staging a trigger, which reduces the rotational speed, would wear less than a straight pull through?  But I have no doubt your observations are correct.  Probably has something to do with "staging" then "slamming" that last bit, whereas pulling straight through leads us to a smooth pull and less violence?

 

For speed the straight through pull is a requirement.  For accuracy I will use "staging" at some points but the final pull through is never harsh then, I almost work for a surprise break? on it.  Mixing the two though I've noticed the POI changes a bit, I'm sure due to me, and accuracy is really no different, and at times it seems the straight through pull is more accurate.

So do you still use the staging at any point?  Or have you trained yourself enough that it's a losing technique?

Anytime I can sit and learn before a Master Champion is priceless!  

In my head it makes sense that going all the way through is a more consistent speed and less violent. Since that 686 I have probably less than 10k through a stainless cylinder though, everything has been titanium.

 

 It’s very rare for me to stage a trigger today. There’s a few reasons for that. When I do, it’s when I’m sighting in a gun. When I sight in a gun, it’s usually very precise. I really like to know it’s me and not the gun when I have mistakes. The other time I use it is only on shots I would never see in a match setting. Today in practice I shot a plate rack at 50, and a mini popper at 100. I used both techniques, and in this case the staging was my friend. 
 

For me, staging doesn’t have a place in a speed game. If I’m on the clock I don’t have time to stage a double action trigger. Now that’s different for everyone- what defines a hard target is different to each person. There are many super squad level shooters that stage, so don’t think it’s necessarily “wrong” to do so, I just think it’s slower, and speed is usually what wins with current hit factors where they are. 

[pskys2]

12 hours ago, MWP said:

In my head it makes sense that going all the way through is a more consistent speed and less violent. Since that 686 I have probably less than 10k through a stainless cylinder though, everything has been titanium.

 

 It’s very rare for me to stage a trigger today. There’s a few reasons for that. When I do, it’s when I’m sighting in a gun. When I sight in a gun, it’s usually very precise. I really like to know it’s me and not the gun when I have mistakes. The other time I use it is only on shots I would never see in a match setting. Today in practice I shot a plate rack at 50, and a mini popper at 100. I used both techniques, and in this case the staging was my friend. 
 

For me, staging doesn’t have a place in a speed game. If I’m on the clock I don’t have time to stage a double action trigger. Now that’s different for everyone- what defines a hard target is different to each person. There are many super squad level shooters that stage, so don’t think it’s necessarily “wrong” to do so, I just think it’s slower, and speed is usually what wins with current hit factors where they are. 

"I want to know it's me, not the gun" has been my standard to live by for 30+years.

I've shot 100 yard targets in USPSA club matches and 75 yard Steel in Area Matches.  Neither while there was even a Revolver Division, so it was a 1911/2011.  I've done it in practice also. 

Though a few years ago while shooting my M29, with Russian Cases, at a club USPSA match we had a Star Rack set up and were forced under the canopy 50 yards away by lightning.  One of the youngsters shooting his Open gun wanted to try it from there.  Emptied his gun and hit 1 of 5.  I stepped up and took 5 shots to take down the other 4.  Can't really remember if I staged or not?

For me staging during a COF comes in when I have to interrupt the stroke because I KNOW I'm off target.  And sometimes on really difficult, high disaster factor shots if it drifts the wrong way.  I do believe for me staging is less accurate than stroking through.

Probably not the right way to be, but when I'm on the clock I try to not worry about time.  Every time I start, I get sloppy and rushed.  I try to let my FS, or dot which for me is actually harder to do, be my speed governor.  If I want to decrease my times, which I always do, I know I have to put in the time on the range.

[RJH]

This thread makes me wonder, in general what is the average life expectancy of a revolver used in competition?  Any real difference in major like 625 vs minor in a 627? Or even just minor in a 627 vs 929?

[Toolguy]

I have a 686 PPC gun with over 150,000 rounds. It's on the second barrel. And a 686 Bianchi Open gun with around 100,000 rounds. They are both still going strong.

[Cherokeewind]

Any cylinder replacements on these two?

[Toolguy]

No, everything original except the barrel.

[RJH]

^^^that is pretty impressive.  I would have figured some hands and such would have to have been replaced 

[MWP]

I have an early 929 with north of 500k on it. Probably 4 times that in dryfire. No issues. 

[alecmc]

23 hours ago, MWP said:

I have an early 929 with north of 500k on it. Probably 4 times that in dryfire. No issues. 

 

 

i'll remember this when it's up for sale in a few years 

 

" low mileage, few boxes of ammo, like new! "

[MWP]

3 hours ago, alecmc said:

 

 

i'll remember this when it's up for sale in a few years 

 

" low mileage, few boxes of ammo, like new! "

New tires, regular oil changes.