Revolver? Die on the vine?

[-JCN-]

So my thoughts:

 

I can give the 986 some real effort in dry fire and then some live fire this week.

 

Right now I give it a 10% chance of making the classifier. If I can raise that to 50% that’ll be worth trying. 
 

If I can’t make the performance level with a snub revolver my choices (for the time allotted) would be:

 

1. Send one of my 929s to get cut down to 4.2”. There’s no power factor floor for Steel Challenge and in a strange way… an 8 shot 9mm revolver with a 4.2” barrel would be kind of a cool carry gun. 
 

2. Send my 986 to get rebarreled to 4”. 
 

I could buy a Chiappa or do something different but my philosophy of multiple goals makes keeping cross training more efficient. 
 

Either option 1 or 2 would crossover to USPSA revolver and Steel Challenge with smiths. 

[-JCN-]

Oh hai….

 

What’s this?

 

I was googling obscure Smith and Wesson revolvers and I came across this model I didn’t know about…

 

 

41 ounces with a 4” barrel sounds much easier to shoot than 32 ounces and a 2.5” barrel… 

[-JCN-]

And…

 

 

Getting her used to A-zones…

 

She asked “do you have any more targets?”

 

Why yes… I do….

[-JCN-]

IDPA revolver times…

 

Carry Optics MA is 18.47

BUG semiauto MA is 23.25

 

My 986 is almost BUG-R (4oz too heavy, but meets barrel length max of 2.5”). 
 

Revolver MA is 20.15

 

Which if you count for the revolver reload versus semi-auto, is basically the shooting requirement of CO… with a snub revolver. 
 

It’s pretty stiff without more train up time. I’m struggling with it. 
 

If I had three more seconds or more division prepped equipment, it’d be much easier. 
 

It’d also allow for the errant shot. I think I could do 23 seconds 75%+ of the time. 
 

 

Edited March 31 by -JCN-

[-JCN-]

Deconstruction of a challenge. 
 

In live indoors yesterday with the new sight, SHO was weakest. 
 

So I dry fired good trigger presses this morning. 
 

Then went out to my personal range (it’s a little far, but always open… even on holidays). I bought the land when Covid shut down all the ranges and had berms put in. I just leave targets there and it saves setup and tear down time. 
 

I brought 6” targets (IDPA -0 is 8”). 
 

 

 

 

Was going to try the super locks again, but set up loosely to ring. 

But turned out I had a reduced Steel Challenge plate that worked better (nice loud rings). 
 

This is the process. 
 

Use reduced size target with good feedback to train vision and improve shot calling. 

 

 

Start with vision and mechanics. 
 

Then do it faster. 
 

 

Then at speed. 
 

 

 

But paint them up each time to still learn from the poor presses and hits. 
 

Did it a few more times and my comfort speed is about 4.3 s for the draw and five shots. Hits weren’t always there, but getting better about calling the poor presses. 
 

I then went to a paper target and ran it. 
 

It was tentative (slow) and I missed the head on the last string completely. 
 

So I just did some drills on head box vision with that sight. 
 

Then ran the full 5x5 again. 
 

Was 0.17 over time for an MA run. 
 

I did an 18.32 raw down 2 but called both poor presses. 
 

So at least I have a sense of what to train. 
 

I’d say right now I have about a 35% chance of making MA Revo with this gun but maybe I can increase that some this week in practice. 
 

Also, the classifier is indoors which will likely make it harder to execute with irons. 
 

But it was some good progress. 

 

 

Edited April 1 by -JCN-

[-JCN-]

Okay. I’m dumb. I just saw a post on FB about enhanced Revo and I did not realize it has a crazy high PF requirement. 
 

Its 155! So basically it’d require using that 625 I have… 

 

I can’t do that without hurting myself and putting myself out of my primary sports. 
 

So IDPA Revo is dead to me unless I decide to practice speedloaders in the future…

 

But really. The major power factor and my tendency towards injury makes it a no go. 
 

So I guess I’m shooting BUG in that classifier and done with IDPA Revo. 
 

It was a fun challenge to work up equipment though. 

[-JCN-]

Hmmm. 
 

I do have this though…

 

 

It’s one of the only spring loaded speed loaders I own. 
 

The trigger is much better than the Smiths. 
 

I would / will need to clearance the grip on the weak side to make room for the speed loader though. 
 

I might feasibility test the shooting part and if it’s easier to shoot faster and more accurately than the 986 then I might have time to mess with the speed loader. 

[-JCN-]

I tried working some speed loading ergos with the Korth grips removed. 
 

The 9mm revolver ejection mechanism on those guns are so finicky. Lots of small parts that get gummed up and have issues. 
 

I’ve previously had all of them bind up at a low round count and one chamber ejector is still a little sticky, not letting the new round drop in freely…

 

So without tearing it down, I think that’s a no go.

 

Did some ergos with the 686 plus (3”) with an HKS Speedloader and it wasn’t bad.

 

If the hits were better than with the 986 and I could go down zero, then I’d have an extra second or two to fumble with a speed loader.

 

A spring loaded speed loader would be better though. There’s just not time to get equipment happening.

 

The ergos for the speed loader weren’t too far off from a moon clip, though. Just a little extra time and stability to let the rounds fall in.

 

I do have that 627 Pro coming in and that theoretically should be even easier to shoot than the 686 plus.

 

So if I can improve hits and speed over what I was doing with the 986… then there might be time left over for the reload.

 

People reading might be like: “WTF, this guy is nuts… what a waste of time and energy?!”

 

Yes… and no.

 

That’s why I have bundled goals. All the work I have put in on trigger presses and stability plus finger strength in the past couple weeks…

 

Noticeable improvement in my USPSA revolver ergos. 

 

And I wouldn’t have put in the time and effort training without this interim goal.

 

That’s the main point. I’m trying to do things that are motivating but not distracting.

 

“Trying” is the key word.

[-JCN-]

Dug around a little bit. 
 

Found my 6 shot HKS speed loaders that could go with the M66. 
 

Also dry tested the Speed Beez N frame loader that I had never used. It works pretty well. 
 

 

The M66 is fairly light so I think that the shootability of the heavier 627 might be a benefit in more strings. 
 

I really enjoy figuring out relative risk/benefit of component parts. It helps me understand the physics of guns/shooter and the interface. 
 

Comparing a whole bunch of

very similar guns with single variable changes is a great way to learn what those changes do. 
 

It also helps keep my mechanics free of compensation. A jerk / flinch / grip that might work for one gun… won’t work with others. So whittling it down to mechanics that work with anything helped me come up with how I shoot. 
 

That’s why I like dabbling with revolvers and not just a steady diet of short single action triggers. It keeps me honest. 
 

I shot my first handgun Dec 2015 and pretty much from that time on, I set out to learn as much as I could about handguns and shooting. 
 

I had a snub 327 PC that I entertained as a carry gun early on. Before I knew what a moon clip was, I bought the N frame speed loader. I wanted to shoot 50/50 on the FBI handgun qualification with a revolver. 
 

This was before I found USPSA as a skill benchmark database. 
 

I quickly discovered that there was no possible way (for me) to make the time with a speed loader. So down the moon clip rabbit hole and I hadn’t looked back… until now. 

[dannyd]

This is my setup. I use the two GP100's.

 

[-JCN-]

1 hour ago, dannyd said:

This is my setup. I use the two GP100's.

 

I like that case setup a lot!

 

What sport? ICORE?

 

Unfortunately every revolver sport has very specific rules and they’re often different. 
 

I think they should allow optics on USPSA and IDPA revolvers. They do for Steel Challenge!

[dannyd]

Just use the setup to practice at the range.

[-JCN-]

Okay so I’m pleasantly surprised…

 

I picked up the 627 and I didn’t realize it’s cut for moons and it has the DX quick swap front sight. 
 

I’m basically going to completely swap my 625 setup to the 627…

 

[-JCN-]

 

Holy s#!tballs. Gritty and bone dry. 
 

This is a “pro” Smith and Wesson. 
 

Felt like a Taurus. 

 

My 625:
 

 

 

Transplant

 

 

Hands are different. Swapped them off the triggers. Little springs!

 

Final product. 

 

 

In dry, the vision and stability is much better than the 986. The hits will likely be better. 
 

Will it be enough to offset the speed loader difference?

 

We shall see. 
 

The 627 just reinforces why I like knowing stuff about stuff. Was easy to take apart and make serviceable. 
 

If I were a noob buying a new gun and expecting it to work well out of the box, I’d be severely disappointed. 

[perttime]

For IDPA, you must remember to load the 627 with 6 rounds only.

 

"A.5.5.7 Revolvers must be loaded to the division capacity of 6 rounds in the cylinder. Higher capacity 7 and 8
round revolvers are permitted, but may only load 6 rounds."

[-JCN-]

5 hours ago, perttime said:

For IDPA, you must remember to load the 627 with 6 rounds only.

 

"A.5.5.7 Revolvers must be loaded to the division capacity of 6 rounds in the cylinder. Higher capacity 7 and 8
round revolvers are permitted, but may only load 6 rounds."

 

Thanks! I should probably clarify that I don’t plan on competing in IDPA revolver regular matches with this equipment. It’s a 5x5 classifier only task which means just a single reload.

 

I still might ultimately just use my M66 with HKS that I have on hand, but because of my bundled goals desire I wanted to see if I could make an N frame work (because of my Steel Challenge and USPSA revolver goals).

 

It seems easier to me to speed load 6 out of 8 and have more loader to frame clearance on the single reload step of the 5x5 classifier.

 

If I were going to buy a revolver for this task without bundled goals, I might choose a 4” 686 with the 6 shot cylinder.

 

I like L/K frames very much (heck, I just like revolvers in general) but I’m kind of stuck with the N frames for USPSA and SCSA competitions.

 

If the 627 in live testing won’t be feasible with the speed loader, then I’ll regroup for next season with a 4” 686 and Jetloaders.

 

But the 627 could be used for SCSA Optic Revo so I can save my two 929s for dry and live USPSA guns.

 

 

I’ve got a bunch of N frame cylinders lying around.

 

One was cut by TK for 9mm so I’d use that for SCSA in the 627.

 

Bundled goals and all that.

 

My current plan is to try the non-reloading 5x5 strings in practice and see how fast I can go down 0.

 

Then back calculate how much time I’d have available for the reload.

 

In practice with the 986, I had an 18.3 total time with a 3.2 second reload time.

 

It was down 2 so if the larger gun is easier to shoot and a little faster then I could theoretically perhaps get down to an 18.0 clean… which would then leave me 5.2 ish seconds for the reload.

 

 

Edited April 2 by -JCN-

[-JCN-]

Bundled goals and philosophy of motivation:

 

I make these little personal goals to help motivate me to train and stay on track. And to have objective performance benchmarks. 
 

If I just fart around at the range with no goals and no objective… I don’t really improve much. 
 

That’s why organized sports are so much fun for me. 
 

This week I spent a lot of time chasing this goal…

 

But it’s really about the training motivation rather than achieving the goal per se. 
 

When I wanted to learn how to shoot long guns, I tried watching videos but the performance standard of “what’s good” varies so widely (as it does with handguns). 
 

The reason why I went for USPSA PCC classification goals was to have the benefit of the classifier database to tell me my skill level. 
 

Not to be XYZ classification. But as a surrogate of skill achievement. 
 

There are certain compensations that are allowed at lower levels of classification. 
 

But typically at a higher levels, there’s very little hesitation or inefficiency allowed. It takes good index, transition accuracy, recoil management and vision to trigger coordination. With some of the newer classifiers also requires good footwork. 
 

So that’s what achieving PCC competence was about. Not about the classification and not just for the single sport. But to learn and get long gun mechanics down. 
 

Without the classification goals, I wouldn’t have put in the work. 
 

So that’s why I do these things. Because I like being well rounded and I like being “pretty good” at things. And I like learning. 
 

 

[-JCN-]

IDPA capacities and power factors. 
 

 

I didn’t realize stock revolver had such a low power factor requirement. 
 

That’s like wadcutter territory!

 

I also didn’t realize CCP was 10 rounds and 105 power factor. That might be viable for a match bump in future. 
 

[-JCN-]

Okay tested the 627 against a model 66 and there’s no contest, the 627 is stupid soft with 105 power factor ammo. 
 

 

I was able to do a speedloader live reload in 4.59 seconds. 
 

 

Then I went home and started chamfering cylinder. 
 

 

The top three are chamfered compared to the other five I hadn’t done yet. 
 

I finished it and put a more aggressive chamfer on them. 
 

I think I’ll put some grip tape on that slippery wood grip too. 

[-JCN-]

My favorite grip mod. 
 

Tape front and rear. 
 

 

[-JCN-]

These are the times that I got in the 986 videos above for example except the reload string. 
 

100PF ammo is way softer than 9mm. 
 

The 627 is significantly easier to shoot. 
 

If I give it a couple additional seconds over the moon to reload I get this:

 

 

So it’s theoretically possible for me. 
 

I’ll practice for a few days to get a sense what I can do. 

[-JCN-]

Oh man. I had some forearm and hand pain overnight.

 

I have to keep up with my right forearm physical therapy.

 

I’m pretty sure it was doing revolver reps with an 8# pull weight to fire off the tough primers on the RUAG ammo.

 

It was a really good data gathering session though.

 

What I learned from the session was:

 

1. The full weight and length revolver is extremely mild shooting with the 105 power factor ammo.

 

2. My shooting is good enough to make time for the MA IDPA goal.

 

3. It’s all going to come down to the reload.

 

4. I don’t have much margin of error in time right now because of the reload.

 

To that end, what I learned / reinforced about the equipment:

 

1. The bullet profile is (obviously) going to be huge for the reload.

 

2. Soft primers will let me go down on the pull weight significantly.

 

3. I don’t have good speed loader pouches.

 

4. I don’t have a good speed loader option.

 

What’s the conclusion?

 

That I could possibly eke out the IDPA revolver goal on this cycle, but I have very little margin for error because of the reload.

 

And that with more optimal equipment, I could run it with a significantly lighter trigger weight and avoid flaring up injury as well as have 1-2 seconds of extra margin with better reloading ergos.

 

So I think it’d be wise to put IDPA revolver goals off until the next cycle. I plan on spending some revolver time this Summer for USPSA classification and for Steel Challenge so I’ll be in better shape next IDPA cycle anyway.

 

And if they do an outdoor classifier, it’ll be significant better vision for fiber irons than indoors.

 

So…. Time to order some stuff to fully optimize.

 

 

[-JCN-]

Did some ordering. This is for Summer or next year’s IDPA goal.

 

6 shot cylinder so I can convert my 7 shot 686 plus.

 

 

4” 686 to go with my 3” plus model 

 

Will try out some Comp IIIs

 

 

I also need an OWB K/L holster (and might as well try these speed loaders too… I like them for my N frame).

 

 

Some TK extended firing pins so I can go down on trigger pull weight.

 

 

And round nose Federal making 115 power factor with hopefully soft primers to get down to 6ish pound pull.

 

 

I think that setup and combination will increase my ability to hit the IDPA MA benchmark >70% of time on demand. Perhaps higher if I put in more work.

 

The data gathering was nice because I know what my shooting pace / time / accuracy is and the only variable left is the reload.

 

So buying margin there gives me a comfortable margin for the shooting.

 

————————————————-

 

 

I am going to reiterate for people who think that I’m spending money for the sole purpose of getting a paper certification for bragging rights…

 

That’s not the purpose.

 

It’s for the learning and education. That’s the part that’s entertaining for me.

 

It’s an opportunity to learn about speed loaders and gear.

 

I am a guy who bought a whole bunch of different Level III retention holsters to learn how the mechanics affect timing and reproducibility. Just for fun.

 

Spending money on educational things comes out of a different theoretical budget for me.

 

So to reiterate, it’s not about the end goal, it’s about the process.

 

 

 

[-JCN-]

Nerding out about trigger weight… I wonder how much I would pick up performance wise for Steel Challenge production with a lighter DA press…

 

Adding weight just gives a whiff more instability at speed and for a draw heavy sport like steel challenge, even 2-4% more accuracy on the first shot could pay off largely. 
 

This was also brought to my attention in dry firing my national level USPSA CO friend’s Tanfo… the DA on that thing is ridiculously light….

[-JCN-]

In thinking about the Steel Challenge goals for Production…

 

Ordered some 8.5# main springs to try out for the Shadow 2. 
 

And to make shipping more efficient, I decided to finally order the decocker IDPA SSP kit for the SP01 Tactical I have had sitting around. 
 

I don’t currently have a good IDPA SSP gun and it’s worth the education for me to see how half cock light mainspring DA might work for a sport like that.