Stacking is defined as an increase in trigger pull weight toward the end of the trigger's rearward travel. Some people like it, some don't, and different guns have varying amounts of it. What causes it?

Some people come up with odd explanations. I recently got an email asking about stacking; the writer had read "on the internet" that stacking was caused by the type of spring - coil or leaf - used in the action. It's a simplistic answer, and it's not terribly accurate.

An "L" frame S&W uses a leaf spring, and has little to no stacking; a Colt uses a leaf spring, and has lots of stack. A Dan Wesson uses a coil spring and it's trigger stacks horribly, where a Ruger GP-100 uses a coil spring and stacks very little.

The cause of stacking isn't the spring itself; the biggest determinant is the geometry of the double-action mechanism. In general, guns using a design where the hammer strut does double duty as the double action sear (Colt and Dan Wesson) will display lots of stacking, while those that use a separate strut and sear arrangement (S&W, Ruger) will display less.

(Some nomenclature: a sear is any pair of surfaces from which the hammer is released; a strut is the pivoting piece on the hammer, which the trigger pushes on in order to start the hammer moving backward. In some guns, the trigger pushes on the strut, and at some point the sears come into contact and the strut leaves contact with the trigger; after some additional hammer movement, the sears slip out of engagement and allow the hammer to fall. The other design is where the strut actually pushes the hammer all the way back, at which point it slips off of the trigger and releases the hammer.)

This isn't a guarantee, though, because there are still a number of angles between surfaces and pivots that can introduce stacking into the mechanism. It is possible to design either system to have the characteristics of the other, though in practice it doesn't happen all that often.

That's how it all stacks up! (Sorry, couldn't resist the pun.)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Much as it pains me to admit this, my eyesight is degrading with distressing rapidity. No, it's nothing out of the ordinary, nor is it anything serious - it's just that I'm getting older!

I'm close enough to the big "five-oh" to count the years left on one hand (with fingers left over), and the closer it gets the further out I need to hold the restaurant menu. Oh, yes, my prescription is current - but after wearing bifocals for the better part of the last decade, I'm now told I need trifocals. The indignity!

Sound familiar? It should, given the number of questions I field about sight options. Consistently, the two most common queries concern fiber optic front sights, and the "Big Dot" from XS Sight Systems (or whatever they're calling themselves this week.)

I have some personal experience with the fiber optic inserts, and frankly I'm not terribly impressed. Aside from their fragility (the encased ones are somewhat better in that regard), they don't really help the sight visibility all that much. Yes, their neon glow does attract the eye, but if your eyesight is like mine the resulting sight picture isn't all that crisp. The bright fiber tends to "bloom" - that is, it looks larger than it really is and develops a fuzzy corona. This makes precise shot alignment more difficult; it's very much like when someone turns on the bedroom lights in the middle of the night, and your eyes struggle to adjust to the situation - everything seems to be "flared." Squinting helps, but wasn't that what you were trying to avoid in the first place?

The "Big Dot" sights are another matter. The Big Dot is just what its name says: a very large, round front sight. The idea is to make the sight so big that even Mr. Magoo couldn't miss it. While I've never owned a set personally, I've test fired guns that carried them, and I've found the sights are so large that they just can't be shot all that accurately. Their sight picture (particularly with the companion "express" v-notch rear sights) is just too coarse for good shot placement.

I'm not alone in my opinion of the Big Dot; I've installed several of them on client's guns, and they have all elected to switch back to the original sights. If that isn't enough of a non-endorsement, I've watched one of the best handgun shooters I know - a police officer who has been a state IPSC and PPC champ - struggle to keep in the A-zone at 15 yards with the things, when at that distance he usually shoots single, ragged holes. Most people who aren't as good as he is do far worse. As you might guess, he doesn't like them either.

What works for those of us who are pushing 50 (or dragging it, as the case may be)? Well, for quite some time I've been told to simply use a wide rear sight notch - one big enough to have roughly one-third to one-half a sight-width of light on either side of the front sight. (I must admit that a very good friend has been preaching the widened rear sight for the past several years. Frankly, though he is one of the best instructors I've ever met and a phenomenal shot, I thought he was nuts. As the front sight got harder and harder to see, however, I grudgingly made room for the idea that he might be right.)

Recently one of my clients asked that I widen the rear notch on his sight to give "lots of light on either side." I did so, making the space on each side of the front sight appear to be roughly 1/3 of blade width. Surprisingly, it was definitely easier to shoot the resulting gun. It focused sharper and much cleaner, and the sights aligned a lot faster. It was a definite increase in shootability compared to my own guns.

Of course, now I need to find time to do the same to all of my sights....

-=[ Grant ]=-

Spent part of last Tuesday at the range, schmoozing with A Famous Gun Writer Who Wishes To Remain Anonymous (hereafter referred to as "AFGWWWTRA".) We tested a few guns, talked about revolvers - the kinds of things you'd expect a gunsmith and a gun writer to do on a range.

AFGWWWTRA happened to have a Ruger Alaskan model in .454 Casull that was being evaluated. Since I hadn't yet gotten the chance to shoot one, I really wanted to see what it was like with full-house loads. I elected to shoot a couple of cylinders worth while AFGWWWTRA took pictures of the whole debacle. (AFGWWWTRA, it turns out, is easily amused by masochistic idiots. I'm sure it was meant as a compliment.)

The first cylinder was fired, sedately, in single action from the 25-yard bench. At that point I was thinking "heck, that wasn't bad. I wonder what it'd be like in rapid fire?" The second cylinder full, standing from about 7 yards, was fired as quickly as I could get the gun back on target between shots.

The second cylinder hurt more. A lot more. As in: my poor wrists may never be the same. What the hell was I thinking?

Just to retain my machismo cred, here I am in the midst of that sequence, the mighty .454 loads in full fireball-producing glory:


Courtesy of AFGWWWTRA

Note the flash from the round just fired, and yet the gun is back on target and the hammer is about to drop again. Yes, I am just that damn good! (I must be - I tell myself so all the time!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

In last Monday's post I mentioned that the Ruger Mini-14 demands factory magazines to work reliably. That statement may have given a bit of a wrong impression.

The point I was trying to make, and apparently didn't, is that the only reliable Minis I have seen were using factory magazines. I have actually encountered many examples that wouldn't run, and changing to factory mags made them work properly. All is not perfect in Ruger-land, though - in my experience, there is still a large percentage of Mini-14s that are not reliable, even with factory magazines.

The other side of the coin is that I have never seen a reliable Mini using aftermarket mags. Ever. Aftermarket Mini-14 magazines consistently cause Minis - every one I've ever seen - to choke.

Bottom line: factory mags alone will not ensure that any given Mini will run well. However, using non-Ruger magazines is a virtual guarantee that you will have trouble making the thing work properly. (I won't even get into their renowned lack of accuracy, but that isn't the fault of the magazines!)

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

(Oh, by the way - the cheapest I've been able to find Ruger factory 20-round mags is $55.00. That's three times the cost of good quality AR-15 mags. Wow!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Pardon my French!

This is a term used by tool & die makers to indicate unobtainable levels of (perceived) precision. Why do I bring this up?

Last week, I was advising a reader on selecting pin gages for use in measuring chamber throats. The discussion revolved around which gages to buy, and whether or not he needed both plus- and minus-tolerance gages (no, in case you're wondering.) He was concerned about their variance of .0002" (that's 2/10,000th of an inch, or 1/20th of the thickness of an average human hair. In machinist parlance, that would be "2 tenths.") As I explained to him, in practice it's not really possible to measure to that level.

As I thought about my answers to his questions, I flashed back to a conversation related to the posts I've made about measuring tools. A fellow who identified himself as a gunsmith contacted me to argue about my advocacy of quality measuring tools. "I don't need any of them overpriced tools - I use [insert name of well known retailer of low end Chinese tools here], and I can measure down to a ten-thousandth!" I asked him if what he was measuring was under the same environmental conditions as the calibration on his micrometer, and he replied "my mic reads to a tenth - it don't need to be calibrated!"

Sigh.

When a measuring instrument is calibrated - that is, checked against known standards and certified as to accuracy - the environmental conditions of that calibration are recorded. The calibration is really only valid for those same conditions; if the temperature goes up or down, that accuracy is not guaranteed.

How much different does a change in temperature make? I did a little experiment. I got out my Grade 2 Brown & Sharpe gage blocks, and picked out the .125" block. (The tolerance for Grade 2 blocks is +/- .000002", or two-milliionths of an inch.) On the calibration certificate, it gives you the deviation from the nominal dimension in millionths of an inch for each block. In the case of my .125" block, it has no variance - in other words, it is guaranteed to measure .125000" at 68 degrees F. Coincidentally, that is the temperature that my shop generally maintains outside of the coldest winter and warmest summer months.

After checking the temperature, I pulled out my best Etalon (Swiss) micrometer and the .125 block. I handled the mic with gloves while I secured it in its stand; the block was handled with insulated tweezers (yes, there are such things.) I measured the block under these conditions, and not surprisingly it measured .1250" on the nose.

I took the block out of the micrometer, and held the non-measuring surfaces between by thumb and forefinger for about a minute, then remeasured. Guess what? Just that small amount of heat had caused the gage to grow to a bit more than .1251" (a typical mic only measures to a ten-thousandth, and this fell just between the .1251" and .1252" marks.) Had I held on to it longer, it would have grown a bit more. Had I held the mic in my hand while measuring, it too would have been "off."

That's why they're called "bullshit tenths" - because, without knowing exactly the temperature of both the micrometer and work, and at what temperature the micrometer was last calibrated, you really don't know to the ten-thousandth of an inch how big that part really is. In other words, until you've met all of the above, you can't measure to a ten-thousandth of an inch, no matter how optimistic you are!

Since pin gages are usually held in the hand, as is the piece to be measured, it would not be possible to get closer than several ten-thousandths. Factor in the other environmental variables, it's clear that a) the gages are more accurate than they need to be for the job asked of them; b) you can't measure to the limit of the gages, so you don't need both the plus and minus coverage; and c) worrying about their allowed +/- .0002" isn't at all productive. Save your stomach lining for more important things.

Hope this all makes sense!

-=[ Grant ]=-

This week is just absolutely stuffed. Since I don't have the time to write anything profound, I'll just link to an article about this:



Hell In A Handbasket has the full story on this unusual revolver.

(Oh, and Tam has yet another revolver on her blog. I don't know what's gotten into her lately, but I hope she keeps with it!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

If you're here, it's probably because you like (or at least appreciate) our friend the revolver. My feelings, of course, are well known: I believe the revolver to be the single greatest firearm that one could ever hope to own. I believe that people who shoot revolvers demonstrate themselves to be of above average intelligence, more refined sensibilities, and generally better looking than those who do not. (I exaggerate, of course. Except in my own case, where these things are certainly true. I tell my wife so every day.)

However, even in my zeal I cannot recommend the revolver to every single person; it is not the best choice for everyone or every circumstance. I've said this before, and I'll probably being saying it again and again as time goes on.

I particularly cringe whenever I see some fellow buying (or hear someone recommending) that the revolver is always the "best choice" for a woman, hinting that women are incapable of operating a semiauto properly. Sometimes the revolver is the best choice for a female, just as it sometimes is for a male - though not always, and not even most of the time!

Not being a woman, I've been at a loss to explain my discomfort in any terms other than "that seems stupid to me." Luckily, over at the View From the Porch, Tam does a good (and concise) job of explaining just why.

-=[ Grant ]=-

It's one of those days: I can't come up with a decent topic. It's a combination of a lack of creative urge, coupled with a ton of "real" work to be done. The two conspire to give me keyboard constipation.

(Speaking of work - what's with all of the 9mm revolvers that are coming in lately? I've had a half-dozen in the last 4 months, with several more to come! And to think - I don't own one of my own. One of these days I'll have to look into remedying that oversight.)

Back to the non-topic: since I can't seem to do any "thinky", I'll do some "linky": Tam finally puts a revolver in her blog. Is the world as we know it coming to an end?

-=[ Grant ]=-

Found this notice on the Winchester website:

Olin Corporation, through its Winchester Division, is recalling several lots of its WILDCAT® 22 (Symbol Number WW22LR) and XPERT® 22 (Symbol Number XPERT22) 22 Long Rifle rimfire ammunition.

Lot Numbers containing Letters: XN, YA, YB or YC

Through extensive evaluation Winchester has determined the above lots of WILDCAT® 22 and XPERT® 22 ammunition may contain double powder charges. Double powder charge weight ammunition may cause firearm damage, rendering the firearm inoperable, and subject the shooter to a risk of personal injury and/or death when fired.

To determine if your ammunition is subject to this notice, review the Lot Number. If the Lot Number contains the letters XN, YA, YB or YC return the ammunition to Winchester.

Checked my stash...luckily, all of my Xpert ammunition was from the same lot, and is not subject to the recall. Check yours carefully!

-=[ Grant ]=-

In response to Monday's blog post about .22 accuracy, a couple of readers asked about the loads that had proven to be accurate in the Dan Wesson .22LR Model 15-2.

Before I answer, you need to keep in mind that your individual DW may not like the same ammunition mine does. With that understanding, my DW likes the Remington Match Target (subsonic, LRN bullet) and the Remington "Golden Bullet" bulk pack. Of the 23 different rounds I tested in the gun, these two came out on top in their respective categories (target ammunition and hunting ammunition.)

This is quite surprising to me, as Remington rimfire ammo is not generally held in high regard by experienced rimfire shooters. It is often criticized for lack of accuracy and consistency, but in this gun those two loads work extremely well. The "Golden Bullet" also exhibits excellent terminal effects on small game (ground squirrels) as well as being accurate.

Oddly, the Federal Gold Medal Match - a terrific load that shoots well in just about everything - doesn't do well in this gun. Why? Who knows? That's the joy and mystery of the rimfire addiction!

-=[ Grant ]=-

I've been shooting a lot of .22LR on a recreational basis lately, and am reminded how fickle this round can be.

Many people seem to be unaware that you can't put just any old .22 round into a gun - be it rifle, pistol, or revolver - and expect it to function correctly, let alone hit where it is aimed!

It is not unusual to find that any given .22 firearm will not function with certain ammunition. I've seen guns that didn't have enough firing pin energy to detonate certain brands of ammunition; autoloaders that wouldn't load and eject certain bullet shapes or velocities; and guns that would shoot tight groups with some ammo but shotgun-like patterns with everything else.

This would all be a lot easier if it were predictable by gun brand and/or model - sadly, it just isn't. You can take two identical guns and one will shoot incredibly accurately with a specific round, while the other gun throws them every which way; I've seen it happen with a pair of Ruger 10/22 rifles.

Some guns are more picky than others regarding their ammunition preferences. The Dan Wesson Model 15-2 in .357 is renowned for its accuracy, but the same gun in .22 is regarded as very inaccurate. I suspect that this reputation has more to do with ammunition that with any fault of the gun. I have one, and had to test many different .22 rounds before I found a couple that it would shoot well. The difference wasn't minor, either! With most ammunition it will shoot 3- to 4-inch groups at 25 yards; with its preferred ammunition, it will quite literally put a cylinder full into one ragged hole at the same distance. There seems to be no middle ground with this gun!

Bullet velocity also plays a role. Generally, it is assumed that the higher velocity rounds don't shoot as well as their slower brethren - but not always! My personal Marlin 39A, for instance, has a surprising preference for the hyper-velocity Quik-Shok round, which is widely considered to be a very inaccurate load.

The moral of the story is that you have to test - and sometimes test again, and keep testing - until you find the round(s) that shoot and function well in your individual guns. When you find that/those loads, buy a case (or two or three...!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Those who have highly polished guns - Royal Blue, nickel plate, or bright stainless - often ask about the best way to keep these fine finishes looking good.

My recommendation: Selvyt. It's not a paste or a wax, it's a cloth - a pure cotton, non-impregnated cloth that jewelers have been using for many decades to give the finishing touches to highly polished gold, silver, and platinum.

The Selvyt cloth is simply a specially woven cotton that has a unique nap. That's it, there is nothing more! The process used to make the Selvyt results in what can only be compared to a cross between fine velvet and chamois. The result is hundreds of thousands of miniature "brushes" on the surface that gently polish without harming the finish in any manner whatsoever.

Selvyt's special cloth also suspends any dust or microscopic grit inside the nap, so that it doesn't contact the surface being polished. This is in stark contrast to chamois, which seems prone to scratching if someone even mentions the word "dust" in the vicinity in which it is being used! (I'm exaggerating, of course.)

The Selvyt is especially good for the Colt "Ultimate Stainless" finish, which is notoriously soft. The Selvyt brings back the high shine without harming the surface of the steel; it's really remarkable.

When the Selvyt gets dirty - and it will - just wash like any other cotton fabric. It will come out of the dryer like new, ready for more use! I've had one of mine for more than a decade, washed several times, and its performance is unchanged.

So good is the Selvyt that Purdy - the makers of hyper-expensive shotguns - sells them under their own name for polishing their fine pieces. If that isn't an endorsement, I don't know what is!

You can find it at many jewelers, any jewelry supply house, many silversmiths, and (of course) online. Be careful - you want the genuine Selvyt cloth, made in England (there are pretenders out there.) Selvyt also makes an impregnated cloth for tarnish protection on silver; you do not want that model! Ask for the plain, un-impregnated, original Selvyt cloth.

The Selvyt comes in several sizes, from 5x5" on up. I like the 14x14" size, which will probably set you back around $10 or $12 these days (I haven't had to buy one in years, so no hate mail if I'm wrong!) It may seem like a lot for a small piece of cloth, but it's worth every penny.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Last week I told you about our trip to my cousin's ranch, during which we hoped to help rid the place of the nefarious Sage Rat (aka Ground Squirrel.) Today let's talk about the shooting aspects.

Normally a field infested with Sage Rats is a "target-rich environment." When they are at their peak, you almost can't reload the guns quickly enough! In those conditions, an open-sighted .22 rifle is more than sufficient for the plethora of targets that pop up in the 5-50 yard range.

In really good years, I've taken many with a Dan Wesson Model 15 in .22, shooting the bulk-packed Remington "Golden Bullet" load. This ammo doesn't shoot worth a darn in my rifles, but in the DW it is superb. (Anyone who has shot any real amount of .22 ammunition will immediately recognize the truth of the round: you never know what will shoot well in which gun, and there is no such thing as a prediction!) I usually use the 8" barrel, though I've also used the 6" to good effect.

Nevertheless, this is really a job for a rifle, and most Sage Rat shooters gravitate to the very popular Ruger 10/22 platform. I've shot one fairly frequently myself, but in the last couple of years I've been using a very nice early Marlin 39A (which I picked up for a song a number of years back.) The accuracy and 18-round magazine are much appreciated on those small targets, though it wears only open sights; somehow, a scope on such a classic rifle just seems "wrong."

Last year I ended up visiting two different cousin's ranches (my family is big in the beef business.) The first was heavily infested and the Marlin was the right tool at the right time. The second ranch, however, is at a higher altitude; their population comes out of hibernation later, and as a result they didn't have nearly as many to shoot. Most of the shots were well over 50 yards, and the open-sight Marlin (coupled with my aging eyes) was severely handicapped. I wished that I'd had the presence of mind to bring along the scoped 10/22!

As a result of that experience, I installed a Marble's tang sight on the old Marlin. This year I was ready - and good thing, too! This trip was just as the rodents were emerging from their burrows, and once again long shots were the rule. The tang sight greatly extended the range of the unscoped gun - I made quite a few shots in the 90-100 yard range, and a couple that were actually verified to be 115 and 128 yards. Not bad for a .22!

My ammunition preference is for a hollowpoint round to provide a quick, clean kill at all ranges. (Regardless of the problems the little buggers cause, I still live by the old hunter's credo of causing no more suffering than is absolutely necessary.) Since so many rounds are expended - on a good day it's not uncommon to shoot several hundred rats - I look for the most accurate bulk-packed ammunition. This usually limits the choices to a high velocity 36gn load.

For the last few years my choice has been the Winchester Xpert hollowpoint bullet. The wide hollowpoint cavity gives it some of the best terminal effects I've seen in a .22 cartridge. Accuracy is a bit better than average in this rifle, and It's available in bulk at very attractive prices. That doesn't stop me from desiring something better, of course; I'd like to find a load that is a little more accurate but not much more expensive. I've heard good things about the Federal Champion hollowpoint loading, and when I get time I plan to take some to the range and test it against the Xpert.

The search for the "perfect" .22 ammunition never ends!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Ladies and gentlemen, this thread at THR is why this wonderful medium is often called the "errornet."

And to think...I do what some internet "expert" says is "impossible" every day of the week; twice yesterday, in fact. (Oh, get your minds out of the gutter and go read the link!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

This is an expansion on an email I replied to recently. A loyal reader noted that my name had been brought up on one of the forums (sadly, he couldn't remember which one) regarding my blog article on measuring chamber throats.

Apparently, the gist of the discussion was that the forum's "expert" (every forum has one) opined that I was full of it for suggesting that throats couldn't be measured accurately with a caliper. What's more, someone expressed the thought that a caliper would show an out-of-round condition, whereas a pin gage wouldn't, and therefore anyone who didn't use a caliper didn't know what he/she was doing.

Sheesh! Let's start from the top.

A caliper - whether vernier, dial, or digital - is most assuredly not a precision measurement tool. Feel free to ask any tool & die maker the question: "how accurate is a caliper?" I have yet to meet one who would trust a caliper for anything less than 2/1,000ths of an inch (.002") For reference, this is the difference between measuring, say, .357" and .359". On a good day (meaning a very experienced operator) with good equipment (meaning not a Harbor Freight special) one might be able to do a bit better, but most people aren't all that experienced, and most do not possess the top-quality equipment necessary.

This is actually extremely easy to test: take a caliper to a local tool & die shop, and ask the owner if he'll let you measure his certified, calibrated toolroom gage blocks. If he lets you (he probably won't), you'll probably find that getting to within .002" with any consistency is not possible. I have a set of said blocks, and I can't do much better - even though I'm experienced, and have top-end Swiss Etalon calipers with which to work!

There's a reason watchmakers measure parts that must be fitted to incredibly close tolerances with micrometers, and not calipers. The same goes for precision machinists. Do I need to keep flogging this deceased equine?

(I haven't even touched on the need to hold the calipers perfectly perpendicular to the axis of the bore, and to get the jaws as close to centered on the inside surface as possible. It's darned difficult to do under the absolute best toolroom conditions, let alone at a kitchen table! Errors multiply under less-than-ideal conditions.)

Let's tackle the second criticism: that one can't measure an out-of-round condition with a pin gage, therefore the best way to do it is with a caliper. By now, the answer should be obvious: if a hole is, say, .002" out of round, and the measuring system can't get within that range to begin with, it follows that one can't measure the condition because it's within the amount of "slop" already present!

In other words, if a caliper indicates that the hole isn't round, we can't trust it because we don't know if what we're seeing is real or simply the result of the errors inherent in the device. Conversely, the absence of a round error doesn't mean that the throat is round - because it may be within the normal error of the caliper being used! (This is why one does not use imprecise instruments when one expects a precise result.)

The exception is if the condition is sufficiently severe that it exceeds the error of the tool - but if it's that far out, it can be easily spotted with the pin gage anyhow. While we can't measure an out-of-round condition with a pin gage, we can certainly identify that an out-of-round condition exists, and elect to measure it with more accurate means.

Whew!

Now I'd like to expand on the recommendation in my earlier article. The reason I suggested using calibrated pin gages for measurement is because they're cheap (a set to cover, say, the range of a .357 cylinder costs less than $20), readily available, and last forever. There are other tools that can be used, but all are much more expensive and require occasional testing & recalibration, as well as a certain amount of technique.

The best choice is a "tri-mic", made by various companies, which measures holes at 3 points spaced 120 degrees apart. This is extremely accurate - the most accurate way to measure a hole - but that accuracy comes with a price tag of several hundred dollars for the least expensive example. That's why I didn't recommend them, though in hindsight I should have at least acknowledged that they exist.

Bottom line: there is no substitute for knowledge, experience, and the proper quality tools when one is doing precision work.

I hope this puts the matter to rest - though I somehow doubt it!

-=[ Grant ]=-

John Linebaugh is a custom revolver maker who specializes in caliber conversions on Ruger single actions. Not just any conversions, mind you - he is the originator of the fire-breathing .475 Linebaugh and .500 Linebaugh cartridges.

John first became famous for his modified revolvers that would should heavy .45 Colt loads (250 grain bullets at 1,700 fps.) His work with those heavy loads lead him to develop the .475 Linebaugh and the mighty .500 Linebaugh: 435 grains traveling at 1,300 fps!

Now I just know that some wag is reading this and saying "So? The .500 S&W shoots those slugs faster!" You bet it does, Pilgrim - at insanely high chamber pressures, in guns that are big enough to qualify as crew-served weapons. The Linebaugh cartridges do this at moderate pressures, and in guns based on nice, relatively lightweight Ruger Bisley frames.

John has a new website that, sadly, isn't linked to his old site and doesn't yet show up in the search engines. Here it is - be sure to bookmark it:

http://www.customsixguns.com/

Be sure to check out the video of shooting one of his creations - that's what I call recoil!

-=[ Grant ]=-

So, you're in the market for a S&W 625, and you're torn between the "standard" 625 and the Jerry Miculek edition 625. Which to choose?

Well, you have to decide whether the "niceties" - such as the Miculek grips, interchangeable front sights, and the serrated trigger - are worth the extra money. There are some internal differences, though, which you may want to consider.

The Miculek edition is a little unusual, in that it uses a mix of MIM (metal injection molding) and forged parts. As you may know, S&W has been using MIM technology for several years now, and overall it's been a successful transition. However, in order to get the serrated trigger that Jerry specifies, they decided that to use one of their "old fashioned" forged parts.

There are a couple of problems with this. First, the interface of the forged trigger and MIM cylinder stop makes the trigger feel a bit rough at the very beginning of the trigger stroke - and it's difficult to get rid of this feeling. Second, the MIM hammer is given a flash chrome treatment to match the chromed finish of the trigger. Unfortunately, chrome applied to an MIM part doesn't seem to stick as well as it does to a forged part, and I've seen several where the chrome started flaking from the sear surfaces! As you might imagine, this makes the action quality degrade quickly, and the problem can only be fixed by replacing the hammer assembly with a non-chromed version, as comes on the "plain" 625.

Of the 625JM models I've worked on, all of them came in with a request to remove the trigger face serrations - one of the major features that Jerry insists on! It seems that serrated triggers, as much as he likes them, do not fit well with everyone.

Once the hammer has been replaced and the trigger face smoothed, you're left with the JM grips and an interchangeable front sight - and the grips are widely available as an accessory. I guess the whole thing boils down to this: how important are those interchangeable front sights?

To a person, every one of the JM model owners I've talked with said that if they knew ahead of time that they were going to put in the money for custom work anyhow, they'd have bought the "plain" 625 and saved themselves a few dollars. I agree!

-=[ Grant ]=-

A common complaint about the old-style Colt Detective Special is the unshrouded ejector rod. Many people believe that the exposed ejector rod is a liability; should it get bent during a struggle, the theory goes, it will tie up the gun and make it inoperable.

Not quite.

Many folks have experienced this problem with a Smith & Wesson. Since their ejector rods are locked at the front and rotate about the front latch pin, any small amount of runout (deviation from true) will impose an inordinate amount of friction to the system. This usually manifests itself as an action that locks up, being completely useless in double action (and often in single action as well.)

The unshrouded Colts, however, are a different matter. Since the ejector rod doesn't have any function other than the ejection of spent casings, even a large amount of runout has no effect on the action. In fact, you would have to bend the ejector rod to the point that it actually hits the underside of the barrel before you would encounter a problem! Because of the plasticity of steel, about the only way you could do that would be on purpose, with the cylinder open - I honestly cannot conceive of any accidental way to get it into such a sorry state.

I would be remiss if I didn't address the effect of small bends on the ejection process; a relatively modest bend in a Colt ejector rod can cause the ejector to stick in the cylinder, so that the ratchet (ejector star) is stuck in the extended position. This isn't as much of a problem as you might think - just shove the ratchet back into the cylinder and the gun is usually ready to be reloaded.

Every gun has strong and weak points in its design, but in the case of the unshrouded Colts the exposed ejector isn't one of them!

-=[ Grant ]=-

I hear the advice all the time: "buy a stainless gun, because they won't rust." This kind of comment is what prompted General Norman Schwarzkopf to say "bovine scatology!"

Yes, stainless will in fact rust under the right conditions. What are those conditions? Generally, if you get moisture trapped in a place where it doesn't evaporate normally (say, under a grip panel or inside the action), you have a situation that is ideal for corrosion. The situation is worse in very corrosive (salt water, perspiration) or very humid conditions.

That's not the only thing; even if the frame of your gun is stainless, there will be some parts in the action that aren't, or are made of a much less resistant stainless. It's not unusual to find springs, some screws, cylinder parts, and more that are made of plain carbon steel. These are just as susceptible to rust as they would be in a blued gun.

I see quite a number of stainless guns that have corrosion. One commonality of those I've encountered is that, since the rust is usually hidden (and less likely to be found because of the belief that stainless "doesn't rust) it usually does more damage. Stainless corrosion tends to be deeper, leaving surface pitting that is more serious than it might be on a blued gun.

If you live in a harsh environment - near the ocean, or in a very humid climate - or if you perspire heavily, you should treat your stainless gun more like a blued equivalent. Take the grips off every time you clean the gun and look for any signs of corrosion; use gun oil on the entire surface of the gun; clean the bore immediately after shooting; take the sideplate off occasionally and lubricate the interior; and always remember that the term is "stainLESS", not "stainFREE"!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Someone recently asked me what gunsmith(s) I admired or respected, or that I would allow to work on my own guns. I gave him a few names, and thought you might be interested as well!

My first entry in this occasional series is Hamilton Bowen. Bowen is perhaps the gunsmith that the rest of us aspire to be; he combines technical ability, commitment to quality, and a definite style that is hard to define but easy to recognize. Bowen does it all - sophisticated caliber conversions, unusual high-tech customization, and superb restorations.

Bowen has been building superior revolvers for many years, and his work has become well known from appearances in various gun magazines. His fame doesn't stop there, however - he also wrote what is the definitive book on the subject, titled simply "The Custom Revolver." If you're into revolvers, this is a book that you simply must own. (You can buy it through my Amazon store here.)

Hamilton Bowen is truly the "gunsmith's gunsmith." I'd love to have him work on one of my guns!

Bowen Classic Arms website

-=[ Grant ]=-

Well, it's more precise to say that it's time for someone else to make double-action revolvers!

With Colt out of the revolver business, Taurus showing no signs of moving past the low end of the market, Dan Wesson functionally deceased, and Smith & Wesson producing mere shadows of their former greatness, it's time for someone else to step up to the plate. It's time for someone to take over the badly-served upper end of the revolver market.

It's time for Freedom Arms to branch out from making the best single actions to making the best double actions.

Why Freedom Arms? Because they've already proven their ability to make a high-grade revolver. They're used to producing and selling high-end guns, and they know how to make those guns both superbly accurate and incredibly durable. They have a well-regarded brand name, and an established dealer network.

They have everything it would take to introduce a top-flight double action revolver.

It is, admittedly, a small market. The best of anything is always a small market. That doesn't seem to stop Rolls Royce or Patek Philippe, and I don't think it would stop Freedom Arms. There are a lot of people who would have purchased Pythons were they still being made to their former standards, and those would be Freedom Arms' customers.

How about it, FA?

-=[ Grant ]=-

I get the most interesting phone calls!

A client who works for a public agency in California contacted me with a problem. As you may know, California has pretty strict ideas about what constitutes a carcinogen. Management in his agency won't let him use any lubricants that contain "substances known to the state of California to cause cancer." That, ladies and gentlemen, excludes most anti-wear and anti-corrosion additives!

After some consultation with experts, I was able to come up with a recommendation. In general, if you need a "clean" lubricant with good protection against wear and corrosion, look no further than lubes made for the food service industry!

They have to be non-toxic and non-staining, and since food production often involves contact with acids and liquids, they have to be very resistant to those substances as well. They also typically perform very well in colder temperatures and almost invariably are superb at corrosion resistance.

If you've read my article on lubricants, you know I'm a big fan of Lubriplate's SFL series of greases, which are designed and approved for food service. Another good choice is their FGL series, which is a bit easier to get in the small quantities shooters use. If you prefer an oil, their FMO-AW series of oils (available in a wide variety of viscosities down to 5W) are a superb choice.

These products should also be fantastic choices for those who have allergic reactions to the additives present in other oils and greases.

In this case, I recommended the FGL grade 00 grease to my client. This is a very light, almost fluid grease with superb anti-wear and anti-corrosion properties. It should pass muster with even the most strict requirements that he has to meet!

-=[ Grant ]=-

The lure of a personalized and decorated weapon is centuries old. Embellished swords and knives from the 17th and 18th centuries are well known; before that, soldiers in high standing had their armor decorated. Some of the earliest firearms in existence are lavishly treated, with inlays and fine woods.

Today many people desire to have their favorite guns engraved. But where to start? There are so many engraving styles, not to mention engravers - how are you going to make sense of it all?

I've recommended to many clients that they start by studying the art of weapon engraving. With just a bit of research on your part, you will quickly learn the difference between quality engraving and the firearms equivalent of the "Velvet Elvis."

If you're like most people, you'll be drawn to a specific engraving style. Once you've identified what you like, you can then start looking at the work of the engraver. Every engraver has a specialty; while they may do many different styles, sometimes quite well, they'll generally do their best work in one particular style.

How do you get this education? I've found one book to be incredibly useful: "Steel Canvas" by R. L. Wilson. (Yes, I know all about his shady business dealings - but the book is superbly done, perhaps the most accessible of all books on the subject.) This large-format coffee table book is a bargain at about $30. In it, you'll see the very best examples of all the styles from every well known engraver, current and past. This one book will help you identify the style you like most, and will show you the best examples so that you can judge for yourself if the engraver you've chosen is any good.

I can't recommend this book enough. Even if you don't have any intention of having an engraved gun produced, you should get it just for the superb photographs of "best quality" firearms. Of all the gun books I own, this is the one I thumb through most often!

If I may be so bold, you can get this book through my Amazon store here.

Look at it this way: to get a good engraving job will cost you time and money (quality engravers don't work cheaply or quickly.) Spending just a fraction of that cost, and a few pleasurable days looking at stunning photos, is a very small investment that will repay you for years to come!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Well, SHOT has come and gone, and Colt had no revolvers in their display. (You may remember that one of their spokespeople bragged in a magazine interview that Colt was working on a new revolver design. Everyone on the forums got all worked up about what Colt might be doing, endlessly speculating on what they might bring to market. Some breathlessly suggested that they might be working on a new high end revolver to replace the Python. Excitement ran and, for some, continues to run high.)

Except here at the Revolver Liberation Alliance.

As I blogged just recently, Colt has demonstrated through their actions that they aren't interested in the revolver market. I even suggested that mention of a new revolver might be a ploy to make the company more attractive to potential buyers. You'd think that if they really had something going on, they'd show it at the industry's biggest trade show.

They didn't. End of story. (I remain ready to eat my words if they ever introduce this mythical new gun at some future show, but I suspect that I won't be needing to do so.)

In other SHOT news, Charter Arms, makers of "value priced" wheelguns, announced a line of left-handed revolvers. This would be big news if the guns were coming from a maker of high quality firearms, or even Taurus. From Charter it's just a curiosity. The honorable lefties amongst us deserve better.

Dan Wesson, lethargically owned for the last couple of years by CZ-USA, was finally showing a new Model 715. This would be exciting, except that the folks in Norwich proved that they couldn't make this decades-old design correctly last time, and I remain unconvinced that CZ management can do any better. (Let's face it: they've taken two years to produce one display example of a gun that they already had the plans, machinery, tooling, and parts to produce. Methinks they have hired some former Colt people to run the Dan Wesson division...)

Smith & Wesson is fast becoming the schizophrenic gun maker. One the one hand they're making modern "reproductions" of the guns from their heyday (though not to the same level of craftsmanship), while on the other they are coming up with such monstrosities as the new "sniper revolver." (Saw pictures, but the site that hosted them seems to have gone away. If I can find another, I'll post it.) S&W styling has always been a bit "hit and miss", but in the 21st century seems to have devolved to "miss and miss."

Glad I didn't go; I would have been too depressed to leave the hotel room!

-=[ Grant ]=-

An often misunderstood aspect of revolver construction is the idea of endshake. Endshake is nothing more than the amount of back-and-forth movement (or front-to-back, if you prefer) that the cylinder is allowed to make.

Measuring endshake is easy: using a set of feeler gages, the cylinder is pushed forward and the barrel/cylinder gap is measured. Then, the cylinder is forced backward as far as it will go, and the gap measured again; the difference between the measurements is the endshake. (When making the second measurement, it is important to push the cylinder all the way back - even past any cylinder latch resistance.)

How much is acceptable? That varies depending on the gun; Colts are the most stringent, and need to have no more than .003" of endshake for "factory level" condition. A S&W is generally allowed a bit more leeway.

The amount of endshake any given gun will experience will vary a bit over the life of the gun. As the cylinder pushed backward by the force of the firing round, the ratchet (aka "ejector star") ultimately hits the rear of the frame opening, which stops the cylinder movement. With each round fired, the ratchet/star is slightly deformed, and the frame is very slightly stretched. Over a long period of time, this results in more space between the ratchet/star and the frame, which increases the endshake.

As the endshake increases, the amount of "free run" the cylinder has will increase the battering effect against the frame, resulting in even more wear - which increases the endshake, and the cycle repeats itself, getting progressively worse.

Why should endshake be a concern? Under the best of conditions, the revolver cylinder would have zero movement. Of course, that rarely happens in the real world; some endshake is inevitable. As endshake increases, though, several things happen: first, the impact on the frame, and frame stretching, increases; this can, in extreme cases, result in the frame becoming unsuitable for use.

The immediate effects can be more visible. In a Colt revolver, excessive endshake results in increased hand wear, which causes the timing to fail prematurely; in extreme cases, it can also cause bolt (the little "pop up" half-moon shaped piece in the bottom of the frame window) to wear to the point of replacement. In a Smith & Wesson (and to a slightly lesser extent Ruger), excess endshake manifests itself as an inconsistent trigger pull which gets worse as the endshake increases. These guns can also experience increased bolt wear, though not nearly to the degree of the more closely-fitted Colt.

(Interestingly, the Dan Wesson guns are very robust in terms of their endshake handing; the spring-loading bearing detent at the rear of the frame locates the cylinder at the forward-most position every time, and also serves to absorb a bit of the recoil force of the cylinder.)

An excessive amount of endshake can also affect accuracy. Not only does it change the relationship between the chamber and the forcing cone with every shot (and not necessarily consistently), but it also changes the barrel/cylinder gap; both can have a negative effect on the accuracy of the gun/load combination.

Setting the endshake to as close to zero as possible results in increased frame and ratchet/star life, better action quality in S&W guns, extended service intervals on Colts, and better accuracy on all guns. That's why it is one of the first things I check on any revolver that comes in to my shop!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Sorry to be late today, but my cable internet connection has been experiencing spotty outages lately. For the money I pay, you'd think they'd give me better uptime than this!

GRRRRRR! But I digress...

Anyhow, today's topic once again comes from that fountain of firearms misinformation, the local gun store. A fellow is looking at several guns, and asks to see a Ruger SP101. The clerk tells him that for concealed carry (ostensibly the prospect's use), a revolver is "just no good. Too hard to hide the cylinder."

"Odd," I think to myself - "I've been doing it quite successfully for some time now. In fact, I'm doing so right in front of your face!" I did not, of course, say that out loud. I wanted to, but I didn't. At least, I don't remember doing so.

That, however, seems to be the common perception. Many people think that a revolver just has to be more difficult to conceal, because the cylinder is so much thicker than an autoloader's slide. I'm here to tell you that it is just not the case!

The cylinder really isn't a big problem to hide. Yes, it sticks out from the body a bit more, but it really isn't all that much a concern. Why? Because it's a gradual bulge - there are no sharp edges to give away a profile under a garment. What's at or below the beltline just doesn't seem to make much of a difference; it's what sticks up above the belt that makes a gun difficult to hide!

An autoloader, for instance, presents a very angular profile above the belt. The top of the slide, where the rear sight is, comes to a sharp point relative to a revolver. What's more, that point sits farther above the belt than does the rear sight of a revolver. These two factors combine to make the back corner of the autoloader stick out more prominently than a revolver, and consequently more difficult to hide under a piece of cloth.

Of course, the disparity doesn't end there! The other end of the gun - in this case, the lower back corner of the magazine well - is (again) a sharp angle relative to the rest of the gun. Even an autoloader with a very rounded grip shape tends to come up higher - and stick out the back more - than a round-butt revolver. Again, this makes the auto more difficult to hide than our blessed companion, the double-action revolver.

Now I'm sure that some will argue with me; some will, in their misguided zeal to promote the self-shucking handgun, insist that I am being "partisan." To them I say: OF COURSE I AM! What the heck did you expect from someone whose blog is titled "The Revolver Liberation Alliance"??

(Of course, none of that negates the fact that I am right!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

First things first: Happy New Year!

Now, down to business: once again, I feel it necessary to inject some sanity into a topic that is all over the internet forums.

The latest concerns Colt and their supposed "re-entry" into the revolver market. Several months ago, a Colt executive was quoted in (if memory serves) Shotgun News to the effect that Colt was working on new revolver models.

As you can imagine, this set off a firestorm on the 'net. People were opining like there was no tomorrow about the possible wonderfulness that Colt could be coming up with. I still, months later, am reading the occasional thread wherein some eager enthusiast gleefully anticipates something new from Hartford "any day now!"

Let's look at this logically, OK?

Developing a new gun takes money and talent - and Colt has all but two of those. It's been fairly well established that they have little ready capital, and their massive layoffs over the last several years means that their pool of talent is a fraction of what it used to be - and I doubt that they had anyone as talented as the late, great Karl Lewis to begin with, let alone now.

What they do have, though, is a mothballed line of proven sellers - in this case, the Anaconda, King Cobra, and Magnum Carry revolvers. All are well regarded (even the King Cobra, which always lived in the shadow of the more famous Python), and are made of modern materials and designed from the ground up for automated production. They're sitting in the vaults, waiting to see the light of day, because Colt just voluntarily stopped producing them a few years ago.

So, imagine that you're the CEO of Colt. On the one hand, you've got some ready products that you know will sell, just waiting for you to flip the "on" switch. On the other hand, you could choose to design a new gun from scratch, even though you don't have the resources to do so. Which are you going to choose?

Well, if you're smart (and Colt hasn't been accused of that recently), you bring back the designs you have in the safe and simply start up the production lines again. Easy. Built in market. No development costs. Just start shipping.

But Colt isn't doing that.

Look at it this way: just the Magnum Carry alone would put them back squarely in the hottest segment of the market, which is concealed carry. The MC is a superb gun, and used examples are selling at multiples of their original prices. There is nothing on the market that is competitive with it; it could have a niche all to itself. Scarcely bigger than a S&W "J" frame, it carries a full 6 rounds of .357 goodness! What other gun can boast that? None.

Be absolutely clear on this concept: these are guns that have a built-in market, that they have facilities to produce, that they know how to produce, and that they've chosen not to produce. (That is, if they really wanted to be in the revolver market...)

So why would Colt imply that they're working on a new revolver design, when they won't even produce the proven sellers they have now, and likely don't even have the resources to come up with a new product?

Well, we know that they're up for sale, and the company has reportedly garnered little-to-no interest from potential buyers. But maybe, they're thinking, if they start a rumor that they've got this new, exciting design, it will stimulate enough industry buzz to interest someone in what's left of the grand old name.

Could I be wrong? You bet. In fact, if I am, I'm willing to eat a hearty plate of crow. But actions speak louder than press releases, and Colt's actions say that they have no interest in selling their existing revolvers - let alone make a new one.

(Hey - maybe CZ-USA could buy Colt, which would give them even more revolvers to not make!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

It's surprising how little attention is given to the back of a revolver's trigger. I recently came across a gun that had been worked on by another gunsmith (more on this in a future blog post), and one aspect of the gun illustrated the limited understanding of revolver shooting by many 'smiths.

The face of the trigger had been polished smooth, but done in such a way that the sides tapered to meet the back, leaving an untouched knife edge. For anyone with more meat on their bones than Nicole Richie, manipulating the trigger results in a very nasty "pinch" as the sharp edge traps flesh against the frame.

So, what should the trigger look like? The back edges of a proper double action trigger should be slightly rounded and polished, to prevent pinching. The larger the radius of the back edge, the less chance the trigger will trap flesh. This allows the shooter to concentrate on the act of shooting, not on avoiding pain.

This is similar to the "biting" problem that many shooters experience on a 1911 with the standard grip safety. On that gun, for some reason, everyone "knows" about the situation, and beavertail safeties are expected equipment. Sadly, this same level of knowledge has not yet filtered down to the revolver-buying public - perhaps this will help spread the word!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Are you familiar with the concept of a Blog Carnival? If not, you're missing out on a great way to read about your favorite hobbies, activities, and interests!

A Blog Carnival (or Festival) is a collection of links to blog entries that fit the subject matter of the Carnival. For instance, a Carnival of shooting will have links to blog posts that deal with the shooting sports, self defense, and other related topics. It's kind of like a gun show in concept, but without Beanie Babies.

For instance, for shooting and firearms topics there is the Carnival of Cordite, the Shooting Sunday Carnival, and the 2nd Amendment Carnival. If you want a lot of great information in one place, check them out!

But, you're asking yourself, how does one find out about Blog Carnivals? There's a great resource to locate carnivals on all sorts of topics: the Blog Carnival List. Check out some of their more interesting entries: the Carnival of Cheese, the Hellenic Religion Carnival, or the Naughty After Forty carnival.

(Hmmm...wonder which one of those will get the most hits??)

-=[ Grant ]=-

The internet forums sporadically ignite with a common debate: what "J" frame is the best?

The disagreement seems to center around the fans of the exposed hammer models (who hold out the dream of needing to make a "precise, long range" single action shot) and those of the enclosed hammer Centennial models (who opine that the lack of entry points for dirt outweighs ever needing single action capability.)

I'm not qualified to talk about tactics, but there is one salient point that is missed in the crossfire: the Centennial models simply have better actions!

The enclosed hammer Centennial models have slightly different sear geometry than do the exposed hammer models, which gives them a pull that is more even - more linear - than the models with hammer spurs. For the savvy shooter it's a noticeable difference, making the Centennial a bit easier to shoot well.

The Centennials also have one less part than the other models: since they have no exposed hammer, they don't have (nor do they need) the hammer-block safety common to all other "J" frames. That part, which is quite long and rides in a close-fitting slot machined into the sideplate, is difficult to make perfectly smooth. Even in the best-case scenario, it will always add just a bit of friction to the action. Not having the part to begin with gives the Centennial a "leg up" in action feel.

(In fact, at one point in time a common part of an "action job" was to remove this safety, in the same way that some "gunsmiths" would remove the firing pin block on a Colt Series 80 autopistol. Today we know better!)

So, if your criteria is action quality, the choice is clear: the enclosed hammer Centennial series is your best bet!

-=[ Grant ]=-

If I had a nickel for every time I've been asked that question...!

On every forum, in my daily email, and in the phone calls I receive is a common query: "of the guns available at a dealer, which one should I buy?" These folks are looking for some guidance beyond the simple choice of caliber and barrel length - this is more along the lines of "who makes the 'best' revolver?"

The answer I give? Ruger. This, from an admitted revolver snob who's known for working on Colt Pythons!

The GP-100 and SP-101, which are the most popular models, are mature designs. Their design is simple and rugged, and their construction has not changed due to fashion or cost-cutting.

The actions respond nicely to gunsmithing work; a well tuned Ruger can have a buttery-smooth, perfectly linear double action pull that will rival any of its competitors. The SP-101, in particular, has an action that is many people feel is more "shootable" than its nearest competitor, the S&W "J" frame.

Speaking of the SP-101, it has another advantage over its competition: superb sights. The rear fixed notch is wide and deep compared to other guns, giving the little SP a much nicer sight picture.

The GP and SP guns, because of their stud grip frames, have trigger reaches that fit people with small hands very well; the GP-100, fitted with the "compact" Ruger grip, has a shorter trigger reach than a S&W "L" frame! This is great news for those of us with smaller-than-average mitts.

The downsides? Fit and finish on Ruger revolvers is not up to the level of, say, older S&W guns. (Of course, new S&W's aren't up to the old S&W's either, so that's hardly a condemnation!) Rugers have lots of sharp edges, and their finishes are not terribly pretty - but, if you're having custom work done anyhow, these are things that can be easily rectified.

Rugers don't get the credit they deserve; if you don't like the new MIM-internal lock S&W models, and want something of better pedigree than the Taurus line, take a hard look at Ruger. You might be surprised!

-=[ Grant ]=-

One day I was at the range testing client's guns - in this case, a Detective Special and a Python. I generally start shooting at 50 yards, because that's the closest steel target we have and shooting paper is boring.

(Besides, 50 yards is the point that I stop blinking when I shoot a steel target. Seriously - I'm paranoid about bullet splashback. When the 50 yard target becomes boring, I usually switch to the 200 yard target - you silhouette shooters know it as the ram. Shooting the ram, standing, double action, with light .38 Special ammo is something of a trick, as I need to aim about 15 feet above the target! If I get a hit per cylinder under those conditions, I'm a happy camper.)

Sorry for the gap in the narrative...anyhow, I'd just walked over the to 200 yard shooting position when this fellow comes up and stands next to me. As I'm loading he asks me what I'm shooting at. I motion to the 200 yard ram, and he squints his eyes. "No way you can hit that", he says. "I've got a GLOCK, and I couldn't hit that!" (The brand name was pronounced in a manner intended to evoke awe and wonder on the part of the listener. Sadly for him, it did not.)

I finished loading, looked at him and said "Well, it is pretty hard to hit." I turned my gaze back to the target, and squeezed off 2 rounds. From off in the distance came a distinct "clang....clang." I turned back to him and just grinned. He walked off, shaking his head in disbelief.

It's all about knowing when to stop!

-=[ Grant ]=-

From Michael Bane's blog we learn of the new "accessory" CZ is offering. Sheesh.

Let's see if I've got this right: instead of devoting time to producing Dan Wesson revolvers, they're spending their time on junk like that?!?

CZ bought Dan Wesson almost two whole years ago. In that time all they've been able to do is assemble a few SuperMags from apparently leftover parts; the .357 frame guns, which for every other maker are the "bread and butter", are nowhere to be found.

Supposedly they've been spending their time doing "market research" (no kidding, that's what they said) on the revolver line. One would think they would have done that before plunking their money down for an acquisition, but maybe the Czechs work differently in that regard. They obviously don't work terribly quickly!

But hey - they'll gladly make you a bayonet for your autoloader. Yessirree, that's certainly gonna contribute a whole lot to their market share! (That's sarcasm, in case you missed it.)

-=[ Grant ]=-

This article over at the GunZone alerts us to the sad end of a nice gun. Be sure to read the owner's narrative - and note the reloading press used.



I've been following such stories of gun blow-ups for several years, and in the cases I've run across a huge percentage - a majority by far - have been the result of ammo reloaded on a Dillon RL550b press.

No, I don't think the RL550b is inherently dangerous, nor do I believe that it should be blamed; blame always rests with the person doing the work. However, that particular machine does make it easier for a momentary lapse of concentration to result in a catastrophic failure, because it doesn't auto-index. Relying on the human being to remember whether or not he/she advanced the shellplate makes it far too easy to end up with either double charges or squibs. I've documented this happening with relatively new reloaders, and with very well experienced reloaders.

If you own an RL550b, you need to make absolutely sure that you are not distracted when reloading; this means no radio, television, screaming children, or talkative friends in the room when you are operating that press. (This is good practice regardless of the press you're using, but absolutely imperative with the 550b.)

Reloading is generally safe and rewarding - as long as you supply the appropriate vigilance!

-=[ Grant ]=-

One of the hazards of this job is that it can cause one to develop a certain jadedness. By that, I mean the loss of wonder and excitement for the simple joys of shooting a fine gun.

What brings this up? Well, something that happened recently...you see, I work on a LOT of Pythons. I see many, many pristine Pythons, sometimes even apparently unfired examples. In fact, the vast majority of Pythons I see are in exceptional condition.

A few weeks back, someone sent me yet another Python. When I unpacked this one, though, something was definitely different. I was really surprised at how used the gun was; I honestly can't remember seeing one with that much wear in a very long time. The blue was heavily worn, there were lots of scuffs and scratches, and though it still carried its original checkered grips, they were worn down to the point that they were actually smooth! I've never seen original grips as worn as those were.

I did the work requested, then headed out to the range to do the live fire test - along with one of those pristine Pythons which also needed testing. In the course of the shooting, I found out some interesting things: first, those well worn grips were comfortable! I've never liked any of the stock Python grips, as the only ones I'd ever used were sharp and clean and really uncomfortable. My hands, though, felt completely at home with those old, worn grips. (Felt a little like a Single Action Army, actually.)

In fact, the whole gun just felt "right". I usually don't get too wrapped up in test shooting - I do a lot of it and it has long since ceased to be exciting - but I really enjoyed shooting this old gun, in part because I knew that it had been shot a lot. I didn't worry about getting it dirty, or scratching it. It was a machine that was designed to shoot, and had obviously lead a life where it had been allowed to fulfill that design.

I could only imagine the people that had owned this revolver; had it been carried by a policeman who understood fine machinery? Perhaps a bullseye shooter who took pride in the accuracy the old Colt could deliver? Maybe a hunter, perhaps a forest ranger - or just someone who liked to plink at the local shooting range? Whoever it was, they obviously liked the gun - in the way that a series of small children will latch on to an old, worn teddy bear.

My thoughts turned to the pristine Python, awaiting its turn. It just wasn't as exciting to realize that this gun spent most of its time in a box in a safe, being taken out only occasionally (with appropriate pomp and circumstance) to send a few careful rounds downrange. I wondered what the people who designed and built this superior machine would think; would they want their hard work to be secreted away, hoarded like a rare coin or stamp - or would they be happier to have the gun worn out by a series of appreciative people who enjoyed every shot it would make? Were it me, I'd want the latter. I hope they would too.

That worn Python - some would call it a "beater" - is a special gun. No, it's not pretty and it probably won't turn any heads at the range. But it shoots well, and because of its condition it just seems right to shoot it. Yes, I told the owner so.

I guess I'll just never be a collector.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Tamara K., the irrepressible scribe at the View From The Porch (and my favorite firearms blogger) had this to say about Taurus revolvers:

I reluctantly decided to hold off on stocking new Taurus handguns even though they had once been a great profit center for me, because I didn't want to use my customers as guinea pigs for the company's newly-spotty QC.

Read the whole thing here.

While you're at it, check out Tam's new blog, The Arms Room. (I'm hoping to see a little more revolver content there....hint, hint!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

..and it isn't what you think!

As you may have gathered from hints in my previous writings, I'm of somewhat shorter stature than the average American male. Because of this, my hands are proportionally smaller; I have short, relatively thin fingers. Heck, my wife's hands are bigger than mine!

It goes without saying that finding guns that fit is a challenge. Even a S&W "K" frame, which very few people would describe as being "big", are on the outer edge of comfort for me. Your basic "N" frame? Not even close!

I've discovered that I'm not alone. One well known instructor of my acquaintance is a much larger fellow than I, yet he has small hands as well. There are a lot of us who have trouble finding guns that are comfortable to handle and shoot. Happily, we're not restricted to small-frame revolvers, as there is a good option in a larger gun.

That gun is the Ruger GP-100. It's a large frame .357 Magnum revolver, but they've done some superb engineering to make it fit a wide variety of hands. Ruger ships the guns with two different grips, depending on the gun's features - adjustable sight models come with the standard (large) grip, while the fixed sight versions ship with the "compact" (small grip.) The great thing is that the grips are completely interchangeable between models, easily changed, and cheap!

The compact grip fits even my small hands well, and makes for terrific concealment. Of course, it's of the same construction as the standard GP-100 grip - soft rubber with wood inserts. This makes it comfortable to shoot with the stoutest loads, but less likely to grab onto a concealing garment. They are, in my estimation, the best factory grips available on any revolver.

Want a pair of the Ruger compact grips? You can get them from Brownells - only $23.70!

-=[ Grant ]=-

This thread at GlockTalk seemed oddly familiar to me. People routinely ask about the lifespan of a particular gun, while at the same time suggesting that somehow the guns of yesteryear would last longer under use than today's offerings. I'm not sure that this is the case.

Let's jump back to, say, 1935 or so. Someone has just bought a new .38 Special revolver (take your pick of quality makers) and a box of ammunition - a box that might last them for a decade or more!

What I've managed to decipher from the "old folks" I've talked with is that they just didn't shoot guns all that much. There weren't a lot of competitive shooting events back then, and even those that existed demanded less ammunition in a year than a typical IDPA match consumes in a weekend. A box of handgun ammo (50 rounds) per year was considered a "lot" of shooting by many of these folks; at that rate, our mythical revolver would be considered to have been heavily used, having only seen a total of 3500 rounds!

Flash forward to 2006, and a certain maker says that their gun has an "expected lifespan" of 6,000 rounds. Doesn't sound like much to us, but it may be two or three (or possibly ten) times the number of rounds that guns sold in 1935 would expect to see over their lifetime.

Perspective, people. There is a lot to complain about in the craftsmanship (or lack of same) coming out most of today's manufacturers, but one generally can't fault the durability of the guns. There are exceptions, of course, but in the aggregate I suspect that your average GP-100 will last longer than the folks of 1935 could even imagine.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Heard about "MIM" parts? MIM is an injection molding process for metal parts, and it has been revolutionizing many industries. In the revolver business, both Smith & Wesson and Taurus have made use of MIM parts. Like any new process, however, there are those who decry the new technology; some gunsmiths spread the misinformation that MIM parts can't be worked on, and refuse to take in guns using MIM parts. Adding fuel to the fire are a few well-publicized parts breakages, most notably with 1911 autopistol sears.

Is there something inherently wrong with MIM parts? No, but the story is a bit more complex than that.

I have some experience with MIM parts in revolvers; I'm not at all averse to the use of MIM parts, where appropriate. Note those last two words!

MIM is just another metalworking method, like forging and casting. Like those well-established metalworking methods, it has strengths and weaknesses. Far too few engineers apparently understand them.

First off, a steel MIM part can be treated like any other steel part; it can be welded, soldered, blued, hardened, and tempered. This is important to understand, as there is a perception out there that the parts are not "real" steel. They are!

The advantages of an MIM part do not generally include raw cost; the material is expensive, and the molds are horrendously expensive. The benefits come in the area of post-fabrication. The MIM part, as noted, can be heat treated - the benefit is that they don't need to be, as the hardness of the part can be engineered in when the part is made. The parts come out ready to use; no additional surface finishing is generally needed. Finally, the parts can be made in shapes that would be extremely expensive or nearly impossible to economically machine.

The downsides? Cost, as already noted. Additionally, the tolerances for an MIM part generally need to be larger; it's hard to hold them to .001" in all dimensions (though they're getting better all the time.) Another problem is that the technology doesn't work all that well for parts that are more than about 3/8" thick (again, this gets better on an almost monthly basis), nor on stressed parts that are very thin.

There are other, less obvious pros and cons of MIM parts, but you get the idea - MIM, like anything else, is a balancing act.

Now here's the part that those of you who aren't fond of MIM should understand: the problem isn't with the technology, but with the engineering behind the part itself.

As noted, MIM on a per-part basis is pretty expensive, but since they can be engineered with specific traits they can eliminate some expensive secondary operations - hardening, for example. Here's the problem: let's say that you are building 1911 sears, and MIM seems a good method for producing them. You decide that the sear has to have a certain hardness (so that it doesn't wear), and since the surface finish is good "as produced" you think you're home free.

The trouble is that the MIM part is the same hardness all the way through, since that's how it was engineered. This is great for reducing sear face wear, but with hardness comes brittleness - and that thin edge is quite brittle. What you need is a surface hardening of some sort for wear resistance, with the underlying material left softer for strength. You COULD do that with an MIM part, but if you did you'd negate one of the primary benefits of the method: the elimination of secondary operations. So the company chooses to continue to use the MIM part as designed, and which is a poor choice for the application. No wonder some people don't like them!

The bottom line: if you have trouble with MIM parts, it's not the part's fault - it's the fault of the engineers in the company that designed the part. (Frankly, I wouldn't want to buy an entire gun from a company that botched the engineering that badly, regardless of whether or not I replaced the parts in question. I'm funny that way!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Forgive my deviation from revolver centrism, but a recent rifle class in which I assisted brought to mind a topic which is just not understood amongst gun owners: "reliability."

What is "reliable"? You'll hear all kinds of definitions, all kinds of criteria. My definition is deceptively simple: the next time you pull the trigger, the gun will function perfectly. That means zero, zilch, nada, nyet failures. Every single time, regardless of how many rounds you've just shot. Not just "bang", but feed, fire, eject, and feed again.

Sounds like I'm easy to please, right? You'd be surprised at how few guns actually do perform to this standard. I expect a reliable gun to do this after a full weekend of shooting, regardless of the number of rounds I've shot, as well as right after cleaning. Every single time, without exception.

Note that I don't specify any particular number of rounds, because I've encountered instances where reliability was defined by some arbitrary round count, such as 500 - and when the gun crapped out on the 501st round, it was still deemed to be reliable since it had met the number! Sorry, not in my book.

One test I've heard (for autoloading rifles) is "six magazines of duty loads, fired as quickly as you can change magazines." Sounds great, right? I've seen an AR-15 which would only pass such a test one time, yet the owner decided it was reliable because it met the test criteria! The fact that it couldn't perform the feat again did not dissuade him in his opinion.

The only caveats are that 1) the gun be maintained according to the maker's recommendations and 2) fed ammunition which conforms to industry standards for that caliber. Anything else - such as the ever-popular mud wrestling test, making it into a popsicle, and other such activities - can be considered the ballistic equivalent of a Harlem Globetrotters game: entertaining to watch, but no indicator of an ability to win the NBA finals.

I've seen more than one gun which happily ate a magazine of ammo after being dropped into a mud puddle, but couldn't be counted on to function perfectly at any unannounced time. Mind you, it malfunctioned maybe once every 400 or so rounds, but sooner or later it would fail. Reliable? Not by my definition.

You'll run into many people who will tell you that this is "no big deal - I've got lots of guns that will do that." At the risk of offending someone - believe me, it's not my intention - I will quote Hugh Laurie, playing the namesake character in the TV series 'House': "everyone lies."

When I say "every time you pull the trigger", I mean EVERYTIME. When I say zero failures, I mean ZERO. One fellow of my acquaintance is known locally for his promotion of a particular gun, which he insists is "absolutely reliable." This is a fellow with a good reputation, someone that other people consider honest and, presumably, look up to. Trouble is, he lies - I've seen his gun fail, and I know others who have witnessed it too. Yet, he continues to insist that his gun is "perfectly reliable." In one class, I met someone with an HK 91, supposedly the epitome of functionality; of course, the owner insisted it was "reliable". It suffered a FTF the first day, and an FTE the second. The owner continued to refer to it as "reliable".

If your gun will not function with ammunition that meets industry-standard specs, then it is unreliable. I had an encounter with a gunstore commando a while back; he was going to loan his "custom built" AR-15 to another employee. He gushed that his pride and joy was the most reliable gun he had ever seen - then, almost in the same breath, told the other fellow not to shoot Winchester ammunition in it, as "it won't feed Winchester all of the time." Even if it functioned 100% with everything else (though I doubt it), that it wouldn't work with one specific brand means that it simply wasn't reliable. (Back to revolvers - if your wheelgun won't fire every brand of ammunition in its caliber with zero misfires, it's not reliable!

My favorite rifle instructor, Georges Rahbani, always says that you are only as good as you are on demand - the same goes for your gun!

-=[ Grant ]=-

I had an interesting email recently. The writer said that he'd contacted a number of gunsmiths to inquire about action work. In every case, he said, all he could get out of them was "we can make it lighter." Occasionally I'll get an inquiry from the other side of this phenomenon - someone whose only question is "how light can you make it?" Why this fixation on pull weight? I believe it's because people just haven't been properly educated!

If you've read my essay on "What makes a good trigger?", you already know about the factors that go into a quality action job. (If you haven't read it, go ahead and do so now; I'll wait.)

Back already? OK!

When having action work done, there are three competing performance criteria: weight, reliability, and return.

Weight is self explanatory, and is what most people relate to. I've covered this in the article referenced above, so I won't go into more explanation - except to say that weight isn't the only thing you should consider, and if that's all your gunsmith can talk about you might want to re-think having him work on your gun!

The second performance criteria is reliability. When I speak of reliability, I mean the expectation that the gun will ignite primers from all common ammunition 100% of the time in both single and double action. That means even the hardest primers being made (currently CCI Magnum primers) will light off every time that the hammer falls; anything else is less reliable. A gun that fires off Federal primers all the time, Winchester most of the time, and CCI Magnums about half the time isn't reliable; it may be acceptable for the use that the gun will be put to, but it is not reliable. (As it turns out, the more reliable the ignition, the more accurate the gun will be. There are a number of reasons for this, which I'll go into in a later article.)

Finally, there is return, or the action of the trigger resetting itself. In the article I referenced above, I talked about the qualities of trigger return - but there is more to consider. One way of lightening the overall pull weight of the action is to reduce the spring tension that powers the trigger return. This can introduce a couple of undesired side effects; first, the return spring tension can be so low that the trigger "sticks" and doesn't return (most prevalent on guns where the quality of the trigger return, in terms of smoothness, isn't understood or is ignored.)

The second side effect is that the return speed is lowered. This results in the shooter being able to "outrun" the trigger, shooting faster than the trigger will reset itself. This can cause premature cycling of the cylinder (the cylinder rotating without the hammer being cocked and dropped) or action locking (requiring the shooter to stop his/her pull, let the action reset, and then restarting the pull - most common on Rugers.) In a competition, these side effects can lose points - in a self-defense scenario, they might cause you to lose something more precious!

Here's the "kicker": when getting action work done, you get to choose any two of the three performance criteria, but not all three. For instance, if you want light pull weight and good reliability, you're going to sacrifice return. If you want light pull and good return, you're going to sacrifice reliability. If you want reliability and fast trigger reset, you're going to have to learn to deal with heavier pull weights!

There is no free lunch, and there isn't a gunsmith in the world who can repeal the laws of physics; you get any 2, but not all 3 in the same gun. You have to make the decision as to what is best for your intended use!

Let me illustrate: I am starting work on a Ruger SP-101 that is to be shot by an older lady. She only shoots reloads that her husband makes for her, and only at the range (this is not a defensive or competition piece.)

The primary concern is ease of cocking the gun in single action; it won't be used in double action at all. So, the criteria that is important in this case is action weight; we don't care all that much about return (other than it actually do so - the speed isn't a consideration), and since the fellow can load the ammunition to shoot in this specific gun (he will use whatever primers necessary to make the gun run), reliability is not a concern. This is a great example of tuning the action to fit the use!

For a defensive gun, reliability is the first consideration, with return second. For a competition gun, say for ICORE or USPSA (or even IDPA), the speed of the action reset is paramount - followed by a light pull weight. The competitor will usually select or reload ammunition to suit the gun, which makes reliability (in the sense that I use the term) less a concern.

If all a gunsmith can talk about is how light he can make the action, he's ignoring fully two-thirds of of action performance. This is a two-way street, though - its not just gunsmiths who don't understand this stuff! Shooters raised on the typical gun rag articles never learn about this either, because all most writers know how to discuss is pull weight.

When I get an inquiry from someone whose only question is "how light", I try to educate him or her to make more informed choices. I hope I've been able to do that here!

-=[ Grant ]=-

The Shooting Gallery has this to say:

One thing is for sure: Colt is looking for a sugar daddy.

According to Jim Shepherd of "The Shooting Wire"  (unfortunately, an article available only to subscribers and not available as an independent Internet link), one possible buyer of Colt's Manufacturing Company LLC might have been STI:

"Other stories, including the sale of Colt, have dragged on longer than the Florida elections. Today, there's still no definitive resolution to the saga. An arbitrarily high valuation of the civilian side of the business ended that outright sale option in the Colt soap opera.

STI, the company that was ready to buy the civilian operation, has moved on, announcing upcoming production of a single-action revolver called the Texican. It will be aimed at the upper echelon cowboy action competitors, following the same model that has made STI's "race guns" major players in practical shooting.

With a highly successful, manufacturing-oriented business model, STI may, indeed, make a dent in the cowboy market - especially if STI contributes bonus money to cowboy action the way it has in practical shooting. The Texican may find its way into the holsters of the new generation of single-action shooters, despite the fact SASS has continually shied away from the idea of "win money" and sponsorships. STI's move into cowboy action may lead to the recognition that professional shooters exist in cowboy action."

-=[ Grant ]=-

I recently stumbled across The Ten Ring, a great firearms blog by Denise and Bill. They describe it as "A blog by two self-described gun nuts. One who started as a liberal and the other who started as a conservative. We helped each other grow and thrive over the past nine years."

You've got to start by reading their eight-part series "On Being A Gun Nut." It's some of the best prose I've ever read about firearms ownership. Part VII, about being a female gun nut, is particularly good. Don't miss it!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Well, the guns are certainly real, in the sense that they were made by Colt. What's not real, though, is they way they came from the factory!

With the prices of collectible Colts going well north of a grand, some unscrupulous sellers have taken to faking the rarer, and more valuable, variations. The most commonly faked is certainly the 3" Python.

A number of years ago, Colt sold off their remaindered barrels to companies such as Numrich Gun Parts. Amongst the prizes were a number of 3" barrels - brand new, mind you - for the Python.

When prices started their ascent a few years ago, some enterprising people took more common 4" Pythons, stuck the 3" barrels on them, and sold them as the far rarer variant. It didn't take someone long to figure out that one way to overcome buyer resistance was to include a Colt box that had the 3" label on the end - of course, the label is a complete forgery, but enough to fool most people into parting with far more money than they should.

Well, the more astute buyers soon wised up to this scam, and started demanding factory letters to prove the provenance of the piece in question. In today's digital world, faking a Colt letter is as easy as faking the box label - so now there are 3" Colt Pythons running around with "original" boxes and "factory letters" to calm even the most jittery buyer!

It's gotten bad enough that I now recommend anyone contemplating the purchase of a 3" Python to call Colt and order their own factory letter. If the seller shows any reticence to letting you do this, you've probably just saved yourself a whole bunch of money!

(I have been approached by a number of people over the past few years to swap barrels on Pythons - replacing a stock barrel with a 3" tube to be supplied by the client. In each case, I've told the caller that I'd be happy to do so, but I would be stamping and indication under the grip panels that the gun was not original. Not too surprisingly, none have taken me up on my offer. I will not be a party - knowingly or otherwise - to fleecing Colt buyers!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Thanks to the precision machining abilities of the Swiss, we now have the world's first revolver that presents a greater hazard from choking than from firing!

I'm not sure whether I'm more amazed with the workmanship, or that police organizations in this country are so imbecilic as to believe that this thing actually constitutes a hazard. As one blogger put it, someone armed with a Sharpie marker is more dangerous!

So, in salute to the vacuous hand-wringers in our media (and their sycophants everywhere), I hereby resurrect the feel-good mantra "won't SOMEBODY PLEASE think of the children?!?!?"

(You heard it here first, folks!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Many people ask me where to get finger grooved grips for various guns (often for the Colt Python, but the Ruger GP-100 seems to be a common request as well.) Personally, I usually try to talk them out of that style grip, and I'd like to share my reasoning.

First, the grooves rarely fit any given person perfectly; for my hands, for instance, every grooved grip I've ever tried required me to spread my fingers to an uncomfortable degree. If I didn't, my fingers would wind up on top of the separating ridges, making shooting far less comfortable and secure! Women, who often have hands that are significantly smaller than their male counterparts, are particularly sensitive to this problem.

Second, anytime you add spacing between your fingers the combined strength of your grip is reduced. You simply grip harder with your fingers together than apart. There's a reason that hammers don't have finger grooves!

Third, having grooves on your grips slows down your acquisition and draw. No less a personage than Jerry Miculek, in a television interview, eschewed finger groove grips. As he put it, "no one gets a perfect grip out of the holster every time." A smooth, non-grooved grip allows you to get a workable grip immediately, where a grooved model requires that you get perfect finger placement from the outset. That is not what you want on a self-defense firearm!

I could point out that another revolver shooter who was "pretty good" was Bill Jordan, and you'll note that the grips he designed and used don't have finger grooves.

It's possible that if one is accustomed to holding a revolver in a light target-shooters grip, finger grooves may help in control. (I don't, I don't know anyone who does, and it's not what most trainers teach today.) Outside of that, I think they are an abomination and suggest that you not use them!

-=[ Grant ]=-

There is a huge amount of misinformation regarding revolver accuracy. Folks, assuming that you have a gun in proper repair - timing, lockup, chamber-to-bore alignment - the most important factor in accuracy is the chamber throat dimension.

What is the chamber throat? It is the slightly constricted opening in the chamber, just in front of the cartridge mouth, that the bullet passes through on its way into the forcing cone. The throat gives the bullet its first stabilizing guidance, and many people better than I have demonstrated that it is critical to good accuracy - perhaps more than the bore itself!

The best accuracy is obtained when the bullet diameter and the throat diameter are exactly the same; in the case of lead bullets, it can be up to .001" smaller than the bullet diameter with good results. If the throat is larger than the bullet, then the bullet sort of wallows through the throat and never does get that initial guidance. Accuracy will suffer.

It is therefore important to serious shooters to know what their throat diameters actually measure. Now, I took heat from some internet experts recently when I stated that one cannot get proper measurements of throat diameters using calipers - dial, vernier, or digital. One fellow wrote me that he'd been doing it for years with nothing more than a cheap dial caliper, and the readings were always "nuts on!" While I don't wish to argue with anyone, let me relate a little test I did.

I took a cylinder that happened to be on my workbench - a S&W Model 60 "J" frame cylinder - and measured its throats with calipers, then with a set of certified pin gages. There were three different calipers - a vernier, a dial, and a digital electronic - all of Swiss origin. The Swiss make the finest calipers on the face of the earth, and substantially better than the Chinese tools most stores sell. In addition, I've been measuring very precise watch and clock parts since I was a teenager, and have more experience using quality measuring devices than the vast majority of people you are likely to meet. In other words, I know what I'm doing and I've got the best tools to use!

I started by checking the throats from several angles, to eliminate the possibility that they were oval instead of cylindrical. Since this is a brand-new cylinder, the readings were identical, showing that the throats were indeed machined correctly.

What did I find? The vernier caliper indicated the throat diameter was .355+", the dial caliper showed .3560", and the digital read .3555". Now for the moment of truth: the certified pin gages, which are the most accurate method of determining a bore size, proved that the bore was in fact .3585" ! That is between .0025" and .003" discrepancy!

Precision machinists will quickly tell you that a caliper - even the best, like I have - are only good to a "couple of thousandths" (.002"), and not reliable at all for inside measurements under a couple of inches. (Frankly, I was surprised that I got as close as I did!) The verdict? One simply cannot measure throats precisely with a caliper, even using the best that money can buy - they aren't sufficiently accurate.

(It should not come as a surprise that I'm not a big fan of calipers; I don't use them for anything remotely critical. I consider them to be "ballpark" instruments at best, and rely on best-quality Swiss micrometers for about 90% of my work. What does your gunsmith use??)

-=[ Grant ]=-

In case you missed it, the IRC (International Revolver Championship) were held last month. As usual, Jerry Miculek won (no news there!) This year, however, a new entrant came in at second place, edging out the man who usually takes that slot: Vic Pickett.

The shooter was...Rob Leatham! That's right, good ol' Rob, he of 1911/IPSC fame. What you may not remember is that Rob is a revolver shooter from way back; he shot revolvers at the Bianchi cup before switching - with the rest of the field - to autoloaders. He's no stranger to the wheelgun, certainly!

But that isn't the most interesting thing - the intriguing part is that he shot in the stock gun class, shooting against Jerry (and Vic) who are in open class (optics and compensators.) That's a show of sheer talent, folks. When you can shoot with essentially no hardware assistance against top competitors who are equipped with the best technology available, you're good. Very good. Of course, anyone familiar with Rob's shooting career already knew that!

-=[ Grant ]=-

As previously mentioned, I acquired one of the recently imported FN "Barracuda" revolvers, and am in the midst of determining what to do to improve the action. I have to make a living, too, so this isn't on the top of my priority list....be patient!

In the meantime, I have managed to develop some information about the lineage of this gun. Some less-informed sellers have been insisting that the Barracuda was made in Belgium, and that the very similar Astra was either a rip-off or a licensed copy. To quote one internet 'expert': "The FN Barracuda was the only revolver FN ever made. They were made a little over 20 years ago and dropped as they never sold as FN thought they would. They are not Astra's nor are they copies, they are entirly FN made."

Trouble is, that is a complete untruth. If you have a Barracuda, pull the grips off; on the left side of the grip frame, next to the mainspring adjustment ring, you'll see the gun's proof marks. You'll note that the proof marks are all from Eibar, Spain - there are no FN Herstal or Liege (or any other Belgian) proof marks on the gun.

Serendipitously, I also have a cross-check: I recently came into possession of an Astra-badged version of this gun. Guess what? Same Spanish proof marks, in the same spots, as the FN version.

Conclusion: The FN Barracuda revolver was definitely NOT produced in Belgium, and was definitely NOT made by FN. It was in fact made in Spain by Astra, for it is their proof marks that adorn the gun. I hope this settles the controversy once and for all!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Occasionally someone will call or email: "I'm looking for a good gunsmith - do you work on Taurus revolvers?" When I politely inform the person that I do not, the result is often indignance, as if to say "how dare you decline to work on my fine possession! You have insulted me, suh!" (Delivered in the best antebellum manner, of course.)

Taurus revolvers possess many positive traits: they're available in a wide variety of calibers and configurations, they are usually fairly reliable, and they are priced right. Unfortunately, it's that last bit that gets me into trouble.

You see, the most expensive part of building a handgun, particularly a revolver, is the finishing work. You can't automate the polishing process, and Taurus revolvers are generally very well polished and finished. Given their low price point, this means that finishing is a large percentage of the purchase price. This means that they have to skimp somewhere, and the place that they do is in parts fitting.

Taurus guns have parts that simply do not fit as tightly - as precisely - as some other manufacturers. Yes, you can do a shadetree action job, maybe swap springs, and improve the action - but it will never be truly 'great' without rebuilding the gun.

I've purchased a couple of Taurus revolvers (Taurii??) to work on, to evaluate. While I like the guns (the now-discontinued model 445 is really neat, and I carry it occasionally) the effort to put a truly world-class action job on one results in huge labor costs.

Look at it this way: if you want a top-end wheelgun you have to pay for fitting parts at some point. With a Taurus, it doesn't happen at the time of purchase; it can only occur in the gunsmith's hands, which drives the cost up considerably. Like the folks who commissioned custom Norinco 1911s about a decade ago, what you end up with is a really expensive $300 gun that no one wants to buy.

I'd rather spend my time working on revolvers that will actually see an increase in value after quality work has been done, and I suspect their owners are the same way. That just won't happen with a Taurus, because after all is said and done it'll still just be a Taurus.

-=[ Grant ]=-

If you don't like finger-pointing rants, stop here. I'm in one of my moods.

Internet forums are a varied lot; sometimes informative, sometimes inflammatory, and sometimes downright exasperating.

This is a story about one of those exasperating ones.

On one of the forums someone made mention of a new gun from USFA (United States Fire-Arms, the single action folks headquartered in the historic Colt factory.) USFA produces superb quality firearms, and though one can occasionally take issue with their styling, one cannot fault the quality of their products.

The discussion on this forum soon centered around the "high cost" ($1400 or thereabouts) of this new gun. Several people chimed in to the effect that they, too, would "never pay that much" for a gun.

Why did this disturb my sensibilities? Because on forums and in magazines, there is an almost-constant complaint that guns "aren't made the way they used to be", along with the obligatory pining for a return to "quality" firearms. "Why can't anyone make a good gun, with beautiful blueing and perfect fit?" is a typical lament.

I saw one discussion where folks were asked to put in their wish lists to a particular manufacturer. Of course, they all specified high-end features, peerless accuracy, superb metalwork and finishing, and - get this - actually expected it to sell for "less than $500!"

Folks, this just isn't rational. In fact, it's downright silly.

The reality is that a high-quality gun - a gun that could compete with, say, something from the 1930's - is going to cost north of the thousand-dollar mark, and there is just no way around that fact. Even the best of the S&W Performance Center guns don't approach the kind of fit and finish that were commonly available in, say, 1935, but are still pushing a grand. If they were capable of finishing those guns to the degree of the famed Registered Magnums (and I don't think they are,) you'd see a minimum 50% increase in the cost - if not more.

We all have to face the reality that quality costs, it'll cost more tomorrow than today, and if you're not willing to pay for it then you really don't have much room to complain - buy a Taurus.

Rant off. (I feel better now!)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Poor Dan Wesson. The marque, famed for their switch-barrel revolvers, has suffered through more inept management regimes than your average banana republic (no, not the clothing chain!) Today you can ask ten random shooters about the company, and almost none will know that Dan Wesson is still in business. Their innovative revolvers - the work of the incomparable Karl Lewis - are no longer found on dealer's shelves.

How did we get to this sad state of affairs? To understand, we need to go back to the beginning of the Third Dynasty....

At the time, Dan Wesson was located in Palmer, MA. Production had reached new lows in both quality and quantity, and their strongest market - handgun silhouette shooters - were  tiring of their on-again, off again production history. Despite some interesting introductions (a line of fixed-barrel guns and a true small frame concealed carry piece, dubbed the "Lil' Dan",) the company was forced into bankruptcy. 

Into our story steps a fellow by the name of Bob Serva, who bought the company and moved it to Norwich, NY.

The problems surfaced almost immediately. The machinery included in the purchase was found to be "worn out", and supposedly incapable of making quality guns. (The irony of that statement will be revealed later.) You'd think that someone would have scrutinized a little thing like that out before writing a check, but no matter - the company invested in some new equipment, and then spent quite a long time resetting the new shop to produce guns.

Let's stop for a moment and review the revolver market at that point in history. Colt, stung by their association with certain anti-gun political elements and fresh out of bankruptcy, had all but abandoned the revolver market - and really didn't seem to care. Ruger was selling lots of guns, but their line was limited and had precious little to offer either competitors or the growing concealed carry market. Taurus was moving up in the market, but suffering from a reputation for having quality control problems (a perception which persists to this day.) The market leader, Smith&Wesson, had problems of their own: an apparently effective grassroots boycott, a persistent rumor that they were a hair's breadth away from bankrupcty, and being put up for sale by their British owners. 

The market was in turmoil; it was ripe for a quality product, particularly one with unique features not available anywhere else. With all the competitors preoccupied with their own problems, market share was there for the taking - and Dan Wesson was in a good position to grab some. They had a line of revolvers that was strong, accurate as all get-out, and far more versatile than anything the competition had to offer. In addition, they had the Lil' Dan, which with some attention could easily address the burgeoning demand for concealed carry guns, and a fanatical (though shrinking daily) customer base. (I oughtta know - I'm one of those crazies who loves his Dan Wessons!)

So, with a brand new acquisition, new machinery, and a market ripe for the picking what did the owner of Dan Wesson do?

Right - he introduced a line of 1911 pistols!

The introduction of the 1911 guns seemed to take the wind out of revolver production. During this time, Dan Wesson made only one run of frames for the world's most popular revolver caliber, the .357 Magnum. Quality was so poor that I personally had to return a gun - ordered in for a special client - because the sideplate gap approached .006" in places! The action was awful, and the hammer and trigger had been slapped into the gun with no finish work whatsoever. The production manager apologized profusely, and hand-selected a replacement - which was only marginally better. This is when I learned that all of the frames had been made in a single run in the first year of the company's revived production, and most (if not all) apparently suffered from this egregious fault. 

Remember the irony I alluded to? Even the much-maligned Palmer guns - the worst of the lot, made on that "worn out" machinery - had sideplates that fit correctly!

To their credit, they did try - sort of. Dan Wesson placed small black-and-white advertisements in relatively inconspicuous places in the gun magazines. The ads were pitiful: poor design, bad graphics, and too much room taken up with religious symbolism. (Before the hate mail comes in, understand that I have no problem with religious symbols in the right place and at the right time. An advertisement for a firearm in a gun magazine is neither the time nor the place.) The average small-town "nickel shopper" advertisement looks more professional than anything Dan Wesson was able to insert into glossy national magazines.

Magazines weren't the only marketing avenue, however. Recognizing the power of the internet, they put up a website - but it would be a couple of years before they bothered to procure their own domain name, instead using the site under the domain name of their ISP. The site was horridly designed, didn't work on anything other than a 17" monitor, and didn't even have much information. (Hey, I know their product line, and if it was difficult for me to figure out what was what, imagine what a new customer would go through!) They didn't understand what a website was really for: I saw a listing of various new grips that were available, but no pictures. An email to the company netted the information that the pictures were only available in their printed catalog, for which they charged $5! That's what we call "behind the times."

Things weren't much better with industry relations. Gunwriters, love 'em or hate 'em, are how the general public learns of, and forms opinions about, new products. I've heard first-hand stories of Dan Wesson management personally making multiple promises of test-and-evaluation samples to individual writers, but never delivering. With behavior like that, it's no wonder that Dan Wesson remained in a publicity rut.

Once the 1911s started rolling off the assembly line, revolvers took a definite back seat - way back. Parts became hard to get; Brownells even dumped the line, rumored to be tired of non-delivery. What little "innovation" centered around odd and useless chamberings. (Yep, I'm sure that the .460 Rowland - aka .451 Detonics Magnum rebadged to assuage someone's ego - was a big seller. I'm being facetious, in case you missed it.)

I suppose the argument for the switch to 1911 production was because revolvers "weren't selling very well." Of course, given the poor management of the whole mess, one would expect sales problems!

In my mind, the only saving grace during this period were some of Dan Wesson's employees. The aforementioned production manager was pleasant, honest, and seemed genuinely saddened that revolvers had been relegated to the back burner; the gal who essentially ran (and still runs) their parts and customer service operation has always been efficient and helpful (and has something of a following on the internet forums!)

That brings us more or less to the present. Roughly a year and a half ago, CZ-USA somehow acquired Dan Wesson and Mr. Serva took a job with the parent company. (He has since left CZ-USA.) So far, CZ doesn't seem to be all that interested in Dan Wesson revolvers - their website didn't even mention revolvers until just recently, and it's taken them over a year just to make their first .357 gun. Supposedly they are busy doing "market research", which to me means they still don't have a clue what to do with the wheelguns.

CZ, if you're reading this, here's some free advice:

1) Concentrate on building up to a standard, not down to a price. Saying you make high quality products, but not actually delivering high quality, doesn't count. If you need proof that this works, look at the company who took you main market from you: Freedom Arms. (If you need still more examples, Google "Tom Peters". Heck, Google him anyway - you need all the help you can get.)

2) What sells best? Historically, it's been mid-size guns in .357 Magnum. Start there; make 'em better than anything else on the market. Hunting guns in common calibers should be next (the .445 SuperMag, as neat as it is, isn't a common caliber.) You need a concealed carry piece; the market is crying for a good, small 6-shot .357 to fill the shoes of the late and much missed Colt Magnum Carry.

3) "Quality" means some attention needs to be given to the double action lockwork. They aren't smooth or consistent enough, they stack horribly, and their trigger return is sluggish. Spend some engineering money and fix those traits, and don't for a minute think that you can slide by with what you've got now.

4) Forget locks and MIM parts; make them the way the market wants them to be made, not the way some politician deems they should. (There's a big backlash against the built-in locks of your competitors; ignore this at your peril.)

5) You need a presence in competition; be visible in IHMSA, ICORE, USPSA, Steel Challenge, and IDPA. Revolver divisions are attracting more and more shooters; fInd people to sponsor, at all levels of ability. (Quantity counts in this game.)

6) You need actual marketing: proper advertising, editorial content, and a strong web presence. (Your current website doesn't cut it; if you plan to keep the Dan Wesson name, you need to establish a separate domain for it. You'll notice that the Mercedes website is separate from the Chrysler website for a reason.)

7) You'd better come up with an innovative dealer program. No matter how much you advertise, if it isn't on the dealer's shelves - and the dealers don't actively support you - you've lost a sale. (Hint: kiss up to the retail salespeople, not the boss. The guy sitting at the desk in the back room isn't who's selling the things.)

8) Don't ignore the growing women's market, but understand that pink grips and shiny finishes aren't what they want. They are sharp, savvy consumers who have different buying patterns and criteria than men. You need to learn what those are and supply products and services to match. (You have one huge advantage that no one else has, and it has never been exploited by any of the previous ownership. If you can't figure it out on your own, give me a call.)

9) Finally: if you're not going to do it right, don't do it at all - sell the revolver division to someone who will. Dan Wesson and Karl Lewis deserve it, and the legions of Dan Wesson enthusiasts deserve it. Don't let us down.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Markoo Kloos writes a blog called "the munchkin wrangler" (no typo - he doesn't use caps on the title.)

One of his posts is titled "why the revolver?" (again with the no caps.) It's a great treatise on the joys of the wheelgun, and well worth bookmarking.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Saturday, June 3, Montenegro declared independence from Serbia. Montenegro, along with Serbia, had been a part of Yugoslavia since they joined the Balkan union in 1918.

Just what does this have to do with revolvers? Well, there is a revolver commonly known as a "Montenegrin revolver", and often said to have been designed or made in Montenegro.

The trouble is that there isn't a shred of truth to those tales!

The Montenegrin is more properly termed a Gasser, having originated in the Austrian arms factories of Leopold Gasser. Gasser had factories in Vienna and St. Polten. His guns were widely available in the Balkans, and were in fact adopted by the Austro/Hungarian army.

Why, then, did these 11mm revolvers get attributed to Montenegro? There are two explanations: first, that their 11mm Long chambering was originally issued to the Montenegrin army for a single shot carbine. The second, more romantic and interesting, is that King Nicholas of Montenegro had made the ownership of such arms mandatory for his male citizenry. It was also said that the King had a financial stake in their sale!

As interesting as the tale is, though, there seems to be no hard evidence to support the King's supposed order. The name continues to live on, even if we never know absolutely where it originated.

Today, original Gasser revolvers fetch a pretty penny on the open market. If looking at one, make sure it is marked from the Gasser factory - there were any number of knock-offs made in workshops in Austria and Belgium. Such arms are sometimes of questionable manufacture and value, though are often labeled with the misleading moniker of "Montenegrin revolver" by their over-enthusiastic (if ill-informed) sellers.

Happy Independence Day, Montenegro!

-=[ Grant ]=-

I'm seeing new Ruger GP-100 and SP-101 revolvers coming into the local dealers with what can only be described as horrid factory workmanship. Wobbly cylinders, gritty triggers, and uneven parts fitting are out of place for this fine maker.

Let's be honest: Ruger has never at the "top end" of fit & finish. Admittedly, the long-gone "Six" series of double-action revolvers were awfully good, but I don't think many would argue that their replacements are in the same league. The most recent offerings, though, are looking more like the bottom of the barrel.

At the same time, their autoloading pistols are better than ever. The new P-345 is, I hate to say, really a well-fitted and finished gun - for a bottom feeder, of course! It's definitely a step above anything they've offered in that line.

Here's an idea: Ruger, transfer some of the talented folk making bottom-feeders to the revolver division - they obviously need the help!

-=[ Grant ]=-

A new toy just arrived at the shop: an FN 'Barracuda' revolver in .357!

The Barracuda was FN's only foray into the revolver market; they were produced for a few years during the 80's. Various "authorities" say the gun was made by Astra and marketed by FN, others hold that it was made by FN and later licensed to Astra. Frankly, from my examination of the construction techniques and general build quality, I'd venture to say that it was made by Astra - and that's not bad, as Astra is a good manufacturer in their own right. A small quantity of new-in-box specimens were recently unearthed and brought into the country.

The gun has a 3-inch barrel and fixed sights, the rear having a slightly unusual profile reminiscent of the Dan Wesson Model 14 - sort of "humpbacked." Surprise: the barrel is pinned and the chambers are recessed, just like Smith & Wessons of days past. Another S&W-like detail are the four screws holding one the sideplate, with a fifth screw in front of the triggerguard. The cylinder yoke is held in with a push-button arrangement, very similar to Korth practice. Size is somewhere between a "K" and an "L" frame, and uses "L" frame speedloaders (not "K" frame, as is usually reported.)

The grips, of very nice walnut, show a definite resemblance to the checkered wood grips Colt supplied with Detective Specials in the 1980's. The grips are well-fitted to the gun; my only complaint is that they're a bit shallow (front-to-back) for my tastes. Trigger reach, even for my small hands, is quite comfortable for a "service" sized arm.

One thing I could do without is the hooked triggerguard, but it does lend an interesting profile to the piece. I'm also not a big fan of the serrated trigger (Jerry Miculek notwithstanding), though I'll admit this one is less painful than most of its breed.

Fit & finish is pretty good, but the interior is quite crude - on a par with Rossi arms, at least in terms of parts fitting. Metallurgy, though, appears to be better than expected.

The action is fairly smooth for a factory gun, but not very consistent in its travel. Single action breaks with almost no creep and just a touch of overtravel; double action has near zero overtravel, similar to a Colt action. One nice touch is the user-adjustable pull weight; on my sample, double action weight could be varied from approximately 11-1/2 pounds down to 9-3/4 pounds. I might add that my analysis and measurements were done with the gun "as is", from the box - the action is bone dry, and I expect things to improve considerably with a little lubrication.

After I get the chance to range test it, I'll be getting into the internals to see what can be done to improve this gun.

Unfortunately I didn't find out about these in time to snag one from the distributor, so I had to content myself with paying retail. (Ugh. I feel so violated!) Still, for the $300 it cost, it really is a good deal - and with only 400 imported, it's not likely that another will show up next to you on the firing line!

Pictures and an in-depth test will follow in a few weeks. Stay tuned!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Many people talk about the Colt Detective Special using the term "generation." I get emails asking which "generation" is best or which should be purchased. I recently got a nasty email from a potential client who asked if I could work on a certain "generation"; when I replied that I wasn't sure what he meant by 'third generation', he decided that I wasn't qualified to work on his guns because I "obviously don't know anything about Colts!"

Folks, here's Fact #1: The Colt factory, the people who made them, do not refer to any of the "D" frame guns by "generation." If you ask, they'll tell you that generations are something "the collectors invented" (their exact words!)

Fact #2: there is a lot of controversy, but not a lot of consensus, regarding the various incarnations of the Detective Special and into what "generation" any given one falls.

Some hold that there is a generation change between the square-butt (long) and round-butt (long) in 1933, but not when the "C" frame was changed to the "D" frame in 1947; some that the change from plastic stocks to wood stocks in the mid-50s was a generation, but the reintroduction (after a seven-year absence) in 1993 wasn't.

Like Colt, I prefer to refer to any given gun by its production date. This information is readily available through the Proofhouse site, and is a sure way to prevent miscommunication!

-=[ Grant ]=-

OK, so it's not a revolver - but it's still terrific news!

Ithaca shotguns are back, and being made by the recently christened Ithaca Guns USA. If you've never had the pleasure of using the classic Model 37 pump, you don't know what you're missing. They are smooth, reliable guns that are a far cry from what passes for a pump shotgun these days.



Generations of shooters grew up with the Model 37. (Sadly, I didn't - in our household the gun of choice was Ithaca's prime competitor, the Winchester Model 12. I discovered the joys of the 37 a number of years back, and I've been a fan ever since.)

The Ithaca is expensive relative to a gun like the Remington 870 (or the even cheaper Mossbergs.) Having had each, though, I maintain that the Ithaca is well worth the premium. The Ithaca is made from forgings and machined parts - no pot metal or plastic castings sourced from worlds unknown. It is a superbly made gun, and anyone - particularly you Python owners - who appreciates quality firearms should have one in their stable.

Now if someone could just resurrect Colt...(did I say that in my 'out-loud' voice?!?)

-=[ Grant ]=-

Yes, it appears to be true.

Various "internet experts" have been littering the online forums telling anyone who would listen that Colt was going to start making revolvers again "real soon." That sounded odd to me, as Colt seems to have been doing everything possible to avoid making revolvers. So, I decided to call the source - Colt.

I talked to several people at the company, and I learned that:

- they hadn't actually produced any Pythons for "a couple of years";
- they'd sold their last Python from remaindered stock over a year ago;
- they didn't have "any plans at all for resuming Python production", and:
- the topic of revolvers wasn't even being discussed at any of their planning meetings.

One can only conclude that revolvers - at least, the Pythons - are dead as far as Colt is concerned.

All this happened about 6 months ago. I was speaking with a well-known industry figure recently (someone whose name you would instantly recognize), who passed along what he called a "credible rumor": Colt had sold all of their revolver tooling and jigs for scrap. Since this person has well-placed sources everywhere, including Colt, the chances of it being mere gossip were remote. Still, he referred to it as "rumor" - so I held out hope. However, I broke the story on the Colt discussion forum.

Well, the "other shoe" has now dropped. On the discussion forums at sixgunner.com, Michael Bane - well known and respected in the industry himself - confirmed the rumors. It seems Colt really is out of the revolver business - permanently.

I still hope that all of this is simply a put-on by someone at Colt, but as yet no one has been able to authoritatively refute the information given.

RIP, Python.

-=[ Grant ]=-

Many people have been following the situation with the North Carolina Dep't of Corrections and their self-destructing S&W revolvers. If you haven't, here's a link to the story.

These pictures of one such occurrence have been floating around the net:





I've been exchanging emails with C.E. "Ed" Harris, who many will remember from his days as the head of Q.C. at Ruger - when they experienced a similar problem. Here's what he had to say:

"Old problem rearing its ugly head again, not really a new problem. A troublesome sporadic one when people forget about good shop practices and get sloppy.

Stress corrosion cracking is generally caused by contamination by solvents or cutting fluids too high in chlorides. Over-torquing barrels barrels creates a stress rise at the root of the thread which makes the problem worse. Microscopic examination of the failed barrels would be obvious to a competent
engineer, especially familiar to those with aerospace or nuclear power systems experience.

Ruger had a short run of this back in the 1980s when they first starting making stainless magnums. I saw a few dozen guns come back when I worked there. All were traced to one guy on night shift who was over-torquing barrels on Redhawks which didn't quite line up, instead of taking a pass off the front of the frame on a Blanchard grinder as he should have done. He also used a wrong, slippery high sulphur thread lubricant intended for chrome-moly instead of the anti-seize compound used with SS.

This condition is aggravated by tight fit of barrel threads, such as when using a class 3A, combined with high stress, high temperature, and high barrel torque. Ruger fixed their problem by changing to a looser 2A fit on the barrel threads and assembling barrels to the frames using a Loctite product to cement them solidly while reducing stress on the threads and positively preventing any seepage of cleaning solvents into the barrel threads after they left the factory."


If true, this wouldn't be the first time S&W has over-torqued a barrel: the Model 442 Airweight Centennials, particularly in nickel finish, are somewhat notorious for frame cracks under the barrel. A phone conversation with a S&W representative confirmed to me that the cracked frames were caused by barrels that had been screwed in "too tightly."

However, there's always the possibility of user error, such as the use of certain products that contain chlorine compounds (brand name removed for obvious reasons):

"Use of [lubricants containing chlorine compounds] "could" do it, as could any number of other cleaners, especially if used with an ultrasonic which enhances thread penetration."

There are certain "miracle" gun lubricant products out there that contain chlorine compounds, and have become popular amongst the more "martial" crowd. In addition, ultrasonic cleaners have been very popular at many police agencies over the last decade or so.

Well, I got an email from one of the employees at the agency, and he claims that they use Hoppes bore cleaner, and that they do not have an ultrasonic!

So we're back to the first possibility. Given Ed's expertise, I suspect that his analysis is the correct one.

-=[ Grant ]=-

There is an assertion that comes up with surprising frequency, particularly in the internet age where everyone is an expert: the Colt Python (and all other Colt revolvers) are "delicate", "go out of time easily", or "not as strong/durable as a S&W."

Let's start with the construction: a Colt revolver, for any given frame size, is as strong as any gun with that frame size. Their metallurgy is absolutely the best, and their forged construction is of superior quality. They are superbly made, and their longevity is a testimony to that fact. You are never compromising when you choose a Colt!

How about the charge of "delicate" or "goes out of time easily"? In my work, I see a lot of Colts; I shoot them extensively myself. With proper maintenance, I've seen no tendency for any Colt to go out of time. Yet, the rumors persist!

Why do such opinions exist if there wasn't some basis to them? Is there some amount of truth? I think I can answer that!

Let's start with some facts: Colt revolvers have actions which are very refined. Their operating surfaces are very small, and are precisely adjusted to make the guns work properly. Setting them up properly is not a job for someone who isn't intimately familiar with their workings, and the gunsmith who works on them had better be accustomed to working at narrow tolerances, on small parts, under magnification.

Colt's design and construction is unique; it uses the hand (the "pawl" which rotates the cylinder) and the bolt (the stop at the bottom of the frame opening) to hold the cylinder perfectly still when the gun fires. The action is designed so that the hand - which is the easiest part to replace - will take the majority of the wear, and is expected to be changed when wear exceeds a specific point.

This is considered normal maintenance in a Colt revolver, which is not the case with any other brand. To get their famous "bank vault" cylinder locking and attendant accuracy, you have to accept a certain amount of maintenance; it goes with ownership of such a fine instrument.

I've often made the statement that a Colt is like a Ferrari; to get the gilt-edged performance, you have to accept that they will require more maintenance than a Ford pickup. Unlike gun owners, however, folks who own Italy's finest don't complain that they are more "delicate" than an F-150!

I truly think that the negative reputation that Colts have in some quarters is because their owners - unschooled in the uniqueness of the Colt action - apply the same standards of condition that they would to their more pedestrian S&W guns.

What standards? A Colt, when the trigger is pulled and held back, should have absolutely no cylinder rotation. None, zip, zilch - absolutely no movement at all! Not a little, not a bit, not a smidgen - zero movement. A S&W, on the other hand, normally has a bit of rotational play - which is considered absolutely normal and fine.

There's another measurement to consider: at rest, a Colt cylinder should move front-to-back no more than .003" (that's 3/1,000 of an inch.) This is - in the absolute worst case - about half of the allowable S&W movement!

Now, let's say a S&W owner, used to their looser standards of cylinder lockup, buys a Colt. He goes and shoots it a bit, and the hand (which probably has a bit of wear already, as he bought it used) is approaching the normal replacement interval. He checks his gun, and finds that the cylinder has just the slightest amount of movement when the trigger is back, and half of his S&W's longitudinal travel. Heck, he thinks, it's still a lot tighter than his Smith so it must be fine to keep shooting it.

WRONG! It's at this point that he should stop shooting, and take it to an experienced Colt gunsmith to have the action adjusted. Of course, he doesn't do this - he keeps shooting. The cylinder beats harder against the frame, compresses the ratchet (ejector), causing the hand to wear even faster, and the combination of the two leads to a worn bolt. If left unchecked, the worn bolt can do damage to the rebound lever. When it finally starts spitting lead and misfiring, he takes it in and finds to his astonishment that he's facing a $400 (or more!) repair bill, and perhaps a 6 month wait to find a new ratchet.

Of course, he'll now fire up his computer and declare to anyone who will listen that Colts are "delicate" and "go out of time easily" and are "hard to get parts for." That, folks, appears to be the true origin of these fallacies.

Colts do require more routine maintenance, and a more involved owner; that's a fact. But, as long as the maintenance is performed properly, a Colt will happily digest thousands upon thousands of rounds without complaint. The owners who take care of them will be rewarded with a gun that is a delight to shoot, wonderfully accurate, and visually unmatched. Those who don't will sell them off at a loss and complain on the internet.

I sincerely hope that you will choose to be the first type of Colt owner. If, however, you are the second, please drop me a note - I'm always in the market for Colt revolvers at fire-sale prices!

-=[ Grant ]=-

Lots of people ask me about speedloaders - as in "what speedloader should I buy?"

Well, there are really only a couple of choices these days: Safariland and HKS. (The superb SL Variant models are no longer imported, the Maxfires don't - at least in my mind - qualify for the "speed" part of the name, and the Australian "Jet" loaders are close enough to the Safariland Comp III that we'll consider them the same.)

Personally, unless I'm using a gun for which they don't have a model, I use only Safariland speedloaders. Here's why.

First, they're simply a whole lot faster to use. Not only are they faster to release their payload, they hold the rounds in a solid, fairly rigid package. That rigidity makes it faster to align the bullets with the chambers than the "floppy" HKS style. This is an important, and often overlooked, advantage.

Second, they're more secure. Over the years I've listened to people bad-mouth the Safariland speedloaders, with the statement that they release their rounds too easily - when in a pocket or dropped, the story usually goes.

I've been carrying Safarilands on my person for about 10 years now, and I've never had a single round released when I didn't want it to. They won't, unless you forcibly jam an object into the release button which is in the middle of the rounds. I've had more than one HKS let go while in the speedloader pouch, let alone my pocket!

Dropping? When this argument comes up I pull out the oldest, most used Comp II that I have. (It's been used for practice for a decade, and I stopped counting when it reached 5.000 reload cycles. I keep it loaded with dummy rounds - regular bullet, case, but no primers- for practice.) I drop it on the floor or ground, then pick it up and throw it on the ground; if there's a wall nearby, I'll either kick it or throw it into the wall. I've done this little demo hundreds of times, and I've never had a round fall out.

However, the only way to get this kind of performance and reliability is to load the things correctly! Safariland doesn't help their case, as they sell competition "loading blocks" that force you into loading the things improperly.

Most people will put the rounds into the speedloader, then turn it face-down onto a table so that they can push on the button to lock the rounds. This is almost guaranteed to leave a round (or two or three) that isn't fully seated, and when the speedloader is dropped it/they fall out. No wonder people think they don't work well!

The key is to hold the speedloader BULLETS UP, and push the button up while simultaneously turning it to the right. You'll feel the rounds "lock in", and they won't come out until you want them to!

UPDATE: I've now seen several guns whose cranes (yokes) have been bent apparently due to the side loading forces of Maxfire speedloaders. I strongly recommend that you not use Maxfires!

-=[ Grant ]=-