Gunsmithing
On Taylor Throating
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
I recently received an email asking my thoughts on Taylor Throating - the procedure where a reamer removes the rifling for roughly a half-inch past the forcing cone, and the edges of the lands are chamfered to match. The concept is to make an area that allows the bullet to 'stabilize' after jumping the barrel gap, but before entering the rifling.
Taylor Throating is somewhat controversial, with some holding it to be the greatest thing since peanut butter, while others claim that it is pure snake oil. In the interest of full disclosure, I don't offer the service - even though I've invested in the equipment - simply because I remain agnostic regarding its value.
Reports of miraculous results seem not to have occurred under controlled conditions. By that, I mean tested on a gun without any changes other than the throating. The glowing reports tend to be from those who had a lot of other work done at the same time, including timing and forcing cone changes. It's hard to say if the positive reports are in fact due to the throating, to other work, or to something subconscious on the part of the shooter doing the testing.
I've experimented with Taylor Throating on a properly maintained Dan Wesson .357, using several 6" barrels, and shot by two different people (one of whom was your author); the results were inconclusive. When a barrel with just the throating was tested, there was a slight increase in accuracy - but it was not consistent, nor large, enough to rule out normal shooter performance variation. A barrel prepped with a proper crown and an 11 degree forcing cone (as pioneered by Ron Power) achieved a definite positive result, roughly equal to what is said to be expected by some Taylor advocates.
My preliminary opinion, based on my admittedly limited experience with the technique, is that a proper forcing cone and a perfect crown still produce the most noticeable accuracy improvement. Of course, this is assuming that the gun is in perfect condition (timing, cylinder/barrel alignment, etc.) to begin with.
There are a couple of specific conditions where Taylor Throating might prove useful as a salvage technique: when the barrel/cylinder alignment is just a hair off in the vertical axis, or where there is a noticeable constriction in the area where the barrel screws into the frame. In those cases accuracy changes in excess of what would normally be expected have been reported, and may be legitimate. There are also some indications that it may extend the useful life of a severely worn barrel, where replacement is difficult or economically unwarranted.
Some specific downsides have been identified, however. If the throated area is even a tiny amount bigger than the chamber throats (or the bullet diameter), lead bullets will suffer "blow by" and gas cutting - severely leading the barrel, and definitely decreasing accuracy.
In the end, it's your choice. I'm not ready to call it a fraud, but neither do I see a definite positive benefit to having it done. When I come up with solid evidence on either side, you can bet I'll report it here!
-=[ Grant ]=-
|
Update on the waiting list
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
I've gotten a number of
emails and calls regarding the waiting list closure, and I
appreciate the positive thoughts! I didn't think I'd ever get to
the point that I had to do that, and I hope that when the list
opens again people will still remember me!
(The only thing worse than being talked about, is NOT being talked about!)
Now I have to get back to work; the last couple of weeks of injury-related work slowdown have left me even further behind than I already was!
-=[ Grant ]=-
P.S.: I thought about starting up a collection to buy Tam a Python, just so she'd have a non-flat Colt. Then I thought "hey, what am I thinking? If I'm going to solicit contributions for a Python for someone, that someone is gonna be ME! I'm my own favorite charity! If she wants one, she can buy it for herself!" I then cackled maniacally until my wife hit me with a frying pan. I'm recovering nicely, thank you.
Anyhow, Tam, I just hope you're not too disappointed...about the Python, I mean.
(The only thing worse than being talked about, is NOT being talked about!)
Now I have to get back to work; the last couple of weeks of injury-related work slowdown have left me even further behind than I already was!
-=[ Grant ]=-
P.S.: I thought about starting up a collection to buy Tam a Python, just so she'd have a non-flat Colt. Then I thought "hey, what am I thinking? If I'm going to solicit contributions for a Python for someone, that someone is gonna be ME! I'm my own favorite charity! If she wants one, she can buy it for herself!" I then cackled maniacally until my wife hit me with a frying pan. I'm recovering nicely, thank you.
Anyhow, Tam, I just hope you're not too disappointed...about the Python, I mean.
AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
Monday, November 12, 2007
Thanks to the many people
who have entrusted me with their guns, I am enjoying a surplus of
requests for work. In fact, for reasons that are not entirely clear
the requests keep increasing, especially in the last number of
weeks. This is both gratifying and concerning.
Up until this point, I've taken everyone's name and put them on a waiting list. This worked nicely when I was only a month or two backlogged, but now I'm up to a year behind - and the list keeps growing with no end in sight. The management of the list (answering inquiries, etc.) has now become a time-consuming endeavor unto itself.
To tell you the truth, when I first started in this endeavor I sort of harbored the dream of being able to casually say "oh, I'm so-many-years backlogged", accompanied by a flippant wave of the hand. Now that I'm at that point, it's not as pleasant as I thought it would be, because I'm more concerned with the positions of my clients than with my own. I have so much work to do that guns anticipated for holiday gifts won't make the date, and mostly not even the season - and that bothers me.
I'm sure that some other 'smiths are in the same situation, but I've come to the conclusion that it is unconscionable to continue to accept "reservations" which are so far out, I can't possibly predict whether or not I'll be able to make the date. I'm acutely aware that my skills at time estimation are not as good as they should be, and I find my chronological errors growing in scope as the length of the list increases. That's not fair to you, my clients and prospective clients.
So, as of today I am no longer accepting new clients until I've worked the waiting list down to a more reasonable level. Those who are on the list are, of course, still on the list - I just won't be adding to that list for a while.
If you have wanted to have me work on your guns, but are not on the list, I apologize for my unavailability. As soon as the list has shrunk to the point that I feel comfortable putting people on it, I'll make an announcement and open the list for new work.
Of course, the Blog will still be here to amuse and - hopefully - inform you.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Up until this point, I've taken everyone's name and put them on a waiting list. This worked nicely when I was only a month or two backlogged, but now I'm up to a year behind - and the list keeps growing with no end in sight. The management of the list (answering inquiries, etc.) has now become a time-consuming endeavor unto itself.
To tell you the truth, when I first started in this endeavor I sort of harbored the dream of being able to casually say "oh, I'm so-many-years backlogged", accompanied by a flippant wave of the hand. Now that I'm at that point, it's not as pleasant as I thought it would be, because I'm more concerned with the positions of my clients than with my own. I have so much work to do that guns anticipated for holiday gifts won't make the date, and mostly not even the season - and that bothers me.
I'm sure that some other 'smiths are in the same situation, but I've come to the conclusion that it is unconscionable to continue to accept "reservations" which are so far out, I can't possibly predict whether or not I'll be able to make the date. I'm acutely aware that my skills at time estimation are not as good as they should be, and I find my chronological errors growing in scope as the length of the list increases. That's not fair to you, my clients and prospective clients.
So, as of today I am no longer accepting new clients until I've worked the waiting list down to a more reasonable level. Those who are on the list are, of course, still on the list - I just won't be adding to that list for a while.
If you have wanted to have me work on your guns, but are not on the list, I apologize for my unavailability. As soon as the list has shrunk to the point that I feel comfortable putting people on it, I'll make an announcement and open the list for new work.
Of course, the Blog will still be here to amuse and - hopefully - inform you.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Do you need a trigger job?
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
It occurs to me that not
everyone who stumbles into my little corner of the internet
necessarily knows whether he or she needs my services. I receive
quite a number of emails that essentially ask "should I have a
trigger job done on my revolver?"
(I am aware that asking a gunsmith that question is tantamount to requesting that the fox guard the henhouse. Still, I'd like to take a crack - hopefully a fairly objective one - at the topic.)
There are a lot of factors involved in this decision. Are you happy with the action of the gun as it is? Do you have a frame of reference to really know if you're happy with it? Are you able to tell the difference? Is your experience level such that you can take advantage of the results?
Believe it or not, it's the second of those questions - having a frame of reference - that is the most important. Without it, the others can't be addressed in any meaningful way. Simply put, have you had the opportunity to handle (and preferably shoot) a revolver whose action has been tuned by a good gunsmith? I don't mean a factory "custom" gun - I mean a real custom from someone who knows their stuff. The difference can be like night and day, and until you have one in your hands everything might seem good.
It's a little like eating a great steak; if all you've ever had is hamburger, you can't imagine how good a steak is. Once you've had the steak, though, the hamburger is far less satisfying than it used to be. Your ability to judge has been expanded by your experiences, and the same is true with the action on your revolver.
True story: I was at the gun counter of a large outdoor retailer one day, and they had just gotten in a then-new S&W "Performance Center" wheelgun. (If memory serves, it was a 627.) I'm always interested in what's coming out of the P.C., so I asked to see it. Right away I noticed serious shortcomings in the fit and finish, but when I pulled the trigger I was taken aback: the double action quite literally felt like someone had stuck a playing card in a bicycle's spokes! I shook my head as I handed the specimen back to the clerk.
Before he could put it away, however, someone else came to the counter and asked to see it. This fellow and his buddy gushed enthusiastically as they looked the gun over, finally pulling the trigger. The guy holding the gun said "man, you have got to feel this trigger - it's like butter!" The second fellow tried it and concurred that it was the "best trigger I've ever felt - boy, you sure get what you pay for with a Smith & Wesson!"
Propriety forbade me from educating them and possibly ruining a sale for the store, but the incident serves to illustrate that some people perhaps don't know that there can be something better. (In some cases, a whole lot better!)
Once you have a standard - a frame of reference - against which you can judge, you can then answer the first question: are you happy with what you have now? You may in fact be quite happy; your gun may be good enough for the task at hand, even if it isn't the very best. For instance, my wife and I have gotten along for many years - quite happily, I might add - with a plain old RCA 21" television. (Yes, a twenty-one-inch!) Your children probably have better televisions in their bedrooms, but for us it is good enough. We don't watch much TV, rarely play a movie (we own exactly 3 DVDs), and thus for our use it is perfectly fine. On the other hand, someone who likes to watch lots of sporting events, or is a movie buff, would find it annoyingly limited.
Can you appreciate - and take advantage of - a highly tuned action? Can you tell the difference between what you have now and what it could be? This isn't as silly a question as you might believe.
Case in point: I'm not much of an oenophile. I can count the number of bottles of wine I've drank in my 40-plus-years on one hand, with fingers left over. (Yep, I'm a lightweight.) I have, however, tasted some very expensive and special wines at various functions over the years, and therefore have the necessary frame of reference. On me, though, the differences between a good wine and "Two Buck Chuck" are lost. I simply can't appreciate the difference, and what's more I don't care because I don't drink enough wine to enable me to care!
The same is true with revolvers. Many people, some of them very good shooters, really can't feel a difference between a factory action and a tuned one. One day at the range I handed my personal Colt Detective Special to a fellow who had been shooting a bone-stock example. They were like night and day - the factory one stacked horribly, was rough as a gravel road, and weighed in at roughly 12 pounds. Mine? Buttery smooth, no stacking, and broke right at 9 lbs. This fellow, however, couldn't tell the difference - he handed it back with an apologetic look and said that he was sorry, but it didn't feel any better to him!
As you might surmise, I was a bit disheartened. But it illustrated to me that not everyone cares about this stuff as much as I do, and it would be unconscionable of me to talk them into something that they really don't need - at least, not right now.
The foregoing is a long-winded way of saying that if you don't know there is a difference, can't feel the difference, or don't care about the difference, don't feel pressured to spend money - with me or anyone else. Whether it comes from shooting magazines, gunstore commandoes, or even my website, don't buy what you know in your heart you can't use. Spend the money on ammunition instead, and enjoy yourself.
(Boy, I hope I haven't talked myself out of a job!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
(I am aware that asking a gunsmith that question is tantamount to requesting that the fox guard the henhouse. Still, I'd like to take a crack - hopefully a fairly objective one - at the topic.)
There are a lot of factors involved in this decision. Are you happy with the action of the gun as it is? Do you have a frame of reference to really know if you're happy with it? Are you able to tell the difference? Is your experience level such that you can take advantage of the results?
Believe it or not, it's the second of those questions - having a frame of reference - that is the most important. Without it, the others can't be addressed in any meaningful way. Simply put, have you had the opportunity to handle (and preferably shoot) a revolver whose action has been tuned by a good gunsmith? I don't mean a factory "custom" gun - I mean a real custom from someone who knows their stuff. The difference can be like night and day, and until you have one in your hands everything might seem good.
It's a little like eating a great steak; if all you've ever had is hamburger, you can't imagine how good a steak is. Once you've had the steak, though, the hamburger is far less satisfying than it used to be. Your ability to judge has been expanded by your experiences, and the same is true with the action on your revolver.
True story: I was at the gun counter of a large outdoor retailer one day, and they had just gotten in a then-new S&W "Performance Center" wheelgun. (If memory serves, it was a 627.) I'm always interested in what's coming out of the P.C., so I asked to see it. Right away I noticed serious shortcomings in the fit and finish, but when I pulled the trigger I was taken aback: the double action quite literally felt like someone had stuck a playing card in a bicycle's spokes! I shook my head as I handed the specimen back to the clerk.
Before he could put it away, however, someone else came to the counter and asked to see it. This fellow and his buddy gushed enthusiastically as they looked the gun over, finally pulling the trigger. The guy holding the gun said "man, you have got to feel this trigger - it's like butter!" The second fellow tried it and concurred that it was the "best trigger I've ever felt - boy, you sure get what you pay for with a Smith & Wesson!"
Propriety forbade me from educating them and possibly ruining a sale for the store, but the incident serves to illustrate that some people perhaps don't know that there can be something better. (In some cases, a whole lot better!)
Once you have a standard - a frame of reference - against which you can judge, you can then answer the first question: are you happy with what you have now? You may in fact be quite happy; your gun may be good enough for the task at hand, even if it isn't the very best. For instance, my wife and I have gotten along for many years - quite happily, I might add - with a plain old RCA 21" television. (Yes, a twenty-one-inch!) Your children probably have better televisions in their bedrooms, but for us it is good enough. We don't watch much TV, rarely play a movie (we own exactly 3 DVDs), and thus for our use it is perfectly fine. On the other hand, someone who likes to watch lots of sporting events, or is a movie buff, would find it annoyingly limited.
Can you appreciate - and take advantage of - a highly tuned action? Can you tell the difference between what you have now and what it could be? This isn't as silly a question as you might believe.
Case in point: I'm not much of an oenophile. I can count the number of bottles of wine I've drank in my 40-plus-years on one hand, with fingers left over. (Yep, I'm a lightweight.) I have, however, tasted some very expensive and special wines at various functions over the years, and therefore have the necessary frame of reference. On me, though, the differences between a good wine and "Two Buck Chuck" are lost. I simply can't appreciate the difference, and what's more I don't care because I don't drink enough wine to enable me to care!
The same is true with revolvers. Many people, some of them very good shooters, really can't feel a difference between a factory action and a tuned one. One day at the range I handed my personal Colt Detective Special to a fellow who had been shooting a bone-stock example. They were like night and day - the factory one stacked horribly, was rough as a gravel road, and weighed in at roughly 12 pounds. Mine? Buttery smooth, no stacking, and broke right at 9 lbs. This fellow, however, couldn't tell the difference - he handed it back with an apologetic look and said that he was sorry, but it didn't feel any better to him!
As you might surmise, I was a bit disheartened. But it illustrated to me that not everyone cares about this stuff as much as I do, and it would be unconscionable of me to talk them into something that they really don't need - at least, not right now.
The foregoing is a long-winded way of saying that if you don't know there is a difference, can't feel the difference, or don't care about the difference, don't feel pressured to spend money - with me or anyone else. Whether it comes from shooting magazines, gunstore commandoes, or even my website, don't buy what you know in your heart you can't use. Spend the money on ammunition instead, and enjoy yourself.
(Boy, I hope I haven't talked myself out of a job!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
On Revolver Aesthetics: Epilogue - My perspective on my own work
Monday, September 17, 2007
First, I'd like to thank
everyone for reading this series, and for the terrific emails I've
been getting. I'm gratified that many of you share my interest in
good looking revolvers, and in what garners that appellation for
each of us.
While not exactly part of the series, I'd like to take some time to convey my thoughts with regard to customization, and the kinds of work that adds to, or detracts from, the look of a wheelgun.
To start, I consider very carefully what I do to a revolver before taking file (or anything else) to metal. I think the project through; how will my work affect not only how the gun functions, but how it looks? In some cases the work helps (or at least doesn't hurt) the aesthetics of the gun, while in other cases it looks horrid.
For instance, let's take the act of bobbing a hammer. Not only does the result have to work correctly, but it has to serve the same visual function as that which it replaces. For the Colt and S&W guns, I've come up with two different approaches to the problem, which I believe look good on their respective marques. (Can you believe that I don't have a single picture to show? I've been quite negligent in documenting my own work!) Both are different than what most others do, and both are harmonious with the overall design of the guns.
In the case of the Ruger revolvers, I haven't yet hit on just the "right" modification. I do a lot of them, and have come up with something that isn't too bad, but it's no different than any number of people already have done - and I'm not really happy with the look. I've recently gone to the extent of scanning a Ruger hammer in to Photoshop so that I can "play" with the design - which I hope will lead me to the nirvana I seek. Wish me luck, as there isn't a lot to work with in their existing design!
Sometimes clients ask me to do things which I believe in my heart will look awful. A common request of late is to mill flats on the sides of barrels, ostensibly to shed weight. (I think the real motivation is a desire to make it look "modern" and "custom" and - dare I say? - "racy.") Sadly, in every example I've seen - and I've seen a LOT of them - the look is at odds with the rest of the gun. (Remember the concept of unity we discussed in Part 3?) Consequently I shrink from the prospect of doing them, and gently steer the client to something else. (In some cases I've sent the most intractable to another gunsmith, rather than be the proximate cause of yet another ugly gun!)
Are there instances where that type of embellishment might be appropriate to the overall design, and where I might consent to doing the job? Perhaps - but off the top of my head, I can't think of one. (Save, perhaps, for the already-blocky Dan Wesson heavy barrel shrouds - but I think there is a better approach to that particular assignment.)
This is where the marketing and customer relations parts of my head chime in, no doubt in concert with a few readers: "it's your job to do what the client wants, not what you want!" Yes, that's true - but the selfish part of me wants to ensure that a decade from now, people won't be referring to my work as "butchery." I confess to giving in to my selfish side, though in this case I believe that it is in the best interests of the client to not butcher his/her gun!
On down the line the deliberations go, each part of the work carefully considered both on its own merits, and in tandem with the other parts of the design. It has to work well, and it has to look good; I can't bring myself to do either separately. Perhaps I'll never become a huge gunsmithing conglomerate with such an attitude, but at the end of the day I can look back at what I've done, and smile with the knowledge that I've contributed - in a small way - to making the world just a bit better looking.
Life is too short to shoot - or to make - ugly guns. We'll leave that to the autoloader brigade!
-=[ Grant ]=-
While not exactly part of the series, I'd like to take some time to convey my thoughts with regard to customization, and the kinds of work that adds to, or detracts from, the look of a wheelgun.
To start, I consider very carefully what I do to a revolver before taking file (or anything else) to metal. I think the project through; how will my work affect not only how the gun functions, but how it looks? In some cases the work helps (or at least doesn't hurt) the aesthetics of the gun, while in other cases it looks horrid.
For instance, let's take the act of bobbing a hammer. Not only does the result have to work correctly, but it has to serve the same visual function as that which it replaces. For the Colt and S&W guns, I've come up with two different approaches to the problem, which I believe look good on their respective marques. (Can you believe that I don't have a single picture to show? I've been quite negligent in documenting my own work!) Both are different than what most others do, and both are harmonious with the overall design of the guns.
In the case of the Ruger revolvers, I haven't yet hit on just the "right" modification. I do a lot of them, and have come up with something that isn't too bad, but it's no different than any number of people already have done - and I'm not really happy with the look. I've recently gone to the extent of scanning a Ruger hammer in to Photoshop so that I can "play" with the design - which I hope will lead me to the nirvana I seek. Wish me luck, as there isn't a lot to work with in their existing design!
Sometimes clients ask me to do things which I believe in my heart will look awful. A common request of late is to mill flats on the sides of barrels, ostensibly to shed weight. (I think the real motivation is a desire to make it look "modern" and "custom" and - dare I say? - "racy.") Sadly, in every example I've seen - and I've seen a LOT of them - the look is at odds with the rest of the gun. (Remember the concept of unity we discussed in Part 3?) Consequently I shrink from the prospect of doing them, and gently steer the client to something else. (In some cases I've sent the most intractable to another gunsmith, rather than be the proximate cause of yet another ugly gun!)
Are there instances where that type of embellishment might be appropriate to the overall design, and where I might consent to doing the job? Perhaps - but off the top of my head, I can't think of one. (Save, perhaps, for the already-blocky Dan Wesson heavy barrel shrouds - but I think there is a better approach to that particular assignment.)
This is where the marketing and customer relations parts of my head chime in, no doubt in concert with a few readers: "it's your job to do what the client wants, not what you want!" Yes, that's true - but the selfish part of me wants to ensure that a decade from now, people won't be referring to my work as "butchery." I confess to giving in to my selfish side, though in this case I believe that it is in the best interests of the client to not butcher his/her gun!
On down the line the deliberations go, each part of the work carefully considered both on its own merits, and in tandem with the other parts of the design. It has to work well, and it has to look good; I can't bring myself to do either separately. Perhaps I'll never become a huge gunsmithing conglomerate with such an attitude, but at the end of the day I can look back at what I've done, and smile with the knowledge that I've contributed - in a small way - to making the world just a bit better looking.
Life is too short to shoot - or to make - ugly guns. We'll leave that to the autoloader brigade!
-=[ Grant ]=-
More on the use of +P in older Colt revolvers
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The internet "experts" just
can't let this one go!
If you're new to this discussion, please read this short article on the use of +P ammunition in Colt revolvers. Apparently, the fact that a manufacturer would dare tell a customer what kind of ammunition they should use rubs some people the wrong way!
The latest argument from the "experts" delves into Colt advertising history. Way back when, Colt's advertisements stated that their small revolvers were suitable for use with the .38-44 "Heavy Duty" round, which was the predecessor to the .357 Magnum - but in a Special-length case.
When the Magnum was introduced, the .38-44 went away. It wasn't until many years later that the more hotly loaded .38 Special +P made its appearance. It wasn't a throwback, however - it was still lighter than the .38-44. (Think of the +P as being between the regular .38 Special and the .38-44 in terms of power, and you won't be terribly far off.)
The "experts" quickly point out that the .38-44 is far more powerful than the .38 +P, and the fact that Colt advertised the use of .38-44 ammo in their guns is some sort of “proof“ that Colt's last factory recommendations for proper loadings are somehow “wrong.“ They conclude from all of this that using unlimited amounts of +P ammunition in small frame Colts is perfectly fine.
Such opinions, aside from flying counter to those of the people who actually designed and constructed the gun, ignore certain realities of the times involved.
Yes, Colt did say in print ads that their guns were rated for the .38-44 round. It doesn't say that the guns wouldn't experience increased wear, however, nor did it say that they could use that load regularly! When one examines the ads, it is obvious Colt was saying the guns wouldn't suffer catastrophic failure from firing those rounds, and not that there would be no long-term consequences from doing so. There is a difference!
It's important to remember that, at the time, a) there were a huge number of trained Colt gunsmiths; b) Colt was producing, and had available, parts for all of the guns (including the frames); c) shipping restrictions, as in sending guns back to the factory, were non-existent making factory service far more affordable.
Finally, there was a different gun culture in existence. Today we think nothing of shooting a hundred rounds just in a quick trip to the range, but back then it just wasn't like that. A Colt revolver, even in police service, might only see a hundred rounds a year. Outside of that, it was extremely common - perhaps the norm - to buy a new revolver and a box of ammunition, and a decade or two later still have more than half that box of ammo!
Handguns just weren't shot all that much back then. Handgun hunting was virtually unknown, handgun sports (outside of regulation bullseye) didn't exist, and handgun shooting as recreation wasn't common. Handguns simply weren't used as frequently, and under those conditions the very occasional cylinder of .38-44 rounds wasn't going to hurt anything.
That's why Colt makes the 3,000 round recommendation for the use of +P ammunition in their recent production revolvers. 3,000 rounds doesn't sound like a lot to us, but even a police officer back in those days wouldn't expect to shoot that much in his entire career.
Once you consider all of the facts, it becomes clear that there is no contradiction between what Colt said then and what they say now. Times have changed, and their recommendations have changed as well.
-=[ Grant ]=-
If you're new to this discussion, please read this short article on the use of +P ammunition in Colt revolvers. Apparently, the fact that a manufacturer would dare tell a customer what kind of ammunition they should use rubs some people the wrong way!
The latest argument from the "experts" delves into Colt advertising history. Way back when, Colt's advertisements stated that their small revolvers were suitable for use with the .38-44 "Heavy Duty" round, which was the predecessor to the .357 Magnum - but in a Special-length case.
When the Magnum was introduced, the .38-44 went away. It wasn't until many years later that the more hotly loaded .38 Special +P made its appearance. It wasn't a throwback, however - it was still lighter than the .38-44. (Think of the +P as being between the regular .38 Special and the .38-44 in terms of power, and you won't be terribly far off.)
The "experts" quickly point out that the .38-44 is far more powerful than the .38 +P, and the fact that Colt advertised the use of .38-44 ammo in their guns is some sort of “proof“ that Colt's last factory recommendations for proper loadings are somehow “wrong.“ They conclude from all of this that using unlimited amounts of +P ammunition in small frame Colts is perfectly fine.
Such opinions, aside from flying counter to those of the people who actually designed and constructed the gun, ignore certain realities of the times involved.
Yes, Colt did say in print ads that their guns were rated for the .38-44 round. It doesn't say that the guns wouldn't experience increased wear, however, nor did it say that they could use that load regularly! When one examines the ads, it is obvious Colt was saying the guns wouldn't suffer catastrophic failure from firing those rounds, and not that there would be no long-term consequences from doing so. There is a difference!
It's important to remember that, at the time, a) there were a huge number of trained Colt gunsmiths; b) Colt was producing, and had available, parts for all of the guns (including the frames); c) shipping restrictions, as in sending guns back to the factory, were non-existent making factory service far more affordable.
Finally, there was a different gun culture in existence. Today we think nothing of shooting a hundred rounds just in a quick trip to the range, but back then it just wasn't like that. A Colt revolver, even in police service, might only see a hundred rounds a year. Outside of that, it was extremely common - perhaps the norm - to buy a new revolver and a box of ammunition, and a decade or two later still have more than half that box of ammo!
Handguns just weren't shot all that much back then. Handgun hunting was virtually unknown, handgun sports (outside of regulation bullseye) didn't exist, and handgun shooting as recreation wasn't common. Handguns simply weren't used as frequently, and under those conditions the very occasional cylinder of .38-44 rounds wasn't going to hurt anything.
That's why Colt makes the 3,000 round recommendation for the use of +P ammunition in their recent production revolvers. 3,000 rounds doesn't sound like a lot to us, but even a police officer back in those days wouldn't expect to shoot that much in his entire career.
Once you consider all of the facts, it becomes clear that there is no contradiction between what Colt said then and what they say now. Times have changed, and their recommendations have changed as well.
-=[ Grant ]=-
What I did on my summer vacation
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Well, that's an easy story: I didn't have a summer vacation! I did, however, take part of Labor Day off and head to the range. (You were wondering why there was no post on Monday? Did you really miss me?)
You see, I don't get to shoot much any more - at least in the sense of being able to sit down, concentrate on one thing, and just enjoy myself. When I go to the range, it's always with a half-dozen client guns, each of which needs to have 50 rounds of test ammo put through it. The order of those days is "get in, get out, get back to work." It's not at all fun, it's work. Seriously. Quit laughing!
Monday was different. I went to the range with a friend and just enjoyed myself. (Okay, I did have a client's gun to test - but that went pretty quickly.) I got a chance to play my favorite game: see how many shots I can place on the 200 meter metallic ram target, using a snub-nose revolver, from standing, shooting double action only. Yes, it can be done, though admittedly a good result is a round or two per cylinder connecting. The rest will generally hit just a tad low, because it's a bit difficult to estimate holdover when the barrel of the gun is obscuring the target.
My friend was shooting a Ruger New Model Single Six with the .22WMR cylinder installed. He is a phenomenal shooter, and has always been unhappy with the groups from this particular gun. At 15 yards it would print patterns of 4 or 5 inches in diameter, no matter what ammo was put through it. The poor performance wasn't limited to this example, either - this was the replacement he purchased for the first example, which would do no better! To say he was disappointed with the Single Six is a massive understatement.
He figured that he couldn't possibly make the situation any worse, so he examined the gun with an eye to figuring out what was wrong. He notice that the barrel crown was slightly off center and out of square (not unusual, sad to say, with Ruger.) He took a 45-degree chamfering cutter and made a deep, properly centered crown on the barrel.
The results were night-and-day. The gun, which formerly produced groups that my shotgun would beat, now puts rounds on target with all the holes touching. At one point, we stood in front of the targets and I said "you know, we really should have kept the old targets so that we could make a before-and-after picture!" Another lost opportunity...
The muzzle crown is a phenomenally important contributor to accuracy in both handguns and rifles. It is the last thing that the bullet touches, and if it is nicked, off center or out of square accuracy will suffer. That's why I closely inspect the crown on every gun that comes in, and if I think that recrowning will help I'll suggest to the client that it be done. It isn't always needed, but it can pay huge dividends when it is!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Wednesday mind dump
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Let's clean out the ol'
noggin:
-- Neat little "preaching to the choir" site called What kind of person supports gun control?
-- I've been thinking that the reason revolvers don't seem to capture much attention any more is because no "high speed low drag" kind of people use them. Unfortunately, pointing out that France's GIGN used to issue revolvers probably isn't going to have the desired effect!
-- Ruger's QC continues to be hit-and-miss. Just this week, I got in a new 3" GP100 with the barrel screwed in too far (canted to one side), and a 4" example that didn't time correctly. I continue to recommend them as good base guns for custom projects, because once they're sorted out they make a superb custom - and you'll never wear one out. Probably best, though, to buy in person, and inspect carefully.
-- I get an unexpectedly large number of inquiries as to what I use as a bore cleaner. I've used the homebrew Ed's Red formula for years, and have found nothing else that I like more. (I do use Hoppe's 7.62 formula for jacket fouling removal, however.)
-- The number of Detective Specials that are still in use as police backup and off-duty guns amazes me. Hardly a week goes by that I don't get at least one email or call from a LEO who is still using one in a secondary role. I've said it before, I'll say it again: S&W is missing a big market for the small 6-shot revolver. (Colt, of course, is missing out too - after all, they hold the designs for the Magnum Carry, but they don't want to make revolvers any more.)
-- I'm working on pictures for a new entry on the Recent Projects page. I won't divulge any more than it is, for once, not stainless. Stay tuned.
-- A non-relevant entry: got the latest versions of iLife and iWork last week. Verdict: Pages is finally a heavy hitter, Numbers is really cool, and the latest version of iPhoto is worth the cost all by itself. It's a great time to be a Mac user!
That's it for today. Boy, am I glad to get all of that out of my head!
-=[ Grant ]=-
-- Neat little "preaching to the choir" site called What kind of person supports gun control?
-- I've been thinking that the reason revolvers don't seem to capture much attention any more is because no "high speed low drag" kind of people use them. Unfortunately, pointing out that France's GIGN used to issue revolvers probably isn't going to have the desired effect!
-- Ruger's QC continues to be hit-and-miss. Just this week, I got in a new 3" GP100 with the barrel screwed in too far (canted to one side), and a 4" example that didn't time correctly. I continue to recommend them as good base guns for custom projects, because once they're sorted out they make a superb custom - and you'll never wear one out. Probably best, though, to buy in person, and inspect carefully.
-- I get an unexpectedly large number of inquiries as to what I use as a bore cleaner. I've used the homebrew Ed's Red formula for years, and have found nothing else that I like more. (I do use Hoppe's 7.62 formula for jacket fouling removal, however.)
-- The number of Detective Specials that are still in use as police backup and off-duty guns amazes me. Hardly a week goes by that I don't get at least one email or call from a LEO who is still using one in a secondary role. I've said it before, I'll say it again: S&W is missing a big market for the small 6-shot revolver. (Colt, of course, is missing out too - after all, they hold the designs for the Magnum Carry, but they don't want to make revolvers any more.)
-- I'm working on pictures for a new entry on the Recent Projects page. I won't divulge any more than it is, for once, not stainless. Stay tuned.
-- A non-relevant entry: got the latest versions of iLife and iWork last week. Verdict: Pages is finally a heavy hitter, Numbers is really cool, and the latest version of iPhoto is worth the cost all by itself. It's a great time to be a Mac user!
That's it for today. Boy, am I glad to get all of that out of my head!
-=[ Grant ]=-
The case for DAO
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
In the Gunsmithing pages of
this site, I endorse the practice of rendering defensive revolvers
double action only (DAO.) Many people ask why, and I thought I'd
give you my thoughts on the matter.
Let's start with the usual argument for retaining single action capability, which I call the "Walter Mitty scenario": the mythical need for making precise long range head shots. Let's face it, folks - this just never happens in real life!
However, let's say that you're having a Jack Bauer kind of day and are now facing just this scenario. Mightn't that be just a tad bit stressful? Wouldn't that make you even more nervous, knowing that you'll be trying the toughest possible handgun shot under the worst possible conditions? With all that adrenaline now flowing through your system, is this really the time that you want a light, short trigger pull that is very easy to accidentally release? Not me, bunky!
This is the reason for DAO: light single action triggers are great on the calm shooting range, but pose a liability risk for unintentional discharges under stress. As Massad Ayoob says, single action triggers are great shooting tools, but lousy threat management tools.
Now I I know what you're thinking: "OK, but I promise I'll never use it!" I'm sure you mean that sincerely, but It's been well established over the decades that people tend to do in combat what they do in training.
It's human nature to practice what we're already good at, and to do that which is easiest for us. At the range, it's not uncommon to watch someone shoot a revolver at, say 50 feet and become disenchanted with their groups. At that point, they usually switch to the easier pull of the single action, and shoot that way. This imprints their subconscious to use single action when they are unsure of their abilities, and this may be what they revert to under stress.
Once that act of thumbing back the hammer has become habit, another problem crops up: the Hollywood-inspired (and reinforced) act of cocking the gun to show the bad guy that you "really mean it!" I'll refer you back to the second paragraph, with emphasis.
(Yes, I know you'll promise not to do that either. But if you've told your subconscious that cocking the hammer is accepted shooting technique, do you think it'll ask your conscious mind for permission when the time comes - especially if decades of TV and movies has told it otherwise? Of course not! "Besides", your subconscious thinks, "if Tyne Daly can do it, why can't I?")
Removing the SA capability eliminates the chances of any of this happening. (If you make the conscious decision to carry a gun with SA capability, I recommend that you attend the Lethal Force Institute's "LFI-1" class, where you will learn how to defend that choice - and counter any false claims that may arise from it - in court.)
From a gunsmithing perspective, I've found that eliminating the SA capability can, on some guns (Colt and Dan Wesson), give a bit more leeway in terms of honing the double action. Without the need to worry about the single action sear, the double action can be tuned far more radically than is otherwise possible. In S&W and Ruger guns, reducing the DA pull to the barest minimum (as some request) will result in an unconscionably light SA pull - often below 32 ounces. Eliminating the SA notches means that this ceases to be a worry.
Speaking for myself, I didn't start to shoot DA well until I'd gotten rid of the SA capability completely. True story: one day (many years ago), shortly after transitioning to shooting only revolvers, I was participating in a match (Bianchi type.) I was having trouble with missing those little round steel plates they use for one stage, and it was making me madder and madder. At one point the buzzer sounded, and I drew the gun (a Python) and cocked it for each plate. I downed all of them, but my happiness was shattered by a taunting voice of a 1911 partisan that said "hey, Grant, I've got a gun that does all that for me!"
After that I removed the SA from my revolvers and started shooting DA exclusively. It wasn't long before I was beating the guys (including the loudmouth in question) who were shooting 1911s with crisp single action triggers. It can be done!
If you have any doubt as to how accurately a double action can be shot, go watch your local PPC match - there's one just about everywhere in the country. You'll see lots of folks shooting DAO revolvers at up to 50 yards and producing groups that can be covered by your hand. That should be good enough for any defensive use, and you too can do it with just a bit of practice!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Let's start with the usual argument for retaining single action capability, which I call the "Walter Mitty scenario": the mythical need for making precise long range head shots. Let's face it, folks - this just never happens in real life!
However, let's say that you're having a Jack Bauer kind of day and are now facing just this scenario. Mightn't that be just a tad bit stressful? Wouldn't that make you even more nervous, knowing that you'll be trying the toughest possible handgun shot under the worst possible conditions? With all that adrenaline now flowing through your system, is this really the time that you want a light, short trigger pull that is very easy to accidentally release? Not me, bunky!
This is the reason for DAO: light single action triggers are great on the calm shooting range, but pose a liability risk for unintentional discharges under stress. As Massad Ayoob says, single action triggers are great shooting tools, but lousy threat management tools.
Now I I know what you're thinking: "OK, but I promise I'll never use it!" I'm sure you mean that sincerely, but It's been well established over the decades that people tend to do in combat what they do in training.
It's human nature to practice what we're already good at, and to do that which is easiest for us. At the range, it's not uncommon to watch someone shoot a revolver at, say 50 feet and become disenchanted with their groups. At that point, they usually switch to the easier pull of the single action, and shoot that way. This imprints their subconscious to use single action when they are unsure of their abilities, and this may be what they revert to under stress.
Once that act of thumbing back the hammer has become habit, another problem crops up: the Hollywood-inspired (and reinforced) act of cocking the gun to show the bad guy that you "really mean it!" I'll refer you back to the second paragraph, with emphasis.
(Yes, I know you'll promise not to do that either. But if you've told your subconscious that cocking the hammer is accepted shooting technique, do you think it'll ask your conscious mind for permission when the time comes - especially if decades of TV and movies has told it otherwise? Of course not! "Besides", your subconscious thinks, "if Tyne Daly can do it, why can't I?")
Removing the SA capability eliminates the chances of any of this happening. (If you make the conscious decision to carry a gun with SA capability, I recommend that you attend the Lethal Force Institute's "LFI-1" class, where you will learn how to defend that choice - and counter any false claims that may arise from it - in court.)
From a gunsmithing perspective, I've found that eliminating the SA capability can, on some guns (Colt and Dan Wesson), give a bit more leeway in terms of honing the double action. Without the need to worry about the single action sear, the double action can be tuned far more radically than is otherwise possible. In S&W and Ruger guns, reducing the DA pull to the barest minimum (as some request) will result in an unconscionably light SA pull - often below 32 ounces. Eliminating the SA notches means that this ceases to be a worry.
Speaking for myself, I didn't start to shoot DA well until I'd gotten rid of the SA capability completely. True story: one day (many years ago), shortly after transitioning to shooting only revolvers, I was participating in a match (Bianchi type.) I was having trouble with missing those little round steel plates they use for one stage, and it was making me madder and madder. At one point the buzzer sounded, and I drew the gun (a Python) and cocked it for each plate. I downed all of them, but my happiness was shattered by a taunting voice of a 1911 partisan that said "hey, Grant, I've got a gun that does all that for me!"
After that I removed the SA from my revolvers and started shooting DA exclusively. It wasn't long before I was beating the guys (including the loudmouth in question) who were shooting 1911s with crisp single action triggers. It can be done!
If you have any doubt as to how accurately a double action can be shot, go watch your local PPC match - there's one just about everywhere in the country. You'll see lots of folks shooting DAO revolvers at up to 50 yards and producing groups that can be covered by your hand. That should be good enough for any defensive use, and you too can do it with just a bit of practice!
-=[ Grant ]=-
What makes for a "favorite" gun?
Monday, July 23, 2007
One day, as I was preparing
to go "out" and run some errands, I grabbed one of my revolvers and
a holster and stuffed both into my pants. (Yes, I had a gun in my
pants and no, I wasn't happy to see someone. Everybody's a
comedian.)
Now, as I was saying...as I tightened my belt, I made the mental note that this gun seemed to be with me more commonly than the others in the safe. For some reason it just seemed "right" to carry it most often.
Why? Was it the size, the weight, the caliber, the color, the...??? I wasn't sure, and I'm still not sure. The choice was made, not on the basis of any one of those traits (or any other), but rather in spite of them. It is the indefinable "rightness" of the thing; it is friendly in some way that I can't quite isolate.
Yet I keep thinking of the thing, every time I put it on. I even consciously decide (on an occasional basis) to carry something else. The substitute is always a fine gun, fully capable of good performance, but on those days I miss my "favorite."
Even if the gun is "right" in every way, it still won't be a "favorite." Good example: a number of years ago, I decided to build the "ultimate" .22LR rifle. I took a Ruger 10/22 (naturally), and replaced just about everything in and on the gun. I intended it to be the most accurate, reliable, and good looking .22 rifle in my safe.
What came out - which I still refer to as "The World's Most Expensive 10/22" - was indeed a superbly accurate, easy shooting, good looking rifle. It is light, handy, has a beautiful walnut stock that fits me perfectly, and a great trigger; in short, everything you could ask for in a .22 rifle.
Why, instead of this terrific little rifle, do I usually grab my early-1950s vintage Marlin 39A - which isn't as light, accurate, or handy as the Ruger? After all that time and effort, why did it not become my "favorite"? In every objective way, it is a better gun, but it seems that specifications alone do not elevate a gun from mere possession to prized status.
I'm thinking about this a lot lately. I feel - or intuit - that if I can capture what makes a "favorite", if I can distill into steel what propels a specific gun for into that position, something special will come of it. I'll let you know how I progress in what is starting to sound like a quest!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Now, as I was saying...as I tightened my belt, I made the mental note that this gun seemed to be with me more commonly than the others in the safe. For some reason it just seemed "right" to carry it most often.
Why? Was it the size, the weight, the caliber, the color, the...??? I wasn't sure, and I'm still not sure. The choice was made, not on the basis of any one of those traits (or any other), but rather in spite of them. It is the indefinable "rightness" of the thing; it is friendly in some way that I can't quite isolate.
Yet I keep thinking of the thing, every time I put it on. I even consciously decide (on an occasional basis) to carry something else. The substitute is always a fine gun, fully capable of good performance, but on those days I miss my "favorite."
Even if the gun is "right" in every way, it still won't be a "favorite." Good example: a number of years ago, I decided to build the "ultimate" .22LR rifle. I took a Ruger 10/22 (naturally), and replaced just about everything in and on the gun. I intended it to be the most accurate, reliable, and good looking .22 rifle in my safe.
What came out - which I still refer to as "The World's Most Expensive 10/22" - was indeed a superbly accurate, easy shooting, good looking rifle. It is light, handy, has a beautiful walnut stock that fits me perfectly, and a great trigger; in short, everything you could ask for in a .22 rifle.
Why, instead of this terrific little rifle, do I usually grab my early-1950s vintage Marlin 39A - which isn't as light, accurate, or handy as the Ruger? After all that time and effort, why did it not become my "favorite"? In every objective way, it is a better gun, but it seems that specifications alone do not elevate a gun from mere possession to prized status.
I'm thinking about this a lot lately. I feel - or intuit - that if I can capture what makes a "favorite", if I can distill into steel what propels a specific gun for into that position, something special will come of it. I'll let you know how I progress in what is starting to sound like a quest!
-=[ Grant ]=-
More good press!
Thursday, July 19, 2007
I recently finished a Ruger
SP101 for Michael Bane, host of "Shooting Gallery", "DownrangeTV",
and well known for his many years of involvement in the shooting
sports.
He's posted a review of his new toy on his weekly podcast. Listen to it here.
Glad you like it, Michael, and thanks for the kind words!
-=[ Grant ]=-
He's posted a review of his new toy on his weekly podcast. Listen to it here.
Glad you like it, Michael, and thanks for the kind words!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Deja vu...
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Grab the current (August
2007) copy of SWAT magazine, and turn to page 55. See the revolver
at the top of the page? Look familiar?
-=[ Grant ]=-
-=[ Grant ]=-
One of my inspirations
Monday, July 16, 2007
I may have mentioned that I
spent a period of time in the early 80s as a commercial
photographer. Honestly, I didn't make it all that far; though a
good technician, I wasn't creative enough on demand to sustain a
career. I did learn a lot, though, and I took some of those lessons
and put them to good use in other areas of my life.
One of those lessons - and one of the most important - came in the form of an article written by Ben Helprin. I have a copy of this hanging above my workbench, where it serves to inspire me. I don't know that I'm yet at the "master" stage of revolversmithing, but I work every day to get a little closer to that ideal.
While obviously photography-centric, this is a profound article for which you will no doubt find applications in your own life. Enjoy!
-=[ Grant ]=-
One of those lessons - and one of the most important - came in the form of an article written by Ben Helprin. I have a copy of this hanging above my workbench, where it serves to inspire me. I don't know that I'm yet at the "master" stage of revolversmithing, but I work every day to get a little closer to that ideal.
While obviously photography-centric, this is a profound article for which you will no doubt find applications in your own life. Enjoy!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Expert or Master - What's the Difference?
by Ben Helprin
At the top of every craft, there are masters and experts. The difference between the two was defined by Will Connall (master photographer, photography teacher, and former head of photography at the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, California) this way:
"Let me", he said, "use the exacting art of platemaking as an example." (Platemakers are the skilled craftsmen who produce printing plates for books and magazines.) "If you ask an expert how he produces the negative for a fine plate, he'll answer: "that's easy. First I choose the correct size glass plate for the negative I want. Then, I compute the surface area of the plate and, holding it absolutely level, I pour exactly one ounce of emulsion for every 40 square inches of surface precisely onto the center of the plate. Then I rock the glass side-to-side and front-to-back, exactly the same amount each way, to spread the emulsion evenly. When the plate is dry, I load it into the copy camera, adjust my lights so that the original art work is absolutely evenly illuminated and, with the level of illumination that I use, expose the plate for 20 seconds. I develop the plate for precisely five minutes, process it normally, the end up with a perfect negative for reproduction.
"Now," said Connall, "let's ask a master the same question. He'd reply: Oh, that's easy. First I choose the correct size glass for the negative. Then, I compute the surface area of the glass and, holding it exactly level, I pour one ounce of emulsion for every 40 square inches of surface exactly onto the center of the plate. Well, no, that's really not true. Sometimes I use more than an ounce of emulsion per square inch. Sometimes less. It depends on the original copy. And sometimes I don't pour the emulsion exactly on center. I'll swirl it across to get a different spread. That also depends on the copy. Anyway, after I pour the emulsion, I rock the plate side-to-side and front-to-back, exactly the same each way, to spread the emulsion evenly. But sometimes, of course, I don't want the emulsion spread evenly. Again, it depends on the copy. I might want to rock the plate more to one side to get the emulsion heavier there, or rock it more to the front...anyway, I rock it, dry it, load it in the camera, and light the copy exactly evenly - unless of course I want to slightly shade a corner to knock it down, or highlight a portion of the copy to lighten it up. I'm not sure exactly how I'll light it until I do it. But after it's lit, I give it a 20-second exposure. Well, not always 20 seconds...."
And so it goes. Each step of the master's procedure depends, not on a set series of exacting rules, but on the interrelationship of the medium, the copy, and the desired final product.
What does this have to do with photography? Well to begin with, it doesn't mean that you can forget technique or be sloppy in your execution of it. As Will Connall noted, every master had first to be an expert. Without that initial perfection of technique, they could never advance to the master's stage.
Will's apocryphal examples were, however, meant to point out that technique is by no means the be-all and end-all of photography. Technique is the base from which you build. But the product itself, the photograph, must go beyond set rules of technique or composition, or anything else that says "this, and only this, is the correct way of producing a photograph."
Look at the work of master photographer Ansel Adams and compare it to the thousands of technical experts who attempt to imitate him. The large majority of Adams' imitators do not understand expressive content, they understand only technique. The do not trust their inner feelings, the trust only a rigorous set of technical rules.
A creative photograph is a very unique personal statement, and the technical aspects of that statement must depend on what you, as an artist, want to say. Thus, the perfect exposure isn't always one the reproduces the tonalities of a scene in exactly the same manner they originally appeared, but one that reproduces them in exactly the manner you want them to appear. Nor is the perfect print the one that always exactly matches the contrast of the paper to the density range of the negative, but the one that exactly matches paper and film to the contrast as seen by your inner eye. As Paul Klee said, "the purpose of art is not to reflect the visible, but to make visible."
So, look at your recent photographs. Are they technically perfect? If not, you still have a lot of work to do to reach the "Expert" stage. On the other hand, if your work is technically perfect and perfectly boring, if it is indistinguishable from everyone else's technically perfect work, then you have a lot of even harder work to reach the Master's stage.
A few snippets of my mind
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
For the 3rd time in 3 months, I'm
working on a 9mm revolver. It is the 3rd Ruger SP101 in a row that
has CrimsonTrace LaserGrips installed. Finally, it has the 3"
barrel.
All these "3"s are starting to become unnerving...I feel a bit like Rod Serling.
---
Michael Bane has a podcast at the top of his blog page these days, and it's pretty darned good. I'm hoping one of these days he'll see fit to make it available as a subscription through iTunes (or one of the other podcast sites) like every other podcast! (Hey, Michael, that's a hint! I listen to podcasts as I work, and having one that's not in the same place as the others interrupts my workflow!)
Seriously, though, it's a great listen. Check it out.
--
Funny how training manifests itself. We're remodeling the kitchen, and I'm making good use of my Bostitch nail gun. I've noticed that I keep my trigger finger straight along the side of the head when I'm not actually nailing, just as one should with a firearm. I guess that safety training really has been ingrained!
--
Speaking of safety: handling guns all day long, as I do, always has a certain amount of danger for accidents. That's why I don't allow any live ammunition in my shop, period. If you do any dry fire practice, follow that same rule: no live ammunition anywhere in the room where you're practicing, no exceptions!
--
-=[ Grant ]=-
All these "3"s are starting to become unnerving...I feel a bit like Rod Serling.
---
Michael Bane has a podcast at the top of his blog page these days, and it's pretty darned good. I'm hoping one of these days he'll see fit to make it available as a subscription through iTunes (or one of the other podcast sites) like every other podcast! (Hey, Michael, that's a hint! I listen to podcasts as I work, and having one that's not in the same place as the others interrupts my workflow!)
Seriously, though, it's a great listen. Check it out.
--
Funny how training manifests itself. We're remodeling the kitchen, and I'm making good use of my Bostitch nail gun. I've noticed that I keep my trigger finger straight along the side of the head when I'm not actually nailing, just as one should with a firearm. I guess that safety training really has been ingrained!
--
Speaking of safety: handling guns all day long, as I do, always has a certain amount of danger for accidents. That's why I don't allow any live ammunition in my shop, period. If you do any dry fire practice, follow that same rule: no live ammunition anywhere in the room where you're practicing, no exceptions!
--
-=[ Grant ]=-
What causes stacking?
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
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 ]=-
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 ]=-
Another day in the life of a gunsmith
Monday, May 28, 2007
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 ]=-
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 ]=-
"Bullshit Tenths"
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
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 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 ]=-
Maintaining your revolver's finish
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
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 ]=-
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 ]=-
"This just in...man claims Grant Cunningham does the impossible!"
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
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 ]=-
Measuring chamber throats: apparently, I have critics!
Monday, March 12, 2007
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 ]=-
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 ]=-
A whack on the side of the head
Monday, March 05, 2007
Every so often I'll come up with
an idea that makes absolutely no sense, and I'm not smart enough to
see it.
The other day a client was kind enough to send me an email exclaiming his delight with the work I'd done for him. In it, he said that he owned another example of the same model which he'd had tuned by a very famous gunsmith. (He went so far as to name the other gunsmith, and the word "famous" is most assuredly proper.) After directly comparing the two guns, his opinion was that my work was superior in every way to the other guy's!
Everyone like those kinds of ego strokes, and I'm no different. Since I'm preparing a new customer testimonial section for the website, I wanted to use his quote. No problem, I'll just get permission and I'm good to go!
A moral dilemma immediately presented itself: I actually entertained the idea of publishing the quote unedited, leaving in the name of the famous gunsmith. After all, my flawed reasoning went, at least one other gunsmith does it, so why shouldn't I cash in on the notoriety too? Why should I hide my light in an ammo can?
Luckily I decided to run this idea past my "alter ego" - a person I trust to give me unbiased, unvarnished opinions. This person is famous in the industry as well, and anyone who has been around the shooting game for any length of time would recognize the name. (I won't tell you who it is, because I don't have permission and even if I did, I wouldn't want to ruin a good friendship.)
We exchanged emails, wherein I expressed my reluctance to name the gunsmith in question, but also my concern that I was passing up a grand promotional opportunity. I had the imaginary angel on one shoulder telling me not to, but a little devil on my other shoulder (who, as I mentioned in the email, sounded like a cross between Jackie Mason and Sam Kinison) was telling me to give in to the temptation. What to do? What to do?
Luckily my friend had no compunction in telling me that I was full of it. Well, actually, it wasn't that harsh, but it did bring me back to the proper frame of mind. The recommendation was to listen to my conscience, because it's there for a reason, and that I should "go to [my] strengths, not their weaknesses." How come I never say such profound things?
It's good advice that I plan to take. Whew - that was close!
-=[ Grant ]=-
The other day a client was kind enough to send me an email exclaiming his delight with the work I'd done for him. In it, he said that he owned another example of the same model which he'd had tuned by a very famous gunsmith. (He went so far as to name the other gunsmith, and the word "famous" is most assuredly proper.) After directly comparing the two guns, his opinion was that my work was superior in every way to the other guy's!
Everyone like those kinds of ego strokes, and I'm no different. Since I'm preparing a new customer testimonial section for the website, I wanted to use his quote. No problem, I'll just get permission and I'm good to go!
A moral dilemma immediately presented itself: I actually entertained the idea of publishing the quote unedited, leaving in the name of the famous gunsmith. After all, my flawed reasoning went, at least one other gunsmith does it, so why shouldn't I cash in on the notoriety too? Why should I hide my light in an ammo can?
Luckily I decided to run this idea past my "alter ego" - a person I trust to give me unbiased, unvarnished opinions. This person is famous in the industry as well, and anyone who has been around the shooting game for any length of time would recognize the name. (I won't tell you who it is, because I don't have permission and even if I did, I wouldn't want to ruin a good friendship.)
We exchanged emails, wherein I expressed my reluctance to name the gunsmith in question, but also my concern that I was passing up a grand promotional opportunity. I had the imaginary angel on one shoulder telling me not to, but a little devil on my other shoulder (who, as I mentioned in the email, sounded like a cross between Jackie Mason and Sam Kinison) was telling me to give in to the temptation. What to do? What to do?
Luckily my friend had no compunction in telling me that I was full of it. Well, actually, it wasn't that harsh, but it did bring me back to the proper frame of mind. The recommendation was to listen to my conscience, because it's there for a reason, and that I should "go to [my] strengths, not their weaknesses." How come I never say such profound things?
It's good advice that I plan to take. Whew - that was close!
-=[ Grant ]=-
A new entry to my "Recent Projects" page: S&W Model 66
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
I've updated the
"Recent
Projects"
page with an unusual item: a S&W Model 66.
Not that unusual, you say? What if I told you it was one of the rare 3" models? Would that pique your interest? I thought so - because it sure excited me when the owner asked me to work on it!
Check it out!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Not that unusual, you say? What if I told you it was one of the rare 3" models? Would that pique your interest? I thought so - because it sure excited me when the owner asked me to work on it!
Check it out!
-=[ Grant ]=-
A gunsmith I admire: John Linebaugh
Monday, February 26, 2007
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 ]=-
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 ]=-
The Model 625 dilemma
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
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 ]=-
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 ]=-
Bent ejector rods
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
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 ]=-
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 ]=-
"Stainless" doesn't mean "won't rust"
Monday, February 12, 2007
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 ]=-
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 ]=-
One gunsmith I admire: Hamilton Bowen
Monday, February 05, 2007
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 ]=-
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 ]=-
The importance of endshake
Monday, January 15, 2007
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 ]=-
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 ]=-
Triggers are three-dimensional
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
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 ]=-
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 ]=-
A primer about primers
Monday, December 11, 2006
When doing action work, I ask my
clients how they'll be using the gun. For instance, a competition
shooter who handloads their own ammunition can utilize a lighter
action than someone who needs the gun to work with a variety of
factory ammunition.
Why is this? Well, primers are not created equal - the brands vary in terms of their sensitivity. Some of this is due to the type and thickness of the metal that the cup is made from, but there is also some difference in the primer material itself.
In general, Federal primers are the easiest to ignite; their cup material is slightly thinner, and softer, than their competitors. Combined with a primer mix that is well known for its sensitivity, they require less force to "pop." This translates to being able to use a hammer with a lighter mainspring, which allows for a lighter trigger pull.
The primers generally conceded to be the most difficult to ignite are CCI brand. Their cups are hard and thick, and require a real "wallop" to work properly. This means that the action is going to need full-power springs, with the increase in trigger pull that they bring. Winchesters fall in the middle, slightly more to the Federal half than the CCI.
In any brand, the magnum version of the primer will be more difficult to ignite. This is because they typically have harder and/or thicker cups to withstand the higher pressures that heavier loads deliver.
This isn't the end of the story though. The Czechoslovakian Sellier & Bellot ammunition uses what may be the hardest primers made. Sometimes even the heaviest, hardest-hitting hammers are insufficient to set this ammunition off, and is one of the reasons I recommend you stay away from it. CCI Blazer ammunition is known for being unreliable with lighter actions, as is the "green" or non-toxic ammunition that's on the market today.
Back to action work...when someone tells me that the gun is for self-defense, that usually means that utmost reliability is desired. To get such reliability, it's imperative that the gun work with any kind of ammunition that one might find on the shelf. In these cases, I test the gun with CCI Magnum primers - the hardest-to-ignite primers that you can get outside of the aforementioned Czech fodder. If the gun will reliably detonate the CCI Magnums (with zero failures), it should ignite anything you're likely to encounter.
On the other hand, if the requirement is for a light competition action I'll test the gun with Federal primers; if I've done my job right, such a gun will shoot Federals perfectly, Winchesters somewhat less reliably, and CCI primers very badly. That's the price for a low trigger weight!
This brings up another topic: that of live fire testing. I'll leave that for another day, as I've got a story to tell!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Why is this? Well, primers are not created equal - the brands vary in terms of their sensitivity. Some of this is due to the type and thickness of the metal that the cup is made from, but there is also some difference in the primer material itself.
In general, Federal primers are the easiest to ignite; their cup material is slightly thinner, and softer, than their competitors. Combined with a primer mix that is well known for its sensitivity, they require less force to "pop." This translates to being able to use a hammer with a lighter mainspring, which allows for a lighter trigger pull.
The primers generally conceded to be the most difficult to ignite are CCI brand. Their cups are hard and thick, and require a real "wallop" to work properly. This means that the action is going to need full-power springs, with the increase in trigger pull that they bring. Winchesters fall in the middle, slightly more to the Federal half than the CCI.
In any brand, the magnum version of the primer will be more difficult to ignite. This is because they typically have harder and/or thicker cups to withstand the higher pressures that heavier loads deliver.
This isn't the end of the story though. The Czechoslovakian Sellier & Bellot ammunition uses what may be the hardest primers made. Sometimes even the heaviest, hardest-hitting hammers are insufficient to set this ammunition off, and is one of the reasons I recommend you stay away from it. CCI Blazer ammunition is known for being unreliable with lighter actions, as is the "green" or non-toxic ammunition that's on the market today.
Back to action work...when someone tells me that the gun is for self-defense, that usually means that utmost reliability is desired. To get such reliability, it's imperative that the gun work with any kind of ammunition that one might find on the shelf. In these cases, I test the gun with CCI Magnum primers - the hardest-to-ignite primers that you can get outside of the aforementioned Czech fodder. If the gun will reliably detonate the CCI Magnums (with zero failures), it should ignite anything you're likely to encounter.
On the other hand, if the requirement is for a light competition action I'll test the gun with Federal primers; if I've done my job right, such a gun will shoot Federals perfectly, Winchesters somewhat less reliably, and CCI primers very badly. That's the price for a low trigger weight!
This brings up another topic: that of live fire testing. I'll leave that for another day, as I've got a story to tell!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Beauty is as beauty does
Monday, November 13, 2006
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 ]=-
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 ]=-
A bit of opinion about MIM parts
Monday, October 16, 2006
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 ]=-
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 ]=-
A new website feature: "Recent Projects"
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
I've put a new page up on the
site! Called "Recent Projects", it is just what the name
implies: a place for me to share some information about recent
revolvers that I've built.
This page is intended to be a bit different than most other such pages on your average gunsmith's site. You may have noticed that I like to give my clients and potential clients as much information as possible, and this page continues that tradition. I've browsed around a lot of custom handgun sites, and frequently all I see are a few (usually bad) pictures of a gun - and nothing more. I always want to know more about the gun: what kind of work was done, what kind of unusual features were added, the gunsmith's intent and philosophy, and perhaps a bit about how the gun performs. In other words, I want to know if that would be a gun I'd like to have for myself!
On my Recent Projects page, you'll see the gun, learn about how it was built (and why it was built that way), and much more. The first entry is already up: a nice Ruger GP-100 that I recently finished for a client. I started with a gun that was slightly "ratty", and...well, take a look and see how it came out!
-=[ Grant ]=-
This page is intended to be a bit different than most other such pages on your average gunsmith's site. You may have noticed that I like to give my clients and potential clients as much information as possible, and this page continues that tradition. I've browsed around a lot of custom handgun sites, and frequently all I see are a few (usually bad) pictures of a gun - and nothing more. I always want to know more about the gun: what kind of work was done, what kind of unusual features were added, the gunsmith's intent and philosophy, and perhaps a bit about how the gun performs. In other words, I want to know if that would be a gun I'd like to have for myself!
On my Recent Projects page, you'll see the gun, learn about how it was built (and why it was built that way), and much more. The first entry is already up: a nice Ruger GP-100 that I recently finished for a client. I started with a gun that was slightly "ratty", and...well, take a look and see how it came out!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Let's talk about triggers...
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
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 ]=-
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 ]=-