I'll start today with what I didn't see: any big introductions from
the major revolver manufacturers. Smith & Wesson had a couple
of Performance Center variants (I'd not seen the Model 647
Varminter before), Ruger was showing the previously announced
four-inch SP101 in .38/.357 and .22LR (the smallbore having vastly
improved sights), while Colt didn’t show any double action
revolvers - and probably won't any time soon.
I had a great chat with Brent Turchi, the head of Colt's Custom
Shop. He said that new revolvers weren't in the cards for at least
a few years yet, and if they ever do release a new wheelgun it will
probably be something like a King Cobra or Anaconda, or perhaps a
lightweight concealed carry piece based on the SFVI/Magnum Carry
action.
The Python is gone for good, he said - too expensive to make, and
they no longer have the skilled workforce to do so even if they
could justify it economically. In fact, the people who today work
repairing Pythons are nearing retirement, and when they go a lot of
knowledge and skill will go with them. On the plus side, 2011 was a
very good year for Colt as they were able to sell tons of 1911s. Of
course.
The big handgun news at SHOT was the official U.S. introduction of
the Caracal pistol. This is a new polymer striker fired pistol made
in (of all places) the United Arab Emirates. Apparently the UAE has
decided that even their large oil reserves won't last forever, and
have decided to get into manufacturing firearms. Their first
products are full-size (think Glock 17) and compact (Glock 19-ish)
pistols in 9mm (.40 S&W versions will come later this year.)
The Caracal is the brainchild of Wilhelm Bubits, former Glock
employee and designer of the Steyr M series of pistols. His new
design borrows some elements from the Steyr, but most of it is
new.
I first heard about the Caracal when Rob Pincus went to Italy last
year and found a couple of his students armed with this unknown
handgun. Apparently it's been sold in Italy and a few other places
for almost two years, and the reports he got from those students
were glowing. The guns were used hard during the three days of
intense training, and there were no failures. That says a lot about
the design.
The Caracal is unusual in that everything inside the gun is
modular. The fire control group in the frame, as well as the
striker assembly in the slide, are modules that are quickly and
easily removed for service, and just as easily replaced. The bore
axis is very low, approaching that of an HK P7, while the slide
mass has been reduced. The result, I'm told from those who have
fired them, is reduced recoil impulse and muzzle rise.
Ergonomics, even for my small hands, are superb. The Caracal fits
me better than either the Glock or the Steyr, and I can even hit
the magazine release without too much contortion! The trigger is
very smooth, very linear (once you get past take-up, of course) and
has a nice, jar-free letoff. It's very impressive.
What is also impressive is the construction quality. The machining,
inside and out, is superb - the underside of their slide makes a
Glock look like a gravel road. Everything is polished, there are no
tool marks, and even the plastic castings are perfectly clean. This
is top-notch quality, an amazing feat for a young company.
Caracal was all over Vegas; all of the buses for the convention had
Caracal banners on their sides, their booth was large and set up
for doing lots of business, and their marketing materials were
big-league. The folks behind Caracal have invested a ton of money
into both the product and the marketing, and it's obvious that they
intend to be a big player in this business. If the product holds up
to its promise, I think they will be. (Oddly enough, despite
seemingly being on top of every little detail they still
haven’t gotten their USA website up - even though the URL is
printed on all their materials!)
I'm impressed with the gun, and so was nearly everyone I talked to
who'd seen it. I think this might be one of the top autoloading
pistol choices for defensive shooting, particularly when the
sub-compact versions come out later this year. Caracal is worth
watching.
Early last year I embarked on something of an experiment: carrying
my gun not on my belt, as I've done for more years than I can
remember, but in my front pocket. Exclusively.
I've carried in a pocket holster from time to time, usually when
wearing a suit, so I'm not at all unfamiliar with the concept. I've
never done so as my default method, and I wanted to see what it was
like. What kinds of problems would I encounter?
My constant companion was one of a pair of pretty much identical,
save for color, S&W Airweight Cenennials: a blued Model 042 and
the dull silver-gray 642. Both of these are stock guns, meaning
that I've done nothing to either one. (No, really!) I tried several
holsters, and found that most of them really weren't terribly well
thought out. I ended up using a cheap, cheesy, but serviceable
Uncle Mike's pocket holster for the vast majority of the time. I
carried my spare ammunition in Bianchi Speedstrips.
Why did I do this? For some time now I've been talking about the
concept of congruency: that students should train with the guns
that they'll actually be using to defend themselves, and further
that instructors should be using the guns their students will be
using. The problem, of course, is that people generally don't do
that, and as a result instructors allow themselves to believe that
their students really do conceal full-sized Government Models in
their workaday world -- because that's what they bring to class.
It's a delusional feedback loop.
In reality, most of the people I talk to who are carrying medium-
to full-sized autoloaders in class sheepishly admit that during the
week they tote a compact auto or a five-shot revolver in their
front pocket, because that's what they can easily get away with in
their place of employment. As a fraternity, instructors are not
doing a very good job of getting past this deception; I don't think
they really want to know. Classes are structured to artificially
favor the larger autoloading pistols, because that's what usually
shows up on the belts of students. The students, for their part,
feel compelled to "up gun" for the class so that they can perform
well and save face. The loop intensifies.
What the instructor carries every day is irrelevant; it's what the
student carries that needs to be the primary consideration in
curriculum design. I decided that I wasn't living up to my own
criticisms, and resolved to spend the majority of 2011 carrying not
what I like to carry, but what an awful lot of people who look to
me for advice and guidance are going to be carrying. (No, I didn't
make the "I carry a 'J' frame as a backup, so that counts"
rationalization. This was to be my primary, and only, carry piece.
Just like everyone else.)
Save for one instructor's conference, where I used a Glock because
a) I hadn't had any serious autoloader trigger time in a couple of
years and b) had no one to negatively influence, I carried and
taught with those compact revolvers for the year.
I liked (actually loved) the ease with which I could dress around
the gun. I liked that I could carry in sweatpants in the same place
and manner of my street clothes. I liked that wether I wore a suit
or work pants, my gun was in the same place all the time. I learned
a lot about deploying the gun from that carry position, from the
difficulty accessing it at speed to the occasional instances of the
holster and gun coming out as a unit. I came away with some very
specific ideas on how a pocket holster for a revolver should be
made and marveled that almost none of the holster makers have
figured this out yet. (Then again, it’s hard to find really
well designed revolver belt holsters, a lament that I made in my
book.)
Did I ever feel under gunned? No. I remain unconvinced that
it’s necessary to carry a 51 rounds of ammunition just to
survive a criminal attack, an idea that has great support amongst
certain segments of the training industry. (I'm still looking for
all those cases in which someone involved in a private sector
defensive shooting incident was injured or killed because their gun
didn't contain enough bullets. Haven't found any yet, though I keep
asking people to forward them to me.)
At the end of the experiment, I'm finding it very difficult to
return to my belt-mounted carry pieces. I'm actually happy about
that, because I think I've now got a solid understanding of the
limitations (and the freedoms) that my students experience.
Suppositions have been replaced by evidence.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to decide between blue or plain
aluminum for today.
Over the last few months I've gotten several emails about light
primer strikes -- and attendant misfires -- with the S&W 686SSR
revolver.
The 686SSR is from Smith & Wesson's "Pro" line, which sits
between the semi-customs of the Performance Center and the
run-of-the-mill production items. The 686SSR has, among other
features, a 'bossed' mainspring (which looks suspiciously like a
Wolff 'Power Rib' spring.) The idea behind the spring design is
twofold: first, reduce the spring force at the beginning of
tension, making for a trigger which feels more progressive; second,
preserve the mainspring arch at reduced spring weight.
The second point probably deserves an explanation. A common method
of lightening the hammer spring on a S&W is to shorten the
strain screw slightly. When done with a standard flat mainspring
the arch is reduced, which often leads to interference between the
grip screw and the spring. Having a higher arch, which the ribbed
springs provide, allows for full grip screw clearance even at
reduced trigger weights.
The problem is that even with the so-called 'full power' ribbed
springs misfires occasionally happen. This seems to be due to the
slightly lessened spring force at the beginning of hammer travel,
which is also the end of the hammer travel -- when ignition occurs.
This is exacerbated by the new California-compliant firing pins
that S&W uses, which are shorter and lighter than the old
versions. This presumably allows the gun to pass California's drop
test, as I can fathom no other reason for the part to exist.
The short firing pin can easily be replaced by an extra-length
version from Cylinder & Slide or Apex Tactical. This usually
solves these kinds of ignition issues, though thorough testing
needs to be done with any individual gun to verify
reliability.
Speculation abounds, and without the gun in hand that's all we can
do. There is, however, one likely cause that has historical
precedent.
S&W has over the years experienced cases of incipient cracks of
the frame boss underneath the barrel in several models, the 442
Airweight Centennial being perhaps the best-known example. The
cause has usually been attributed to over-torqued barrels. Whether
that is the case here remains to be seen.
There could have been other flaws in construction or materials, or
the ammo used may have exceeded the design parameters of the frame
(more precisely, the gun's design parameters didn't encompass the
entire range of projectile energies allowed under SAAMI
specifications.) However, the kind of damage shown would be
consistent with a catastrophic failure at the point
described.
A Bad Idea is not magically transformed into a Good Idea simply by
virtue of a rise in the MSRP.
When reports of a Smith & Wesson .410/.45 revolver began making
the rounds on Monday, my initial reaction was great skepticism.
Then it was confirmed by atrustworthy source, and finally showed up
onS&W's website. It’s real.
Unfortunately.
If truth in advertising laws had any teeth, they would require this
thing to be called The Brawndo.
I've gotten the hint! People have reminded me that I've been
neglectful in posting pictures. I remembered this as I was packing
a gun up for shipment today, and decided you might like to see it.
I stepped out the door, threw down a piece of corrugated aluminum,
and took this quick snapshot.
The Model 13 with the heavy 3" barrel is one of my very favorite
Smiths, and yet I've never owned one. This one came in with a
gorgeous original finish, which the owner wanted changed to a Black
Pearl finish. I talked him out of it (and cost myself some
revenue), but it would have been a shame to destroy this beautiful,
very shiny factory blue. There is a very small spot of holster wear
at the front of the muzzle, but other than that it is nearly
flawless.
The gun did receive a Super Action Job, along with chamfering the
chambers and converting the gun to DAO. I had no problem with the
conversion, as simply replacing the hammer - a common "K" frame
part - is all that it would take to return the gun to a stock
appearance.
A recent email asked my help with a problem. The writer, who had
purchased a new gun to compete in the IDPA revolver class, had
taken the strain screw out of his S&W 686 and shortened it to
reduce the trigger pull weight. When he put his grips back on, he
found that the grip screw wouldn't go through the frame, and he
could see that the mainspring was now blocking the screw's
path.
He asked why this happened, and what could be done about the
problem.
When the strain screw is shortened, the mainspring arch is changed.
The strain screw is very close to the bottom of the spring, near
the pivot point where the spring contacts the frame, and has
tremendous leverage. Because of that leverage, small changes in the
screw's length make big changes in the amount of arch the spring
exhibits. This in turn lowers the pull weight.
The problem is that the grip screws are all positioned on an
assumption of the mainspring remaining in the stock position. As
the arch of the spring is decreased, it moves toward the muzzle of
the gun and ultimately intrudes on the path of the grip screw. This
is why reduced rate mainsprings are produced by Wolff (and one or
two others.) These springs are designed to have a reduced weight
while maintaining a close-to-stock arch profile.
The solution to this problem is to get a reduced power mainspring
and a new strain screw (which will need fitting to achieve the
desired pull weight.)
Changing the function of any part in a mechanism can have undesired
side effects, and it is best to proceed cautiously unless you know
with certainty the outcome.
In the past I've mentioned that I don't spend much time on the
various gun forums ('fora', to be excruciatingly correct.) My free
time is too precious to spend wading through such drivel as "my
instructor can beat up your instructor" or "the .45 is so powerful
it knocks people off their feet!" The only time, in fact, that I
look at a forum is when I'm eating breakfast or lunch and have
nothing better to read.
It was at lunch last week that I came across one of my personal
favorites: the statement that stacking (increase in trigger
pressure toward the end of the stroke) is a function of the
mainspring used. It's usually stated in the form "don't buy a
revolver with coil springs - it causes stacking. Buy leaf spring
actions to avoid stacking."
Hogwash, and what's more it's easily illustrated to be such.
S&W revolvers, particularly the 'N' frames, are known for
having pretty linear trigger pulls. They use leaf springs. Colt
revolvers such as the Python and Detective Special use leaf springs
as well, yet are (in)famous for their stacking triggers.
On the other hand, the GP100 has a relatively linear trigger,
similar in travel to an 'N' frame Smith. It uses a coil spring.
Wait a minute, though - the earlier Ruger "Six" series (Speed-Six,
Service-Six, etc.), despite having a very similar action design,
stack noticeably.
What gives?
Simple. The type of spring, coil or leaf, has very little to do
with the amount of stacking in a trigger. The real culprit is the
geometry of the double action sear. The stacking on a Python, for
instance, can be eliminated by changing the geometry of the sear
surfaces. The Ruger "Sixes" can likewise be modified to produce a
linear pull through the simple expedient of reshaping certain parts
of the sear. If stacking were caused by the spring alone, this kind
of modification wouldn’t be possible.
Of course this doesn't address the implicit assertion that stacking
is bad and linear is good. Some folks prefer their triggers to
stack and seek out those guns that do. The one thing they don't
have to consider is the type of spring!
Several people emailed me aboutThe Firearm Blog's picture of Jerry Miculek's
627PC.It would appear that his gun
has had the locking mechanism disabled, leading to much renewed
discussion about the incidence of accidental lock activation.
When the locks first came out there were a few reported cases of
locks self-engaging. The wisdom of the internet held that the locks
were just fine, that S&W would never knowingly introduce
something that would put people at risk, that the reports were
fabricated, and so on.
As time wore on it became apparent that the issue was real, but
seemed to mostly happen with lightweight guns shooting heavy
recoiling loads. Then I started getting reports of lightweight guns
shooting normal loads experiencing the problem, followed by the
"big boomers" and hunting loads. Most recently I've heard
first-person accounts of steel guns (all J-frames, so far) shooting
sane cartridges having their locks self-engage.
I've collected enough of these accounts over the last several years
that I simply won't carry a S&W with a lock. The incidents are
numerous enough, and the consequences dire enough, that I simply
don't trust the mechanism. I recommend that all my clients
seriously consider carrying a non-lock gun; if you tuned in last
week you found that my usual carry revolver was a Ruger, partly
because they don’t have such a mechanism.
(Just for the record: I have no financial stake in this debate, as
liability issues demand that I do not deactivate a safety device -
no matter how questionable - from a gun. I'm not making any money
by suggesting that you carry a S&W sans lock.)
I realize that I've been neglectful with regard to pictures, but I
just haven't "felt it" lately. This gun, though, I just had to show
you.
This S&W 686+ was treated to a Super Action Job, Satin Steel
refinishing, etc. What makes it unusual is that it has the uncommon
unfluted cylinder. I loves me some unfluted cylinders, and just
couldn't resist taking a snapshot of the thing before shipping it
back to its owner.
The 2010 SHOT Show is just getting started. I've compiled some of
the more interesting (to me) tidbits about Day One from around the
'net:
S&W
GOES TO THE DARK SIDE:I'm surprised that there's
not more noise about the new Bodyguard .38. It's a real departure
for S&W, having a cylinder that rotates clockwise like a Colt,
an integral laser sight, and an ambidextrous cylinder release.
There's agood pictureof it atMassad
Ayoob's blog.
THE
RHINO GOES PUBLIC:Chiappa is showing the Rhino
revolver in short and long barrels.Here's a pic from Jeff QuinnatGunblast- those wood
grips look great!
A
DARN SIGHT BETTER:S&W has introduced a
version of the 640, one of my favorite guns, with very prominent
tritium sights. While I'm relatively agnostic with regards to
glow-in-the-dark feature, the large front and deep rear blades
sights should erase one of the Centennial's few criticisms.
Again,a good pic from Gunblast. (Are my eyes deceiving me,
or is there no internal lock??!)
FLYWEIGHT
SHOTGUN:Mossberg has introduced the
Model 510, which is a very scaled-down pump shotgun chambered in
.410 and 20 gauge.According to Mas Ayoob, it "weighs only five
pounds, if that." As you may recall I'm a big fan of the 20 gauge,
and I'll be interested in taking a look at this. (Mas' picture
makes it look tiny, but the guy holding it isn't exactly a
lightweight...)
UH-OH:It wasn't all
milk and honey for S&W. The FBI arrested 21 people at SHOT,
including a S&W sales exec, for violating the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act. The indictments were handed down on December 11, but
only unsealed yesterday. (Interesting choice of timing and venue,
don't you think?) Note the second line of theReuters story: "21 arrested at Las Vegas
gun show" Naaah, no message being sent to the masses there...
COLT
OPENS THE DOOR??:Check out this little
tidbit, courtesy of Massad Ayoob:
"A Colt exec told me
that rumors of a new double action revolver from this fabled old
company are false…for now. He indicated, however, that both
plans and equipment are in place for this to happen, somewhere down
the road."
This doesn't sound like the Python is coming back, but it's
intriguing nonetheless.
HAPPY
NEW YEAR!2010 is finally here, and
I'm still surprised about that. Back in 1979 the twenty-first
century looked sooooooo far away that I thought I'd never see it.
Here we are in the second decade already; where did the last ten
years go? (So, this is what it's like to age....)
I took a four-day weekend for the New Year, though it wasn't really
time off: I spent the time doing work around the farm, to the
screaming protest of my muscles and joints. This brief respite
reminded me that it's been many years since my last vacation
(which, as it happens, I spent in a shooting class), and I think
it's high time for another. I say so every year, but this time I'm
going to do it. Of course, I say that every year too!
S&W GOES PRO:Remember a year or so ago,
when I wrote about a limited run of no-lock Model 642? At the time
S&W claimed that they'd "found" a stash of pre-lock frames and
decided to put them together for sale. Apparently they were popular
enough that the company has managed to "find" some more NOS frames,
as they've brought out acouple of new editions: the "Pro" series 442 and
642. They're just like the non-Pro models, except they have no
locks and have cylinders cut for moonclips. There are a whole lot
of questions one could pose about the decision to bring these to
market, but I'm glad to see them all the same.
(I do wish they'd get consistent with their naming conventions:
they have the642 PowerPort Pro Seriesrevolver, which has a ported
barrel AND a lock, but no moonclip capability. The only thing these
models have in common is a matte black finish, which harkens me
back to the days of selling high end camera gear: you could get
many cameras in either chrome or black finish, the black models
inevitably referred to as "professional". At least they're not
calling them 'tactical'!)
SPEAKING OF MOON CLIPS:I get several queries per
month regarding moonclips for a carry revolver, and I recommend to
all that they be limited to range use. Yes, they are faster to
reload (the margin depending on the cartridge) - but I don't
believe that outweighs the fragility of the clips themselves, as
even a small bend will tie up the gun. (There's always someone who
writes back "well, I've carried moonclips in my pocket for years
and have never had a problem!" I'm sure that's true, just as I'm
sure that someone, somewhere has a perfectly reliableColt All
American 2000. I'm not willing to bet my
little pink bottom on either one, however.)
MORE
SMITH NEWS:The regular Model 642, along
with the 637 and 638, will now beavailable with 2-1/2" fully lugged
barrelsinstead of the 1-7/8" tubes.
I always liked the .357 version of the Model 640 for its slightly
longer barrel, and am glad to see it come to some other models.
That little extra weight up front helps with control on the
lightweight frames, as well as providing longer extractor travel.
(Sadly, they are still afflicted with the silly lock.)
WELCOME
TO OREGON:This holiday season
sawthree groups of people lost in the Oregon
woods- thanks to an over-reliance
on GPS navigation. This should serve as a cautionary tale: ceding
your health and safety to something (or someone else) is an
invitation to disaster. Take responsibility for yourself; make sure
your brain is always engaged. You'll notice that these are
consistent themes here at The Revolver Liberation Alliance, and
they have application well beyond protecting yourself from human
predators. (Oh, and buy a decent map when venturing out of the
confines of the suburbs.)
AN
ADVENTURE:Spent some time last week
working on a project withRob
Pincus. You'll have to wait a
while to hear the details, but a good and educational time was had
by all.(Yes, Rob, it's still
raining here.)
LUBRIPLATE
COMES THROUGH:Got an email from Alex
Taylor, a District Manager at Lubriplate. They're now selling the
superb SFL #0 grease in consumer quantities in theironline store! Comes in a 14oz can for
$23.01, plus shipping. Glad to see them recognizing the firearms
market; now let's see if we can get them to sell their FMO-AW oil
in small quantities too!
THIS
DOESN'T HAPPEN EVERY DAY:Remington recently announced
that they've produced theirten millionth 870 series
shotgun. I knew they were popular,
but ten freakin' million? I would never have guessed anything close
to that. The shotgun, it appears, is alive and well in
America.
THIS
IS JUST WRONG:I'll take some of what I
just said back: certain shotguns are alive, but not well.
Apparently trying to out-silly theS&W TRR8, Stoeger recently announced
the availability of theDouble Defense- a tactical side-by-side
shotgun. Yes, a SxS with a fore-end rail. Black, of course. (Folks,
I couldn't possibly make up something like this. It takes a
marketing department to do so.)
I
CAN SEE CLEARLY NOW:A University of Alabama prof
has claimed to haveinvented a revolutionary sighting systemthat promotes
"intuitive aim." Knowledgeable readers will recognize the concept
as being eerily reminiscent of the Steyr "trapezoid" sights as used
on the 'M' and 'S' series pistols, which have been available for a
decade now. Hmmm...
Getting a late start today, and that means I'm already behind for
the week. Sheesh - where does the time go?
---
Tam talks about the checkering on her
gun.
While this would seem to be an issue limited to autoloaders, sharp
edges on the trigger and frame (particularly inside the cylinder
window) have the same effect for wheelgunners. When people ask
"what's the best modification I can do to my revolver?", I usually
say round the trigger and dehorn the gun. It makes shooting much
less of a chore.
---
Every so often a client will send me one of the S&W Scandium
guns for work, and I'm always reminded of how much I dislike
shooting the little beasts. Even with standard pressure Specials,
the recoil gets to me very quickly. I can't imagine actually
shooting one with Magnum loads, and I intend to never find
out!
For me it's merely discomfort, but for others the experience could
prove more serious.
I constantly encounter women who've been sold those guns, because
the sales clerk wrongly assumed that "light" was synonymous with
"best for the little lady." This weekend I ran into yet another
such case: a thin, older lady. She wanted to know if the Magnum
rounds the shop had sold her with the gun would be good for her to
shoot! (My immediate thought was "only if you use them on the idiot
who sold you this thing!", but I held my tongue.) I cautioned her
that the combination of those rounds with her very thin, somewhat
frail build could result in permanent nerve damage to her hands. I
hope she got the message.
The best recommendation I have for such cases is a box of the 125gn
Federal Nyclad standard-pressure Specials.
---
Serendipity...I wrote last week about a 2" Model 15 I'd recently
worked on, and since then I've run into several of the things. The
latest was yesterday, when buddyJim Jacobeopened a case
and said "weren't you just talking about how much you liked these?"
I swear, if I wrote about a.577 Tranterhe'd pull one out of his
safe to show me...
---
Now it's time for me to get some work done. Happy Monday!
I recently received an email asking about the feasibility of
mounting a light on a revolver. The writer was concerned about
clearing his house at night and being forced to shoot one-handed
with a separate flashlight. Would it be possible, he asked, to
somehow mount a light to his wheelgun, to approximate those that
are widely mounted on autoloaders?
That's a tough one to answer, because it's really two questions in
one:canit be done, andshouldit be done.
I'll address the feasibility portion first: yes, it can be done,
though the approach varies a bit with the make/model. In all cases,
their are some limitations - mainly, the light has to clear the
ejector rod as it swings away from the frame. The larger the light,
the smaller the gun, and/or the more closely the light is mounted
to the bore axis or to the cylinder, the more likely it is to
interfere with proper cylinder opening.
The best choice is to make provision to mount the light in a
forward position, in front of the ejector rod. This is the approach
taken by S&W in their 327 TRR8:
The problem with this is that it makes activating the light on a
momentary basis from a firing grip difficult (if not impossible.)
One is left with the necessity to turn the light on and leave it on
if one wants to shoot with a two-handed grip.
To provide a platform on which the light can be mounted, a short
section of Picatinny rail can be attached (via screws) to the
barrel's underlug. If the particular gun doesn't have an underlug,
the barrel itself can be carefully drilled & tapped to accept
the rail - only, of course, if the barrel is of a bull (heavy)
configuration. There are also some clamp-on solutions
available.
The other half of the question is "should you?" I'll put on my
Tactical Tommy hat here, and say that I think it's a bad idea
except in very specific circumstances.
For a gun to be used in an ensconced position the attached light
has merit. All you're required to do is wait, and the light is
nothing but a shooting aid: confirm the target, and allow a clear
sight picture.
Using it to check your house, on the move, is another matter
entirely. In this case, the light takes on multiple functions:
navigation, search, identification, and (in the worst case)
shooting aid. The trouble is that if it's attached to your gun,
then you have a loaded weapon pointing in all sorts of directions
that proper safety habits say it shouldn't!
A loaded gun is not a tool for navigation or searching, and using
it as such is (in my opinion) irresponsible. Think of it this way:
would you be pointing your gun in all directions and places in the
daylight? I would hope that the answer would be 'no.' If that's the
case, why would you deem it acceptable to do so in the dark?
The light on the handgun is a limited-use device. Don't try to make
it into something it shouldn't be.
A long-time client called me a while back, and told me that he'd
just acquired one of the Smith & Wesson Model 25 "Lew Horton"
editions with the 3" barrel. He wasn't happy with the gun, and
asked me to do a makeover.
If you've hung out here for long, you know that I love 3" barrels.
I don't know why, exactly, except that I like 'em. This gun is no
exception, and to say I was excited about the prospects would be an
understatement.
I've actually
written about this gunonce before - it had the
worst double action trigger I've felt on a factory gun in a long,
long time. He wanted that fixed, and the gun converted to DAO.
(It's an IDPA/carry gun for him, so he sees no need for single
action capability.) The gun came replete with sharp edges, so sharp
that I sliced open my left forefinger when I first handled it!
Those needed to go as well. He also wasn't happy with the stock
S&W sights, for which the gun had already received warranty
repair - the first rear sight actually broke in two when shooting!
Finally, he wanted general competition-friend modifications that
would also be usable "on the street."
I started by getting rid of all the sharp edges, on all surfaces.
The gun then went to the bluing shop for my Black Pearl finish.
(This particular gun has the very hardest barrel steel I've ever
encountered, and it caused no end of headaches in refinishing. The
result is that this gun has a little more shine to it than any
other Black Pearl finish I've done.)
Speaking of the barrel, the crown was both crooked and rough. The
hard barrel, with its thin walls, made a normal crown out of the
question. I made a very, very small crown, just enough to correct
the problems.
The rear sight was replaced with one of Hamilton Bowen's superb
Rough Country units, and the front carries a gold bead sight from
SDM Fabricating. The result is a fast-acquisition sight picture,
useful for both competition and defense.
Of course the gun received a Super Action Job, along with
chamfering the chambers. The trigger was reworked to the modern,
thin S&W style, rounded and polished smooth for comfortable
double action work. The DAO conversion required bobbing the hammer,
and on this gun I tried a new style: a kind of "scalloped" hammer.
I've already decided that the next one needs a bit of modification
(the bottom scallop is too deep to balance the top), but I'm
pleased with the result and the way in which it offsets the
cylinder-heavy profile of the gun. The trigger weight dropped from
15 lbs. to 9 lbs., and is of course smooth in both pull &
reset.
Finally, we needed some decent concealment grips. They're made of a
very nice walnut in a "boot" style by Don Collins, with some
specific modifications to his basic design (to better fit my
client's hands.)
The result: a more "special" Special Edition. (My client reads this
blog, and hasn't seen the gun yet. To him I say: don't worry, it's
coming back to you this week, but I couldn't wait to show it
off!)
A client recently sent me a brand new S&W Model 25 for some
work. As part of my normal checkout routine, I measured the trigger
pulls. In single action, it was a nice and crisp 3-1/2 lbs. In
double action, it....pegged my digital force gauge!
I had to get out the old mechanical unit to read the trigger pull
of nearly 15lbs. Holy Sore Forefinger, Batman! Not only that, but
the trigger return feels like a mile of bad gravel road. (Since I
live on a mile of bad gravel road, I am something of an authority
on the topic.)
Oh, did I mention that this was one of S&W's "Special Edition"
Lew Horton models? That's right - S&W apparently doesn't feel
that handing them close to a grand for one of their revolvers
entitles you to a decent trigger. On the other hand, perhaps I
should look at it as a perverse form of job security...
Many people have been following the situation with the North
Carolina Dep't of Corrections and their self-destructing S&W
revolvers. If you haven't,here's a link to the story.
These pictures of one such occurrence have been floating around the
net:
I've been exchanging emails with C.E. "Ed" Harris, who many will
remember from his days as the head of Q.C. at Ruger - when they
experienced a similar problem. Here's what he had to say:
"Old
problem rearing its ugly head again, not really a new problem. A
troublesome sporadic one when people forget about good shop
practices and get sloppy.
Stress corrosion cracking is generally caused by contamination by
solvents or cutting fluids too high in chlorides. Over-torquing
barrels barrels creates a stress rise at the root of the thread
which makes the problem worse. Microscopic examination of the
failed barrels would be obvious to a competent
engineer, especially familiar to those with aerospace or nuclear
power systems experience.
Ruger had a short run of this back in the 1980s when they first
starting making stainless magnums. I saw a few dozen guns come back
when I worked there. All were traced to one guy on night shift who
was over-torquing barrels on Redhawks which didn't quite line up,
instead of taking a pass off the front of the frame on a Blanchard
grinder as he should have done. He also used a wrong, slippery high
sulphur thread lubricant intended for chrome-moly instead of the
anti-seize compound used with SS.
This condition is aggravated by tight fit of barrel threads, such
as when using a class 3A, combined with high stress, high
temperature, and high barrel torque. Ruger fixed their problem by
changing to a looser 2A fit on the barrel threads and assembling
barrels to the frames using a Loctite product to cement them
solidly while reducing stress on the threads and positively
preventing any seepage of cleaning solvents into the barrel threads
after they left the factory."
If true, this wouldn't be the first time S&W has over-torqued a
barrel: the Model 442 Airweight Centennials, particularly in nickel
finish, are somewhat notorious for frame cracks under the barrel. A
phone conversation with a S&W representative confirmed to me
that the cracked frames were caused by barrels that had been
screwed in "too tightly."
However, there's always the possibility of
user error, such as the use of certain
products that contain chlorine compounds (brand name removed for
obvious reasons):
"Use of
[lubricants containing chlorine compounds] "could" do it, as could
any number of other cleaners, especially if used with an ultrasonic
which enhances thread penetration."
There are certain "miracle" gun lubricant products out there that
contain chlorine compounds, and have become popular amongst the
more "martial" crowd. In addition, ultrasonic cleaners have been
very popular at many police agencies over the last decade or
so.
Well, I got an email from one of the employees at the agency, and
he claims that they use Hoppes bore cleaner, and that they do not
have an ultrasonic!
So we're back to the first possibility. Given Ed's expertise, I
suspect that his analysis is the correct one.
You're
reading... The Revolver Liberation
Alliance! The blog about revolvers,
training, self-defense, and shooting in general (along with an
occasional surprise!)