I find myself perturbed by revolvers

[CoRoMo]

Over the past year or so, I've come to the realization that revolvers confound me, and I'm trying to figure what I'm doing wrong. From the inside looking out, I'm convinced that I have got to be over-thinking this.

Now, I purchased my first revolver long before I ever read Jim March's 'Revolver Checkout' thread, and boy was I proud of that gun. I was happy and satisfied. But ever since, I've never again felt comfortable buying a revolver whether it's new or not.

I find myself looking over revolvers at the LGS, testing their lockup, squinting through their cylinder gap, trying to analyze their timing and checking the end shake. Usually to the bewilderment of the store staff.

And I've yet to find a revolver that has a rock solid lockup.

I also do this anytime I have someone's revolver in my hands. I hold the cylinder gap up to the light and I check each chamber to see how they feel in full lockup. I went through every revolver in my dad's safe, I thoroughly inspected a coworker's model 10 and Redhawk, my brothers' revolvers, my own, any and all of them that I get my hands on.

I've yet to hold in my hands, a revolver that has it all set right.

The closest I've come was a model 10 that I owned a year or so back. It had two chambers that were dead rock solid in lockup and a cylinder gap of .005".

But I still wasn't happy with the fact that the other four chambers were loose in the least. And that dang gap could have been .004" or even a perfect .003", but no, it was a canyon.

This is the very reason that has prevented me from buying as many revolvers as I would like. Forget ever buying a revolver from somewhere like GunBroker!! I'm liable to buy an early 60's, mint condition model 29 at a steal of a price, only for it to arrive with a .006" gap and a bit of wiggle in the cylinder. :banghead:

I once asked a seller on GunBroker if he would send me info on his revolver. I asked him to measure the cylinder gap, tell me how many chambers locked up, etc. His reply, "I have no idea what you're talking about. This gun is in good shape and shoots great".

I've got to be over-thinking this... I suppose.

I mean, I can't seriously go into a gun shop with the intention of buying and ask that they lay out all of their inventory so that I can gauge each one and hand pick the one that stands closest to perfect... right?

Wrong. I did just that.

This whole obsession culminated not long ago when I was picking out an LCR. A dealer buddy from here gets in a load of these revolvers and I fixed my focus on buying one.

But not just anyone. The best of the bunch.

He had no problem accommodating me either, but it was a bit embarrassing. I had a multitude of these revolvers laid out in front of me and I check and recheck each one for a go / no-go judgment.

Still.

None of them had it all right.

I grudgingly decide to take one of the two that locked up solid on only one chamber.

The next customer though, picks one up at random, dry fires it a few times and grins. He puts his money down and walks out happy as can be.

I should be that guy!! I should be satisfied with my new revolver.

But I can't find comfort in one that has these mechanical "imperfections".

So the revolver category in my collection grows at a snail's pace, and I long to own this one and that one and to have a good selection of these wonderful, beautiful handguns.

But I simply can't just buy any old one that I'm interested in. No, not anymore.

Am I ruined? I'm over thinking this, aren't I?

 

[Owen]

Yes, you're over thinking it.

 

[MtnSpur]

Are you suffering from OCD? I can't relate to your dilemma and can offer no solution. Every revolver I own delivers exactly what it's supposed to do from a 1912 Colt Police Positive to the S&W 66 to the Ruger Security Six and many in between.

Mind you I DO check any revolver I'm interested in owning for lockup, endshake and alignment and while I've run across some that didn't seem quite right I simply walk away. Your money, your preferences.

 

[PO2Hammer]

I disagree. Nit picking on a revolver is a birthright. After all, there's only six holes and six notches, can't they get them all the same?

 

[MtnSpur]

I disagree. Nit picking on a revolver is a birthright. After all, there's only six holes and six notches, can't they get them all the same?

You left out the 5 hole, 7 hole, 8 hole and 9 hole variations

 

[Standing Wolf]

I'm over thinking this, aren't I?

Yes, I believe you are, but in the first place, there are worse things you could do, and in the second, considering the variability of revolvers these days, it's probably better to be too cautious than insufficiently so.

Only older Colt revolvers "lock up like bank vaults," and even that's a relative term. I don't know anything about Rugers, but can tell you Smith & Wesson revolvers always include some cylinder looseness, and the barrel-cylinder gap is often larger than ideal and variable, too. Those "problems" are inherent to the design, and can easily be exacerbated by manufacturing methods and quality control standards.

In general, they're not really problems. Now and then, revolvers are so far out of specification they don't shoot accurately, and can even shave lead from bullets. Most of the time, revolvers' looseness doesn't affect accuracy to a measurable degree. Close enough actually is close enough. You could closely inspect Colt Pythons until you find one with a small, consistent barrel-cylinder gap and the famous lock-up, but you need to expect two things: it's not necessarily going to be measurably more accurate, and you're definitely going to pay considerably more for it. I've heard you could do likewise with a Freedom Arms revolver, but must confess I don't know more about those than I've heard.

If you want bench rest accuracy, you're going to have to shoot a bench rest rifle.

My best suggestion: look at older Smith & Wesson revolvers, check them out against Jim March's list, and buy one that's close to ideal. Shoot it. Develop your own loads for it. Shoot it more and a lot more than that. It'll probably take you quite a few years to outgrow the revolver's accuracy. If and/or when you ever do, it'll be time to start thinking about match pistols, which is what the truly serious hand gun accuracy enthusiasts shoot.

Best of success to you, eh?

 

[il_10]

Edit: ^ beat me to it by a bit.

You're not over-thinking it, if you're buying colts. Carry up, proper timing, very little endshake, and a bank-vault lockup is part of the design spec with them, and important to check. If a colt is right, it's a dream. If something's wrong, it can be a really expensive mistake to buy one.

S&W, Ruger, Rossi, taurus, etc. don't lock up any tighter with the trigger back than they do with the trigger forward, and that little bit of wiggle room is actually a good thing; they were designed to have some. For these, ignore a little bit of wiggle, and focus on the gap and carryup and you'll be fine. And with S&W, endshake can be shimmed, and parts are widely available and require less fitting and understanding than a colt.

For the record, I buy mostly colts, and I'm just as anal as you are when it comes to them. The nice thing is, and what saves me a lot of similar embarrassment, carryup and timing are the quickest thing to check and disqualify most of them right off the bat!

 

[Salmoneye]

More for me, OP...

 

[SEE IT LIKE A NATIVE]

Maybe you should stick to single shots ? Kevin

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Only traditional design Colts have this "rock solid" lockup, and that is only with the hammer cocked. Smith & Wessons always have a small amount of rotational play in them. Your checks for end shake and cylinder gap are 100% valid, however.

 

[deadin]

In many cases the tighter the tolerances, the more likely a little bit of crud is going to cause a malfunction....

 

[PRM]

Yep your way over thinking the tolerances.

I've bought a number of vintage revolvers ~ some needed tweaking, but that was minor in most cases. Most recent was an S&W first year production Model 649. Great little gun that was a police trade in. I got it at a steal of a price. After getting it home, I noticed the cylinder would jump the frame stud if I did not hold it tight when cleaning, and there was a little more end shake than I liked. Sent it back to S&W and they replaced the frame stud and corrected the end shake. All for $62.00 with return shipping included. The little J frame is now probably tighter than when it left the factory originally. I've got a like new Model 649 for under $375.

Its always better to lay hands on a gun first ~ but small problems are fixable, and most really aren't a significant problem to begin with.

 

[BCRider]

The information I've gotten from THR and other sources as related to S&W revolvers is that tight to just a hair of play is what you want. My best shooting revolvers have an amount of play with varies from just barely detectable with my fingers to none I can feel other than as a "suggestion". One of them has about 1/64 of rotational play at the surface of the cylinder and about .003 of end float. Yet it shoots as accurately as the tighter ones. Mind you in this regard it's more likely that the difference in accuracy between my worst and best fitting revolvers is lost in MY ability to hold the guns and see where I'm shooting.

All in all it's enough for me that my revolvers are able to shoot somewhat tighter groups than my semis.

 

[Mike1234567]

Rotational play has always bothered me too... just gives me the willies.

 

[Cosmoline]

I don't know where this idea of zero wiggle came from. Revolvers cylinders should have a little slop built in.

In many cases the tighter the tolerances, the more likely a little bit of crud is going to cause a malfunction

That's it in a nutshell. If you want a precision shooting handgun get an accurized Thompson Center. I've got an Encore .357 Max barrel now that will shoot like a precision rifle. Revolvers aren't for that.

 

[sugarmaker]

Don't let anyone tell you an S&W should be loose on lockup. Horse puckey, I read it here all the time. 'Taint so. SOME are loose on some or all cylinders, but if you are patient you can find one that's tight on all 5,6, or 7 holes. Modern or older. I like them tight and pass up the loose ones. That much said I broke down and bought a 500 with 5 fairly loose holes. Jury is out on accuracy until I have a little more time. All my other ones I challenge anyone to find rotational play with the hammer down and trigger held back.

 

[Old Fuff]

Save time and effort. Goto the link and read it to the end.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=643600

sugarmaker

It shouldn't make any difference in the lock-up of a Smith & Wesson revolver regardless if the trigger is held fully to the rear, or is all of the way forward.

When the hand engages a ratchet tooth it pushes and revolves the cylinder to the next chamber. This happens well before the trigger is fully back. As the hammer continues to be thumb-cocked, or the trigger pulled, the hand continues upward and passes by the side of the tooth. However this additional movement does nothing for the lock-up.

Occasionally the side if the hand will be close enough to the side of the tooth to make it seem that the lock-up is tighter, but this does not indicate proper fitting, but in fact the exact opposite.

In a Smith & Wesson, Ruger and Taurus revolver the cylinder is supposed to be able to wiggle just enough so that the bullet can self-align as it passes through the chamber throat into the bore. The worst possible condition you can have is a tight lock-up when the chamber is not absolutely concentric with the bore.

Certain model Colt's are a different story.

If you think the above is XXX-puckey call Smith & Wesson and ask.

(800) 331-0852

 

[Dr_B]

If any revolvers you own perturb you, send them to me and I will punish them by shooting them constantly.

 

[bergmen]

Only traditional design Colts have this "rock solid" lockup, and that is only with the hammer cocked...

I beg to differ. I have never felt a tighter lockup in any revolver than my Freedom Arms Model 83 Premier Grade in .454 Casull. The cylinder gap is almost too tight to measure (less than .001) and the lockup has to be felt to be believed (almost imperceptible).

Dan

 

[Jim K]

Old Fuff wrote:

"...the cylinder is supposed to be able to wiggle just enough so that the bullet can self-align as it passes through the chamber throat into the bore."

Oh dear, Old Fuff, now you have done it. I once said that and was called an idiot, a fool, stupid, and a few other names. One poster told me that he would never own a gun that was not absolutely perfect in all respects. I assume he is still without a gun.

I think Jim March had his heart in the right place, but unfortunately he left little room for the imperfections common to all products of our imperfect race.

So look out, here it comes.

Jim

 

[bluetopper]

Yes my Freedom Arms 44 Mag locks up dead solid but I dearly love my Smith & Wessons too. They are just a joy to shoot and do exactly what they're supposed to........slight wiggle and all.

 

[btg3]

I'm done with buying more revolvers. Sold the Colt and keeping the Rugers and SW wheel guns I now have. I do admire the older Colts for the way they lock up, but Colt grips just don't fit me and whether deserved or not, Colt's get criticized for being less robust than Rugers and SW.

I will say that I've not been satisfied with any revolver, new or used, as-purchased. They all got some smithing for one reason or another. Still, none are perfect -- just good shooters.

 

[Big JJ]

We are all missing the point or the problem here.
While all of you are pretty much right on with your analysis on the gun issues, the problems are not with the guns.
The problem is with CoRoMo.
CoRoMo is a perfectionist and will never be happy with any gun unless it is perfect.
The truth is 95% or more of the new guns ( not used guns) bought in the LGS stores today will be just fine for the average Joe.
It is that last 5% that can get you when you’re not looking.
My point is simply be vigilant but reasonable and you will be happy.
Be a perfectionist and you will have some fantastic guns but happy well maybe not so much.
I know because I am married to a beautiful perfectionist.
No offence ment just my 2 cents.

 

[Jim NE]

And I've yet to find a revolver that has a rock solid lockup.

I tend to buy older pinned barrel revolvers when it comes to Smith and Wessons. Most of my guns (I have seven of them) have seen at least moderate use. Some more than others. With one exception, they aren't in mint/near mint condition, but pretty solid.

I understand your frustration, because all that info did a mind game on me, as well. The most consistent thing about my old my old S&W's is this: NONE of them are exactly the same as any of the others with regard to tolerance specs.

NONE of the cylinder gaps are EXACTLY the same as any of the others. NONE of the cylinder play (in lock up) is EXACTLY the same as any of the others. Not all have EXACTLY consistent cylinder gap from chamber to chamber. THIS INCLUDES a barely used model 36 that probably hasn't seen more than several dozen rounds in it's 45 year life time. IT CAME FROM THE FACTORY THAT WAY!! Some of my guns don't even have consistent gap from one side of the same chamber to the other...some measurements registering outside the outer limit (.010" to .012").

Though timing is more consistent from gun to gun, I have one gun where the double action timing seems to be right on the edge, but I've been told by several people (including lgs owners) the timing is just fine.

To other gun experts, however, all of the above the above issues are a catastrophe. And NOW I've learned that my near mint model 36's bank-vault, rock-solid lock up that I thought was desirable isn't as much as I thought.

The two most "ideal" lockup guns I have are a mid-70's model 14 and a late 40's pre-model 10 snubbie. Slight looseness.

The truth is, they're ALL good guns and shooters, even though some are more "in-spec" than others. NONE spray lead out of the gap. ALL are accurate. NONE ever misfire or fail to cycle/rotate in either double or single action.

My old Highway Patrolman may be the one that actually I take in to have the cylinder lockup snugged up a bit. The rest? They're fine (I've been told by the LGS that the HP is fine, too.).

Am I gonna spend $1000-$1200 collectively to get all of my seven Smiths "perfect"? No. I'll listen to my common sense to determine when guns need work, not the little voice in my head urging me to be compulsive/obsessive.

 

[Old Fuff]

I beg to differ. I have never felt a tighter lockup in any revolver than my Freedom Arms Model 83 Premier Grade in .454 Casull. The cylinder gap is almost too tight to measure (less than .001) and the lockup has to be felt to be believed (almost imperceptible).

I beg to agree.

But the discussion has been centered on Smith & Wesson, Colt, Ruger and Taurus Hand Ejector (revolvers where the cylinder swings out to the left for loading and unloading) guns. The Freedom Arms are semi-custom, solid frame Single Actions that are everything you say and more. But the justifiable price for one will buy two or more the kind listed above.