testtest

Another variable added to the mix...

R

RedGoat

Master Class
Good Saturday afternoon, ya'll ! It rained last night and I sort of figured that would discourage turnout at the outdoor range that I frequent. Turned out I was right and I had the entire pistol line to myself for almost two and a half hours.

I went to just "have fun" and burn LOTS of powder, but co-incidentally to capture chronograph data for the factory ammo I took with me. I plan to use this data as sort of a "baseline" to measure my handloads against. To that end, I took THREE revolvers to fire my factory 38 Special loads through, two of which I've been using this past week to test my plated bullet handloads.

The three revolvers have, between them, a variety of barrel lengths that allow me to get a good "feel" for the impact that barrel length has on the velocities produced by both my handloads and factory loads. BUT.... It was the addition of this third revolver that has opened up another variable that I must sort out and consider. Can anyone guess what that might be?? Come on boys and girls, put on your thinking caps!

Give up? It is the level of force with which the hammer/firing pin strikes the primer, plus variations in the sensitivity of various makes of primers.

My testing of plated bullet reloads this past week was all done by firing both of my test guns double action. One of them is a S&W 642-2, so that's the only choice I have, but the other one I've been using is an older S&W "N" frame with a 6" barrel, so I had the choice of shooting it either single action or double action. I chose to fire it double action exclusively while testing my plated bullet reloads... I think that I was thinking "consistency" and "apples to apples" and those kind of thoughts.

Well, I hauled out my third test gun today in addition to the little 642-2 DA only airweight and the big heavy 6" barrel N frame. It is a S&W 686 Plus with about a 3" barrel. I decided to shoot it FIRST this morning, so I opened it up and stuffed in 7 rounds of factory Winchester 130gr FMJ "White Box" target ammo. I also chose to shoot it double action. Guess what happened? Every other round fail to fire. Upon examination, the primer strikes were too light! phooey!!! So, what to do? Light bulb moment. I've seen this before. I decided to fire everything in this 686 and the N frame single action. THAT worked like a charm for both Remington/UMC 130gr FMJ target ammo and the Winchester 130gr FMJ factory stuff. I put 50 rounds of each through each of the three revolvers that I'd "brung with me" and captured the data on the chronograph.

As a quick sidebar, let me 'splain something to any of you new-to-revolvers young whipper-snappers out there: Double action revolvers are, by design, "sprung" in a manner that typically yields a slightly lighter hammer strike when firing double action. When firing single-action, most DA revolvers will typically yield a heavier hammer strike. And that will USUALLY be sufficient to get ignition on ammo that will not RELIABLY fire with a double-action trigger pull. SO... The new-to-the-mix 686 Plus gobbled up 50 rounds each of both the Winchester and Remington target ammo in single action mode with no further misfires. I then proceded to test both factory loads through the N frame 6" barrel. It gobbled up 50 rounds each of both ammo varieties in both double action firing mode and single action firing mode, no misfires on anything. Hmmm... The 686 wants single action to reliably touch off the Winchester White Box stuff. It also went through 50 rounds of the Remington/UMS stuff in single action without a hitch. What about trying the Remington/UMC ammo in the 686 shooting double action? Check. It gobbled that up with only a single misfire.

The little S&W 642-2 airweight is double action only and has a REALLY stout DA trigger pull. It gobbled up 50 rounds each of both the Winchester and Rem/UMC stuff without a hitch. I wasn't suprised by that, I've put literally several hundred rounds of each through this little gun previously. That stout DA trigger pull on the little gun has yet to fail me a single time on anything I've put in it. Best way that I can describe shooting it is that it is a VERY RELIABLE HANDFUL to shoot. My target from this morning reflects the differences in "shootability" between the lightweight snub and the bigger revolvers. I'm more of a "minute of pie plate" shooter with the snub, and a "minute of teacup" shooter with the heavier revolvers (when shooting them all DA).

Now for the bottom line: The issues with the 686's difficulty igniting the Winchester White Box stuff in DA mode causing me to shift to SA mode for the two heavy revolvers uncovered an interesting pattern in the chronograph data. What I THINK the data reveals is that the Extreme Spread values and Standard Deviation number were LOWER when shooting the factory ammo in those two heavy guns in single action that when shooting them double action.

I am going to have to pursue this avenue a bit farther with my handloads to see if the ES values come down any while shooting single action. Also, I've been building my plated bullet loads with CCI small pistol primers, which are probably some of the least sensitive ones available (according to the interwebs AND my person experience in the distant past). CCIs are all I have on hand, but I think that I have a stash of brass that I've already primed with Winchester small pistol primers, AND I'm going to seek out some Federal small pistol primers to test also (Federal supposedly being the MOST sensitive primers as compared to CCI / Winchester / Remington. Again, according to the interwebs, Lee's reloading manual, and my own experiences).

So, I just got back from the range and haven't done an in depth examination / analysis of the chrono data I captured this morning. I'll do my "reply to my own post" thing here in this thread once I've finished my dive into the data.

Let me know if any of you have had experiences with primer ignition / primer sensitivity where it has had significant impact on your velocity extreme spread values and your velocity standard deviation values.
 
Last edited:
UPDATE: Post data analysis:

Winchester White Box / 130gr FMJ / published muzzle velocity (on box) : 800 fps
Remington/UMC / 130gr FMJ / published muzzle velocity (web site https://www.remington.com/handgun/umc-handgun/29-23730.html): 800 fps
NOTE: Neither Winchester nor Remington provides any test gun info, much less a barrel length for comparison

My summarized results (Fifty rounds were fired to provide data for each summary entry)
S&W 642-2 1 7/8" bbl
Winchester White Box AVG Muzzle Vel: 786.0 fps ES: 76.3 fps SD: 15.7 fps
Remington/UMC AVG Muzzle Vel: 772.8 fps ES: 71.0 fps SD: 17.8 fps

S&W 686-8 2 3/8" bbl
Winchester White Box, fired single action AVG Muzzle Vel: 788.4 fps ES: 100.7 fps SD: 18.6 fps
Remington/UMC, fired single action AVG Muzzle Vel: 800.6 fps ES: 97.4 fps SD: 18.9 fps
Remington/UMC, fired double action AVG Muzzle Vel: 801.9 fps ES: 81.6 fps SD: 17.3 fps

S&W 28-2 N frame, 6" bbl
Winchester White Box, fired single action AVG Muzzle Vel: 820.9 fps ES: 124.5 fps SD: 29.8 fps
Winchester White Box, fired double action AVG Muzzle Vel: 829.6 fps ES: 144.2 fps SD: 34.1 fps
Remington/UMC, fired single action AVG Muzzle Vel: 839.6 fps ES: 102.4 fps SD: 23.1 fps
Remington/UMC, fired double action -- I discovered that I missed getting this sample fired. I'll git 'er done and report back --

SO FAR:
1) From the summarized data, I can see that my theorizing about force of the hammer strike is NOT correlating to ES or SD values.
2) The generic "range" ammo from Winchester and Remington (at least in these random samples) is far more consistent than interwebs armchair "eckx spurts" give them credit for. The "real world" muzzle velocities are pretty darn close to their published values, too, leading me to speculate that their numbers are likely from a 3" or 4" barrel on an actual revolver.
NOTE: There's a BIG difference between velocities of an unvented test barrel with no cylinder gap having the same length as a similar barrel on a revolver where the cylinder gap is present. The unvented test barrel with no gap will ALWAYS give significantly higher velocity readings than the equal length "real world" barrel on an actual revolver.

NOTE TO SELF: You went and spent your $$ on a dagnabbed USED S&W 686. Nice. Now get your sight pusher out and shove that front sight to the right a little. The previous owner must've monkeyed with it and right now the gun prints significantly to the right, even at short range. It ain't gonna get better at longer distances, and the gun ain't gonna fix itself, fool.
 
Last edited:
835mag said:
Might be time for a new mainspring.
Click to expand...
Wolff Gunsprings. Type 1. On it, Chief! Yes, I experienced this same issue with a S&W 66, which I also purchased USED, very soon after I graduated from high school. At that time, long before the interwebs were a Real Thing, I was unaware of Wolff (in fact, I am not certain that Wolff was in existence then... never have looked up their history), so I ordered a replacement from Numrich. Worked like a charm. I also switched from CCI primers in my 38 / 357 reloads to Federal primers since the Federals worked without fail and the CCIs experienced misfires, even before the replacement mainspring arrived and was installed. After replacement, the 66 didn't seem to care WHAT I stuffed it with.

A possibility that I haven't checked yet, but will ASAP before I haul off and order a replacement mainspring, is to simply remove the stocks and check that the mainspring tensioning screw is not backed out. This gun is NOT new, nor am I the original owner, and it is obvious that the previous owner has "touched" it in some respects just from the way that I mentioned the sights were set so far off. Doesn't mean that it is abused, but sometimes folks tweak things that they don't fully comprehend the full ramifications of tweaking.

Another possibility, though not as common in these situations, is inadequate firing pin protrusion and/or one or more cylinder charge holes having a slightly deeper cut/headspace than others. I'd have to VERY carefully and slowly fire a box of cartridges, tracking each cartridge and what charge hole it went into and which ones misfired consistently (if any) and which ones FIRED consistently (if any) before I go down that rabbit hole. Also would need to check clearance between case head and firing pin surround surface for each cylinder charge hole.

It'll be easier just to replace the mainspring and see if the gun is cured before chasing other possibilities.

Shooting never gets old or boring. There's always sumthin' needs fixin', and there's no greater satisfaction in the world for me than to correctly diagnose a problem, then devise and apply a good fix. Fun, fun, FUN!! :cool: :D :p
 
Last edited:
Anchorite said:
Good stuff. Thanks for sharing.

I consider myself to be mechanically inclined at a basic level but I’ve never tinkered with my revolvers.

I’d sure like to take a class specific to revolvers.
Click to expand...
Yes, a revolver oriented "armorer" level class would be interesting. I haven't perused their catalogs, but some of the 'smithing schools that make individual classes / training materials might have some coverage. Other than that option, I don't know if anyone else (who's well known at least) does anything like what, for instance, Bob Marvell does for 1911 classes (a 7 or 8 day hands-on build-from-scratch class). If anyone here knows of such, please share!

For "combat training," (shooting), there are a number of very good trainers "out there" who know whereof they speak. I'd like to take a class such as this, too.
 
And... here's an expanded summary of my factory ammo chronograph data after a quick trip to the range this morning. It rained AGAIN last night, and for a Sunday morning, the handgun line was nearly vacant right up until my last 30 minutes. Even then, it was not crowded at all and there were only brief cease fires for a handful of new arrivals to go hang up their targets. And it was a perfect temperature with an extremely pleasant light breeze. No sweating!!! Yaaaayyyy!

Here are my expanded, summarized "real world" velocity data results that span just about each "whistle stop" increment of barrel length from 1 7/8" up to 6". Unfortunately, I don't own a 6 1/2" nor a 7 1/2" gun. Mebbe someday. Ammo tested is all 38 Special "target" style ammo. The bullets are all 130 grain FMJ. Brands/SKUs are Winchester white box and Remington UMC. Both Winchester and Remington "publish" a nominal muzzle velocity of 800 FPS for their respective load.

As stated previously, I will use this information as my "baseline" to temper my expectations and standards for reloads I want to develop, including the Berry's plated 125 grain boolits. I've already "downgraded" my expectations for extreme spread values based upon this data. I started off thinking that sub-50-FPS extreme spreads would be easy-peasy. Now I'm thinking that sub-100-FPS extreme spread might be a bit more realistic. Time, addition shooting over the chronograph, and the resulting additional data will tell the full story.

Fifty rounds (one box, tray, whatever) were fired to provide data for each summary entry.

Sometimes the chronograph fails to "catch" all of them. I think the worst "loss" was 10 rounds on one box of ammo. Most of the time the chrono caught all shots fired or only dropped one or two shots, maximum.

Which chronograph am I using? Garmin Xero C1. Highly recommended. If I can operate it, anyone can.

S&W 642-2 1 7/8" bbl
Winchester White Box AVG Muzzle Vel: 786.0 fps ES: 76.3 fps SD: 15.7 fps
Remington/UMC AVG Muzzle Vel: 772.8 fps ES: 71.0 fps SD: 17.8 fps

S&W 686-8 2 3/8" bbl
Winchester White Box, fired single action AVG Muzzle Vel: 788.4 fps ES: 100.7 fps SD: 18.6 fps
Winchester White Box, fired double action -- I tried. I really, really tried. No joy. Too many light strikes --
Remington/UMC, fired single action AVG Muzzle Vel: 800.6 fps ES: 97.4 fps SD: 18.9 fps
Remington/UMC, fired double action AVG Muzzle Vel: 801.9 fps ES: 81.6 fps SD: 17.3 fps

S&W 66, 4" bbl
Winchester White Box, fired double action AVG Muzzle Vel: 799.3 fps ES: 110.3 fps SD: 24.0 fps
Remington/UMC, fired double action -- AVG Muzzle Vel: 793.8 fps ES: 124.4fps SD: 26.2 fps

Ruger Vaquero, 5 1/2" bbl
Winchester White Box, fired single action AVG Muzzle Vel: 838.2 fps ES: 72.1 fps SD: 18.2 fps
Remington/UMC, fired single action -- AVG Muzzle Vel: 845.2 fps ES: 103.4fps SD: 21.2 fps

S&W 28-2 N frame, 6" bbl
Winchester White Box, fired single action AVG Muzzle Vel: 820.9 fps ES: 124.5 fps SD: 29.8 fps
Winchester White Box, fired double action AVG Muzzle Vel: 829.6 fps ES: 144.2 fps SD: 34.1 fps
Remington/UMC, fired single action AVG Muzzle Vel: 839.6 fps ES: 102.4 fps SD: 23.1 fps
Remington/UMC, fired double action -- AVG Muzzle Vel: 843.7 fps ES: 147.9 fps SD: 33.1 fps

I shared this data in hopes that some of you could use a "real world" baseline also. Hope it helps!
 
So where to next on my journey? I've stirred a lot of pots, and sometimes it is easy to forget that the original mission is STILL to drain the swamp despite being up to one's **s in 'gators.

My original mission is to work up a 1) inexpensive (relatively speaking), 2) soft shooting, yet 3) accurate 38 Special load. This load is to be used across the board in all my 38s and 357s for practice, plinking and just plain fun. I thought that the Berry's 125 grain plated bullet over some HP-38 would do the trick. The lower level loads of HP-38 are very soft shooting under a 125 grain bullet. The Berry's bullet definitely meets my cost criteria, but I might have to consider alternatives (X-Treme plated bullets, Zero jacketed bullets, perhaps "made to order" cast bullets) if I can't get those ES values down to something reasonable. Same sort of situation exists for the HP-38 powder. I still have some additional testing work to do before I discard either or both for other alternatives. I've just gotta take one step at a time and only tweak a single variable at a time.

On the upside, as this post has documented, I have a baseline on the Winchester and Remington factory target ammo to serve as my "upper" limit for my load, and also to set my expectations with regard to accuracy, muzzle velocity, and extreme spreads for muzzle velocity. I consider these two SKUs of "target" ammo as possessing the MAXIMUM level of power and recoil that I'm after, and I'd prefer considerably less. Not quite mouse fart wadcutter loads, but something kinda in between.

My old arthritic hand is really getting grumpy at me after this past week of going to the range to shoot, test, and collect data. The little S&W airweight 642 is particularly abusive after firing a couple hundred rounds (or more?) through it as part of the process. I want a load that will allow my hand to feel fairly "normal" after a range session of, say 100 rounds, through the little Airweight. It's a fun gun to shoot, but also a handful for me nowadays with mid-to-full-house loads. For the first time in my life, yesterday I stopped shooting about 20 rounds before I achieved my session objective because of actual pain and discomfort in my strong side hand. I really tried to plod on through and finish, but I was starting to flinch with every shot, so it was time to call it a day. This morning was much better, but I didn't break out the snubby. That helped.

Stay tuned. I'm gonna get this here swamp drained one way or another, 'gators be darned.
 
RedGoat said:
Yes, a revolver oriented "armorer" level class would be interesting. I haven't perused their catalogs, but some of the 'smithing schools that make individual classes / training materials might have some coverage. Other than that option, I don't know if anyone else (who's well known at least) does anything like what, for instance, Bob Marvell does for 1911 classes (a 7 or 8 day hands-on build-from-scratch class). If anyone here knows of such, please share!

For "combat training," (shooting), there are a number of very good trainers "out there" who know whereof they speak. I'd like to take a class such as this, too.
Click to expand...
It’s been a while since I looked, but the last time I did all the schools were heavy on ARs and pistols, not precision rifles (except PRS) and revolvers.

Gotta keep up with demand, as that drives course offerings.
 
Anchorite said:
It’s been a while since I looked, but the last time I did all the schools were heavy on ARs and pistols, not precision rifles (except PRS) and revolvers.

Gotta keep up with demand, as that drives course offerings.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming you're speaking of a SHOOTING class/training course. For this category, the pickings are fairly slim with regard to revolver training. Yes, demand does drive the schedule for trainers. The GOOD ones have sizable staff that must be kept employed and probably a facility and property to keep maintained, so they're mostly going to offer what's "in demand". I don't have too much info about it, but I believe that Gunsight (Gunsite?), Jeff Cooper's original brainchild, still offers a revolver course.

Thunder Ranch does also, and their content is solid, packed with emphasis on the fundamentals. I haven't taken their revolver course, but have had a number of other courses from them, all excellent. However, I haven't had any since Clint Smith and Heidi sold their Oregon facility (and the Thunder Ranch brand, evidently), so I can't vouch for their current quality level. If the new owners have retained some (or most) of the top notch trainers who worked with Clint, I can't imagine getting anything less than the best even today.

There are a number of others that I think of as "old time" instructors, who've been in the biz for many years, who still offer revolver training courses, but I don't have a ready-made list, and the number of them "still at it" is shrinking for certain (which is why I took the plunge several years ago and made the trek to SE Oregon to take a few TR courses while Clint was still teaching). Every trip I've ever taken for a training class was well worth what it cost, and in the big picture outlook, a bargain if one considers what some trainers charge PER HOUR. Several days of training from a top tier instructor often cost me LESS than if I'd paid the going rate for one to three hours at a time that lesser instructors charge.
 
RedGoat said:
I'm assuming you're speaking of a SHOOTING class/training course. For this category, the pickings are fairly slim with regard to revolver training. Yes, demand does drive the schedule for trainers. The GOOD ones have sizable staff that must be kept employed and probably a facility and property to keep maintained, so they're mostly going to offer what's "in demand". I don't have too much info about it, but I believe that Gunsight (Gunsite?), Jeff Cooper's original brainchild, still offers a revolver course.

Thunder Ranch does also, and their content is solid, packed with emphasis on the fundamentals. I haven't taken their revolver course, but have had a number of other courses from them, all excellent. However, I haven't had any since Clint Smith and Heidi sold their Oregon facility (and the Thunder Ranch brand, evidently), so I can't vouch for their current quality level. If the new owners have retained some (or most) of the top notch trainers who worked with Clint, I can't imagine getting anything less than the best even today.

There are a number of others that I think of as "old time" instructors, who've been in the biz for many years, who still offer revolver training courses, but I don't have a ready-made list, and the number of them "still at it" is shrinking for certain (which is why I took the plunge several years ago and made the trek to SE Oregon to take a few TR courses while Clint was still teaching). Every trip I've ever taken for a training class was well worth what it cost, and in the big picture outlook, a bargain if one considers what some trainers charge PER HOUR. Several days of training from a top tier instructor often cost me LESS than if I'd paid the going rate for one to three hours at a time that lesser instructors charge.
Click to expand...
Gunsmith schools.
 
Biggfoot44 said:
For several decades now , the default for revolver ammo published specs is 4 inch vented test bbl .
Click to expand...
Hodgdon's 2026 printed and published .38 data specifies that they used a 7.7" barrel. So does the Hornady 11th edition. I spoke to reps from both entities and when I asked, they explicitly told me that their test barrels are NOT vented, and are mounted in a universal receiver with no "cylinder gap". The chronograph data I've gathered so far (admittedly a very, very small number of shots worth) bears out the veracity of their statements.
 
Anchorite said:
Gunsmith schools.
Click to expand...
Ahhh... I know of absolutely ZERO in-person courses available for revolver 'smithing. There are still a handful of reputable gunsmiths "out there" who can (and do) top notch work on revolvers, but none of them are engaged in teaching others what they know. All of what little I know about revolvers is self-taught through reading and doing, and I don't KNOW very much.

American Gunsmithing Institute (AGI) publishes the materials (written and video) used for their various courses and makes them available to non-students. Those can be picked up on MidwayUSA, just use "American Gunsmithing Institute" as your search term on Midway's site. They have specific courses on just about all the common types and makes of revolvers. The Jerry Kuhnhausen books for S&W revolvers, Colt revolvers, and Ruger revolvers are all excellent resources. I can't vouch one way or another regarding AGI's material, but I own and use the Kuhnhausen books, they are very good.

If any of you know of an in-person class / course offered by a master revolver 'smith, I'd like to know of it so I can add it to my "bucket list."
 
RedGoat said:
Hodgdon's 2026 printed and published .38 data specifies that they used a 7.7" barrel. So does the Hornady 11th edition. I spoke to reps from both entities and when I asked, they explicitly told me that their test barrels are NOT vented, and are mounted in a universal receiver with no "cylinder gap". The chronograph data I've gathered so far (admittedly a very, very small number of shots worth) bears out the veracity of their statements.
Click to expand...
I wanna correct myself regarding the Hornady manual. I stated above that the Hornady 11th edition listed a 7.7" unvented test barrel. That is not correct. Rather, their 11th edition lists a 4" S&W 15 as their test gun. The conversation I had with their service rep where we discussed their data compilation methodology revealed that the data in their manuals is actually a "smoothed average" amalgamation of test data from 1) an unvented velocity test barrel in a universal receiver, 2) a pressure barrel in a universal receiver, and finally, 3) one or more "real world" test guns chambered for the given cartridge. Hornady's approach is pretty generalized and therefore trustworthy (in my opinion). Many folks complain that the published data is "lawerized", but in reality they are simply publishing a table of AVERAGES gathered from a series of data points collected using a minimum of three different "bullet launchers." At the end of the day, every single "bullet launcher" is unique and WILL NOT exactly duplicate the results from any other firearm chambered for the same cartridge.
 
The “horrible” trigger pull in DA can be overcome with practice. I was LAPD in the 70s, and all our wheelguns were DA. I was a strong sharpshooter and occasionally ventured into Expert territory. Strong pull to the trigger break and then gentle.
 
3L120 said:
The “horrible” trigger pull in DA can be overcome with practice. I was LAPD in the 70s, and all our wheelguns were DA. I was a strong sharpshooter and occasionally ventured into Expert territory. Strong pull to the trigger break and then gentle.
Click to expand...
True. I actually recommend dry fire practice with a DA revolver to folks who are having issues with trigger control on their striker fired auto pistols.

In THIS thread, discussion of DA versus SA trigger pull has nothing to do with "accuracy" per se. The DA versus SA issue arrises from the potential differences in velocity spreads because of the "softer" hammer strike with a DA trigger pull versus a slightly "harder" hammer strike with a SA mode of firing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top