Hard Primers or Light Spring or ??

[Piedmont]

I knew that coffee can full of spent primers would come in handy some day. It will probably be a few days before I can get out again. In the meantime, I'll look up the screw on a schematic.

I've thrown out many 10,000s of spent primers. Found out on this board they are brass, even though many are silver colored. They get saved now and one day will make a trip to the scrap yard to sell them. I have a M15 S&W that I used that trick on and that primer cup is going nowhere so I never bought a longer screw.

[Piedmont]

Thank you, Piedmont. I was trying to think of a suitable material for a shim. A fired primer is perfect and what I was trying to remember.

Brad

You sure had the right idea and we were typing at the same time.

[alamogunr]

Just bought several thousand Rem LPs and have been having misfires in my M29 and my buddy's M57. We will be going to Federals since WWs are unobtainable here. Yes losing mass on the hammer doubtless contributed to the problem. If you're sure you want the hammer to be spurless, your smith can bore a hole in the body of the hammer and stake in a Mallory metal disc which will add appreciable mass. S&W can tell you the stock length of your strain screw but they will want to have the serial number regardless what model and dash it is, and have your chips dips & soda ready because you will be on hold for...a...while. I can measure the one on my M66 for you if you'd like; I have to take it apart in a couple days anyway. Also take a good look at the mainspring...some of the aftermarket ones have either a differently formed or missing locator lug at the bottom, where a factory spring has a definite integral lug forged into the bottom edge. It could just need a new stock spring.
Ed

The spring does have the lug at the bottom edge. I don't know if it conforms to what you have described. I just remembered that I have a Model 19 in the safe. It is a square butt though. Would the mainspring be the same? I guess I could look it up in the Brownell's catalog.

To explain why I have this gun, I intended it to be a "truck" gun or a carry gun. I have had some other problems which knocked it out as a carry gun. I probably will go back to a semi-auto even though I prefer revolvers.

[youngmman]

Lots of good advice here but I would add that Brownell's carry's different weight main springs and rebound slide springs for the old style S&W pistols. The rebound slide spring isn't as reliable if it is shortened so a full length one but of lesser weight should keep the weight of pull down. The strain screw shouldn't be backed off at all. I'll bet the Mo. 65 was tinkered with when the action job was done: Time sweat and crocus cloth makes for a smoother action than monkeying with the springs. "Reliable ignition is more important than weight of pull", Bill Jordan in "No second place winner"

[alamogunr]

Sorry to be resurrecting this thread but thought some who posted to it might like to hear what I found out.

Almost a year ago I started this thread about my problems with a S&W Model 65 that I had modified to a DAO by bobbing the hammer. Then I started having problems with misfires with my reloads using Wolf primers. One suggestion that was easy to implement was to place a fired primer under the mainspring screw. Since then life happened and I have not had opportunity to go to the range to test. Finally made it yesterday.

Out of 36 rounds fired in the 65, eleven failed to fire. Those eleven were subsequently fired in a Model 28 Highway Patrolman. Of these, 2 failed to fire. The firing pin indent on the nine that fired was much more pronounced. The 2 that failed had a slightly greater indent but not much.

This tells me that the Wolf primers have harder cups and some are very hard. I guess I will try to use these primers on plinking ammo in the M28 and just tear down those that won't fire and not use them at all in the DAO M65.

[Outpost75]

Back.in the day when cops carried wheelguns and dinosaurs ruled the earth, duty action jobs entailed only breaking the corner wire edge of the rebound slide corner to ease trigger return and taking one coil only off the rebound spring. Striker indent was measured using a copper crusher held in a max cartridge gage having a recess to hold the copper. Minimum Cu indent on the govt gage was 0.010 for .38 Special, .0.011" for .357 and 0.012 for 9mm and. 45. JGS has the drawings for the gage holder, but Olin does not sell the coppers to the gunsmith trade, only to the arms makers who must meet the indent specs. for contracts, and for the government labs. Last time I bought coppers they cost about $1 each with a minimum order of 1000. Lacking the govt gage and coppers, recommended practice is to test fire 100 rounds, pass on zero misfires, retest another 100 rounds if you get a misfire. Reject is 1% on retest or 2 in 200. 1 in 200 is classed as a minor category defect. If two guns in daily 13 piece sample are accepted on minors, another 13 guns would be tested. Repeat test of two guns failing in 26 or 5 accepted on minors that day's production would be returned to the shop floor for rework and retest. That was how it usex to be done.

[alamogunr]

Right now I'm inclined to accept that the Wolf primers have variable hardness cups and move on as posted. I also have 5K large pistol primers that I have had no problems with.

I will keep a record of failures as I use up the primers but I don't intend to load up 200 rounds just for the purpose of testing. I'm afraid the results would mirror the nearly 1/3rd failure rate from yesterday.

After reading what I just typed, there is no difference between testing and keeping a record.

[cowboy]

Howdy- On reflection, too short a rebound slide spring is likewise bad for reliability, and can keep you from fast follow up if needed ( have read that Ed McGivern used full power springs only ) . I have tried to walk the line on trigger pull vs reliable ignition by testing with CCI primers, (reputed to be less sensitive or having harder cups ) If it sets those loads off 100% of the time, I'm feeling good about it being good to go with any factory load of good repute. I DO have an old PPC gun that gets excused because, heck, it's job is to punch paper with only it's favorite handload, and that includes Federal primers. My "cowboy" guns get Federals, too, but have to set off CCIs, to be reliable.

[CATTLEMAN]

As mentioned bobbing the hammer can up the chances of getting a light strike. I had a snub nose revolver tuned by a VERY talented smith, who I recently realized posts here occasionally, and he bobed the hammer and did a DAO conversion at my request. It would always work if fired rapidly as it was intended to be used (in self defence), but if fired carefully and slowly it would often misfire. I eventually replaced the hammer with an unaltered one and the problem stopped. This is not a criticism of the smith who I have a lot of respect for, I was young enough back then to still "know it all" and ignored his advice to only semi bob the hammer and leave the single action function in the gun.

[tazman]

I recently acquired a S&W K38 Target Masterpiece with a wonderful trigger. It would occasionally misfire in DA mode. When I checked the strain screw, it had obviously been modified. The spring end of the screw had tool marks and had been beveled.
I tried the primer cup over the strain screw trick and it worked. I have since replaced the strain screw with an unmodified one. It made little to no effect on the trigger pull but completely eliminated the light strikes.

[Petrol & Powder]

The fallacy of backing out the strain screw has been covered extensively in other threads and a little bit on this thread. I think most people understand that screw is not a mainspring adjustment screw but you still run into a few bubbas' that will claim otherwise.

CCI primers do seem to require the most force to ignite and Federal seems to be the easiest to set off with Remington and WW somewhere in the middle. I'm not sure where Wolf primers fall in that evaluation.

As for bobbed hammers and reliability, I can address that issue.
Yes, removing the hammer spur does reduce the hammer's mass but if done properly it will not reduce reliability. When you examine the total mass of the hammer, the spur makes up a small portion of the hammer's weight. Removing a little weight from the hammer can actually increase the speed of the hammer fall (reduced lock time) but there's a limit to that effect. Obviously reducing hammer weight to speed up lock time will reach a point of diminishing returns. At some point the increased acceleration provided by the lighter hammer will plateau and the mass will be insufficient to set off the primer. There's a limit to the amount of energy available from the mainspring and the amount of acceleration possible.

Where folks run into trouble with bobbing hammers is when they lighten the hammer AND reduce the mainspring tension. You can reduce the mainspring tension in connection with a bobbed hammer but the window of reliability gets much narrower with a light hammer. I have several revolvers with bobbed hammers; some bobbed by me and some that came from the factory. They are 100% reliable with all primers but I took great care on the ones I worked on.

[alamogunr]

Until I started using the Wolf primers I had no problems. The fact that most of the non-firing rounds from the DAO S&W did fire when used in the Highway Patrolman, does seem to indicate that the DAO has a lighter strike. But, some rounds not firing in the HP would seem to support the theory that the Wolf primer cups are harder and of variable hardness.

If I can find some Federal primers, I will try them in the DAO S&W. That may be the only way to get complete reliability without returning the gun to the gunsmith that performed the original work. I've got too much money tied up in this gun as it is.

I'm also going to have to bone up on S&W terminology(rebound slide spring) to be able to understand fully what is going on.

[Petrol & Powder]

rebound slide spring = trigger return spring

The trigger on a S&W DA revolver is reset by the "rebound slide". That "rebound slide" contains the trigger return spring and the slide accomplishes multiple functions (trigger reset, controls the hammer block safety, etc. ). I'm sure someone a little more computer savvy can post a photograph of a K-frame with the side plate removed and the rebound slide identified.

And just so we don't wander too far into the tall weeds, the rebound slide spring has an effect on the trigger pull weight but no effect on the force applied to the hammer. The hammer is powered by the mainspring (flat leaf spring contained in the grip frame).

[Tatume]

I've thrown out many 10,000s of spent primers. Found out on this board they are brass, even though many are silver colored. They get saved now and one day will make a trip to the scrap yard to sell them. I have a M15 S&W that I used that trick on and that primer cup is going nowhere so I never bought a longer screw.

Scrap yards here won't take them. The chance of a live primer in the batch is too great.

[FergusonTO35]

I have redone all my defense and hunting loads to use W-W primers, except for the really small pistols which get Federal. I have never experienced a hard W-W primer and they show 30-40 extra fps over my chronograph in 9mm and .38 Special. They also have far fewer pierced primers than others. I always buy some W-W primers when I encounter them. The Remington and CCI I have remaining are for practice only.

[Gus Youmans]

alamogunr,

I have been using Tula primers, which I have been told are made in the same factory as the Wolf primers, and have been experiencing misfires even with factory springs in a current production S&W Model 66 and Ruger SP-101. Winchester, Federal and CCI primers all work without a hitch, leading me to believe that Tula uses very hard cups. The Tula primers work without a hitch in my Glock 19 and Springfield 1911 9mm, so that is all I use them for.

Gus Youmans

[alamogunr]

Thanks for that info. I haven't tried the Wolf's in the Glock 19. Since I also have a Glock 21, it may be a way to use the Wolf large pistol primers.

[Char-Gar]

Have you fired your slicked up 65 with primers other than Wolf to check reliability, or are you just blaming Wolf primers without any comparison.

I say this because of my original post some time back. My bet is your reliability will be less than 100% with several makes of primers. It is my opinion that a revolver should give 100% reliability with ANY make of primers. If it does not, it is time to look at the mechanics of the revolver.

[alamogunr]

See Post #25. Prior to using the Wolf primers I used WW primers in this gun exclusively. Had 100% reliability. Since I had a fair amount of WW primers I didn't try to acquire any others except the Wolf and those because they were cheap. Since then primers of any brand have been hard to find.

"Out of 36 rounds fired in the 65, eleven failed to fire. Those eleven were subsequently fired in a Model 28 Highway Patrolman. Of these, 2 failed to fire. The firing pin indent on the nine that fired was much more pronounced. The 2 that failed had a slightly greater indent but not much."(from Post #25)

The difference in indentation of the rounds fired in the HP is the reason I suspect hardness of the Wolf primers.

[Mal Paso]

Wolf are harder than CCI It has been said it's because they don't change specifications from military ammo. Primer es primer, Da?

Winchester has had piercing issues too. Saw a S&W 610 with much of the pin bushing eroded.

Brownells has brand new S&W factory springs cheap. If you are ordering a screw, you might have them throw in a spring. Aftermarket springs are just lighter and not as well made.

I got a lot of FTF experience with that notorious batch of Winchester primers before they got "Sensitive".