Looking down the barrel when examining revolver

[Lost Sheep]

I was filling my car's battery from a jug of distilled water once and a little droplet of battery acid splashed into my eye. My first reaction was to run into the house and rinse my eye until I thought, "Hey, you have pure, distilled water in your hands." I had to think real hard before I rinsed my eye, because this is the same jug that, in my mind, had battery chemicals in it. Never mind that the battery chemical was pure water.

I know of one lab that had a good training program, and another lab in the same company had the same training program, not so well conducted. An employee from the first lab transferred to the second lab. When he got spashed with some dangerous substance, he didn't go the the decontamination shower where he worked. He rand down the stairs, across to the place where he USED to work to shower off. The training was that well ingrained.

When I look down the barrel of a revolver in full lockup, I always put the gun in full lockup with the hammer down while it is pointed in a safe direction. Only THEN do I swing the gun to let me look down the barrel.

Yeah, the training we have in our heads sometimes gets in our way (witness the first two instances). But logic and reason can prevail (witness the first and third examples).

Anyone know what the "Gom Jabbar" is? Essentially it tests the ability of reason to overcome instinct and separates humans from animals. I think it has application here because reason sometimes has to overcome even the best training (when that training runs counter to applicability).

Yeah, looking down the barrel gives me pause. But sometimes I have to overcome it. Like pouring water into my eye that a moment ago I was pouring into battery acid.

Lost Sheep

 

[Loosedhorse]

Anyone know what the "Gom Jabbar" is? Essentially it tests the ability of reason to overcome instinct and separates humans from animals.

So, you mean: when you're curious about the workings of a gun, your "instinct" is to look down the barrel as you pull the trigger--but reason saves you from your instinct, so you don't do that ever?

If so, then I'm a Gom Jabbar fan. If the Gom Jabber is instead telling me to ignore Rules 1 and 2 because they don't apply in "special" circumstances to "experts" like me? Well, then I haven't much use for it.

 

[bragmardo]

I agree that the checklist is misleading in this regard. Only that handful of hand-fitted, precisely built sixguns should have zero movement. Such as Freedom Arms, custom linebored Rugers and I assume Korth and Manurhin.

All revolvers allow for some radial movement at lockup, unless their design includes a second stage lockup. The classic example of the latter is the Colt V-spring action with its "Bank Vault Lockup", a licensed derivative of the Schmidt Galand patents. The gas sealed Nagant action goes even further, moving the cylinder forward to abut its top chamber mouth against the forcing cone at lockup, resulting in the most accurate revolver action in existence, per its standing bullseye records. The tradeoff here is the wear incurred by the locking parts, typically the hand, from the cylinder recoiling in the frame. Korth and Manurhin actions allow for some degree of radial movement at lockup, with the bullet's ogive briefly aligning the chamber with the forcing cone upon its exit from the cartridge case, in the manner of Smith & Wesson revolvers. In and of itself, this feature doesn't appreciably degrade the revolver's accuracy, which in Manurhin's MR32 and MR38 variants rivals the finest ISU centerfire autopistols in these calibers.

 

[CraigC]

Nagant action goes even further...resulting in the most accurate revolver action in existence

Uh, what???

 

[bragmardo]

Nagant action goes even further...resulting in the most accurate revolver action in existence

Uh, what???

As in the TOZ-36, TOZ-49, and their likes.

 

[Guillermo]

Nagant action goes even further...resulting in the most accurate revolver action in existence

and great trigger pulls too!!!

That is why they are known as the "russian python"

 

[bragmardo]

Pythons are for pikers. Mikhail Nestruev's 2007 centerfire pistol world record of 594/600 achieved with a Nagant-based TOZ-49 still stands.

 

[Old Fuff]

bragmardo

Has a good point, but it is going to go over the heads of most of our members and followers because in this country we tend to be completely focused on those revolvers made here, and have an almost complete lack of knowledge of International target shooting disciplines

In particular, ISU Center Fire – that is generally well known all over the world except in the U.S.A.

The course can be fired with almost any center-fire revolver or pistol chambered for a cartridge using a bullet between 7.65mm (.32 caliber) to 9mm (.38 caliber). Pistols chambered in .32 S&W Long (with full wad-cutter bullets) has largely taken over, but at one time revolvers were popular, and in Europe and the USSR the Nagant was a popular platform to build a target pistol on. When finished, they had little resemblance to the stock revolver from which they were built, and they were unquestionably as accurate as a Colt Officers Model Match or Smith & Wesson K-38 Masterpiece.

Would they be the equal of something built by Freedom Arms? I don't know because I lack that much experience with a Match Grade Nagant, but for all practical circumstances in a very demanding environment I don't think they would be very far apart.

 

[Guillermo]

When finished, they had little resemblance to the stock revolver from which they were built

Ah...

So you are saying it is analogous to the relationship between Tanner Foust's Fiesta and that which you can purchase at the local Ford dealer.

Got it.

Always learn something when you drop in Old Fuff and enjoy reading your posts. (except when you are trying to chop up my guns )

 

[Old Fuff]

... except when you are trying to chop up my guns )

I don't chop (oh, how crude) I grind...

 

[Guillermo]

I grind

The word "grind" seems to mesh well with the word "bump".

The image is NOT making me feel any better.

 

[bragmardo]

When finished, they had little resemblance to the stock [Nagant] revolver from which they were built, and they were unquestionably as accurate as a Colt Officers Model Match or Smith & Wesson K-38 Masterpiece.

The TOZ-36 is a dedicated, single action Nagant pattern target revolver, ready for ISU competition right out of the box.

 

[Guillermo]

bragmardo.

I am familiar with the Nagant revolver that is commonly available for 80 bucks.

It was my mistake to think that such was the firearm which you were speaking of.

Thank you for the lesson.

 

[Old Fuff]

The TOZ-36 is a dedicated, single action Nagant pattern target revolver, ready for ISU competition right out of the box.

True, but so were the Colt Officers Model Match and Smith and Wesson's K-38 Masterpiece (or those chambered in .32 S&W Long as well). The TOZ was another example, but earlier posts did not clearly explain that the "Nagant" mentioned was not the common service revolver. Confusion is understandable because very few (if any) others following this thread have any previous knowledge of ISU Center Fire competition, or the firearms used by its competitors.

 

[CraigC]

I am familiar with the Nagant revolver that is commonly available for 80 bucks.

It was my mistake to think that such was the firearm which you were speaking of.

Since no distinction was made, that is what I assumed as well.

I think the claim "Nagant action goes even further...resulting in the most accurate revolver action in existence" is a bold statement. One that needs quantifying and is probably debatable. I would like to know what accuracy these guns are capable of. Because if the groups in the link were fired at 25m and averaged just over an inch, I'm not overly impressed. Because we know many a factory revolver will do an inch at 25yds. FA's will do that at 50yds and many will also do so at 100yds. I also recall a custom Ruger that Ross Seyfried had built that did 1"@100yds.

 

[Guillermo]

very few (if any) others following this thread have any previous knowledge of ISU Center Fire competition, or the firearms used by its competitors.

I am not one of the few.

But always anxious to learn

 

[bragmardo]

I would like to know what accuracy these guns are capable of.

As referenced above, 594/600, with a 10-zone of 5 cm in diameter at a 25 m distance.

 

[Old Fuff]

Translation: I believe that he's saying is that the winning competior of the first stage (slow fire) must keep his shots within or touch a 2"/10 ring circle at 25 meters. This shooting one hand, unsupported.

At the same distance I would expect the revolver to shoot approximately 3/4"to 1" groups if it was mounted in a machine rest.

 

[Lost Sheep]

Anyone for starting a new thread to let this one get back to the original subject

As interesting as the nuances of Nagant revolvers and others are, the subject was looking down the barrel of a revolver (or any gun, for that matter) when the rules clearly mandate never to point a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy.

My take on it is that a THINKING person takes the precautions necessary and does what good maintenance demands.

One has to look down the barrel of a gun sometimes. If you cannot look down it from the breech end, you are left with the barrel end. Besides, every gun in the world is always pointed at something.

I had a friend who insisted I keep my Ruger Super Redhawk loaded with an empty chamber under the hammer when we were in the woods together. I didn't bother trying to convince him that it was safe fully loaded. (He was my host.) But it demonstrated how someone can be enslaved by mindless adherence to rules that do not apply in a (more or less) limited situation. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (Emerson) To be unable to adapt behavior to changing condition is the way to extinction.

Rules are made so we don't have to think about what we do in every instant of every day and are a great time-saver. But when confronted with altered conditions, we have to be able to think clearly enough to know when the rules need to be set aside.

Lost Sheep

 

[CraigC]

Safety rules are really more like guidelines than firm laws carved in stone. If we were to never place ourselves in front of the muzzle, how would we ever clean one or load our muzzleloaders??? Let your conscience be your guide.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I had a friend who insisted I keep my Ruger Super Redhawk loaded with an empty chamber under the hammer when we were in the woods together.

Odd. But we like our friends because of their oddities, not in spite of them. Such a habit on a Ruger Super Blackhawk is also unnecessary, but very easy for me to understand--in fact, I do it.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Actually, the quote is: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

Emerson was living just a few miles from where I live when he wrote those words, so I'm kinda a fan: I've read a lot of his writings. He was referring of course to politicians, academics and petty bureaucrats; not to checking revolvers.

If you have any quotes where he says pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger is a good idea, your use of his words would then seem more apt.

If we were to never place ourselves in front of the muzzle, how would we ever clean one or load our muzzleloaders???

I'd recommend disassembly before cleaning. Loading is a problem, but I'd rather expose my hand (my left hand) than my head:

Safety rules are really more like guidelines than firm laws carved in stone.

we have to be able to think clearly enough to know when the rules need to be set aside

No; gun safety rules are never "set aside." Good luck to you both, but if I can help it we won't be shooting on the same line, ever.

 

[CraigC]

Wow, that's interesting. I reckon you've never shot, or cleaned, a Kentucky rifle that's pinned together then huh? Yes, safety rules MUST be "set aside" when cleaning, when inspecting a firearm before purchase, etc.. I'd love to know how one inspects the bore of a firearm without using their eyeballs. No, I don't think we'll ever be shooting together but not for the same reasons.

I'd rather expose my hand (my left hand) than my head

As would I, and I do, but the rule is not "never point a firearm at your head", the rule is "never point a firearm at anything you're not willing to destroy". I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to destroy my hand, or any other part of my body.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I reckon you've never shot, or cleaned, a Kentucky rifle

You reckon right.

Yes, safety rules MUST be "set aside" when cleaning, when inspecting a firearm before purchase, etc..

No.

If you must choose to disregard fundamental safety rules (I'll take your word on that) if you choose to fire such rifles...then those are both your choices. Your decisions, and mine, to make. We've each made ours.

No, I don't think we'll ever be shooting together but not for the same reasons.

Well, of course not for the same reasons! My only reason was safety, and you've made it clear that safety's no concern of yours.

I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to destroy my hand, or any other part of my body.

Sure you know about me.

My "muzzle-loaders" are BP revolvers. And even while loading the cylinders, I use a loading stand. I'm following my rules.

Like I said, we all make our choices, like how much we like our hands, and heads.

 

[CraigC]

Nothing more than self-righteous rhetoric.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Well, an insulting person (like yourself) might suggest your position is nothing more that dangerous self-delusion: safety rules don't apply to experts, like you, who know when to disregard the rules and when not to. But I won't suggest that. I'll just note you've made your choice, and I'll assume you have your reasons.

Me? I've personally decided that the safety rules matter, and I personally act accordingly. I don't see anything "rhetorical" at all in that. As to "self-righteous" ("convinced of one's own righteousness" per M-W), well, pot and kettle, goose and gander.

At least, I'm not insisting that you act as I do; yet you seem to insist that everyone must act as you do, since it's supposedly impossible to act in accordance with taking safety rules seriously. Even though most of us actually do: example, and one more.