Taurus side-to-side cylinder play

[DrLaw]

I asked this question on another forum, and so far have 24 views and no replies.

I recently got to handle two brand-spanking new Taurus Tracker revolvers. One in .22 and the other in .44 Mag. With both I was able to wiggle the cylinder from side-to-side when the hammer was back and the trigger pulled. I am only used to Smith & Wesson revolvers and they do not have that much movement, if at all.

The question is, is this normal with Taurus or anything to be worried about?

I would tend to think that there would be either lead shaving or bad cylinder to barrel indexing.

The Doc is out now.

 

[Guillermo]

side to side! Do not shoot that gun.

Send it back if there is any appreciable side to side play. It should be undetectable.

 

[Glockman17366]

It's hard to say. You should cock the hammer back, then pull the trigger (gun unloaded, of course) and HOLDING THE TRIGGER, gently lower the hammer.
That's full lock up. Then wiggle the cylinder laterally, rotationally and fore/aft.
It's impossible to say if the movement is excessive. One would have to wiggle the cylinder himself to determine that. I will say my .357 Tracker has no movement when locked up.
Since they're both new, I suggest you return them to your gunshop for their opinion.

BTW, have you shot those guns? Are you getting any lead spitting? A buddy of mine did have a problem with a S&W similar to what you described...also a brand new gun. His did spit lead. S&W fixed the gun. I know it was a 4" .357 Magnum, so I guess it was a 686.

 

[DrLaw]

Nope, have not shot the guns. We got them for a fund raising raffle. Yes, I did try it as Glockman said. One of the ways that I check revolvers. That is where the surprise for me came in. I really could wiggle it from left to right and right to left. In other words, a lot of lateral play on both guns.

I misstated earlier the model of the .22. It was the Model 64 (and forgive me if I got it wrong as it is late here, we had some storms overnight and I am a tad sleepy. The other was a Tracker 5-shot .44 Magnum.

Both are brand new. Both had just come out of the box.

I guess I have my answer that it is not normal. Thanks.

The Doc is out now.

 

[PT1911]

taurus has a lifetime warranty on their guns.. have it sent back and allow them to take care of the problem.. I have handled several tauri revolvers and autos (though the latter is not really relavent), and never experienced any play in the cylinder..

 

[Old Fuff]

There is a general misunderstanding on this issue. Only those Colt double-action revolvers made from approximately 1908 until the early 1970’s (except the Python) were designed so that the cylinder was “locked solid” when the trigger was pulled and held back. And unless the chamber and bore were absolutely concentric this wasn’t a good feature. Obviously if the chamber is locked, but misaligned you are going to get leading and side spit.

Smith & Wesson, Ruger and Taurus double-action revolvers use a different system entirely, and there is supposed to be a little rotational slack so that as the bullet passes from the chamber into the barrel the two can self align. As a rule of thumb you don’t get excessive movement unless the yoke/crane is sprung allowing the cylinder to both move in and out in addition to the normal rotational movement. Another thing to check is excessive battering and peening of the notches in the cylinder. If the notches aren’t peened it’s unlikely you will have excessive rotational movement, unless the ball on the cylinder stop (in S&W or Taurus revolvers, cylinder bolt in Colt-speak) that sticks up through the frame has been thinned.

If your S&W, Ruger or Taurus revolver is shooting accurately, and there is no evidence of side spitting – especially with lead bullets, I wouldn’t worry.

 

[Oro]

and there is no evidence of side spitting – especially with lead bullets

I was typing a reply as Old Fluff posted - so I'll trim mine down. This is the test to use - some side to side play is normal in a S&W type action (and the Taurus copy). Don't get bent out of shape unless it's shaving lead, or obviously misaligned.

If you want to see a good way to check alignment, go see the sticky at the top of the forum by Sylvan_Forge about the Model 10. The last page has some very nice pictures on how to eyeball it. This would be equally applicable to your model.

 

[Guillermo]

One disagrees with Old Fuff at their own peril. And of course, everything he says is exactly correct.

Having said that, Dr. Law said that he could

wiggle the cylinder from side-to-side

.

Side to side wiggle is dangerous, as OF said, a small bit of rotation is normal.

 

[MCgunner]

Fuff is right (I don't dare disagree), a little rotational play, don't sweat it. I have Rugers and Smiths that don't lock up that tight, ain't supposed to. I can't recall one revolver I've owned (none of 'em Colts) that didn't have at least a little rotational play. End shake, now, that's another matter. That's THE indicator of wear.

If it locks up, shoot it. If timing is off, that's a problem, but if not, just shoot it. If you're that worried about it, take it to a smith and let him quell your fears.

I'm thinkin' Taurus is so bashed on these boards, it sunk into your head and you're seeing things that aren't a problem just from listening to the bashers.

 

[Old Fuff]

Well there are some that disagree with the Old Fuff on a regular basis...

Some of them actually survive for as much as 24 hours.

We don't have a disagreement here, but rather a misunderstanding about how different revolver actions work. The famous Colt "bankvault door lock" system was fine as long as the fitting was carefully done by experienced and skilled workmen. Without question the result was exceptionally accurate revolvers that were prized by both bullseye target shooters and others who could hit the K-Zone of a silhouette target at a mesured 100 yards using a Detective Special. But as hand labor became more and more expensive the precise fitting suffered.

In terms of accuracy, Smith & Wesson's, and later Ruger's came close, and were much easier to assemble. In all cases if you get a sprung yoke because of flipping the cylinder in and out like a movie star, accuracy will go south in quick order and you'll get side spit.

Also until recently, hand fitting the hand to the ratchet teeth was required in all of these revolvers, and sometimes the fitting wasn't all that precise. On the part of S&W and Taurus, improved tooling and better ratchet designs have reduced problems in this area. Ruger didn't have them in the first place.

 

[MCgunner]

Couple of things, the Colts need that tight lock up because the hand is the main thing that keeps the gun locked up. There is no front lock on the cylinder and the cylinder rotates in the opposite direction of a Smith. The hand is the support for the cylinder, dual function so to speak. If it don't lock up bank vault tight, then there will be wiggle in the cylinder which is worse than rotational play.

Also, unless the gun is line bored, like Freedom Arms does, alignment isn't going to be absolutely perfect at any rate. In the Smith and Wesson designed guns, that rotational play lets the cylinder have a little slack which is a good thing for the bullet as the chamber might not be perfectly bored. A little play allows for this as the bullet enters the forcing cone.

Line boring revolvers take as much attention to detail as does the Colt system of fitting. Witness the price of Freedom Arms revolvers. I want one, though, some day, a nice .454 Casull.

 

[Guillermo]

Of course you are right, we do not have a disagreement but rather a failure to communicate. (this written word can be so limiting)

The issue is what motion Dr. Law detects on the revolver in question.

If the cylinder can move side-to-side there is a big problem. If it rotates a little all is as it should be.

 

[DrLaw]

Guillermo,

I will agree on a failure to communicate since I really did not know what to call it, never having experienced it before.

Rotational motion is what I saw with these two revolvers. More rotational movement than I have ever seen in a revolver other than a couple very old Colt .38 S&W, and not the .38 Smith & Wesson Special, the OLD .38 S&W.

This was not the end to end movement as in running back and forth on the cylinder center pin.

This movement would be akin to the cylinder stop being too narrow or the hand not pushing the cylinder against the cylinder stop. I really could wiggle the cylinder - rotationally - back and forth at what I normally see in a S&W is a hair's width of movement, if at all. I'm trying to think of something comparable right now. Ah, there's something. Small paperclip wire's diameter size of movement, right and left. To me, that was a lot of movement.

There we go, I hope that paints a better picture here.

By the way guys, not my guns. They will be won at a fund-raising raffle, and being part of the club having that raffle, I don't want something possibly hazardous getting out to the public, ergo my concern.

Sorry I did not make it clearer. Now if you want to discuss DUI, burglary,
domestic battery, I can make all that clear, but sometimes the proper words for what I am thinking about with guns is a little harder to think up.

The Doc is out now.

 

[Guillermo]

Dr Law,

I am VERY glad that it is not side to side motion.

As everyone, including the incomparable Old Fuff said, a little rotation is normal.

Sorry for misunderstanding. Just wanted to avoid you losing fingers and eyes which is possible. A "sprung" yoke or bent cylinder rod can be quite dangerous.

 

[Arcticfox]

I have an old 629, and a new Tracker. The 629 has some play; it shoots fine. The Tracker has almost no play! It shoots fine as well.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

I have an old Colt Officer's Model Target revolver, 1911 production, with what's probably a worn hand. Cylinder often doesn't quite rotate fully into position if the hammer is cocked slowly enough, and if the gun is held leaning over to the left, there is a small amount of lateral cylinder wiggle from the yoke cracking opening just a hair. Of course I do not shoot with my guns tipped over to the left. My newer Colts do not have this problem at all, so it is definitely wear. As an occasional slow-fire range shooter, I don't worry overmuch about this. But I'd sure like to get it fixed. I just don't feel up to fabricating and handfitting a new hand, especially as I'm not entirely certain that's the culprit. Could be one or two other things. But heck, compared to some of the totally out-of-time falling-apart wrecks I've seen shot at my range, my old Colt is in good shape.

 

[Old Fuff]

The problem between carry-up (the cylinder not revolving all of the way from chamber to chamber) and the "cylinder wiggle," are related, and it's unlikey you need a new hand or any other parts. The internals are basically the same as the Python, and any experienced Colt 'smith would have it corrected in 20 minutes or less. I suggest you return it to Colt for a tune-up.

Incidentally, all the hand does is cause the cylinder to rotate by a pushing action. How can doing that cause it to wear? Wear is caused by two (or more) parts rubbing together while under substantial pressure.

 

[HammerBite]

Incidentally, all the hand does is cause the cylinder to rotate by a pushing action. How can doing that cause it to wear? Wear is caused by two (or more) parts rubbing together while under substantial pressure.

The motion of the hand is linear. The ratchet tooth the hand bears upon is rotating and will present an oblique bearing surface to the hand. There will be slippage between the hand and the ratchet tooth, with resultant wear.

Also, consider a .44 caliber cylinder. It has a fair amount of mass and inertia. It takes force to rotate it. Then, further consider that the ratchet teeth are located very close to the cylinder's axis of rotation, which multiplies the force required. Now consider a rapid double-action string in which the hand must rotate the cylinder quickly, thereby further multiplying the force required.

The hand and ratchet don't just loaf along, they have a stressful job to do, and they become worn.

 

[Old Fuff]

The hand and ratchet don't just loaf along, they have a stressful job to do, and they become worn.

In my limited experience that stress isn't enough to cause serious wear, except perhaps over a very long period of time, and I've examined a lot of well-worn Colt revolvers that went back as far as the middle 19th century, and they showed little or no wear on the ratchet teeth or point of the hand.

In fact when shooting fast double-action the cylinder may revolve ahead of the hand, turning under its own inertia. The heat-treated steels, used in middle-later 20th century quality revolvers to make the ratchet and hands were usually equal to handling whatever shock and stress there is (or was). Cheaper guns, made out of inferior metal, with thin hands are another matter.

In many cases when someone brought me a double-action Colt revolver that didn't carry up as it should because of a "worn hand," I discovered that it wasn't worn at all, but rather had a bent pin that caused it to engage the ratchet further outboard and therefore not rotate the cylinder far enough. After straightening the pin the hand worked fine.

This is not to say that Colt lockwork never wore, but to point out that wear isn’t always the cause of the problem.

 

[Proteus157]

Cause for side spitting

I read through this great discussion and learned rotation is OK, thanks. However, I am getting some side spitting and lead build-up.

I'm shooting a 6" Taurus .357 Mag Model 66. Lead buildup occurs when shooting .38 Spc 158 gr L on the barrel between the 1 and 2 o'clock position. No noticeable build-up when shooting .357 Mag 110 gr JHP. Spitting occurs w/ both (factory) loads. The cylinder will lock-up at times...unable to pull trigger or hammer. Cylinder hard to eject. There doesn't seem to be an issue with the cylinder stop.

Thanks in advance for any comments on possible causes/fixes.