I purchased a new 650 late last year. I've shot it infrequently over the last 4 or 5 months. The last time I took it to the range I noticed that occasionally the cylinder seemed to be dragging. I examined the gun which seems to have an extremely tight barrel/cylinder gap. I noticed some lead buildup and gave it a good cleaning. Today was the first time I have shot it since. Halfway through a cheap box of 38 Blazers (all lead) the cylinder seemed to start dragging again. There were a couple of instances when the trigger did not want to pull all the way to the rear and fire. Also on a couple of occasions the cylinder seemed to rotate in a very jerky motion (for lack of a better word), as if it were dragging and then letting go. It was not a smooth rotation. I'm guessing that all of this is probably a result of the tight barrel/cylinder gap. The gap is so tight that I can only see bright light through it at certain angles. Is this a good assumption, or could it be something more serious? Thanks for any feedback. I've also posted this in the revolver forum.
Problem with the 650 CIA?
- Thread starter Doug S
- Start date
VictorLouis
New member
A revo should not be so tight that a box or two
of lead affects it that badly. I've seen off-kilter cylinders on more than one NIB Taurus. Does the flash-gap change at all as you eyeball it carefully around the full rotaion of the five chambers? If so, that's indicative of a problem. If the face of the cylinder appears to stay parallel with the forcing cone when you check it, I would then look for some debris under the ejector star. Powder and carbon build-up there can force it back against the recoil shield and result in the intermittent drag as you describe.
of lead affects it that badly. I've seen off-kilter cylinders on more than one NIB Taurus. Does the flash-gap change at all as you eyeball it carefully around the full rotaion of the five chambers? If so, that's indicative of a problem. If the face of the cylinder appears to stay parallel with the forcing cone when you check it, I would then look for some debris under the ejector star. Powder and carbon build-up there can force it back against the recoil shield and result in the intermittent drag as you describe.
VictorLouis thanks for the response. As a matter of fact the cylinder does appear to be a little off. It almost looks as if the cylinder is closer to the forcing cone at the top (of each chamber)than it is at the bottom. This is very slight and would not be noticed except under close inspection. It also is ever so slightly different from chamber to chamber. I noticed this early on and spoke with the dealer about this. He claimed that he couldn't really see what I was describing and that the gap looked tight but fine. It looks as if her was wrong. It functioned fine for the first 3 or 4 boxes of ammo. I thought that maybe I was being too particular.
Assuming the gun is reasonably accurate, and the cylinder bore/barrel alignment is good, and there's not too much cylinder play, I'd personally leave the gun exactly the way it is.
Sure, you'll need to keep it clean. It's got a tight gap. If you shoot dirty ammo, you might need to wipe down the cylinder face and back of the barrel. If just doing that fixes it for a while, fine, you've just got a tight gap.
Be happy. That's a feature, not a bug
. It means you'll get up to an extra 50 - 75fps from your .38+P ammo, which might be the difference between the stuff expanding or not! In a snubby, I think a tight gap is a damned fine idea. Mine is .002, I can generally get through about 40 rounds of UMC FMJ practice fodder, and I know it'll make it through a cylinder and two speedloaders worth of Winchester .38+P LSWC-HPs, which is all I'm gonna possibly shoot in a fight anyways 
.
Do the checkout for the alignment and cylinder play tests:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57816
If those are reasonable, it's not spitting lead and the accuracy is at least fair, kewl. You've got a fine little defensive snubby there.
Sure, you'll need to keep it clean. It's got a tight gap. If you shoot dirty ammo, you might need to wipe down the cylinder face and back of the barrel. If just doing that fixes it for a while, fine, you've just got a tight gap.
Be happy. That's a feature, not a bug
. It means you'll get up to an extra 50 - 75fps from your .38+P ammo, which might be the difference between the stuff expanding or not! In a snubby, I think a tight gap is a damned fine idea. Mine is .002, I can generally get through about 40 rounds of UMC FMJ practice fodder, and I know it'll make it through a cylinder and two speedloaders worth of Winchester .38+P LSWC-HPs, which is all I'm gonna possibly shoot in a fight anyways .Do the checkout for the alignment and cylinder play tests:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57816
If those are reasonable, it's not spitting lead and the accuracy is at least fair, kewl. You've got a fine little defensive snubby there.
Jim great info. It will come in handy with future purchases. In the mean time it does look as if the 650 is in need of repairs. I agree a tight cylinder would be nice, but I think there's more going on with this gun. I will be dropping it off at the dealers tomorrow for him to send back. I just hope it doesn't the usual Taurus repair time. I used to be a big fan of Taurus, but the numbers seem to be turning against me. 5 Taurus handguns, 3 of which have had to go back to the manufacturer (1 twice). I may have to rethink my previous high opinion of Taurus.
The ideal cylinder gap is around 6 thousandths of an inch, if you get much less you will have problems such as you're having, much more you will loose velocity. I was thinking about buying a Taurus Ultralite .38 snub a few weeks back but when I researched them on the web, I saw far to many complaints about their products. So I passed on the Taurus and I bought a hardchromed Keltec P11, which gives me over twice the number of more powerful rounds, in a flatter easier concealed weapon.
7th
7th
7th Fleet:
I disagree. "Specifications" call anything past .007" out of tolerance, ditto anything less than .002".
If the gun is to be used outdoors, on long wilderness trips with minimal cleaning, and/or you use crappy powder/ammo that leaves lots of crud, .004" might be optimal.
But if it's a CCW gun of a modest caliber, that you keep very clean and shoot quality carry ammo and decent practice fodder through, .002" is in my opinion optimal. That goes double or triple for snubby .38s where you need all the velocity you can scrape together. .006" is :barf:, "usable" but certainly not "desirable".
On a Vaquero that I planned on shooting SASS with and lots of lead ammo, I might call .004" "optimal". And I'd be more willing to tolerate .006", but that wouldn't be a gap I'd strive for.
Besides velocity gains, a small gap means less flash at night and less cleaning of the gun. And possibly less flame-cutting of the topstrap.
I disagree. "Specifications" call anything past .007" out of tolerance, ditto anything less than .002".
If the gun is to be used outdoors, on long wilderness trips with minimal cleaning, and/or you use crappy powder/ammo that leaves lots of crud, .004" might be optimal.
But if it's a CCW gun of a modest caliber, that you keep very clean and shoot quality carry ammo and decent practice fodder through, .002" is in my opinion optimal. That goes double or triple for snubby .38s where you need all the velocity you can scrape together. .006" is :barf:, "usable" but certainly not "desirable".
On a Vaquero that I planned on shooting SASS with and lots of lead ammo, I might call .004" "optimal". And I'd be more willing to tolerate .006", but that wouldn't be a gap I'd strive for.
Besides velocity gains, a small gap means less flash at night and less cleaning of the gun. And possibly less flame-cutting of the topstrap.