I've got a brand new 625-8 .45 ACP. It has Chamfered Charge Holes. Don't know if that matters or not.

I know when you loosen/tighten the extractor rod. You are supposed to put empty shells into the cylinder.

I noticed when putting the auto shells into the cylinder, that there is a gap between the shells and star. i.e. it's the same thing as if there are no shells in there. That's because of it being an auto shell instead of something like .357.

With ACP revolver with chamfered charge holes, what's the correct way to support the star when you remove/install the extractor rod?

Are you supposed to put the shells in backwards?

Also does having chamfered charge holes change the way you protect the star?

Brendon--are use using moon clips? The gap between the case "rim" and the star is because .45 ACP is a rimless cartridge and it needs to be held in place with a moon clip. Although you can generally fire the revolver by simply inserting the rounds, you can't eject them because there is no rim on the cartridge for the ejector to grasp. See the photo below.

Attached Images

IMG_3331.JPG (25.0 KB, 18 views)

__________________
Possum—The other white meat!

You are very observant. I think you have a legitimate concern. You could put the shells in backwards or use .45 Long Colt.

What I'm talking about is with the .45 ACP shell in the cylinder all the way. There is a gap between the shell and star because It's an "auto" shell and not your .357 or .44 or .38 special type of shell that is flush all the way up.

I'm going to be removing the extractor rod, and you are supposed to put empty shells into the cylinder to help support the star. But with .45 ACP shells, putting them in is the same as putting nothing in there.

So why I asked about putting them in backwards, or putting them in halfway?

Though on my current production model, does it matter anymore? As I'm new to revolvers, but it seems the whole put in empty shells was to protect the extractor pins. But I believe S&W don't put pins in anymore?

On the new kind you should still put empty cases in to keep the torque off the extractor.

I also personally question why, with the "D" shaped extractor shaft on the newer revolver's extractor, why empty case are needed. I get it on the older ones with round shafts & a pin though.

As to your question on the chamfered charge holes, I always understood that the extractor was not supposed to be chamfered, only the cylinder's opening, so you maintained a nice square edge on the extractor for proper "grip" of the case rim on extraction. However, every S&W I've gotten (with factory chamfered charge holes) has had the extractor chamfered too. Doesn't seem right to me.

If you have any 45 Auto Rim cases they'd work too.

.

__________________
Waiting for the break of day

Thing is I'm going to have to wait until that Brownells extractor rod tool gets back in stock. Looks like that tool may be the best one as it appears to put pressure more all around the shaft than just at two points like with clamps. As it looks like it works more like a coolant hose clamp that you put on auto heater/coolant hoses where it tights all around.

I was also looking at that visesmith, but that looks like it's just putting pressure on two points.

The D shaped hole or part that goes in it can be deformed fairly easily. Once that happens, the extractor can have issues of hanging up when pushed out or not wanting to seat during a reload.

On moon clip only guns, the extractor can be chamfered because all the cases are one unit and you are really extracting the moon clip.

On some of the 8 shooters (maybe others) that can use individual shells, I have seen where they chamfered the inside portion of the extractor, but left the edges on either side of the case rim not chamfered. This still gives the extractor a way to pull the case out.

On guns that are only single case, (speedloader only), I never did more than just a very slight edge break on the extractor, just enough so it wasn't a sharp corner.

The 45 Auto Rim would be a good choice too. Didn't think of that one.

I'll have to pull out my 325 to be sure, but I believe that you are asking the right question for the right reason.

Having looked at my 325 and my 25-2, I note that the tubular part of the extractor seems to be held against rotation by a small spline in the 25-2, and by a large flat on the tube in the 325. For this reason, I'm not so sure that there is a problem at all with the 325 (or, presumably, the 625-8). However, if I had been arrested even once for indecent exposure, I would probably wear both belt and suspenders. I haven't and I don't, but I would still like to put shells in three or more of the chambers, to some effect (or maybe none, in the case of the 325).

I note that upside-down cases still leave some slack. FWIW, the case spec specifies a taper of three thousandths. Not much, but, don't forget, chamber specs are larger than case specs, anyway.

If you PM me your snail-mail address, I'll send you a few Auto-Rim cases. You probably don't need them, but better safe than sorry.

P.S. I see that some folks lack faith in the D-shaped extractor shaft. I have no knowledge or experience to re-establish any faith in it. If you don't have .45 Colt or .45 Auto-Rim shells for support, PM me.

I think a big thing to learn is how does the Smith and Wesson factory unscrew the ejector rod on the new style? Do they put empty shells in the cylinder? Nothing? Or put in special brass slugs? Or use a special tool on the cylinder end?