After reading the thread on Taylor Throating and discussion about sizing of forcing cones on barrels and chamber mouths, on cylinders I got curious. I dug out my 696-2 and decided to check how tight the chamber throats were on the cylinder.
Uhhhh....Can you say TIGHT? As in taking a loaded cartridge and inserting the bullet into the front of the chamber, it only goes as far in as it would at the muzzle. The bullet, when fired, would be swedged, before jumping to the forcing cone.
Going back to the safe, I extracted my 1950 Target 44spl and my 29-2. I then tried the same test, inserting a cartridge in the front of the chamber. On these two, the bullet went in all the way to the casemouth on all chambers, but with little or no play.
To make a long story short, I'm wondering if my 696-2 did not get the final reaming on the chamber throats, or if this is a deliberate safety design to ensure clearance on that notoriously thin forcing cone. Maybe one of the updates making my gun a "dash2?"
Some expert want to chime in, or other 696 owners that have checked their guns.
Uhhhh....Can you say TIGHT? As in taking a loaded cartridge and inserting the bullet into the front of the chamber, it only goes as far in as it would at the muzzle. The bullet, when fired, would be swedged, before jumping to the forcing cone.
Going back to the safe, I extracted my 1950 Target 44spl and my 29-2. I then tried the same test, inserting a cartridge in the front of the chamber. On these two, the bullet went in all the way to the casemouth on all chambers, but with little or no play.
To make a long story short, I'm wondering if my 696-2 did not get the final reaming on the chamber throats, or if this is a deliberate safety design to ensure clearance on that notoriously thin forcing cone. Maybe one of the updates making my gun a "dash2?"
Some expert want to chime in, or other 696 owners that have checked their guns.