New 686+ B/C Gap - Need Advice

Is this a durable correction? Is there an issue with the cartridges head spacing off the star, such as the star loosening? Any problem with less case-head support?

I've considered this in the past, but haven't tried it because I don't like the idea of the case being held back by the star, and part of the head being unsupported.

I have no objective reason to think this wouldn't work, just seems wrong.


I absolutely would not try this modification. It might be cheap, but not the correct way to reduce the barrel-cylinder gap, especially when the endshake is well within factory specification.
 
Last edited:
Treads like this are one more reason I'm glad I invested in DW revolvers back in '76 .
 
Is this a durable correction? Is there an issue with the cartridges head spacing off the star, such as the star loosening? Any problem with less case-head support?

I've considered this in the past, but haven't tried it because I don't like the idea of the case being held back by the star, and part of the head being unsupported.

I have no objective reason to think this wouldn't work, just seems wrong.

I have done this mod on a couple of my revos and they have run fine for a long time. I never recommend doing anything I have not personally tried and found it to be viable. If you think about it, the shims will last longer in this position than in the normal position of removing endshake. In the endshake position, the cylinder is constantly turning on them, causing wear. In the cylinder gap reducing position, they are moving with the cylinder at all times, and get no wear.

As for the extractor holding the rims, that has never been a problem in either of my guns, either in terms of causing misfires or any wear on the extractor. The extractor can easily support the firing pin setting off a primer. All other forces are against the recoil shield when the primer ignites.
 
Back
Top