So your decock doesn't work anymore...Now what?

[GaryS]

A random thought after reading both Fastbolt and BMCM's posts. If one had a mainspring cup from a set of Hogue grips, could that be used instead of putting the entire grip assembly back on every time?

Then, once the timing is confirmed, remove that and put the Delrin grips back on.

As I said, a random thought.

 

[Fastbolt]

A random thought after reading both Fastbolt and BMCM's posts. If one had a mainspring cup from a set of Hogue grips, could that be used instead of putting the entire grip assembly back on every time?

Then, once the timing is confirmed, remove that and put the Delrin grips back on.

As I said, a random thought.

Never tried it that way, but as long as the factory mainspring cup (plunger) plunger is still inside the Hogue base and the base pinned in place, I don't see why not. Careful not to pinch your skin when cocking the hammer with the exposed mainspring.

The Hogue base is just the support for the factory mainspring cup (plunger). A common couple of mistakes that sometimes happens is that someone forgets to use the factory mainspring cup (which is really called a "plunger", BTW, if you haven't already noticed it mentioned. ), and/or they forget to still use the factory grip pin when they install the Hogue grips.

The mainspring plunger sits against (on top) of the detent ring of the grip pin, which supports and gives full tension to the spring under the cocked hammer.

While some guys used to cut up an old "pre-dimple" factory grip, cutting the sides off to make an armorer's backstrap (to check the decocking timing), I used a 469 backstrap we had left laying around. It's short, sure, but it was just needed to support the mainspring plunger, mainspring and hammer/stirrup while checking decocking timing. This way the sideplate wasn't subjected to having the top of the left side of the grip rub up against it, and risk snagging under the front of the sideplate. That's what usually tweaked and bent or broke off the rear leg of the sideplate's legs, caused by inattention when installing the 3rd gen factory grip.

They used to stress that getting the right timing was important enough, that they even told us to insert & seat an empty magazine in the reassembled gun when checking the decocking timing.

Better safe than sorry when you're working on guns.

 

[oink]

You're welcome.

As to your question, I imagine you could...you'd have to anneal it first then then re-harden after stretching. The if you're off the mark on the hardness level it'll either wear out quickly or saw a slot in the sear leg.

We're talking about dimensions of just a few thousandths so I'd say stretching is more trouble than it's worth for a three dollar part.

Cheers
Bill

Brings another question to mind. I have a very early 669 that has seen a lot of use. Care to suggest a parts kit worth buying while they're still available?

 

[BMCM]

A random thought after reading both Fastbolt and BMCM's posts. If one had a mainspring cup from a set of Hogue grips, could that be used instead of putting the entire grip assembly back on every time?

Then, once the timing is confirmed, remove that and put the Delrin grips back on.

As I said, a random thought.

Yup, that's what I do. Got a couple spare cups from Karl Nill too, they're nicer

Cheers
Bill

 

[GaryS]

You're always helping us to find new ways to spend money!

Off to search Karl Nill.

And now, to drag this out further...

I did some testing this morning using the drill bit gauge. I tested my 3914NL and the pre rail 3913TSW.

The TSW has had the ambi safety swapped out for a left side only safety. Thus my interest in making sure everything is within spec.

The 3914NL easily passed the "no go" test, but the TSW did not. That did pass the "pencil" test and seems fine using the "red dot" test.

I then did an eyeball comparison of the two safety levers. The TSW safety is a bit "thinner" on the side of the body than the NL.

Then is struck me. I sent the safety to BMCM for a bit of a shave and dehorning. Which came out beautifully, BTW.

Noticing that the very tight tolerance and the need to be very, very, very, careful with the filing of the sear release lever, I have to wonder if the little bit of shaving done in the dehorning process accounts for this?

Note that I am not even in the least questioning the work BMCM did for me. It's excellent. I just wonder if that little bit of shaving of the safety body is what is account for the difference.

What do you think BMCM?

Yup, that's what I do. Got a couple spare cups from Karl Nill too, they're nicer

Cheers
Bill

 

[BMCM]

You're always helping us to find new ways to spend money!

Off to search Karl Nill.

And now, to drag this out further...

I did some testing this morning using the drill bit gauge. I tested my 3914NL and the pre rail 3913TSW.

The TSW has had the ambi safety swapped out for a left side only safety. Thus my interest in making sure everything is within spec.

The 3914NL easily passed the "no go" test, but the TSW did not. That did pass the "pencil" test and seems fine using the "red dot" test.

I then did an eyeball comparison of the two safety levers. The TSW safety is a bit "thinner" on the side of the body than the NL.

Then is struck me. I sent the safety to BMCM for a bit of a shave and dehorning. Which came out beautifully, BTW.

Noticing that the very tight tolerance and the need to be very, very, very, careful with the filing of the sear release lever, I have to wonder if the little bit of shaving done in the dehorning process accounts for this?

Note that I am not even in the least questioning the work BMCM did for me. It's excellent. I just wonder if that little bit of shaving of the safety body is what is account for the difference.

What do you think BMCM?

Your "no go" test....describe how you went about that?

Here's the gauge checks and results

gauge on 0.025" pin - weapon decocks - ok but near lower limit

 

[GaryS]

For both firearms, I used a 5/64 drill (pending arrival of the guages) placed as shown in this picture.



Note that I used the forceps to improve the picture clarity. When I do the test I hold the bit in my fingers.

Here are the 3914NL and 3913TSW decockers side by side. It's a big picture because the difference is very small. I just wonder if the tiny difference accounts for the "no go" fail?



I'll redo the measurements when I get the guages.

Your "no go" test....describe how you went about that?

Here's the gauge checks and results

gauge on 0.025" pin - weapon decocks - ok but near lower limit

 

[Lightfoot4]

Sounds like you know what you're doing. I understood the "no worky" part, but everything after that was "rocket science" to me.

 

[BMCM]

You're always helping us to find new ways to spend money!

Off to search Karl Nill.

And now, to drag this out further...

I did some testing this morning using the drill bit gauge. I tested my 3914NL and the pre rail 3913TSW.

The TSW has had the ambi safety swapped out for a left side only safety. Thus my interest in making sure everything is within spec.

The 3914NL easily passed the "no go" test, but the TSW did not. That did pass the "pencil" test and seems fine using the "red dot" test.

I then did an eyeball comparison of the two safety levers. The TSW safety is a bit "thinner" on the side of the body than the NL.

Then is struck me. I sent the safety to BMCM for a bit of a shave and dehorning. Which came out beautifully, BTW.

Noticing that the very tight tolerance and the need to be very, very, very, careful with the filing of the sear release lever, I have to wonder if the little bit of shaving done in the dehorning process accounts for this?

Note that I am not even in the least questioning the work BMCM did for me. It's excellent. I just wonder if that little bit of shaving of the safety body is what is account for the difference.

What do you think BMCM?

Your "no go" test....describe how you went about that please?

Here's brief rundown on the gauge checks and appropriate action...

gauge on 0.025" pin - decocks - in spec but may be in need of
new lever soon, verify with 0.045 pin
gauge on 0.025" pin - fails to decock - fit new lever
gauge on 0.045" pin - decocks - in spec
gauge on 0.078" pin - decocks - too early, file lever
gauge on 0.078" pin - fails to decock - good, in spec so far,
verify with 0.045" pin

The portion of the safety decocker bodies external to the slide has no bearing on the mechanics of the decock function. Thus Any shaving of the external levers has no effect on the function.

Take a look at this lever assembly...

Note the slot on the right hand side I'm pointing to with the punch. That slot provides clearance for the sear release & firing pin safety levers as the slide cycles during firing. In decocking, the forward edge of that slot (note the shiny spot right on the leading edge) bears downward on the sear release lever as you rotate the decocker body. Even if there is wear evident here, the corrective action is still fitting a new sear release lever to the gun.

Cheers
Bill

 

[GaryS]

I did the test exactly as shown in your first post.

Now I see where I went wrong, in my question. The lever thickness is not related to the decocking function, it's just a convenient was to measure what's going on inside the gun.

Got it. I think.

 

[BMCM]

Well, that's weird...
Seems the system posted up #26 while I was just starting to type it up... #29 is the end product I was shootin' for

Gary... I see where there might be some confusion here... I don't view these checks necessarily as 'go' / 'no-go' I was a little confused on exactly what you had done and did not know what you meant by pass/fail... It's not a pass/fail test it's a gauge check that yields a result which tells you what action to take next.

So if you were checking those guns with a 5/64" bitt, know that 5/64" is a tenth larger then 0.078" so there's that.

Now if one gun decocked on the 5/64" pin I'd suspect early decocking in which case that gun might need some adjusting on the sear release lever. However, I'd want to check it with a proper 0.078" gauge pin before modding anything. That 0.0001" might be the difference.

Same if the other gun the did not decock on the 5/64" bitt. OOK so is ok but I'd still want to make sure it will not decock on 0.078" gauge pin.

I note you had changed the decocker body on the TSW gun. When you say that gun failed the "no-go" test does that mean it
decocked or not?

Basically you want NO Decock on the big pin, YES decock on medium pin, and the small pin is the check to make sure a well worn gun will still decock. If you have NO decock on the small pin...time for a new lever. Does this help?

Cheers
Bill

 

[GaryS]

I think I'm confusing you with my imprecise terminology.

I am going to wait for the gauges to arrive before I make any determination on what, if anything, needs to be done. I got the receipt today, so the package should be on its way.

(For Jeppo, shipping and tax was not bad at all.)

The gun that did not decock (3914NL) has been unmolested by me, so I expect it's within the timing parameters you've laid out. The TSW is not within parameters (with the Micky Mouse gauge ). I'll recheck both, as well my other 3rd Gens, with the proper equipment.

In the mean time, I can carry my 3914NL, which I should do more anyway.

I have a couple of sear release levers on the way from Numrich, but again, I'll do nothing until the gauges arrive.

Sorry for confusing you, and as always a big thank you for sharing your knowledge.

I don't know if you did any formal instruction when you were in the CG, but you are a detailed (and patient) teacher. I know I appreciate it that, and I'm sure that others do as well.

I'll report back when I have the gauges and have re measured.

Well, that's weird...
Seems the system posted up #26 while I was just starting to type it up... #29 is the end product I was shootin' for

Gary... I see where there might be some confusion here... I don't view these checks necessarily as 'go' / 'no-go' I was a little confused on exactly what you had done and did not know what you meant by pass/fail... It's not a pass/fail test it's a gauge check that yields a result which tells you what action to take next.

So if you were checking those guns with a 5/64" bitt, know that 5/64" is a tenth larger then 0.078" so there's that.

Now if one gun decocked on the 5/64" pin I'd suspect early decocking in which case that gun might need some adjusting on the sear release lever. However, I'd want to check it with a proper 0.078" gauge pin before modding anything. That 0.0001" might be the difference.

Same if the other gun the did not decock on the 5/64" bitt. OOK so is ok but I'd still want to make sure it will not decock on 0.078" gauge pin.

I note you had changed the decocker body on the TSW gun. When you say that gun failed the "no-go" test does that mean it
decocked or not?

Basically you want NO Decock on the big pin, YES decock on medium pin, and the small pin is the check to make sure a well worn gun will still decock. If you have NO decock on the small pin...time for a new lever. Does this help?

Cheers
Bill

 

[GaryS]

To my joy and surprise, the package from McMaster-Carr came this afternoon via UPS. Fast service.

Anyway, using the proper gauge and holding it in the right position, the TSW decocker is within spec. If have to make sure it doesn't "skid" out of position, but it appears fine.

A couple of valuable lessons learned the painless way!

 

[Jeppo]

They used FedEx in my case. $7 shipping for that level of service seems more than reasonable to me. Looking forward to expanding my education over the weekend.

 

[Jeppo]

Yahoo!

Got my 908 back together tonight, including a new plastic disconnector and the previously replaced sear spring and pin. Ran it thru the decock tests with my fancy new pin gages and, "Houston, we have liftoff".

Thanks everybody!!!

 

[Doug M.]

If one is like me, and should not be allowed to do stuff like this to anything more sensitive than an anvil, the smart answer is to ship the item to Bill with a check for his estimate and call it a good decision. Done it once already, and when my recovered stolen comes back in a few weeks, I'm going to send it to him for a good once over. No telling what 7 years in the "care" of others did. Worth the money and time in peace of mind.

 

[aurora40]

First order of business, just stick the new lever in there to see where we're at.

Is that one edge of the sear the only part that needs fitting? I got my replacement part 104030000 and when I tried to put it into my 915 to see how it worked, I could not get the slide back on. It hangs up at the hump part of the top of the sear release lever. I was pushing it down fairly hard with a punch to no avail.

 

[JohnHL]

Is that one edge of the sear the only part that needs fitting? I got my replacement part 104030000 and when I tried to put it into my 915 to see how it worked, I could not get the slide back on. It hangs up at the hump part of the top of the sear release lever. I was pushing it down fairly hard with a punch to no avail.

Yes, only the "foot" of the sear release lever is filed or stoned to effect proper decock timing.

Often, the new sear release lever will need some material removed from the "foot" before the top of the lever will clear the slide.

John

 

[Redcoat3340]

Great post...and timely:

I just took delivery of a 909 and the decocker didn't work. Safety worked fine but no decock.

So I figured, "What the hell? It's just a range gun and who needs the decocker?"

Am I making a fatal error. Is there something more that can go wrong or be unsafe if the decocker is non-functional, but the safety is?

I haven't had the gun to the range yet...I just figured I'd ignore the lack of decocker. But then I read your post...tried pressing on the top sight and BINGO, it decocks. Amazing.

I don't do these sort of repairs myself...I like to trust a smith to that. So, in addition to the parts, what's an estimate of a repair. The gun is in very used shape, but that's okay, as long as it seems to work.

I've called the seller as he described it in good mechanical condition. Clearly it ain't. And I'd like to give him an estimate of the repair cost and I want to keep the gun...but be safe.

 

[Doug M.]

The decock function is an import part of the DA/SA system and I would not use the pistol until it works correctly.