Gun Breakage Problem Solved! (I think)

[dendrig59]

So,those of you who have followed my posts know that I have had a very frustrating problem with my newly purchased Black Widow.  It kept breaking!  Four times I had to send it back for warranty repairs, NAA would repair it and it would break again before I could even shoot it.  The fourth time I sent it in, NAA replaced it with a new gun.  Guess what?  Before I could get it to the range, it broke too- in the very same way as the original gun. 

All of the breakages occurred after I had removed the cylinder (as recommended by NAA) and dry fired the gun several times.(actually, the first breakage occurred after firing about 15 rounds, but I had dry fired the gun a lot before taking it to the range).  When the replacement gun broke in the same way, I got frustrated and dissassembled the gun myself to see exactly what was breaking.  As per NAA's warranty repair policy, that cost me $75.  But I think it will be worth it, because I believe that what I learned will prevent me from breaking the gun again! Here's my theory of what was happening:

The part that keeps breaking is the mounting pin on the hand (the hand is the part which protrudes out of the frame and rotates the cylinder when the hammer is cocked).  There is a pin attached to one side of the hand that mounts it to the bottom half of the hammer (see the exploded diagram in the owner's manual for visualization Part No. 11).  So all of the mass of the hand is on one side of the pin. In its resting state, the pin sits centered in the hole through the hammer, like this, ||| (the outer two lines are the walls of the hole, the center line is the pin).

As the top half of the hammer flies forward during firing, the hand on its opposite end is pulled backward.  When the hammer stops moving forward after impact, the mass of the hand continues moving backward until stopped by the mounting pin.  This puts torque (a twisting action) on the mounting pin as it stops the backward movement. The pin twists in the hole, like this |\| before stopping the movement of the hand and returning to its resting state, like this |||.

When the hammer impacts a round, the edge of the round is crushed, and this crushing action absorbs some of the force of the impact.  Comparatively speaking, it brings the hammer to a stop gradually.  This reduces the amount of torque placed on the hand's mounting pin.  But with the cylinder removed, the hammer impacts the frame of the gun and It is brought to a sudden stop with nothing to slow the impact.  The full force of the impact is translated into torque on the hand mounting pin.  It's like the difference in force that your body feels between gradually braking for a stop light, and slamming on the brakes in an emergency stop.  My theory is that dry firing the gun with the cylinder removed, and the hammer impacting the frame, puts excessive force on the hand's mounting pin, and eventually it breaks.

I have purchased a new Mini-Master, which is essentially identical to the Black Widow except for barrel length, and I have now dry fired it countless times, but ONLY with plastic snap caps (dry wall anchors) in the cylinder.  Like a shell casing, the plastic snap cap crushes and absorbs some of the impact of the hammer.  Result?  No breakage.

So NAA, if you are reading this, I respectfully suggest that you modify the owner's manual to recommend dry firing ONLY with snap caps in place.  It may save you some angry and frustrated customers.  And if you are a new NAA gun owner reading this, I hope this information will help you avoid the breakage problems that I experienced.

Of course, I could be wrong . . .     

[Bigbird48]

Why do you find it necessary to dry fire so much. Put some ammo in it and go shoot the dam thing

[bearcatter]

Part of my not having a mini - my Bearcats (and Guardians) are small enough, even smaller mini parts just don't inspire my confidence. And I never dry fire, except to observe some function of a gun.

[bill_deshivs]

Mini revolvers really should not be dry-fired. The parts are tiny, and simply can not withstand dry firing.
The hammer will impact the frame whether the cylinder is in the gun or not.
Drywall anchors are a poor substitute for real snap caps.

[dendrig59]

In response to the comments above:

Why do you find it necessary to dry fire so much. Put some ammo in it and go shoot the dam thing

I?m not sure what you mean by ?so much.?  It didn?t take more than a dozen or so dry firings to break the gun.  I carry the Black Widow (and now the mini-master) for self defense purposes. I was dry firing in the course of practicing drawing the weapon, aiming, and firing.  My local range doesn?t allow for that.  A small single action revolver is super easy to carry, but takes practice to deploy and fire quickly!

Mini revolvers really should not be dry-fired. The parts are tiny, and simply can not withstand dry firing.

This comment is illogical.  If the ?tiny parts? are capable of sustaining the forces generated during actual firing, then they must be capable of sustaining the lesser forces generated during dry firing, assuming all conditions are otherwise identical. In its FAQ, NAA actually recommends dry firing (with the cylinder removed) as ?a great way? to learn the feel of the gun.  The point of my original post was that snap caps are necessary to make conditions (near) identical to live fire and protect the hand from damage.  Because greater force is transferred to the hand when the hammer is stopped by the frame instead of being cushioned by impacting a round, as it is during live firing.

The hammer will impact the frame whether the cylinder is in the gun or not

Yes, obviously.  But with the cylinder removed, the impact with the frame is what stops the hammer.  With the cylinder in place and a round in the chamber, the hammer impacts the rim of the round first, and as the rim collapses it slows down the hammer before it strikes the frame.  I believe the softer impact protects the hand from damage.

?Drywall anchors are a poor substitute for real snap caps.?

OK. Well, apparently, they are good enough for this purpose.

Frankly, I am disappointed at the nature of the comments my post has generated.  I was attempting to help others avoid the breakage problems I experienced.  Also, I am not an engineer or gunsmith, so I was interested in any knowledgeable and constructive comments, questions or critiques of my theory.  But instead, some people seem to feel the need to post whatever irrelevant or pointless negative criticisms come to mind, regardless of whether they contribute constructively to the topic.

I guess the saddest thing is, I respond to them!  What does that say about me?  That is a rhetorical question, please do not answer.  I don?t think I can take it!   

[heyjoe]

So,those of you who have followed my posts know that I have had a very frustrating problem with my newly purchased Black Widow.  It kept breaking!  Four times I had to send it back for warranty repairs, NAA would repair it and it would break again before I could even shoot it.  The fourth time I sent it in, NAA replaced it with a new gun.  Guess what?  Before I could get it to the range, it broke too- in the very same way as the original gun. 

All of the breakages occurred after I had removed the cylinder (as recommended by NAA) and dry fired the gun several times.(actually, the first breakage occurred after firing about 15 rounds, but I had dry fired the gun a lot before taking it to the range).  When the replacement gun broke in the same way, I got frustrated and dissassembled the gun myself to see exactly what was breaking.  As per NAA's warranty repair policy, that cost me $75.  But I think it will be worth it, because I believe that what I learned will prevent me from breaking the gun again! Here's my theory of what was happening:

The part that keeps breaking is the mounting pin on the hand (the hand is the part which protrudes out of the frame and rotates the cylinder when the hammer is cocked).  There is a pin attached to one side of the hand that mounts it to the bottom half of the hammer (see the exploded diagram in the owner's manual for visualization Part No. 11).  So all of the mass of the hand is on one side of the pin. In its resting state, the pin sits centered in the hole through the hammer, like this, ||| (the outer two lines are the walls of the hole, the center line is the pin).

As the top half of the hammer flies forward during firing, the hand on its opposite end is pulled backward.  When the hammer stops moving forward after impact, the mass of the hand continues moving backward until stopped by the mounting pin.  This puts torque (a twisting action) on the mounting pin as it stops the backward movement. The pin twists in the hole, like this |\| before stopping the movement of the hand and returning to its resting state, like this |||.

When the hammer impacts a round, the edge of the round is crushed, and this crushing action absorbs some of the force of the impact.  Comparatively speaking, it brings the hammer to a stop gradually.  This reduces the amount of torque placed on the hand's mounting pin.  But with the cylinder removed, the hammer impacts the frame of the gun and It is brought to a sudden stop with nothing to slow the impact.  The full force of the impact is translated into torque on the hand mounting pin.  It's like the difference in force that your body feels between gradually braking for a stop light, and slamming on the brakes in an emergency stop.  My theory is that dry firing the gun with the cylinder removed, and the hammer impacting the frame, puts excessive force on the hand's mounting pin, and eventually it breaks.

I have purchased a new Mini-Master, which is essentially identical to the Black Widow except for barrel length, and I have now dry fired it countless times, but ONLY with plastic snap caps (dry wall anchors) in the cylinder.  Like a shell casing, the plastic snap cap crushes and absorbs some of the impact of the hammer.  Result?  No breakage.

So NAA, if you are reading this, I respectfully suggest that you modify the owner's manual to recommend dry firing ONLY with snap caps in place.  It may save you some angry and frustrated customers.  And if you are a new NAA gun owner reading this, I hope this information will help you avoid the breakage problems that I experienced.

Of course, I could be wrong . . .     

what range of number of times did you dry fire the gun before the mounting pins broke?

[dendrig59]

In some cases the gun broke by dry firing in as few as a dozen times.

[bill_deshivs]

I'm both an engineer AND a gunsmith. I think my comments were knowledgeable and constructive. Sorry you don't.
The forces generated by whacking small steel parts together are completely different forces than when a gun is fired.

[OLD and GRUMPY]

Thanks for the Info. I always thought dry fire was not good. For rim fire snap caps just use spent brass. Rotate the case so the hammer won't fall in the last notch.

[pietro]

.

IME, dry-snapping with an empty chamber(s) is never a good idea - especially with RF guns (which can lead to forming a chamber edge bulge that makes fired brass removal tiresome, at best)

.

[dendrig59]

Yes, using empty brass certainly works and I have done that.  But I didn?t like that I couldn?t tell at a glance whether I had live rounds in the gun or empty rounds.  That?s why I switched to the bright yellow drywall anchors.  If I see brass in the cylinder I know those are live!

[dendrig59]

IME, dry-snapping with an empty chamber(s) is never a good idea - especially with RF guns (which can lead to forming a chamber edge bulge that makes fired brass removal tiresome, at best)

This is not an issue when dry firing with the cylinder removed, as described in my original post.

[RogueTS1]

While NAA does say it is OK to dry fire the Minis with the cylinder removed we have always found it prudent not to dry fire Rimfire guns. We agree; NAA should edit their Owners Manuals.

[OLD and GRUMPY]

Yes, using empty brass certainly works and I have done that.  But I didn?t like that I couldn?t tell at a glance whether I had live rounds in the gun or empty rounds.  That?s why I switched to the bright yellow drywall anchors.  If I see brass in the cylinder I know those are live!

Good point.

[OV-1D]

While NAA does say it is OK to dry fire the Minis with the cylinder removed we have always found it prudent not to dry fire Rimfire guns. We agree; NAA should edit their Owners Manuals.

   Agreed its just not good practice . Besides its not good to fiddle with firearms around children or adults even giving them bad ideas , only a thought . 

[dendrig59]

Well, from the comments generated by my post I've been able to answer one concern I had:  If my theory is correct,  why aren't other users reporting the same breakage problems when they dry fire their NAA revolvers?  Based on the comments the answer seems to be that most users do not dry fire their guns, at least not very often. 

[Canoeal]

If I am going to dry fire, I use spent casings in the cylinder. Works for me YMMV.

[bearcatter]

For my rare dry fires, I coughed up a few bucks for the orange poly Pachmayr dummies.

[gebe]

Boy, your situation is truly bizarre. We shouldn?t judge you but something?s amiss here and we shouldn?t be so critical.

As a pistol and revolver owner and maintainer for well over 50 years and like some have said, you should  never dry fire ANY .22 pistol or revolver and especially revolvers. Sure you can use spent cases or whatever and take your chances but I choose not to dry fire.

Hope things work out for you.

[dendrig59]

Look, I'm tired of hearing how "you shouldn't dry fire .22."  Many people are happy to pass on this bit of received knowledge as though it were holy writ, apparently without understanding why it is not considered a good practice. I don't claim to be an expert, I don't even play one on TV, but I do know this:

The only reason to avoid dry firing rimfire guns is because, when there is no round in the chamber, the firing pin will impact the hard steel of the chamber wall, and that may damage the firing pin (and sometimes the chamber wall).  Centerfire guns don't have this problem because the firing pin doesn't impact anything when the chamber is empty.

As long as the user puts a snap cap or spent round in the rimfire chamber to absorb the impact of the firing pin, the mechanical forces exerted on the firing mechanism of the gun are nearly identical to live fire, and will not damage the firearm.  One difference however is that during live fire the firing pin and hammer may receive enough blowback on impact from the exploding primer that the pin/hammer actually rebound a small amount.  But, if anything, that make live fire MORE likely to damage the gun than dry fire.

Where I went wrong was NOT that I dry fired my .22 revolver.  When done correctly, it causes no problems. It was in believing NAA's representation that removing the cylinder was sufficient to prevent damage to the gun.  Removing the cylinder does prevent damage to the firing pin.  But I did not consider that, without a snap cap or spent round to cushion the impact of the hammer, dry firing was placing additional stress on the internal parts when the hammer slammed into the frame.  I know better now.

[bearcatter]

I consider something more. When the firing pin TIP doesn't hit anything, some other part of the pin impacts something. Maybe a roll pin, or the FP channel being narrower. Otherwise the FP would go on up the barrel and gone.

[Uncle_Lee]

Look, I'm tired of hearing how "you shouldn't dry fire .22."  Many people are happy to pass on this bit of received knowledge as though it were holy writ, apparently without understanding why it is not considered a good practice. I don't claim to be an expert, I don't even play one on TV, but I do know this:

The only reason to avoid dry firing rimfire guns is because, when there is no round in the chamber, the firing pin will impact the hard steel of the chamber wall, and that may damage the firing pin (and sometimes the chamber wall).  Centerfire guns don't have this problem because the firing pin doesn't impact anything when the chamber is empty.

As long as the user puts a snap cap or spent round in the rimfire chamber to absorb the impact of the firing pin, the mechanical forces exerted on the firing mechanism of the gun are nearly identical to live fire, and will not damage the firearm.  One difference however is that during live fire the firing pin and hammer may receive enough blowback on impact from the exploding primer that the pin/hammer actually rebound a small amount.  But, if anything, that make live fire MORE likely to damage the gun than dry fire.

Where I went wrong was NOT that I dry fired my .22 revolver.  When done correctly, it causes no problems. It was in believing NAA's representation that removing the cylinder was sufficient to prevent damage to the gun.  Removing the cylinder does prevent damage to the firing pin.  But I did not consider that, without a snap cap or spent round to cushion the impact of the hammer, dry firing was placing additional stress on the internal parts when the hammer slammed into the frame.  I know better now.

Yep !!

[dendrig59]

When the firing pin TIP doesn't hit anything, some other part of the pin impacts something. Maybe a roll pin, or the FP channel being narrower. Otherwise the FP would go on up the barrel and gone.

You're right.  Impact with something stops the forward motion of the pin (although in some guns that something is a coil spring intended to absorb the impact and protect the pin from damage).  It's probably a good idea to always use snap caps when dry firing a centerfire gun as well.  I've never had a centerfire gun break from dry firing, but snap caps are cheap insurance!

[dendrig59]

Yep !!

Thanks for having my back.

[grayelky]

I have dry fired many different NAA revolvers over the last 15 years. I have told my customers to remove the cylinder, and use dry fire to get acquainted with their guns. There has only been one who had a problem: the husband of a customer brought back the BW she bought, claiming it was defective as it would not always fire the cartridge. He laid the gun on the counter and I could tell immediately it had been dry fired, a lot, WITH THE CYLINDER IN THE GUN! Had he followed what she was told, and, I suspect she told him, there would not have been an issue. The benefits of dry firing are tremendous. If done properly, the hazards are few.

[Gnomie]

I've only dry-fired with spent shell casings (rotated to an unhit edge).  Even as a mini-noob about a year ago I knew enough not to dry fire on an empty cylinder.

My problem hasn't been breakage, it's rampant keyholing (despite sending one of my minis back for a re-crown).  Rangemasters often see my shredded targets and tell me my gun is unsafe and/or defective. 

[bill_deshivs]

I don't think the mini's firing pin will even touch the chambers.
It doesn't in mine, so there should be no issues with dry firing harming the chambers. But it will sure beat the frame up. There's not a lot of metal there.

[grayelky]

Can?t say for current day production, but, 3 or 4 years ago they most definitely would/did. I sold a BW that was brought back 3 or 4 weeks later with the hammer and each chamber chewed up to the point the gun would not fire regularly. See my post second above yours.

[dendrig59]

So, just an update on my Black Widow.  I received it back from NAA several weeks ago, after they replaced the broken hand.  Since then, I have dry fired it many times, but only with snap caps in the cylinder.  So far, no problems.  I have continued dry firing my Mini Master as well, using snap caps, with no breakage there either.