Ranch Dog wrote:...The mouth of the forcing cone is .490"! Ahead of it is 1.700" of freebore, slowly tapering 1.01° to the leade. The initial portion of this barrel is offering no bullet support. It is just rattling through this airspace after jumping the cylinder gap, and then slamming into the bore/grooves. Not good.
I called Braztech on Thursday morning as I wanted to return the rifle as this just couldn't be right. Bottom line is that it is cut to the Braztech spec. They said I could send it back but it would be returned a month letter stating the same as my measurements match the cut they are delivering. Unbelievable! They are obviously using this airspace to correct or catch mechanically alignment issues and rapidly relieve pressures.
Hi All,
This is my first post on Rossi-Rifleman. I'm new to Rossi rifles (having bought a .22 Circuit Judge just yesterday) but not new to Rifles nor to Taurus. I'm a member of the Taurus forum and, having read about the forcing cone issue on both sites, decided to add a couple of cents to the discussion.
A close friend of mine owned a Colt Python for several years with a six inch barrel (.357 Magnum). At the range, you could easily stand to his left as he fired with complete immunity. However, if you stood to his right, you were almost sure to catch some lead in the face. Obviously, his cylinder was out of alignment with the forcing cone or the forcing cone needed a ream job. However, he, as the shooter, was unaffected by the problem and the gun was an accurate shooter. Additionally, I own a Taurus 944 revolver in .22 Magnum which is as accurate a pistol as I have ever fired (revolver or semi-auto). It's astoundingly accurate, even with these old eyeballs. Additionally, it has no lead shaving issues. It only has a four inch barrel with a forcing cone that you can drop the bullet completely into (not the round, just the bullet). I haven't measured to see how far in the bullet picks up the rifling but, for the purpose of this conversation let's call it a half inch.
After reading up on my Circuit Judge, last night, I checked its forcing cone. As stated in this thread, my .22 Magnum round (shell and all) easily fell out of sight into the barrel. (I also noticed that the barrel/cylinder clearance is very tight.) Again, I haven't measured to see where the bullet picks up the rifling but, let's say it's the same distance as RanchDog's .45 Long Colt, 1.70 inches. I haven't fired it yet so I don't know what the gas will do but, for darn sure, the bullet is going into that hole! And, although I don't yet know it's accuracy let's just say it's equal to the average of the several reviews we've read on the .22 CJ at 2.5 inches at 50 yards. Comparing my very accurate 944 with a reasonably accurate [reviewed] .22CJ, 1/2 inch is 12.5% of of my 944's 4" barrel while 1.70 inches is 9% of my CJ's 18.5" barrel. From a design perspective these numbers may be related.
All of the above brings me to my point: With a revolver, every part of the shooter (as previously stated) is behind the barrel/cylinder alignment point, the entry to the forcing cone. The liability to the manufacturer is minimized by that fact. Bullets may shave and gasses may fly but the shooter, out of harm's way of gasses and lead, will probably wind up unscathed. However, with a revolver style rifle, the forearm is definitely in harm's way. So, from a
liability point of view, how do you manufacture and market a revolver styled rifle with an acceptable level of liability? The easy answer: be
damn sure the bullet can't contact the barrel at the forcing cone's entrance... by sinking the forcing cone down into the barrel; while keeping the barrel/cylinder clearance as close as possible for minimum gas loss. We know it will slow the bullet down a little but how does it affect accuracy? I don't think anyone really knows! I did a Google search for "forcing cone" and, although there are several shops that say it's extremely important for accuracy, I also found a couple of smiths who didn't appear to think so. My friend's Colt Python and my Taurus 944 would seem to support the latter. (similarly:
http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_fil ... b7-412.php)
I am not looking for a fight here. I really have no investment either way. I just think Taurus/Rossi came up with the most expedient way to safely market their wares, experimented with it, found out the bullet wasn't slowed enough to make it ineffective, the accuracy was acceptable for a carbine plinker and... they're manufacturing it to meet that criteria.
Respectfully,
John G.
St. Petersburg, FL