Taurus 856 2" vs 3"

[jeep45238]

Has anybody had a 2" 856 with an extractor that sticks to the rear occasionally?

If anybody is willing to disassemble the cylinder on a 2" gun, I'd love to know the overall length of the extractor star and the length of the large extractor spring.

I've got 2 3" 856's (toro and ultralight). Both 3" guns have exhibited extremely sticky extractors since new, where the spring tail has folded under a coil, or has gotten caught in the yolk tunnel and causes a dead gun. It's gotten a lot better with judicious lubrication and a ton of break in.

My theory is the 2" and 3" share the same extractor and length, and the extra stroke the 3" gun brings to the table is enough to jar the spring onto the sharp 90* top edge of the extractor, deadlining the gun if it catches.

[Totem Polar]

Has anybody had a 2" 856 with an extractor that sticks to the rear occasionally?

If anybody is willing to disassemble the cylinder on a 2" gun, I'd love to know the overall length of the extractor star and the length of the large extractor spring.

I've got 2 3" 856's (toro and ultralight). Both 3" guns have exhibited extremely sticky extractors since new, where the spring tail has folded under a coil, or has gotten caught in the yolk tunnel and causes a dead gun. It's gotten a lot better with judicious lubrication and a ton of break in.

My theory is the 2" and 3" share the same extractor and length, and the extra stroke the 3" gun brings to the table is enough to jar the spring onto the shares top edge of the extractor, deadlining the gun if it catches.

I had this happen in my 856 exec in spectacular fashion at a match. Thanks for providing a plausible explanation.

[onehalfmvsquared]

I'm looking hard at the 856 options. this thread interests me.

[jeep45238]

I had this happen in my 856 exec in spectacular fashion at a match. Thanks for providing a plausible explanation.

Curious if @jetfire has any insight on this. I'm not an engineer, but it seems like there's a simple solution here. That's the only thing keeping my 3" guns from being the go-to over an LCR.

[jeep45238]

I'm looking hard at the 856 options. this thread interests me.

I've reached out to Darryl on instagram to see if he's had any of that on the 2" guns. Figure if anybody has a knowledge base to draw off of, he's one of them to ask.

[lee n. field]

Has anybody had a 2" 856 with an extractor that sticks to the rear occasionally?

If anybody is willing to disassemble the cylinder on a 2" gun, I'd love to know the overall length of the extractor star and the length of the large extractor spring.

I've got 2 3" 856's (toro and ultralight). Both 3" guns have exhibited extremely sticky extractors since new, where the spring tail has folded under a coil, or has gotten caught in the yolk tunnel and causes a dead gun. It's gotten a lot better with judicious lubrication and a ton of break in.

My theory is the 2" and 3" share the same extractor and length, and the extra stroke the 3" gun brings to the table is enough to jar the spring onto the sharp 90* top edge of the extractor, deadlining the gun if it catches.

Interesting. I have (now) both a 2" and 3" 856. The 3" 856 has a "hitch" in the action of the ejector rod I can feel, about an eighth of an inch from end of travel. Neither the 2" 856, nor my 15 year old 605 have this.

Quick interim fix might be to install the short ejector rod.

---edit to add--

It strikes me that whatever's inside the cylinder is likely to be the same. Get both length rods and compare them. (They come with springs.)

[CSW]

I have owned the 3" for going on 2 years now, and really have had no issues. It was 'sticky' when I first got it, but I had attributed that to a new gun with improper lubrication.
After cleaning, I always make sure the rod is almost over-oiled, and have had no sticking.

Also, after just going to look at said rod, there are no sign of wear on the rod, on either the exposed part, nor the internal part[within the cylinder.].

[jeep45238]

Quick interim fix might be to install the short ejector rod.

---edit to add--

It strikes me that whatever's inside the cylinder is likely to be the same. Get both length rods and compare them. (They come with springs.)

Good call on buying the rods/springs. I'm pretty sure the internals of the cylinder will have the same dimensions, and if it was designed for a 2" and corresponding extractor stroke, and the 3" was just "make it longer" without a look into that part, it might explain the issues.

I have owned the 3" for going on 2 years now, and really have had no issues. It was 'sticky' when I first got it, but I had attributed that to a new gun with improper lubrication.
After cleaning, I always make sure the rod is almost over-oiled, and have had no sticking.

Also, after just going to look at said rod, there are no sign of wear on the rod, on either the exposed part, nor the internal part[within the cylinder.].

I've taken them out f the box and have been consistently able to get the extractor to stay stuck to the rear with quick flick of my thumb. They've both gotten a lot better, and I put an obscene amount of oil down the moving parts now.

No internal parts show wear - but when it DOES happen, the open tail of the spring is almost always to blame. I'm also curious if in the past a spring was used that had another flat coil, so the tail had something flat to rest against instead of something angled.

[jeep45238]

TL-DR - swapping 2" rod addresses the issue in the initial post.

Got in my 2" rods and some misc small parts in from Taurus today. The difference in length between the rods is essentially the height of the threaded portion of the rod (2.484" vs 2.246"). The 2" spring ejector rod spring measures in at 0.685 and the 3" spring at 0.615 inches.


Swapping the 2" spring onto the 3" rod doesn't improve the situation. Swapping the 2" rod/spring setup into a 3" gun removes all hitching/sticking that previously existed. The head of the 2" ejector does contact the yolk when operated, meaning if you hulk smash the extractor spring doesn't take any additional force at all. On the 3" ejector rod, there is a gap of about 0.045" between this surface and the yolk, meaning it is bottoming out on the interior components.

The hole in the yolk the ejector rod passes through measures 0.220", and the knuckling on the rod is measured at 0.237" with the surface of the rod facing the yolk behind machined flush to prevent knurling to yolk interaction.

Extractor stroke is impacted. As measured from the rear of the cylinder to the star-side of the extractor, a 3" ejector rod has a stroke of 0.845". A 2" extractor rod has a stroke of 0.648". This is a reduction of 0.197" - a 23% reduction. A 2" LCR .38 has a stroke of 0.625". I don't have any other small frame revolvers to compare against.

A permanent fix would be shortening the 3" rod 0.70" / moving the internal shoulder up by 0.60" to guarantee the internal springs aren't impacted. This should result in an extractor stroke of about 0.775". I don't have a lathe, otherwise I'd give this a go right now.

3" ejector rod @ full stroke:

2" ejector rod @ full stroke:






Swapping the 2" ejector rod into the 3" 856 UL addresses my only real concern with the gun so far, while also having a longer extractor stroke than the LCR I've been carrying with 20% more ammo on board.

[lee n. field]

So, 3" bottoming out the spring?