7.62NATO

To make a long story short, I worked for about an hour to get into position on a doe I was going to take, only to experience a FTF (which caused me to get busted by the doe). I have a bolt action slug gun (Marlin 512) and I've never had a problem with it. Not like it gets fired nearly as much as a pistol would though. The gun has an indicator at the rear of the bolt to you let you know the firing pin is ****ed (kinda like a Springfield XD does), and when I pulled the trigger, the "click" was just as loud as it always is when I dry fire.

I examined the shot shell, and there was indeed a firing pin indentation on it, though not as deep as one from a discharged shell, it was evident that the primer was struck.

As far as the depth of the indentation goes, well, I guess that's my question. What should a properly struck primer that didn't fire look like? Would the indentation be just as deep as one that had properly fired? Or would it not be as deep as on a primer that had fired? For some reason, I'm thinking that something occurs when the primer goes "boom" to allow the firing pin to sink in more.

Later on, I chambered the shell that failed previously and it went boom. Go figure...

bigcountry

Think you answered you own queston with the last statement. If it didn't go boom the first time but did the second, then light strike, and to answer your first question on how much, well when it goes boom.

A true FTF primer being blamed would show no fire no matter how much you hit it.

7.62NATO

I disagree. Why would Taurus, for example, offer "strike two" capabilities on some of their guns? They state it's there in case the gun comes up against a round with an unusually hard primer and that there is a 93% or better chance that the round will fire upon re-strike.

13pointjomc

Id shoot a couple a shells,if both go boom,ur firing pin is good.If only 1 go boom,take her to the gunsmith!or buy more shells.

bigcountry

I think this says it all. You again have answered your own question and didn't know it.

7.62NATO

Okay, how about H&K and FNH? Geeeeze. The point isn't that Taurus is thinking, "Our guns are notorious for light primer strikes. Giving strike-two capability to our guns will fix that!" If light strikes are the problem, that sure ain't gonna fix it!

The POINT is that it is recognized that we come across hard primers and that many times a 2nd strike will usually set them off. NOT that I agree with that philosophy IN PRACTICE (i.e. in a firefight). In that case, it's tap, rack, BANG!!

7.62NATO

I think what I'll do is disassemble the bolt, examine the spring and see if there's any gunk built up inside. I'll pick up a new spring if this one needs replacement.

7.62NATO

I've examined the bolt carefully and have determined that it was not the problem. In the unc0cked position, the firing pin protrudes normally, and there is no stickiness when working the action of the bolt, whether slowly or quickly (while the bolt is removed from the gun). When dry firing, the pin drops completely and heavily each time. This can be heard and observed. The bolt locks securely against the breech face. I can't help but think I came up against a heavy primer.

bigcountry

All I can tell you is, you asked for opinions. I gave you mine. You don't like it, I understand. It happens. I have experience with lots of guns, and have reloaded for decades and can't say I have seen where a second strike helped a gun go off if the gun is working correctly. I have seen encores with hammer extentions not strike hard enough. This is the guns fault. I have seen plenty of rounds get hit square and hard on the primers, and not go off, and the 93% number is BS. I have seen remington 7400's not strike hard enough because of cold weather and oil along iwth resedue made grease. Again, this is the guns fault.

I have used CCI, Fed, Remington, Winchester, primers. Fed being the softest and CCI the hardest. Again, never saw the need for a second strike. I have extensive experience with FN 45's and again, never seen an issue like your referring too.

7.62NATO

You're right, I did. It has nothing to do with me liking your opinion or not. This is one thing:

See, that's your opinion with backed reasoning.

This is another:
Has nothing to do with the question at hand and ignores the FACT that many other than those at Taurus acknowledge that there are primers that are too hard that WILL go off if struck a second time. I used Taurus as an example of a company that offers a strike two feature on their guns, nothing more, and the fact that you obviously think Taurus is a crap brand doesn't disprove anything, even if the 93% figure is B.S.

And this is complete B.S., because it simply ain't true: