'afternoon folks,
I had taken the Todd Watts defarbed '59 infantry to a small event a while back. There wasn't much firing, but it had numerous misfires. The caps I was using were clogging the cone and it turned out that the cone wasn't bored out (which didn't help), even though it appeared to have been. Instead, the flash channel in the cone resembled ><, with the narrow point at the middle of the cone. I dealt with that and took it to the range today to confirm that I wouldn't have any issues when I use it again in a couple of weeks.
Worked beautifully. Only two misfires (one clogged cone, and one ?) out of about 30 shots, and that's using the 4 wing caps. I still prefer the hotter caps, but it'll do. When I initially tested the rifle, I was low on powder and only put half a dozen shots through it, so this was the most it's done.
While cleaning it, I found a fair amount of build up behind the cutter plate. Eventually it probably would have started causing issues. But that triggered a thought. Of all of my Sharps (2 Armi's, 1 Garrett and the Ped), plus one Armi that I sold to partially fund the Garret, only two have build up issues. And I don't know why I didn't realize the common denominator before.
I'm wondering if those who have build up issues have the same "issue", and if those who don't have build up issues also have the same "issue".
This is a front view, with the ArmiSport cutter on the left, the Ped on the right.
![Image](http://i1342.photobucket.com/albums/o773/calum1861/CutterReverse_zpsc905bca6.jpg)
Reverse view, AS on the left, Ped on the right.
The AS is typical of my Garrett and those that do not have build up issues. The Ped is the same as the one AS that does have build up issues.
Logically, it makes sense - there is much less "face" for the crud to get behind and lift. The Ped cutter well is .86" across, while the hole in the plate is .41" both front and back. The AS well is .83" across, the front hole is .63" while the reverse is .81".
Anyone have similar results?
Calum