Hasselblad 500CM magazines loose mounting

[markaudacity]

I've noticed that magazines seem to mount with more wiggle than I would like. Since this is my first Hassy, I don't know what's normal, what's significant wear, and what's mandatory-service level damage.

Magazine can be pulled away from the body about a quarter of a millimeter at the bottom, but snaps back to snug, IE, it doesn't rattle fore and aft. It can be shifted vertically by about the same amount, and a little more laterally, not quite half a millimeter. The magazine hooks have visible brassing and wear on them, and viewed from the side they might have the sliiightest bit of downward bend, but I couldn't swear to it. Magazines (an A12 and an A24) mount and lock in with no problems, although the A24 jams about every third shot. The A12 hasn't malfunctioned in the five rolls I've put through it.

It doesn't seem to rattle around in normal use, I just notice when mounting or unmounting magazines that there's some slop. Is this normal, or is this a problem? I suspect this is looser than a machine as well-made as a Hasselblad is designed to be, but I have nothing to compare it to. The magazine hooks look like they can be replaced, but appear to be attached with either rivets or screws inserted from the inside of the body—is this correct?

 

[BrianShaw]

Do the backs leak light? If so, you have a problem. If not, …

 

[markaudacity]

Haven't had a chance to get to the darkroom since buying it, so I don't know yet. I'll have that info in a couple days. The guy I bought it from said there was nothing functionally wrong with it, he just had two and preferred the chrome.

We chatted about film photography for a good half hour before money changed hands. He knew his stuff and has a five-star seller rating, so I'm inclined to believe him, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, as they say.

 

[BrianShaw]

Since you trust the seller, then trust him. Might not be good karma to worry about problems you don’t yet have. A tiny bit of wiggles is normal. If it was too tight it wouldn’t be easy to mount and dismount the backs.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

These are good things to know. I'll pass this on to a guy I know who is "this" close to buying one.

 

[BrianShaw]

These are good things to know. I'll pass this on to a guy I know who is "this" close to buying one.

Tell your “guy” that buying a 500c/m is riskier the an buying a 501c/m since the former probably had a more rigorous service ggan did the later since it was released at the end of the film era. But, no matter, tell him to stop talking and take action!

 

[Don_ih]

See if it leaks light. Those little hooks can become bent through continued use. The "Hasselblad way" is to bend them back. But DO NOT attempt to bend them back unless you take the camera apart and can secure where they attach or they may snap off.

 

[mshchem]

I think you have a very well used machine. Date code for the backs and bodies is VHPICTURES, 1234567890, this should clue you in as to age.
I have new and old backs, none really worn. None wiggle.
I've never needed to replace the "hooks" on the body where the magazine grabs at the bottom. The brassing definitely indicates a lot of switching magazines. This may be due to a professional who is using different films or having an assistant loading magazines during an active shoot. Not really sure.
To me what you have is a well used camera. The A24 thing sounds like it's either broken or just needs re-lubrication, old grease!

I'm sure there's Hasselblad experts who can give you a more detailed opinion.

 

[markaudacity]

Thanks for all the responses, y’all. I’ve had the camera apart (to fix the loose bayonet mentioned in a different thread), so I may pull the hooks and see about massaging them back into shape. I’m a machinist by trade, so I might look into making myself a couple of stainless steel ones that won’t wear out.

My camera is a ‘79 date code, so it’s surely had plenty of miles on it. It’s going to get booked in for a CLA sometime in the next month, along with a couple lenses whose slow speeds are verrrrry laaaaazy.