Seems like one of the MP Race Manuals mentions using a "hammer and chisel" to knock the weights off. Of that bothers you , then a grinder used carefully AND in an environment where the resulting sparks would NOT cause a fire to start.
It should be noted that "stall speeds" are a variable thing. The more power in front of the converter, the higher the stall speed. Before the hot rod converter trans people got into the torque converter business, other than for full-race transmissions, it was common to use smaller diameter OEM converters to get the desired higher stall speeds. Even if it seemed totally out of whack. Like a 8" torque converter from a German Opel application in a GM automatic.
In my '78 Chrysler service manual, stall speeds are openly listed. Some that went close to 3000rpm with the 440HO motors. Of course, those cars would have 3.21 gears and such, too.
Back in the '80s, GM and Chrysler did some "factory warehouse sales" to the dealers. I got a new THM350 ('81 Z/28 or Corvette application) for my '77 Camaro. I'd know that all of the new Z/28s prior to that all would spin the rear wheels (against the foot brake) by 1800rpm AND that it came with a V-6 converter in it. When I put it in my Camaro with a 2.56 rear axle, it took some getting used to driving it on the highway, lest cruise fuel economy take a hit. With the particular gear ratio and tire size, 2000rpm was about 62mph, which apparently was just under when the torque converter was considered "locked-up" hydraulically, with the least amount of slippage in the converter. I never did hook up the electric converter clutch, though.
Try the car and see how it leaves the line at 3/4 throttle, using WOT about 40' from launch. This will do a few things. It will keep the intake manifold vacuum a little higher so the vacuum advance is still in play in ignition timing, before the centrifugal advance really starts to happen. More torque, as a result. Then, once the car is moving and initial acceleration happens AND before the 1-2 shift, let it run out with WOT. WOT from idle can be disappointing, as the motor will probably lug a bit as it seeks to climb out of the lower rpm "hole" when centrifugal timing advance starts to happen. Less initial throttle, against the brake even, will let more advance in the motor with the vacuum advance, instead.
The looser converter would let the engine leave at a higher rpm level, when more basic power is available, in comparison, BUT a looser converter can have the things to get used to I mentioned above.
The KEY thing is to learn how to drive the car so it responds the best for the combination you have. LEARN to use less initial throttle rather than WOT right off of idle or when staging the car "against the brake". Many people desire to "just floor it" and hope that "a big show" happens. Some can get away with that, but if your vehicle can't, don't try to force it to do something it's current equipment combination is not really oriented to do (wilder cam, tighter converter). The sooner it gets into the 2500rpm level, the better, even if less tire "noise" results.
I suspect the cam you have is a bit stronger than the old 383 Road Runner cam, so using a reman torque converter for that OEM application would be reasonable. Which would be the same cam in the 440 GTX applications, too. Which would leave the reamar axle ratio being the only other real factor involved. Personally, I like "passing gear performance" better than "stop light grand prix" performance. Especially getting that 3-1 downshift that puts the engine rpm above 3000rpm in low gear!
How much fluid does it take when you do a drain/refill ATF change? The smal, ler converter takes about 16 qts rather than 17, as I found out with my '70 Monaco 383 "N" car. With the 3.23 gear, throttle response really got "tight" at 62mph, which was probably the result of the smaller diameter converter. Might be that you already have the smaller converter?
Enjoy!
CBODY67