|
|
Post by Big Bore on Apr 3, 2021 6:52:20 GMT -5
The smith vs hawk thread has me curious.
It’s well known a smith can’t take as hot/heavy loads as it’s Ruger counterpart. How do you define that line in the sand?
Let’s talk specifically about a newer model 629 PC. Where do you stop in the “rocks and dynamite” load development? Is it a certain bullet weight? Powder charge? A combination of the two?
Curious in Texas,
Randy
|
|
shorty500
.327 Meteor
too many dirty harry movies created me!
Posts: 908
|
Post by shorty500 on Apr 3, 2021 7:50:57 GMT -5
Have always kept my loads under the pressure limits of either 40kCUP/36kPSI based on available load data & used whatever bullet weight desired.
Been shooting S&Ws since was teenager and have never hurt one although many people kept telling me I would blow mine up back in the 80’s when 300/320
Trainers became popular
|
|
|
|
Post by bradshaw on Apr 3, 2021 8:04:28 GMT -5
The smith vs hawk thread has me curious. It’s well known a smith can’t take as hot/heavy loads as it’s Ruger counterpart. How do you define that line in the sand? Let’s talk specifically about a newer model 629 PC. Where do you stop in the “rocks and dynamite” load development? Is it a certain bullet weight? Powder charge? A combination of the two? Curious in Texas, Randy ***** Randy.... there is no line separating the strength of Redhawk from a Model 29/629. It is a NO MAN'S LAND. Actual strength of the M-29/629 is more than substantial in .44 Mag loads burning correct powder. Stupidity with fast and medium powders introduces the DETONATION FACTOR, a realm the illiterate neither acknowledge nor respect. Double charges of fast or medium powders trespass rapidly into the DETONATION ZONE, so we needn’t even mention abuse of fast & medium powders in this conversation. So let’s just stick to proper powders. the slow powders. Cylinder strength of the Smith & Wesson N-frame .44 Magnum is high. As an example, when Federal Cartridge asked me to experiment with the Sierra 220 FPJ (Full Profile Jacket) for prospective commercial loading, I inched my way up with Winchester 296 & Hodgdon 110 (both are 296). Shooting Creedmoor on the outskirt of Austin, Texas, my 8-3/8” M-29 cratered mild hot rolled 1/2-inch steel pigs @ 100 meters. You could trot downrange and stick your finger in the warm, shiny crater. The load dimpled the back side of the IHMSA pig. (Damage to silhouettes cut from mild steel is why IHMSA strongly advocated for T-1 targets.) The loads felt warm in my M-29 and certainly wasted no time reaching the pig @ 100 meters. Federal used my data in its own experiments. I got a call to advise they “blew up" a Marlin with the load. I wasn’t told the pressure. Perhaps pressure ran higher in the closed breech, although I have no verification either way. Federal went on to load the Sierra 220 FPJ in nickel brass, code #44C. While it produces silhouette accuracy, it is no more accurate than the wonderful Federal #44A loaded with Federal 240 JHP, which equals the accuracy of----and looks like----the emblematic Sierra 240 JHC (Jacketed Hollow Cavity). I have heard of uncontrolled experiments by reloaders without a method to their madness, and the S&W surviving, for a while.... The better measure of the Redhawk’s strength superiority comes through continuous use of full house ammo: the Redhawk yawns, the M-29 grumbles. The Redhawk stays tight, the M-29/629 loosens. The Redhawk takes throttling from heavy bullets which put a pounding on the softer, weaker, sideplate S&W frame. The M-29/629 yoke is less robust, and most certainly the CYLINDER STOP is weaker. Lockup also much weaker. Beside its solid frame construction and greater mass, the Redhawk frame is both stronger and harder. Add the thicker cylinder and it is no contest. M-29 from load developmentFootnote: the M-29 8-3/8” used in my load development with the Sierra 220 FPJ stacked a pile of wins and aggregates in the steel game and was a major player in the relentless battle between the M-29 and Super Blackhawk leading up to Ruger’s introduction of the “Silhouette Super” S410N with 10-1/2” barrel. Yon M-29 had the barrel set back at the factory to remove BARREL FACE EROSION. On a visit after the Federal collaboration, the blued baby was overhauled by Smith & Wesson’s guru Al Plaas. Since Al Plaas put his fingers to it----I gazed over his shoulder in the S&W shop as he worked----this 8-3/8” is tighter than any other factory S&W I’ve handled. It wears its original cylinder, yoke, and frame. Cross hatching of the micro-honed bore----done prior to pulling the rifle broach from barrel face to crown----is long gone. Cylinder gap measures a whopping .004-inch. Chamber-to-bore runout averages .002” to .004” (somewhere in there, I don’t remember). It retains its original hammer. Al Plaas fit a narrow trigger and handed back the original wide trigger to drop in, should I want to swap back. The factory replaced the Baughman red ramp with a Patridge blade, and the rear sight with higher, blued notch insert. Of course, cylinder stops, center pins, and extractor rods have been changed. Unlike some poorly assembled M-29s, hammer and trigger pins remain tight, the yoke pin remains tight, there’s never been an instance of throw-by, and the centerpin hole in the standing breech remains firm & round. And the other crap that happens to an improperly made gun hasn’t happened. By backing down the throttle a taste, a proper M-29/629 should last a very long time. Run big bullets hard, or ride the pressure dome, and be prepared to replace your Smith in time. Intuition is there to be obeyed immediately. David Bradshaw |
|
|
|
Post by taffin on Apr 3, 2021 9:58:40 GMT -5
Back in the early days of the .44 Magnum, Elmer Keith reported on the strength testing of a Model 29 and a Ruger Super Blackhawk. The Smith & Wesson stretched and the Ruger blew. The test consisted of only one of each and was a one time thing. Having said this I have always, and I mean always treated my Smith & Wesson .44 Magnums with common sense loads. Now that I am at this stage of my life my hands do not give me any other choice. The Super Redhawk has been used for hunting with .454, .480 and .44 Magnum heavy bulleted loads and the extra weight of the sixgun plus the scope as well as the Pachmayr grips have allowed me to do this for a long time. However, my hunting days are over and I am no longer trying to put down elk and bison so I no longer need anything but moderate and mild loads in any sixgun. The standard loading practices these days stay right at the .45 ACP Hardball level or less which means mostly 240-250 grain bullets around 800 FPS. These will certainly handle any situation I am likely to find myself in during the twilight years of my life. I just finished testing the Colt New Anaconda .44 Magnum and with the scope and the finger groove rubber grips plus the 53 ounce weight of the pistol itself I was able to handle three factory .44 loads, however my heaviest handloads were assembled with 250 grain cast bullets and 200 & 240 grains jacketed bullets over 18.5 grains of #2400. With the 250 and 240 grains bullets these loads are right at 1,300 fps and definitely at my top limit BUT I can't think of anything in the lower 48 and a whole lot of other places they could not handle.
|
|
|
|
Post by x101airborne on Apr 3, 2021 11:45:21 GMT -5
Forgive my ignorance, but I thought the earlier Smiths were recommended for lighter loads because of the lack of strength in the crane assembly and lockup more than lack of strength in the cylinder. Do I have this wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by bradshaw on Apr 3, 2021 12:50:44 GMT -5
Forgive my ignorance, but I thought the earlier Smiths were recommended for lighter loads because of the lack of strength in the crane assembly and lockup more than lack of strength in the cylinder. Do I have this wrong? ***** Trey.... sounds like shopping for apples & oranges. While I can’t speak to hardware and heat treatment used by S&W, changes were made to accommodate magnum cartridges. Which is a prime reason to not hod rod loads in non-magnum chambering. Remember, early .44 Magnum ammo was loaded HOT, cranking out impressive velocities and power. The industry eventually backed down on pressures. While my experience with factory .357 Mag was thin, I did shoot some early Remington ammo and believe it was pretty hot, also. And, those swaged lead, gas check bullets leaded like fury! The .44 Mag swaged lead gas checks did minimal leading in my Super Blackhawk and M-29, and those rounds packed plenty of wallop, but factory ammo was mainly a road to reloading. Lockup of the Smith was not dramatically improved by the so-called “Enhancement” changes. An enhanced M-29/629 at the height of its glory can’t wake up a Redhawk in its sleep. The elongated stop notches of Enhanced Smiths are to prevent CYLINDER FLOAT. My old M-29s are pre-Enhancement and perform with brilliance, 4”, 6-1/2”, and 8-3/8”. Problems arise fast with revolver that wasn’t made right in the first place, as happened sporadically under Bangor Punta ownership. A loose gun gets even looser with shooting. Think of the SLIDE-HAMMER EFFECT, peening of parts not secured under violent motion. Which is why it is so important for gun to be properly dimensioned for high pressure cartridges. As Taffin alludes, the .44 Mag is a workaholic cartridge at below-maximum loadings. Bullet design covers bases. I love my Smith & Wessons. My blued 8-3/8” is living proof an M-29 made tight and kept tight plays tight. A dimensional pig doesn’t play in this league. Bought a 6-1/2” M-29 while in college. Beyond one or three 50-round boxes of factory pre-jacket .44 Mag, the sixgun has spent its life shooting 240 SWC’s deep seated over 17/Hercules 2400 (and latest incarnation Alliant 2400). Its mild diet is a reaper. Last time I checked, chamber-to-bore runout didn’t exceed .002” on any chamber. The old 29 taught me more about deer hunting than any other firearm. It’s been through rough weather, to put it mildly. Throughout its life never missed a beat, not a failure in its archive. I would not insult its dignity by feeding it Rocks & Dynamite. David Bradshaw |
|
|
|
Post by taffin on Apr 3, 2021 16:19:41 GMT -5
AMEN!
|
|
|
|
Post by rjm52 on Apr 4, 2021 11:49:41 GMT -5
My first .44 Magnum was a 1973 vintage 29-2 with a 6.5" barrel. The dealer gave my LEO friend who bought the gun a20 round box of the Winchester 240 grain Jacketed Soft HP ammo... It was about 25* out that day in Nashua, NH when we touched off the first rounds...all I remember is that the checking on the grips removed my palm prints... Couple of months ago I was shooting up some odd-and-ends in a 4 5/8" Super Blackhawk and came across one of those rounds...it stood the gun straight up...
The standard load for the 29-2 was a Lyman/Thompson gaschecked bullet, the lighter 225 grain one at 1250 fps...it went 7 years and 10k rounds before needing a tuneup. Jerry Compton who was one of the armorers at the Dallas Police Range did the action job and it was tighter than new... Shortly thereafter I traded the gun for my first (of many) Super .38s.... Never got into the real heavy loads with the Model 29s because they were all shot DA and heavy loads+DA=uncontrolled shooting...
The .41 Magnum Model 57s I have never seem to have any problems digesting heavy loads.
For a while now I have just shot the real heavies through SAs and saved the DAs for more enjoyable loads...
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by enfield on Apr 5, 2021 9:51:28 GMT -5
"Will hot/heavy loads wear out my 29/629?"
The very unsatisfactory answer "It depends..." 🤣
Honestly though, the slide hammer effect makes sense and gives good reason why some claim high round counts shooting silhouette and others claim to have a gun shoot loose with less than a thousand rounds. With the S&W, fit is more critical than the design of the Ruger and Dan Wessons.
|
|
|
|
Post by bradshaw on Apr 5, 2021 10:55:10 GMT -5
"Will hot/heavy loads wear out my 29/629?" The very unsatisfactory answer "It depends..." 🤣 Honestly though, the slide hammer effect makes sense and gives good reason why some claim high round counts shooting silhouette and others claim to have a gun shoot loose with less than a thousand rounds. With the S&W, fit is more critical than the design of the Ruger and Dan Wessons. ***** enfield.... my photo essay Volumes 6, 66, 67, and 68 show a Model 29 8-3/8” which spent its competitive life pushing REVOLVER ACCURACY. The only time I kept track of ammo consumption was during a 3 month period of silhouette competition, during which 90 day span the blued M-29 sent 3,300 rounds of pretty much full house silhouette loads downrange. The revolver never missed a beat. I do not recall whether Smith & Wesson tuned the revolver during that span, but doubt it. Contrary to some doctrinaire types, I lubricate revolvers, favoring molydisufide chassis grease and motor oil over so-called gun-specific lubes. As a rule steel likes lubrication; in this context I believe a less than optimum lube is better than no lube. To this day, this M-29-2 is living proof a Model 29 built tight and maintained tight----and kept below the Redhawk ceiling!----lasts well indeed. Thanks to Smith & Wesson and especially factory guru Al Plaas, that gun is a marvel today. But lubrication doesn’t nullify peening in a loose revolver subjected to stout loads. Light target loads don’t do diddly and guns made of soft steel can last a very long time so exposed. The MAGNUM STORY changes everything. While practicing with a couple other IHMSA competitors, one produced his brand new M-29 8-3/8”. Very early 1990’s, as I recall. Opened a 50 round box of factory .44 Mag. Recoil of his first 5-shots pulled the swaged-in YOKE PIN.. I’ve seen swaged-in hammer and trigger pins shake loose, and other diseases of poor manufacturing. A fine design must be made right to reach the status of an INSTRUMENT. David Bradshaw |
|
|
|
Post by Big Bore on Apr 5, 2021 11:57:40 GMT -5
Thanks for all the responses. My takeaway is this...In my new-to-me PC 7.5" .44, keep the loads under the Ruger/TC only level, clean it, lube it, hunt with it. 99% of this gun's use will be on Texas hogs and deer (big rabbits really). The other 1% would be a back-up gun to my FA 454 on my annual trip out west for elk. So...atomic level loads aren't necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by bradshaw on Apr 5, 2021 13:44:25 GMT -5
Thanks for all the responses. My takeaway is this...In my new-to-me PC 7.5" .44, keep the loads under the Ruger/TC only level, clean it, lube it, hunt with it. 99% of this gun's use will be on Texas hogs and deer (big rabbits really). The other 1% would be a back-up gun to my FA 454 on my annual trip out west for elk. So...atomic level loads aren't necessary. ***** Randy.... we’ve tried to get across the versatility of the .44 Mag without bumping the ceiling of its power. For example, take a cast 240 or 250 SWC over Hercules 2400. (While I haven’t tried this experiment with Alliant 2400, I believe the principle holds.) 22 grains/2400 is hot. By dropping charge one grain to 21/2400, strain is reduced without any loss of accuracy. Taking it down another notch, deep seat a cast, POWDER COAT, 262 SWC over 17/2400 and your should be in shape to face most of your challenges. Cocktail it to 18/2400 if you want. A bullet with some plasticity works hard without being pushed hard. Velocity flattens trajectory at the expense of pressure. A lifetime of excellent results from .44 Mag ammo which keeps a Model 29 happy leaves me in no position to advocate stressing your gun. A looping trajectory becomes costly in silhouette, as actual distances differ from range to range and may differ between banks of the same animal on the same range. Not to mention the challenge of light & wind. A hunting bullet must work for its intended target. Again, I put bullet selection before velocity. A proper M-29/629 is an instrument. Play it. David Bradshaw |
|
|
|
Post by rkcohen on Apr 12, 2021 9:35:43 GMT -5
do yourself a favor and review handloader issues #265 (apr10) and #326 (jun20).
there's actual pressure testing, dimensions and discussion ref things like the smith "endurance package" and so forth.
no sense re-inventing the smith v ruger wheel - again..
either gun will handle loads stout enough for dear, black bears, feral hog, mountain lion and so forth...
|
|
|
|
Post by dougader on Apr 12, 2021 10:14:47 GMT -5
... either gun will handle loads stout enough for deer, black bears, feral hog, mountain lion and so forth... So will a 44 Special loaded with a 240/250 at 1100-1200 fps, the original loading Keith was looking for in the 44 Mag. I have 1 44 mag, the L-frame 69 5-shot, and it will see mostly 44 Special loads, from mild to wild as they say. I see no reason to hotrod any 44 magnum. If I need a bigger hammer, I pick up the 480 Ruger. |
|
|
|
Post by webber on Apr 12, 2021 17:54:24 GMT -5
Wouldn't one have to define "HOT"? In my mind "HOT" can have different definitions depending on the person. Are we talking about 36,000PSI/40,000CUP SAAMI SPEC loads or are we going over that?
If one loads a 240 gr Hornady XTP to 36,000PSI/40,000CUP and Hornady 300 XTP to 36,000PSI/40,000CUP using H110/W296 which load over time would be worse on a M629?
What if a 320 JDJ was loaded with H110/W296 using a 36,000/40,000CUP load, which of the 3 loads would be worse for a M629?
One wouldn't be "HOTTER" than the other if they were loaded to the same SAAMI SPEC pressures.
BTW, if everyone will stop to think they will understand where I am coming from so please don't jump on me with both feet and try to pick me apart using fancy language.
|
|
