S&W 57 versu

[gw]

insert code hereI had a model 29-2 in my youth and I very stupidly let it go. Makes me sick. I hand loaded 250 grain Keith bullets at 11O0 FPS for it.  It is all I really shot in it that revolver save for a few factory 240 grain HP rounds. 

I have since read that older 29s will not handle full power loads too well and that they will hiccup in a variety of ways. Have also heard the 41 magnum is the perfect top end N frame round and has none of the 29 issues.   Is the Model 57 is the perfect N frame as far as durability goes?

[bigbrowndog]

I’ve owned several 29’s when I was younger and like you foolishly turned loose of them, I now have a 657 and really like it, actually it has become the wife’s hunting gun. It is a great hunting gun, I just checked accuracy on it for a new load she will use for black bear next year, ironically it’s a 250gr. at 1130fps, it is very soft shooting and accurate 1-1.5” group at 50.
The S&W N frame does just fine until you try and make a Freedom arms or Ruger out of it.

Trapr

[gnappi]

Oct 28, 2024 17:01:29 GMT -5 gw said:

insert code hereI had a model 29-2 in my youth and I very stupidly let it go. Makes me sick. I hand loaded 250 grain Keith bullets at 11O0 FPS for it.  It is all I really shot in it that revolver save for a few factory 240 grain HP rounds. 

I have since read that older 29s will not handle full power loads too well and that they will hiccup in a variety of ways. Have also heard the 41 magnum is the perfect top end N frame round and has none of the 29 issues.   Is the Model 57 is the perfect N frame as far as durability goes?

I too let a couple of 29's go that I should have kept though my 29's would have really sticky extraction on loads that my Redhawk gobbled up with ease.

One 29 I sold to a "friend" for $500 who came back to me over a year later with a newly rusted backstrap and said he found others cheaper (remember this after a year) and wanted a $100 REBATE! I kicked him out of my office :-)

Anyway, I've never owned either of the Redhawks in .45 Colt (A .480? Yes!) and I'll bet that the Redhawks hold up better to load tweaking than the S&W's, but I own two S&W .45 Colts and no Redhawks, the 57 and 657 are fine guns. 






 

[bradshaw]

Oct 28, 2024 17:01:29 GMT -5 gw said:

insert code hereI had a model 29-2 in my youth and I very stupidly let it go. Makes me sick. I hand loaded 250 grain Keith bullets at 11O0 FPS for it.  It is all I really shot in it that revolver save for a few factory 240 grain HP rounds. 

I have since read that older 29s will not handle full power loads too well and that they will hiccup in a variety of ways. Have also heard the 41 magnum is the perfect top end N frame round and has none of the 29 issues.   Is the Model 57 is the perfect N frame as far as durability goes?

******

The “...perfect top end N frame round....” begins with an N frame correctly built in the first place. Thoroughly driven in IHMSA silhouette, quality preconditions durability.

1) Longevity of a poorly assembled S&W cannot compete with a properly tooled & assembled example of the same revolver.

2) Pressure matters. The finest M-29 or M-57 does not want to compete with a Ruger Redhawk (or Super Redhawk) for strength or durability with top end loads. The Smith frame is not as tough as the Ruger frame.

3) For a given chamber pressure, the .41 Mag may hold up longer than the .44 Mag. However, continuous use of heavy-for-caliber bullets hammer an S&W frame much more aggressively than the same loads in a Ruger Blackhawk/Super Blackhawk or Redhawk/SRH.

4) A revolver should be shot inbound of its strength and durability.

Conclusion: START WITH THE CARTRIDGE YOU WANT. Let the revolver, bullet, and load follow.
David Bradshaw

[gw]

Thanks, Bradshaw.

At what weight does one get into heavy for caliber bullets in a Model 57?

I imagine a RedHawk is far different. 

[tj3006]

I have neglected a wonderful revolver. And this thread has me thinking f it.
It has been a strange year for me, But i need to get the trigger worked on this one. I plan to either drive the 550 miles to Carson City or ship it to JRH.
I have a 7.5 inch Redhawk 41 mag. Looking at the cylinder, it seems like using 2400 or such powder you could really load that puppy up.
I don't intend to do it, a 240 grain SWC at 1150 to 1250 is about all my aging carcas can handle.
But what little i have shot it is quite accurate. I am about 3 months from paying my house off, then I will make that trigger job happen...tj

[bradshaw]

Oct 29, 2024 17:23:26 GMT -5 gw said:

Thanks, Bradshaw.

At what weight does one get into heavy for caliber bullets in a Model 57?

I imagine a RedHawk is far different. 

*****

gw.... "heavy for caliber” just means:

Bullet weight, examples heavier than standard
* .357----180 to 200 grains, etc.
* .41 Mag----240 to 250 grains, etc.
* .44----280 to 300, etc.
* .45----300 to 350, etc.

Point is, heavier than standard at near-max pressure hammers a revolver more. This can be seen in revolvers which are susceptible to endshake, such as S&W. Alignment issues aggravate TIMING. Looseness issues aggravate hammering. My old M-29 8-3/8”, campaigned in the early silhouette battles, is tighter today than most factory-new Smiths. It received tender loving care at the factory, including having the barrel set back to take up barrel face erosion. Same applies to some other top performing sixguns. I never subjected M-29’s to heavier bullets, such as fed the Ruger’s.
David Bradshaw

[sixshot]

I hammered a lot of animals early in life (mid-late 60's) with model 57 S&W's but I never pounded the guns with either heavy bullets or heavy loads. Early on I found that 17.0 grs of 2400 was penetrating everything I shot with the Saeco 230 gr Keith bullet, whether it was deer, lots of them, or elk, bears or antelope. I was always wanting to recover a bullet but even on elk I only recovered a couple out of 6-7 in my early days of being able to hunt bugling bulls in the Selway country of central Idaho. This was way before wolves were introduced & also when a lot of the elk were dying of old age without ever seeing a human. I think a lot of them were killed the first time they encountered a hunter.
In that country a six gun was every bit as effective as a rifle because the country was steep, rugged & had lots of heavy cover. A novice with a flute could bugle in a bull after a day or so. I bugled in several bulls for me & friends & we killed them at close range, it was a good thing because many times my mouth would start to get dry & I couldn't bugle very good. It made you look pretty good but actually it was quite simple back in those days, the wolves changed everything. I think my first handgunned elk was actually 1967 & he was both big & close & there were bulls bugling all around me, I was shaking like a leaf & never even seen the bull I ended up shooting until he was maybe 35 yds down hill below me, just standing there looking, I'm sure he had never seen a person before, because he let me move to much without running. I lit him up through both lungs. I never wavered from that load.

Dick

[rjm52]

Agree with Dick...for a hunting load one doesn't need all the recoil to kill big game within most shooters handgun shooting distance.

The only bullet I crank up for hunting is the Sierra 170 JHC. 26.0 grains of H110 is just a hammer on deer. Runs just over 1600 fps in a 6.5" Blackhawk.

Was just shooting two of my S&W .41s yesterday...a 1980 4" 57 and a 1986 3" 657. Just now getting back into DA shooting due to diminished vision due to cataracts that has now been corrected to the point I can see the bullets impacting the target again...

8.0 grain of Unique with any bullet from 200-300 grains runs in the 950-1000 fps range from a 4", is extremely accurate and an all day shooter. 9.0 runs 1100 and 10.0 1180.

I save the full heavy loads, 250s-300, for the Single Actions...much easier on the hands and wrists...

Bob

[jgt]

There was a time I visited the Selway every chance I got. The last time was in 1983. Dicks description took me back. I never got to hunt it though, as I was a resident of Washington at the time. I do remember a time after Mt. St. Helen blew it's top, they declared a ten year exclusion zone around the area with no hunting allowed to give the game a chance to recover. I lived close and visited the area many times. On one trip I walked up to a herd of elk and was just out of arms length of them before they moved. They didn't run off. Just moved away. When I let them settle down and walked toward them again, they waited until I was just over arms length again and then moved away. That was quite an experience.

[sixshot]

Yes, 8.0 grs of Unique has been my "everyday" load for over 50 years, accurate in every 41 I've ever owned, and I've owned a few. In all my years I've heard nothing but good about the Sierra 170 gr HC & I've yet to ever fire one, better get busy, I'm not getting any younger.

Dick

[rjm52]

...but Dick, if you do that you'll rip out all that powder coating seasoning out of your barrel!!!

[bradshaw]

Oct 31, 2024 6:32:33 GMT -5 rjm52 said:

...but Dick, if you do that you'll rip out all that powder coating seasoning out of your barrel!!!

*****

Bob.... in which case I’ve stank up some gun barrels, firing jacketed over cast, cast over jacketed, powder coat sharing the bore with lubed. O do subscribe to two or three fouling shots when switching and accuracy is paramount. For instance, take the Ruger 03 with .45 Colt and ACP cylinders: the Colt cylinder may run cast + powder coat; then switch to ACP running cast + lube. Meanwhile, both cylinder include both jacketed and lead bullets. Sameomnivorous diet applies to a couple of M-29’s, especially the 4-inch.

To digress a bit, made a brief trial of of shooting the XP-100 7mmx308/1.75” (7mm Talbot) built for me by Skip Talbot. From a bore wet with Hoppe’s #9, the first shot could be iffy on pigs @ 100 meters; the second shot closer. Third shot might or might not group. Since I tended to clean revolver and single shot bores after a match, I made a point of dry patching before taking to the firing line next time. No competitive shooter wants to live on the margins; you want to lay em in there.

During a period of the fierce revolver campaigns, I shot a series of matches without cleaning Super Blackhawk and M-29 barrels. Then shot a series with bore cleaning after each match. Could not tell a difference in accuracy. However, cleaning after each match provides a closer look at the particulars of the instrument, and that helps a good night’s sleep.

Although I never tested the proposition, I would not want to switch lead & jacketed back-and-forth in a silhouette match, and and not aware of anyone doing it.
David Bradshaw

[bigbrowndog]

David brought up an excellent point, cleaning allows you to get an intimate look at your gun. The gun may not require cleaning to function or be accurate, but it allows you to know of any minute out of the ordinary details.
Case in point,…..I was shooting the Texas State Limited championship and on the last stage of the day in one of the last target arrays, my full length guide rod broke and exited the gun. It may have happened on the last shot or it may have functioned for a few shots after breaking and exiting, I don’t know. What I do know is I never knew it was broken until I took it apart and cleaned it in preparation for the next days shooting. I was able to purchase a new guide rod from the match gunsmith the next morning before shooting started and all was well. I walked over to the stage I’d shot last the previous day and asked permission to look for my guide rod, and there laying in the dirt near the end of the stage was my guide rod.
So cleaning your gun not only allows you to keep it clean but it can warn you of a serious issue that is developing before it becomes an actual problem.

Trapr

[bigbore5]

That's why I cleaned post mission everyday day back then. Probably why I am a veteran instead of a statistic