Originally Posted by Alk8944

It fascinates me how many want to question Roy Jinks statements about this issue. Read this again and I will explain to you what it means!

"Believe what you want to, but it was my project and I certainly do not remember a problem with the stainless steel for the cylinders."

Note he states "....it was my project...." Prior to being Historian for S&W, or likely concurrent to, Mr. Jinks was "Revolver Foreman". At S&W a "Foreman" is an equivalent position to vice president with many corporations. He was directly responsible for revolver production, why wouldn't his word be sufficient for you naysayers? He is saying thathe was the revolver foreman at the time this issue came up!

Forgive me, but I am going to interpolate an opinion based on his remarks. To me what he is saying that the few bars of the incorrect steel that were received from the supplier were made into .44 Magnum cylinders. Some Model 624 revolvers inadvertantly were fit with the Magnum cylinders which outwardly are indistinguishable from the correct Special cylinders. This was discovered after-the-fact and became part of the same recall for the sake of convenience.

Roy is, not surprisingly, a shooter. He is well enough versed with hand-loaders, and shooters in general, to understand that there are some (many) who, knowing the 624 and 629 are basically identical (in every way that counts!) would not hesitate to shoot .44 Magnum ammunition in their 624! Hence the strength concern with the Model 624!

Roy, if I am wrong I welcome your corrections to these assumptions!

To the OP. Check the gun to see if it will chamber a .44 Magnum! If it won't then don't give it another thought. If it will then just remember to never shoot .44 Magnums in it!