I have two N-frame .357s, a 27 and a 28. Both are early 70's vintage guns and undoubtedly saw a good deal of use before I acquired them. They weren't exactly beaters when I got them but definitely shooter grade.

I've put a lot of magnum rounds through each of these guns. A lot. Probably on the order of 500-1000 rounds of factory 158gr. magnum per gun per year. A few weeks ago I was firing my 27 when the cylinder began binding against the forcing cone. The problem quickly got so bad that the cylinder would not turn at all in a couple of places. I took the gun to a local smith who diagnosed the problem as end shake and who corrected it for a modest fee. The gun's fine now although I've decided to "retire" it to a diet of mostly .38s.

Then, today, it happened again, this time with my 28. The exact same problem. I was firing magnums and suddenly, the cylinder began binding. It will be going to the smith this afternoon.

I own more than a dozen Smith revolvers and the majority of them are chambered in .357. I've never experienced this problem with my K- or L-frame Smiths and some of them have gotten as much or more work as my Ns. So, my question is: is this end shake problem something that is typical of older Ns firing high pressure rounds, and if so, why? Or, is it just a coincidence involving my 27 and my 28?

It's only my opinion, but it may be more about the "era" they were made. It's my feeling the "Bangor Punta' era guns were the worst to ever come out of Springfield. It may be no more than "cumulative tolerances" that caused it. I've had several S&W revolvers from that time frame that were problematic, when their autos from then were quite good. Go figure! Like I said, my opinion only. But, it's pretty easy to fix, that's the good part.

I don't think that i would make a decision to reduce the power unless the Smith said to.
I seems to me that if it is fixed, it is fixed--not worn out.
1000 rounds a year on a gun is certainly not excessive--by any quantative analysis.
Mine certainly do that. 50,000 rounds should not shorten barrel life to the extent that a barrel replacement is necessary unless you are really hot rodding it or the bullet type is harsh.
Blessings

__________________
TEXAS, by GOD

Especially for an N-Frame.

Frankly, most people would laugh at the idea of limiting an N-Frame S&W to a diet of .38 Specials, unless the shooter has arthritic hands or something.

__________________
You're shy a few manners.

What your gunsmith did was install a shim into the center of the cylinder assembly (I don't have a gun that has this, so I can't say exactly where it fits) to correct the endshake.

You mentioned you put 500-1000 full-power .357 rounds through each gun "per year". I agree this is not excessive for a few years, but did you mean this number for each of the past 15-20 years? If so, I think it would normally loosen up with that cumulative round count no matter when era it was made.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

Don't sound right. A 27 should go many tens of thousands of rounds without a hiccup.

38s in an N frame because the gun is too weak for Magnums? That's it. We are in the handbasket headed for Hell.

If you can't shoot 357s in an N frame, just exactly what gun CAN you shoot them in?

Jeez, we can't shoot K frames... we can't shoot Pythons... now we can't shoot N frames.

I'm taking up golf.

Dudes! I'm not commiting heresy by shooting .38s from my old N-frames am I? As I said in my original post, I shoot a lot of .357s -- it's my personally preferred round -- and if a gun or two gets a break that's not going to affect my round count. The question I asked originally was whether there was something about the Ns that made them susceptible to end shake or other problems that caused cylinder rub against forcing cones. I thought that having it happen to me twice was more than coincidental and I was wondering if it's happened to any of you. So, back to my original question -- has it, and if so, what do you think is the cause?

Stevie I have never heard of any issues on either the 27 or 28. I am reading in your original post that you did not buy either one new. So I would say to you that you probably don't know the exact round count on either revolver. Heck I don't know my round count either on my 28. I know that the revolver is a shooter and has seen a lot of rounds. I think what you experienced is normal when a revolver gets to a certain round count. Maybe I am all wet but I think every gun has a round count and them it needs repair.
Regards,
Howard

I believe they probably had minimal tolerances to begin with, then 20-30 years of cumulative "normal" wear, which is easily addressed with a couple thousandths inch shim, just makes it a well loved gun. Easily fixed and put back in action.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

If I were you, I'd keep shooting .357's through both of them, to see
if the problem comes back.

For the front face of the cylinder to rub against the forcing cone, that
means that the barrel-to-cylinder gap has disappeared. This could be
because of the end shake, which comes from wear on either the rear
end of the yoke shaft that holds the cylinder, or the end of the yoke
shaft well, or hole. Those two should normally touch each other, thus
providing the right gap in the front of the cylinder.

The fix is to put a thin washer-like spacer in the bottom of the
cylinder, thus forcing it back, and recreating the cylinder gap.

In the rotation of the cylinder, the hand only rotates the cylinder - it
does not put any forward pressure on it. However, firing does create
recoil (!), that wants to drive the frame backwards. In effect, this may
put pressure on the inner bottom of the cylinder; it would be equivalent
to driving the cylinder forward. With a loaded cylinder, it would
certainly have the tendency, via its inertia, to stay in place, so the
rearward movement of the frame could be wearing that junction of
the yoke shaft and the inner rear surface of the cylinder.

The cylinder gap should be something like 0.006". You might measure
it from time to time, to see if further wear is occuring.

I can tell you that the early 44 magnums had problems with recoil.
One of the problems was that the heavy recoil (to the rear) effectively
caused the cylinder release to move forward, thus releasing the
cylinder !

Mike Priwer