I was sitting around and wondering the other day...
When S&W makes a run of frames in a certain size, say the N frame...
Do they all get heat treated the same or do the magnums get sent thru a different process?
I can see both sides to whatever they do.
Non magnums, the 21, 22, 24... dont need the extra strength that the magnums do... and maybe its cheaper for the lighter treating...
However, it may be cheaper to have 1 process for all of them.

Anyone have any thoughts, ideas, opinions, or actual factual knowledge on this?
Thanks,


Jim

I have wondered this very thing as it pertains to handloading. For instance, if one shoots a lot of hot .45 ACP loads through a Model 22, assuming that pressures are safe for the cylinder, will the same frame size as used on the .44 magnum be any assurance against excessive frame battering? Is the model 10 frame just as strong as the model 19? I don't know, so I play it safe.

I am going to guess that all the steel is heat treated to the same hardness, Otherwise the paperwork would be huge to keep all the parts straight.
A 19 barrel and a 14 barrel may very well be the same except for roll marks.
I am sure that there are many items that are the same except for the roll marks...
I would also guess that if they were different hardnesses there would be some oops and guns would fail.
So to keep everything simple,,, Everything would be the same.
Granted I am just guessing, But I would bet a J frame I am right.
Peter

__________________
Need 1/2 moon Chiefs special

I had always assumed the same, but I was told by someone who worked at S&W that they are not all heat-treated the same. I had thought it would be cheaper to have them all processed the same - apparently not true.

Sure would be nice to know. As the posters said, it would be a good thing for those who reload. Of course, it might make a person a bit more inclined to take chances with higher pressures also...
Sonny

According to Brain Pearce of Handloader magazine, the 24/624 has the exact same steels as the 29/629's do. The only difference is the length of the cylinders on the 24/624's. The 25's, 24's 29's, etc. are all heat treated the same. That does not mean you can load a 25/625 as warm as a 24, or 29. The chamber walls are still the limiting factor for normal handloads. They are obviously thinner on the .45 caliber guns, especially over the locking notches.

I asked Mr Roy Jinks about the heat treatment, as I have a M544 .44-40 and wanted to add a .44 Magnum cylinder. He stated that the heat treatment was different in the non-magnum revolvers.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

I mean no disrespect to Muley Gil, especially since I enjoy his posts and believe him to be a very knowlegable man himself, but Mr Jinks's response to him differs greatly from all the answers I have received from well known pistolsmiths around the country.

I received this from Hamilton Bowen this morning in response to my inquiry regarding S&W heat treatment to their guns. It goes hand in hand with what the other pistolsmiths have all told me-


"Dear Sir:
Thanks for your inquiry.

I am no privy to any particular info on S&W cylinder heat-treatment so am not sure what to tell you except that I have Rockwell tested numerous magnum and non-magnum cylinders and found some magnum cylinders softer than some non-magnum parts. Accordingly, my best guess is that they are all heat-treated somewhat similarly, depending on vintage.

Strikes me as a terribly nuisance to inventory different cylinder materials or run two processes but I cannot know for sure. Bear also in mind that process changes can occur from time to time so what can be said about a cylinder made last week may not apply exactly to one made last year or last decade of last century.

Hope this will help; thanks for your interest.

Sincerely yours,

Hamilton S. Bowen
Bowen Classic Arms Corp."


While he is not saying flat out that they are heat all treated the same, his test would seem to indicate that they are at least very similarly heat treated, and I am guessing that any variation from one gun to another would be no greater than from one run of frames to another.

This is what I have been able to find out from men who actually work on these fine guns. I hope this helps.

Sir, I think you're reading more into this than is there. Mr. Bowen's quoted comments mention only cylinders, not frames, and he specifically says he doesn't know what Smith's processes are or were.

IMHO the better idea is to check with S&W directly. Maybe they'll tell you and maybe they won't, but any info you do get will be from the horse's mouth.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

__________________
Wishin' don't make it so.

Ron-

I have also talked with Mr Bowen on the phone in the past and asked him this same question, regarding both frames and cylinders. Also, Ben Forkin, David Clements, and John Linebaugh. I'm not reading anything into it, but simply reporting what I have either been told, or as in this case, copied and pasted what I received from Mr. Bowen. Their replies were very similar across the board (when asked about this subject). I believe Mr. bowen answered in this manner (referrencing only the cylinders, though I did ask about both frames and cylinders) because the cylinder is the most critical part regarding the containment of pressures, and because that is what he works on or replaces most often. He did say however that he has Rockwell tested cylinders, and some magnum cylinders were actually softer than some standard cylinders, and that his best guess is that they are all heat treated similarly.

You are right about S&W though. They won't tell you diddly squat. That could leave them open for legal action to be taken against them if something happened to someone who had asked them this, and had any sort of way to prove what they had been told by S&W as in an e-mail or a recorded phone conversation.

We will probably never know precisely.

Pearce is right but it doesn't matter. I was told what Muley Gil was told by another S&W employee. You can't treat N frame frames as interchangeable.

Respectfully, I thought we were talking about frames, not cylinders? See the OP's quote at the bottom.

As you all know, heat treating is one part of a manufacturing process. Ergo, there are industrial secrets held by S&W, as well as other manufacturers. Not only are they concerned about legal requirements and ramifications, they're also holding manufacturers, foreign and dometic, at bay. Industrial espionage is a real problem, and these processes are held closer than patents. Patents run out after seventeen years, but certain trade secrets have been held for a century, or more. Anyone out there have the formula for Coca Cola? Let Ruger, Taurus, and others find out the best process on their own dimes.

Most any information coming from S&W is either rumor (intentional), or anecdotal. S&W wouldn't be the first company to intentionally leak bad information. There's nothing like leading your competition down a wrong path.

Just as a guess, S&W probably uses different processes for their magnum frames than they do non-magnums. As with any manufacturing endeavor, costs are contained by producing goods made to a particular standard, and no further. Additional steps cost money, therefore lowering profit margins; not only with the steps themselves, but in materials, direct and indirect. Over-engineering usually doesn't pay, in either the long, or short run.

I worked in finance, costing, and IT, for a major manufacturer for over 38 years. We didn't use extra coats of paint, primers, chemical washes, nuts, bolts, screws, welds, etc. It's just too expensive.

I certainly don't know what the differences in heat treating between magnum and non-magnum frames are.

I don't worry about it, though. My 625 is more than adequate for both .45 ACP and .45 +p. The old M1917s handled .45 ACP quite well, and many even held up with over-loads that I don't subject my new gun to.

As I understand it, those old M1917s weren't heat treated at all.

I am certainly not privy to any special information from S&W but can attempt to contribute to this topic. From an engineering standpoint, hardness is not the only measure of steel's mechanical properties. A hardness test is one of the easiest non-destructive tests to perform, but there are also the tensile test (essentially stretching a material specimen of specified dimensions to failure and measuring force versus extension to derive a stress-strain curve and the material's elastic modulus/Ultimate Tensile Strength), and the Charpy impact test for fracture toughness (where a pendulum hammer of specific profile is dropped from increasing heights into defined specimens until they break).

High hardness is not always the most desirable characteristic. A metal with high hardness is generally brittle and subject to fracture under impact loads. There exists a trade-off between hardness and ductility. Ductility (the ability to stretch without breaking) is desirable in parts subjected to impact loading, which I would classify fired cartridge pressure loading under. Therefore, lower hardness and higher ductility/fracture toughness may work better in a Magnum frame/cylinder/barrel.

I would not be surprised if S&W heat treated parts for Magnums differently. Magnum pressures (and hence stresses) are in the neighborhood of double those for non-Magnum versions. The parts directly exposed to pressure loading (cylinder, barrel, and to a certain extent the frame's recoil plate) would require the most strength. I cannot speculate as to S&W's manufacturing processes. I imagine their heat treatment method is the result of a combination of analysis, testing, and experience. It likely embodies trade-offs of which we are not even aware.

That being said, using any machine for a purpose not originally intended is usually inadvisable. When exceeding design parameters, one takes matters into one's own hands. My car may have a rated top speed of 150 mph; with the speed governor off, it may well achieve 200 mph; but if I push it to 200 mph, it may well fly off the road or fall victim to any number of unforseen catastrophies. So for my part, I will stick to the cartridge types approved for my guns and not try to push the limits.

Hello, and no problem.

I know he was asking about the frame. That is what I addressed in post #10. The various 'smiths' mentioned herein, that I have asked about this (frames and cylinders) all told me they believe there is little to no difference in heat treating methods between the various N frames, again, frame or cylinder.

I am not an expert in this, nor do I claim to be one. I am just trying to offer some info that I have for the OP to consider.

YMMV

...and then there's the L-frame, my 696, made in 1996. Hope you don't mind if I tag along with this post, as it relates to N-frames also.
Had a fellow ask:
Originally Posted by NE450No2
Question:

Is the 696 as "strong" as a new made 24/624???
If not why not???

The answer I got from a phone call with Smith Customer Service is a tentative YES, but she was not considering frame size in her answer.
By the "new made" stipulation, Smith is talking about their new Classic Series of revolvers, model 24, 6 1/2" bbl, which has been in production during approximately the last two years. However, I suspect it's highly likely that the newer N-frame 24/624 guns are quite a bit stronger than my 696.
According to Smith, both the 696 and the Classic Series model 24 should have incorporated the latest improvements in frame design and heat treating which really began in the early 1990's. That's true, but I think that John Traveler's post on other advantages of a larger N-frame size are applicable here.
My Smith catalog by Supica and Nahas, 3rd edition, says the 696 is rated for +P; that's my only information.
And Gun 4 Fun, thanx for your posts. I have copied them into a word processing program so I don't lose them.
Sonny

Sir, that's fine, but it's still just supposition. Call me a skeptic.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

__________________
Wishin' don't make it so.

S&W has been quoted as saying the magnum titanium cylinders will withstand higher pressures than magnum stainless ones because they flex slightly, but we've seen pictures where the front face of a magnum titanium cylinder was ruined by hot powder & gasses. That would support your statement.