Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Smith & Wesson Revolvers > S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present
Forum Register Expert Commentary Members List


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-01-2010, 08:54 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gods Country!...Western N
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default +P ammo in 625-6 .45 Colt mountain Gun

I just picked up and found a 625-6 4" in .45 Colt. I'm wondering if it is safe to shoot the Georgia Arms 260 grain JHP +P. This ammo is rated at 1200 fps. Any opinions would be appreciated...
dakasat
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-01-2010, 09:19 PM
Gary7's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Same frame as the 629 44 Magnum, so I'd say it will handle 45 +P loads with no problem.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-01-2010, 11:58 PM
JT JT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Geez ... get a Ruger and save your Smith for milder loads.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-02-2010, 12:52 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: TX
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Same frame as the 629, but different heat treatment. The 625 .45 Colt Mountain Gun is an excellent revolver. I have one and it is one of my favorites, but it is not a magnum. Will it safely fire the +p loads? Most probably, but it will end up battered into early retirement. JT is right, get a Ruger for the really hot stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-02-2010, 12:57 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Southwestern Ohio
Posts: 1,900
Likes: 1
Liked 282 Times in 137 Posts
Default

John Linebaugh's articles on loading heavy .45 Colt's will have the information you desire. The S&W will not take "Ruger Only" loads but can be loaded to give excellent results for deer. John's wife uses an S&W for hunting deer and antelope.

John carries a Smith .45 Colt on a daily basis. Scroll down to the bottom of the article for his comments on the Smith. I tend toward the conservative side of the coin and John's suggestions to hold the load's at 5% below the listed loads sounds good to me.

Linebaugh's Custom Sixguns - Heavyweight Bullets

FWIW
Dale53
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-02-2010, 01:55 AM
Sprefix's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: 61N149W
Posts: 2,771
Likes: 1,011
Liked 903 Times in 459 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to Sprefix
Default

Mine get a steady diet of 335gr @ 1150. They are much more than led to believe. Ticks me off when people complain of Smiths' being soft or weak. Be reasonable and they will take more than the average guy will put them through. Give up the keys to the Subaru, vote for the working man, and shoot some plus P's in your Smith. It feels good to be a man..........Good shooting.......Sprefix
__________________
Go big or stay home
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-02-2010, 02:14 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,120
Likes: 1
Liked 317 Times in 96 Posts
Default

I have a 25-5 in 45lc and I am sure those loads would be ok. however, I am a 3 screw ruger that I would shoot them in and save my smith for the cream puff 900 fps loads
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-02-2010, 05:16 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Liked 17 Times in 11 Posts
Default

What do you intend to shoot that 260gr at 1200fps will kill, but the same bullet at, say, 1000fps won't kill?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-02-2010, 07:22 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Roebling, NJ, USA
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Most ammunition manufacturers will tell you if their product is safe in a S&W, so I would certainly check with them.

From personal experience with Mountain Guns and +P ammo, I can tell you that your hand will probably give out before the pistol does.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-02-2010, 07:40 AM
Gary7's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave View Post
Same frame as the 629, but different heat treatment.
Can you verify that?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-02-2010, 07:45 AM
Marshall 357's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 883
Likes: 117
Liked 23 Times in 14 Posts
Default

I didnt know S&W revolvers are not as stronge as Rugers untill I came to this forum.I read S&W have forged frames,Rugers have cast frames. I know Rugers have a lot more meat on them but why are Smiths loooked down on when in come to shooting hot and heavy loads? I have being shooting light loads out of my 29-3 8 3/8'' because its tight as a drum and I want to keep it that way. How about some light on the subject ? Its not like Im going to shoot 200 rd of full power Magnum Loads thru it everyday, Dont think I could,LOL!

Last edited by Marshall 357; 08-02-2010 at 07:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-02-2010, 08:02 AM
aterry33's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 10 Posts
Default

For what it's worth, I've talked to the folks at Buffalo Bore, Double Tap, etc., and they recommend standard pressure 45LC in Smith&Wesson's, and +P for Rugers and other hulking revolvers.
__________________
Aaron Terry
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-02-2010, 08:11 AM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 316
Likes: 2
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

It's not the strength of the metal as much as the weaknesses in a century-old design.

In limited use it's probably fine. Don't be surprised if it's needs service sooner rather than later.
__________________
Stu
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-02-2010, 08:16 AM
Allen-frame's Avatar
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida,South,hell.
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 28
Liked 1,051 Times in 213 Posts
Default

Saturday I shot my 625-7 Mountain gun with my 250gr. r.n.f.p.
loaded at 900 or so f.p.s. I think it was 9 grs. of Unique.
It was a snappier load than the 'cowboy'loads I shoot and with wood
grips I wouldn't want to shoot anything hotter unless hunting.

Start with cowboy loads and work up from there.
The fun in shooting a 45 Colt revolver is the big 'thump' then
that big slug flying downrange.

You can hot rod Smiths in 45 ,but why make it into a 44 Magnum
unless you're hunting or defending yourself with it?

Regards ,,Allen
__________________
NRA cert.instructor&R.S.O.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-02-2010, 08:26 AM
Gary7's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu454 View Post
It's not the strength of the metal as much as the weaknesses in a century-old design.

In limited use it's probably fine. Don't be surprised if it's needs service sooner rather than later.
Exactly. Can an N-Frame 45 safely shoot reasonably hot loads? Of course. Will a steady diet of hot loads loosen it up faster than shooting standard loads? Of course. And that is true no matter what caliber N-Frame we're talking about.

But all else being equal, 45 LC loads that are not any hotter than moderate 44 Mag loads are not going to be any more detrimental to an N-Frame than those same 44 Mag loads would be, IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-02-2010, 08:46 AM
devildog66's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale53 View Post
John Linebaugh's articles on loading heavy .45 Colt's will have the information you desire. The S&W will not take "Ruger Only" loads but can be loaded to give excellent results for deer. John's wife uses an S&W for hunting deer and antelope.

...John's suggestions to hold the load's at 5% below the listed loads sounds good to me.

Linebaugh's Custom Sixguns - Heavyweight Bullets

FWIW
Dale53
+1 for the recommendation to read this article! Very informative and the power is not the issue it is the pressure and Linebaugh dispenses some solid knowledge on the matter.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-02-2010, 09:00 AM
Gary7's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by devildog66 View Post
+1 for the recommendation to read this article! Very informative and the power is not the issue it is the pressure and Linebaugh dispenses some solid knowledge on the matter.
A quote from that article:

In reality the Model 25-5 is about 80% as strong as the Model 29 in the cylinder area. The frames are the same and are designed for a 40,000 psi load level even though we know this is a bit more than they are happy with. It's too bad S&W built a 40,000 psi cylinder and installed it in a 30,000 psi frame, so to speak.

Clearly, there is a typo in the last sentence which should read "It's too bad S&W built a 30,000 psi cylinder and installed it in a 40,000 psi frame, so to speak." So the "weak link" in an N-Frame 45 is the cylinder, not the frame.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-02-2010, 10:12 AM
Jack Flash's Avatar
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,591
Likes: 2,058
Liked 514 Times in 317 Posts
Default

Quote:
But all else being equal, 45 LC loads that are not any hotter than moderate 44 Mag loads are not going to be any more detrimental to an N-Frame than those same 44 Mag loads would be, IMO.
This makes sense. I can't believe that S&W has separate heat treating for N-Frames and their cylinders, depending on what caliber they are. It seems like such a system would be terribly error-prone and require much more effort than just doing them all the same at the same time. If anyone has any reliable information to the contrary, please speak up.

I would not hesitate to occaisionally shoot .45 Colt +P through a MODERN S&W. If I frequently required that power level, I would get a Ruger or better still just get a Model 29 and be done with it.
__________________
Splittin’ hairs, aint ya Boss?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-02-2010, 10:23 AM
Gary7's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Flash View Post
This makes sense. I can't believe that S&W has separate heat treating for N-Frames and their cylinders, depending on what caliber they are.
I'm sure they don't. But the chamber walls of a 45 cylinder are considerably thinner than those on a 44 cylinder, hence they can't handle as high a pressure as the 44 cylinder. Put another way, the cylinder on an N-Frame 357 can no doubt safely handle 60,000+ psi but an N-Frame 44 with that same pressure would be a time bomb and an N-Frame 45 would surely kaboom after a few rounds at that pressure.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-02-2010, 11:49 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary7 View Post
So the "weak link" in an N-Frame 45 is the cylinder, not the frame.
Now! you've got it....
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-02-2010, 12:15 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: TX
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Per John Linebaugh:
"While the S&W will take these loads safely such loads will greatly shorten the life of your gun. The frames on S&W are not heat treated thus are pretty soft. With loads that exceed what the gun can comfortably handle the frame stretches immediately lengthwise and then springs back. This all causes battering and soon your gun has excessive endshake. I don't know how long it takes to wreck a N frame S&W with heavy handloads but Jeff Cooper printed one time he saw a model 29 go out in the realm of 1,000 hot handloads if I remember correctly. I would agree that serious damage could be done in this amount of shooting with too heavy a handload.

The bearing surfaces on the front and rear of the cylinder in the DA guns just aren't as massive as the single action guns and the lock-up system isn't near as rigid as the single action base pin system.

In short, several small parts can't be expected to stand up as well as a few heavy parts."

John Linebaugh has also stated that he keeps his loads in the S&W .45s to around 25,000 psi max. A 625 will do almost anything you need it to do with a 260 grain bullet moving at around 900-1000 fps. Why batter your gun needlessly?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-02-2010, 12:43 PM
Gary7's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave View Post
Per John Linebaugh:
"While the S&W will take these loads safely such loads will greatly shorten the life of your gun. The frames on S&W are not heat treated thus are pretty soft.
I don't know who Mr. Linebaugh is, but I'm calling BS on this one.

[IMG]http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000442249/polls_bull****_0749_550897_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg[/IMG]
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-02-2010, 06:26 PM
Jack Flash's Avatar
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,591
Likes: 2,058
Liked 514 Times in 317 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary7 View Post
... the chamber walls of a 45 cylinder are considerably thinner than those on a 44 cylinder, hence they can't handle as high a pressure as the 44 cylinder. ...
Wow! Who ever suggested that a S&W .45 cylinder could handle .44 Mag pressures?

Go back through the posts and you will see that someone suggested the heat treatment is different for the .45 Colt than it is for the .44 Mag. From my limited experiences in a manufacturing environment, I politely suggested that this is a very dubious proposition. I stand by that statement until someone offers reliable proof to the contrary.

Then I talked about the wisdom of firing .45 Colt +P through a modern S&W. I said I believe this would not be a problem, especially if done in moderation. Again, I stand by that statement.

I base this second comment on a simple observation. While I am not going to the safe to dig out revolvers to make measurements, I believe the chamber walls for a S&W .45 Colt must be very close, if not equal, to the chamber walls of a S&W .45 ACP revolver. The SAAMI Max for .45 ACP is 21,000 psi. IIRC, S&W .approves its modern .45 ACP revolvers for +P, so they can handle over the Standard SAAMI max for .45 ACP. Therefore, a modern S&W .45 Colt revolver can handle considerably more than the Standard SAAMI limit for the ancient .45 Colt.
__________________
Splittin’ hairs, aint ya Boss?

Last edited by Jack Flash; 08-02-2010 at 06:36 PM. Reason: Correct Typos
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-02-2010, 06:29 PM
Gary7's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Flash View Post
Wow! Who ever suggested that a .45 cylinder could handle .44 Mag pressures?

Go back through the posts and you will see that someone suggested the heat treatment is different for the .45 Colt than it is for the .44 Mag. From my limited experiences in a manufacturing environment, I politely suggested that this is a very dubious proposition.
Uh...I was agreeing with you in my post, not taking issue with your points.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-02-2010, 06:38 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Greenwood, IN USA
Posts: 346
Likes: 3
Liked 36 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Double Amen to the cylinder wall thickness. It's usually not the frame that goes, but the cylinder. Using +P loads might be done but most ammo companies don't recommend it. IF you have any doubts what so ever, call and they will give as good of an answer that they can.
One of the reasons Ruger's shoot heavier loads is both the cylinder wall thickness and the top strap not the action or method of construction. Ruger had the advantage of starting with a blank sheet of paper.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-02-2010, 11:36 PM
JT JT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary7 View Post
I don't know who Mr. Linebaugh is, but I'm calling BS on this one.

[IMG]http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000442249/polls_bull****_0749_550897_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg[/IMG]
Man, that takes some big ones to call out Mr. Linebaugh, a world-class gunsmith who has forgotten more about handgun engineering than all of us forum members put together.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-02-2010, 11:45 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: prk
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary7 View Post
...So the "weak link" in an N-Frame 45 is the cylinder, not the frame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by batmann View Post
Double Amen to the cylinder wall thickness. It's usually not the frame that goes, but the cylinder...

One of the reasons Ruger's shoot heavier loads is both the cylinder wall thickness and the top strap not the action or method of construction. Ruger had the advantage of starting with a blank sheet of paper.
Heres another quote from...
Gunnotes...Smith & Wesson Mod 25-5
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Linebaugh
It may surprise many but the cylinder on the S&W .45 Colt is the same diameter as the Ruger Blackhawk. The webs (between chambers) and outside chamber wall are also the same. So basically the Ruger and S&W cylinders are identical in strength and dimension. We recommend handloads for the Rugers single action in .45 Colt caliber to 32,000 PSI levels.
Sounds to me that its the topstrap that is the difference, not the cylinder.
Although Id really like to hear it from S&W, theres no way they'd accept the liability telling you that its ok to fire anything other than SAAMI spec loads. Sticking to the loads that Linebaugh suggests should be fine by the pressure numbers he states.

Has anyone contacted BuffaloBore or Dakota and asked what "pressure" their +p loads generate ?



k.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-03-2010, 01:05 AM
stiab's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Free, NC
Posts: 980
Likes: 1
Liked 27 Times in 17 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Flash View Post
Go back through the posts and you will see that someone suggested the heat treatment is different for the .45 Colt than it is for the .44 Mag. From my limited experiences in a manufacturing environment, I politely suggested that this is a very dubious proposition. I stand by that statement until someone offers reliable proof to the contrary.
And yet this is the very reason most often given for why a J frame model 60 no dash cannot handle the same high pressures that a J frame 940 no dash can, even though they use the same non-magnum frame. If the 940 can handle 35K and the Model 60 only 18.5K, how else would you explain the difference if it was not heat treatment?

The Model 547 is another one in the same category. Why can it as a K frame withstand 35K and the seemingly identical K frame Model 15 not cope with that category of pressure (hence it was not chambered in .357 Magnum)? The Standard Catalog seems to indicate there are differences within the same frame sizes. It speaks of the M547 frames later being used to make a .357 guns.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-03-2010, 01:23 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Land of Lincoln
Posts: 199
Likes: 16
Liked 20 Times in 6 Posts
Default

As I recall, without rereading the whole book, Elmer Keith wrote in "Hell, I Was There" that the extra metal in the cylinder walls was why he switched from .45 to .44 when experimenting with heavy loads, having blown up a .45 or two.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-03-2010, 02:32 AM
gaucho1's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Farrrrrrrrrr West
Posts: 1,252
Likes: 668
Liked 341 Times in 182 Posts
Default

Cumulative wear on the smaller parts is the issue, not topstraps and
cylinders letting go. Even if the big parts can tale it, the rest of the gun
will wear faster.
__________________
I Love This Site
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-03-2010, 06:26 AM
devildog66's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I do agree with the many who have cast skepticism on the whole notion that, " SW does not heat treat anything but the M 29...". Just smells fishy from here and seems like one of those stories retold so often that it has become taken as fact. Show me the Brinell or Rockwell numbers first.

I love the 45 LC cartridge but use 44M in an M 629 only because I can do not reload and I can get 44M loads at a pittance compared to the cost of .45 LC. And I do stick to the 240 grain loads by and large.

To the OP, I would say go ahead and shoot the +P loads but with the caution that a shooting 100s of them will wear out your revolver faster than shooting cowboy loads through the the same revolver.

Fun thread.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-03-2010, 11:28 AM
Jack Flash's Avatar
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,591
Likes: 2,058
Liked 514 Times in 317 Posts
Default

Interesting points, Staib.

I have never had an interest in J-Frames, so I don't have a clue as to what you're talking about on that subject.

As for K-Frames, I would have to admit that there could well be many differences in the production of .38 Special vs .357 Magnums (or 9mm for that matter). Given the quantities involved, separate and different processing may have been feasible.

As I read the original post, I thought we were talking about recently-produced N-Frames, so that's what I was speaking to. (From original post: "... a 625-6 4" in .45 Colt ...").
__________________
Splittin’ hairs, aint ya Boss?

Last edited by Jack Flash; 08-03-2010 at 11:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-03-2010, 12:17 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: mid Missouri
Posts: 146
Likes: 67
Liked 17 Times in 8 Posts
Smile sheesh, just buy a S&W .460, then load whatever you want to shoot

if that X frame can easily, safely handle .460S&W & .454 Casuls, then ya can shoot all the Plus P Plus .45LC ya might want to, @ least until your hand & wrist are sore. & with a 5" barrel, it'd make a good everyday carry piece worn with a light jacket over it.


da gimp
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-03-2010, 01:34 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,120
Likes: 1
Liked 317 Times in 96 Posts
Default

I thought the problems with too many hot loads was end shake and the reason why the rugers are stronger is because the cylinder does not pivot out and the cylinder pin is held in the front of the cylinder and the rear where the smith is lock only in the rear. But I could be wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-03-2010, 02:09 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

My take......

I have a 625-9 in 45 Colt. It went back to S&W for rediculus end shake after around 1000 rounds. Some (50?) were Corbon 225gr & 1200 fps I think.

I also have a 460 XVR that also went back for gross endshake after a couple hundred rounds. Load shouldn't matter, right? It's a freaking 460 mag.

Both guns were repaired by stretching the yoke and resetting the barrel for a 0.006" B/C gap.

After 2000 or so 45 Colts (mostly std pressure with a few +P hadloads) the endshake in the 625 is still negligible as I recieved it back from S&W.

After a couple of hundred 460 mag rounds, the 460 XVR it also still as tight as when I got it back from S&W.

I think BOTH frames stretched from new and then stopped when they reached some critical stress. Perhaps the frames work hardened?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-03-2010, 07:04 PM
SgtSam's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NW 'Burbs of Chicago
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Buffalo Bore probably produces some of the most powerful factory loads for 45 colt. They have the "Ruger" only loads that they do not recommend using in anything but the Blackhawks and Redhawks. And they have the +P loads that they say are "Safe" in any modern 45 colt handgun, S&Ws included. These are loads up in the 1100 to 1200 fps range. Not the 1400 and up for the Ruger only.

So, that, coupled with everything else I've read, there should be no problem with putting the normal +P loads through a good S&W Mountain gun.

We're no talking about the older models like Mr. Keith ecountered, but newer, stronger, better guns that are made of better metals than the old ones. And we're sure not talking about the older Colt SAAs.

So, let's don't sell our 45 mountain guns, or any of the newer model 25s short. They are plenty strong to take some +Ps. Would I shoot a steady diet of them. Hell no.

I'm not shooting a steady diet of any heavy rounds through any handgun anymore. I've done enough damage to myself doing that, let alone what the gun may have taken. I don't own any of the big caliber magnums now. I sold them all. I still have .357s, but I don't shoot steady diets of magnum loads in them.

But, each to his own. If you don't feel comfortable doing it, then don't. But rest assured, the gun is safe with them, within reason.

Take Care, God Bless, and WATCH Your Back!
__________________
SgtSam
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-03-2010, 08:11 PM
Allen-frame's Avatar
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida,South,hell.
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 28
Liked 1,051 Times in 213 Posts
Default

Anyone happen to notice the original poster has not checked in on this thread again?

It just cracks me up ,every time the +P controversy comes up,
and everybody has an opinion ,,me included!

Okay now ,,nothing above 26,000 p.s.i. in your Model 25 or 625.


Regards ,Allen Frame
__________________
NRA cert.instructor&R.S.O.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-03-2010, 09:07 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen-frame View Post
Anyone happen to notice the original poster has not checked in on this thread again?

It just cracks me up ,every time the +P controversy comes up,
and everybody has an opinion ,,me included!

Okay now ,,nothing above 26,000 p.s.i. in your Model 25 or 625.


Regards ,Allen Frame
The OP bailed on us. ha. When I discuss this topic with Cor-Bon they said 23-25k psi or what ever .45acp std pressure is. seems reasonable.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-03-2010, 11:30 PM
stiab's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Free, NC
Posts: 980
Likes: 1
Liked 27 Times in 17 Posts
Default

Jack Flash, my thinking and yours is very similiar on this matter. It just does not make sense to me that S&W would taken thousands of K frames (for example) and heat treat some for the .357 Magnum, others for the .38 Special, others for the .32 S&W Long, and others for the .22 LR rimfires. To do so would mean they were 'engineering down' certain models. It would seem to be more economically feasible to treat them all the same. However, I have asked that exact question on this forum at least 3 previous times, and no one with inside knowledge has responded.

There is some factor that makes a Model 66 suitable for .357 Magnum and the Model 67 not (and there are many other examples). If it is not heat treating, then I don't know what it could be. I would love to have some accurate information form an inside source.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-03-2010, 11:48 PM
Gary7's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stiab View Post
There is some factor that makes a Model 66 suitable for .357 Magnum and the Model 67 not (and there are many other examples). If it is not heat treating, then I don't know what it could be. I would love to have some accurate information form an inside source.
According to the Standard Catalog of S&W, 3rd, the K-Frame 357s are "slightly larger than a standard K-Frame in the yoke area." Also, looking at the entry for the Model 64, it appears that the heavy bull barrel 38 Special models used the same frame as the 357 models.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 08-04-2010, 12:00 AM
Jack Flash's Avatar
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,591
Likes: 2,058
Liked 514 Times in 317 Posts
Default

Quote:
I would love to have some accurate information form an inside source.
That would be great, wouldn't it?

One last thought for the original question. Let's remember that S&W made the Model of 1917 with little or no heat treatment. People have been safely shooting standard pressure .45 ACP in these old war horses for almost a century.

So unless S&W hatched a diabolical plot to somehow make their modern .45 Colt cylinder even weaker than the .45 ACP cylinders they made in 1917, you would sure think anything up to at least 21,000 psi would be completely safe.
__________________
Splittin’ hairs, aint ya Boss?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-04-2010, 12:38 AM
JT JT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Smile From the "for what it's worth department":

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary7 View Post
According to the Standard Catalog of S&W, 3rd, the K-Frame 357s are "slightly larger than a standard K-Frame in the yoke area." Also, looking at the entry for the Model 64, it appears that the heavy bull barrel 38 Special models used the same frame as the 357 models.
A friend just received his Model 13 M&P K-frame .357 Mag back from the factory. At our last range session, his cylinder seized up. He had split the forcing cone with a steady diet of magnum loads. S&W replaced the barrel ($300) and suggested that he refrain from shooting magnum loads henceforth in his M13.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-04-2010, 05:58 AM
Gary7's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JT View Post
A friend just received his Model 13 M&P K-frame .357 Mag back from the factory. At our last range session, his cylinder seized up. He had split the forcing cone with a steady diet of magnum loads. S&W replaced the barrel ($300) and suggested that he refrain from shooting magnum loads henceforth in his M13.
The forcing cone on the K-Frame has always been the weak link when it comes to 357 Magnum loads.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-04-2010, 08:36 AM
Stainz's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pinson, AL
Posts: 2,093
Likes: 44
Liked 425 Times in 243 Posts
Default

If I can get a 255gr LSWC to make 820 fps with 6.1gr Titegroup - and a 250gr Speer #4484 Gold Dot will behave similarly - and it still is less than the 14 kpsi SAAMI max for .45 Colt - why do I need to really hotrod this round? Sure, a .45 ACP 625 frame, etc, must be made to handle 21+ kpsi, so it is reasonable to expect to be able to exceed 900 fps handily and still be quite safe, but why? That lead round, at 900 fps, will travel the length of most NA fare - and that GD doubles it's surface area at 800+ fps incident in ballistic gel or brisket. My vote is for longevity.

Okay, I'll come clean. I had a myriad of Rugers over the years - .454 SRH; .45's in BH, Bisley BH, Vaquero, & RH - all gone now. Blame it on my first-ever-S&W - a 625-7 MG in .45 Colt - or it's 'spare' sibling, acquired a few years, a 625-6 MG. They are super - and, I still enjoy plinking with my .45 Colt loads - and I don't miss the Rugers. Maybe my avoidance of big thumpers came about after over 800 .454's from that SRH...?

Stainz
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-30-2010, 10:38 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gods Country!...Western N
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Oooohkay..lol. I didn't bail on you guys! I've been busy! Somebody has to pay for all the government bailouts, by working and paying taxes!?!
I thank all of you for your opinions and advice! I do not plan to batter this piece of art...(yep, she is BEAUTIFUL!)...into an early trip to the Smith repair shop or worse!
I got this revolver from a good friend and fellow Cop, who gave me 50 rounds of Georgia Arms 260 gr. +p ammo at 1200fps and about 70 rounds of Georgia Arms 200 gr. Cowboy loads. I now have a small supply of 225 gr. Silvertips, an HKS speedloader and I'm looking for a good holster. ( ANY suggestions?)
I bought this revolver to carry in our local National Forest. Lots of very curious bears that sometimes follow me when I'm walking there... This MAY have been an excuse to buy a 625...ya think?
I plan to either start handloading or find some 250 gr. 950 fps loads to shoot for fun. The +p ammo will be reserved for walks in the forest and the Silvertips will be at hand for things that go bump in the night or day....
Thanks again for such an informative, as well as entertaining thread!
Best Regards,
dakasat
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-31-2010, 01:53 PM
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,034
Likes: 1,061
Liked 619 Times in 300 Posts
Default

Most who know me here also know am a huge fan of the .45 Colt. I have read Linebaugh's site many times, and I have talked to him on the phone a few times.

There have been plenty of posts here in this thread with good soild info, and some with the normal fear associated with the .45 Colt. I am not going to get into the heat treated or not debate, because to the best of my knowlege no one has posted any factual info directly from S&W on the subject, either on this forum or anywhere else. So far it's all been speculation. Personally I believe they are the same, but I could be wrong......

I thought some of you might find this interesting though.

I get sick of all the BS about whether the 25/625 can handle +P loads or not, and do so safely so I made up some of the ones Linebaugh lists on his site. I did this some time ago. The temps were 55 degrees and it was sunny out. Here are the results-

M25-5, 4" bbl-
24 grains of H-110- 265 grain cast Lyman 454424, CCI 350 primers, Midway branded cases. Velocity across my Oehler 35P was=1121 @ 15' from the muzzle. 40 fps ES, 18 SD

M25-7, 5" bbl-
Same load, velocity @ 15' =1131 fps, 60 ES, 32 Sd

Pretty consistant loads.

Cases tapped out easily from both guns. I fired quite a few rounds through both guns. Recoil felt identical to the .44 magnum 29's I had with me that day, though the .44 magnum loads were using 240 XTP's grain bullets over maximum charges of the same powder (and coincidentally, the same charge)- 24 grains of H-110. The .44 magnums were turning in 1230 fps average for all 3 guns (all had 6" or 6.5" bbls), so clearly the load I was shooting through the .45's were magnum class loads and were actually out perfroming the .44 in the energy department.

Nothing loosened up, nothing broke or blew. I do believe that a steady diet of these loads will wear the gun faster than SAAMI spec loads, but I don't believe that it will do it at a rate that will greatly shorten the life of the gun under normal shooting conditions, and at a rate that the average person shoots, I doubt that they would ever have any problems. It is worth noting that the M-29 will wear at an almost (if not the exact) same rate with full power loads, yet I regularly see guys claiming that unless you are shooting silhouette competitions with ultra heavy loads, the M-29 .44 should last a lifetime.

BTW- I don't know why the difference in Linebaugh's dimensions and mine but while my Blackhawk had the same thickness between chambers, the outside wall thickness ran several thousanths more in my Blackhawk which is appreciable. The biggest difference between the 25 and the BH is that the stop notches are offset to the side of the chamber on the BH while they are directly over center on the 25's. That is the weakest link in any handgun. That and the fact that the S&W had a lot more small parts that wear quicker, are the reasons that loads listed for the BH are not always listed as being safe in a 25/625.

Last edited by Gun 4 Fun; 08-31-2010 at 01:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-31-2010, 06:04 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gods Country!...Western N
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Does anyone have any of the Georgia Arms 265's? My big dumb butt finally pulled what was left of the warning label on the back side of the bag out of the crumpled mess...and read what was left of it! It appears to restrict this load to Blackhawks and Contenders. I have sent an email to Georgia Arms and will let you folks know what they say about this ammo/gun combo.
In the mean time, tell me about your pet .45 Colt loads...especially ones used for defense and/ or "bears"...
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-31-2010, 07:11 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 990
Likes: 1,362
Liked 188 Times in 132 Posts
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave View Post
Same frame as the 629, but different heat treatment. The 625 .45 Colt Mountain Gun is an excellent revolver. I have one and it is one of my favorites, but it is not a magnum. Will it safely fire the +p loads? Most probably, but it will end up battered into early retirement. JT is right, get a Ruger for the really hot stuff.
The cylinder walls in a N frame 45 Colt aren't at thick as a 44 magnum, ESPECIALLY where the cylinder stop is machined.

I can remember reading about the Model 25's in 45 Colt, and the warnings NOT to load them 'hot', for this reason.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-02-2010, 01:03 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gods Country!...Western N
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Well, got a reply about the Georgia Arms ammo from the factory. That makes two manufacturers that say that this type load is fine in the 625-6.
We'll see...
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-03-2010, 07:07 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Land of the Bean&the Cod
Posts: 378
Likes: 10
Liked 69 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dakasat View Post
Well, got a reply about the Georgia Arms ammo from the factory. That makes two manufacturers that say that this type load is fine in the 625-6.
We'll see...
There's only one manufacturer whose opinion matters...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
357 magnum, 547, 629, 940, bull barrel, cartridge, colt, endshake, gunsmith, j frame, k frame, k-frame, lock, m13, model 15, model 29, model 60, model 625, model 66, mountain gun, n-frame, ruger, s&w, vaquero

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present Thread, +P ammo in 625-6 .45 Colt mountain Gun in Smith & Wesson Revolvers; I just picked up and found a 625-6 4" in .45 Colt. I'm wondering if it is safe to shoot ...
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mountain Gun, 45 Colt--Should I? Cooter Brown S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 16 02-05-2012 08:56 AM
Value of S&W M25, 45 Colt, Mountain Gun! SgtSam S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 4 09-23-2011 09:23 PM
New .45 Colt Mountain Gun ultramag44 S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 9 01-30-2010 12:16 PM
.45 Colt Mountain Gun winter1857 S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 10 10-22-2009 02:03 PM
.45 Colt Mountain Gun Dump1567 S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 10 08-12-2008 03:52 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:07 PM.


© S-W Forum, LLC 2000-2015
Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)