Smith & Wesson Forum

Advertise With Us Search
Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Smith & Wesson Revolvers > S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present

Notices

S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present All NON-PINNED Barrels, the L-Frames, and the New Era Revolvers


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-28-2010, 01:23 AM
Smithslap Smithslap is offline
Member
Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+  
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Buffalo Bore .44 +P+

During some email traffic concerning the Buffalo Bore's 340 grain .44 Magnum "+P+" concerning S&W .44 Magnum revolvers, I recieved the following email, which I've edited b/c I was asking rifle questions as well (I also received permission to use it here, and FWIW it looks like it is capable of 1350 +/- ft lbs of energy out of a 4 incher):
*******
I have a brand new SW 629 4 inch. The rounds fit with maybe 2 mm to spare in the cylinder. I have heard mixed reports on creep, blowing up the gun, etc. Your thoughts, from a safety standpoint?
Thank you.

____

The 340gr. load won't blow up any S&W N frame, but it will shoot them loose in a few hundred rounds and pre 1989 guns will shoot loose a lot faster.

Tim
_____________

Last edited by Smithslap; 11-28-2010 at 11:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-28-2010, 08:45 AM
beemerphile beemerphile is offline
Member
Buffalo Bore .44 +P+  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Danielsville, GA USA
Posts: 738
Likes: 27
Liked 401 Times in 152 Posts
Default

That's what Ruger Redhawks are for.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-28-2010, 09:13 AM
Dnovo1 Dnovo1 is offline
Member
Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Liked 53 Times in 20 Posts
Default

I have "too many" ( per my wife) guns and collect and treasure my S&Ws most highly. However, I do agree that when it comes to being capable of soaking up punishment, that's why Bill invented the Redhawk. In addition to my 'stock' 357 and 44 Redhawks, I have a bunch of Gary Reeder's big bangers built on the Redhawk chassis, in cartridges that make a 44+P+ feel like a 22. Digests them all day long. That's why Gary and Hamilton Bowen use the Redhawk for their earth movers. Dave
__________________
Time Wounds All Heels

Last edited by Dnovo1; 11-28-2010 at 09:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-28-2010, 09:25 AM
Maximumbob54's Avatar
Maximumbob54 Maximumbob54 is offline
Member
Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,202
Likes: 9,079
Liked 1,921 Times in 1,043 Posts
Default

The 29 is an aging design that was never meant for heavy .44 much less +P+ loadings. Smith has made efforts to keep a loved one in the game, but we keep pushing the edge out further. I'm sure the Ruger RH/SRH can take it, but I see little reason why to overload a caliber instead of stepping up to a .454, .460, or greater in a gun built from the get go to take it. Just my two cents.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-28-2010, 10:19 AM
Vanilla Gorilla's Avatar
Vanilla Gorilla Vanilla Gorilla is offline
Member
Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+  
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Panhandle of FL
Posts: 575
Likes: 23
Liked 273 Times in 87 Posts
Default

I understand the "bigger is better" mentality, especially when it comes to guns. I love shooting my friend's .458 Win Mag.

What I don't understand is why people keep trying to make the .44 Magnum something that it's not...especially when there are many larger cartridges and handguns specifically designed to be an "upgrade" from the .44 Magnum.

[shrug]

I handload a 265 grain Keith bullet with EMK's original load and go well over 1350 fps with it. If that won't do the trick, obviously I need to go to a bigger caliber, not keep loading up the .44.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-28-2010, 11:39 AM
Smithslap Smithslap is offline
Member
Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+  
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Not to get into another debate (this thread was started just to state a fact from the manufacturer on their impressive product).

I searched the forum here originally for some answers, as I was attempting to find the perfect weapon in weight and size, and the perfect caliber. I also wanted to explore the edge of the round's capability and weapon. The diversity of the six shot .44 magnum appeals to me, and the size weight of the S&W Mountain Gun is perfect, as is it being a DA/SA and easily concealable (for me) when need be.

I really don't expect to shoot hundreds of those through my Mountaing gun. More than likely, just a cylinder or two full to check POI prior to my Alaska trip.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-28-2010, 12:04 PM
Gun 4 Fun Gun 4 Fun is offline
SWCA Member
Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+  
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,026
Likes: 1,061
Liked 774 Times in 375 Posts
Default

The .44 mag was originally entered into SAAMI at 43,500 CUP, but after so many guns (mainly pre-endurance Smiths ) started shooting loose, especially on the silhouette ranges, the pressure was lowered by SAAMI to 36,000 PSI several years ago. While PSI and Cup can't be directly crossed referrenced, the new spec is noticably lower than it was originally.

Another thing that most people don't know, or else realize, is that manufacturers of firearms strive for a 100% safety margin with their guns for normal SAAMI spec ammo to guard against an accidental overload which could cause harm, both to their guns and their customers.

That isn't an endorcement to start over loading ammo, just some simple facts. If the original 29 was designed to shoot ammo loaded to 43,500 CUP it would need to be capable of firing ammo that could reach 87,000 cup without letting go.

That's pretty impressive if you think about it.

The point of all this is that while S&W's won't take the pounding of Redhawks, they won't blow apart as easily as most guys think (and that goes doubly for the M-25's).

They will loosen up way quicker than the heavier built guns though due to all the small parts when compared to other guns designed to fire the .44 magnum- especially the pre-endurance guns. Post endurance guns will last almost indefinately with SAAMI spec ammo, but the stuff that BB builds and markets as +P+ will loosen them up after much less shooting than say a Redhawk (if you can even loosen one of them up).
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-28-2010, 01:11 PM
Dnovo1 Dnovo1 is offline
Member
Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Liked 53 Times in 20 Posts
Default

Agree 100% with all of the above. On the other hand, even when the gun is built to digest a steady diet of the really heavy stuff, the shooter has his limits as well.

I took two of my bid boomers out to the range yesterday, a Reeder Mastodon in a 510 GNR (built on a Redhawk) and a Bowen Longhunter conversion of a Blackhawks in the 50AE. Ten or fifteen rounds of each were enough for me to switch to my Model 14 and some 38 wadcutters and some 44Special cowboy loads in my 329PD. Felt like I was popping off 22s after the first two guns! Dave
__________________
Time Wounds All Heels
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-29-2010, 02:15 AM
Nframe357's Avatar
Nframe357 Nframe357 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Old Dominion
Posts: 596
Likes: 9
Liked 34 Times in 15 Posts
Default

I've personally fired this load from RH that I used to own and it is HOT, the warning to not use it in a Smith is there for a reason. My advice is buy something heavier rahter than ruin your Smith with a load not made for it.
__________________
Sie vis pacem parabellum
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-29-2010, 02:27 AM
TAROMAN's Avatar
TAROMAN TAROMAN is offline
US Veteran
Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The wet side of Oregon
Posts: 6,292
Likes: 8,819
Liked 7,785 Times in 2,377 Posts
Default

If you need that much energy, just get a 500 and get on with the show.
__________________
-jwk-
US Army '72-'95
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-29-2010, 10:01 AM
Smithslap Smithslap is offline
Member
Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+  
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nframe357 View Post
I've personally fired this load from RH that I used to own and it is HOT, the warning to not use it in a Smith is there for a reason. My advice is buy something heavier rahter than ruin your Smith with a load not made for it.
There is no warning to specifically not use it in a Smith. And, the "warning" has to do with cylinder length, not strength.

Heavy .44 Magnum +P+ Pistol & Handgun Ammunition

They fit fine in my Smith, though I recognize creep can potentially occur, the round does appear to be heavily crimped and based upon this testing here I think I have little fear (firing a stouter round with a heavier bullet):

http://www.scopedin.com/articles/equ...e-crimp-creep/


It would require approx 2 mm of creep to lock the gun. I will fire a cylinder full at the range and report on the sixth round.

Again weight and concealment are also an issue for me, and a shoulder holster not relevent at this time. Didn't really want this to become a debate over my choice of lead delievery systems

Last edited by Smithslap; 11-29-2010 at 10:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-29-2010, 08:28 PM
sniper47's Avatar
sniper47 sniper47 is offline
Member
Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+  
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Tucson
Posts: 983
Likes: 189
Liked 78 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanilla Gorilla View Post
I understand the "bigger is better" mentality, especially when it comes to guns. I love shooting my friend's .458 Win Mag.

What I don't understand is why people keep trying to make the .44 Magnum something that it's not...especially when there are many larger cartridges and handguns specifically designed to be an "upgrade" from the .44 Magnum.

[shrug]

I handload a 265 grain Keith bullet with EMK's original load and go well over 1350 fps with it. If that won't do the trick, obviously I need to go to a bigger caliber, not keep loading up the .44.
Is modern .44 mag ammo loaded to the original load? I may start handloading next year and was curious.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-29-2010, 09:00 PM
Gun 4 Fun Gun 4 Fun is offline
SWCA Member
Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+ Buffalo Bore .44 +P+  
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,026
Likes: 1,061
Liked 774 Times in 375 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper47 View Post
Is modern .44 mag ammo loaded to the original load? I may start handloading next year and was curious.
No, it's not.
See my post above.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
329pd, 340, 44 magnum, 629, bowen, cartridge, casull, endurance, lock, model 14, model 25, mountain gun, redhawk, ruger, silhouette


Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
642 and Buffalo Bore fbird S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 31 12-02-2016 05:17 AM
Buffalo bore .44 mag Jguzowski Ammo 16 05-12-2016 05:35 PM
Buffalo Bore Jonzim Ammo 8 07-17-2014 09:49 AM
Buffalo Bore 38 +P in 642? Pine Ammo 30 07-06-2013 11:54 AM
Buffalo Bore 38 +P in a 642 Pine Ammo 3 06-29-2013 11:06 AM

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 01:43 AM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)