|
|
09-28-2015, 12:48 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
29-10 durability
How long should a 29-10 last? And should it make any difference using handloads as long as they are within SAAMI specs?
|
09-28-2015, 12:55 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida
Posts: 10,559
Likes: 3,037
Liked 22,454 Times in 5,824 Posts
|
|
Welcome to the Forum
With proper care and maintenance, it should last a lifetime+ for the average shooter
Like most any S&W
|
09-28-2015, 02:54 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Thank you.
Any guesses as to how many rounds in such a lifetime? And would hotter loads be reasonably expected to shorten the life?
|
09-28-2015, 05:37 PM
|
Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 13,869
Likes: 2,079
Liked 13,353 Times in 5,549 Posts
|
|
When I purchased my new 29-10 44Magnum I was told I had the best quality m29 ever made quality wise with all "10" upgrades in one m29.
She can handle the 44 Magnum loads. My s&w magnums do not eat my hotter reloads that's what my Rugers are for. My s&w 29-10 is a quality piece of machinery. I refuse to abuse them.
Last edited by BigBill; 09-28-2015 at 05:39 PM.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
09-29-2015, 05:23 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBill
When I purchased my new 29-10 44Magnum I was told I had the best quality m29 ever made quality wise with all "10" upgrades in one m29.
She can handle the 44 Magnum loads. My s&w magnums do not eat my hotter reloads that's what my Rugers are for. My s&w 29-10 is a quality piece of machinery. I refuse to abuse them.
|
That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I love this gun but like all my toys, I like to use them hard but not abusively. And I'm very fussy about maintaining all of my equipment.
Which is what I'm trying to find out about the 29-10. If the loads are kept below maximums, is there any reason why it shouldn't last? Or will they only last by using a middle of the road type load?
|
09-29-2015, 05:28 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 956
Likes: 536
Liked 1,511 Times in 446 Posts
|
|
I've shot plenty of hot loads in my 29-10.
Your fillings will shake loose before the gun does.
It's not like shooting a Model 63, where you are going to go all day long. Trust me, I know.
|
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
|
|
09-29-2015, 05:50 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida
Posts: 10,559
Likes: 3,037
Liked 22,454 Times in 5,824 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtybarry
Thank you.
Any guesses as to how many rounds in such a lifetime? And would hotter loads be reasonably expected to shorten the life?
|
50,000 100,00 or more, who knows.
The new frame design has only been with us since 1996. It is way too new to have learned what it's life is.
This is no different than your car. Floor it from every light and it will need more maintenance than if you slowly cruise away from the light.
Hotter loads (within SAAMI spec) will not significantly reduce it's life. It will increase the frequency at which a part or two needs maintenance
|
09-30-2015, 10:17 PM
|
Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 13,869
Likes: 2,079
Liked 13,353 Times in 5,549 Posts
|
|
I'm convinced my 29-10 will never wear out. Standard Magnum loads. No 296 powder it flame cuts the throats. I use 2400 powder for my Magnum loads and unique for my leadcast loads.
Last edited by BigBill; 09-30-2015 at 10:19 PM.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
10-11-2015, 10:00 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Well, unfortunately I see to have found out the hard way. The magic number is between 5500 and 6000 rounds. And S&W says it's not their problem. I am rather disappointed but not enough to cancel the 6.5 629 that I'm picking up next week.
And this is why you should always were shooting glasses.
The forcing cone's forcing days are over.
Yes, that is a crack in the frame.
|
10-11-2015, 11:22 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Southwestern Ohio
Posts: 2,337
Likes: 209
Liked 1,195 Times in 457 Posts
|
|
I have an early Model 29 with an 8 3/8" barrel. I use a 250 gr. Keith home cast bullet. My practice load is 23.0 grs. of H110/296 and my hunting load is 24.0 grs. The maximum load (which I never used) is listed as 25.0 grs.
I now have over 10,000 rounds through my Smith and it is still as tight as when I bought it. I have never downloaded it below 23.0 grs. of H110 as I have had .44 Specials for that job.
On the other hand, I had an acquaintance who actually wore his Smith out until it was loose as a goose with hot loads of, of all things, Red Dot.
I do not believe it is wise to shoot heavier bullets than the 250 gr. Keith in a Smith. I have a number of large whitetail deer to my credit and have never recovered a bullet (I've shot at least two deer lengthwise with total penetration).
My hunting load chronographs at 1300+ fps. and I see no real benefit in going higher. Plus my loads are easier on both the shooter AND the revolver.
Just a thought or two...
FWIW
Dale53
|
10-11-2015, 11:29 PM
|
Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 13,869
Likes: 2,079
Liked 13,353 Times in 5,549 Posts
|
|
If ya feel the need for the heavy muzzle blast that's what the RSBH and the RSRH is for. I feel all the s&w should go to the range often with standard loads. I purchased the cor-bon ammo but my Rugers eat that.
It appears the throat torch cut first. The frame followed.
My ccw reloads in my redhawks are Speer 200gr jhp pumped over 1,400 fps using 2400 powder.
Last edited by BigBill; 10-12-2015 at 02:42 PM.
|
10-12-2015, 03:22 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 13,475
Likes: 1,145
Liked 18,398 Times in 7,280 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtybarry
Well, unfortunately I see to have found out the hard way. The magic number is between 5500 and 6000 rounds. And S&W says it's not their problem...
|
Is that due to the round count, due to you not being the original purchaser, or due to your using reloads?
I'd suspect their issue is the reloads, but inquiring minds want to know....
|
10-12-2015, 05:25 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Southeast Wisconsin
Posts: 1,750
Likes: 7
Liked 657 Times in 369 Posts
|
|
Well, dirtybarry, I have to admit that I've never seen a Smith .44 Magnum fail in that manner. Just what was the handload you were using when the failure occurred anyway?
Quote:
I do not believe it is wise to shoot heavier bullets than the 250 gr. Keith in a Smith.
|
^^^^^^This^^^^^
Bruce
Last edited by BruceM; 10-12-2015 at 05:29 PM.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
10-12-2015, 06:44 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,304
Likes: 2,719
Liked 5,046 Times in 1,439 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtybarry
How long should a 29-10 last? And should it make any difference using handloads as long as they are within SAAMI specs?
|
WAAAAAYYYYYYY longer than you and any amount of trigger pulling you are capable of.
I shoot tons of 44 and this is the caliber that got me into reloading. My favorite target load is basically 44 Special in 44 Magnum brass. Typically this is 5-7 grains of fast burning powder behind a 200ish gr bullet. It's super easy on the brass and gun (specifically the forcing cone). That being said, I will reiterate my first comment: The gun will out last you no matter what.
Don't bother with reloading unless you like tinkering with stuff...plus it would leave more components for me ....just kidding
|
10-12-2015, 06:54 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,304
Likes: 2,719
Liked 5,046 Times in 1,439 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtybarry
Well, unfortunately I see to have found out the hard way. The magic number is between 5500 and 6000 rounds. And S&W says it's not their problem. I am rather disappointed but not enough to cancel the 6.5 629 that I'm picking up next week.
And this is why you should always were shooting glasses.
The forcing cone's forcing days are over.
Yes, that is a crack in the frame.
|
So, how does that happen?
At first glimpse, and maybe it's my monitor, that forcing cone looks worn pretty thin.
|
10-12-2015, 07:14 PM
|
Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 13,869
Likes: 2,079
Liked 13,353 Times in 5,549 Posts
|
|
296 powder flame cuts in s&w.
|
10-14-2015, 04:27 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Southeast Wisconsin
Posts: 1,750
Likes: 7
Liked 657 Times in 369 Posts
|
|
Quote:
296 powder flame cuts in s&w.
|
Not hardly!
All Magnum revolvers show gas cutting after a period of time when shooting full power ammunition. Some powders do it a little sooner than others but sooner or later, they all show this type of wear. Gas cutting is almost universally self-limiting. It will progress only so far and then stop. The most notorious exception to this was the Ruger .357 Maximum revolvers which were actually phased out by Ruger because they could not formulate a solution to the gun's severe gas cutting of the top strap.
The only way to know for sure what happened to that revolver is an examination by a forensic metallurgist. Smith & Wesson will never openly admit to a defective product, especially when handloads were involved with a catastrophic failure event.
If I had to guess, I would say that the barrel was grossly over-torqued. This would fatigue the barrel shank and especially the barrel boss at the top forward edge of the frame window. When the boss started to fail, this left the barrel shank unsupported and allowed that to fail also. Another more remote possibility is an out of spec. receiver forging.
Bruce
Last edited by BruceM; 10-14-2015 at 04:30 AM.
|
10-14-2015, 10:41 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 375
Likes: 87
Liked 210 Times in 112 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceM
Not hardly!
All Magnum revolvers show gas cutting after a period of time when shooting full power ammunition. Some powders do it a little sooner than others but sooner or later, they all show this type of wear. Gas cutting is almost universally self-limiting. It will progress only so far and then stop. The most notorious exception to this was the Ruger .357 Maximum revolvers which were actually phased out by Ruger because they could not formulate a solution to the gun's severe gas cutting of the top strap.
The only way to know for sure what happened to that revolver is an examination by a forensic metallurgist. Smith & Wesson will never openly admit to a defective product, especially when handloads were involved with a catastrophic failure event.
If I had to guess, I would say that the barrel was grossly over-torqued. This would fatigue the barrel shank and especially the barrel boss at the top forward edge of the frame window. When the boss started to fail, this left the barrel shank unsupported and allowed that to fail also. Another more remote possibility is an out of spec. receiver forging.
Bruce
|
This is the most logical response so far.
|
10-14-2015, 10:58 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,770
Likes: 3,338
Liked 4,269 Times in 1,042 Posts
|
|
I might get flamed for this, but here are my own thoughts on the N-frame chambered in .44 magnum:
We know that the first several 'dashes' of the model 29 developed problems associated with recoil when standard factory magnum ammo was used, especially in the 4 inch barrel versions. Over time, the bolt would begin to unlock from the cylinder notch, causing the cylinder to rotate backwards. Over the years, S&W 'enhanced' the model 29 and 629 that included improved heat treatment of the yoke tube so that endshake developed more slowly. They also deepened the cylinder notches and made them longer. I believe they also heat treated the cylinder better. There were various other little enhancements added along the way to improve the durability of the .44 magnum N-frames.
There are at least a few very knowledgeable gun writers, who specialized in revolvers, who maintain the position that the ideal cartridge for the N-frame is the .41 magnum. There is a little more 'meat' in the cylinder and the recoil with full .41 magnums is not as severe as a .44 magnum. There are no known reports of the problems noted above occurring in the S&W model 58 or 57 variants.
Your 29-10 has all of the enhancements it can have to date that would improve durability with full .44 magnum factory loads. That said, I would limit the number of full magnum loads you shoot through the gun. It's very hard on the yoke tube, and endshake will eventually develop, along with timing issues as the hand and ratchets wear from the recoil. I take this same philosophy with even my .41 magnums. Save the gun, and shoot lighter loads as a matter of routine. Shoot a few cylinders of the full-tilt magnums for proficiency, and save the gun for a lifetime of enjoyment.
Just my opinion.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
10-14-2015, 11:18 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 730
Likes: 2,175
Liked 345 Times in 212 Posts
|
|
Post #20 is an interesting eye opener. I often see in 44 Magnum threads how today's factory loads are tame compared to the old days. The only factory loads I have found in my local shopping are 180 gr Remingtons and 240 grain Winchesters. They kick differently, but both kick really hard. Are they really weaker than old days' factory loads, or is it nostalgia talking? If they really are less powerful and I combine that with the 29-10 "improvements" stated in post #20, shouldn't a 29-10 do just fine on a diet of just those Rem's and Win's?
|
10-14-2015, 11:34 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,147
Likes: 2,420
Liked 3,586 Times in 1,597 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by American1776
I might get flamed for this, but here are my own thoughts on the N-frame chambered in .44 magnum:
We know that the first several 'dashes' of the model 29 developed problems associated with recoil when standard factory magnum ammo was used, especially in the 4 inch barrel versions. Over time, the bolt would begin to unlock from the cylinder notch, causing the cylinder to rotate backwards. Over the years, S&W 'enhanced' the model 29 and 629 that included improved heat treatment of the yoke tube so that endshake developed more slowly. They also deepened the cylinder notches and made them longer. I believe they also heat treated the cylinder better. There were various other little enhancements added along the way to improve the durability of the .44 magnum N-frames.
There are at least a few very knowledgeable gun writers, who specialized in revolvers, who maintain the position that the ideal cartridge for the N-frame is the .41 magnum. There is a little more 'meat' in the cylinder and the recoil with full .41 magnums is not as severe as a .44 magnum. There are no known reports of the problems noted above occurring in the S&W model 58 or 57 variants.
Your 29-10 has all of the enhancements it can have to date that would improve durability with full .44 magnum factory loads. That said, I would limit the number of full magnum loads you shoot through the gun. It's very hard on the yoke tube, and endshake will eventually develop, along with timing issues as the hand and ratchets wear from the recoil. I take this same philosophy with even my .41 magnums. Save the gun, and shoot lighter loads as a matter of routine. Shoot a few cylinders of the full-tilt magnums for proficiency, and save the gun for a lifetime of enjoyment.
Just my opinion.
|
The problems you mentioned was a result form using non factory max loads for silhouette shooting.Prior to the mid 80's you seldom heard of any problem with the 29's or the 57's.
|
10-14-2015, 11:39 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,770
Likes: 3,338
Liked 4,269 Times in 1,042 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by S&WForty
Post #20 is an interesting eye opener. I often see in 44 Magnum threads how today's factory loads are tame compared to the old days. The only factory loads I have found in my local shopping are 180 gr Remingtons and 240 grain Winchesters. They kick differently, but both kick really hard. Are they really weaker than old days' factory loads, or is it nostalgia talking? If they really are less powerful and I combine that with the 29-10 "improvements" stated in post #20, shouldn't a 29-10 do just fine on a diet of just those Rem's and Win's?
|
From what I understand, .44 special and .45 colt have been 'downloaded' significantly in their factory loadings. The reason: There are very old guns in these chamberings still around, and factory ammo companies don't want the liability of some idiots who WILL put a hot factory .44 spl. in an old non-heat treated revolver and develop the new name of 'stumpy'.
I do think that the original .357 magnum load was a 158 gr. bullet @ 1,500 ft./s. That is significantly hotter than standard factory .357 magnums today.
I really don't know if factory.44 magnums are watered down today.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
10-14-2015, 02:48 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Sadly, it looks like this saga is coming to an end. I've just heard back from Jeff Crozer at S&W who had this to say:
Good day,
Smith & Wesson will not cover any firearms that fail when reloaded ammunition is used. The failure you describe was probably the fault of the ammo and not the firearm.
I don’t know how to resolve this issue, perhaps we could replace the revolver at cost? I will contact the warranty center to review and discuss our options.
FYI, Mario has been retired for 6 months.
Regards,
Jeff
Jeffrey A. Croze
International Sales Manager
Smith & Wesson Corp/Thompson Center Arms
So there you have it, if you use reloaded ammunition in a S&W product, you are on your own.
And their "lifetime" service policy is only good until you use live ammo.
The part I don't get is that in today's litigious society, why they wouldn't put those things in great big bright red letters everywhere.
Oh well, I guess I've learned a valuable but expensive lesson.
|
10-14-2015, 02:53 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BC38
Is that due to the round count, due to you not being the original purchaser, or due to your using reloads?
I'd suspect their issue is the reloads, but inquiring minds want to know....
|
Yup, they simply will not cover any gun that reloaded ammunition has been used in. I wish I had known that before buying one of their gun shaped paperweights.
|
10-14-2015, 03:01 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceM
Not hardly!
All Magnum revolvers show gas cutting after a period of time when shooting full power ammunition. Some powders do it a little sooner than others but sooner or later, they all show this type of wear. Gas cutting is almost universally self-limiting. It will progress only so far and then stop. The most notorious exception to this was the Ruger .357 Maximum revolvers which were actually phased out by Ruger because they could not formulate a solution to the gun's severe gas cutting of the top strap.
The only way to know for sure what happened to that revolver is an examination by a forensic metallurgist. Smith & Wesson will never openly admit to a defective product, especially when handloads were involved with a catastrophic failure event.
If I had to guess, I would say that the barrel was grossly over-torqued. This would fatigue the barrel shank and especially the barrel boss at the top forward edge of the frame window. When the boss started to fail, this left the barrel shank unsupported and allowed that to fail also. Another more remote possibility is an out of spec. receiver forging.
Bruce
|
Thanks, this sounds pretty plausible. Unfortunately S&W has dismissed any warranty because of the use of reloaded ammunition.
What surprises me is that no warranty centre has actually looked at or touched this gun.
Considering it's something that could have maimed or killed someone, I would have thought they would have been more interested.
|
10-14-2015, 03:28 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 83
Likes: 4
Liked 15 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtybarry
Yup, they simply will not cover any gun that reloaded ammunition has been used in. I wish I had known that before buying one of their gun shaped paperweights.
|
I've been reloading for 46 years, and I have known all that time that reloads void warranties. I also shoot reloads almost exclusively. I'm careful when I load and I stay away from the upper limits. Have never had a problem with 10's of thousands of rounds fired. I can't think of any other 'paperweights' I'd rather use in competition or EDC.
__________________
USMC/5803 '79-/91
FBINA- 163rd
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
10-14-2015, 04:22 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 375
Likes: 87
Liked 210 Times in 112 Posts
|
|
Well I really like the 686-6 that I have and have put a ton of factory 357 through it. I'm starting to reload now and am really concerned about loading close to upper limits.
I am ready to get a 44 magnum and now have to rethink if the 629 would be a wise choice. I'm not getting into any bashing here at all but now I may need to take another look at the Redhawk.
I enjoy shooting lots of full magnum loads.
One of the reasons for getting into reloading was to be able to do this cheaper.
|
10-14-2015, 04:48 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. O
I've been reloading for 46 years, and I have known all that time that reloads void warranties. I also shoot reloads almost exclusively. I'm careful when I load and I stay away from the upper limits. Have never had a problem with 10's of thousands of rounds fired. I can't think of any other 'paperweights' I'd rather use in competition or EDC.
|
Well, you've got me by about 45-1/2 years and although I suspected as much, I've never found any manufacturer to come right out and say that using reloads voids warranties.
That seems rather strange but no matter, it's too late now.
I think the saying goes, “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.”
Live and learn.
|
10-14-2015, 05:16 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Central PA
Posts: 4,550
Likes: 8,201
Liked 11,436 Times in 3,018 Posts
|
|
If you look into it, you will find most all manufacturers warn against using reloaded ammo. They simply have no control over what a person concocts on the loading bench. That's why the SAAMI exists, to set guidelines for safe ammo that the major firearms manufacturers build their products to match up with.
COULD have been a failure of your gun due to a defect, but I am betting that the combo of being am inexperienced reloader, along with your original questions about how hot you could load for your new model 29, and a lack of any info about what your loads were, pretty much answers the question of what happened. Sorry. JMO.
Larry
|
10-14-2015, 05:51 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 13,475
Likes: 1,145
Liked 18,398 Times in 7,280 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by American1776
I might get flamed for this, but here are my own thoughts on the N-frame chambered in .44 magnum:
We know that the first several 'dashes' of the model 29 developed problems associated with recoil when standard factory magnum ammo was used, especially in the 4 inch barrel versions. Over time, the bolt would begin to unlock from the cylinder notch, causing the cylinder to rotate backwards. Over the years, S&W 'enhanced' the model 29 and 629 that included improved heat treatment of the yoke tube so that endshake developed more slowly. They also deepened the cylinder notches and made them longer. I believe they also heat treated the cylinder better. There were various other little enhancements added along the way to improve the durability of the .44 magnum N-frames.
There are at least a few very knowledgeable gun writers, who specialized in revolvers, who maintain the position that the ideal cartridge for the N-frame is the .41 magnum. There is a little more 'meat' in the cylinder and the recoil with full .41 magnums is not as severe as a .44 magnum. There are no known reports of the problems noted above occurring in the S&W model 58 or 57 variants.
Your 29-10 has all of the enhancements it can have to date that would improve durability with full .44 magnum factory loads. That said, I would limit the number of full magnum loads you shoot through the gun. It's very hard on the yoke tube, and endshake will eventually develop, along with timing issues as the hand and ratchets wear from the recoil. I take this same philosophy with even my .41 magnums. Save the gun, and shoot lighter loads as a matter of routine. Shoot a few cylinders of the full-tilt magnums for proficiency, and save the gun for a lifetime of enjoyment.
Just my opinion.
|
I don't know that anyone will flame you, but I for one will agree with your philosophy on shooting a steady diet of lighter loads for practice. I like to load slightly "warmer" 44 special recipes in 44 magnum cases for target shooting. Still plenty of BANG and KICKS to be had that way, and its easier on me, easier on the gun, easier on everyone else at the range and even a little easier on the wallet (a couple of cents per round less power).
Shooting a few fire breathers for fun every now and then - or even a few every session for that matter - is unlikely to hurt the gun in your lifetime. But for my money, shooting thousands of rounds that are reloaded at the max upper limits just creates too much risk. All it takes is one that is heavily overcharged - or even a few hundred that are just a little overcharged - and the fatigue can cause a catastrophic failure like what happened to the OP.
Just a thought.
|
10-14-2015, 05:58 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishinfool
If you look into it, you will find most all manufacturers warn against using reloaded ammo. They simply have no control over what a person concocts on the loading bench. That's why the SAAMI exists, to set guidelines for safe ammo that the major firearms manufacturers build their products to match up with.
COULD have been a failure of your gun due to a defect, but I am betting that the combo of being am inexperienced reloader, along with your original questions about how hot you could load for your new model 29, and a lack of any info about what your loads were, pretty much answers the question of what happened. Sorry. JMO.
Larry
|
Understood, but every bit of load data I found lists maximum never to be exceeded SAAMI approved specifications.
So if handloads are built based on those specs they should be well within SAAMI specs.
Then if the manufacturer says that their guns will handle any SAAMI spec ammo and the handloads meet SAAMI specs then who's zooming who?
I can appreciate the opinions of those who say that I simply overloaded and blew it up as that is the most common scenario.
Since I can't prove otherwise, I have to respect their opinions.
Knowing what I know now, I can say that I have learned some valuable lessons and hopefully others may benefit from my misfortune.
|
10-14-2015, 06:42 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Northern GA
Posts: 2,841
Likes: 2,025
Liked 4,842 Times in 1,479 Posts
|
|
There seems to be an inordinate number of cases where reloaded or remanufactured ammo damages a gun catastrophically.
No manufacturer I know of would warranty such a claim. Most will offer a replacement at cost.
Yes, if you reload, your warranty is effectively null and void, especially if the gun expires while shooting them.
|
10-14-2015, 06:48 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Northern GA
Posts: 2,841
Likes: 2,025
Liked 4,842 Times in 1,479 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtybarry
Understood, but every bit of load data I found lists maximum never to be exceeded SAAMI approved specifications.
So if handloads are built based on those specs they should be well within SAAMI specs.
Then if the manufacturer says that their guns will handle any SAAMI spec ammo and the handloads meet SAAMI specs then who's zooming who?
I can appreciate the opinions of those who say that I simply overloaded and blew it up as that is the most common scenario.
Since I can't prove otherwise, I have to respect their opinions.
Knowing what I know now, I can say that I have learned some valuable lessons and hopefully others may benefit from my misfortune.
|
There's a lot more variables that must be accounted for.
Type of bullet, seating depth, bullet weight, case capacity, etc are all critical when loading near max. Without a chronograph at minimum it's all anyone's guess. Usually once pressure signs become obvious it's well past a safe load.
If manufacturers took everyone's word for it there'd be a lot of guns that spontaneously self destruct for no good reason.
|
10-14-2015, 06:52 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_A
There seems to be an inordinate number of cases where reloaded or remanufactured ammo damages a gun catastrophically.
No manufacturer I know of would warranty such a claim. Most will offer a replacement at cost.
Yes, if you reload, your warranty is effectively null and void, especially if the gun expires while shooting them.
|
Believe me, I've got that message loud and clear now.
And to be fair, S&W did. Or so they say. they only want $52 more than it cost originally. Or $112 less than what I can buy one off the shelf for.
|
10-14-2015, 07:05 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Central IL
Posts: 22,758
Likes: 18,437
Liked 22,313 Times in 8,245 Posts
|
|
For the life of me, I just cannot understand why anyone hand-loads BEYOND SAAMI Spec. Especially in a 44 mag. They are no fun to shoot, they are excessively hard an any handgun, they void warranties, they cost more to load, and most others at the ranges look down their noses at those who do it , and they are usually easy to spot with long flames and loud barks coming from them. To each his own, just don't bitch when you get the short end of the stick.
__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244
|
10-14-2015, 07:16 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 375
Likes: 87
Liked 210 Times in 112 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by H Richard
For the life of me, I just cannot understand why anyone hand-loads BEYOND SAAMI Spec. Especially in a 44 mag. They are no fun to shoot, they are excessively hard an any handgun, they void warranties, they cost more to load, and most others at the ranges look down their noses at those who do it , and they are usually easy to spot with long flames and loud barks coming from them. To each his own, just don't bitch when you get the short end of the stick.
|
I believe he said he loaded below SAAMI specs. I can only take him at his word. Maybe he did but maybe he didn't but then again maybe there was an issue with his 29.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
10-15-2015, 12:36 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by H Richard
For the life of me, I just cannot understand why anyone hand-loads BEYOND SAAMI Spec. Especially in a 44 mag. They are no fun to shoot, they are excessively hard an any handgun, they void warranties, they cost more to load, and most others at the ranges look down their noses at those who do it , and they are usually easy to spot with long flames and loud barks coming from them. To each his own, just don't bitch when you get the short end of the stick.
|
Me neither which is why I never did. And as I've been told by S&W the use of any reloaded ammunition voids the warranty.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
10-15-2015, 12:46 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrier
I believe he said he loaded below SAAMI specs. I can only take him at his word. Maybe he did but maybe he didn't but then again maybe there was an issue with his 29.
|
Yes, I never exceeded the maximum loads as published by Hodgdon Powder on their website.
And there was one type of powder (HP-38) that I was very uncomfortable with due to difficult ejection even at a middle type load.
With the same cases, primers and bullets, the same middling load of H-110 caused no problems at all.
So that's the powder I went with for the high end loads.
I definitely got close to the published maximums but being new at reloading, I made very sure that they were never exceeded.
But the problem with getting close to the edge is that sometimes you fall off it.
|
10-15-2015, 02:40 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Southeast Wisconsin
Posts: 1,750
Likes: 7
Liked 657 Times in 369 Posts
|
|
You never did mention what load you were firing when the failure occured. Just for the record, what was it?
Bruce
|
10-15-2015, 09:07 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceM
You never did mention what load you were firing when the failure occured. Just for the record, what was it?
Bruce
|
Sorry, I thought I had but guess not so here they are:
I had fired 200+ rounds that morning including
48 - 7times fired Federal brass, CCI 300 primer 21.5 gr IMR 4227 and 240gr Campro TMJ seated to 1.60"
86 - same except for 23.6gr IMR4227
34 - 2times fired Starline with Winchester LP primer, 23.8gr H-110 and Campro 240gr TMJ seated to 1.60" This is what was in it when it failed
47- 2times fired Starline, WLP, 31.3gr H-110, 180gr Hornady XTP seated to 1.60"
I might have the round count off by 1 or 2 but since I took 6 full boxes and came home with less than 2, it should be close.
For what it's worth the start/max loads for IMR4227 and a 240gr bullet are 22gr-24gr and 23gr-24gr for H-110, with a 180gr and H-110 they are 29gr - 31.5gr.
The light 4227 rounds were easy shooting, the heavy 4227 ones had a big "thump" but were still easy on the hands.
The heavy H-110 loads with 180 XTP's were noisy and fast, with 240's, people across the street could probably feel them. They are pretty spectacular in that I'd feel the concussion in my chest.
Last edited by dirtybarry; 10-15-2015 at 11:35 AM.
Reason: more info
|
10-28-2020, 08:18 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Canada
Posts: 110
Likes: 7
Liked 59 Times in 38 Posts
|
|
Why would you admit to a manufacturer that you use handloads? lol
|
10-28-2020, 08:43 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 642
Likes: 942
Liked 833 Times in 340 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSussman
Why would you admit to a manufacturer that you use handloads? lol
|
He was being honest?
|
10-28-2020, 08:50 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Canada
Posts: 110
Likes: 7
Liked 59 Times in 38 Posts
|
|
This isn't the old days, companies will look for any excuse not to cover their products now. Gotta play the game.
|
10-28-2020, 09:47 AM
|
|
Moderator
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 26,782
Likes: 936
Liked 18,874 Times in 9,241 Posts
|
|
Guys, it’s a five year old thread; we can no longer see the photos of the metal failure; and he hasn’t been back since posting and replying in this thread. So no point in bashing him in absentia.
__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
Similar Threads
|
Thread |
Thread Starter |
Forum |
Replies |
Last Post |
Durability of a 642
|
skrazo |
S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present |
10 |
01-23-2014 06:43 PM |
Durability of the 45
|
ricklee4570 |
Smith & Wesson M&P Pistols |
5 |
05-08-2011 08:55 PM |
627 / 327 Durability?
|
nebmike |
S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present |
5 |
12-31-2010 07:13 AM |
M & P R8 Durability ?
|
lumpster |
Smith & Wesson Competitive Shooting |
4 |
12-05-2010 10:22 PM |
J durability
|
Maximumbob54 |
S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present |
14 |
10-12-2010 11:37 PM |
|