Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun 4 Fun
I have had this conversation with my friend, 29aholic (Curtis) on the phone. 
I know it hurts peoples egos to think that their beloved Smith .44 could have a flaw, but they did, and you guys are missing the point here.
Pearce was saying that the barrel steel of those particular era guns were designed for lead. I have that article and have sent it ot a lot of guys on this forum.
Pearce is about the best writer going these days, and is extremely knowledgeable about anything to do with guns. It wouldn't take a lifetime of shooting, or a gunwriters supply of ammo to wear out a barrel that was designed for lead bullets. Early .44 magnum ammo was loaded with gaschecked lead buulets. The wear issue with those guns has nothing to do with pressure. It has to do with barrel steel hardness. When Smith realized that guys were actually going to shoot their new .44's more than a box or two a year, they termpered the barrel steel to last longer.
If anyone wants that article, I can send them a PDF containing it. |
I don't doubt the writer says this, but I do doubt steel being heat treated for lead rather then copper. I also question where the writer got this information... but on a high note - even if you were to shoot out a 4 screw 29 barrel, someone would still buy the gun! The Mohs hardness scale rates lead at 1.5, copper at 3 and steel at 4 - 4.5. It's not the friction of the material so it must be the heat generated by firing and primers / powder are the wear culprit.