29-10 durability

[Laketime]

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.

 

[American1776]

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.

 

[dirtybarry]

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.

 

[dirtybarry]

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.

 

[dirtybarry]

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.

 

[Mr. O]

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.

 

[Carrier]

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.

 

[dirtybarry]

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.

 

[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

 

[BC38]

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.

 

[dirtybarry]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Rick_A]

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.

 

[dirtybarry]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Carrier]

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.

 

[dirtybarry]

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.

 

[dirtybarry]

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.

 

[BruceM]

You never did mention what load you were firing when the failure occured. Just for the record, what was it?

Bruce

 

[dirtybarry]

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.