Stupid statement regarding .44 mag in American Hunter

LJBrennan007 · Mar 25, 2015

Is it just me, or do today's gun writers just shoot from the hip and spew whatever garbage the gun manufacturers' marketing departments feed them? The April 2015 issue of the NRA magazine American Hunter has an article on S&W's new model 69 L-frame .44 Magnum by Field Editor Bryce Towsley. In describing the gun's design and how it is "better", he states: "Another big change is how the cylinder locks up at the front. The traditional lockup point has always been at the end of the ejection rod and has been a source of constant problems in the older .44 Mag. revolvers. It is weak and wobbly."
Wow. I own a bunch of N-frame Smiths as well as Rugers in .44 Mag., and not one of them have been "weak and wobbly" nor a source of constant problems. I have one early M29 that I've put over 3000 full house mag loads through and it is still tight as a drum and shoots great. If Mr. Towsley got this information from Smith and Wesson, them may I assume we can all return our older .44 magnums to S&W for free replacements, since they know and admit the earlier guns were of faulty design? Can any gunsmiths out there confirm or deny this statement regarding the reliability and sturdiness of the "older 44 mag revolvers"? Thanks

Fishinfool · Mar 25, 2015

The ball / detent lock up on the crane may be stronger than previous design using the ejector - I don't know, I am no firearms engineer. I certainly would not call the previous design weak or problem prone.

Me thinks a little hype was in use by Bryce..

Larry

Engineer1911 · Mar 25, 2015

The problem is identified

LJBrennan007 said:
Is it just me, or do today's gun writers just shoot from the hip and spew whatever garbage the gun manufacturers' marketing departments feed them? The April 2015 issue of the NRA magazine American Hunter has an article on S&W's new model 69 L-frame .44 Magnum by Field Editor Bryce Towsley. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The real problem has been identified. The problem is not S&W revolvers, the design of S&W revolvers, the fit of S&W revolvers, or the functions of S&W revolvers. The author is the problem. But again this is just my opinion just as Mr. Towsley has an opinion.

one eye joe · Mar 25, 2015

LJBrennan007 said:
Is it just me, or do today's gun writers just shoot from the hip and spew whatever garbage the gun manufacturers' marketing departments feed them? The April 2015 issue of the NRA magazine American Hunter has an article on S&W's new model 69 L-frame .44 Magnum by Field Editor Bryce Towsley. In describing the gun's design and how it is "better", he states: "Another big change is how the cylinder locks up at the front. The traditional lockup point has always been at the end of the ejection rod and has been a source of constant problems in the older .44 Mag. revolvers. It is weak and wobbly."
Wow. I own a bunch of N-frame Smiths as well as Rugers in .44 Mag., and not one of them have been "weak and wobbly" nor a source of constant problems. I have one early M29 that I've put over 3000 full house mag loads through and it is still tight as a drum and shoots great. If Mr. Towsley got this information from Smith and Wesson, them may I assume we can all return our older .44 magnums to S&W for free replacements, since they know and admit the earlier guns were of faulty design? Can any gunsmiths out there confirm or deny this statement regarding the reliability and sturdiness of the "older 44 mag revolvers"? Thanks

I THINK THAT ELMER KEITH MIGHT HAVE DETECTED THIS AS A PROBLEM IF IT WAS SO, GIVEN THAT HE SHOT THOUSANDS OF FULL BORE LOADS THROUGH HIS .44 MAG REVOLVERS. ITS JUST FACTORY HYPE REGURGITATED BY A GUN RAG SCRIBE, IMHO….

Engine49guy · Mar 25, 2015

Did you expect them to say :
The time proven S&W design has been changed to a cheaper ball detent system because it is easier to manufacture and costs less...?

If I was interested and read that I would look for the older design.

MichiganScott · Mar 25, 2015

Engineer1911 said:
The real problem has been identified. The problem is not S&W revolvers, the design of S&W revolvers, the fit of S&W revolvers, or the functions of S&W revolvers. The author is the problem. But again this is just my opinion just as Mr. Towsley has an opinion.

1+

Bryce Towsley is the only person outside of Remington headquarters in Madison, NC that likes the .30 Remington AR. Then again, the way Remington is backing it, I'm not sure anyone in Madison likes it either.

theoneff · Mar 25, 2015

I solved the problem by just clicking "No Magazine" when I renew my membership. Theo

Watchdog · Mar 25, 2015

LJBrennan007 said:
The April 2015 issue of the NRA magazine American Hunter has an article on S&W's new model 69 L-frame .44 Magnum by Field Editor Bryce Towsley. In describing the gun's design and how it is "better", he states: "Another big change is how the cylinder locks up at the front. The traditional lockup point has always been at the end of the ejection rod and has been a source of constant problems in the older .44 Mag. revolvers. It is weak and wobbly."

I have one early M29 that I've put over 3000 full house mag loads through and it is still tight as a drum and shoots great. Can any gunsmiths out there confirm or deny this statement regarding the reliability and sturdiness of the "older 44 mag revolvers"? Thanks

If I had a 29 that I'd fired over 3000 full house mag loads through, I sure wouldn't need a gunsmith or anyone else to reassure me that my gun was "reliable and sturdy".

That said, the quality of all NRA publications has deteriorated over the years. I look at some of the ads they run in American Rifleman, and some of them remind me of those hokey ads we used to see in cheap magazines when I was a kid, like "Joy Buzzer! Shock your friends with your handshake!" or "Earn Cash Raising Chinchillas!" or the infamous "Squirting Lapel Flower". Remember those?

Personally, I don't think we have the quality of experienced gun writers that we had back in the sixties and seventies. There are no more Keiths and Skeltons. Jeff Cooper, Bill Jordan, and Jack O'Connor are all gone now...been gone for a while. There seems to be no more sense of adventure and wonder in today's firearms journalism...nothing there to make me want to actually get out and shoot a gun that's being written about. It's all boiled down to a few vague personal opinions and tech data. Where's the fun in that?

Watchdog · Mar 25, 2015

MichiganScott said:
Bryce Towsley is the only person outside of Remington headquarters in Madison, NC that likes the .30 Remington AR.

Bryce who? Oh, you mean that guy who's always having his picture made with dead animals? Say no more.

jaymoore · Mar 26, 2015

Engine49guy said:
Did you expect them to say :
The time proven S&W design has been changed to a cheaper ball detent system because it is easier to manufacture and costs less...?

If I was interested and read that I would look for the older design.

I thought the reason for the change in lock up was to be able to use a smaller diameter ejector rod so there would be room to increase the barrel diameter at the forcing cone. Either type front lock seems like "kind thoughts" to me. Not that it matters all that much, except the writer of the article missed the entire point of the change...

k22fan · Mar 26, 2015

jaymoore’s reply is a 100% correct this time. I can only add that I doubt Towsley’s tale that S&W’s finally got around to repairing a century old problem originated at S&W. As Jaymoore pointed out, Towsley didn’t have a clue why S&W went to a detent lock so he made up a reason. A phone call to S&W might have saved Towsley from making a fool out of himself.

The long gone American Rifleman author we need a modern substitute for was Hatcher. Hatcher’s army carrier was was spent in small arms design and development. He didn’t write glamorous hunting stories but he understood gun designs very well. Hatcher’s Notebook is a classic gun book.

chief38 · Mar 26, 2015

Gun Writers have to help sell new guns and accessories or else they would be out of a job!

shil · Mar 26, 2015

I'll concur with chief38. How often have you seen a negative review of a product in a gun rag?

mstem · Mar 26, 2015

WATCHDOG said:
Personally, I don't think we have the quality of experienced gun writers that we had back in the sixties and seventies. There are no more Keiths and Skeltons. Jeff Cooper, Bill Jordan, and Jack O'Connor are all gone now...been gone for a while.

You left out Mr. John Taffin, the only gun writer I have any faith in.

UncleEd · Mar 26, 2015

Well, did Smith change the rear lockup system with the latest guns or is the front lockup merely added insurance in keeping the
cylinder closed, aligned?

Didn't Smith have some "bounce" problems some years ago and added, or beefed up, the rear lock system to preclude the cylinder opening slightly?

Also, didn't Elmer Keith back off on full charges in his handloads with those less than full power loads what he used for his day to day shooting?

Also, isn't the L-frame a completely different bird than the N-frame and maybe Smith decided that the older lockup system left something to be desired?

I ask these questions based on years of past reading and also I'm nearly totally ignorant of the N-frame large bore Smiths as most of my experience has been in only the K-frame and some L-frame .357s.

Arik · Mar 26, 2015

You guys read these mags? I just flip through them in book stores to see if anything interesting has come out.

J. R. WEEMS · Mar 26, 2015

If it is new, then is HAS to be better- right??

A recent experience of mine, I was looking for a certain cutter for matt boards. I looked by model number for over a year--even overseas-- model has been discontinued, and was NOT to be found. By chance I stumbled upon an older model with a different number-- checked it out VERY closely, giving up on finding what I had been looking for. Guess what?? What I found was EXACTLY the same thing only it came in a box instead of a 'bubble pack' and it was NIB -- end of story, it should be here today.

diyj98 · Mar 26, 2015

UncleEd said:
Also, didn't Elmer Keith back off on full charges in his handloads with those less than full power loads what he used for his day to day shooting?

Could be, but I never put much stock in what Elmer wrote. He always struck me as a bit of a blow-hard. It seems just about every firearm and cartridge invented in his lifetime where either based on his ideas or actually stolen from him. That and stories of everyone being scared of him as well as his ungodly shooting ability pretty much turned me off his writings.

Sorry to derail the thread.

AveragEd · Mar 26, 2015

shil said:
I'll concur with chief38. How often have you seen a negative review of a product in a gun rag?

As a matter of fact, I've written two in the past five years alone!

As some of you know, I am a contributing editor for Shotgun Sports Magazine and although my column topics usually deal with helping "average" trapshooters improve their game as written from the perspective of one of their peers who managed to go from low man on a squad of blind shooters to a Class AA state champion, I do review a few guns each year.

I prefer to buy the guns I review as I feel that allows me some leeway in expressing my opinions but even if one is shipped to me on consignment (I have two right now that were), I don't hesitate to relate my experiences with the gun for better or worse.

I once tested a new slug gun that although touted as being super-accurate wouldn't shoot into better than 3-1/2" for two shooters with about every brand of slug ammo available, even with a second barrel the manufacturer sent me. I like to give a manufacturer a heads-up on any serious deficiencies I find in case a correction exists but in the end, I speak my mind and the manufacturer subsequently removed a photo from their website of a tiny cloverleaf group that was supposed to have been shot with that shotgun.

Similarly, I recently reviewed a new muzzleloader that I found to be too expensive, too heavy and too inaccurate. That review will appear in July's issue, I believe, and will say exactly that. When I notified the manufacturer of my accuracy findings, they even sent me a second rifle but it was no more accurate in spite of me trying over $400 worth of different bullets, propellants and primers.

I don't review nearly as many firearms as some writers because I typically try to do the ones I might be interested in buying but when I do a review, I don't hold any punches. My reputation is too important to me to mislead readers on investments that can reach thousands of dollars.

Ed

M29since14 · Mar 26, 2015

WATCHDOG said:
...There seems to be no more sense of adventure and wonder in today's firearms journalism...nothing there to make me want to actually get out and shoot a gun that's being written about. It's all boiled down to a few vague personal opinions and tech data. Where's the fun in that?

There is none, and you are right on target.

When the majority of gun-writers and users started to be more interested in to what tolerances a gun was being made (and imagined themselves more knowledgeable than the manufacturers), more interested in what kind of ridiculous abuse it could withstand, and how many thousand rounds it could fire between malfunctions, etc., etc., than they were in actually using the danged thing, it was the beginning of the end, for me. I think that started in the mid-'70s.

That doesn't mean overall quality hasn't made some huge strides. I happen to agree that for a double-action revolver a modern locking system (not necessarily just a ball-detent arrangement) at the yoke makes more sense than at the end of the extractor rod, but what we've had for the last 50-years plus hasn't been just so much junk.

1. Manufacturers put out hype to sell new stuff.
1.a. Most gun-writers more or less parrot what they are told.
2. Manufacturers have to sell new stuff to stay in business.
3. The End.

Stupid statement regarding .44 mag in American Hunter

Member

Member

US Veteran

US Veteran

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

SWCA Member

Similar threads