Anyone done a 2000 round challenge w/ a new S&W revolver?

[AlHunt]

I'm the "why?" camp. Unless a person is preparing for some kind of zombie apocalypse there's no scenario where you wouldn't have some opportunity to wipe down your firearm between firefights.

Looks like about $1400 bucks worth of ammo to push a $900 machine past it's design limits. But, it's not my money so why do I care how another person entertains themselves?

 

[cadmike]

Before you begin the test I’d recommend you make sure the side plate screws are nice and tight.

Why bother with .44 special? Seems to me shooting all magnums would be better. I can assure you that your 629 is more than capable of firing 2000 rounds. In fact, by that time it’ll almost be broken in. While I’m not big on cleaning, I can’t say I’ve gone 2000 rounds without at least cleaning under the star and wiping the gun down. I disagree with the posters who say that shooting a dirty gun is abuse. Why is it abuse? Do you clean your revolvers after every shot?

I’ve owned my 629 for almost 20 years and have lost count of the many thousands of rounds I’ve put through it. I’ve never had any problems but I do occasionally have to tighten the side plate screws. Lockup is still plenty tight.

Enjoy your test and please report back.

 

[LoneStarWings]

If you are honestly offended by the thought of spending more on ammo than the cost of the gun, you must not shoot much. I've probably blasted at least $2k worth of 9mm through each of my half a dozen $500 M&P's over the past decade. I was shooting 500 rounds a week for quite awhile.

 

[Laketime]

No need to give a revolver a semi auto torture test.Revolvers had been proven reliable back when Sam Colt was alive.

 

[photoman]

There's a reason there is such a thing as a "2000 round test" for semi-automatic pistols and not one for revolvers...

 

[H Richard]

I have often shot in matches that exceeded 500 rounds. A quick few droops of Hoppe's on a patch or two and a wipe of all chambers and the barrel plus a wipe off of the exterior takes only a couple minutes and helps ensure the reliability I count on to finish the match. You don't have to be "obsessive" about cleaning to maintain a revolver.

 

[Muss Muggins]

It’s your pistol. Knock your socks off. You ain’t gonna hurt it . . .

 

[notsofast]

When I was young I would have been excited and looking forward to trying something just like that. Don’t have the same get up & go anymore, but to you I say do it, and tell your forum members what happened

 

[DonD]

I regularly shoot my 929 or GP100 for 500 rounds without cleaning (2 or 3 trips to the range). When I clean them most of the time it consists of a spray of CLP down the barrel and a brief cleaning of the cylinder. 2000 rounds shouldn’t hurt anything at all.

If you’ve got dirt all over the gun you’re doing something wrong.

I'm with the group that is thinking this is simply nonsense. You're pushing a slug down a filthy bore, it cannot have any other outcome than to increase wear on the rifling.

Do what you want with it.

And for the OP, what a gross waste of money. Don

 

[epj]

I don’t think it will hurt the gun much, if at all. The problem you may run into is build up of carbon on the cylinder face and/or powder residue under the extractor. If the barrel/cylinder gap is the .004-.006” that it ought to be, this is a very real possibility. If it’s the .012” that now is accepted at S&W, it may not be a problem.

 

[BB57]

I got an A in reading comprehension and no the OP didn't literally ask that of anyone. "Almost as if" are the operative words in my post. My point is that several posters seemed to take great offense at the mere concept of him doing the test at all.

The concept itself is stupid - and pointless. - BB57.../

My apologies Mr. A in Reading Comprehension. In deference to you I should have added a "No." in front of my post.

I suppose I could have just answered "No." and left it at that. However the OP asked:

"Do you [insert your preferred missing word here] it is OK to do this with a S&W revolver as long as I clean it thoroughly at the end or do I risk damaging the revolver?"

I read that as asking for more than just a yes or no answer. What followed were my reasons behind the implied "No" and my thoughts on potential harm to the revolver:

"Are you ever going to go 2000 rounds without cleaning? Why would you even consider it?

Even 850 rounds in a 2 day class seems pointless, since it only takes about 10 minutes start to finish to clean a revolver between class days.

More dirt equals more wear. Period. I would not treat a firearm that way - especially if my life potentially depended on it."

If the OP wants to do this, then he's going to do it regardless of what we tell him. His revolver, his ammo, his money, he can knock himself out. But that won't change my opinion or my reasons for holding that opinion - it's stupid and pointless.

 

[BB57]

I'd tell you to ask Todd Green were he not deceased: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9-2-000-Round-Challenge


I'd say the point is to test to the reliability and durability of the revolver, see if it can hang with the semi-autos, and a fun reason to fire 2000 rounds through it. Obviously I didn't come up with the challenge. The only revolver I saw in that thread was a Ruger LCR which had its cylinder latch fall off toward the end. The only reason I wouldn't do it is if it could cause some kind of significant damage to the pistol. Things like this just seem fun to me, although I realize that it would probably "trigger" many people who are obsessive/compulsive about gun cleaning:
Ol' Dirty


You say more dirt equals more wear. Can you expand on this? Could I expect the revolver to develop timing problems? Will internal parts and springs wear out faster than they otherwise would?

Even then, it's not as if it's some rare irreplaceable firearm that needs to be treated delicately for preservation. A new 629 be replaced any time with a 10 minute trip to Cabela's or most any gun shop in town.

Not worried about the cost of the ammo, that money is going to be spent whether the challenge is done or not. It doesn't cost that much if you reload anyway.

The Ruger LCP example is a good place to start. The cylinder latch failed.

Why did it fail?

If it failed due to a build up of gunk on the revolver with the result that it endured excessive strain latching the cylinder, then all you've demonstrated is that a revolver will be less reliable if you don't clean it for 2000 rounds. Gee whiz! That's a profound discovery!

If the failure had nothing to do with lack of regular cleaning and maintenance, it just reflects the reality that the lightweight LCR is designed to be carried more than to be shot, and wasn't designed for large round counts. Again, what an earth shaking discovery that no one would have even remotely considered.

The same test done with proper cleaning would have actually told us a lot more about the LCR by eliminating the "abuse it by not cleaning and lubricating it" variable.

 

[BB57]

First, where did you get the thought that this would be a good idea? And, second, what is it you propose this is supposed to prove?


Such treatment of any mechanical device constitutes abuse! As H Richard points out, if you are paying in the area of $1,000 or more for a revolver why would you want to start its service life by heaping such abuse on it? Your proposed "challenge" is akin to buying a new car, driving it 20,000 miles without an oil change or other maintenance. Does that sound like a reasonable thing to do?


They say there is no such thing as a stupid question, I disagree. But there is such a thing as a stupid idea, and this is one of those!

Exactly,

A friend of mine who was a mechanic had a car come in on a tow truck after the engine failed. He pulled out the dip stick to check the oil level and discovered it was both low and very black and gooey. He asked the lady who owned it who when the oil had last been changed and she indicated it had not been changed since she purchased it - 40,000 miles ago.

What did we learn here? We learned that a single example of this particular model of car with the OEM oil in it would run 40,000 miles before the engine seizes. That's interesting trivia maybe, but has absolutely no practical value.

What is perhaps more useful to know is that all of the parts involved had far more wear than should be the case on a 40,000 mile engine.

Some mechanics feel that synthetic oils, while they last longer and lubricate better, should still be changed just as often as after a few thousand miles they end up carrying significant quantities of micro particles of dirt, ash and other combustion products that increase wear in the engine.

So if we had a synthetic that would last 40,000 miles without the long chain hydrocarbons breaking down, we'd still have issues with excessive wear.

Let's then consider a 2000 round torture test of a revolver. The OP is contemplating doing the same thing - running it for 2K rounds with no lubrication and without removing powder fouling carbon build up, abrasive primer residue, lead and/or copper fouling. Will it go the distance? Probably. Will it experience excessive wear? Most likely. Will anything of value be learned? Not unless the OP really plans to shoot his revolvers with no cleaning or lubrication. If that's the case, I know where he can buy a car with just 40,000 miles on it.

 

[Stephanie B]

I don't see the utility of the 2,000 round test in anything other than a military rifle. It seems like a test that will result in more wear on any gun than is necessary.

I finish up a day of shooting, my guns get cleaned and lubed where needed. But that's just me. I regard S&W revolvers as machines worthy of being cared for, not disposable pieces of kit.

 

[reddog81]

I'm with the group that is thinking this is simply nonsense. You're pushing a slug down a filthy bore, it cannot have any other outcome than to increase wear on the rifling.

Do what you want with it.

And for the OP, what a gross waste of money. Don

If your bore is filthy after a couple hundred rounds you’re doing something wrong. The bore of my guns are just as dirty after 12 rounds or 200 or 2,000.

Comparing shooting a revolver 2000 times to no oil change on a car with 40,000 miles is absurd. Not even a close comparison. A gun isn’t going to seize up because it runs out of oil after 2000 rounds.

What cleaning is necessary every 1,000 rounds or more often? People keep bringing up powder under the extractor or build up of carbon fouling on the cylinder. Unburnt powder under the extractor can happen after 1 cylinder of shooting if you’re shooting light loads and don’t hold the gun correctly when unloading. Carbon build up on the cylinder might happen if shooting light loads of lubed lead bullets, but most normal pressure rounds will keep the barrel cylinder gap clean of buildup. Either way both of these conditons are easily fixed and not going to cause any permanent damage.

Someone else brought up abrasive primers which is also not an issue any more than shooting a couple cylinders of ammo, cleaning and then shooting some more. Any abrasive compounds will cause just as much harm once a few rounds are fired after any cleaning is done.

Numerous people have brought up that it’d be a waste of money. If someone wants to shoot 2,000 rounds without cleaning it’s the exact same amount of money as shooting 2,000 rounds through a gun and cleaning it every 200 rounds. Actually, not cleaning it will save money on cleaning supplies.

Sorry for the long post and I’m not even an advocate of shooting 2,000 rounds without cleaning, but trying to scare someone with a bunch of made up nonsense isn’t useful for anyone. Again I ask, what cleaning is nessecary every 1,000 rounds or more often?

 

[zogger]

OK, it's your gun and your $s, so blast away if you want. But, I happen to agree that it seems to have no real point.

In what real world scenario would you go 2000 rnds thru a revolver w/o cleaning it? If it had no issues, what does this prove? If it fails, what does it prove? I am not sure it proves anything. I used to do reliability work for a living and used to design various tests. This is one test I might do if I was the manufacturer, but never as an end user.

Ernest Langdon did a 50K rnd test on a Beretta Px4. He followed all recommended maintenance/cleaning. In the end, the gun proved very reliable. But for us normal folks what did prove? After the 1st 500 rnds if the gun had worked OK, most of us would have said enough.

BTW-Don't ask to borrow my gun for this test!

 

[357 shooter]

Again I ask, what cleaning is nessecary every 1,000 rounds or more often?

For myself I've never had any centerfire gun be it rifle or handgun shoot more accurately with a heavily copper fouled bore. Never cleaned a copper fouled bore and not seen an improvement in accuracy afterwards whether it be a 223 varmint gun or 357 revolver.

Shot this target some years ago after a bore cleaning. Before that my groups were opening up quite a bit.

 

[muddocktor]

Your gun, your ammo and your money; go for it. Post your results when you finish. If you were planning to burn up 2k rounds of 44 in a very short period of time anyways, knock yourself out. I know that my hand and wrist wouldn't hold up to that much abuse any more.

As for me, I have more respect for my guns and my money to just mistreat the gun and burn the money (ammo and any possible damage to my gun) doing a stunt such as this. I work too hard for my money to just **** it away in what to me is a useless test. I'd rather **** away my money buying more guns (and ammo).

 

[bigggbbruce]

I just bought a 629 a few months back.. within' the first month I shot 500..

No idea round count on my used gun before I started....

2000 rounds is a good start..

 

[Ribwizzard]

Too many people beating on this OP!
Why do the test? Becouse it's nothing more than a toy to have fun with and that is his ideal of having fun.
He could say the same to those that shoot the same gun at the same target every weekend, or to those that buy guns and just put them in the safe.
Everyone has the right to enjoy their hobby how they want, and yes, the results would be interesting to me.

Let's see if there is any damage to the bore.
Let's see measurements of endshake , etc. Before and after the test. Along with any noticeable changes in accuracy.
That's what I think