Anyone ever see a revolver do this? (UPDATED) X2

[Az Rick]

I agree with some of the above posters. You are shooting the **** out of that gun. It's design purpose is to have a powerful round, "when you need it".

Practice with light target loads. Shoot the **** out of it then. Shoot a cylinder or two every session of high power loads so you are familiar with the feel, POA,etc. That's the way they were meant to be used.

It's a lightweight gun meant to carry easily and a good gun, I might add. It wasn't designed for heavy target practice.

Best, Rick

 

[snubbyfan]

I just got a call from S&W saying that they X-Rayed it and found no cracks and that the Scandium mixed in with aluminum gives it memory. Said it is not unusual for them to flex like that and they have high speed film of them doing just that.

I asked him to please give that to me in writing so I could post it here and also incase the thing came apart in my hand. He said he would. He said the 44 mag version does it too, I will most likely never get first hand experience with that one and I doubt I will push too many more full power thru this one either.

I will post the letter when it come in.

Thanks for the update. Now we know.

 

[ltxi]

I agree with some of the above posters. You are shooting the **** out of that gun. It's design purpose is to have a powerful round, "when you need it".

Practice with light target loads. Shoot the **** out of it then. Shoot a cylinder or two every session of high power loads so you are familiar with the feel, POA,etc. That's the way they were meant to be used.

It's a lightweight gun meant to carry easily and a good gun, I might add. It wasn't designed for heavy target practice.

Best, Rick

Oh, no. That may be how you treat a gun like this and that may be how most of us would treat a gun like this. But until and unless Smith limitation caveats this gun's advertised capabilities calling out the user for actually using it is just total bs.

 

[Wedgie]

I have similar marks

After reading all of the posts, I had a look at My 340PD (no lock ) and have found similar but less severe marks. I guess I have to buy the cylinder expansion explanation and move on. The fact that this revolver handles the pressures it does is amazing. I have put about 500 rounds of 38 special mid-range wad-cutters and about 150 various 357 factory loads through this gun. It is accurate, light and a pleasure to carry. No complaints.

 

[jaymoore]

I agree with some of the above posters. You are shooting the **** out of that gun. It's design purpose is to have a powerful round, "when you need it".

Practice with light target loads. Shoot the **** out of it then. Shoot a cylinder or two every session of high power loads so you are familiar with the feel, POA,etc. That's the way they were meant to be used.

It's a lightweight gun meant to carry easily and a good gun, I might add. It wasn't designed for heavy target practice.

Best, Rick

That theory doesn't hold water, I'm afraid. I have fired only about 60 rounds out of my 340 M&P. All .38 Spl with some +P in the mix. It had no mark in the frame window when I started Friday, but it had them at the end. Not very big, but...:

Oddly, the 340 PD which HAS fired .357s has no marks.

 

[roundgunner]

Well it has been 7 days sense S&W CS called and said this was normal and still no gun. I wonder if they are having second thoughts about sending it back with no repairs and a letter saying it is fine.

 

[luangtom]

By all means, do let us know when you hear from S&W on this.

 

[roundgunner]

Well I finally got my gun back today. No note or anything.

Called S&W CS spoke to Paul and he said they don't give statements that everything is OK.

I guess they figure if they keep it long enough customers will just be glad to get them back.

I hope this is the end of the story and it doesn't grenade in my hand, or worse and hit others around me.

 

[M29since14]

Well I finally got my gun back today. No note or anything.

Called S&W CS spoke to Paul and he said they don't give statements that everything is OK.

You didn't really think S&W was going to send a letter saying anything at all about your gun did you - especially since you told the CS agent you planned to post it on an electronic forum?

Good luck with your revolver. I'd be interested to know how things go as you continue to use it. Like any other product, I am sure it has some sort of anticipated service life. If the whole truth was known, you may be approaching the end of what S&W expects as far as use goes. I once read that S&W expected Airweight .38s to hold up to about 2500 rounds. That has been many years ago now. I wouldn't be surprised if the service life for a similar gun in .357 Magnum was about the same, given the advances in metallurgy and the new frame design, but it might be considerably less.

 

[shawn mccarver]

You didn't really think S&W was going to send a letter saying anything at all about your gun did you - especially since you told the CS agent you planned to post it on an electronic forum?

Good luck with your revolver. I'd be interested to know how things go as you continue to use it. Like any other product, I am sure it has some sort of anticipated service life. If the whole truth was known, you may be approaching the end of what S&W expects as far as use goes. I once read that S&W expected Airweight .38s to hold up to about 2500 rounds. That has been many years ago now. I wouldn't be surprised if the service life for a similar gun in .357 Magnum was about the same, given the advances in metallurgy and the new frame design, but it might be considerably less.

I am not sure where you read the 2,500 number. I have a friend with a well-documented 18,000 rounds through his 70s vintage Model 37 with no noticeable issues.

 

[shawn mccarver]

Fellas I've said it in the past and I'll say it again..
Smith quit making .357 K frames which are bigger than .357 J frames. I do not now nor have I ever thought that the J frame was an appropriate frame for a .357 (and that is the steel framed ones). Shooting .357's out of a snubby J frame makes absolutely no sense whatsoever when you can shoot +ps out of them with much lower pressure and with that 7 yard range the guns were made for, not a discernable difference in terminal performance. Dead is dead,a miss is a miss and dinner is ready.

Want a small frame snubby for a .357? Go with an SP100 or a 66.

The issue with the K frame was more about the lack of sufficient metal underneath the barrel in the area of the forcing cone combined with the short projectile length in the then-popular 125 grain JHP Magnum round, which did not seal the barrel cylinder gap for a sufficient time thereby allowing flame cutting and cracking. In addition, the cylinder stop notches in the S&W revolvers with even numbers of charge holes are positioned directly over the thinnest part of the charge hole. Note that in cylinders with odd numbers of charge holes (5 and 7), the notches are offset making an inherently stronger cylinder, or so explains S&W's long-time engineer, Herb Belin.

Once the issue about bullet length was figured out by the engineers, many departments, including Missouri State Highway Patrol and FBI, to name two, switched from the 125 grain Magnum to the 145 grain Magnum. The longer projectile sealed the gap slightly longer preventing the excessive flame cutting issues that led to cracked forcing cones.

That is the reason that folks using 158 grain Magnums did not seem to have the forcing cone cracks like those using the 125 grain bullets at 1,400 fps.

The J frame in .357, being a 5 shot is fully capable of standing up to Magnum loads. Read on Buffalo Bore's web site and see their results. For me, it is my hand that suffers from Magnums in a J frame, not the revolver.

That said, the unobtainium, uber expensive Titanium/Scandium revolvers are just not for me. Too much of a good thing!