HARD TO UNDERSTAND

[pat g]

I carried a model 66 for many years, as a Police Officer I was happy with the quality and durabilty.

Here is my question. Why does Smith make a 44 Mag Model 629 ( Which I own ) then people who know guns say it can not have steady diet of full loads?

If you wan't a gun that can handle full loads buy a Ruger.

Pat

 

[617X10]

If you're talking about some special Buffalo Bore rounds or really hot handloads, you might be right. I wouldn't worry about shooting a .44 Mag Smith loose for a looooong time if I was feeding it rounds off the shelf. If you need a round that hot, you'd probably be better off with a .454 Casull, .460 or .500 S&W Mag.

 

[Ashlander]

Pat: I am not sure about the 44s but the old K-frame .357 magnums were originally designed for 38 Special. They bulked them up to take the .357 Magnums, but the forcing cone was a bit thin at the bottom for a steady diet of the Magnum loads (especially the hot 125 grain magnums and handloads), and a lot of magnums could contribute to a little premature end-shake.

Most of us don't mind not shooting all magnum loads all the time -- left to our own preferences we'd probably we shoot mostly 38 Special anyway and just a few magnum rounds once in a while to keep us honest.

Thanks for your service in law enforcement.

 

[MSgt G]

Shoot the thing and stop listening to people who think the know everything! It will handle the mag loads.

 

[hittman77]

Admittedly I am a bigger fan of Ruger than Smith but ..... seems the stories of a Smith being "shot out" are more stories than fact.

Can someone relate a real life story of destroying a Smith while shooting factory ammo and back it up with pictures?

Professional shooting competition or intentional torture tests shouldn't count.

 

[scott625b]

Amen to that!

 

[Ashlander]

I suppose I was being a bit over-protective of my K-frame magnums -- but there is so much cautionary stuff (is that the right word?) on-line about cracked forcing cones and end shake that it drives you nuts. Realistically Hittman77 has a good point -- stick with factory ammo. I'll quit worrying about it and have some fun.

 

[M29since14]

I have never hesitated to use full-charge 44 Magnums in any of my S&Ws, and they are all just fine. In the past, I have had some trouble with really heavy 44 Magnum loads (loads with bullets heavier than 275-grains or so). That type of cartridge was not in use when S&W started building 44 Magnums, and I am not sure they are such a great thing anyway. I don't use them and if that is a "limitation" of the design, I can easily live with it.

I look at my revolvers as being somewhat delicate and finely-made. Any machine of that type is meant to have expert maintenance, from time to time. In my own case, my guns have done quite well when used as intended, so I don't worry too much about what others say, and I tend to agree that if you need more HP than an ordinary 44 Magnum, why not just use that as an excuse to buy a bigger gun?

 

[SgtSam]

Admittedly I am a bigger fan of Ruger than Smith but ..... seems the stories of a Smith being "shot out" are more stories than fact.

Can someone relate a real life story of destroying a Smith while shooting factory ammo and back it up with pictures?

Professional shooting competition or intentional torture tests shouldn't count.

Can't speak to the 629, but certainly can to the 66. A friend of mine at work shot nothing but .357 full loads in his 66 for over 15 years. It finally came apart. The end shake was terrible and the erosion on the forcing was amazing. He sent it back in to S&W and they told him it was done for, taps, end of the line. Seems there were more problems than just what was obvious. There was also some frame stretch and a cylinder with a hairline crack.

He was the original owner of the gun and they offered him a deal on 686 that he couldn't pass up. He got a 4" 686 to replace his 4" 66 for the same price he originally paid for his 66. He took it and is happily shooting the 686 the same way he shot the 66. Only time will tell how it will hold up. But, it's supposed to be able to take it.

It's his fortunes with his 66 that caused me to quit shooting any .357 through mine. I do load it with Remington Golden Saber when I carry it, but that load is not really a "full house" load. It's between a good .38Spl+P and a full .357, sort of a .357-P.

Sorry I don't have any pictures. This happened a few years ago and I didn't think to take pictures to back up the story.

 

[amazingflapjack]

Hot 44's

I have liked John Taffin's writtings regarding "six guns" for some time, and see the wisdom in what he has to say about bigger bullets, and very hot loads, he just does not see the need to exceed a certain level, and feels the gains of doing so, if any, are out weighed by other detractins. He is a Smith fan, as well as a Ruger single action fan. There is plenty on the net by him, and in the mags he writes for. I like the model 29-and all of its variations, and I shoot them regularly. I was on a forum sometime back where the guys were handgun deer hunters-serious ones. They were comparing notes on their hand load choices, and most of them claimed very good results with a 240gr LSWC over 10 gr of Unique-some used gas checked bullets-etc. There was a lively discussion under way, when some old boy from way up north chimed in and said something like, "I can't claim too many white tails, but my brother just killed a 765 pound moose with a 240 grain Lswc over 10 grains of Unique. It went about 50 feet and fell over dead." Taffin said he generally doesen't exceed 10-12 gr of Unique in his old m-29's, and if you haven't shot that load, you will understand why that's enough after just one round. It is my regular load for everything from a 629 no dash-to a 629-6 PC Hunter, and 8 or 9 others in between. I can't imagine why I would ever need anything "hotter." Flapjack.

 

[blujax01]

Can't speak to the 629, but certainly can to the 66. A friend of mine at work shot nothing but .357 full loads in his 66 for over 15 years. It finally came apart. The end shake was terrible and the erosion on the forcing was amazing. He sent it back in to S&W and they told him it was done for, taps, end of the line. Seems there were more problems than just what was obvious. There was also some frame stretch and a cylinder with a hairline crack.

He was the original owner of the gun and they offered him a deal on 686 that he couldn't pass up. He got a 4" 686 to replace his 4" 66 for the same price he originally paid for his 66. He took it and is happily shooting the 686 the same way he shot the 66. Only time will tell how it will hold up. But, it's supposed to be able to take it.

It's his fortunes with his 66 that caused me to quit shooting any .357 through mine. I do load it with Remington Golden Saber when I carry it, but that load is not really a "full house" load. It's between a good .38Spl+P and a full .357, sort of a .357-P.

Sorry I don't have any pictures. This happened a few years ago and I didn't think to take pictures to back up the story.

I don't expect anything to last forever and I'd consider 15 years a good life for any firearm used the way I do mine. Thrice monthly trips at 50-100 rounds (of the caliber marked on the gun, thank you!) per trip times 15 years is a lot of ammo! Gun's had a good life, IMO.

Then to have S&W offer me a new replacement at 15 year old prices?

Win-win in my book!

 

[Mack]

I agree with Flapjack about John Taffin's writing's, he sums it up nicely by stating that once the the bullet goes through the game animal all that excess power is worthless. The K frame .357 was designed for a need and that need was not firing countless thousands of full power light bullet .357 rounds and last forever. The need was for a lighter smaller .357 that would be easier for a police officer to carry all day every day and to last a reasonable period of time. The M29 was also designed for a need, to deliver a .44 bullet with enough power to go in one side of an Elk or Moose and out the other side in a reasonable to carry package. It is typical American that we have shooters who believe "if it says magnum I should be able to shoot as many of any magnums out there and if my gun wears out it's S&W's fault not mine". Bottom line is use the firearm within the design limits and it will have a reasonable useful lifetime, exceed the design limits or even stay within them and use it long enough and wear will happen.
BTW, I would not abuse a revolver and expect S&W to replace it at a super price, that is not the business they are in ;-).

 

[18DAI]

I can't speak to the 44's, but the 66 I have alot of time behind. I have fired tens of thousands of rounds through various model 66's in different barrel lenghts. Thousands of those rounds being 158 grain 357 and thousands being 125 grain and 110 grain 357. Lots of 110 grain 38+P+ as well.

I've yet to shoot one loose, break a forcing cone, stretch a top strap or suffer any of the other various maladies attributed to K-frame magnums on the internet. For years on this and other gunboards I posted asking for anyone who had a 66 damaged from use to please post. In over eight years I only had one taker. A fellow here posted a photo of a cracked forcing cone on a 66. Only one of a 66 I've seen in over 42 years of shooting K-frame magnums. So, it has happened. So what?

"...shot nothing but 357 full loads in his 66 for over 15 years.." This. The only thing amazing about this statement, to me, is that the poster evidently feels this in in some way insufficient service life. I'd wager that the majority of folks on this board probably don't shoot that many rounds in ten years through ALL their guns, let alone a single example. My high round count 66 is a former Chicago PD 4" 66-2 duty gun with over 25000 rounds through it. The retired Chicago detective I purchased it from told me he had shot well over have of those using 125 grain 357. This 66 shows some forcing cone erosion and a little endshake. Its slow to carry up on one chamber too. It is also my most accurate revolver, out shooting my various Performance Center guns. One expert shooter I know, who has fired it numerous times has pronounced it to be; "..a sub 1" gun..". He constantly badgers me to sell it to him - warts and all.

Anyone else ever notice that it is usually the same people on the internet cautioning folks about the alleged "weakness" of K-frame magnums? Makes me wonder whether they have actually ever owned or shot one, or are just passing on what they read elsewhere.

If these revolvers were as delicate as I read on different boards, I'd have seen more failures than one gun. Hell, I've personally seen three wind up revolvers locked up tight during the last ten years alone. And I'm told here; "thats not an issue"

So, I will continue to enjoy shooting and competing with my pre lock model 66's as well as all my K-frame magnums. They remain the finest revolvers to ever come out of S&W and judging from the current line up of products coming from the company calling itself S&W, its unlikely they will be surpassed.

Just for grins, next time some "expert" is lecturing you on how "weak your K-frame" is, and how "the L-frame was made to replace the K-frame", ask them why S&W continued to make K-frame magnums right alongside L-frames - FOR THIRTY MORE YEARS??? They love it when you do that. Regards 18DAI

 

[M29since14]

Here is my question. Why does Smith make a 44 Mag Model 629 ( Which I own ) then people who know guns say it can not have steady diet of full loads?

I love it when 18DAI answers a question!

(Just kidding, 18. )

Actually, the answer is just plain old "opinion. Everyone has one. Sometimes we have to resist the temptation to listen too much to these people "who know guns." If you haven't got a lot of experience with the 629, I think after a bit of shooting on your part, you will have your answer.

 

[18DAI]

ummm........Nevermind.

Sorry, I evidently keyed in on and answered.....and contributed to...the thread drift. Carry on 44 people!

 

[SgtSam]

I can't speak to the 44's, but the 66 I have alot of time behind. I have fired tens of thousands of rounds through various model 66's in different barrel lenghts. Thousands of those rounds being 158 grain 357 and thousands being 125 grain and 110 grain 357. Lots of 110 grain 38+P+ as well.

I've yet to shoot one loose, break a forcing cone, stretch a top strap or suffer any of the other various maladies attributed to K-frame magnums on the internet. For years on this and other gunboards I posted asking for anyone who had a 66 damaged from use to please post. In over eight years I only had one taker. A fellow here posted a photo of a cracked forcing cone on a 66. Only one of a 66 I've seen in over 42 years of shooting K-frame magnums. So, it has happened. So what?

"...shot nothing but 357 full loads in his 66 for over 15 years.." This. The only thing amazing about this statement, to me, is that the poster evidently feels this in in some way insufficient service life. I'd wager that the majority of folks on this board probably don't shoot that many rounds in ten years through ALL their guns, let alone a single example. My high round count 66 is a former Chicago PD 4" 66-2 duty gun with over 25000 rounds through it. The retired Chicago detective I purchased it from told me he had shot well over have of those using 125 grain 357. This 66 shows some forcing cone erosion and a little endshake. Its slow to carry up on one chamber too. It is also my most accurate revolver, out shooting my various Performance Center guns. One expert shooter I know, who has fired it numerous times has pronounced it to be; "..a sub 1" gun..". He constantly badgers me to sell it to him - warts and all.

Anyone else ever notice that it is usually the same people on the internet cautioning folks about the alleged "weakness" of K-frame magnums? Makes me wonder whether they have actually ever owned or shot one, or are just passing on what they read elsewhere.

If these revolvers were as delicate as I read on different boards, I'd have seen more failures than one gun. Hell, I've personally seen three wind up revolvers locked up tight during the last ten years alone. And I'm told here; "thats not an issue"

So, I will continue to enjoy shooting and competing with my pre lock model 66's as well as all my K-frame magnums. They remain the finest revolvers to ever come out of S&W and judging from the current line up of products coming from the company calling itself S&W, its unlikely they will be surpassed.

Just for grins, next time some "expert" is lecturing you on how "weak your K-frame" is, and how "the L-frame was made to replace the K-frame", ask them why S&W continued to make K-frame magnums right alongside L-frames - FOR THIRTY MORE YEARS??? They love it when you do that. Regards 18DAI

You reference to "...the poster evidently feels this in in some way insufficient service life.", couldn't be farther from the truth. You seem to have a little bias yourself. I never even hinted that I felt it was a problem, only that it happened.

My buddy didn't feel that it was a problem either. He knew about the supposed weakness of the .357 K-Frames, but didn't care. When the gun reached the point where he felt it was to dangerous to continue shooting, he did what any sensible person would, or should, do. When S&W offered him that deal, he was very surprised, but not stupid enough to turn it down. He took it and commented on the "wonderful", but "surprising" customer service he had received from S&W. Oh, most of his high-power .357 loads were full loads pushing 158gr lead. He's not fond of the fast moving 125gr, or lighter.

No, please do not interject something that wasn't there in the first place. I don't need anyone putting a "spin" on my comments. Take them at face value without your bias's added, thank you.

I know that it's possible to shoot out a gun. I've know a number of people throughout my life who've done it. In the 66 years I've been alive, and the 56 that I've been shooting, I've seen a lot. Haven't seen it all, just thought I'd clarify that point before I was accused of something else, but I have seen a lot. Handguns shot to hell, rifle barrels burned out. I personally have never done it. I don't intend on doing it either. I don't have the time or the inclination to shoot that much.

My 66 is in great shape. I'm gonna' keep it that way too. No need to shoot heavy rounds through it when I've got other guns that will take any possible, sensible .357 load without a hiccup.

Sorry to sorta' hit back, but I felt it was necessary, and, you had it coming.

 

[18DAI]

SgtSam there was no offense intended. Sorry you took it that way. The fact that someone would run nothing but 357's through one gun for 15 years and then send it in was surprising, to me.

Perhaps you thought the paragraphs following that one were somehow directed at you. They were not. I was referencing a handfull of folks on this and other boards.

And yes, I'm biased. Regards 18DAI.

 

[SgtSam]

OK! No offense continued to be taken.

He simply sent it in to S&W to get it fixed. Not to complain, pick, or in any way degrade the gun. He loved the gun and simply wanted it repaired. He was really down when they told him that it was done for. He was also really blown away when they made him the offer that they did. He took it and ran!! However, he has never been as happy with the 686 as he was with the 66. Something about balance and "subjective" feel. Oh well, some days chickens, and some days feathers!

I learned from him in that I needed to quit pumping .357 loads through my 66 if I wanted to keep it. So, I did. I have a beautiful "no-dash" model and I plan on passing it on to my son some day.

Yes, some people get unreasonable, and when they do, a simple, well constructed insult, that most of them wouldn't understand anyway, is usually sufficient to quell my quivers.

Take care!

 

[lhump1961]

I can't speak to the 44's, but the 66 I have alot of time behind. I have fired tens of thousands of rounds through various model 66's in different barrel lenghts. Thousands of those rounds being 158 grain 357 and thousands being 125 grain and 110 grain 357. Lots of 110 grain 38+P+ as well.

I've yet to shoot one loose, break a forcing cone, stretch a top strap or suffer any of the other various maladies attributed to K-frame magnums on the internet. For years on this and other gunboards I posted asking for anyone who had a 66 damaged from use to please post. In over eight years I only had one taker. A fellow here posted a photo of a cracked forcing cone on a 66. Only one of a 66 I've seen in over 42 years of shooting K-frame magnums. So, it has happened. So what?

"...shot nothing but 357 full loads in his 66 for over 15 years.." This. The only thing amazing about this statement, to me, is that the poster evidently feels this in in some way insufficient service life. I'd wager that the majority of folks on this board probably don't shoot that many rounds in ten years through ALL their guns, let alone a single example. My high round count 66 is a former Chicago PD 4" 66-2 duty gun with over 25000 rounds through it. The retired Chicago detective I purchased it from told me he had shot well over have of those using 125 grain 357. This 66 shows some forcing cone erosion and a little endshake. Its slow to carry up on one chamber too. It is also my most accurate revolver, out shooting my various Performance Center guns. One expert shooter I know, who has fired it numerous times has pronounced it to be; "..a sub 1" gun..". He constantly badgers me to sell it to him - warts and all.

Anyone else ever notice that it is usually the same people on the internet cautioning folks about the alleged "weakness" of K-frame magnums? Makes me wonder whether they have actually ever owned or shot one, or are just passing on what they read elsewhere.

If these revolvers were as delicate as I read on different boards, I'd have seen more failures than one gun. Hell, I've personally seen three wind up revolvers locked up tight during the last ten years alone. And I'm told here; "thats not an issue"

So, I will continue to enjoy shooting and competing with my pre lock model 66's as well as all my K-frame magnums. They remain the finest revolvers to ever come out of S&W and judging from the current line up of products coming from the company calling itself S&W, its unlikely they will be surpassed.

Just for grins, next time some "expert" is lecturing you on how "weak your K-frame" is, and how "the L-frame was made to replace the K-frame", ask them why S&W continued to make K-frame magnums right alongside L-frames - FOR THIRTY MORE YEARS??? They love it when you do that. Regards 18DAI

++++1! Nailed it! Any perceived bias aside (we all have some) I couldn't agree more with your assessment of "internet intel" on the K frame. It has been doing its job and more for decades. My pickup is a great truck but I don't dump full blown racing fuel in it and expect good results!

My K's have been digesting 158gr .357 (along with .38 and +P, whatever I was in the mood for) over the last 25yrs without any issues of any kind. If 158gr .357 won't get the job done then just get the .44mag or .460 or .500 or whatever you need to impress others at the range and stop trying to school me on my K frames! When I carry a revolver it is always a 66...every time.

Good post...you said it better than I could have.

 

[NE450No2]

While I have owned K frame 357 Mags I never shot them a LOT because I am not a 357 Mag kind of guy...

However, I have shot a couple of Mod29-2's quite a bit, as well as 629's and 629 Mountain guns.

I have done my most 44 Mag full power volume shooting with my original 6 1/2" Mod 29 and my Original Mod 29-2 4".

The 6 1/2" had been rebuilt twice, the 4" three times.

I have had these guns since the mid 1970's. they have been used as hunting/field and duty/offduty guns.

They have been shot a lot with full power factory loads and full power 2400 and H 110 loads. As well as a bunch of light bullseye, and medium power Unique loads. Many many times I shot 500 rounds in a single day...

They still shoot great today. And I shot them with full power loads much more than I needed to.