How many full power rounds can a M29-2 take?

[Bob Wright]

O.K. Here's my take on the subject:

This Model 29 is an early one, with just over 15,000 rounds fired through it:

The history behind it: At just over 5,000 rounds I began experiencing trouble. The worst problem was that the internal pivot pins sheared off, and the cylinder would unlock under recoil. Also, got double firing pin strikes from hammer "bounce."



I contacted Smith & Wesson outlining my problems. I was told to return the gun to the factory. I did this, and at the same time had an 8 3/8" full lug barrel installed. When I got the gun back, it shot like a rifle out to 200 meters or so, but that full lug barrel was a little too much. Had my gunsmith, Bob Mason, cut it back to a more managable 6". Since doing the work, no more problems and the gun is standing at just over 15,000 rounds fired.

I liked the set up so well I bought another Model 29 and had it fitted with the 5" full lug barrel. This a later model with the endurance package standard, now has just over 10,000 rounds fired through it.

And, yes, I do count rounds fired and log them in each session.

Bob Wright

 

[viceunit]

My 6 1/2" 29-2 has thousands of rounds of 250 gr hard-cast Keith style lead bullets over 10 gr. of Unique with absolutely no ill effects. It is a nice load that many consider a "3/4 magnum" but I have killed a number of deer with this load and never recovered a bullet. I am sure it would be all I need to hunt anything in Ohio, and most of the Country within handgun range except dangerous game like bear or boar. I've put some heavy magnum loads through the gun just for fun (its not fun for long) and would carry them for bear defense if I was ever in that situation, but 99.9% of the time the Keith load is more than adequate and I can hit with it better than the hot stuff.

 

[S42N8]

quote:
Bear in mind that the M29 was designed around the factory load of a 240gr bullet at ~1500 fps; as people began to load heavier bullets and at higher velocities, the loads began to exceed the design.
___________________
This is incorrect. The N-frame was adapted to the .44 magnum. It was designed around old turn of the century rounds and much lower pressures. I love 29's, but they aren't as durable as Rugers. They are MUCH NICER guns though. The newer guns, from 29-5's on will handle a steady diet of full power loads. The 29-5's and above have all the endurance package, not just part of it.
________________

Nope. You misread the post.

True, the N frame is by no means designed around the .44 Magnum. Didn't say that, and never would; I have multiple N frames older than 1955. I said the M29 was designed for that particular load... but don't take my word for it:
________________________

"Keith especially called for a ".44 Special Magnum" with a 250 grain hard cast bullet at 1200 feet per second. His pleas seemed to fall on deaf ears. Ammunition companies were afraid of heavy loaded .44 Specials taking old sixguns apart. Keith then asked for a new cartridge 1/10 of an inch longer than the .44 Special to preclude its being used in any old sixguns, and also a new sixgun chambered for the new cartridge. Again, the plea was ignored.

In the early 1950's Smith & Wesson started to listen. Working in tandem with Remington, who would supply the new .44 Magnum ammunition, Smith & Wesson engineers went to work on the new sixgun. In 1954, Remington gave Smith & Wesson the dimensions of a new cartridge that was 1/8" longer than the .44 Special. Smith & Wesson then chambered four specially heat treated 1950 Target .44 Special sixguns for the new ".44 Magnum". The guns performed well but at the thirty-nine ounce weight of the 1950 Target, recoil was brutal to say the least. Elmer had asked for a new .44 with a 250 grain bullet at 1200 feet per second. This is the .44 Special Keith load and it generates heavy recoil in the Model 1950 Target .44 Special. Remington delivered a 240 grain bullet at 1500 feet per second that was originally fired in the same thirty-nine ounce Model 1950 Target .44.

Weight had to be added. The cylinder was lengthened to fill in the cylinder window and the six and one-half inch barrel was changed to a heavy weight full bull barrel style as found on the 1955 Target .45 ACP, resulting in a weight of forty-eight ounces. The new sixgun, as the first Magnum introduced twenty years earlier, was simply named by its chambering and called "The .44 Magnum" in those pre-model number days." From Taffin's "Smith & wesson's .44 Magnum, at http://www.sixguns.com/range/SmithWesson44Mag.htm
______________________


What I stated was that the M29 was designed around Keith's load; Remington's factory load, developed for S&W, was the 240gr @ 1500fps. I will concede that the the M29 was not, technically, designed for that load: the first (1955) S&W .44 Magnum, aka pre-29, was. The M29, which only differs from the .44 Magnum in name, was produced starting in 1957 when S&W went to model numbers. There's much more in Supica & Nahas' SCS&W.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

I have a ton of Taffins writings, including some of his books like Big Bore Handguns. I also have a ton of Brian Pearces articles.

I'll stand by what I posted. The 29/44magnum was not designed for, or around the .44 magnum round. It was adapted to it. Heavier barrels, a longer cylinder and heat treated steels were all adaptions made to allow the use of the .44 magnum round in an already existing platform. It was/is basically a 30,000 PSI frame design put into service with a round designed at higher pressure levels than that. That is why SAAMI lowered the specs from 43,500 CUP maximum to 36,000 PSI a few years ago. The gun was/is not designed for that level of pressure.

This is from John Linebaughs websight- It is in his "Writings" section and deals with exactly what I'm saying.
Notes on the Smith & Wesson

The Smith & Wesson Model 25-5 chambered for the .45 Colt is a fine gun and one I pack daily myself. The problem with the Smith &Wesson guns in general is not so much a strength factor but rather a design factor. Before you S&W people beat up on me please listen. It has long been evident that the Model 29 in .44 Magnum very quickly beats itself apart with full-power loads. This is not technically a "strength" problem as much as a design problem and the assemblage of several small parts that are not as rugged as the Single Action design. In the course of time if all the little parts wear a tiny bit this soon adds up to a lot of play in the overall fit and lock-up of the gun. This in turn allows the gun to get a further "run" at itself under discharge and thus hastens the battering process.

In reality the Model 25-5 is about 80% as strong as the Model 29 in the cylinder area. The frames are the same and are designed for a 40,000 psi load level even though we know this is a bit more than they are happy with. It's too bad S&W built a 40,000 psi cylinder and installed it in a 30,000 psi frame, so to speak. (note: since this writing S&W has worked on the problem of the cylinder unlatching and rolling back under recoil after it gets a bit worn).

The note above, is in reference to the endurance package that was in full application with the 29-5 as I posted above.

 

[daveyc]

I have a number of 29/629 with anywhere from 200 rounds to over 3,000 rounds fired. I have yet to have a problem. I stick to 240 gr. and under with published loads. I save the heavier bullets for the redhawks. while the 29 may not be the most robust design, there is just something about them.....

By the way, Bob, are you the Bob Wright that was written about many years ago in guns and ammo? There was an article about the Magna Classic/endurance package in a back issue i just happened to be reading recently. I noticed your name and got to wondering. The Bob Referenced in the article was a silhouette shooter and his new 629 started skipping chambers. It was partially his inquiries to S&W that prompted the endurance package. very interesting article. If you are the same gentleman, I would imagine you would have quite a bit of knowledge about this subject.

 

[fyimo]

In the 80's I bought a model 29 and I wasn't very gentle on it as back then as I always loaded max loads. I shot the gun a lot for me and it would wear me out at the range. I guess I put several thousand rounds through it. The gun was still functional and had some play when I sold it and I bought a Ruger Red Hawk with a 7.5 inch barrel. The Ruger is built like a tank but it was my least favorite revolver ever.

I recently started shooting again after taking about 15 years off and I sold the Red Hawk and bought a Nickel 29-2 just recently. Unfortunately it's new and unfired so I doubt I will fire it. I will probaly buy a blued one for the range that is a shooter and not new unfired.

 

[S42N8]

Gun 4 Fun --

I'll stand by what I posted. No need to take this further.