"Jacketed bullets accelerate barrel wear"

[aterry33]

Curtis (29aholic) sent me a magazine article a while back from Handloader, entitled "Handloading the Smith and Wesson 29," by Brian Pearce.

I was reading through it again today and I noticed this paragraph:

The very early five- and four-screw guns have become collectibles, and prices have soared in recent years. Furthermore, barrel steels used during this period were intended for lead bullet loads only, while jacketed versions accelerate wear. For this reason my very early guns are only used with cast bullets.

First of all, I'm not sure if Pearce is referring to 29 barrels or to all S&W barrels from that era. I know there is sort of an endless debate on FMJ vs lead bullets and barrel wear. Some people say lead is better for the reasons stated above, i.e. it's softer. Others say that FMJ are better because with lead bullets you get lead buildup--and scraping the lead out can damage a barrel. I've also heard people say that a (softer) copper-jacketed bullet is not going to harm a (harder) steel barrel.

So what are the thoughts on this, particularly as relates to the older Smiths? Is there any truth to the fact that lead bullets are better for the older guns? Many of my Smiths are 50s and 60s guns so this has crossed my mind from time to time.

I generally shoot lead bullets but I have a you-know-what load of M41 130GR ball ammo that I cycle through my Models 10, 15, 19, etc.

 

[km371]

I've been shooting FMJ out of my revolvers for almost 20 years now,with no visible damage or changes in accuracy.
Keep in mind that its' velocity & high pressure that can wear a barrel out.
For the most part,this happens in rifles,because of the length of barrel.I.E the bullet has farther to travel in a rifle barrel than in a handgun,so wear is accelerated.
One must also take into account the much higher pressure of a rifle bullet.
I DO know it is possible to crack a revolver forcing cone due to high pressures. I think this would happen before a barrel became worn or unserviceable.Some of the handguns we come across in our collecting have seen hard use,and they are still accurate,pits,bulges and all..
IMHO,you simply can't wear out a pistol/revolver barrel shooting the standard FMJ stuff. The bullet doesn't spend enough time in the tube.

 

[Muley Gil]

Elmer Keith wrote that right after WW I, he shot a 1911 Colt. He would get a case of FMJ ammo and a new barrel from the National Guard, as a case of ammo would wash out the shallow rifling in those early barrels.

I believe we have come a long way since those days.

 

[29aholic]

You gotta remember

That gun writers had an almost unlimited supply of ammo, and got paid to shoot (wish I had that job)...most of what was/has been written has been based off of extreme circumstances.

As a regular reloader and semi-regular shooter, I would just about bet that I could shoot jacketed bullets (I dont cuz cast is cheaper) for the rest of my shooting life (I am 43) through my 4 screw Pre-29 shooter and it would show no ill effects.

I n otherwords, the average person that has other things to do than shoot for a living would probably never wear an early gun out in their lifetime.

Relax Aaron

 

[aterry33]

Muley, I wonder how much the corrosive powders had to do with that too.

 

[Art Doc]

Barrels will wear with use. Simply physics.

Copper is harder than lead so the abrasion factor is increased.

However, at the low velocities of handgun ammo, the wear is pretty minimal and I suspect that actually detecting significant wear would take far more shooting than the average gun sees in several lifetimes.

I have a Series '70 Colt 45 that has fired about 5,000 rounds of military ball ammo (along with a couple thousand other loads) and the barrel looks new.

In fact, I have never seen any handgun with a worn out barrel. Anyone?

 

[aterry33]

Curtis, I guess in your case, when you have 50+ Model 29s, the chances of shooting any enough to damage a barrel are pretty low even if you're using steel bullets

 

[buckeyeshooter1]

I do believe that jacketed will wear the barrel quicker than lead. The part the writer left out is the fact that it will take the normal shooter about 3 lifetimes to shoot enough to wear a barrel out. Can it be done, yea--- probably by a competitive shooter but not by the average joe. Sounds like he just needed a topic for his magazine slot to me. I'd love to have the time (and money) to 'shoot out' a few 29's.

 

[okie john]

In fact, I have never seen any handgun with a worn out barrel. Anyone?

I saw guns get worn out from being shot when I worked on indoor ranges, but the only worn out barrel I ever saw was on a 1911 that had been a range rental for 10 years. There was no rifling in the first couple of inches forward of the chamber, and the edges of rest of the rifling had been worn round. The owner said it was one of the first guns they put on the range. We figured it had been shot 100k rounds, all jacketed.

The funny thing is, if I really concentrated, I could still get it to shoot a group of about 4" at 50'. So maybe it wasn't worn out after all...


Okie John

 

[shawn mccarver]

Muley, I wonder how much the corrosive powders had to do with that too.

Corrosive powders? In 1956?

I know black powder has corrosive effects, and that some primers do, but smokeless powder?

Explain please.

 

[aterry33]

Shawn, mis-type there, I meant primers.

 

[S&WIowegan]

It takes a lot of shootin'

but it can be done. I have a 625-2(made in the late 80s) that received a steady diet of hardball during IPSC matches. The barrel wear gradually manifested itself with lower velocities. I was chronoing a new batch of handloads a couple years back and my underused 4" 625 was yielding higher velocities than the old 5". I reviewed my records and found the old 625 had once been the faster gun.

The probable explanation is simply a gradual wearing down of the bore which lowers pressure and thus velocity. But also note, the gun still shot very well and is now in semi-retirement. My main competion guns are now 625-6s which have no locks.

 

[aterry33]

Iowegan, with IPSC, you're talking tens of thousands of rounds through that barrel right?

 

[S&WIowegan]

Iowegan, with IPSC, you're talking tens of thousands of rounds through that barrel right?

EXACTLY! My point is that you can wear a barrel down or out over time but it takes one heckuva lot of shooting. I have a competitor friend whose old Model 25 shows the same problem. His gun still shoots very well too but he has to add more powder to his loads.

 

[donaldw870]

Rifles vs. handguns?

Keep in mind that its' velocity & high pressure that can wear a barrel out.
For the most part,this happens in rifles,because of the length of barrel.I.E the bullet has farther to travel in a rifle barrel than in a handgun,so wear is accelerated.
One must also take into account the much higher pressure of a rifle bullet.
...
IMHO,you simply can't wear out a pistol/revolver barrel shooting the standard FMJ stuff. The bullet doesn't spend enough time in the tube.

I think I have to take issue with this explanation of the difference between wear in a handgun barrel versus the wear in a rifle barrel. Although it is true that the tube of a rifle is longer, the bullet only contacts each part of the barrel for a brief period of time. Although the total barrel metal eroded from each shot in a rifle would be more than for each shot in a handgun (due to the longer length), each inch, say, of the rifle barrel would receive the same amount of wear as each inch in the handgun barrel, all else equal.

As this poster points out, however, not all else is equal. I think the real culprit for faster barrel erosion in rifle barrels is higher pressures plus, I believe, higher temperatures. Armchair physics would suggest that higher temperatures accompanying higher pressures would heat the barrel metal to a point where more would erode, per inch of barrel. This is just my guess, however. I believe that this is the reason that rounds like 220 Swift and 22-250 Rem wear barrels faster than, say, a 223 or 308. I also believe that I learned somewhere that smaller diameter bores eroded more quickly than larger diameter bores.

For all that, I stick to lead for handguns made prior to jacketing handgun ammo, which my very uneducated guess would be sometime in the 1970's. For me, the reason isn't wear but a nostalgia factor. I like to shoot loads that would have been shot in the guns around their times of manufacture. In fact, for this reason, I've recently turned back to swaged lead as opposed to hard cast lead bullets.

On any and all of this, I stand to be corrected, as I'm just hear to learn! In particular, I'm very uncertain as to my guesses as to the advent of jacketed or hard cast bullets.

Best,
Donald

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

I have had this conversation with my friend, 29aholic (Curtis) on the phone.

I know it hurts peoples egos to think that their beloved Smith .44 could have a flaw, but they did, and you guys are missing the point here.

Pearce was saying that the barrel steel of those particular era guns were designed for lead. I have that article and have sent it ot a lot of guys on this forum.

Pearce is about the best writer going these days, and is extremely knowledgeable about anything to do with guns. It wouldn't take a lifetime of shooting, or a gunwriters supply of ammo to wear out a barrel that was designed for lead bullets. Early .44 magnum ammo was loaded with gaschecked lead buulets. The wear issue with those guns has nothing to do with pressure. It has to do with barrel steel hardness. When Smith realized that guys were actually going to shoot their new .44's more than a box or two a year, they termpered the barrel steel to last longer.

If anyone wants that article, I can send them a PDF containing it.

 

[ConditionOne]

I put 150 rounds of FMJ through used 1919 model 1905 S&W before I read about the concerns of FMJ with older Smiths. Would it take more than that to wear the barrel on it? How can I tell --If the lands and grooves blend together?

 

[fyimo]

There was a article in Guns and Ammo in the 1990's about rifle barrel wear and what they said about rifle wear is probably applies to pistol barrels. They said that if a shooter stayed away from corrosive ammo and hot reloads that with factory ammo a rifle barrel reaches its peak accuracy around 1000 rounds and holds that accuracy until about 5000 rounds and then slowly starts to deteriorate. That's with a high powered rifle at very high pressures and bullets traveling at 2600 FPS or higher. Their conclusion was that the average rifle shooter never even reached max accuracy out of his rifle because so few would shoot 1000 rounds through their rifle.

I think the same would apply to pistol barrels and that they would last even longer because they endure less pressure and the bullets traveling at slower velocities. They did an article on the Glock pistol about a year after it came out and they took three to a shooting club and provided the ammo for the guns and they shot 10,000 rounds of FMJ through each and they had no failures or decrease in accuracy. I also have to say that my three Model 29's are 29-2's.

My conclusion on this is that the average person isn’t going to shoot out a barrel with standard ammo whether full metal jacket, Jacketed, or lead in their lifetime unless they are a very serious competition shooter. I would not hesitate to shoot any standard ammo whether factory or reload in my S&W revolvers for fear of wearing it out.

I am going to amend this and say after reading Gun 4 Fun's point that I would agree that care should be taken with early Model 29's and because of their very high value so I would only shoot lead. I agree with Tim that is steels are made to different strengths and if smith designed the barrels on these for lead then it's probaly best to shoot lead in them. I have a pre 36 and my gunsmith told me to shoot 158 grain bullets because that is what it was designed for and to only use 124 grain +P's for defense loads but not for target shooting.

 

[K.38]

I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I wouldn't worry about lead vs jacketed and just shoot what you want.

The only pistol that I only shoot lead out of is an early S&W 1917. While the barrel is bright and shiny the rifling is very very faint. I don't know if it is that way because of wear or if that is how it came from the factory.

It shoots just fine but I figured lead would be easier on what rifling there is.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I wouldn't worry about lead vs jacketed and just shoot what you want.

The only pistol that I only shoot lead out of is an early S&W 1917. While the barrel is bright and shiny the rifling is very very faint. I don't know if it is that way because of wear or if that is how it came from the factory.

It shoots just fine but I figured lead would be easier on what rifling there is.

.45 ACP pistols have always had very shallow rifling. It works well with hardball, and very hardcast lead bullets ( BHN of 20-22) The lead bullets need to be this hard so that they hold the rifling properly and don't skid upon entry into the barrel when fired. Your rifling is normal like it is.

I'll stand by what I posted on the early .44 barrels. Everyone keeps pointing out some gun that has taken 10,000 rounds of jacketed ammo. Those guns are all designed for that type of bullet use. The first .44 magnums weren't. It's an apples/oranges kind of thing here.