Models 24/624, is any problem with barrel using hotter handloads?

[Onty]

Somewhere I found that few folks experienced barrel cracking in forcing cone area, when used heavier 44 Special Keith's loads (1200 fps) using Lyman 429421, or H&G #503, or their derivatives. Apparently, longer protrusion of unsupported barrel shank makes it weak, and cannot take heavier loads.

Anybody knows more about this issue? Thanks!

 

[rwsmith]

Man.....

...1200 fps is AWFULLY HOT for a .44 Special. I don't doubt it worked for Elmer Keith, but he didn't mind destroying guns if he could get the performance out of them. I believe I would stick with published data at a max of around 1000 fps than risk damaging a great and scarce gun. Older data may stretch that out some, but I sure wouldn't approach 1200 fps.

My old Sierra book has max loads (use with caution) that give 1100 fps out of a 4" barrel using H110 and 2400 powders. and a 240gr bullet. I consider these to be HOT hunting loads and don't approach max because they get plenty raucous early on in working up loads. Hopefully you have a Chronograph and can work up loads that are suitable for you.

 

[Alk8944]

I have never heard of any issues with any N-Frames. The barrel dimensions of the .44 Special guns are identical to the same guns in .44 Magnum except for a little longer protrusion of the barrel shank, about 1/8". I agree that 1200 FPS with a 245-260 grain bullet would be a bit hot based on SAAMI specifications, but the Magnums were loaded to 1500 FPS with the same bullets! I would keep it down a bit, like not over 1100 FPS or so, but there should be no concern with barrel shank cracking! You are thinking about K-Frame .357 revolvers when hot-rodded

 

[stansdds]

1200 fps with a 245 grain bullet in 44 Special? You are into 44 Magnum territory and I suspect the chamber pressure is at least double the safe 44 Special chamber pressure as defined by SAAMI. I would not worry about the barrel, I'd be more worried about bulging or rupturing the cylinder.

 

[Onty]

I found one thread where it was posted story about issues when hot loading M24/M624. As a matter of fact, I even participated there, forgot that ("Mea culpa"):

"JStacy: OP you mention the S&W mod 24 handling near 44 mag loads. I have seen a couple of Mod24 & 624's fall victim to that thinking with bulged and cracked forcing cones. The load was the Keith bullet and 2400 load Elmer used. I have a vintage Mod 24 and it gets fed 7.0/unique and 240 csw and it is very accurate with that load. I also have a Super Redhawk to shoot 44 mag loads out of. I would not exceed the max 44 special loads listed in most manuals in any 44 spl. Hot 44 spls is the reason they came out with the 44 mag in DA revolvers."

1200 fps with a 245 grain bullet in 44 Special? You are into 44 Magnum territory and I suspect the chamber pressure is at least double the safe 44 Special chamber pressure as defined by SAAMI. I would not worry about the barrel, I'd be more worried about bulging or rupturing the cylinder.

I might be wrong, but I think that for the same pressure cylinder on M24/M624 shouldn't be weaker than cylinder on M29/M629.

 

[stansdds]

Are you 100% positive that the cylinder of your 44 Special is heat treated exactly the same as that of a Model 29? That's where the chamber pressure can be the issue.

 

[Onty]

Are you 100% positive that the cylinder of your 44 Special is heat treated exactly the same as that of a Model 29? That's where the chamber pressure can be the issue.

No, I do not have such information. However, I will be very surprised if 44 Special cylinder on M24/M624 isn't made from high quality steel as their magnum revolvers.

Last year I obtained spare cylinder for Ruger Old Army and few weeks back I decided to fit it to the frame at local machine shop. Also, I asked to counter sink cylinder bores. I can tell you that noted cylinder is made from hard, strong steel. I bet same material and heat treatment as on Ruger magnum revolvers.

 

[murphydog]

I don't know if this is a practical (you have a .44 Special in which you want to use overpressure loads) or a hypothetical discussion.

Heavy use of 240 gr/1200 + fps loads in a .44 Special will put extra stress on it. Eventually it will shoot loose or stress it to the point that it will need rebuilding, or can no longer be used.

You can imagine S & W will not want to reveal (if true) that .44 Special and Magnum cylinders are made using the same processes. Someone may want to use Magnum loads in the Special.

7.5 gr Unique with 240 gr will get you about 900-1000 fps at normal pressures and will put nice holes in paper, or would be effective on non-paper targets if needed.

Good luck in your decision.

 

[spin132]

The barrel dimensions of the .44 Special guns are identical to the same guns in .44 Magnum except for a little longer protrusion of the barrel shank, about 1/8".

I have a 3" 624 in 44 special and a 3" 629 in 44 mag. Although the barrel dimensions may be similar, the 624 has a tapered barrel whereas the 629 has a heavy barrel. No idea if the tapered barrel is weaker, just an observation.

Mike

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[jtcarm]

Get a .44 Magnum.

 

[Miracle Man]

Get a .44 Magnum.

Same thing I was thinking.

 

[6GUNSONLY]

I have a 4" 24-3. I will confess to having shot a couple of hundred rounds loaded with the Ray Thompson design 429244 and up to 17 grains of 2400. I shot two deer with this load. Since, I have backed off a bit to loads at around 1000 fps, mostly now loading AA#9. As others posted, I have .44 magnums if I feel a need for more than 1000 fps power level.

 

[stansdds]

Get a .44 Magnum.

A lot safer when you are seeking 44 Magnum or near 44 Magnum ballistics.

 

[rwsmith]

The old Sierra book......

I have a 4" 24-3. I will confess to having shot a couple of hundred rounds loaded with the Ray Thompson design 429244 and up to 17 grains of 2400. I shot two deer with this load. Since, I have backed off a bit to loads at around 1000 fps, mostly now loading AA#9. As others posted, I have .44 magnums if I feel a need for more than 1000 fps power level.

My Sierra book gives 16.3 grains max for a 240 gr SWC. 17 grains is a sturdy load for sure.

 

[6GUNSONLY]

17 grains was not an unpublished load but one I decided for my purposes was too much.

 

[rwsmith]

That sounds like me.....

17 grains was not an unpublished load but one I decided for my purposes was too much.

The Sierra book gives a full grain over present day manuals for .38 Spec. using Unique with a 125 gr JHP . I was shooting my Model 10 so I'm sure that it would have taken it, had I chosen to go that far. I didn't. I worked up to 6.4 grain and thought, "That's plenty."

 

[Onty]

Get a .44 Magnum.

I do have 44 Magnum revolvers; stainless Ruger SBH 5.5" barrel, converted to Bisley, blue Bisley 7.5", and Redhawk 7.5", sold recently. Well, Redhawk was gone because I found it too heavy to carry while hunting. Yeah, it can take top loads that will wreck many lighter revolvers, but are those loads really necessary? I would say no, unless somebody wants to knock down big buck or wild boar on 100-150 yards, see first post here Revolver for handgun hunting, another view | The High Road . In that respect, E. Keith was right on the money 1950-ties asking for new round, using 44-250 bullet, lunched at 1200 fps.

Considering all above, IMO M24/M624 with load 250-260 grains at 1100, maximum 1200 fps, is optimum combination for up to 50 yards.

The latest revolvers Keith was carrying around were M29 with 4" barrel. I asked myself "why", because his famous, custom made #5, had 5.5" barrel. Looks to me that Keith just didn't like weight of 6" M29. And whoever at S&W made decision to create 6" and 6.5" M24/M624, "had seen the light". Unfortunately, with hotter loads in M24/624 came problem JStacy was pointing.

Regarding weight issue, somebody from S&W paid attention and "Mountain Gun" in 44 Magnum was created, for those who prefer shorter barrels.

Taking in account everything, if there is revolver I would like to have from S&W, let call it Outdoorsman, it will be M629 with same slim barrel 6.5" as on M624. Who knows, my wish could be one day reality. One solution will be to scrape 6.5" barrel from M624, and install it on M629-3 or -4...

 

[rwsmith]

Since we are wishing....

I wonder how that combo would be in an L-Frame, maybe a little beefed up in the right places?

 

[Onty]

I wonder how that combo would be in an L-Frame, maybe a little beefed up in the right places?

I am afraid installing barrel from M624 on 44 Special L frame wouldn't work. Distances from chamber center to cylinder center are different.

 

[rwsmith]

Would need some modifications...

I am afraid installing barrel from M624 on 44 Special L frame wouldn't work. Distances from chamber center to cylinder center are different.

I was thinking more of an 'L' frame barrel modded to .44 special. If they can put a .44 Special on a 'K' frame, I'm sure they could put one on an 'L' Frame.

 

[steelslaver]

I was thinking more of an 'L' frame barrel modded to .44 special. If they can put a .44 Special on a 'K' frame, I'm sure they could put one on an 'L' Frame.

They did it is called a 696, which are 44 specials and have very thin barrel extensions around the forcing cone. They also have both 44 magnum model 69 and 44 special, 296 and 396 are on L frame, but all those use are 2 piece to achieve a thicker barrel shank. They are all 5 shooters.

The factory never made a K frame 44 special and if someone did the cylinder walls and barrel extension would be paper thin

A N 44 special barrel would not care if the bullet velocity was 700fps or 1400fps. Type of powder would cause more issues than actual velocity. The weakest barrel by far is the barrel extension at the forcing cone. Look at how thin it is on the 696 L frame 44 special on the right, on the left is a 44 mag model 69 L frame. All N frame 44 extension is considerably thicker than a L frame 44 mag. I bought a model 69 44 mag barrel liner just to find its thread size. Its OD is .638, a L frame 696 has and OD of .562, while a N frame 24 has and OD of .670. So a l frame 44 mag barrel is .032 less in OD than any N 44. That means the wall thickness of a L frame 44 mag is .016 thinner than on a N frame 44 special. A walls of 696 extension is .054 thinner than a N frame 44 barrel extension.

I have never heard of anyone splitting a model 69 barrel forcing cone

 

[DGNY]

These are all great questions. I don't have a lot of 44specials. Early Charter, 696ND, and one of each of the 3 barrel lengths in 624.

For many of us, there is the desire to be an explorer into the unknown. Namely, somehow to emulate Elmer, and to live to tell about it.

So, as I imagine a few others here would like to do, it would be a distinct pleasure, were funds available, to buy, say, 10 M624 revolvers and 10 M629 revolvers, all in stainless, and have them tested for whatever the strength properties are that yield "safety". (Indeed, I realize that some will say "10 of each would be an insufficient sample", but…)

Yours for testing the frontiers and exalting the 44 special as safely possible.

 

[Shibadog]

Get a .44 Magnum.

This. Get a magnum. You can always download to .44 Special specs. Even "hot" Special loads aren't terribly stout for a magnum, and now worries.

 

[Onty]

This. Get a magnum. You can always download to .44 Special specs. Even "hot" Special loads aren't terribly stout for a magnum, and now worries.

As I said in post #17, I do have two Bisley revolvers 44 Magnum; 5.5" and 7.5", and just sold 7.5" Redhawk. The point is I would like to have somewhat lighter DA revolver, 6" or 6.5" barrel, for loads that are basically starting loads for 44 Magnum. Bit hotter loaded 44 Special will do it, and 624 fits the bill perfectly. Well, almost...

I wish 629 in same configuration as slim barrel 25 in 45 Colt.

 

[Distorto2]

Hey guys! Long time reader, first time poster. Have any if you had a chance to check out the Handloader Magazine articles by Brian Pearce in the August, 2005 and Feb/March 2018 issues? In them he speaks at length about the hotter 44 Specials loads mentioned in this thread. He separates 44 Special hand loads into three categories:
Category 1 is standard pressure 15,500 psi, which can touch right about 1,000 fps with a Keith 429421 250gr SWC using Power Pistol. He recommends S&W Triple Locks and Charter Arms Bulldogs be kept in this category.

Category 2 is 22,000 psi loads which get to the 1,100ish fps range using the Keith bullet. While he's gone hotter than this with Colt SAA revolvers, he feels they're best kept in this category, and he explains why.

Category 3 is the "hot" stuff at 25,000 psi and includes loads with the Keith bullet and Alliant 2400 for 1,200 fps from a 6.5" S&W 24-3 or 24-6 depending on the article. He's also fired "thousands" of these hotter loads without issue.

Brian has actually had these loads pressure tested so there's no guessing as to what they're doing. The hotter loads at 25k psi, are only 2k psi higher than a 45 ACP +p, so they're far from 44 Mag pressures, and the performance is about on par with a lot of factory 44 Mag ammo.

For those who were worried about splitting the forcing cone of a Model 24 or 624, remember that a 45 ACP +p at 23,000 psi is considered safe in S&W revolvers from the same time period, even though the model 25 and 625 have thinner cylinder walls and slightly less material around the forcing cone.

Anyway, I recommend any fans of the 44 Special check out Brian's articles in Handloader Magazine. If you choose to stay within the SAAMI max average pressure of 15.5k psi, you'll still find some outstanding loads that will match Buffalo Bore performance. Have fun and be safe!

 

[Patrick L]

Get a .44 Magnum.

You know what? I HAVE a .44 Magnum and even with that I rarely shoot loads at that speed. Maybe like a box a year in total.

Everything else is 1000 fps or less. Oh sure the gun will take it, but the shooter is the problem!

 

[Doug M.]

No, I do not have such information. However, I will be very surprised if 44 Special cylinder on M24/M624 isn't made from high quality steel as their magnum revolvers.
I can tell you that noted cylinder is made from hard, strong steel. I bet same material and heat treatment as on Ruger magnum revolvers.

*
They could be the same, they could be different. I suspect that there are very good reasons to make them to the same standards, but we mortals without really good equipment and appropriate knowledge of metallurgy have no way of being sure.
I have one .44 Special, a 296. I generally prefer to have revolvers chambered for the magnum even I don't shoot magnums, just for the flexibility. I don't see real utility in hot rodding the Specials (.38 or .44).

 

[44wheelman]

I'm confused...wouldn't that be a model 26? (Like the GA state police commemorative 26-1)

Anyway, S&W made a 6.5" 44mag with slim bbl, just not a stainless version. Heritage Series, have one in blue & nickel. Also have one in 44spl. and it's interesting to me that the cylinders are the same length. You cannot tell them apart except for the chamber depth & model/caliber stamping.

As I said in post #17, I do have two Bisley revolvers 44 Magnum; 5.5" and 7.5", and just sold 7.5" Redhawk. The point is I would like to have somewhat lighter DA revolver, 6" or 6.5" barrel, for loads that are basically starting loads for 44 Magnum. Bit hotter loaded 44 Special will do it, and 624 fits the bill perfectly. Well, almost...

I wish 629 in same configuration as slim barrel 25 in 45 Colt.

 

[Patrick L]

Distorto beat me to it. I was looking back to see when the Brian Pearce article was (I have about 30 years worth of Handloader.)

Again, not that I want to do that. But if you do, Brian is a very respected authority on this stuff and I wouldn't hesitate to follow his advice on anything reloading oriented.

 

[Sevens]

I have zero proof, I have absolutely no way to ever test for a real answer and I have no contacts or insider information to ever find out the answer.

With that said, I believe there is almost zero chance that S&W would ever use different steels or different heat treating or anything whatsoever that would make some revolvers stronger than other revolvers.

We have metric tons of evidence over decades that shows us how S&W streamlines all that they do to make production and parts supply streamlined and economical. They use the exact same parts in as many places as possible to lower the inventory of assorted parts.

It goes against everything that we know that we know for S&W to choose to heat treat different cylinders differently or to use cylinders that are almost absolutely exactly the same but make them from some different steel that is weaker or stronger depending on where they would use them.

I don't believe the Model 10 and the Model 13 cylinder is any different except for length and depth of chamber. Same with the 64 and 65/66.

That is NOT the Smith & Wesson we know, and not for more years than we can count.