+P ammo in 625-6 .45 Colt mountain Gun

[Dave]

Per John Linebaugh:
"While the S&W will take these loads safely such loads will greatly shorten the life of your gun. The frames on S&W are not heat treated thus are pretty soft. With loads that exceed what the gun can comfortably handle the frame stretches immediately lengthwise and then springs back. This all causes battering and soon your gun has excessive endshake. I don't know how long it takes to wreck a N frame S&W with heavy handloads but Jeff Cooper printed one time he saw a model 29 go out in the realm of 1,000 hot handloads if I remember correctly. I would agree that serious damage could be done in this amount of shooting with too heavy a handload.

The bearing surfaces on the front and rear of the cylinder in the DA guns just aren't as massive as the single action guns and the lock-up system isn't near as rigid as the single action base pin system.

In short, several small parts can't be expected to stand up as well as a few heavy parts."

John Linebaugh has also stated that he keeps his loads in the S&W .45s to around 25,000 psi max. A 625 will do almost anything you need it to do with a 260 grain bullet moving at around 900-1000 fps. Why batter your gun needlessly?

 

[Gary7]

Per John Linebaugh:
"While the S&W will take these loads safely such loads will greatly shorten the life of your gun. The frames on S&W are not heat treated thus are pretty soft.

I don't know who Mr. Linebaugh is, but I'm calling BS on this one.

 

[Jack Flash]

... the chamber walls of a 45 cylinder are considerably thinner than those on a 44 cylinder, hence they can't handle as high a pressure as the 44 cylinder. ...

Wow! Who ever suggested that a S&W .45 cylinder could handle .44 Mag pressures?

Go back through the posts and you will see that someone suggested the heat treatment is different for the .45 Colt than it is for the .44 Mag. From my limited experiences in a manufacturing environment, I politely suggested that this is a very dubious proposition. I stand by that statement until someone offers reliable proof to the contrary.

Then I talked about the wisdom of firing .45 Colt +P through a modern S&W. I said I believe this would not be a problem, especially if done in moderation. Again, I stand by that statement.

I base this second comment on a simple observation. While I am not going to the safe to dig out revolvers to make measurements, I believe the chamber walls for a S&W .45 Colt must be very close, if not equal, to the chamber walls of a S&W .45 ACP revolver. The SAAMI Max for .45 ACP is 21,000 psi. IIRC, S&W .approves its modern .45 ACP revolvers for +P, so they can handle over the Standard SAAMI max for .45 ACP. Therefore, a modern S&W .45 Colt revolver can handle considerably more than the Standard SAAMI limit for the ancient .45 Colt.

 

[Gary7]

Wow! Who ever suggested that a .45 cylinder could handle .44 Mag pressures?

Go back through the posts and you will see that someone suggested the heat treatment is different for the .45 Colt than it is for the .44 Mag. From my limited experiences in a manufacturing environment, I politely suggested that this is a very dubious proposition.

Uh...I was agreeing with you in my post, not taking issue with your points.

 

[batmann]

Double Amen to the cylinder wall thickness. It's usually not the frame that goes, but the cylinder. Using +P loads might be done but most ammo companies don't recommend it. IF you have any doubts what so ever, call and they will give as good of an answer that they can.
One of the reasons Ruger's shoot heavier loads is both the cylinder wall thickness and the top strap not the action or method of construction. Ruger had the advantage of starting with a blank sheet of paper.

 

[JT]

I don't know who Mr. Linebaugh is, but I'm calling BS on this one.

Man, that takes some big ones to call out Mr. Linebaugh, a world-class gunsmith who has forgotten more about handgun engineering than all of us forum members put together.

 

[kris]

...So the "weak link" in an N-Frame 45 is the cylinder, not the frame.

Double Amen to the cylinder wall thickness. It's usually not the frame that goes, but the cylinder...

One of the reasons Ruger's shoot heavier loads is both the cylinder wall thickness and the top strap not the action or method of construction. Ruger had the advantage of starting with a blank sheet of paper.

Heres another quote from...
Gunnotes...Smith & Wesson Mod 25-5

It may surprise many but the cylinder on the S&W .45 Colt is the same diameter as the Ruger Blackhawk. The webs (between chambers) and outside chamber wall are also the same. So basically the Ruger and S&W cylinders are identical in strength and dimension. We recommend handloads for the Rugers single action in .45 Colt caliber to 32,000 PSI levels.

Sounds to me that its the topstrap that is the difference, not the cylinder.
Although Id really like to hear it from S&W, theres no way they'd accept the liability telling you that its ok to fire anything other than SAAMI spec loads. Sticking to the loads that Linebaugh suggests should be fine by the pressure numbers he states.

Has anyone contacted BuffaloBore or Dakota and asked what "pressure" their +p loads generate ?



k.

 

[stiab]

Go back through the posts and you will see that someone suggested the heat treatment is different for the .45 Colt than it is for the .44 Mag. From my limited experiences in a manufacturing environment, I politely suggested that this is a very dubious proposition. I stand by that statement until someone offers reliable proof to the contrary.

And yet this is the very reason most often given for why a J frame model 60 no dash cannot handle the same high pressures that a J frame 940 no dash can, even though they use the same non-magnum frame. If the 940 can handle 35K and the Model 60 only 18.5K, how else would you explain the difference if it was not heat treatment?

The Model 547 is another one in the same category. Why can it as a K frame withstand 35K and the seemingly identical K frame Model 15 not cope with that category of pressure (hence it was not chambered in .357 Magnum)? The Standard Catalog seems to indicate there are differences within the same frame sizes. It speaks of the M547 frames later being used to make a .357 guns.

 

[bwickens]

As I recall, without rereading the whole book, Elmer Keith wrote in "Hell, I Was There" that the extra metal in the cylinder walls was why he switched from .45 to .44 when experimenting with heavy loads, having blown up a .45 or two.

 

[gaucho1]

Cumulative wear on the smaller parts is the issue, not topstraps and
cylinders letting go. Even if the big parts can tale it, the rest of the gun
will wear faster.

 

[devildog66]

I do agree with the many who have cast skepticism on the whole notion that, " SW does not heat treat anything but the M 29...". Just smells fishy from here and seems like one of those stories retold so often that it has become taken as fact. Show me the Brinell or Rockwell numbers first.

I love the 45 LC cartridge but use 44M in an M 629 only because I can do not reload and I can get 44M loads at a pittance compared to the cost of .45 LC. And I do stick to the 240 grain loads by and large.

To the OP, I would say go ahead and shoot the +P loads but with the caution that a shooting 100s of them will wear out your revolver faster than shooting cowboy loads through the the same revolver.

Fun thread.

 

[Jack Flash]

Interesting points, Staib.

I have never had an interest in J-Frames, so I don't have a clue as to what you're talking about on that subject.

As for K-Frames, I would have to admit that there could well be many differences in the production of .38 Special vs .357 Magnums (or 9mm for that matter). Given the quantities involved, separate and different processing may have been feasible.

As I read the original post, I thought we were talking about recently-produced N-Frames, so that's what I was speaking to. (From original post: "... a 625-6 4" in .45 Colt ...").

 

[da gimp]

sheesh, just buy a S&W .460, then load whatever you want to shoot

if that X frame can easily, safely handle .460S&W & .454 Casuls, then ya can shoot all the Plus P Plus .45LC ya might want to, @ least until your hand & wrist are sore. & with a 5" barrel, it'd make a good everyday carry piece worn with a light jacket over it.


da gimp

 

[Shooting4life]

I thought the problems with too many hot loads was end shake and the reason why the rugers are stronger is because the cylinder does not pivot out and the cylinder pin is held in the front of the cylinder and the rear where the smith is lock only in the rear. But I could be wrong.

 

[duckloads]

My take......

I have a 625-9 in 45 Colt. It went back to S&W for rediculus end shake after around 1000 rounds. Some (50?) were Corbon 225gr & 1200 fps I think.

I also have a 460 XVR that also went back for gross endshake after a couple hundred rounds. Load shouldn't matter, right? It's a freaking 460 mag.

Both guns were repaired by stretching the yoke and resetting the barrel for a 0.006" B/C gap.

After 2000 or so 45 Colts (mostly std pressure with a few +P hadloads) the endshake in the 625 is still negligible as I recieved it back from S&W.

After a couple of hundred 460 mag rounds, the 460 XVR it also still as tight as when I got it back from S&W.

I think BOTH frames stretched from new and then stopped when they reached some critical stress. Perhaps the frames work hardened?

 

[SgtSam]

Buffalo Bore probably produces some of the most powerful factory loads for 45 colt. They have the "Ruger" only loads that they do not recommend using in anything but the Blackhawks and Redhawks. And they have the +P loads that they say are "Safe" in any modern 45 colt handgun, S&Ws included. These are loads up in the 1100 to 1200 fps range. Not the 1400 and up for the Ruger only.

So, that, coupled with everything else I've read, there should be no problem with putting the normal +P loads through a good S&W Mountain gun.

We're no talking about the older models like Mr. Keith ecountered, but newer, stronger, better guns that are made of better metals than the old ones. And we're sure not talking about the older Colt SAAs.

So, let's don't sell our 45 mountain guns, or any of the newer model 25s short. They are plenty strong to take some +Ps. Would I shoot a steady diet of them. Hell no.

I'm not shooting a steady diet of any heavy rounds through any handgun anymore. I've done enough damage to myself doing that, let alone what the gun may have taken. I don't own any of the big caliber magnums now. I sold them all. I still have .357s, but I don't shoot steady diets of magnum loads in them.

But, each to his own. If you don't feel comfortable doing it, then don't. But rest assured, the gun is safe with them, within reason.

Take Care, God Bless, and WATCH Your Back!

 

[Allen-frame]

Anyone happen to notice the original poster has not checked in on this thread again?

It just cracks me up ,every time the +P controversy comes up,
and everybody has an opinion ,,me included!

Okay now ,,nothing above 26,000 p.s.i. in your Model 25 or 625.


Regards ,Allen Frame

 

[duckloads]

Anyone happen to notice the original poster has not checked in on this thread again?

It just cracks me up ,every time the +P controversy comes up,
and everybody has an opinion ,,me included!

Okay now ,,nothing above 26,000 p.s.i. in your Model 25 or 625.


Regards ,Allen Frame

The OP bailed on us. ha. When I discuss this topic with Cor-Bon they said 23-25k psi or what ever .45acp std pressure is. seems reasonable.

 

[stiab]

Jack Flash, my thinking and yours is very similiar on this matter. It just does not make sense to me that S&W would taken thousands of K frames (for example) and heat treat some for the .357 Magnum, others for the .38 Special, others for the .32 S&W Long, and others for the .22 LR rimfires. To do so would mean they were 'engineering down' certain models. It would seem to be more economically feasible to treat them all the same. However, I have asked that exact question on this forum at least 3 previous times, and no one with inside knowledge has responded.

There is some factor that makes a Model 66 suitable for .357 Magnum and the Model 67 not (and there are many other examples). If it is not heat treating, then I don't know what it could be. I would love to have some accurate information form an inside source.

 

[Gary7]

There is some factor that makes a Model 66 suitable for .357 Magnum and the Model 67 not (and there are many other examples). If it is not heat treating, then I don't know what it could be. I would love to have some accurate information form an inside source.

According to the Standard Catalog of S&W, 3rd, the K-Frame 357s are "slightly larger than a standard K-Frame in the yoke area." Also, looking at the entry for the Model 64, it appears that the heavy bull barrel 38 Special models used the same frame as the 357 models.