S&W 296 Titanium Cylinder and Loads + potential flame cutting of frame

[M25max]

Is there any issue with more top level SAAMI loads in a S&W 296 Ti (44 Special) with the titanium cylinders? What I am curious about is erosion of the titanium cylinders in the flame gap area, potential for flame cutting of the aluminum frame (no stainless guard like a 340 PD), or sticky extraction.

Sure, the 44 Special is a low pressure load and no where even close to the 357 magnum even when loaded hotter by Buffalo Bore or Underwood, so I find it interesting in the 44 Special video with Tim Sundles from Buffalo Bore where he mentions sticky extraction in the 296 Ti with some of the heavier 44 Special loads and no mention of sticky extraction in the 396 (same frame size and material as 296), so it makes me wonder what the guidance should be regarding proper ammo selection and limits for the 296 Ti. The 340 PD has a titanium cylinder and is 357 Magnum and I have not heard of sticky extraction in that either.

On thing that is interesting is how thin the barrel is at the forcing cone on a 296 Ti and how thin the cylinder wall is.

 

[Yendor357]

In my opinion, I wouldn’t shoot anything hotter than standard 44 Special ammo thru that gun. Winchester Silvertips.
I had a Ruger GP100 in 44 Special. I ran warm loads thru that gun because have you ever heard of anyone ever tearing up a Ruger? Me neither. But the forcing cone on the Ruger, which looked a whole lot like the forcing cone on your gun, cracked.

I think Smith and Wesson have gone overboard on “Small/ Light”.

Me personally, I wouldn’t shoot that gun but once in a great while, just to make sure it went bang.

I have a 3 inch M69 that I’m really starting to get along with.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

Is there any issue with more top level SAAMI loads in a S&W 296 Ti (44 Special) with the titanium cylinders?

On thing that is interesting is how thin the barrel is at the forcing cone on a 296 Ti and how thin the cylinder wall is.

The 296/396/696 family's weak point is the forcing cone, not the cylinder's thickness which being a five shot has offset stop notches which don't reduce their thickness any & are robust enough of for hotter than standard 44 Special SAAMI loads. The M69 fixed the FC weakness issue.

Some people have reported sticky extracts on models having Ti cylinders. Possibly newer models have better machining but possibly it's just luck of the draw? I've not encountered any sticky issues with my Ti cylinder models.

One item I believe is commonly found on the x96 cylinders though is tight throats, usually in the .4280" - .4285" range which my 396NG had until I reamed them to a more comfortable .430". Tight throats can cause higher than anticipated pressures especially with jacketed bullets or oversized lead bullets.

Handloader magazine author Brian Pearce used to say these revolvers were okay to load to his "Category III" level handloads (25K psi max) but later reduced that to 18K max (which is between his Cat. I @ 15.5K and Cat. II @ 22K psi) not because of the cylinder, which he said were tested to 27K without issues, but for the thin FC issue.

As far as the flame cutting question goes I'd tend a agree that it would likely take a ton of standard pressure 44 Special rounds to cause any appreciable erosion issues as it doesn't seem to be a problem previously talked about.

.

Handloader #293 article
.


.
.

396NG FC
.


.
.

M69 FC
.


.
.

Opening 396NG throats with Manson reamer
.


.
.



.

 

[M25max]

The 296/396/696 family's weak point is the forcing cone, not the cylinder's thickness which being a five shot has offset stop notches which don't reduce their thickness any & are robust enough of for hotter than standard 44 Special SAAMI loads. The M69 fixed the FC weakness issue.

Some people have reported sticky extracts on models having Ti cylinders. Possibly newer models have better machining but possibly it's just luck of the draw? I've not encountered any sticky issues with my Ti cylinder models.

One item I believe is commonly found on the x96 cylinders though is tight throats, usually in the .4280" - .4285" range which my 396NG had until I reamed them to a more comfortable .430". Tight throats can cause higher than anticipated pressures especially with jacketed bullets or oversized lead bullets.

Handloader magazine author Brian Pearce used to say these revolvers were okay to load to his "Category III" level handloads (25K psi max) but later reduced that to 18K max (which is between his Cat. I @ 15.5K and Cat. II @ 22K psi) not because of the cylinder, which he said were tested to 27K without issues, but for the thin FC issue.

As far as the flame cutting question goes I'd tend a agree that it would likely take a ton of standard pressure 44 Special rounds to cause any appreciable erosion issues as it doesn't seem to be a problem previously talked about.

.

Handloader #293 article
.


.
.

396NG FC
.


.
.

M69 FC
.


.
.

Opening 396NG throats with Manson reamer
.


.
.



.

That was excellent information. How can you ream the cylinders without causing a problem? I remember reading that if the oxide coating on the titanium is worn off or damaged that erosion of the underlying titanium is very fast. Reaming the throats would seem to breech this coating right in an area with maximum heat and pressure.

 

[STCM(SW)]

My M696-1 also has a thin forcing cone barrel .
Don't shoot heavy load in it and I mold my own Lyman #2 bullets.

 

[Paul105]

I doubt a steady diet of 44 specials would create any problems in either the 296 or 396. I doubt anyone would enjoy shooting more than a few higher intensity loads thru these lightweight 44s. At 18 oz recoil gets real obnoxious very quickly. When I first got my 396 I contacted Buf Bore to see if their 250gr at 1,000 fps was OK to use - they said it was OK. This was before Brian Pearce's first article that rated the 396 in category 2 (IIRC). Anyway, Loaded up a box of 250s that chronoed right at 1,000 fps for use as a backup when bow hunting elk - still have most of that box tucked away somewhere. Later I tried the the Keith Load (chronoed right at 1,100 fps from the 3 1/4" bbl) - inquiring minds wanted to know - I didn't go there again - recoil was objectionable to say the least. My advice would be to stick with standard 44 special level loads - save the forcing cone and your hand and avoid mechanicle problems.
.

.

FWIW,

Paul

 

[Doug M.]

I have a 296. It is not a plinking gun. I load it with Blazer 200 gain Gold Dot ammo (got a bunch by good fortune when I called a gunshot to see if they had any). My main use is in a fanny pack when dog walking and similar uses. While I find the recoil to be less obnoxious than that of a J frame, not everyone agrees; that's fine. I suspect your hand will make you give up shooting hot stuff before the gun does.

If you hand load, a decent SWC at moderate velocity is good load. If you need to be carrying hotter ammo, there are far better choices. I'd have an N frame for such.

 

[Triggernosis]

That was excellent information. How can you ream the cylinders without causing a problem? I remember reading that if the oxide coating on the titanium is worn off or damaged that erosion of the underlying titanium is very fast. Reaming the throats would seem to breech this coating right in an area with maximum heat and pressure.

I was thinking the same thing. Heck, they even advise you to use nylon brushes instead of bronze brushes to clean the titanium cylinders.
That cylinder is now likely toast.

 

[CH4]

My 396 says 200 gr bullets, but I occasionally shoot 240 gr cowboy loads with no problem. If I want to push things a little, I pull out my 24-3 .44 spl Bisley or a 44 mag.

 

[M25max]

I have a 296. It is not a plinking gun. I load it with Blazer 200 gain Gold Dot ammo (got a bunch by good fortune when I called a gunshot to see if they had any). My main use is in a fanny pack when dog walking and similar uses. While I find the recoil to be less obnoxious than that of a J frame, not everyone agrees; that's fine. I suspect your hand will make you give up shooting hot stuff before the gun does.

If you hand load, a decent SWC at moderate velocity is good load. If you need to be carrying hotter ammo, there are far better choices. I'd have an N frame for such.

I agree with you that for some reason I find the recoil in the 296 L frame to be less objectionable than a J frame.

 

[M25max]

I have a 296. It is not a plinking gun. I load it with Blazer 200 gain Gold Dot ammo (got a bunch by good fortune when I called a gunshot to see if they had any). My main use is in a fanny pack when dog walking and similar uses. While I find the recoil to be less obnoxious than that of a J frame, not everyone agrees; that's fine. I suspect your hand will make you give up shooting hot stuff before the gun does.

If you hand load, a decent SWC at moderate velocity is good load. If you need to be carrying hotter ammo, there are far better choices. I'd have an N frame for such.

The problem I have seen is that the ballistic tests using gelatin rarely show expansion with the standard Gold Dot 44 Special load. The velocity is too low out of a short barrel. Underwood sold a slightly hotter 44 special load with the Gold Dot that apparently was just fast enough for fully reliable expansion, but they stopped selling it. Wadcutters seem to be the next logical choice at low pressure standard velocity, but I would prefer a Gold Dot with enough velocity for reliable expansion.

 

[s&wchad]

That was excellent information. How can you ream the cylinders without causing a problem? I remember reading that if the oxide coating on the titanium is worn off or damaged that erosion of the underlying titanium is very fast. Reaming the throats would seem to breech this coating right in an area with maximum heat and pressure.

BLUEDOT37 reamed the cylinder on his 396NG, which has a stainless steel cylinder. Don't do that to a titanium cylinder.

 

[M25max]

BLUEDOT37 reamed the cylinder on his 396NG, which has a stainless steel cylinder. Don't do that to a titanium cylinder.

Thanks for the clarification about the 396NG. I think the point about not reaming titanium cylinders is still valid. Is it possible to ream titanium cylinders to size without a problem?

From what I have heard there is a coating on the titanium to prevent erosion and if this coating is breached then you will have erosion and S&W will void the warranty. It would seem that with titanium cylinders you just need to live with what dimensions you have.