S&W Highway Patrolman ONLY loads

[Gunhacker]

Well... let's keep things to an apples to apples comparison.

An N-Frame versus a Redhawk... dimensionally, to me that's like comparing an N-Frame against an X-Frame. Take a S&W 500, bore chamber holes for .357 mag, you'll end up with a cylinder with a lot of "beef".

 

[colt_saa]

Just because there is more material around a hole, it does not mean one is stronger then the other.

Now if the two materials were identical, I would say that more is probably stronger.

What if they were using inferior steels and that is why they needed to put more material around the hole just to get the same strength?

 

[mkk41]

Just because there is more material around a hole, it does not mean one is stronger then the other.

Now if the two materials were identical, I would say that more is probably stronger.

What if they were using inferior steels and that is why they needed to put more material around the hole just to get the same strength?

You're insinuating that Ruger uses inferior materials?

Much was made about the fact that Ruger frames were investment cast. Cast being accented to make people think of stuff that's weak and brittle.

Ruger cylinders are made from billet or bar stock, probably the same 416L stainless that S&W uses with the same heat treat.

And as far as properly investment cast and heat treated parts being weaker than forged , ya'd have to be living in a cave to still buy that nonsense.

 

[colt_saa]

You're insinuating that Ruger uses inferior materials?

Much was made about the fact that Ruger frames were investment cast. Cast being accented to make people think of stuff that's weak and brittle.

Ruger cylinders are made from billet or bar stock, probably the same 416L stainless that S&W uses with the same heat treat.

And as far as properly investment cast and heat treated parts being weaker than forged , ya'd have to be living in a cave to still buy that nonsense.

I have not insinuated anything at all.

I am simply saying that more stuff around the hole does not automatically mean it is stronger

I am pointing out a possible alternative reason why there might need to be more stuff around the hole.

I am not comparing, endorsing or bad mouthing any other manufacturers products whatsoever in this thread asking about the Smith & Wesson Highway Patrolman and other Smith & Wesson frames.

Just to let you know, Smith and Wesson does not use 416L stainless in the production of the Highway Patrolman cylinders or frames

 

[mkk41]

Just to let you know, Smith and Wesson does not use 416L stainless in the production of the Highway Patrolman cylinders or frames

OK , what alloy do they use?
416 is pretty much it as far as forgeable stainless alloys go that will not distort under heat treat. Doubt they use 17-4Ph as I've seen S&W stainless rust.

 

[Arisin Wind]

OK , what alloy do they use?
416 is pretty much it as far as forgeable stainless alloys go that will not distort under heat treat. Doubt they use 17-4Ph as I've seen S&W stainless rust.

S&W didn't make Highway Patrolmen in stainless steel.

 

[mkk41]

S&W didn't make Highway Patrolmen in stainless steel.

Well , ya got me there!

But 416 is the stainless twin to 4140 chrome-moly in strength , durability and workability.

And I'd bet it's what 627's are made from.

 

[colt_saa]

S&W didn't make Highway Patrolmen in stainless steel.

I was not going to point that out as I am certain that mkk41 knew that and simply got carried away in his zest to defend Ruger in this thread about the Smith and Wesson Highway Patrolman

 

[Gunhacker]

Even though I posted the "Ruger Burger" poster in jest, I myself don't understand the animosity that some people carry for Ruger simply because of them employing investment casting, like they are the only ones doing that with firearms. It's the same mentality than condemns MIM on a wholesale basis.

Investment casting is common, and a vast majority of people reading this will at one point be climbing in their cars and driving somewhere happy as clams, unaware that the engine under the hood in all likelihood, either has an investment cast aluminum engine block and/or other major components.

Rugers are fine firearms, I have a number of revolvers and rifles that have given me yeomen service for decades. Truth be known, I feel more comfortable sending high intensity .44 Magnum loads through a Ruger Blackhawk than my M29-2.

Skeeter Skelton certainly had no problem swearing by both S&W and Ruger revolvers he owned, and neither do I.

 

[mkk41]

Weatherby collectors swear up and down that the German-made rifles (made by JP Sauer) were the best quality rifles ever made. Along with the Colt-Sauer.

But those rifle actions were also made by investment casting.

The highly respected , old world firm was Europe's answer to Sturm Ruger when it came to using investment casting for firearms.

 

[Cal44]

It's pretty well accepted that Ruger Blackhawks, Super Blackhawks, Redhawks, and Super Redhawks are very durable and probably withstand extended use of high end loads better than the equivalent S&W models.

That said, I've never seen the logic of pushing the limit of a cartridge like 357 beyond the point that damage to the gun occurs or it gets potentially unsafe.

If reasonable 357 Magnum loads aren't enough, rather than push the envelope, just go to a 41 Mag or 44 Mag.

And if 44 Mag isn't enough go to 454 Casull or 500 S&W.

And if 500 S&W isn't powerful enough for you, then go to your mental health professional and get yourself checked out.

 

[Dave T]

I'm a little curious at the idea that a M-28 (or M27 for that matter) will take hotter loads than an L-frame. And I say that being a pretty serious fan of the N-frames. The only reason I have a few L-frames is because they conceal a bit better, but I would shoot any 357 ammo I have in them as well as a M28.

As for loads, I wore out (timing, end shake, carry over and skipping) my first duty gun, a 28-2, shooting Speer's 160g half jacket over 8g of Unique or a cast #358429 over some thing like 12g of 2400 (can remember exactly now). This was all rapid fire DA so that contributed to the demise of the gun's action as much as the ammo. Had there been an L-frame back then (1973-74) I would have shot the same loads in that too.

Dave

 

[colt_saa]

I'm a little curious at the idea that a M-28 (or M27 for that matter) will take hotter loads than an L-frame. And I say that being a pretty serious fan of the N-frames. The only reason I have a few L-frames is because they conceal a bit better, but I would shoot any 357 ammo I have in them as well as a M28.
Dave

MYTH
ANY SAAMI spec 357 Magnum ammunition commercially produced in the world today can safely be fired in any modern revolver (in good condition) that is chambered from the factory for 357 Magnum. I do not care about the frame size or maker or material.

That said, any full power load will wear ANY revolver faster than a reduced power load.

 

[Gunhacker]

It's pretty well accepted that Ruger Blackhawks, Super Blackhawks, Redhawks, and Super Redhawks are very durable and probably withstand extended use of high end loads better than the equivalent S&W models.

That said, I've never seen the logic of pushing the limit of a cartridge like 357 beyond to the point that damage to the gun occurs or it gets potentially unsafe.

If reasonable 357 Magnum loads aren't enough, rather than push the envelope, just go to a 41 Mag or 44 Mag.

And if 44 Mag isn't enough go to 454 Casull or 500 S&W.

And if 500 S&W isn't powerful enough for you, then go to your mental health professional and get yourself checked out.

Caution: Crazy thread drift ahead.

Or try to have one of these made up for you... and then go visit a mental health professional for some SERIOUS evaluation.

 

[Doug M.]

I doubt very much that any load that can or should be fired in a .357 magnum chambered revolver should be "N" frame only for ballistic reasons. In essence, I agree with colt_saa and others who have responded to such effect. To the extent that such may be possible, it is almost certainly not advisable. Change calibers if you want more. There may be some loads that are too unpleasant for most of us to shoot in anything but an N frame, but that's different analysis.

 

[mkk41]

I'm a little curious at the idea that a M-28 (or M27 for that matter) will take hotter loads than an L-frame.

Dave

Never thought frame size played into it much. It's cylinder/chamber wall thickness. Every revolver I've ever seen that failed , the cylinder wall blew out. Sometimes taking the top strap with it.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

I agree with your comment, but to a certain extent you can't have a bigger cylinder without a bigger frame to stuff it in.

To paraphrase an analysis done by an engineer, it is about the hoop strain on the cylinder. Yes a smaller (L or K frame) 357 Magnum can take the strain of firing full power 357 Magnum (old pressure standard) but the cylinder will expand during firing and of course so will the brass case. The brass case will shrink back its normal amount, but since the cylinder expanded, it will also shrink back and you can get very stuck cases. Shoot the same load in a big N frame and yes the cylinder will expand, just a lot less because of more steel. So the brass shrinks back after firing and pop it comes right out with a gentle press of the ejector rod.

So, Both rounds are perfectly in (older) SAAMI pressure spec but one works great in an N frame and one does not work in a K or L frame. Solution? Lower the pressure spec for 357 Magnum.

 

[Neal39]

I have reloaded for my m-27 many "hot" rounds using published reloading manuals and while they were fun to shoot, I decided the fireball and pain to my wrist were not really worth the effort. Accuracy suffered also. My preference to get the same result was to gravitate to "cherry bombs and m-80's"and not waste good bullets. Neal 39