Stuck casings, brand new Model 69 - help

[cmj8591]

Your gun should shoot any 44 mag ammo reliably without any issues!
If it were mine, I would send it back to S&W as mentioned above after a phone call and fired casings in the cylinder.
If a gun can't shoot the ammo it was designed to shoot, then it's nothing
but an expensive paperweight !!!

The problem is that he's shooting ammo that the gun really wasn't designed to use. When you shoot ammo that consistently works at 20% over the pressure level that the gun was made for, you have to expect that things are not always going to work as planned. Just because the cartridge fits in the chamber doesn't mean that it's right for the gun. I'm not saying that he doesn't have a problem because it's impossible to tell without actually looking at the gun, but I wouldn't send it back unless regular 240 grain factory loads cause the sticky extraction. As I said in my other post, based on his description, this is more ammo than gun.

 

[cmj8591]

This is what happens when a high pressure load REALLY sticks in a chamber.

 

[Neversink n Klapperthal]

This is what happens when a high pressure load REALLY sticks in a chamber.

Yes. 45 years ago when 44 Mag brass was nearly impossible to get, I had a total case seperation in the 44 from reloading the cases too many times

 

[Pdxrn]

After another thorough cleaning, can we all agree it should be able to handle anything Underwood makes in .44 Special? I'll shoot a full cylinder of that stuff first. It should handle Remington 240g HTP sjhp too, right?

 

[Protocall_Design]

It may be that one or more chambers has been deformed by the heavy loads. If that is the case, (pun not intended) then any case will be hard to extract from that/those chambers. The M69 is an L frame, and the cylinder walls are not as thick as they would be on an N frame 44. The M69 can probably not handle as hot ammunition as an N frame. The N frame can not handle as hot ammunition as a Ruger.

 

[Paul105]

After another thorough cleaning, can we all agree it should be able to handle anything Underwood makes in .44 Special? I'll shoot a full cylinder of that stuff first. It should handle Remington 240g HTP sjhp too, right?

Here's what I would do (actually did do)

Take a marker. Shoot 1 charge hole at a time starting with the mildest ammo you have (Rem ammo) and check extraction (one chamber at a time). If you encounter balky extraction, mark that chamber. Continue the procedure until you have worked your way thru all five chambers and all ammo you have (except BB DGL).

FWIW,

Paul

 

[Pdxrn]

Are you getting any other signs of over pressure with the Buffalo Bore ammo? Like flattened primers?

Does this picture help? From left to right, one of the HSM Spl cowboy loads, the 220g Spl Underwood Xtreme Penetrator, the BB .44mag Dangerous Game, and lastly one of the two stuck Underwoods from the second attempt. Not sure if that was the one that was stuck or super stuck. The background is for effect.

*** Edited - from left to right were the picture right side up.

 

[Groo01]

Groo here
Back to the mother ship.
Could have oversized chambers.
That can cause the flat primer too.

 

[ajgunner]

Are you getting any other signs of over pressure with the Buffalo Bore ammo? Like flattened primers?

Every Buffalo Bore I have fired in my Redhawks have flattened the primers.
Likewise a full book load of H110 has the same affect.
Both still extract just fine.

When 44 specials stick, there is a definite problem.

I say cylinder problem.

 

[Narragansett]

Yes. 45 years ago when 44 Mag brass was nearly impossible to get, I had a total case seperation in the 44 from reloading the cases too many times

Not to hijack the thread but I have seen this in a shot shell that has been loaded with slow burning powders too many times. The case separates, the crimp does not open, and a slug goes down the barrel..

OK, now back to our regular programming

 

[mtgianni]

The problem is that he's shooting ammo that the gun really wasn't designed to use. When you shoot ammo that consistently works at 20% over the pressure level that the gun was made for, you have to expect that things are not always going to work as planned. Just because the cartridge fits in the chamber doesn't mean that it's right for the gun. I'm not saying that he doesn't have a problem because it's impossible to tell without actually looking at the gun, but I wouldn't send it back unless regular 240 grain factory loads cause the sticky extraction. As I said in my other post, based on his description, this is more ammo than gun.

I have a tough time understanding that a manufacturer produces ammo at 20% over SAAMI standards in todays litigous society or that S&W manufactures a firearm that cannot handle SAAMI standards, especially when there is a lesser pressure "Special" round it could have been chambered in. I have no need of BB ammo but my 69 has handled 300 gr loads with no problems other than recoil. I think it's a problem with the chambers.

 

[delcrossv]

Every Buffalo Bore I have fired in my Redhawks have flattened the primers.
Likewise a full book load of H110 has the same affect.
Both still extract just fine.

When 44 specials stick, there is a definite problem.

I say cylinder problem.

I regularly shoot Underwoods in my 29's and my 69. I've never had an extraction problem like you describe. I'm with ajgunner- it's a cylinder problem.

 

[Neversink n Klapperthal]

this is at least the second thread about stuck cases on new guns. Dont know whats going on

 

[stansdds]

this is at least the second thread about stuck cases on new guns. Dont know whats going on

Could be sloppy QC as S&W is churning out firearms as fast as they can and with limited staffing.

 

[kamloops67]

My 69 has fired and extracted BB magnums without issue .
Only 10 of the bear buster rounds to test it , as I usually shoot lighter 240 gr loads at about 1000 FPS
I got the 69 as a wilderness carry gun ( when it becomes legal) , it would be useless if it couldn't fire the heavy stuff when it mattered .

 

[geekeye]

this is at least the second thread about stuck cases on new guns. Dont know whats going on

the other thread is 10 years old

 

[cmj8591]

I have a tough time understanding that a manufacturer produces ammo at 20% over SAAMI standards in todays litigous society or that S&W manufactures a firearm that cannot handle SAAMI standards, especially when there is a lesser pressure "Special" round it could have been chambered in. I have no need of BB ammo but my 69 has handled 300 gr loads with no problems other than recoil. I think it's a problem with the chambers.

It's not that the gun can not handle the load, BB or Underwood is not going to blow up a modern revolver, it is that the load is outside the parameters of the design of the gun. Therefore, the gun is not going to function as designed. IE: sticky extraction. All guns are different. Two guns made on the same day can have very different results. That's why the fact that your 69 worked with a load that sticks in his gun isn't really generic to his problem. If it were my gun, before I sent it anywhere, I would shoot it with standard, regular factory loads. If they cause a problem, then it is beyond ammo and needs to be looked at. If you send it in and tell them that BB or Underwood loads are sticking, they're going to put it back in the box and send it back to you. As far as litigation goes, I'm going to bet that someplace on the box or on their web site there is a disclaimer.

 

[Pdxrn]

If I tell S&W that Underwood .44 Specials are sticking, I don't care if they're Underwood or not, they're 44 Specials, not mags. Again, I've only shot one BB Dangerous Game round in this thing, and even the Remington .44 Mag 240g sjhp had to get yanked out/banged out with my Leatherman. And to say I'm shooting a load the gun wasn't designed to handle, then S&W should say the revolver can only handle PSIs of 30k or 25k, or don't call it a magnum.

Fine, this really is a 100% bear gun thread. If I can't shoot bear loads in the gun, on the trail, in the bear gun designed for the trail, to stop a bear, why in the heck would I have it? I just didn't want the weight or the cost of the Ruger Super Alaskan but maybe that was my mistake, we'll see.

I'm a little shocked at how apologetic and accepting some folks are here at a weapon not functioning as it should. Or Buffalo Bore is lying about their specs, which I don't believe is the case.

I called S&W on Friday, they said they'd ship a label, but to expect a 4-6 week turnaround. I've not yet decided what to do: Keep it for summer but don't fire it - at least I have my .44mag for the bears just in case; take it to the range one more time and progressively work up to higher loads, or just send it in. The guy at S&W said they'd test it there using Federal ammunition.

 

[cmj8591]

If I tell S&W that Underwood .44 Specials are sticking, I don't care if they're Underwood or not, they're 44 Specials, not mags.

Even if they're 44 specials, they still operate outside the pressure envelope. The cases are still made of brass and have to obtruate to the chamber and are subject to the same conditions as a 44 magnum load. I don't know what your chambers look like so it's impossible to say that there is or isn't a problem. You posted here looking for advise and you got some from me and others. I told you what I would do if the gun were mine. Send it in. Don't send it in. Shoot it. Don't shoot it. In the words of Bob Seger, "It's all up to you to decide.".

 

[geekeye]

when my 686-6 was new it would extract full power 357 mag just fine, but cheap blazer 38 special would stick so hard i had to pull them with my leatherman. my problem was definitely ammo related, but clearly not pressure related. after a few good cleanings it started to loosen up.


this is not to say that your cylinder doesn't have issues, but i would give it a really thorough cleaning with hoppes and a tornado brush, hit it with some clp, and then shoot it a bunch more before sending it back.