[Topgun]

We have all read the numerous articles and posts on the pros and cons of the K-frame Smith with .357 loads.

Who knows what to believe?

What I don't see is any discussion of the "N" frame in the M29.

It just seems to me that the K with .357 is actually beefier for the cartridge than the N with .44 mags.

I have had both. Never noticed anything amiss with either. The COMMOTION with the M29 was always VERY vigorous and the recoil was stout to say the least. FAR more punishing than the K with ANY load I ever fired.

I...DID....read one article that said the Ruger Super Blackhawk was "beefier" than the M29....duhhhhh.

Anyone ever see anything definitive on the durability of the M29 vis-a-vis the K frame?

[VictorLouis]

The issue with the K-maggie is that it was designed(redesigned?) around a heavier 158gr. bullet that was the standard of the era. The move to a lighter bullet brought on concerns of accelerated wear and erosion that weren't anticipated. The .44 Mag, OTOH, was designed around the 240gr.(IIRC) which was, and has remained the standard, although 180gr. loads can be had. Don't know if the N-frame is subjected to any such concerns with those loads, but they are just not popular enough to find out, I suppose.

[VictorLouis]

That's fine with the N-frame. Take a look at its forcing cone compared next to your K-frame. See the flat at the 6 o'clock on your K? That's the 'weak' area than can crack under the increased velocity of the 125gr. loads. Erosion is less notable, but it's also more apt to happen with the thinner cone of the K-frame. There's no rhyme or reason to this, as it's happened to guns with less than a thousand rounds, and not evidenced itself in guns with multiple thousands. There's been discussion of this which you can probably research over on TFL.

[EJ]

This seems veryu logical and has been borne out in my personal experience as well
But--
Why then is there so much talk about 44 mag S&W "endurance" package and Pre-endurance Pckg problems?

My understanding is this is caused by the newer HEAVIER bullets--
not by stoking up 180's etc--
Why is going light a problem in the K--(Which I understand and seems logical to me)
and going heavy is the problem in the N????

Just higher CUP or awhat?:confused:

[Guy B. Meredith]

I've seen comment about the K-frames "shaking loose", but the main issue seems to be the forcing cone erosion. The problem is that with high speed light bullets the powder charge used burns hotter than expected in the area of the forcing cone, causing erosion. Hence the L-frame with beefier forcing cone, cylinder and top strap.

Some time back I read a comparison article on the Ruger GP100 and the S&W 686. One of the measurements was forcing cone erosion with hot rounds. At 5000 rounds both showed a similar amount of erosion. I don't think the erosion was campared against any general standard, just comparing the two revolvers so the results are not terribly helpful.

[Poohgyrr]

I know there are folks here with more experience then me, but to be honest, I'd just shoot what I have and not worry about it. Both frame sizes have been out forever. If there were any major problems, they would not be as popular as they are, and Smith would have quit making them.

And, ummm, I really prefer shooting Specials in the 44 maggies anyway. Much more enjoyable (except for a scoped Redhawk- the weight of that beast soaked up most of the recoil- and hitting things with fast 240-300 gr bullets was fun).

And good 4" or longer .357's are fun to shoot. And if you ever get the chance to shoot a Coonan .357 take it. They are a LOT of fun.

[trapshooter]

Actually, I like the lighter bullets in the .44 mag. A boatload of velocity, recoil ok. Plenty of energy. (I don't hunt meat with it).

I'm with Poohgyrr.

I generally don't push max loads in any caliber, as if I feel the need for that, I'll get a bigger gun. I've had my M29 for well over 20 years. Still shoots like new. Still looking good, too.

[mete]

The K was issued in 357 at a time when cops practiced with 38s and used 357s about 10% of the time , that was the design criteria. It was found that practicing with 38s didn't help in shootouts, they then used 357s for practice, exceeding the design limit and the guns came apart. ---- As far as "erosion" there was an excellent and detailed metallurgical study of "erosion" some years ago. It showed that it was not erosion ( a mechanical wearing away of material) at all . The process is one where the barrel absorbs carbon from the hot combusting gases, this then produces a layer of high carbon steel in the bore which in the heating and cooling of the barrel develops cracks. The hotter the barrel the worse the problem. The solution is to avoid rapid fire.

[Lone Star]

I did extensive research on this, and the best data I turned up came directly from S&W factory personnel and the ammo companies.

The 110 and 125 grain bullets do erode the bore more, via gas cutting, especially of the bbl. throat and the top strap. At one time, these loads used different powders than 158 grain bullets, but Remington, Speer, and Winchester spokesmen all told me that 296 powder or non-cannister grades or something very similar now tend to be factory loaded for all bullet weights.

BUT...because the lighter bullets leave the case sooner, less of the powder charge combusts fully and burning powder grains ("ejecta", to use their term) impact the forcing cone and the top strap, producing accelerated wear. They all advised 140-158 grain bullets in the .357 for added gun life. Using heavier than traditional bullets (180 grain or heavier in .357, 300 grain in .44) causes a different set of problems. These do wear the gun more through stress and recoil.

In about 1988, S&W revised the yoke and screw package on K-frame magnums. This is said to largely eliminate or greatly reduce the liklihood of the gun developing cylinder endshake, where the yoke moves fore-and-aft a little when the gun is shot a lot with hot loads. This has never been widely publicized for some reason, but seems a wonderful improvement.

The N-frame .44 Magnums should probably be used with .44 Special or light .44 Magnum loads if shot a lot. It will last very well with 240-250 grain bullets at about 1,000 FPS...and how often do you really need more? Full 240-275 grain loads can be used in bear country or to hunt deer or pig, but again, how many such rounds do you need to fire?

If you're into shooting metallic silhouettes or just want to see how many heavy bullet/high velocity loads you can fire before it affects your wrist or elbow, you may be better off with a Redhawk. The Super Blackhawk is a durable single-action that stands up well to reasonable use, and then some. It offers good power to weight ratio for those who will shoot a considerable amount of magnum ammo.

And, that's all I know about THAT...

Lone Star

[Albert Shear]

S&W changed the way it heat treated the steel in the early eighties. Prior to that if guns were really shot alot with heavy magnum loads they would tend to shoot "loose".

[RON in PA]

Smith did some internal improvements to the 29 around 1990-92 to offset complaints that heavy loads ( used by silhouette shooters) were causing problems.