Used revolver questions

[Bezoar]

. http://www.gunblast.com/Butch_MagnumLoads.htm

I read and have a few questions. If these loads in the article are capable of doing so much damage to a revolver as based on above article and articles on airweights failing from these loads,
why do the ammunition companies not put warning labels on the ammunition?

And if the 110-125 grain stuff is so damaging to a revolver, what are the specielty defense/hunting loads that use a 60-85 grain slug moving at velocities from 1600-1738 fps doing to the guns?

And if a 1980s made smith and wesson in 357 is used alot with those 60-85 grainers, is it worth buying on the basis of possible structural damage?

 

[Steve C]

If these loads in the article are capable of doing so much damage to a revolver as based on above article and articles on airweights failing from these loads, why do the ammunition companies not put warning labels on the ammunition?

The problem isn't with the ammo, its with the gun and the gun manufacturers generally warn that using such ammo will shorten the life of the pistol for those guns where its not the most appropriate. Guns are just a mechanical tool. Use then and they eventually wear out, use them hard and they wear out faster.

The problems with K frame S&W's specifically is due to the thinning of the forcing cone at the more bottom to make room for the cylinder crane. Heavier revolvers don't have this problem or at least its pretty rare. See the picture below of the difference between a S&W K frame .357 mag and S&W M27 N frame.

If they're also a problem with air weights it wouldn't surprise me. Anyone who has the tolerance to set off enough full power 125's from an air weight to crack the forcing cone should be too much of a HE-MAN to wine about the gun being damaged.

if the 110-125 grain stuff is so damaging to a revolver, what are the specielty defense/hunting loads that use a 60-85 grain slug moving at velocities from 1600-1738 fps doing to the guns?

Probably the same thing, maybe worse, but few people will put $2 to $4 a round ammo down range enough to cause problems. If it took 240 rounds of glasers for example to damage your pistol you'd have spent $800 in ammo.

And if a 1980s made smith and wesson in 357 is used alot with those 60-85 grainers, is it worth buying on the basis of possible structural damage?

Any damage should be visible or discernible on inspection. No cracks in the forcing cone, no extensive flame cutting, no end shake beyond tolerance, and reasonable tight lockup then there's no reason not to buy the pistol if the price is right. Structural damage doens't remain hidden from careful inspection by someone who knows what to look for.

 

[Bezoar]

thanks for the answer.

just how much different are the 60 grain bullets versus regular 158 weight bullets?