S&W Scandium Frames, How Durable Are They?

I spend a lot of time on S&W forums and have done so for about 7 years. In that time, I don’t recall anyone complaining that they have had the frame fail on one.
They may have a shorter life than AL framed revolvers when firing full power loads and possibly no one has been able to shoot one enough to break it.
Before bringing a higher priced item like these to market you would think that S&W had tested them with a few thousand rounds to make sure they hold up.
I saw a show on TV with a Ruger bigshot. He was saying that before bringing the 44 special GP100 to market they had test fired hundreds of thousands of rounds through a few prototypes to determine parts longevity and weak parts that may need modified before final production. I would think that S&W does something similar

I have had the yoke and frame fail on a 340PD. The yoke failed first, bending under hard ejection because of cases sticking in the Titanium cylinder. I eject with the palm of my left hand coming straight-down on the ejector rod with the thumb and forefinger around the barrel. S&W repaired that. The Aluminum/Scandium yoke is weak and ejection must be done delicately. I also had the hand break, and Hogue wood grips crack apart on that gun. I believe those failures occurred due to excessive recoil (full loads of H110). S&W replaced the hand. Then the Titanium cylinder ruptured and I lost the top strap on the frame. It may or may not have been the fault of the ammo. If it wasn't the ammo, I don't think it was the weakness of the frame that caused failure, but something else that broke resulting in an overpressure condition. I'm not careless or abusive with my guns and that gun endured only a small percentage of my use compared to several other S&W's that have held up just fine. I only shoot reloads, over 5000 a year, and I've never had another failure like that. It's curious to me that it occurred on that one most problematic gun even though I shoot others more often. Still, I am not willing to lay all the blame on the gun for the failures, but there is no question in my mind that the gun was not as durable as a steel gun and it demanded being treated differently -- even delicately.

An N-frame is almost certainly different, and the TRR8 does not have a Titanium cylinder (it's stainless steel). It's a much larger gun with a lot more metal and with the extra weight the recoil velocities are much lower. Because of that, I do not believe the TRR8 would have any of the problems I had with the 340 PD except possibly a yoke that's weaker and easier to bend than a steel one -- but since it has a stainless steel cylinder, extraction should be normal and this won't be a problem as long as ejection isn't done in a meat-fisted way.

Jonesy814 said:

I spend a lot of time on S&W forums and have done so for about 7 years. In that time, I don’t recall anyone complaining that they have had the frame fail on one.
They may have a shorter life than AL framed revolvers when firing full power loads and possibly no one has been able to shoot one enough to break it.
Before bringing a higher priced item like these to market you would think that S&W had tested them with a few thousand rounds to make sure they hold up.
I saw a show on TV with a Ruger bigshot. He was saying that before bringing the 44 special GP100 to market they had test fired hundreds of thousands of rounds through a few prototypes to determine parts longevity and weak parts that may need modified before final production. I would think that S&W does something similar

Click to expand...

I am not familiar with Smith & Wesson's test practices, but I have participated numerous times in Ruger's to include endurance testing the .480 Ruger Bisley before it became a production item, which included putting nearly 5,000 rounds through one in the course of a few weeks. Ruger takes their testing very seriously.

P5 Guy said:

Is there any scandium in the AR15?

Click to expand...

It's not necessary where the bolt is locked to the chamber and barrel with steel lugs. The frame on the AR15 only holds unpressurized items like the stock, trigger group, grip, magazine, and sights to the bolt/barrel assembly that contains all the pressure. On a revolver, the chamber is floating between the recoil shield and the barrel. It's locked in position by the cylinder pin, cylinder stop, and ejector rod, all of which are held in the frame. The barrel is also held to the cylinder window by the frame, and the top strap is usually the weakest edge of that window.

The .357 LCR's design shows well where a revolver needs strength and steel was used and where polymer was sufficient.

Not a revolver but I have a 1911Sc Commander. Shot it for years with no problems with the frame. It has several thousand WWB or similar 230 gr and different defensive ammo through it. I am not a big guy and the recoil is manageable. I can shoot a 100 rounds and be too discomforted later.

Just saying for Sc reference on Sc guns.

My 329 pd (s) have not held up well at all, even to 44 special rounds. I had a thread describing the customer service. Smith continues to fix them so no complaints about that. Neither of mine have the original yolk and smith doesn't bother making the new yolk serial match the guns serial. Just FYI but I don't care, I'm not concerned with resale later. Great to carry, strong recoil (far stronger than the x- frames) but not unmanageable either. I'd strongly recommend something else in 44 mag though personally. Redhawk, blackhawk, M69, 629...... tracker, anything.