I own a 629-5. It was my understanding that two professional metallic silhuette shooters shot 10,000 full-house rounds through the prototype mules to varify the strength of the modifications.
That may be. But there is a reason that the load we are speaking of here in this thread is not recommended for S&W N frame revolvers.
The original problem was more than just the cylinder locking bolts. When the -5 modifications were introduced they included: strengthening the retention system on the yoke and crane (cylinders had been dropping open under recoil), studs within the frame were radiused to help remove stress (they had been cracking and damaging the frames), cylinder notches were made deeper and longer to prevent the cylinder from rotating backward under recoil once they had been shot loose which happened often with steady diets of heavy loads, The bolt was changed and a few other changes were made which helped hold the gun together tighter than the pre -5 guns. The changes result in what John Taffin has called "...a sixgun that is probably a mite stronger and tougher, but remember, the cylinder and the frame are still the same size as found on the Triple-Lock of 1908." (Big Bore Sixguns, pg. 80).
Both Ruger and Dan Wesson beat S&W to the punch in developing revolvers that could stand up to heavy diets of powerful loads.
The casting precess can result in a frame that is pound for pound as strong as a forged frame, if the chemical composition of the alloys is correct and the procedure is done right. It is more expensive to do this though. Where casting really saves money over forged, is in less machining time.
I say this from experience. I work in the defense industry where both forged bar stock and plate steel and castings are used. Both are capable of having the same properties and uses. It's in the applications and cost that they differ.
That Ruger frames and cylinders are beefier than S&W frames helps in making them stronger. But the real gain in strength comes from a simpler and more modern design. The lock up of cylinder to frame is stronger. When the Redhawk appeared handloaders cooked up loads of 300 gr. bullets at 1500 fps and the Redhawks took them without complaint. The Super Redhawk is stronger yet and likely has the better trigger.
At any rate I'm all for new loads even if I personally don't see a real need for them. A 240 gr. bullet at 1300-1400 fps will take elk and brown bear with a well placed shot. A heavier, faster bullet will work of course but dead is dead.
I say all this cuz it's true. Still I'd prefer the handling qualities of the S&w 29 or 629 over the Ruger. I just do what Elmer Keith did and shoot about 600 heavy loads a year through mine, less sometimes, and tune up when needed. I know my limitations and I'll use a rifle on anything really big and hairy.
tipoc
