All Smith N-frames are not created equal?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regardless of your view of what happened to Keith's Colt or how he worded his report, that is where the myth comes from.

The biggest issue with balloonhead cases was not necessarily the design but that they were customarily loaded with corrosive powder/primers and if not cleaned quickly after firing, they were quickly weakened by corrosion. There never really was much grumbling about balloonhead cases in the .44Spl when kept clean. Taffin was even able to reproduce Keith's results recently using balloonhead cases and Dupont #80 powder.
 
The biggest issue with balloonhead cases was not necessarily the design but that they were customarily loaded with corrosive powder/primers and if not cleaned quickly after firing, they were quickly weakened by corrosion.

Oh, yeah, that must be it. All those guys using black powder in the 40's and 50's.:rolleyes:

Don
 
Smith and Wesson isn't going to have two heat treating procedures when one will do. They'll just heat the 45 the same way as the 44 and 41 at half the cost.

Oh they most definitely will have 2 or more procedures as the cycle times will be different. The heat treat process will be after the machining is done so the cylinders will be designated for caliber before entering heat treat.

The .38 spl and .45 Colt have similar standard pressure limitations for example and likely similar hardness requirements for their cylinders. Since the furnace doesn't care what cylinders or other parts for that matter are in it, it is logical that they would treat parts with similar process and cycle time requirements together. There can be hours difference between the time spent in heat treat needed to get different hardness to metal and that translates into manufacturing cost that every successful company tries to minimize.

There is a reason lesser calibers usually sell at a lower price point than the magnums and its not all marketing.
 
I don't have nay way to measure the heat treatment on cylinders so I will rely on my observations.

1st: S&W guns are mass produced. The more I manufacture parts to the same standards the lower the cost to make them along with simpifying inventory.

2nd: A friend had a 357 N-frame cylinder rechamber to 45 Colt. When he tested fired it a small hole blew through one of the cylinder walls into a locking bolt cutout. The gunsmith must of been a little sloppy with the reamer. Lesson learned is 45 Colt wall above the locking bolt cutout is very thin and held to critical tolerances.

3rd; S*W redesigned their N-frames A few years ago to take higher pressure loads. As I recall it involved changing the locking bolt cutout on the cylinder, changing the design of the bolt slightly and some changes to the frame.
 
I also have no way of knowing or measuring the degree of heat treatment of N frame cylinders, so I stay within the pressure parameters of .45 ACP +P ammo for all my N frame .45 Colt loads.

Don
 
I agree with SlamFire1, but...

there's always a but.

Ken Waters has created or perpetuated a number of terms “over bore” being one, “efficient” another, these terms are only useful for creating sound and fury over nothing.

When I see the above terms "overbore" and "efficient", I associate them more with P. O. Ackley, Weatherby, and the Powley Computer. (We all remember the Powley Computer?) I'm sure Ken Waters was in there also. But, I'm poor, and changing a barrel on a rifle every couple of months is a little more than sound and fury over nothing. So, I like cartridges that are "efficient" and versatile like the 6.5X57 vs. the .264 Wxxx Magnum. Unlike my brother-in-law who keeps showing up in deer camp every year with his .300 WM to shoot a deer at 40 yards. For 20 years I've been telling him, he's going to shoot that barrel out. He only fires it 3 or 4 times a year.

If the brass is the same, if the hardness is the same, if the head and sidewall thickness are the same, than the ultimate and yield will be the same.

That's the crux of the issue. The brass isn't the same. The old .45 Colt cases (that Keith was using) were made by folding over the brass to form the rim of the case. The rim potion of the case was not solid/drawn brass. Hence, the term, "balloon head". They worked fine for shooting, once, but were not real good for reloading. The rims would tear off frequently. More trouble than they were worth. Everyone was happy when they stopped making them.
The new .45 Colt cases are very strong (and to your point) are as strong as the gun you fire them in.

What was this post about...?

Kerf
 
Has nothing to do with heat treatment on post-war guns and everything to do with chamber wall thickness and the location of the bolt cuts in the cylinder.
This!

It's about cylinder wall thickness and bolt notch locations. I really do not believe S&W would have a different heat treat for different calibers. It would be frame specific.
 
scan0001-1.gif

His own words. It seems he spread the blame around a bit. Thin brass, thin cylinder, too much bullet...
 
A friend had a 357 N-frame cylinder rechamber to 45 Colt. When he tested fired it a small hole blew through one of the cylinder walls into a locking bolt cutout.

And he wasn't the only one. I have read of cylinder stop cuts bulging or blowing out or even being cut through by the .45 reamer. One school of thought is that S&W took more care in cutting the notch of the .45 cylinders. Which flies in the face of the "all the same basic parts" theory. I have also read of S&W factory .45 Colt cylinders bulging into the stop notches with "Ruger loads."
This was the reason given by Skeeter Skelton for converting .357 Highway Patrolman and Blackhawk to .44 Special instead of .45 Colt, too thin chambers, especially under the notches.

On heat treatment, all I have to go by is a reprint 1939 Stoegers. The .357 Magnum is cataloged with cylinder of "Heat treated chrome-nickel steel." Thing is, the .38 Special M&P is said to have "chrome nickel heat treated cylinder" and the .32-20 version adds "heat treated chrome nickel steel cylinder of extraordinary strength." Even the .32 and .38 S&W Regulation Police had "heat treated chrome nickel steel" cylinders.
Was the heat treatment different, as is commonly said? I don't know. Who does?
Sorry, I no longer have a connection with a metallurgist who could get a handle on it with a hardness check. Too bad, I would not mind a little dent on my M28 and M14, they are well worn and it would not show much.

Even thick steel, even "heat treated" is no substitute for sensible loading. Skeeter described testing his .44 chamber reamer on a M27 cylinder with a chamber "jugged" by overload. (He found that it would not hand ream smoothly and had to have a gunsmith set it up in a lathe.)


The brass isn't the same. The old .45 Colt cases (that Keith was using) were made by folding over the brass to form the rim of the case. The rim potion of the case was not solid/drawn brass. Hence, the term, "balloon head". They worked fine for shooting, once, but were not real good for reloading.

There are three types of .45 Colt (and other period) case, not two.
The original type described here is more usually known as "folded head." I think it dropped out of use before WW I and maybe before the turn of the century.
The "balloon head" which Elmer Keith was probably using was a drawn case with turned rim. The primer pocket can be seen protruding into the interior and the head and wall webs are thin; but the rim itself is solid. In fact, UMC headstamped this type of case "S.H." for Solid Head. They did not mean the present type of solid head in which the case head web is thicker than the depth of the primer pocket. Note that Elmer said "the case head blew off," not that the rim of a folded head case blew out.
Henry Stebbins wrote in 1960 of the unusual find of some "modern" type solid head .45 Colt empties on the range, "the only ones known to science", so the balloon head had a long, long run.

The biggest issue with balloonhead cases was not necessarily the design but that they were customarily loaded with corrosive powder/primers and if not cleaned quickly after firing, they were quickly weakened by corrosion.

I never heard of corrosive powder. Black powder will tarnish a case very ugly but the ones I left uncleaned for way too long did not display any pitting or loss of thickness. They finally cleaned up with ceramic tumbler media.
The potassium chloride residue of corrosive primers is not nearly as bad on brass as it is on steel. Lots of rifle reloading was done with chlorate primers and no failures blamed on it that I know.
On the other hand, ol Elmer may have run up on some mercuric primers. The army quit using them in 1898 but they stayed in commercial use for a while. In fact, some of the early "noncorrosive" primers were actually mercuric. That didn't hurt the gun barrel but it was death on the brass.
 
Good post, Jim. Just thinking here, but, wouldn't a cylinder be heat treated at the factory AFTER being bored, reamed, and polished? And, wouldn't a gunsmith reaming out a .357 cylinder to .44 or .45 remove the hardness of the inside of each cylinder chamber, since heat treated steel typically has a harder exterior than interior, and the local gunsmith is unlikely to re-heat treat the cylinder after he is done?

Don
 
In regard to modern S&W .45 ACP revolvers, some shooters are shooting .45 Super in their 625s with excellent results. And some 625s are rechambered to shoot .460 Rowland. I'm not sure what the pressures are with these two cartridges, but both offer a considerable step up in velocity over .45 ACP +P.

Dave Sinko
 
I would assume (and hope) that the big parts like the cylinder are of an alloy and heat treatment for through-hardening for tensile strength. I don't know factory practice. Heat treatment after machining saves wear on machine tools but can cause warpage. The Luger was soft fit, heat treated, then hard fit to get everything just right. I doubt S&W does that. Some makers now advertise the use of pre-hardened material made practical by carbide and harder steel tooling.

The little stuff like the hammer and trigger are case hardened for surface wear resistance.
 
So far as material and heat treating are concerned, All older N-frame, frames are the same. But Magnum cylinders (.357, .41 and .44) are different in terms of the steel alloy and heat treating process is concerned. If anyone doubts this I suggest that they call the Smith & Wesson company and ask.

So why are the cylinders different? because making Magnum quality cylinders is more expensive, they didn't use the same material/heat treating in cylinders chambered to use lower pressure cartridges such a .38 and .44 Special as well as .45 ACP and .45 Colt. because the higher cost cylinders were unnecessary.

Within reason, rechambering a .357 Magnum to .44 Special, .45 ACP or .45 Colt will not cause any issues because they would be stronger then an original cylinder chambered to use the above round. Besides being stronger, N-frame cylinders chambered in .41 and .44 Magnum are also longer then the one used in Model 27/28 .357 Magnums.
 
...Magnum cylinders (.357, .41 and .44) are different in terms of the steel alloy and heat treating process is concerned. If anyone doubts this I suggest that they call the Smith & Wesson company and ask.

IMHO, it is unlikely that the steel alloy used is any different. It just does not make business sense to order and have hanging around 2 or more alloys, when a different heat treat process is all that is necessary to cover a range of pressures. I would be happy to hear what alloys S&W told you they use for magnum cylinders as opposed to non-magnum cylinders.

Don
 
Besides the obvious sales appeal of telling Magnum buyers they have "special cylinders," the fact is that S&W has made enough Magnum cylinders to justify buying the material for both standard and Magnum revolvers, plus the savings of not having to go through a double heat-treat process where it isn't necessary.

Incidently, Colt does the same thing, relative to .357 Magnum cylinders made for their Single Action Army model, and they are stamped "M" on the back to identify what they are.

If you have questions, you call the companies. :banghead:
 
Sorry Old Fuff, you are making the claim, so you support it.

I don't need to support it. There are some who follow my posts that will believe it, and some others that won't, and a big majority that don't give a rip.

When someone is willing to pay for the research and a report I'll do it (which is part of what I did to make a living). Moonlightning on The High Road is of course for free, but the service doesn't include anything more then a post.
 
There are some who follow my posts that will believe it

I have followed Old Fuff for years and I totally trust him on matters concerning the construction of revolvers.

On the modification of revolvers....well that is a different subject:rolleyes:

YMMV
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top