Can a K frame Smith handle 5 rounds of 41 magnum?

[AustinTX]

We must remember that there is no such thing as an extra beefy S&W. They are all pretty much built to handle their designated chamberings and no more. Rugers have spoiled us in that regard because there is so much extra meat in them that the engineering of a master gunsmith can squeeze a lot more out of them when built properly. There's just no room to play such games in a S&W.

Isn't an N-frame reasonably "beefy" for .41 Mag, and especially so for .357 Mag? Not trying to be argumentative -- I just want to be sure I'm not missing something. Aren't the Model 57 and Model 27 each mechanically just a Model 29 firing a weaker cartridge and containing a bit more steel? I've always assumed I wouldn't encounter any trouble firing the hottest .41 Mag factory loads from Remington and Winchester (210-gr. at 1300 FPS and 240-gr. at 1250 FPS, respectively) through my Model 57s, given that these are still a ways off from hotter .41 Mag handloads and hot factory .44 Mag ammo. Am I off-base?

 

[1911Tuner]

Isn't an N-frame reasonably "beefy" for .41 Mag, and especially so for .357 Mag?

Yes. The N Frame was the original platform for the .357 Magnum even though the K Frames were well established.

The N Frame is just about at its limit with the .41 and marginal for the .44 the same as the K Frame is with .357...IMHO...and the caveat to use Specials for practice and magnums for business is very good advice if you want your revolver to live long and prosper.

 

[AustinTX]

Thanks for the reply. I knew the Registered Magnum and it's progeny were/are N-frames; that was just the first time I'd seen a post that could be taken to say that the N-frame wasn't even robust enough for .357 Mag. I'd like to add an older Model 29 or two to the collection, but I keep being drawn to other things instead since I know I would only end up shooting milder ammo through it, which would be a real buzzkill.

The N Frame is just about at its limit with the .41 and marginal for the .44 the same as the K Frame is with .357...IMHO...and the caveat to use Specials for practice and magnums for business is very good advice if you want your revolver to live long and prosper.

Just to clarify, are you only referring to .44 Specials here, or are you saying I should work up some .41 Specials for my Model 57s (no-dash models -- don't know if that has implications for durability)? Is firing a few dozen rounds per year of the kind I mentioned above likely to lead to excessive wear over the long term, in your opinion?

 

[1911Tuner]

Just to clarify, are you only referring to .44 Specials here, or are you saying I should work up some .41 Specials for my Model 57s

I was specifically referring to the advice given for the Model 19s...both from Smith and from Bill Jordan...and paraphrasing for the Model 29s.

As to your Model 57s...it's always a good idea to "go light" for general recreational shooting. A 210-grain cast SWC and 8-8.5 grains of Unique is a good'un.

Remember that the Smith N Frame is an old design. Unlike the Blackhawks and Redhawks, it was adapted to the cartridge rather than being designed expressly for it. The N and K Frame Smiths are fine revolvers, but they're not especially strong or robust revolvers. Treat'em nice, and they'll behave like proper ladies.

 

[Drail]

Tuner, I absolutely agree with your assessment of S&W N frames. Most people would be surprised to learn just how old the design is. I also agree with your choice of loads for the .41 cartridge. The load you quoted is very close to what I used to use on bowling pins and steel and it has all the cowbell anyone needs IMO. I became addicted to the cartridge in the 80s and it's still probably my favorite cartridge (though in the last few years the .44 Spl. is trying really hard to be my favorite) Thank you for your posts. And for loving all them goofy dogs.

 

[AustinTX]

I was specifically referring to the advice given for the Model 19s...both from Smith and from Bill Jordan...and paraphrasing for the Model 29s.

As to your Model 57s...it's always a good idea to "go light" for general recreational shooting. A 210-grain cast SWC and 8-8.5 grains of Unique is a good'un.

Remember that the Smith N Frame is an old design. Unlike the Blackhawks and Redhawks, it was adapted to the cartridge rather than being designed expressly for it. The N and K Frame Smiths are fine revolvers, but they're not especially strong or robust revolvers. Treat'em nice, and they'll behave like proper ladies.

Thanks, Tuner. Very helpful. Looks like I need to add a Ruger to the stable for use in seeking the beastly recoil I'm looking for from time to time.

 

[CraigC]

The N Frame is just about at its limit with the .41 and marginal for the .44...

Exactly! The .41Mag and .44Spl are probably the best big bore cartridges for the N-frame. It would've been better if they had just legitimized Keith's 1200fps, 26,000psi .44Spl load, rather than going all the way to 1450fps and over 40,000psi.

 

[1911Tuner]

It would've been better if they had just legitimized Keith's 1200fps, 26,000psi .44Spl load, rather than going all the way to 1450fps and over 40,000psi.

Exactly. I mean...if they could do it with the 38-44 HD, they could do it with the .44 Special. Much beyond 1200-1250 fps is mostly to flatten the trajectory anyway.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

So as far as lifespan goes, would you guys recommend the Redhawk over the 629/29 if you are going to feed it a steady diet of 44 mags, or is the Super Redhawk really the only "last forever" 44 mag?

How does the Anaconda compare?

 

[1911Tuner]

So as far as lifespan goes, would you guys recommend the Redhawk over the 629/29 if you are going to feed it a steady diet of 44 mags, or is the Super Redhawk really the only "last forever" 44 mag?

The simple answer is...it depends.

How much do you plan to feed it?

I love the Model 29 for its size, weight, and balance. It carries easier than the Redhawk...but if you intend to shoot the volume of ammunition required for Metallic Silhouette, the Redhawk or Super Blackhawk is the way to go.

Never owned an Anaconda, so I can't say...but the couple that I handled were big, heavy revolvers, and would appear to hold up about as well as the Rugers.

 

[Drail]

1200 fps at only 26,000 lbs. is just about perfect and won't beat the gun up. You can run Unique in the .44 Spl. and get surprisingly low pressures. I can see why Elmer liked the cartridge.

 

[1911Tuner]

I wish that pressure was the only concern.

 

[AustinTX]

So as far as lifespan goes, would you guys recommend the Redhawk over the 629/29 if you are going to feed it a steady diet of 44 mags, or is the Super Redhawk really the only "last forever" 44 mag?

Trying to find out about the Rugers as well. The majority of people on the forums seem to think that the SRH has a theoretical advantage in durability but that the RH will still take an enormous number of full-house .44 Mags without issue.

I hope that's the case. I'm not sure if I can abide the looks of the SRH.

 

[CraigC]

There's absolutely no difference in strength or durability between the Redhawk and Super Redhawk.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Can you elaborate Craig? What then makes them super? Is it just a marketing deal? There's no extra metal or overbuilding going on?

 

[AustinTX]

Can you elaborate Craig? What then makes them super? Is it just a marketing deal? There's no extra metal or overbuilding going on?

This isn't a substitute for Craig's (or 1911Tuner's) answer, as Ruger revolvers are definitely not my bailiwick, but the history of the RH and SRH might provide a clue.

The SRH was actually designed to replace the RH completely due to problems that the RH once had with barrels becoming separated from the frame (hence the enormous extension of the part of the frame that envelopes the barrel on the SRH). Eventually, Ruger discovered that the problem had only been related to a change in the lubricant used in the threading the RH barrel to the frame; once the revised process was discontinued, the problem disappeared entirely. By that point, however, development for the SRH was already complete, so its production went forward and the production of the now-problem-free RH was continued. Point being, the original impetus behind the SRH's development had nothing to do with concerns about frame longevity with heavy loads. That doesn't prove that the SRH isn't more durable, of course -- only that increased durability related to long-term use of full-house loads wasn't the actual motive for its creation.

Mechanically, the cylinders, the top straps, the cranes, and the recoil plates/frames aft of the cylinder (excluding the grip frame) are identical on the RH and SRH, and since I believe that all of these parts/areas would be much weaker links under recoil force than the forward frame extension (in the case of a lighter cylinder, it would impact the frame with greater energy, assuming equal amounts of endshake), it seems reasonable to think that there really wouldn't be any difference in durability between the RH and SRH. That's my best guess, anyway.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

That's interesting info that I was not aware of.

 

[Lucky Derby]

This.
But to add another piece to the puzzle, remember that the N frame was originally developed for the .44 Special, Like the K frame was developed for the .38 Special.

 

[Lucky Derby]

The Super Redhawk is overkill for the .44 Magnum. Redhawks were having a problem with barrels breaking off at the frame. Rugers intial answer was the Super Redhawk, as they thought they had a design flaw. By the time they realized it was the lube they used when screwing the barrels to the frames that caused the breakage, the Super Redhawk was already into production so they kept both. They SR is a better platform for the bigger cartridges, such as .454 & .480 anyway.

 

[Jim Watson]

The Super Red Hawk action is a scaleup of the GP 100 and easier to "tune" than the odd single spring layout of the original Red Hawk. It also shares the GP 100's "peg" grip frame extension so there is no grip frame to build stocks around, anything can be bolted on. (Although I like the grip of the RH.)

Hamilton Bowen does a good business in cutting off the long forward frame extension of SRHs to make them into overgrown GPs.

 

[AustinTX]

They SR is a better platform for the bigger cartridges, such as .454 & .480 anyway.

Again, I'm just trying to learn more about Rugers here, but why would this be the case? Assuming that the SRH has no durability advantage over the RH in .44 Mag., as previously stated, it seems the RH would handle the bigger cartridges just fine. Or are you speaking in terms of handling characteristics or something else other than durability?

 

[CraigC]

Can you elaborate Craig? What then makes them super? Is it just a marketing deal? There's no extra metal or overbuilding going on?

AustinTX nailed it. People have this misconception that the SRH is a bigger, beefier revolver but it isn't. The only real difference between the two is the lockwork, the frame extension and the grip stud. The cylinders are identical, with respect to chambering (a .454 SRH cylinder can be fitted to a .45 Redhawk) and the frames are of equal strength. The Super is not bigger, it's not stronger and it's not better suited to larger chamberings. The frame extension of the Super and the full tang grip frame of the standard makes weight nearly identical. IMHO, the biggest selling point for the SRH is the optic mounting over the frame, rather than the barrel.

The only other notable difference being the stronger alloy used in the .454 and .480 cylinders and barrels.

The Super Redhawk is overkill for the .44 Magnum.

They're both overkill for the .44Mag, in equal portions.