Can I shoot these out of my 686+?

[Hammer059]

I've had two boxes of these 158gr buffalo bore rounds for awhile and only shot 6 of them out of a blackhawk. http://www.midwayusa.com/product/92...jacketed-hollow-point-high-velocity-box-of-20

Can I shoot a cylinder or two of them through my 686+? Will RARELY shooting these from my 686+ put too much wear on the cylinder lockup, forcing cone, or timing?

Sorry if it's a dumb question, but they seem way hotter than any other .357 rounds I've put through my revolvers...

 

[CraigC]

The answer is in your link:

"This ammunition is safe to use in all 357 Magnum chambered firearms with steel frames that are in proper working condition....

Our 357 mag. ammo adds more power than ever before to the 357 mag. This ammo is safe to shoot in ANY all steel 357 revolver - this includes J frames. This ammo is no harder on your gun than any other normal 357 ammo. Please don't phone us and ask if this ammo is safe in your gun. It is, providing your gun is in safe condition for use with any normal 357 ammo.

We don't recommend this ammo to be fired in super light alloy revolvers as bullets may jump crimp under recoil, but the ammo itself wont hurt these super light weight revolvers. These revolvers are simply so light that the recoil is severe enough to cause crimp jump."

 

[Hammer059]

I read that. And I'm gonna call BS on: "This ammo is no harder on your gun than any other normal 357 ammo." Really? So a 158gr going ~1500 fps isn't ANY harder on my gun than a 158gr going 1,000 fps?

I also know that a 158gr going ~1500fps exceeds the max loads published in manuals such as Hornady. And usually people say that as long as you don't exceed max loads, there won't be excessive wear on the firearm. Hmm….

 

[Zaydok Allen]

So you don't trust Buffalo Bore but you'll trust a bunch of strangers on the internet?

I think you'll be just fine but if you're really concerned, email S&W. Then you'll know for sure.

 

[420Stainless]

You can, but it sounds like you believe that you shouldn't - so don't.

 

[Hammer059]

All I'm asking for is an explanation. Why is something that is considered above max for hand loads considered safe from a company?

 

[Radagast]

It's been discussed before. Blending powder to keep the round below accepted pressure standards, while maximizing velocity; perhaps running closer to the maximum pressure standards than other manufacturers. IIRC Underwood play the same game.

Basically don't expect the gun to blow up. I would expect slightly accelerated wear.
Your 686+ has cylinder notches set between the chamber walls, so it is stronger than a regular 686 where they are above the chamber. The 686 has a stronger top strap, forcing cone and cylinder than the K frame Model 19. It's a very strong gun and should be fine.

 

[Drail]

+1 on the last post.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

It's been discussed before. Blending powder to keep the round below accepted pressure standards, while maximizing velocity; perhaps running closer to the maximum pressure standards than other manufacturers.

Howdy

I have said this so many times, but apparently it needs to be said again. Pressure is the important word here. So many times someone will ask a question such as, 'can I shoot xxx grain bullets at xxxx fps safely through my gun?' That is the wrong question. The question should be, 'What pressure will xx grains of Wizzbang develop under a xxx grain bullet?' Clearly, Buffalo Bore has developed a recipe to deliver unusually high velocity with a 158 grain bullet while staying within SAAMI MAX pressure spec.

End of story.

 

[Bama Drifter]

CraigC and Radagast put it much more succinctly than I could... Horse meet stick. Anyway if you're afraid to shoot 'em, mail them to me and I'll run the ammo through my Colt SAA without fear or trepidation. Thanks, YMMV

 

[MachIVshooter]

I also know that a 158gr going ~1500fps exceeds the max loads published in manuals such as Hornady. And usually people say that as long as you don't exceed max loads, there won't be excessive wear on the firearm. Hmm….

As Radagast pointed out, larger manufacturers have the means to test powder blends or even make proprietary powders which offer performance that is inaccessible to us hand loaders.

This has long been the case for Weatherby; while most common rounds can be safely loaded to velocities in excess of factory loads, virtually all published data for Weatherby cartridges is a bit slower than the factory fodder.

 

[JohnKSa]

I tend to believe that the BB ammo won't blow up pistols. It would be hard for them to make money and stay in business selling ammo that is likely to blow up peoples' guns.

But the idea that ammo that "...adds more power than ever before to the 357 mag" is actually "...no harder on your gun than any other normal 357 ammo." won't fly.

More power means more recoil and more recoil means that moving parts will bang against each other harder than normal. The biggest issue is endshake because the cylinder is the largest moving part. Harder recoil is going to slam the cylinder against the stop harder and, all else being equal, a revolver shot with heavy loads will develop endshake issues faster than it would otherwise.

Does that mean it will develop endshake problems right away? Probably not. "Faster" isn't necessarily the same thing as "fast". It may not ever be an issue depending on how much the gun is shot with the heavy ammo--but that's not the same thing as being able to accurately say that heavy recoil isn't any harder on a gun than normal recoil. There's no free lunch.

 

[highlander 5]

I think most here remember the reason the 686 was created,the S&W model 19 took a beating when used exclusively with 357 magnum especially the 125 gr Super Vel ammo. To the OP your 686 will be fine using BB ammo,if my history is correct the BB loads are not that far off of the original velocity specs of the 357 when it was first introduced back in the 1930s.

 

[highlander 5]

Come to think of it perhaps you should find a Ruger Redhawk in 357,built on the same frame,cylinder as the 44 mag. May not be as refined as the Smith but you'd be hard pressed to hurt the beast.

 

[Bama Drifter]

Come to think of it perhaps you should find a Ruger Redhawk in 357,built on the same frame,cylinder as the 44 mag.

Seriously??? I'm hoping that is sarcasm, as it has been repeatedly stated: Buffalo Bore ammo won't hurt modern, mechanically sound revolvers. Via proprietary powder blends and specializing in an acute niche market (powerful ammo) they can achieve what I cannot @ my own bench. :banghead: horse meet stick

 

[Old Shooter]

So if you don't feel comfortable, shoot them out of your Blackhawk and use something else in your 686+

Not a big deal.

 

[Hammer059]

Thanks for the responses guys. Much appreciated. I'll probably shoot a few of them through the 686 just to see how they feel. As impressive as the muzzle energy of these rounds is (yowza!) they certainly won't be replacing my carry load. Overpenetration isn't much of a factor in my house, but follow up shots, muzzle flash, and the ridiculous sound level would certainly deter me from ever wanting to use them indoors. I'll stick with a 158gr gold dot going ~1150-1200fps as my self defense round.

 

[minutemen1776]

I bought some Buffalo Bore loads for my 6" GP100. With all the hype, I expected the equivalent of a Saturn V rocket coming out of the muzzle. It was a stout load for sure, but nothing so dramatic. For the cost of admission, I was actually a little disappointed.

 

[Drail]

"It would be hard for them to make money and stay in business.." Not if they hire enough lawyers. The other possibility is that the company's engineers actually believe that their loads are safe in "most" guns out there. That's pretty thin ice if your're dealing with the public at large.

 

[Jim K]

Doesn't everyone know by this time that all S&W revolvers are super delicate and should never be fired more than two or three shots before being scrapped? Only Rugers can be depended on to fire more, maybe a dozen or so shots, and then they too are complete junk. And of course that is only with black powder because all those revolvers have Damascus barrels that will blow up and unwind if fired with that smokeless stuff.

Jim

 

[highlander 5]

I was being just a tad on the sarcastic side. To repeat what some have said no company is going to put a product that is going to put life and limb at risk.

 

[Jim Watson]

No, no, that's the Python.
Come to think of it, it might actually be the Smith because the internet has proven that the Python cannot be built at all.

There are a lot of internet references to "blended powder" and "special order powder" but the fact is that there are a lot of powders routinely made that are not canister graded to sell at retail. I think Vihtavuori makes about three times as many powders as you can read reloading data for. An old Handloader's Digest described Hercules making NINE different grades of Red Dot, of which one was sold retail, the rest to the OEM market.

 

[Hammer059]

Wow. I had no clue that was the case Jim Watson...

 

[njl]

Since you have no idea what powder they're using, just based on bullet weight and published velocity (from what gun?), you have no idea what max load is or what the peak pressure of their load is. Presumably, they got a powder or came up with a blend that gets the "extra" velocity without exceeding SAAMI max pressure.

As others have said, there's no free lunch...so that extra velocity is going to come with extra recoil. No thanks for me.

 

[DPris]

Tim Sundles puts out consistently good product.

I've used his stuff in multiple calibers & several guns.

It is pricey.
It is not plinking ammo.
It is developed for specific applications that may go above & beyond standard factory loads.

His company has the equipment, lab, time, and materials to do the types of testing that we don't.
Aside from the liability factor (always present), he doesn't want to blow your gun up any more than you do.
That's not what he's here for.

Of course slightly higher pressures can slightly escalate wear.
Shooting a gun at all will escalate wear.
Guns are, however long-lived they may be, still essentially disposable "wear" items.
You use it, you create wear, and sooner or later it'll wear out.

That said- I would not hesitate to shoot that load in that gun.
I've shot & carried his .357 stuff in a Ruger GP & a Ruger SP.
When I want reliable power for carry in the outdoors, and I'm too lazy to work up my own high-octane loads, I carry his.

At the range or around town, no. Too much penetration.
In the wilds, I WANT that penetration.

His velocities are typically quite close to what he prints on the box, and accuracy is usually among the best commercial non-match ammo you can find.

The Smith is not as strong as the Ruger, but you're not going to hurt it by shooting BB through it.

This is sorta like the old "Would Speer shot shells damage my bore?"
If it would, do you think Speer would still be selling the stuff for over 40 years?

If BB products were causing blow-ups or wearing guns out in a box or two, do you think Sundles would still be in business?

Shoot all the BB heavy .357 Mag you can afford through that Smith.
Denis