Facts on Gun Failures

[Fat Boy]

OK, here goes....Over the years of my life S&W, Colt, and more recently Ruger have been pretty much the standard by which most other handguns are measured. (Given that I can't afford a Korth) In researching small frame revolvers chambered in .38 spec or .357 magnum, I have read a great deal about the failures of Taurus and Rossi revolvers; but lately, I have been reading a lot about the cracked frames on S&W lightweight revolvers...is there any way to see actual statistics on the failure rate of comparable models of guns from all three (or at least S&W and Taurus) companies, or are small frame, lightweight revolvers in .38 spec or .357 magnum simply pushing the envelope too far? In other words, will these small guns fail at some point regardless of manufacturer, given the pressures involved, materials used in construction, etc? Given the price of these little pocket rockets, I would think they would be built to last a lifetime, but maybe that is an idea from another era...

Thanks!

 

[18DAI]

S&W forum has more than one thread on the lightweight revolvers cracking..... and locking up....... and peeling off their finish.

But hey, there is nothing wrong with new S&W revolvers. They are innovative, and S&W will make it right!

 

[Sniper X]

Thankfully I have never had a revolver, or any firearm break or crack while I had it. I have a taurus 605 and shoot both .38spl and hot .357 mag thru it and it is still running great. Although I have only probably realisticaly put about 250rounds thru it.

 

[rcmodel]

(Given that I can't afford a Korth)

If there were even one millionth as many Korths being used & abused as there are S&W's, you'd be hearing of some of those breaking occasionally too!

rcmodel

 

[redneckrepairs]

IMHO " pocket rocket " pistols be they revolver or auto will not and can not stand up to the use that a full sized pistol will . Manufacturers scale down the size/weight to make a carry gun as non invasive as possible . In doing so they cannot build them as robust as a full size . In a smaller , lighter pistol for any given cal the entire operating system of the gun will take more stress than it would in a big heavy pistol for that caliber . Its the nature of the beast that the pistols that carry the best need to be shot the least . This is not a big factor for most of gun owners because most dont bother with finding gun forums or practice shooting . Your average J frame will be loaded and put in the dresser drawer , maby being shot enough that 30 or 40 years later there is still a cylinder or two of ammo in the original box of 50 that was purchased with the pistol . If you are looking for a high round count for your carry gun well carry a bigger gun or do as i do and carry a small one putting just enough rounds thro it in practice to stay " current " on it . Other than that i shoot a bigger gun with the same trigger action ( ie i may sub a revolver for my kahr or my 1911 gvt for my detonics ) .

 

[Jim K]

Let's be realistic. Take a cartridge which was designed for and first used in a large frame, heavy revolver, and put it in a super-light, alloy frame revolver, what does anyone think is going to happen? There is NO WAY that feather light little gun is going to stand up to the thousands of rounds we would expect to see the large heavy gun handle.

But no one, not the maker or anyone else, expects the little gun to be fired with heavy loads for thousands of rounds, or even hundreds of rounds. In the first place, few shooters will stand up to the punishment, no matter what the gun will do.

Those lightweight revolvers are designed for one purpose - personal protection. Not big-time target shooting, not CASS, not long and intensive practice. Dozens, at the most hundreds of rounds, not thousands or tens of thousands. It is the same as, say, the GEO car; no one enters a GEO car in the Indy, or buys one for long distance driving at high speeds.

Jim

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

S&W forum has more than one thread on the lightweight revolvers cracking..... and locking up....... and peeling off their finish.

Are these with the AirLite titanium/scandiums, or the Airweight (conventional steel/aluminum)?

I would recommend one of the latter anyway. Your wallet will thank you, as will your hand when you shoot them. As well, they are rated for any .38 Special ammo, with no worries about bullets pulling from the cases under recoil.

 

[M1911]

I would recommend one of the latter anyway. Your wallet will thank you, as will your hand when you shoot them. As well, they are rated for any .38 Special ammo, with no worries about bullets pulling from the cases under recoil.

+1

The titanium/scandium models just convert dollars into recoil. My 642 hurts more than enough for me.

 

[jfh]

I own both kinds of lightweights--a 442 and an M&P 340.

AFAICT, the Scandium-framed 340 has nominally the same life span as a SS j-frame. After 1000 rounds, the frame is still unmarred for the most part, and the lockup is still like new. You can see pictures of it here.

Still, that is 1000 rounds on the 340, versus nominally 12,000 rounds in the 640.

Granted, I shoot mostly "replica reloads" through both--a GDSB 38+P type: 140LTC bullet running about 900 fps. But I also am currently testing "FBI-Load-type" reloads in it--a 158gr.LSWC running from a 800 to over 1000 fps. So, even though my hand is well-conditioned, I have no interest in running the 357-Mag hotrods through it.

Overall, the fit and finish of the Scandium j-frames is noticably superior to the Airweights--as it should be, they cost about 70% more.

Personally, I wish they'd make a 38+P Scandium-framed package--but then they'd lose that "dual-purpose" marketing premium, right?

Jim H.

 

[TAC]

I had read that the cracking found in some S&W's was actually caused at the factory when tightening the barrel to the frame, and not from shooting the firearm.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

You're correct. When S&W moved away from pinned barrels they went to a "crush fit" to hold the barrel in place. Some were over-tightened and the excessive torque is causing some revolver to fail with a cracked frame.