Is a 7-shot .357 revolver more dangerous?

[CraigC]

Well Craig, I agree with you about 99.9% of the time, but in the book Ruger and His Guns, one of the designers who worked on the Old Army says the cylinders were cast.

Yes but that's the Old Army. What is it designed to operate at, 10,000psi? We have had several reports from folks who have toured the Ruger factory and seen them being cut from barstock. Hell, even Heritage cuts Rough Rider cylinders from barstock. It's the cheapest grade of steel you'll ever see in firearms manufacture but.....

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Yes but that's the Old Army. What is it designed to operate at, 10,000psi? We have had several reports from folks who have toured the Ruger factory and seen them being cut from barstock. Hell, even Heritage cuts Rough Rider cylinders from barstock. It's the cheapest grade of steel you'll ever see in firearms manufacture but.....

Actually, if you read this particular book, they tested it with Bullseye. At least according to that book. But you did not hear it from me and I of course do not recommend shooting any C&B cylinder with Smokeless powder.

I too have always believed that Ruger makes their cylinders from barstock, but Iowegan seems to have some different information.

I really need to get ahold of my old shooting friend who worked for Ruger and get to the bottom of this. Unfortunately, he moved down south someplace and I don't remember where.

I would love to tour the Ruger factory, it is not far from where I live, but last I heard they are not giving any tours.

 

[CraigC]

If I remember right it was one of the Quinn brothers who toured the factory and posted something about it on Ruger Forum.

 

[Stainz]

This is first hand experience. Some years back, a friend and I each ordered a new SS 5.5" SS Redhawk in .45 Colt. Mine had a machined cylinder face with obvious casting flaws between the chamber bores. That likely won't be found in bar stock - but such irregularly burst bubbles in cast steel do occur. It went back to Ruger - got another new cylinder, pawl, hammer, and trigger - and supposedly was 'tweaked' for my patience with their warranty service. It joined my favorite .45 Colt DA-capable revolver - a 625MG. I sold the RH and bought another S&W 625MG - and I am much happier. No jams while ejecting, no ftf's with Fed primers, tighter groups, and just a whole lot nicer revolver.

Oh - the friend's similar Redhawk wouldn't fire a cylinderful of cowboy loads without a hard jam - it went back. The frame was warped - they replaced the revolver. He quickly traded the RH.

As a rule of thumb, I'd say my S&W 627's, all 8-shooters, are potentially more dangerous than my one 686P 7-shooter - and it is more dangerous than my one 6-shot 66. Then there is my one 5-shot 60... As others have said, more rounds increases the 'dangerous' capability... modern steels make them safe. Common sense, ie, staying within standard SAAMI specifications, helps as well.

Stainz

 

[skt239]

Nothing wrong with it as long as its done right. I had a 7 shot Taurus that always made me wonder but that's because it was a Taurus. I'm confident enough in S&W to not even give it a second thought. The Taurus? Not so much.

 

[markb5446]

NICE PIC! Indicates 7 may be better

Looking at the pic you can see that the crack happened at the cylinder slots Ruger improved the Smith 6 shot by offsetting the slot so it wasn't at the thinnest point of the outer wall....But it still broke there! The crack wandered at an angle right to the slot.

So based on a sample of 1, it says put the slot in between the cylinder holes, which is what a Smith or Taurus 7 shot does. If Ruger had went for 7 with their offset cylinder stop and angled cylinder slots, they would not get the strength payoff that a Smith or Taurus did, as the 7 shot cylinder puts the slots in the thickest part of the outer wall of the cylinder.

But Rugers are generally designed for strength by quite a margin (normally), so I would say that whatever broke this Ruger would have probably broken a Smith, Taurus or Colt too. But the 7 shot Smith/Taurus could have an advantage for this sort of failure...maybe.

It is also possible that this was a fluke due to a material flaw in that cylinder. Cool pics, and note that this gun probably did not injure the shooter as it didn't "grenade".

 

[Confederate]

Although most of you seem to think the ammo was bad and that the Ruger's strength kept it from being worse than it was. The problem is, Ruger uses investment casting for its frame and many of its parts. Before I'd criticize the ammo manufacturer, I'd want to check out the heat treat of the cylinder. It's not uncommon for investment cast parts to fail. That's not a slam against investment casting; indeed, investment casting can offer incredible strength when done properly. But what if someone wasn't watching the heat treat that day and time? It could be the cylinder which is at fault.

Years ago, I was shooting a stainless Virginia Dragoon. It was unloaded, but when I dry fired it, the hammer shattered like glass. It was an investment cast part and easily repaired. But unless investment cast parts are done very carefully, they can and will fail.

That said, there's nothing wrong with 7-shot magnums. S&W also has to watch its metallurgy and they've been known to have parts fail. Back in the 80s, there were two cops in Western Kentucky who noticed that the front sights on their 681s were virtually rubbing off from holster wear! When tested, the armorer noted that the lands and grooves from the rifling also had worn down to practically nothing. The culprit was poor heat treat. So it doesn't matter whether or not it's investment casting or not, or whether it's guns or knives.

The problem here might be bad ammo or poor heat treat on Ruger's part. And as strong as Ruger's guns are, six or seven shots have nothing to do with this particular failure. I'm also unaware of any trend of catastrophic failures with 7-shot magnum pistols, be they S&W or Taurus. I know that Sellier and Bellot ammunition doesn't have a reputation of producing bad ammo and most ammo manufacturers weigh each round before packing them.



Regardless of manufacture, parts must be heat treated to avoid
catastrophic failure.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

.........and most ammo manufacturers weigh each round before packing them.

Curious where you learned that. With most modern ammo, the difference of .5 grains or more from bullet to bullet can easily mask any variation in powder charges. I have always advised novice reloaders that weighing finished rounds is not a reliable way to determine if the powder charge is correct.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

This may be dumb to some, but I had one (S&W Mountain gun), then got rid of it because I was so used to a revolver being six rounds. That extra round was going to catch me off guard one day, and I'd do something stupid and put #7 in the wrong place, thinking the gun was empty. To each their own. I'm happy with six. Call me mopid.

 

[Confederate]

Curious where you learned that. With most modern ammo, the difference of .5 grains or more from bullet to bullet can easily mask any variation in powder charges. I have always advised novice reloaders that weighing finished rounds is not a reliable way to determine if the powder charge is correct.

I was told that, and it seemed reasonable; however, with today's electronic powder measurers that may not be necessary. I find it difficult to think that with today's safety features (the chief of which is not loading ammunition to the heaviest loadings), that .5 grains can mask a variation in powder charge that would decimate a Ruger GP-100. Few magnum rounds would be charged with such fast burning powder that it would make that much of a difference. With a moderate loading, one that would be safe in any gun chambered for .357, even a .5 grain overcharge with Bullseye would not be enough to do the damage I saw.

To me it looks like a heat treat issue. But I'm only guessing.
.
.
.

 

[CDR_Glock]

I don't have a 7 shot.

I have a 6 shot Python and 8 shot Smith 627. A 6 shot Ruger GP100 is coming this week.

I'm excited.

Anyways, what type of ammo was that which made the GP100 crack? Where was it manufactured?


iPad/Tapatalk

 

[barnbwt]

I would hazard a guess the design process at any reputable gun maker is similar to any other design-critical engineering task. There is an established limit load (read: proof load) the design is intended to withstand once, and there is rigorous internal testing to ensure designs can meet that. Repeat testing at lesser stress levels is done to ensure the design is not overly prone to fatigue failures (take heed, super-hot-loaders). The value the manufacturers choose to set for these load cases is, typically determined by trial and, unfortunately, error. A gun can only be as strong as the load it is designed to withstand. Luckily, today's manufacturers have decades (centuries?) of data to drawn upon.

As far as what happens after catastrophic failure, is extremely hard to predict and account for in any design situation, let alone for something as variable as loads in firearms can be. Once metal begins plastically deforming, it's really hard to nail down exactly how things will progress from there. Sure, some designs may have the effect of behaving more safely in a catastrophic failure, but it's not something you should count on as a safety net. In all likelihood, the failure modes are not very reliable or controlled. What little is known comes from failures in the field, unfortunately.

Logically, guns can only be designed to be safer as time goes on, and we should all be thankfull we have such niceties as 8-shot six-shooters made of Unobtanium (I know I am!)

Safe shooting to all,
TCB

 

[CraigC]

This may be dumb to some, but I had one (S&W Mountain gun), then got rid of it because I was so used to a revolver being six rounds. That extra round was going to catch me off guard one day, and I'd do something stupid and put #7 in the wrong place, thinking the gun was empty. To each their own. I'm happy with six. Call me mopid.

It's all about what you're used to. I'm primarily a traditional single action shooter so for years and years, all my single actions were five shot. While all my DA's were six shot. Fast forward and now I have a wonderful 12-shot USFA 12/22 that never seems to go empty and would love to have the new blued 4 5/8" Ruger Single Ten. Although I think it looks funny for a sixgun cylinder to have any more or less than six flutes. I'm glad Ruger went with none and USFA stuck with six.

 

[leftymachinist]

I have to throw in my 50 cents. Barstock is not a cheap material, it usually refers to round bars. It is formulated however it is required by the foundries customers. It can be as simple as straight lo-carbon steel up to all manner of alloy steels(4140 chrome-moly is one of the most versitile and strongest when properly hardened & tempered)

 

[AABEN]

When I bought my GP100 back in 2008 I looked at the competition from S&W and Taurus and saw they both offered a 7th round, while Ruger stops at 6.

I always questioned the prudence of putting an extra hole in a cylinder, leaving thinner cylinder walls, which would seem to allow for a greater risk (even if still VERY low) of a gun blowing up.

Saw this post on a Ruger forum that shows what can happen to the built-like-a-tank GP even when one is using factory ammo.

http://rugerforum.net/ruger-double-...failure-gp-100-s-b-ammunition.html#post354467

How many of you would avoid 7-shot revolvers on the basis that they're not as strong?

S&W even has an 8-shot .357. So is 8-shots a good idea, a bad idea, or a bit of both?

Not any more than a one shot! If they are on the heavy frames

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

I have to throw in my 50 cents. Barstock is not a cheap material, it usually refers to round bars. It is formulated however it is required by the foundries customers. It can be as simple as straight lo-carbon steel up to all manner of alloy steels(4140 chrome-moly is one of the most versitile and strongest when properly hardened & tempered)

+1.

S&W still forges it's frames from bar stock. I'm pretty sure they forge their barrels from bar stock too. When I took a tour a couple of years ago I saw bins full of forgings for the super large frames they are now making for the 50 caliber revolvers. These forgings were fresh from the hammer mills, they had not been trimmed yet, so they still had the remains of the round bar stock on each end. I seem to remember the bar stock they started with was somewhere around 1 1/4" or 1 1/2" in diameter. The bar stock was cut a bit oversize, and then the hammer mills pounded it into shape, leaving a bit of round bar stock on each end of the forging. Later process stamped the waste away from the forgings, and then they went to the CNC equipment for final shaping.

Of course, cylinders will be cut from bar stock too.

Part of the tour included a quick pass through the material storage areas. I saw nothing but round bar stock in the racks. An incredible amount.