Is the Smith & Wesson model 29 too fragile for .44 Mag?

[WVfishguy]

I gave up on the Model 29 in the 80's after the two I had went so badly out of time I had to send them back to S&W. That's after shooting a few hundred rounds of reduced .44 loads.

I stuck with Ruger single and double actions after that fiasco. Shot many hundreds of .44 rounds with the Rugers, never had a problem.

I'll never buy a S&W .44 again.

 

[JR47]

You can shoot any factory ammo marked ".44 Magnum" for a long, long time before you'll have a problem with the early S&Ws (because modern factory loads are stepped down the original ones).

HT44240JHP/20-44 REM MAG-240 GR. JHP-1475 FPS/1160 FTLBS

HT44260BHP/20-44 REM MAG-260 GR. BCHP-1450 FPS/1214 FTLBS

23973-44 Magnum-240gr.-GDHP-1400/1044 ft/lb

C44A 240 gr. JHP 1440 fps/1105 ft. lbs.

92782 225 gr. FTX 1410fps 993 ftlbs.

I would think that these are full-power loads under anyone's definition. The advent of truly accurate chronography equipment revealed that many factory loads were "optimistic" in stated ballistics, to say the least. The factories were also playing with barrel lengths, not posting what they used to achieve the stated values, and the production values were considerably less.

 

[dbriannelson]

"I would think that these are full-power loads under anyone's definition. The advent of truly accurate chronography equipment revealed that many factory loads were "optimistic" in stated ballistics, to say the least. The factories were also playing with barrel lengths, not posting what they used to achieve the stated values, and the production values were considerably less." - quoth JR47.

Yes, I agree with that. Even earlier reloading manuals were wildly optimistic too, not just ammo manufacturers. But despite advertised velocities, I've got a '60s Pacific manual that is far less conservative in powder measure recommendations than current manuals. There's even an older Lyman manual on my shelf that shows middlin' loads that are above the maxes in some of the current books.

But some things really have changed. Bullet diameters have been reduced to lower peak pressures. Powders too are better tailored to reduce pressure spikes.

Factory loads now are easier on the firearm than they were thirty years ago. And factory ammo marked ".44 Magnum" won't hurt a S&W or any handgun chambered for it by the factory.

Published hand loads are also more conservative than in the past and are unlikely to cause any problems.

Handloading to achieve levels inconsistent with the SAAMI spec is a dangerous practice. It works fine most of the time, in most guns. But sometimes it doesn't. Seems to me that is one wants more power, it's far better to get a more powerful handgun than to hotrod one beyond its limits.

-Don

 

[CSA 357]

Hell No! But If You Try You Can Tear Up Any Thing, Is The 29 The Strongest 44 Mag? No, Csa

 

[JR47]

Again, much of that optimism came from people trying to achieve velocities advertised from test barrels of indeterminate length. No loss of velocity from cylinder gap involved.

Many of the velocities listed today aren't any different from the loads of 40 years ago. They are just done under more realistic conditions. The use of revolvers, and revolver-length barrels has slowed many a load.

The reloading manuals also fell to this sort of truth. Better methods of measuring pressures showed that some loads were over-pressured, and were reduced accordingly. There were never any 1500 fps, 240 gr. loads from a 4" barrel, or a 6" barrel. No matter what the factory claimed.

I'm also a little curious how you arrived at the "lessened diameter" comment. Did you mean the difference between cast and jacketed bullets?

 

[dbriannelson]

JR47, actually the difference between jacketed and cast bullets does have something to do with it. Jacketed bullets these days are generally .429 and cast are usually .430-.431, though smaller and larger cast bullets are available.

Cylinder throat diameters of my guns from the '80s measure 0.431-0.432, correct for cast bullets. Throats now measure 0.428 (in my new Model 21 before I reamed them). Bore groove diameters don't seem to have changed much and are about 0.430-0.431 (Keith said the very first revolvers were 0.429), though the method of broaching the rifling and the resulting finish are very different and currently inferior.

I wish I could attribute an author to it, but I read somewhere that the throat diameters were changed because jacketed bullet diameters were being reduced to prevent overpressure conditions beyond 36,000PSI, and S&W wanted to fix the inaccuracy caused by the undersized bullets. This would imply that jacketed bullets were first produced larger than the current .429 diameter - I do not have evidence beyond hearsay that this is true. I've gone back to some of my older reference books, but can't find specific jacketed bullet diameters in any of them.

At this point, I'll have to say that my comment about reducing jacketed bullet diameters doesn't have a lot of evidence either to support it or to contradict it. If anyone does have a solid reference to jacketed bullet diameters used in early .44 Magnums, it would be very interesting and I'd appreciate it if it were posted.

-Don