S&W 625 JM & +P rounds?

Status
Not open for further replies.
All this begs the question, why is the Ruger revolver so much more durable than the S&W?
upload_2019-2-21_23-42-16.jpeg
upload_2019-2-21_23-43-5.png
The top pic is the Ruger Redhawk, the bottom the S&W JM. Notice the thickness of the chamber walls.
 
Last edited:
All this begs the question, why is the Ruger revolver so much more durable than the S&W?
Because the S&W is a turn of the century design from the blackpowder era. It was merely adapted to high pressure cartridges like the .357 and .44Mag's. Bill Ruger started from scratch and designed his guns around those cartridges and eliminated the known weaknesses of other designs. Much is made about the S&W's forged frame but this ignores more important factors. Ruger eliminated the sideplate and that is a major weakness. Ruger offset the bolt notches in the cylinder, where they are directly over the chambers on a S&W. This, coupled with the larger diameter result in a much stronger pressure vessel. Ruger's lockwork is more robust. Those action pins that S&W fortified with the endurance package, never an issue in the Ruger. As to the frame, S&W fans like to say that the Ruger is so much beefier to make up for being cast. In truth, Ruger's beef is not to just equal S&W's forging but to significantly exceed it. Which is why we have 50,000psi data for Redhawks and Super Redhawks but N-frames shoot loose at 36,000psi. Which is why the big Ruger DA's are converted to .454, .475 and .500Linebaugh but the N-frame is limited to a low pressure .475 (~1000fps).

These discussions usually devolve into a Ford vs Chevy pissing contest but really shouldn't. I approach it with no emotion whatsoever and own twice as many S&W's as Ruger DA's. The facts are what they are. S&W's are (were) beautifully made guns and an important part of our history. That have a panache that others never will. Some of them like the Triple Lock and Registered Magnum are the pinnacle of the gunmaker's art. The fact that more modern Rugers are stronger and more durable does not diminish that in the least.
 
Are they? How do you know the loads the blew that S&W up would not have also blown up the Ruger?

I have little doubt a (Super) Redhawk due to is thicker cylinder walls can probably take more pressure for a given cambering (44, 45, etc). That is simple math and strength of materials. If you want to shoot big heavy magnum cartridges loaded heavy and at or above SAAMI MAP then I agree the Ruger is more durable. But I would argue that in their own way the S&W are more durable. There are N-frames out there shot by competitive revolver shooters that will shoot on the order of 10,000 rounds or more a year in competition without a hitch and they will do that for several years before major parts need rebuilt. Cylinder stop and the mating notches in the cylinder tend to be a point of wear on the N-frames as fast double action round counts climb. I have three N-frames use for competitive shooting and two of them are well over approaching 20,000 rds through them an another closing in on 10,000 rds and I am at least the second owner on all of them. My 625 has had at least three previous owners I know of.

Pick the revolver that has the attributes that meet your needs and use.
 
Are they? How do you know the loads the blew that S&W up would not have also blown up the Ruger?
You don't.


I have little doubt a (Super) Redhawk due to is thicker cylinder walls can probably take more pressure for a given cambering (44, 45, etc).
No "probably" about it. Thicker walls, offset bolt notches and a more robust frame all add up to a higher pressure ceiling. How many N-frame .454's and .480's have you seen?


But I would argue that in their own way the S&W are more durable.
That just doesn't compute. If Rugers are more durable for the long haul at high pressure, then they are tougher over time, period. They don't 'just' have more resistance to blowing up. They have greater longevity and at higher pressures. That said, at reasonable pressures, S&W's are plenty durable. They are more prevalent in competition due to the quicker trigger return and for little reason other than that. In competition where this is a non-issue, such as silhouette, you simply do not see them. Because they don't hold up to a steady diet of full pressure loads.
 
CraigC, I think there are at least two totally-distinct types of wear in terms of a revolver (there may be others, such as environmental wear or damage, that we can leave out): wear due to the stress of ignition/internal ballistics and wear due to cycling of the action. I think mcb is just saying that, as to the latter, S&W's seems to be at least as durable/long-lived as the Rugers. As to the former, that's perhaps something where, below a given threshhold, they are all extremely durable, but above that threshhold the Rugers have an advantage - and above that, the Ruger will hold together when S&W's will catastrophically disassemble. Fair?
 
CraigC, I think there are at least two totally-distinct types of wear in terms of a revolver (there may be others, such as environmental wear or damage, that we can leave out): wear due to the stress of ignition/internal ballistics and wear due to cycling of the action. I think mcb is just saying that, as to the latter, S&W's seems to be at least as durable/long-lived as the Rugers. As to the former, that's perhaps something where, below a given threshhold, they are all extremely durable, but above that threshhold the Rugers have an advantage - and above that, the Ruger will hold together when S&W's will catastrophically disassemble. Fair?
Yes, I think that is a fair assessment but that's not what mcb said. He said:

"But I would argue that in their own way the S&W are more durable."

I wouldn't really make a judgement on that either way, as I have no evidence to confirm or deny. But we do have evidence of lots of S&W's shooting loose but very, very few Rugers.
 
That just doesn't compute. If Rugers are more durable for the long haul at high pressure, then they are tougher over time, period.
That big heavy cylinder comes at a cost when shooting DA at speed the bolt and bolt notches take a beating.
 
They say the same thing about N-frame .357's but nobody seems to use them for that.

Do you mean shooting N-frames fast? If so, I think you forgot about the IPSC/USPSA/Steel crowd. Oh, and that Jerry Miculek dude.
 
Do you mean shooting N-frames fast? If so, I think you forgot about the IPSC/USPSA/Steel crowd. Oh, and that Jerry Miculek dude.
Note he did say N frame 357s, which kinda proves my point guys that shot PPC built K and L frames. Miculek shoots a 45 or 8 shot 357 both significantly lighter than a M27/28 with 6 shooter.
PS some 8 shot 357 N frames in use today have titanium cylinders.
 
Note he did say N frame 357s, which kinda proves my point guys that shot PPC built K and L frames. Miculek shoots a 45 or 8 shot 357 both significantly lighter than a M27/28 with 6 shooter.
PS some 8 shot 357 N frames in use today have titanium cylinders.

My guess is that bolt and bolt notches can't tell the difference between various calibers. I suspect they only know how fast the cylinder is spinning.
 
USPSA is dominated by the 8-shot N-frames right now. The 929 is probably number one with its 8-shot titanium 9x19 cylinder. A fading second place belongs to the 627 with the various versions of the 327/R8 pulling up third place. With Ruger finally offering their 8-shooter with a usable barrel length its making slight inroads but at the last 2018 Revolver Nations it represented only two competitors in a field of 26. That was a record for Ruger at the Revolver nationals and it was pretty small that year due to it being combined back into the Limited Nationals rather than its own stand alone match.

I think if you did the math, the mass-moment of inertial of an N-frame cylinder does not vary much with chambers. The titanium would make a modest but measurable difference but I don't think eight 357 Mag or 9mm holes filled with ~1280gr of bullets (~160gr bullets are very popular in the sport right now) is going to be that much different than a 6-shot 45 cylinder filled with 1380 grs of bullets (6 x 230gr).
 
My guess is that bolt and bolt notches can't tell the difference between various calibers. I suspect they only know how fast the cylinder is spinning.
ROTFLMAO.
once again Mr Newton momentum is velocity x what?????
 
Do you mean shooting N-frames fast? If so, I think you forgot about the IPSC/USPSA/Steel crowd. Oh, and that Jerry Miculek dude.
No, pay attention to the context. I said nobody uses Redhawks for that.

N-frame .357's do batter the bolt, bolt notches and the bolt window in the frame more than their big bore counterparts. You see, .357 cylinders are heavier and therefore have more inertia. This is one of the benefits of the 8-shot version, less cylinder mass.
 
No, pay attention to the context. I said nobody uses Redhawks for that.

N-frame .357's do batter the bolt, bolt notches and the bolt window in the frame more than their big bore counterparts. You see, .357 cylinders are heavier and therefore have more inertia. This is one of the benefits of the 8-shot version, less cylinder mass.

sorry for my error.

a heavier cylinder will batter the bolt et al more than light weight cylinders, IF they are moving at the same rotational speed. One of the advantages of the lighter cylinders, including the titanium ones, is that they can rotate faster. If they're moving faster they might still be hitting the bolt with the same force as the heavier cylinders.
 
USPSA is dominated by the 8-shot N-frames right now. The 929 is probably number one with its 8-shot titanium 9x19 cylinder. A fading second place belongs to the 627 with the various versions of the 327/R8 pulling up third place. With Ruger finally offering their 8-shooter with a usable barrel length its making slight inroads but at the last 2018 Revolver Nations it represented only two competitors in a field of 26. That was a record for Ruger at the Revolver nationals and it was pretty small that year due to it being combined back into the Limited Nationals rather than its own stand alone match.

I think if you did the math, the mass-moment of inertial of an N-frame cylinder does not vary much with chambers. The titanium would make a modest but measurable difference but I don't think eight 357 Mag or 9mm holes filled with ~1280gr of bullets (~160gr bullets are very popular in the sport right now) is going to be that much different than a 6-shot 45 cylinder filled with 1380 grs of bullets (6 x 230gr).
Did the math my M28's cylinder weighs 14.15 oz with 6 rounds of 158gr 357s my daughter's M25's cylinder weighs 11.95 oz with 6 200gr 45 acps nearly 20% heavier, with 1 round it's 11.35 for the 28 and 8.6 for the 25 over 30% heavier.
 
Titanium made a bigger difference than I though it would. A quick an dirty model in Solid Works and I got.

An empty N-frame 6-shot 45 ACP stainless steel cylinder has a mass moment of inertial of .205 lbm*in^2
An empty N-frame 8-shot 357 Mag stainless steel cylinder has a mass moment of inertial of .203 lbm*in^2
Negligible difference between the two.

Now if you recalculate for Grade 5 Titanium alloy
An empty N-frame 6-shot 45 ACP Grade 5 Ti cylinder has a mass moment of inertial of .117 lbm*in^2
An empty N-frame 8-shot 357 Mag Grade 5 Ti cylinder has a mass moment of inertial of .115 lbm*in^2

The cylinder model had a simple hole down the middle, chambers and flutes but left out the star and stop notches, so the numbers are approximate.

I did a quick approximation for just the bullets using cylinder of the correct mass to make the math was quick and easy, and eight 160gr 357 or six 230gr 45 bullet both add ~.064 lbm*in^2 to the inertial.

So the only thing that really makes a difference between an 627 and 625 in the cylinder mass moment of inertial is the material the cylinder is made of.

ETA: did a 6-shot 357 Mag N-frame and I get a Mass moment of Inertial of Stainless .260 lbm*in^2, not sure they ever did a titanium version but if they did it would be ~ .148 lbm-in^2
six 160gr bullets would add ~ .048 lbm*in^2
 
Last edited:
Did anyone notice it appears that 3 rounds went off. But looking at the case web for burned powder residue, it appears that maybe only the round under the hammer went off? The case web on the 3rd round isn't visible.
 
Last edited:
And oh yeah, whoever loaded that round certainly put more than a +P charge in it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top