Ti cylinder issues

[halfmoonclip]

Did a search, without much satisfaction. Have a couple 4 Ti cylindered revos that have never given me any trouble. Full disclosure, none have a really high round count, nor have I ever gone batchit cleaning the cylinders. Learned to live with the flashmarks on the cylinder face (scrub it off, they just come back). Never used anything more aggressive than a bronze brush and Hoppes.
Anyway, have seen pictures of Smith Ti cylinders that looked like a sawtooth, really chewed up.
Any opinions/information on any of this, and how it came to pass?
I'm not really worried about my own guns, but I am curious.
Thanks in advance,
Moon

 

[5-SHOTS]

On .357Mag S&W revolvers with titanium cylinder you can't shoot factory .357Mag with a bullet weight less than 125gr. or you'll have erosion of the cylinder, in particular the face.
I still have an italian gun magazine article where they ignored the rule and shoot a box of Fiocchi 110gr. FMJ-TC Black Mamba and the face of the titanium cylinder of a S&W 340PD was badly, badly eroded. Just after 50 shots.
.38Spl is always fine to shoot and I don't think the 9mm can cause damage anyway. In any case it is best to read the instructions carefully to see if there are particular loads to avoid. As regards cleaning, you must also follow any warnings in the instructions or ask the manufacturer if there are any particular precautions to take. In the absence of particular warnings I think you can clean the cylinder normally even if it is worth saying that titanium scratches easily. Perhaps I would exclusively use a stiff nylon brush for the chambers and a stiff toothbrush to clean the face of the cylinder.

 

[Anchorite]

On .357Mag S&W revolvers with titanium cylinder you can't shoot factory .357Mag with a bullet weight less than 125gr. or you'll have erosion of the cylinder, in particular the face.
I still have an italian gun magazine article where they ignored the rule and shoot a box of Fiocchi 110gr. FMJ-TC Black Mamba and the face of the titanium cylinder of a S&W 340PD was badly, badly eroded. Just after 50 shots.
.38Spl is always fine to shoot and I don't think the 9mm can cause damage anyway. In any case it is best to read the instructions carefully to see if there are particular loads to avoid. As regards cleaning, you must also follow any warnings in the instructions or ask the manufacturer if there are any particular precautions to take. In the absence of particular warnings I think you can clean the cylinder normally even if it is worth saying that titanium scratches easily. Perhaps I would exclusively use a stiff nylon brush for the chambers and a stiff toothbrush to clean the face of the cylinder.

Yes. I have a 340PD and the cylinder of mine looks like the face of any other revolver cylinder. I havent shot any light 357s in mine, but I have shot some light 38s and no erosion.

 

[fxvr5]

On .357Mag S&W revolvers with titanium cylinder you can't shoot factory .357Mag with a bullet weight less than 125gr. or you'll have erosion of the cylinder, in particular the face.
I still have an italian gun magazine article where they ignored the rule and shoot a box of Fiocchi 110gr. FMJ-TC Black Mamba and the face of the titanium cylinder of a S&W 340PD was badly, badly eroded. Just after 50 shots.
. is always fine to shoot and I don't think the 9mm can cause damage anyway. In any case it is best to read the instructions carefully to see if there are particular loads to avoid. As regards cleaning, you must also follow any warnings in the instructions or ask the manufacturer if there are any particular precautions to take. In the absence of particular warnings I think you can clean the cylinder normally even if it is worth saying that titanium scratches easily. Perhaps I would exclusively use a stiff nylon brush for the chambers and a stiff toothbrush to clean the face of the cylinder.

The S&W manual says:

CAUTION: Do not use Magnum loads with bullet weights of less than 120 grains - This will reduce the possibility of premature erosion in titanium alloy cylinders.

 

[unclenunzie]

I let the S&W instructions and the price be my guide to loading and cleaning my 340PD (and a used 337 I picked up previous). I use ordinary clp and nylon brushes only. Nothing in the instructions says nylon only, I just like to go easy on them. The 340PD has seen 357 mag loads, just never anything under 120 grains, which in practical terms has been 125. Hornady American Gunner XTP. My notes say: "You know its not 38 special but it's not painful. I don't think running several cylinders would be fun, though."

The pictures I've seen of severe erosion are explained by the use of magnum loads under the minimum weight. The burn runs hot at the face of cylinder and damages the protective coating and the cylinder face is ruined.

I consider my 340PD an extreme lightweight 38 +P that can run forever so long as it is cared for, like if they made a solid steel 442 at half the weight.

 

[5-SHOTS]

That is exactly the article I was referring of. It is an old article published for the first time many years ago on an italian gun magazine. Now it can be found online, also translated in various languages, including english. The photos and text are the original ones.

Titanium cylinder erosion in revolvers

User manuals are often like medicine “patient information leaflets”: very few read them, but sometimes they contain fundamental importance information. Not following them may lead to serious consequences. Let’s take a look at the titanium cylinder erosion case in revolvers

www.all4shooters.com

 

[silicosys4]

Interesting. I'd think its the same phenomenon that causes flame cutting on the top strap of .357's when used with the same .357 sub 125gr. ammunition.
That being the bullet is light enough to accelerate quickly enough to reach the forcing cone while the powder is still burning, causing the unburnt particles of powder to media blast the frame.
While S&W says the damage to "fast burning powders" I'm thinking the better explanation is the bullets are too light...
because the same powder won't cause the same damage with 158gr bullets as the acceleration is slow enough that most of the powder has burned by the time the bullet hits the forcing cone so are expelling more hot gas and less unburnt powder.

 

[5-SHOTS]

Interesting. I'd think its the same phenomenon that causes flame cutting on the top strap of .357's when used with the same .357 sub 125gr. ammunition.
That being the bullet is light enough to accelerate quickly enough to reach the forcing cone while the powder is still burning, causing the unburnt particles of powder to media blast the frame.
While S&W says the damage to "fast burning powders" I'm thinking the better explanation is the bullets are too light...
because the same powder won't cause the same damage with 158gr bullets as the acceleration is slow enough that most of the powder has burned by the time the bullet hits the forcing cone so are expelling more hot gas and less unburnt powder.

That's exactly what happens.

I can testify to having fired 50 rounds of the same Fiocchi 110gr FMJ-TC with my former Ruger SP101 DAO and having noticed signs of erosion in the forcing cone, something that had never happened when shooting hundreds of Fiocchi .357Mag 142gr FMJ-TC and Fiocchi .357Mag 158gr CP-TC.
After that experience, no more light bullet factory .357Mag for me, period.

Fiocchi makes some very hot .357Mag stuff. They also had another very hot load, a 110gr. FMJ-FN, that was even hotter than the Black Mambas. I don't know if they still have this load in the catalog but it ran even faster than the Black Mambas.
I wouldn't use them in any revolver of any type.

 

[halfmoonclip]

That is exactly the article I was referring of. It is an old article published for the first time many years ago on an italian gun magazine. Now it can be found online, also translated in various languages, including english. The photos and text are the original ones.

Titanium cylinder erosion in revolvers

User manuals are often like medicine “patient information leaflets”: very few read them, but sometimes they contain fundamental importance information. Not following them may lead to serious consequences. Let’s take a look at the titanium cylinder erosion case in revolvers

www.all4shooters.com

The article is excellent, 5 SHOTS. Thank you. I need to root out my owner's manual for the 340SC (mine is an early one, and that's what they were called initially). The only admonition about ammo I recall was about bullet pull; lighter weights were supposed to be more of an issue, due to abrupt recoil. Try four of your desired load, and check the fifth for bullet pull.
Seem to recall that bullet pull as the focus of Gunzine articles back then as well.
The .22, .45 and 9mm were all used, and thus without a manual.
That's not to say I might not have read the manual anyway. Hey, it's a revolver, what's to know?
Happily, I've not committed any serious sins with my revos, no crazy scrubbing, or aggressive cleaners. The 340SC is the oldest, and the example most likely to have damage.
Do have some Fiocchi 140 FMJ/TC that clock nearly 1100 out of a snub (seems to me I clocked them through a heavier snub, due to recoil) as a last ditch, GTFOM for bears. Though a bear mauling might hurt less than firing those through the 340. Fiocchi does make some hellacious ammo.
Thanks, gang. Never found this information previously.
Moon

 

[halfmoonclip]

While S&W says the damage to "fast burning powders" I'm thinking the better explanation is the bullets are too light...
because the same powder won't cause the same damage with 158gr bullets as the acceleration is slow enough that most of the powder has burned by the time the bullet hits the forcing cone so are expelling more hot gas and less unburnt powder.

This makes serious sense as well. The admonitions about lighter bullets could apply to the flame cutting and bullet pull.
Moon

 

[halfmoonclip]

Okay, went digging through my records, and even the boxes (which I generally keep). Found the original box (a nice, padded, latched, flip top number), and what I paid for it in '02 ($525), but no manual.
May try to get one from Smith.
Thanks again,
Moon

 

[243winxb]

I use #9, Break Free CLP & Bronze brush on my 337PD 38 special, with 163 gr Home cast swc. Bullseye or Unique powder.

 

[243winxb]

Not my 360PD. A 357 mag, would be different then a 38 spec? I think.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Not my 360PD. A 357 mag, would be different then a 38 spec? I think.

That looks the same as the damage to the cylinder face as in 5-SHOT's link above.
Moon

 

[5-SHOTS]

The article is excellent, 5 SHOTS. Thank you. I need to root out my owner's manual for the 340SC (mine is an early one, and that's what they were called initially). The only admonition about ammo I recall was about bullet pull; lighter weights were supposed to be more of an issue, due to abrupt recoil. Try four of your desired load, and check the fifth for bullet pull.
Seem to recall that bullet pull as the focus of Gunzine articles back then as well.
The .22, .45 and 9mm were all used, and thus without a manual.
That's not to say I might not have read the manual anyway. Hey, it's a revolver, what's to know?
Happily, I've not committed any serious sins with my revos, no crazy scrubbing, or aggressive cleaners. The 340SC is the oldest, and the example most likely to have damage.
Do have some Fiocchi 140 FMJ/TC that clock nearly 1100 out of a snub (seems to me I clocked them through a heavier snub, due to recoil) as a last ditch, GTFOM for bears. Though a bear mauling might hurt less than firing those through the 340. Fiocchi does make some hellacious ammo.
Thanks, gang. Never found this information previously.
Moon

The 340SC model should be the silver colored one while the 340PD is the black. You still should find the warning, not to shoot factory loads with a bullet weight less than 120gr, indicated in the barrel shroud.

The reason for not shooting that type of load is exactly the one explained by silicosys4: fast, very hot, unburned particles of gunpowder that follow the bullet which, coming out of the cylinder gap, erode the cylinder itself, not only the face but also the area outside of the cylinder in correspondence with that small steel deflector placed between the forcing cone and the top strap.
The jump-crimp issue would manifest itself more with higher bullet weights, being caused by the inertia of the bullet's weight during the recoil: the heavier the bullet, the more it tends to remain in its position while the revolver rears up for the recoil. This means that, since the revolver goes backwards and upwards during the recoil, the bullet could come out of the crimp. The phenomenon is also aggravated by the fact that these ultra-light revolvers, after the recoil, return to position faster than the heavier ones and therefore the bullet, once released from the crimp, could advance further. In this regard, I have another article from another Italian gun magazine where the tester of a 340PD with green Hi-Viz front sight had jump-crimp already on the third shot with two or three different ammo. Unfortunately I don't remember with which ammo. I should look for that magazine in my archive and reread the article.

 

[westernrover]

In my experience, the Titanium cylinder in the Aluminum (with Scandium) gun did not last. I shot it a lot. It did not hold up. I sent it back to S&W three times and the third time they refused to fix it. They're not durable materials for the purpose. Titanium is particularly bad for cylinders because cases stick in it. When cases stick, combustion cuts the heads. Oftentimes, extraction is just hard, but it can also damage brass that has to be discarded for impending head separation, and then when it's cut in the chamber, extraction is truly hard. Ultimately, my Titanium cylinder failed and broke the top strap ending the revolver's life, but this was only the last of many failures. I completely lost interest in aluminum guns and Titanium cylinders.

Notice that S&W is the only one who makes guns with Ti cylinders. It's not like they need some huge capital investment to do it. It can be outsourced like a lot of revolver parts are from all makers. So why doesn't Ruger do it? Why not Colt? Kimber? Charter? Taurus? Anyone? They all know better. Taurus did try it, but know better now.

I think S&W know they suck but they have customers that will buy them at high prices and the unwritten but often-spoken understanding is that they are to be carried a lot but shot little. My thoughts are that I have no use for such a novelty. It would be stupid to carry something that I don't train and practice with, and stupid to carry it only to find out when I need to reload it that a case head has been cut off and I can't clear that chamber so my moonclip won't go in.

 

[halfmoonclip]

The jump-crimp issue would manifest itself more with higher bullet weights, being caused by the inertia of the bullet's weight during the recoil: the heavier the bullet, the more it tends to remain in its position while the revolver rears up for the recoil. This means that, since the revolver goes backwards and upwards during the recoil, the bullet could come out of the crimp.

My revo indeed has the gray cylinder, and the bullet weight caveat below the barrel.
On the bullet weight, we'll have to disagree. My experience has been that the lighter bullets have a sharper, more abrupt recoil. An example; my 940 is nearly .357 sharp for recoil with 115gr bullets, but 147s feel very much like .38 Specials fired in a near identical 640. Know that this Centennial is an older one, on the smaller frame.
My speculation has always been that the lighter bullet gets moving quickly, and more sharply, compared to the heavier ones, which accelerate more gradually. Too, heavier bullets shoot higher than lighter ones (at typical handgun distances), because the gun has had more time to rise in recoil, before exiting the barrel.
Back in '02, when my 340 was purchased, there was much discussion in the Gunzines on the bullet pull issue, and none (that I recall) on gas cutting with light bullets. The gun was simply so light that it pulled bullets inertially.
For whatever reason, I'll continue to observe the bullet weight instructions.
Moon

 

[5-SHOTS]

My revo indeed has the gray cylinder, and the bullet weight caveat below the barrel.
On the bullet weight, we'll have to disagree. My experience has been that the lighter bullets have a sharper, more abrupt recoil. An example; my 940 is nearly .357 sharp for recoil with 115gr bullets, but 147s feel very much like .38 Specials fired in a near identical 640. Know that this Centennial is an older one, on the smaller frame.
My speculation has always been that the lighter bullet gets moving quickly, and more sharply, compared to the heavier ones, which accelerate more gradually. Too, heavier bullets shoot higher than lighter ones (at typical handgun distances), because the gun has had more time to rise in recoil, before exiting the barrel.
Back in '02, when my 340 was purchased, there was much discussion in the Gunzines on the bullet pull issue, and none (that I recall) on gas cutting with light bullets. The gun was simply so light that it pulled bullets inertially.
For whatever reason, I'll continue to observe the bullet weight instructions.
Moon

If you take two .357Mag cartridges, same case, same primer, same powder, same amount of powder, same crimp force, two different bullets, one 125gr and the other 158gr, you'll have more recoil with the 158gr and more jump-crimp risk with the 158gr. Period. Inertia and the principle of action and reaction are not opinions. You will also have more unburned powder with the 125gr bullet.
Having said this, it is clear that an ammo with a 125gr bullet, loaded to develop the maximum pressure allowed for the caliber, could produce more recoil than a 158gr ammo loaded for target shooting. In any case, the recoil can be calculated if the exit speed of the bullet is measured, therefore the recoil can also be expressed with an objective and not subjective data.
For personal defense there's a trend in favour of the use of lighter bullets because they can be pushed at greater speeds, increasing the phenomenon of hydrodynamic shock on the target and increasing the probability that hollow-point bullets will expand correctly. Furthermore, with lighter bullets it is easier to keep the pressure under control as the dose of powder increases. With heavier bullets, maximum pressure is achieved with a smaller dose of powder, assuming the powder is the same, of course. This is always due to the higher inertia needed to make a heavier bullet move and accelerate. Furthermore, with lighter bullets it is easier to obtain a higher terminal kinetic energy because the kinetic energy grows according to the square of the velocity while it grows according to half the mass of the bullet.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Inertia and the principle of action and reaction are not opinions

But the abruptness of the reaction can be different, which affects perceived recoil...even if the total recoil is greater. The difference between a boxer's quick jab, and a John Wayne haymaker.
In any case, we'll have to agree to disagree. And, as noted, I'll continue to abide by factory recommendations regarding bullet weight.
Moon

 

[fxvr5]

If you take two .357Mag cartridges, same case, same primer, same powder, same amount of powder, same crimp force, two different bullets, one 125gr and the other 158gr, you'll have more recoil with the 158gr and more jump-crimp risk with the 158gr.

But 125 gr and 158 gr full power loads do not use the same powder weight when using the same powder. The 125 loads uses more powder.

 

[5-SHOTS]

But 125 gr and 158 gr full power loads do not use the same powder weight when using the same powder. The 125 loads uses more powder.

And what does this have to do with my reasoning?
Have you ever heard of hypothetical cases?
In any case, those who reloads can assemble two cartridges like the ones in the hypothesis every day of the week, naturally taking the maximum dose of powder, beyond which not to go, the maximum allowed by the tables for the heaviest bullet. But it's not necessary to go to the maximum to prove my point. Even with wad cutter dose of powder you'll have more recoil with the heavier bullet. Period. In any case, in my hypothesis I wasn't talking about full loads or factory loads.

 

[fxvr5]

And what does this have to do with my reasoning?

First,

If the two bullet weights have the same powder and charge, the 125 gr bullet would be going slower than the 158, and would produce much less recoil, and would have less effect on bullet pull. But in the real world, the 125 bullets have more powder and produce more speed and, this generally means the light bullet accelerates faster and has a faster recoil impulse. Thus two things should be considered for this subject; the recoil force and the recoil speed.

If you crunch some numbers, From Hodgdon's website using H110/296 powder, max listed charge:

125 gr Horn. XTP, 22.0 gr, 1966 fps, 41,400CUP pressure
recoil force in a 3 lb gun = 10.20 ft lbs;
recoil speed in a 3 lb gun = 14.79 fps

158 gr Horn. XTP, 16.7.0 gr, 1591 fps, 40,700CUP pressure
recoil force in a 3 lb gun = 8.97 ft lbs;
recoil speed in a 3 lb gun = 13.87 fps

The lighter bullet produces more recoil force, and a faster recoil speed. Which results in more bullet pull, given the different weight bullets, I'll let a physics major work out.

 

[5-SHOTS]

First,

If the two bullet weights have the same powder and charge, the 125 gr bullet would be going slower than the 158, and would produce much less recoil, and would have less effect on bullet pull. But in the real world, the 125 bullets have more powder and produce more speed and, this generally means the light bullet accelerates faster and has a faster recoil impulse. Thus two things should be considered for this subject; the recoil force and the recoil speed.

If you crunch some numbers, From Hodgdon's website using H110/296 powder, max listed charge:

125 gr Horn. XTP, 22.0 gr, 1966 fps, 41,400CUP pressure
recoil force in a 3 lb gun = 10.20 ft lbs;
recoil speed in a 3 lb gun = 14.79 fps

158 gr Horn. XTP, 16.7.0 gr, 1591 fps, 40,700CUP pressure
recoil force in a 3 lb gun = 8.97 ft lbs;
recoil speed in a 3 lb gun = 13.87 fps

The lighter bullet produces more recoil force, and a faster recoil speed. Which results in more bullet pull, given the different weight bullets, I'll let a physics major work out.

Which exactly confirms that, by fixing all the parameters and changing only the weight of the bullet, you have greater recoil with the heavier bullet.

 

[fxvr5]

Which exactly confirms that, by fixing all the parameters and changing only the weight of the bullet, you have greater recoil with the heavier bullet.

That's fine, but real .357 ammo that we shoot does not follow that rule, therefore your example has no real-world application to the subject of bullet pull, which, unless I'm mistake, was the point of the bullet pull discussion, i.e. what happens in the real world.

 

[5-SHOTS]

That's fine, but real .357 ammo that we shoot does not follow that rule, therefore your example has no real-world application to the subject of bullet pull, which, unless I'm mistake, was the point of the bullet pull discussion, i.e. what happens in the real world.

How about the S&W 296 AirLite, titanium cylinder, .44Spl that has a bullet weight limitation "max bullet 200 grain" due to possible jump-crimp with heavier bullets?


Is it the same real world?

Source: https://cosmolineandrust.blogspot.com/2008/02/sunday-smith-36-model-296-1999.html?m=1