Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns How strong are S&W revolvers

How strong are S&W revolvers when it comes to hunting loads?
I have always heard if you want a strong revolver get a Ruger.
OK but I am not a huge handgun hunter mostly just shoot handguns for fun.
That said I have wondered how strong not only the S&W's were but also my Colt Mk3 Trooper when it comes to full power hunting loads.

Which "full power" hunting load are you thinking on using?

S&W revolvers are strong enough for hunting and or a reasonable amount of full power ammo

It depends on the specific cartridge and load.

Sheriffjoe
Right now I have nothing special in mind.
I probably won't even go to what many call full power as I am only going to be hunting whitetail.
Shots will be under 50 yards. The 44 mag will probably be the only one I use. Maybe the 22 Rem Jet for vermin in the yard.

They are strong enough for any load within SAAMI specs and some above

jwp475,
Thank you I will not be going over book loads.
And I will not be feeding them a steady diet of max loads.
I guess I am not worried about them handling my needs as
much as just wondering relative strength compared to other revolvers.
I don't want to beat these guns up basically just to practice with heavy loads
so I can get ready to hunt with them.

What chambering and what frame. I assume 357 since you mention the Colt Trooper. You’ll shoot a lot of buckets full of “full” power 357 through an N frame before it ever shows any sign of it. The same loads through a K frame may show some wear sooner.

Realistically most revolver shooters shoot far more mid level or light loads regardless of the brand of revolver and save the heavy loads for their intended purpose. I’m sure I shoot 100 to one, light and mid level loads to heavy loads. If that’s your plan, to shoot a lot of light loads and a few heavy loads, then good luck wearing out any frame Smith.

Well of course that’s right.

The big question is sustained use (which the OP has now clarified). A K frame .357 won’t stand up to a steady diet of magnum loads as well as an L or N frame would; the Model 29 won’t stand up to heavy loads as would a Ruger Redhawk or a Freedom Arms 83. A Model 57 will stand up to sustained magnum loads much long than a 29.

JWP has it right. I've got a 1967 purchased 29 Smith that has between 8-10,000 rds. of full power .44 Mag ammo through it. "Full power meaning 22 grs. of old style 2400 powder and a 250 gr. Keith SWC bullet. It passed factory inspection and had but one part replaced. That was the part that held the cylinder in place. It was worn from firing most of those rounds double action.
I understand the X frame guns in 460 and 500 S&W were tested with a solid, no bore, barrel in place. When fired with factory ammo, those guns held together..... E

I remember all the oldtimers coming into the shop and saying "I use a Ruger because a Smith will never stand up to my .44 loads". I always thought two things--1-One day your Ruger won't, either, and two-if you're so manly, why are you only shooting a .44 and not a .454 Casull or more.

Yes but a normal shooter will have no.problems

Evan competitive shooter would need a sh!.t ton of rounds to have problems

I.love my M19's and they see nothing but 158 grain bullets near 1400 FPS

I don’t doubt that, but will add that in the late 70s on a steady diet (about 20,000 rounds) of 22/2400, 250 gr Lyman 429421s I effectively wore out a Model 29-2. I am sure it could have been rebuilt, but accuracy fell off pretty badly. While I haven’t quite approached that level with my Model 57s, it seems like they take that level of punishment somewhat better than their big brother.

I suspect this is true of other models as well; the Model 25s in .45 LC come to mind.

The 41 mag in a Nframe S&W is perfection

Agree 100%

I don't shoot max loads in either Smith's or Rugers. Specifically in the 357, I don't like J frame Smith's. I have pretty much eschewed the K frames since the L frames came out. The MkIII is similar to an L frame IME, as far as strength. Do what I do with either your MkIII or an L or N frame and you will be fine, with a long-lived revolver. Either the old Security Six or newer GP100 is in the same category as these guns. I have no experience with the SP101 and so make no comment. The Redhawk in 357 is off-the-hook strong.

I will admit I am not up on frame size nomenclature.
The Smiths are my wife's uncles but will become mine.
The Colt is mine and so far I only have shot mild target loads in it.
Only one of the Smiths I know details about is the 44mag.
It is a Model 29 with 8 3/8 inch barrel. That is what is on the box.
Last time I hunted with a handgun it was a Contender in 45-70.
I killed one deer with it then sold it. I believe the 22 Rem Jet was made in the Model 35.
I know this one has an 8 3/8 inch barrel as I saw it once.
Thanks for the answers. I am confident that for all the shooting I plan to do I will not cause excessive wear,

GF1, the 57 is a 41 magnum, lot different than a 44 magnum

I am very much aware of that. I’m referring to maximum loads in each, appropriate to the cartridge. If you measure the outside of the Model 29 and Model 57 you will find those dimensions are the same; hence, my comments about the Model 57’s strength. More steel in them.

The model 29 is a good gun and strong enough for factory type loadings...all of them you can stand to shoot. Again, don't go overboard reloading and you'll be fine. IMO max loads are never a good idea in any gun.

Selling a Contender in 45-70 is always a good thing. The 45-70 is a great cartridge...in an 1886 Winchester or Marlin Cowboy. I have NO hankering to touch one off in a handgun of any sort.

The Mark III Colt is a great gun.