Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns S&W 29 Heavy Loads

29's can handel the prssure HOWEVER sutained firing of heavey loads will stretch a s&w frame,

Occational firing of 300 grain heavy bear defence loads will not hurt, but sustained firing you are better off with a ruger as others have said

BS. The frame won't stretch.

Redhawk and S&W M-29

So much of what you know, isn't so.

Ain't that the truth, I know a top smith that was a factory authorized service center for S&W that does not agree with his position.

They absolutely do. There have been plenty of documented cases. You just need to adhere to their limitations and they will return a long, reliable life.

The neat part about the S&W model 29 and its many iterations, is that it will kill anything necessary, just swell, using typical factory spec ammunition.

Dan

Did they stretch because of SAAMI spec loads? Do you know?

And what do you mean by "stretch"? Were the frames unserviceable? Do you know?

There's a lot of 29s out there that have seen a lot of full power rounds through them. This forum BS you are helping spread sounds more like a Ruger sales pitch for the weak-minded.

This forum BS I am helping to spread.......that's nice, dla. As usual, you add so much "flavor" to these discussions.

In the '80s, when IHMSA was in full swing and picking up momentum, some of the inherent weaknesses in the design were made readily apparent with the virtually thousands of full-tilt rounds being shot by single shooters through their 29s. Actual frame stretch was the result. Taffin even wrote about this quite a while back. Remember this was an old frame design that was adapted to the new cartridge it wasn't actually built for. They are a fine .44 Mag, you just need to limit its exposure to a lot of full-tilt loads.

Yep, I knew you didn't know.

Those "full-tilt" loads you glibly refer to were overloads.

Now show me where the 29 frames are becoming unserviceable from SAAMI-spec loads and I'll listen.

Sorry I didn't answer that question the first go-round. Full-tilt meaning SAAMI max. Not over-pressure. It's a .44 Special frame, what do you expect? I doubt you will listen no matter what you are presented with.

Agreed. (I added the velocity to your post, for [bleep] and grins...) It's beyond me why folks want to carry a hand-cannon loaded for bear for 2-legged varmint defense. It's just not necessary.

I'd go with any bullet of 210-240 gr weight, JHP or cast HP (or even a SWC or LBT-WFN for that matter, if that's all I could get my hands on) running at 950 fps or better.

One of the reason the SAAMI pressure was lowered for the 44 mag was that the M-29 could hold up to the many rounds fired in IHMSA in the late 70's and 80's. The only one that doesn't what he is talking about is dla.

Well the reason I wont listen is simple: you're spouting BS. You can't separate fact from fantasy when it comes to these old forum rumors, so you just pass them along. Of course then your fanboys start cheering from the sidelines.

Part of the problem is that you are regurgitating information from 40 years ago - as if time has stood still for the M29. Thats like telling folks not to carry a round under the chamber of a modern Ruger Blackhawk.

You know what, dla, you don't really play well with others. I can count on one hand how many times you have had a cordial discussion with folks on this site. You come in and sling feces. Instead of screaming "BS," why not tell us why we are wrong? You turn everything into pissing contest. How old are you?

I am not spouting BS, oh wise one. Maybe, just maybe if you researched a little better, you would see that this is the truth. Not an insult for Smith & Wesson, just a fact. They were never designed to handle the pressures of the .44 Mag -- it's just that simple. Problems with the design lead to the performance package, but it didn't address the basic design. Again, not an indictment, just a limitation.

Now, instead of your personal attacks, why don't you grow up and provide us with something factual instead of your incessant cries of BS. We are waiting.

How is this spouting BS,by understanding the limitations of a particular firearm which has been documented!

First off the OP asked about bear defense loads which brings a higher bullet weight and increase pressures, Which for practicality purposes, if the end user was looking to shoot quantity of these kinds of loads a stouter platform would be desired.

S&W are strong but its a fact they will not handle the abuse like a ruger, it comes down to engineering,

Oh brother! Another fanboy with zero understanding on the subject. Please educate me on frame stretch. I'm awaiting your awesomeness!

This is the danger with these old wives-tales......

No, JWP, the SAAMI did not lower the pressure limit for the .44 Magnum. What happend is they started measuring pressure using the PSI standard, and not the CUP standard. Same ammo, same pressures, just different value systems. E

Nope not a fan boy,just educated, but I will refrain from name calling since it is counterproductive.

What would you like to know about the frame stretching? It is self explanatory the frame window dimension lengthens...

I've read extensive histories on the S&W model 29 and its iterations. None mentioned documented evidence of frame stretching. Nearly all mentioned documented instances of the internal action components being battered and rendered damaged from extensive firing of max loads. The consensus was that if bullet weights were kept to 240 to 300 grains, and velocities to 1200 with the lighter bullets and 1100 with the 300 grainers, the guns would last a lifetime.