Revolver Strength

[Bob Wright]

I see questions regarding the relative strength of revolvers pop up fairly often, both here and other forums. At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all gun expert, here's my take on the subject, based on my experience.

First consideration is cylinder strength. Simply put, the more steel that surrounds the cartridge, the better. Any production revolver can be blown up simply by using too much powder or the wrong powder. But loading data that has been proven to be within safe limits will never blow out a cylinder.

The weakest point of any revolver is the barrel stub extension right in front of the cylinder. Overtax this and barrel cracking will occur. This is subject not only to high pressures, but metal fatigue as well.

Another weak point is the top strap of the revolver. This is subject to considerable tension stress each time the revolver is fired. This tension comes from the whipping arc of recoil as the frame drags the heavy barrel with it.

I have used very heavy loads in .44 Magnum and .45 Colt revolvers, never suffered a split cylinder wall. I have had barrel stubs to split, in Rugers, Smiths, and Dan Wessons. And stretched the topstrap in one Colt Single Action .357 Magnum.

My own observation is that if you feel the need to exceed reasonable pressure levels then switch guns. Go to a good rifle or double gun. Keep the revolver a revolver.

Bob Wright

 

[CraigC]

Personally, I think much of such discussions is purely academic. I may post a lot about potential, heavy bullets and maximum velocities but I rarely use such loads. 99% of my needs are met with .44Spl and .44Mag handloads that are not too distant from each other.

 

[Dale53]

Personally, I think much of such discussions is purely academic. I may post a lot about potential, heavy bullets and maximum velocities but I rarely use such loads. 99% of my needs are met with .44Spl and .44Mag handloads that are not too distant from each other.

This is "Terrible", Craig, I find myself agreeing with you AGAIN! Oh, woe is me! :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Amongst my .44 Magnums are a Model 29 S&W (before the durability package) with 8 3/8" barrel and a Burris "Big Dot" scope and a Ruger Red Hawk 7½" with Leupold scope.

My Smith has been fired with, best as I can figure, 10,000+ rounds of .44 Magnum (my practice load is 23.0 grs of H110 behind a 250 gr Keith). My Ruger has been fired with probably half that many. Both revolvers are as tight as when I bought them. My hunting load is 24.0 grs of H110 behind the Keith. I have taken several deer with each of them. Fine hunting revolvers, no mistake.

When I and Frank Siefer designed the Lee C430- 310- RF GS bullet, I used the Ruger for development. I have shot a few of these through the Smith but decided that the heavier recoil was going to be detrimental to the life expectancy of the Smith. I DID take a nice ten point Whitetail deer with the Smith and Lee 310 ahead of 21.5 grs of H110 (not recommended as a steady diet for the Smith).

What a lot of us tend to forget is, enough is enough. Enough strength if fine - who needs more than enough? Enough power in a handgun is enough. Since my "big game" has been limited to large whitetail deer (corn and bean fed), a 250 gr Keith at 1200 fps will shoot through a whitetail at 100 yards, end for end (I have done it). So, the rationale for my opinion.

FWIW
Dale53

 

[maxpress]

Wish I had a picture of it. Local gunstore has a 7.5 New vaquero that someone put a speer manual Ruger only 45 through. Blew the top half of the cylinder through the topstrap. Pretty cool.

 

[mattsbox99]

Even better is how many guys are making their own .45 Colt +P loads for the NV and claiming them as published and trying to get other people to believe them.

 

[Seldomseen]

I have to disagree. The weakest place on a revolver is where the bolt notch is cut on the cylinder. It only stands to reason that the weakest point is where the metal is the thinest.

 

[steve b]

If ya wanted a magnum, you should have bought one. If ya want more, buy a rifle. I do not understand folks that plunk down the cash, go home, and instantly want more than they bought. steve b

 

[Ruger4Life]

Ruger SRH's and SBH's will handle a steady diet of hot, 310gr .44 mag handloads, which is what I hunt with. That's primarily what these heavy-duty guns were designed for when Bill Ruger made them--to shoot full-power and top-end loads all day and then some. 330 grainers and even heavier will chamber in the cylinders of SRH's, but not in S&W's.

Most Smith and Wessons will not handle top-end loads indefinitely without an eventual malfunction or failure of some kind. Randy Garrett, of Garret Cartridges makes a 330gr hard-cast load for the .44 magnum that has a warning label that says the load exceeds SAAMI pressure limits and for the cartridges to be fired ONLY in Ruger Redhawks and Dan Wesson Revolvers. There is a reason for that: lawsuits from owners of other guns that have the cylinder explode in their face when they touch off the round....that would be my guess.

Nothing against a S&W, they are fine guns and are suited for particular purposes, as are Rugers. Know the limitations of your gun and keep within those limitations. If you need a gun for a purpose that your gun is not suited for, buy another gun that is suited for the purpose at hand.

"Smith and Wessons are Thoroughbreds, Rugers are Clydesdales"
--John Taffin

 

[Dale53]

Ruger4Life;
>>>Know the limitations of your gun and keep within those limitations.<<<

A lot of wisdom resides in that statement...

Dale53

 

[don44]

If ya wanted a magnum, you should have bought one. If ya want more, buy a rifle. I do not understand folks that plunk down the cash, go home, and instantly want more than they bought. steve b

+10

 

[protoolman]

If it wasn't for handloading there wouldn't be much point in owning a .45 Colt. Personally I won't buy a new vaquero in .45 the cylinder walls are way to thin. They would make a dandy .44 special or .357 mag though. I wouldn't mind shooting hot .357s in a new vaquero.