You said .4925, I think you meant .4295.
S&W 29-10 failure part2
- Thread starter dirtybarry
- Start date
Ah, so I did. Yes, that's a typo (fixed now)
Some people swear by smith's warranty service. I know a few smith and Wesson armourers personally who won't buy smith and wesson for themselves at home because they swear the warranty department at smith are less than ok with helping us on this side of the border....
As for the forcing cone cracking. That used to be a well known problem with the model 10 and 64 but I thought they had fixed that?
As for the forcing cone cracking. That used to be a well known problem with the model 10 and 64 but I thought they had fixed that?
Wild_Thing
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- In the thick of it!
I would not be buying another Smith.
If you are collecting opinions, I would like to respectfully disagree with grinder on the mechanism. Based on what I can see in the photos provided, the key to the failure mechanism is seen in photo #2:
Note that the fracture through the topstrap of the frame has a stepped appearance. This is caused by multiple cracks (in this case there appears to have been at least four) that initiate independently in the same area, then eventually coalesce. These are called ratchet marks and are considered characteristic of fatigue. The 45 degree crack extending from a corner is also typical of fatigue.
It appears that extensive use of the revolver at stress levels in excess of the endurance limit of the material initiated multiple fatigue cracks in the frame. Cracks in the topstrap propagated until the topstrap was almost entirely penetrated. When the next shot was fired, the remaining material of the topstrap fractured, producing the ridge of brightly fractured material along the top edge of the topstrap that we can clearly see in the photo. With the topstrap broken, the barrel was unable to hold together on its own and it split. The outward displacement of the barrel halves fractured the thin frame supporting the bottom of the barrel instantly.
Note that I am not saying your loads were excessive, but I am saying they were beyond what this particular revolver was capable of handling.
My qualifications are a metallurgy degree and 5 years spent as a failure analysis consultant.
I think you are probably right. I didn't notice the step and your comments on high stress cyclic loading is also probably true. Having said that I still don't believe a properly designed and manufactured gun should ever fail in this way when used at standard all be it at the high end of the range loadings.
Last edited:
Very true on the round count. His dad runs a reloading operation and he shoots cowboy action at a very high level. When you can shoot 25 rounds in 20 seconds you go through ammo fast.
Thank you Grinder08, I appreciate your input as well.
This has been my contention all along, that although this gun was used hard, it was used within it's advertised capabilities. And that's the crux of the matter, it wasn't capable. But was that due to defect or design deficiency?
Time to find out what their international sales VP and manager think about this situation.
I think that is my main concern. If I had designed a crane beam system, for example, for 5,000 load cycles instead of 100,000 (more typical) I would have lost my licence and probably been sued. That assumes nobody was killed due to the crane failure in which case I could have been charged with criminal negligence and sent to jail. So S & W's apparently cavalier attitude just really annoys me.
your load is a little hot for a 29, they are not known for long term durability in .44 mag. But there is no way that should happen, S&W revolvers now have 2 piece barrels and lots of mimed parts, no thanks. I now will only own S&W's with the pinned barrels, the older the better.
Yup. near the upper limit to be sure but still within SAAMI specs. And I can attest to the lack of long term durability, heck I could be the poster child.
Considering the "endurance package" came out in the mid 80's the new stuff was supposed to be way stronger than the early ones which causes me to wonder how fast I would have killed an earlier model.
We'll see if their attitude changes any farther up the org chart. Somebody may get excited about a potential product liability issue.
I think the people who have the most experience with 29 S&W endurance problems are handgun Silhouette shooters. From what I understand a lot of the strengthening mods that S&W has made to the 29 was because of the inputs of the Silhouette shooters.
For heavy use in .44 mag , I went to a Redhawk way back when they first came out. Mine is well over 10K rounds , 99% of which was 24 grs. of 296 with a 270 gr. cast bullet. I tried these loads in a 629-2 that I had, it was a 3 inch round butt model with finger groove grips. The concussion from this gun with these loads was incredible, when I used them in an indoor range, everyone in the same bay as me would leave.
For heavy use in .44 mag , I went to a Redhawk way back when they first came out. Mine is well over 10K rounds , 99% of which was 24 grs. of 296 with a 270 gr. cast bullet. I tried these loads in a 629-2 that I had, it was a 3 inch round butt model with finger groove grips. The concussion from this gun with these loads was incredible, when I used them in an indoor range, everyone in the same bay as me would leave.
Wow good thing no one was hurt. You would think S&W would be all over this, wanting to examine the gun and hoping to establish whether to not it is an anomaly.
Curious - what are the specs of that load (e.g. energy/velocity), if you know?
Curious - what are the specs of that load (e.g. energy/velocity), if you know?
No problem at all with that , Gunwriter Brian Pierce has stated a friend has a Redhawk that was over 50,000 rds with no malfunctions, he finally had to send it to Ruger for a new barrel. Apparently the forcing cone was gone. As I remember this was all cast bullets not jacketed. The Redhawk is a bigger and heavier handgun then the S&W N frame, some people find them to big.
I'm suprised at how little attention this has gotten on the Smith and Wesson forum, I expected a lot of consternation there.
I've been a big fan of the 44 for many years. Had a Redhawk and put thousands of rounds through it with no problems. Sold it as I got a Dan Wesson that was more accurate. The Dan has lasted 10's of thousands of rounds and is still running strong. My forcing cone is far more eroded than this one. But still accurate and still in time.
I've always wanted a 29 but always thought it looked a little weak in it's construction.
I've been a big fan of the 44 for many years. Had a Redhawk and put thousands of rounds through it with no problems. Sold it as I got a Dan Wesson that was more accurate. The Dan has lasted 10's of thousands of rounds and is still running strong. My forcing cone is far more eroded than this one. But still accurate and still in time.
I've always wanted a 29 but always thought it looked a little weak in it's construction.
