S&W 29-10 failure part2

[dirtybarry]

Email I sent to S&W this morning:

Gentlemen,

I am writing to express my disappointment with the model 29-10 (serial # redacted) that I purchased in January of this year as well as my dissatisfaction with your advertised "lifetime service policy".

This gun suffered a catastrophic failure of the forcing cone which in turn blew off a piece of the frame. Subsequent examination has also revealed an additional crack in the frame on the opposite side near the rear of the cylinder.

It was my understanding before I purchased this gun that they were well made and had even been improved with the "endurance package" and that Smith and Wesson had enough faith in their products to offer lifetime service.

Based on my experiences to date, I can say neither of these things are true.

Your firm claims that it's products are capable of firing any SAAMI approved load but the part that is left out is that if those loads are handloaded, Smith and Wesson denies any and all responsibility.

I have fired over 5500 rounds through this gun consisting of approximately 1800 rounds of new factory or factory reloaded and 3700 rounds that I personally reloaded ranging from less than starting loads to near maximum. All of these reloads used data published by Hodgdon Power (who has confirmed that all of their loads are within SAAMI specifications) and were worked up using established methods.

Consequently, the warranty centre that was contacted about this failure has flatly denied any warranty service, without even having had examined this gun, based on the use of reloaded ammunition.

If it is the de facto policy of Smith and Wesson to categorically deny any warranty service because of the use of reloaded ammunition, then why is this not made abundantly clear?

Further, if your products are simply not designed for nor capable of firing upper range loads, would it not be prudent to down rate them appropriately so that the powder manufacturers could publish load data more suitable to their more delicate nature?

While many, if not most, of this particular model are purchased simply for their aesthetic qualities, mine was purchased to be used. Unfortunately, it would appear that it was not made to be used as hard as I had intended.

It has been an informative process though as I have learned that despite your claims, based on the response of the warranty centre as well as your "customer service" response
(ticket # redacted) that any warranty for your products simply does not apply if they have been used to fire live ammunition of any kind. And that if they are used as actual guns instead of ornaments, they will break.

This expensive lesson has not been lost on me as it will most definitely influence my future purchases and recommendations.

Yours truly,
redacted

Their response:

Good day,
Smith & Wesson will not cover any firearms that fail when reloaded ammunition is used. The failure you describe was probably the fault of the ammo and not the firearm.
I don’t know how to resolve this issue, perhaps we could replace the revolver at cost? I will contact the warranty center to review and discuss our options.
FYI, Mario has been retired for 6 months.
Regards,
Jeff

Jeffrey A. Croze
International Sales Manager
Smith & Wesson Corp/Thompson Center Arms

So there you have it, if you use reloaded ammunition in a Smith and Wesson product, you are on your own.

 

[graydog]

Dirtybarry don't tale affence to this but what did you expect to hear from S&W?

They cannot sontrol how you reload or what you did or did not do.

I have a friend that is a retired armorier from the RCMP. He looked at the pictures of your gun and his take on it is that something was in the bore. I said well I am sure this fellow would know if just a primer went off. He told me it could have been anything from lint to a piece of the jacket from the bullet fired just before this happened. The fact that the cylinder appears ok tells him the ammo was not overloaded.

Just his take on this matter.

Graydog

 

[dirtybarry]

Dirtybarry don't tale affence to this but what did you expect to hear from S&W?

They cannot sontrol how you reload or what you did or did not do.

I have a friend that is a retired armorier from the RCMP. He looked at the pictures of your gun and his take on it is that something was in the bore. I said well I am sure this fellow would know if just a primer went off. He told me it could have been anything from lint to a piece of the jacket from the bullet fired just before this happened. The fact that the cylinder appears ok tells him the ammo was not overloaded.

Just his take on this matter.

Graydog

No worries, no offence taken. I did expect that S&W would have been more interested in actually examining this gun instead of just dismissing the issue out of hand because of the use of reloaded ammo.
But now that I know just how much their warranty and service policy means (*hint- not much) I might just sell the 629 I've got on order and buy something else. Or use it until it fails, I dunno yet.
It always saddens me a bit to find out that a company or person that I respected turns out be less than I thought they were. Too bad, there are too many weasels already.

 

[Zedbra]

Thank you for sharing this info, dirtybarry. Being newer to handguns I have found that it is difficult at times to get honest reviews or knowledge of a products' worthiness as there is always a wave of brand loyalists that will swear by their brand no matter what happens. I was seriously about to buy a new Smith that I plan on using a lot - but your first thread and this one have swayed my opinion. I will stick to other brands, use the money I save for trigger work, and be happy along the way.

 

[Reeferman]

Dirtybarry I give you two thumbs up for having integrady and for being honest in dealing with this. As some have said and I'm sure many have thought that you should have said nothing about using reloads. Like I said in an earlier post I am reconsidering my purchase of another S&W. Please keep us advised on what you decide to do.

 

[Halger280HVMag]

sir
With all due respect.

In your experience.
Which handgun manufacturer, guarantees their products, when other than factory ammo is used?

Email I sent to S&W this morning:

Gentlemen,

I am writing to express my disappointment with the model 29-10 (serial # redacted) that I purchased in January of this year as well as my dissatisfaction with your advertised "lifetime service policy".

This gun suffered a catastrophic failure of the forcing cone which in turn blew off a piece of the frame. Subsequent examination has also revealed an additional crack in the frame on the opposite side near the rear of the cylinder.

It was my understanding before I purchased this gun that they were well made and had even been improved with the "endurance package" and that Smith and Wesson had enough faith in their products to offer lifetime service.

Based on my experiences to date, I can say neither of these things are true.

Your firm claims that it's products are capable of firing any SAAMI approved load but the part that is left out is that if those loads are handloaded, Smith and Wesson denies any and all responsibility.

I have fired over 5500 rounds through this gun consisting of approximately 1800 rounds of new factory or factory reloaded and 3700 rounds that I personally reloaded ranging from less than starting loads to near maximum. All of these reloads used data published by Hodgdon Power (who has confirmed that all of their loads are within SAAMI specifications) and were worked up using established methods.

Consequently, the warranty centre that was contacted about this failure has flatly denied any warranty service, without even having had examined this gun, based on the use of reloaded ammunition.

If it is the de facto policy of Smith and Wesson to categorically deny any warranty service because of the use of reloaded ammunition, then why is this not made abundantly clear?

Further, if your products are simply not designed for nor capable of firing upper range loads, would it not be prudent to down rate them appropriately so that the powder manufacturers could publish load data more suitable to their more delicate nature?

While many, if not most, of this particular model are purchased simply for their aesthetic qualities, mine was purchased to be used. Unfortunately, it would appear that it was not made to be used as hard as I had intended.

It has been an informative process though as I have learned that despite your claims, based on the response of the warranty centre as well as your "customer service" response
(ticket # redacted) that any warranty for your products simply does not apply if they have been used to fire live ammunition of any kind. And that if they are used as actual guns instead of ornaments, they will break.

This expensive lesson has not been lost on me as it will most definitely influence my future purchases and recommendations.

Yours truly,
redacted

Their response:

Good day,
Smith & Wesson will not cover any firearms that fail when reloaded ammunition is used. The failure you describe was probably the fault of the ammo and not the firearm.
I don’t know how to resolve this issue, perhaps we could replace the revolver at cost? I will contact the warranty center to review and discuss our options.
FYI, Mario has been retired for 6 months.
Regards,
Jeff

Jeffrey A. Croze
International Sales Manager
Smith & Wesson Corp/Thompson Center Arms

So there you have it, if you use reloaded ammunition in a Smith and Wesson product, you are on your own.

 

[dirtybarry]

sir
With all due respect.

In your experience.
Which handgun manufacturer, guarantees their products, when other than factory ammo is used?

Based on what I have found out, I'd have to say probably none of them. Which seems a little odd but maybe because I'm new to handguns and reloading in general, this old and established rule escaped my notice.

No matter, I've had harsher and more expensive lessons. Unfortunately this is just another thing I've had to learn that I would have been happier not knowing.

There are lessons in all this and hopefully others benefit or gain insight from my experiences.

 

[enefgee]

To be more accurate, if you use reloaded ammo in ANY firearm, you are on your own. This is not new, it is not just S&W, it is every firearms maker. They do not accept any responsibility for your ammunition, or for any errors made while you assemble ammunition. A great majority of firearms destruction occurs when powder charges are incorrect, this can happen to anyone.

 

[plinker 777]

I believe the real problem is that S&W apparently won't take any onus whatsoever! Handloads= your problem, factory ammo= the problem of the ammo manufacturer. Without examining the firearm how do they know it wasn't a flawed gun from the onset!? I find the S&W representatives response highly arrogant, he took the stand that the product is infallible, which is just down right ridiculous.
A proper warranty service ought to request the revolver, along with the ammo fired (hand rolled or not) as well as the cases from the round that caused the failure. {I will note that the OP has all of this material to assist the warranty center}. Then, after a thorough examination from a S&W expert IF the failure was due to an excessive load/s and it was factory ammo, then Smith& Wesson ought to go after the manufacturer to be compensated for the cost (retail) of a new replacement revolver. If the ammo was deemed over loaded and was hand loaded THEN it becomes the OP's problem. Essentially, the cause should be determined through objective testing not subjective arrogance. Shame.
Special thanks to the OP in revealing this despicable warranty policy of Smith and Wesson.

 

[TW25B]

Nope, S&W says that any failures are caused by the ammunition and it is the responsibility of the ammunition manufacturer for any damage. Since I manufactured the ammunition by reloading it, they say it's my problem. I'll post the exact passage from the email I got from them when i get to my own computer.

The recipe was once fired Starline brass, Winchester large pistol primer, 23.8 grains of Hodgdon H-110, Campro 240 grain TMJ bullet seated to 1.60" COL

Mike from Hodgdon has a theory but I want to hear from Campro before I let that particular cat out.

Here's the first response from S&W:

I am sorry to hear about your issue and to say that we do not support the use of reloads. We build our firearms to meet SAAMI specs so any load within SAAMI specs would be fine for use.

With that being said, even the major manufactures occasionally do make mistakes and we have seen injuries and guns destroyed due to this.

When we determine that the detonation was in fact due to an over pressured round, we have to ask you to inquire with the ammo manufacture. They will usually cover the cost of the firearm because it was their ammo that caused the issue.

When you choose to use your own reloads and have an issue, theoretically, you are the ammo manufacture and would end up having to cover the cost.

Please contact one of our warranty centers in Canada to see what they can do for you. Here is a link below:

Yup, didn't expect there to be issues with that since S&W says that their guns will handle any SAAMI approved load and Hodgdon is adamant that their load data is within SAAMI specs.

Did you miss the bold part from your email? They DO NOT SUPPORT THE USE OF RELOADS. Commercially loaded ammo is by definition done by a professional company that has liability insurance.

I am not the least but surprised a revolver sh*t the bed at around 6000 rounds. far too many(tiny) moving parts and in this case a calibre that is punishing on any firearm.

TW25B

 

[easyrider604]

Dirtybarry don't tale affence to this but what did you expect to hear from S&W?

They cannot sontrol how you reload or what you did or did not do.

I have a friend that is a retired armorier from the RCMP. He looked at the pictures of your gun and his take on it is that something was in the bore. I said well I am sure this fellow would know if just a primer went off. He told me it could have been anything from lint to a piece of the jacket from the bullet fired just before this happened. The fact that the cylinder appears ok tells him the ammo was not overloaded.

Just his take on this matter.

Graydog

To the OP, firstly, I am a big S&W fan, for the most part. I have had J, K, L and N frames. Still have a 686 and 27. However, I really think the N-Frame cannot take the punishment of lots of 44 magnum rounds. It does not have enough meat where it is needed, i.e. top strap as well as the frame area where the barrel screws into the frame. I also think the cylinder is too small for 44 mag. These are the main reasons I do not have, or have not owned, a S&W 44 mag N-frame. Or if S&W insists on the same thin dimensions of the frame perhaps should go for a stronger steel.better heat treatment or titanium if that is really stronger.

I agree with the retired RCMP armorer, your cylinder looks fine and therefore there is no reason to suspect abnormally high pressure ammo has been shot through the gun. I think S&W is coping out on you. If the ammo was over pressure the cylinder will bulge or explode.

I hope you do not give up the fight. S&W should replace your gun or refund your money. If you want a replacement, go for a .357 N frame which I believe is the perfect frame for a long life of full load 357 shooting. Good luck!

I am not the least but surprised a revolver sh*t the bed at around 6000 rounds. far too many(tiny) moving parts and in this case a calibre that is punishing on any firearm.

TW25B

The Ruger GP100 and Redhawk can and will shoot full magnums all day long and ask for more. That is because they were designed and built for magnums. I like my GP100 but it is ugly compared to my 686. Smiths are for caressing, Rugers are for abusing.

 

[dirtybarry]

Did you miss the bold part from your email? They DO NOT SUPPORT THE USE OF RELOADS. Commercially loaded ammo is by definition done by a professional company that has liability insurance.

I am not the least but surprised a revolver sh*t the bed at around 6000 rounds. far too many(tiny) moving parts and in this case a calibre that is punishing on any firearm.

TW25B

The email was from S&W to me after I sent the gun back to the place that sold it to me and the warranty place declining it.
No question that it was used hard but there are many 29's out there that have had many times more rounds put through them.
The highest number I found was over 72,000 rounds with the "Elmer Keith" load being very popular. Although I don't know exactly how it compares to mine.

 

[dirtybarry]

:

I agree with the retired RCMP armorer, your cylinder looks fine and therefore there is no reason to suspect abnormally high pressure ammo has been shot through the gun. I think S&W is coping out on you. If the ammo was over pressure the cylinder will bulge or explode.

I hope you do not give up the fight. S&W should replace your gun or refund your money. If you want a replacement, go for a .357 N frame which I believe is the perfect frame for a long life of full load 357 shooting. Good luck!

The Ruger GP100 and Redhawk can and will shoot full magnums all day long and ask for more. That is because they were designed and built for magnums. I like my GP100 but it is ugly compared to my 686. Smiths are for caressing, Rugers are for abusing.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to convince S&W of that and it doesn't look like that is going to change any time soon.

The silly thing is, I ordered a 629 about a week after sending the 29 away and I'm not willing to renege on that deal.

So I guess I'll be finding out how long a 629 lasts... tick...tick...tick....

 

[TACTICAL111]

I am not the least but surprised a revolver sh*t the bed at around 6000 rounds

I am, my practice/beater 625-3 has an estimated 75k through it (not the original owner). Although it is only 45 ACP and not magnum, they still should last way beyond 6K.
Have had to change out worn cylinder stops, etc and roll the peening out of the cylinder notches several times, but it always works.

 

[grinder08]

To be more accurate, if you use reloaded ammo in ANY firearm, you are on your own. This is not new, it is not just S&W, it is every firearms maker. They do not accept any responsibility for your ammunition, or for any errors made while you assemble ammunition. A great majority of firearms destruction occurs when powder charges are incorrect, this can happen to anyone.

While this is the official line of every manufacturer not all manufacturers deny there is a problem. In the late 70's early 80's Ruger was starting to have some of these types of problems with their Redhawk in 44 mag. The Redhawk had developed a reputation as a very tough gun and reloaders where really pushing the limits (well beyond SAAMI) and as a result failures were starting to happen. Not sure how Ruger handled the warranty issue for individual guns but they redesigned the gun to strengthen it so it could handle hot reloads and then also introduced an even stronger gun that could handle even heavier loads. The Super Redhawk. Smith and Wesson's response to this issue, that has been know about for about 40 years, is "your problem". Now I know the Super Redhawk is not the prettiest gun out there (sorry Ruger Butt Ugly) BUT IT DOES WHAT IT IS ADVERTISED TO DO. THE MODEL 29 IN ALL ITS FORMS DOES NOT, from what I can make out he 29 simply cannot be used as a workhorse heavy load 44mag gun. If S and W called it good for 44spl and the occasional 44 mag I probably would not have an issue. They advertise as a full SAAMI 44mag gun and you can get an endurance package. Just read Chuck Hawks thoughts on Smith and Wesson.

 

[gdawg]

While this is the official line of every manufacturer not all manufacturers deny there is a problem. In the late 70's early 80's Ruger was starting to have some of these types of problems with their Redhawk in 44 mag. The Redhawk had developed a reputation as a very tough gun and reloaders where really pushing the limits (well beyond SAAMI) and as a result failures were starting to happen. Not sure how Ruger handled the warranty issue for individual guns but they redesigned the gun to strengthen it so it could handle hot reloads and then also introduced an even stronger gun that could handle even heavier loads. The Super Redhawk. Smith and Wesson's response to this issue, that has been know about for about 40 years, is "your problem". Now I know the Super Redhawk is not the prettiest gun out there (sorry Ruger Butt Ugly) BUT IT DOES WHAT IT IS ADVERTISED TO DO. THE MODEL 29 IN ALL ITS FORMS DOES NOT, The 29 simply cannot be used as a workhorse heavy load 44mag gun. If S and W called it good for 44spl and the occasional 44 mag I probably would not have an issue. They advertise as a full SAAMI 44mag gun and you can get an endurance package. Just read Chuck Hawks thoughts on Smith and Wesson.

On the Redhawk issue, my understanding is that the bonding agent applied to the barrels before they were screwed into the frames, was corroding the threads, causing the threads to crack and break when using heavier loads. This is what lead to the extended frame on the SRH. Once Ruger figured out the problem and changed the bonding agent and method, no further problems have been experienced apparently. Ruger opted not to drop the Redhawk as there was still a market for the more traditional look.

The Redhawks and SRH are almost dimensionally identical and the Redhawks in fact weighs more. I wonder if the SRH is really functionally stronger. I suppose it would be if the number of threads and lock-work are the limiting factors but i have not seen anything to suggest they are anymore.

 

[burnaby]

Sad that S&W continues to use the reload excuse and that many have posted here seemingly agreeing if you reload you are on your own. What a pathetic excuse to blame the ammo when any armourer will tell you S&W on examination (ie no cylinder damage) can determine pressure issues. But why bother when they can blame it on ammo.

Recall car mfr used to deny claims if you don't use their genuine (read expensive) parts that was eventually deemed anti competition. Nowadays just need warranty approved parts.

...They advertise as a full SAAMI 44mag gun and you can get an endurance package. Just read Chuck Hawks thoughts on Smith and Wesson.

 

[gdawg]

:

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to convince S&W of that and it doesn't look like that is going to change any time soon.

The silly thing is, I ordered a 629 about a week after sending the 29 away and I'm not willing to renege on that deal.

So I guess I'll be finding out how long a 629 lasts... tick...tick...tick....

Looking forward to finding out how it does actually (assuming there is no catastrophic failure resulting in injury of course)

 

[easyrider604]

:

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to convince S&W of that and it doesn't look like that is going to change any time soon.

The silly thing is, I ordered a 629 about a week after sending the 29 away and I'm not willing to renege on that deal.

So I guess I'll be finding out how long a 629 lasts... tick...tick...tick....

Yeah, silly in capital letters........... hehe...I know I love my 686 (translation, wanna keep it in one piece), that's why only the GP100 tastes full magnum ammo. I had a 686 that a bud shot in Silhouette (meaning full bore magnums only), man, that thing was as loose as a ..... censored.

You know who is silly? S&W, that's who. If it wasn't for Dirty Harry, I wouldn't care for Smith revolvers, but they are oh so pretty.

Smiths for looking at, Rugers for shooting.

 

[dirtybarry]

So, got talking with a friend the other day and his brother just started a new job with an NDT firm that has their own X-ray machine. Might be doing a little after hours work.