UPDATE II: high-pressure handload and damaged M29

bwa

Some of you will recall my posts on this matter a few months ago. Some of those who responded to my predicament at that time asked me to let them know how everything panned out. I think a progress report is justified at this point. First let me review as briefly as I can what happened:

After being away from firearms for 20 years, I bought a NIB S&W M29 on GB in January, got reloading tools and components, and started in. I promptly ran into trouble with a high pressure round and bulged the cylinder. Both the reloading problem and some observations about the gun itself had me scratching my head and consulting the experts here. Let me review the details:

THE LOAD(from Hodgdon manual):
-Powder: Titegroup, 10gr. max., 9gr. start; I set my measure at 8.7gr.
-Bullet: 240gr. HP(I used Berry's copper-plated)
-Loaded 50 cases

Third round fired was the damaging one; could barely extract the empty. Noticed at the outset of loading that the measure was throwing inconsistent charges, and that if I tapped the side of the measure, more powder would drop. Theories of experts here included: a)static electricity causing the powder to cling to the drop tube on first two rounds, then pushing it out on the third charge with an avalanche effect, causing an overcharge; 2)an underweighted charge causing a 'detonation'. Possible explanation of an expert at Hodgdon's: bullet crimping can sometimes score a copper-plated bullet's thin plating, resulting in it peeling off just beyond the forcing cone and leaving a ring of copper which constricts the bore for the next round, causing a spike in pressure.

DAMAGE TO THE GUN
-definitely bulged and therefore ruined the cylinder
-Other peculiarities possibly resulting from the accident: barrel-to-cylinder gap greater on left side than right side; cylinder appeared to sit at a slight angle in frame. Some experts here were sure the frame had been bent and the gun was history; others felt that S&W could straighten it; one said he had a S&W with an uneven barrel-to-cylinder gap also and it was just the way it was made; still another suggested blocking both ends, putting it in a press, and springing it back. Most strongly recommended sending it to the factory for evaluation and repair, if such was possible.



I hope the above review is sufficient to jog the memories of those who were interested and sought to help. Now for the update:


THE AMMO
-sent the remaining rounds I had loaded, along with the fired empties, to Hodgdon's for testing. They pulled 22 rounds from the box at random, pulled bullets and measured charges, reassembled them and tested each for pressure.
-RESULTS: loads tested averaged 8.9 gr. of powder and approx. 29,000 c.u.p. pressure, which is less than 75% of maximum. There were no overcharges nor pressure-elevating undercharges. Hodgdon's therefore could find no explanation for the accident from their testing, and concluded that the some sort of obstruction was the culprit, perhaps copper separating from the bullet and constricting the bore as mentioned in the review above.

-MY LESS-THAN-CONCLUSIVE CONCLUSIONS RE: THE CAUSE: It was not copper separating from the bullet and squeezing the next one, since I had performed a barrel-break-in procedure(sorry, Saxon -it only cost a little extra time and bore solvent) requiring the cleaning of the bore following each round fired for the first five rounds or so. This meant that any copper left after each bullet fired was cleaned and brushed from the bore before it could cause any mischief with the next round. Hodgdon assured me that 'detonation' with an undercharged case was impossible with Titegroup powder(I wonder, however, if the combination of an undercharge and a too-deeply seated bullet might have done it -but I haven't gotten any support from experts for this idea.). Apparently it was an overcharge, though how it happened is still a mystery to me, since I followed all expert advice for removing static electricity from the measure and it still requires tapping to get the full charge to drop. I wonder if what is actually happening is that, since the drum-type measure I have releases the powder from the drum at an angle, some of the charge won't slide off the bottom edge of the drum without help(Titegroup is a flattened spherical powder which slides rather than rolls); kind of like dumping a bunch of mini-Frisbies on your metal barn roof and having some of them stay put. That still should not cause an overcharge, though, I don't believe. I've since loaded another fifty rounds, tapping the measure each time. Used this way the measure is accurate to within approximately .15gr. either way from the setting. That will do for my purposes with this load. I also added .020 to the OAL in seating the bullet, which brings it into line with the data in Hodgdon's manual(which I overlooked with the first box).


THE GUN
-sent to S&W for inspection and repair, along with a carefully written explanation of the problem and observation of irregularities; got it back last Tuesday.
-new cylinder installed at no charge; they paid shipping both ways also
-nothing done to frame; uneven barrel-to-cylinder gap, angled cylinder, etc. remain the same
-The repairman didn't read my instructions carefully enough, and may have gotten his work orders confused on at least one item: the list of repairs performed which I received back with the gun said that one of my complaints was that the gun "shoots high"(The gun does not shoot high, and I never said anything in my letter to them which could possibly be construed that way.). Consequently he replaced the rear sight assembly with one from a blued model(my gun is nickel), and the sight slide tilts to the left. In addition to that, he had the barrel off and turned it too far when he reinstalled it, leaving the front blade tilted to the left also. The barrel-to-cylinder gap is now .002 on the right side and .006 on the left side.

-MY MORE-NEARLY-CONCLUSIVE CONCLUSIONS RE: THE GUN: The high pressure round which bulged the cylinder did not damage the frame. The uneven barrel-to-cylinder gap, angled cylinder, etc., in my view, are simply evidences of faulty manufacturing processes. I have one piece of evidence which led me to this conclusion(which I did not discover until the gun was returned): the barrel is not centered in the frame. It is noticeably left of center, looking at it from both front and rear. With the depth measure on my dial caliper I measured both sides from the outer edge of the frame to the outer edge of the forcing cone. The right side measures .010 more than the left side. This means that a line from the firing pin opening would be to the right of center in the bore. The cylinder has to be angled as it is in order for the firing pin to strike the primer at near center, and at the same time for the front ends of the chambers to align closely with the barrel. This also explains the uneven barrel-to-cylinder gap, and the extractor rod angling away from its housing from rear to front. If you fellows have a different interpretation, I'll listen; but this seems to me to be the way it is.


LOOSE ENDS/FURTHER QUESTIONS
-The tilted sights are unacceptable. I'm going to call the repairman on Monday and ask him to give me my original rear sight leaf back so I can put it back on. Somehow I have to express my appreciation for doing warranty work on something the warranty never was intended to cover, and at the same time respectfully convey my displeasure with the sight problem. Any suggestions?
-I intend to turn the barrel out myself so that the front blade is at 12:00 again. The gun is a 29-3, so the barrel isn't pinned; and I have a vise with rubber jaw inserts. I'm soliciting advice here so that I don't mar the finish, bend anything, etc.; if you have experience, I'm listening.

Any other advice is welcome, too(Please spare me the angry diatribes against S&W. This gun was made before their fall from grace, and I didn't know anything about it until I started reading this forum.). I hope I haven't put anyone to sleep with this lengthy post. Thank you for listening.

BT99

It sure leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to having work done
by the factory. These repairs would be unacceptable to me.
Personally I would return it to the factory for correct repairs.
If you really want to pull the barrel furnish an email address and I
will email you with instruction on how to make blocks for the barrel
so that you do not mar the finish. But, think about this, I would
return it for a proper repair. I was a gunsmith for 30 years before I retired and someting like this would have never left my shop. I
did it right or didn't do it.

bwa

Saxon,

Thanks for the reply. In your replies to my initial posts way back when you said it was definitely not a double charge, since recoil and report were not noticeably pronounced. You said at the time that if it were a double charge, I definitely would have known it. Any reason in particular for the change of mind?

The testing was done to see if the erratic charge weights being thrown by the measure were the cause, since with subsequent rounds the measure continued to act as it did from the outset.

I've devised a careful system to eliminate the possibility of double charges with this load from here on out. Hodgdon advertises TITEGROUP as follows: "As the name implies, this new spherical propellant was designed for accuracy. Because of the unique design, this powder provides flawless ignition with all types of primers including the lead-free versions. Unlike pistol powders of the past, powder position in large cases(45 Colt, 357 Magnum and others) has virtually no effect on velocity and performance. Cowboy Action, Bullseye and Combat Shooters should love this one! TITEGROUP has it all, low charge weight, clean burning, mild muzzle report and superb, uniform ballistics." I'm not easily swayed by advertising, but the data for TITEGROUP offered me what I was after: a low-velocity, mild load. I'll see how accurate they turn out to be and let you know.

I'm not positive the barrel was removed; I assumed that since the report I received back with the gun said that they cut the forcing cone. I didn't know that could be done with the barrel in the frame.

According to the label on the end of the original box it came in, the gun's finish is nickel. It also was advertised as such on GB by the seller, who was a former dealer; and it sure looks brighter to me than stainless. Check your mental database again and get back with me. The serial no. is AJA7671, if that helps any. The original rear sight leaf had sort of a matted, gray finish, just like the front blade.

bwa

BT99,

With most items I own I do exactly as you say and keep returning things until the job is corrected. But with the hassle and time required to ship both ways I just want to do it myself and be able to shoot again without further delay; plus after the gentleman failed to follow instructions and didn't bother to call me for clarification, I have no confidence that things will be done correctly the second time either. The barrel is threaded in and just needs to be turned a slight amount; and the rear sight is easily replaced. My email is awilliam@bright.net. Thanks for offering your help!

bwa

Saxon,

You rebarreled an S&W awhile back. I remember that the old one was shot(no good), so you didn't bother trying to preserve the finish in removing it. But you also installed a different one, which you surely treated more delicately. If you have a minute or two, could you refresh my memory re: what you used to tighten it down and how you held the frame in the vise to avoid doing harm? If it's too much trouble to repeat, don't bother; I understand.

Thanks.

Dom De Lorenzo

BWA,
Sorry to hear about your M29. I've burned a lot of TITEGROUP. It's THE powder I select for my target loads (38 spl., 44 spl. 45 Colt). When loading up in the 30,000 CUP range, however, I steer towards slower powders. A quick look at Hodgdon's web site indicates that the max load of 10.0 gr. is running at 37,000 CUP. At 8.7 gr. your load tested out at 29,000 CUP. So a 1.3 gr. increase yeilds an additional 8,000 CUP. Factor in the erratic powder dispenser and one could be all over the charts. Didn't notice what powder measure you use. I use a RCBS Uniflow and it is dead on all the time with TITEGROUP. In a 45 Colt case with a 255 SWC, I load 6.0 Gr.. Now this way below 44 Mag pressures, but it's where this powder should be used (my opinion). For medium loads (Redhawk 45 Colt) I tend to lean towards Blue Dot, and 2400. For hot loads I use H110 for the most part. My guess would be the double charge thoery. For my Redhawk, If I double charged a 6.0 gr. load, I'd most likely end up with bulged cases, but double charge 8.7 gr. in the M29... Ouch!

robsguns

bwa,
I dont have any information to supply you with, I just want to tell you that I appreciate your follow up on the previous thread on this topic, as I found it one of the more interesting and informative threads I've read on the board. The service you've received from S&W seems to be lacking in the end result, and at the same time, better than expected, if you know what I mean. I wish you luck in finishing the repair of your gun.

SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC

bwa

Dom,

Thanks for the info. Though you didn't give your reasoning for switching to a slower powder at 30,000, I'm guessing it's because a little extra Titegroup can increase the pressures a lot(?) I'll probably switch to something else after I've used up the carton.


robs,

Thanks for the encouragement. I'll probably post a couple of more times after I get the job completed and see how the gun and load perform. Wish me well talking with the repairman at S&W tomorrow; I never relish criticizing a man's work -but in this case those sights have to be made right.

Let me take a moment and thank you for serving our country and defending and protecting the rest of us. We simply take men like you for granted way too much of the time. I would gladly hand over more tax money to see that you would be paid better than you are.

AntiqueDr

If you insist on adjusting the barrel in the frame, the correct method is as follows. Secure the barrel in a vise with appropriate jaw blocks (as described above should work), as close to the frame as possible. Do NOT use any type of lever in the cylinder window - this stands a high risk of springing the frame. The best method, and the one used in our shop, is to use a commercially-available action wrench.

To test whether the barrel is in fact not centered is to use a .429 range rod. This is designed to slide through the bore from the muzzle, and the projection on the end of the rod should enter the firing pin hole in the recoil shield. You can also do this with the cylinder in place and check each chamber for alignment with the bore.

Provided this all checks out (and it usually does), the uneven cylinder gap is generally caused by a poorly-finished cut to the rear of the barrel. We use a pull-through piloted facing cutter to even the barrel face. The forcing cone can also be adjusted or smoothed using a pull-through piloted reamer. If S&W did this, I dont see why they did not fix the cylinder gap while they were at it. If the barrel/cylinder gap varies as the cylinder turns (very common problem), this is due to an uneven cut at the face of the crane. We turn that back a couple of thousandths, smooth it up, and install endshake bushings so that the cylinder again runs true.

Side-to-side runout on the cylinder (as proven with the range rod as above) is generally caused by a slightly bent crane, the result of ill-educated people flipping the cylinder open and closed like they see in the movies. This can be bent back with judicious use of a 1-lb leather mallet - but it's a repair not for the faint of heart.

We buy, sell and trade quality guns and scopes!Master Dealer for Kimber, Wilson Combat and Dan Wesson.Visit our website at www.ApaxEnterprises.com

bwa

AntiqueDr,

I appreciate you sharing your expertise. Could you tell me where I might find the action wrench & range rod? I'd prefer to borrow or rent them somewhere, though I realize that that is very wishful thinking.

The firing pin hole is visibly left of center when I look down the muzzle. I noticed this prior to the accident but didn't give it much thought. I doubt if my eyes are fooling me, especially in light of the other evidences of an out-of-center barrel I've already mentioned. If I'm correct, it's just something I'll have to live with, no?

Another thing: if I'm correct about the barrel being out-of-center, shall I just leave the barrel/cylinder gap as is, or try to file the .002 side to even it with the .006 side? If not, is .002 sufficient room to keep the cylinder from binding after a lot of shooting?

Just a few other questions if you have time to check the thread again. Thanks.

robsguns

bwa,
I believe I speak for nearly every Marine when I say, dont mention it, you are always welcome to the services of the U.S. Military. We are looking after each other better these days, I hope the future brings more of the bonding in America between its citizens.

SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC

AntiqueDr

As long as the cylinder chambers are in line with the barrel, and the whole mess is in line enough so that the hammer nose detonates the primers, you'll have to live with it or trade/sell the gun.

.002" is a little tight for the gap on that revolver, although if your cylinder endshake is minimized by facing/shimming the yoke you can certainly get by with that. Unfortunately, the barrel extension should really be square to the cylinder face for maximum accuracy and less potential for excessive stress in the forcing cone area of the barrel. Your choices are either remove the barrel, set the shoulder back, then reinstall the barrel and set the gap at .002"-.004" (presuming the cylinder endshake is eliminated) or face the barrel extension at .006" as it is, which is perfectly acceptable for a field gun anyway. Recutting the forcing cone would be necessary either way.

I dont know of anyplace that rents these tools, but they are available from Brownells for a modest price.


We buy, sell and trade quality guns and scopes!Master Dealer for Kimber, Wilson Combat and Dan Wesson.Visit our website at www.ApaxEnterprises.com

Dom De Lorenzo

BWA,
As far as utilizing slower powders for higher pressure loads I'll tell you about my first experience with "higher pressure loads":

I had been loading 45 colt for a Great Western Frontier and a Colt SAA for years before the aquiring a Redhawk. My Lyman manual had a section for "Ruger and TC Contender" load data. It listed data for Unique. Having Unique on the shelf I hit the bench. I loaded up loads increasing in 1/2 Gr. increments. These heavier charges of the relitivily fast powder bulged the heck out of my cases - and for what - 1100 fps?
After much research and being enlightened by John Linebaugh (via sixgunner.com), I began to ask questions - for exapmle:
Go to Hodgdon's web site and look up 45 Colt data. Notice the selection of powders. Then take a peek at the "Ruger only" data. Observe the powders selected for higher pressure loads..

Faster powders net higher increases in pressure with less increase in velocity. If you looked at it on a chart you'd be amazed.
Think of it on these terms. If you had a high compression engine in your car, you'd most likely need to burn "high test" gas to keep it from "detonating" - Why? It burns slower.

There are more qualified people to go into this - but remember this;

There is no "universal powder". Slow burning ball powders have higher charge weights and can't be "loaded down" and fast powders are not designed for high pressues for the most part and this gets worse with heavy bullets - but that's a whole different subject.

Check out Linebaugh's "Gunnotes" at Sixgunner.com and be safe.....

AntiqueDr

A hammer will successfully drive in a screw, but it is not the best method. I remain a firm believer in using the tool designed for the job at hand.

We buy, sell and trade quality guns and scopes!Master Dealer for Kimber, Wilson Combat and Dan Wesson.Visit our website at www.ApaxEnterprises.com