Academic question about the x-frame and my favorite round (357 magnum)
- Thread starter Deja vu
- Start date
disseminator
New member
I was thinking of something similar the other day: how many 44 Mag could an x-frame cylinder hold?
Crazy Carl
New member
With the longer cylinder of the X-frame & the admonishment to run only 180gr & heavier pills (how the Max was developed in the first place), it wouln't be any problem.
Please stop with the stupid "flame cutting" paranoia.
I have a stainless Dan Wesson 357 Max purchased new in 1983. My boy recently bought a blue one (well used).
I have fired many thousands of rounds though it. Many avid maximum owners have done likewise.
These guns (ours included) typically show a little loss of metal on the top strap after the first 1000 or so rounds. The erosion seems to stop at this point, or get so slow it does not matter.
No one has ever documented continuing loss of metal that was more than cosmetic.
The real shame is that Ruger over reacted due to potential liability concerns.
And with a 460 OAL of 2.29", any gun that can shoot a 460, would allow 357 maximums to be loaded nice and long (the OAL spec for the 357 max was 1.99").
I have a stainless Dan Wesson 357 Max purchased new in 1983. My boy recently bought a blue one (well used).
I have fired many thousands of rounds though it. Many avid maximum owners have done likewise.
These guns (ours included) typically show a little loss of metal on the top strap after the first 1000 or so rounds. The erosion seems to stop at this point, or get so slow it does not matter.
No one has ever documented continuing loss of metal that was more than cosmetic.
The real shame is that Ruger over reacted due to potential liability concerns.
And with a 460 OAL of 2.29", any gun that can shoot a 460, would allow 357 maximums to be loaded nice and long (the OAL spec for the 357 max was 1.99").
buck460XVR
New member
I don't see an advantage for .357 in a X-Frame as it would seem to me, that a 8 shot N-Frame would just be a better fit. Since the cylinder of my X-Frame is only a 1/8'' difference in diameter than my N-frames, one may be able to squeeze another round in there to make 9, but maybe not. Just not enough recoil and ommph in a .357 to justify puttin' in the x-Frame. Now the .357 max may be different.
Anyone who has shot a x-frame knows all too well about the blast from the cylinder gap. This is what produces top strap erosion. With enough blast to sever fingers, the blast from a .460 cartridge is going to erode the top strap more than the .357 max. So, iffin' the gun can withstand the erosion from .460 ammo, I'd bet .357 max ammo would be nuttin to worry about.
Anyone who has shot a x-frame knows all too well about the blast from the cylinder gap. This is what produces top strap erosion. With enough blast to sever fingers, the blast from a .460 cartridge is going to erode the top strap more than the .357 max. So, iffin' the gun can withstand the erosion from .460 ammo, I'd bet .357 max ammo would be nuttin to worry about.
The new .350 Legend cartridge is a rimless, tapered straightwall; not exactly the best combination for a revolver round.
IMO, an N-frame wouldn't be a good choice for a Maximum. It's cylinder is smaller in diameter than the Ruger which, in turn, is smaller than the Dan Wesson.
IMO, an N-frame wouldn't be a good choice for a Maximum. It's cylinder is smaller in diameter than the Ruger which, in turn, is smaller than the Dan Wesson.
Crazy Carl
New member
N-frame is too short to accept a Max length cylinder anyway.
Mauserme21
New member
How about a swarm of .22 Hornets? Super accurate, low recoil varmint sniper revolver.
If my source is correct, the x-frame cylinder is 1.92" diameter. Theoretically, it could fit as many as 13 0.357" holes:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/smaller-circles-in-larger-circle-d_1849.html
But this would not allow for more than very thin chamber walls. By increasing the small circle diameter to whatever we think is necessary beyond .357" for chamber-wall thickness, we could see how many chambers fit.
For comparison, an N frame has a cylinder diameter of 1.559" and can fit 8 chambers with a diameter of 0.43" including the walls. Using 0.43" in a 1.92" diameter cylinder, 10 chambers fit.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/smaller-circles-in-larger-circle-d_1849.html
But this would not allow for more than very thin chamber walls. By increasing the small circle diameter to whatever we think is necessary beyond .357" for chamber-wall thickness, we could see how many chambers fit.
For comparison, an N frame has a cylinder diameter of 1.559" and can fit 8 chambers with a diameter of 0.43" including the walls. Using 0.43" in a 1.92" diameter cylinder, 10 chambers fit.