Rumors and Facts About S&W Titanium Cylinders
- Thread starter Jimmy10mm
- Start date
FrankenMauser
New member
Even if you don't read the manual, this topic isn't rare (by any means) on these forums.
I'm surprised you haven't run into a discussion about it yet.
I'm surprised you haven't run into a discussion about it yet.
Believe it or not my join date on this forum was my first foray into gun forums. I was looking into purchasing a semi auto CCW and a google search led me here. So the topic may be old but I'm relatively new.
That is indeed in the manual as well complete with line drawings illustrating the possible backing out. They recommend testing the ammo you intend to carry with by firing all but one round in the cylinder and then seeing if the last round loosened at the crimp and backs out.
As far as disabling the lock, I may do that little thing. Being concerned about that led me to doing the search that started this thread. I've had the 340PD for 7 years this month but haven't fired 50 rounds through it. It ain't bad with +Ps but with 357s it is down right contrary to shoot. Not a pistol that I enjoy plinking with but then again I guess it isn't supposed to be.
Any gun that you don't enjoy plinking with is seriously under weight and lightly built. This whole "ultra super lightweight" craze is just silly to me. I would rather have a gun that is super reliable and durable and fun to shoot than one which is built solely for the purpose of maximum reduction of weight. I would not own a gun that I cannot take to the range and put 3 or 4 hundred rounds through in an afternoon. We seem to now have lots of companies building ridiculous products simply because they can, not because there is any good reason for. If some company decides to build a revolver with a polymer cylinder and barrel no doubt people will buy them only because they weigh 10 ounces. And then take it to the range and discover that it's REALLY PAINFUL to shoot and develop a really bad flinch and scratch their heads when they see their +P+ rounds bullets being pulled under recoil. But it's so light. People are turning into complete wimps.
Last edited:
Yep, the selection of ammunition used in the really lightweight Ti, Sc & PD revolvers is important.
The current S&W revolver Owner Safety & Instruction Manual breaks it down as follows:
As well as:
This last precaution has always been explained to me to be based on the consideration that the powders used in the Magnum loads using really light bullet weights produce hotter gases which can cause premature gas erosion of the titanium cylinder charge holes and cylinder face.
I remember when I was talking to one of the folks at the factory and he told me they has just received one of their lightweight Magnum J-frames back for warranty because the owner said he was experiencing bullet pull when using 158gr JHP jacketed ammunition. The factory tried using the same ammunition and couldn't get the bullets to unseat and pull from then case mouths ... until they thought to try holding the gun in a fairly loose grip. Then they started to see some bullets come unseated. Not with a heavy grip, but with a light grip.
Now, remember that heavier bullets cause more felt recoil directed back into the shooter's hand, and it starts to make sense that unless the gun is held tightly and supported against recoil forces, that momentum might start to come into play and the revolver & case will start to move backwards away from the unfired rounds fast enough to allow the bullet's tendency to remain in the same position may overcome the crimp ... and especially if the crimp is less than optimal.
The gentleman from the factory said that they had never anticipated anyone would try to shoot those ultra lightweight J-frames with anything short of a really strong grip. Well, with that in mind, I suppose now we might consider the possibility of being able to 'limpwrist' an ultra lightweight Magnum and maybe see some ammo problems.
Now, my M&P 340 has a steel cylinder (instead of titanium). It's use of an alloy barrel shroud & yoke gave it a bit less weight than my 642. Add in the Bantam grip, which weight an ounce less than the regular rubber boot grips I have on my 642's, and the gun tipped my digital scale at about 13.3 oz, which duplicates the factory specs. That puts its weight somewhere in the middle between the Airlite Magnums with their Ti cylinders and my 642's.
When I first took it to the range I took along something like 4-5 brands of Magnum ammo and a couple of +P loads, so I could check for bullet pull in my gun when being fired in my hands. I found a couple of the Magnum loads that exhibited a noticeable degree of bullet pull. Enough said. I won't use those brands/loads. Not until I retest someday with with new boxes of those loads.
Then, since I didn't care for the small & soft Bantam grips, I replaced them with some older rubber Boot grips and brought the weight of the gun up to 14.3 oz. It was still lighter in my pocket than my 642's and I liked the grip better.
Here's a link to the current Revolver Manual from the S&W website: http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/other/S&W_Revolver_Manual.pdf
I've only fired 2-3 hundred rounds of Magnum loads through my M&P 340. It's not pleasant and quickly starts to hurt, although that could be because I've fired the Magnum loads for regular training & qualification drills that include rapid fire double taps and multiple shot strings under a time requirement.
I much prefer +P loads and that's what I commonly carry, anyway. I can get excellent accuracy and can fire them at speed with good controllability. That's why I bought the gun and carry it, and my other J-frames, after all.
I'm not a particular enthusiast of the internal locking system (ILS), but after taking the armorer's class for the little gun and talking with a number of armors for other agencies, and not hearing of any problems occurring when their folks have been shooting the range of J-frames in use, which includes the ultra light weight models ... and after having handled and fired, and have observed a fair number of other owners firing ILS equipped J-frames ... the lock no longer keeps me awake at night. I notice there's been at least one revision of the torque lock spring used to keep the locking arm down under recoil when I've ordered spare parts.
FWIW, the bottom dog leg of the torque lock spring must be properly seated within the frame recess in order to keep the lever pulled down. I noticed in the class that removing the hammer and the bolt (which slips in the frame's bolt slot in which the spring's leg is positioned in the recess), and tipping the frame to the right, can allow the spring's leg to come unseated. This will result in the locking arm not being held down under recoil as intended. This is a good reason why folks not familiar with the new model design probably ought not to take their guns apart to tinker with them.
I was also told one time when talking to someone from S&W that it's important during production & assembly that this spring be properly located & seated in order for the ILS to function as designed.
Now, although I carry my M&P 340 without being overly concerned about the ILS just as often as I carry one of my 642-1's, since I'm not exactly an enthusiast of the ILS for my needs ... (I take other steps to prevent unauthorized access to my guns) ... I'd be prone to buy one of the M40/42's or one of the limited models which are now being offered without the ILS. I wish one of them was made without requiring moon clips, though, but that's another subject for another day.
As usual, just my thoughts ...
The current S&W revolver Owner Safety & Instruction Manual breaks it down as follows:
As well as:
This last precaution has always been explained to me to be based on the consideration that the powders used in the Magnum loads using really light bullet weights produce hotter gases which can cause premature gas erosion of the titanium cylinder charge holes and cylinder face.
I remember when I was talking to one of the folks at the factory and he told me they has just received one of their lightweight Magnum J-frames back for warranty because the owner said he was experiencing bullet pull when using 158gr JHP jacketed ammunition. The factory tried using the same ammunition and couldn't get the bullets to unseat and pull from then case mouths ... until they thought to try holding the gun in a fairly loose grip. Then they started to see some bullets come unseated. Not with a heavy grip, but with a light grip.
Now, remember that heavier bullets cause more felt recoil directed back into the shooter's hand, and it starts to make sense that unless the gun is held tightly and supported against recoil forces, that momentum might start to come into play and the revolver & case will start to move backwards away from the unfired rounds fast enough to allow the bullet's tendency to remain in the same position may overcome the crimp ... and especially if the crimp is less than optimal.
The gentleman from the factory said that they had never anticipated anyone would try to shoot those ultra lightweight J-frames with anything short of a really strong grip. Well, with that in mind, I suppose now we might consider the possibility of being able to 'limpwrist' an ultra lightweight Magnum and maybe see some ammo problems.
Now, my M&P 340 has a steel cylinder (instead of titanium). It's use of an alloy barrel shroud & yoke gave it a bit less weight than my 642. Add in the Bantam grip, which weight an ounce less than the regular rubber boot grips I have on my 642's, and the gun tipped my digital scale at about 13.3 oz, which duplicates the factory specs. That puts its weight somewhere in the middle between the Airlite Magnums with their Ti cylinders and my 642's.
When I first took it to the range I took along something like 4-5 brands of Magnum ammo and a couple of +P loads, so I could check for bullet pull in my gun when being fired in my hands. I found a couple of the Magnum loads that exhibited a noticeable degree of bullet pull. Enough said. I won't use those brands/loads. Not until I retest someday with with new boxes of those loads.
Then, since I didn't care for the small & soft Bantam grips, I replaced them with some older rubber Boot grips and brought the weight of the gun up to 14.3 oz. It was still lighter in my pocket than my 642's and I liked the grip better.
Here's a link to the current Revolver Manual from the S&W website: http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/other/S&W_Revolver_Manual.pdf
I've only fired 2-3 hundred rounds of Magnum loads through my M&P 340. It's not pleasant and quickly starts to hurt, although that could be because I've fired the Magnum loads for regular training & qualification drills that include rapid fire double taps and multiple shot strings under a time requirement.
I much prefer +P loads and that's what I commonly carry, anyway. I can get excellent accuracy and can fire them at speed with good controllability. That's why I bought the gun and carry it, and my other J-frames, after all.
I'm not a particular enthusiast of the internal locking system (ILS), but after taking the armorer's class for the little gun and talking with a number of armors for other agencies, and not hearing of any problems occurring when their folks have been shooting the range of J-frames in use, which includes the ultra light weight models ... and after having handled and fired, and have observed a fair number of other owners firing ILS equipped J-frames ... the lock no longer keeps me awake at night.
I notice there's been at least one revision of the torque lock spring used to keep the locking arm down under recoil when I've ordered spare parts.FWIW, the bottom dog leg of the torque lock spring must be properly seated within the frame recess in order to keep the lever pulled down. I noticed in the class that removing the hammer and the bolt (which slips in the frame's bolt slot in which the spring's leg is positioned in the recess), and tipping the frame to the right, can allow the spring's leg to come unseated. This will result in the locking arm not being held down under recoil as intended. This is a good reason why folks not familiar with the new model design probably ought not to take their guns apart to tinker with them.
I was also told one time when talking to someone from S&W that it's important during production & assembly that this spring be properly located & seated in order for the ILS to function as designed.
Now, although I carry my M&P 340 without being overly concerned about the ILS just as often as I carry one of my 642-1's, since I'm not exactly an enthusiast of the ILS for my needs ... (I take other steps to prevent unauthorized access to my guns) ... I'd be prone to buy one of the M40/42's or one of the limited models which are now being offered without the ILS. I wish one of them was made without requiring moon clips, though, but that's another subject for another day.
As usual, just my thoughts ...
Okay, some other thoughts.
I also remembered that while discussing ammunition used in the little Sc/Ti guns with someone from the factory, they said that while they try to test their guns with as many different American factory loads as possible, that they obviously can't always buy everything from even the major ammo manufacturers all the time. He mentioned that they had recently seen at least one brand which was then exhibiting some bullet crimps that were on the looser end. I asked about one major load I was commonly using, but he said he wasn't aware of any of that particular load having been recently tested.
I remember talking with one of the other instructors a while back about a qual course of fire he had helped run the previous night. he said one gentleman's steel J-frame (an older M36) had experienced repeated functioning problems resulting from bullet pull stopping the cylinder from turning. The ammunition being used is an inexpensive, but well known, brand manufactured in Europe. The gentleman just didn't want to spend the money for one of the American made products, it seems. It was also an all-lead bullet load.
Another time when one of our guys was qualifying with one of the Taurus All-Titanium 5-shot guns, he said he was constantly having problems with jacketed bullets jumping their crimps and jamming up his gun. Since he hadn't brought an of that ammo with him, and couldn't remember the brand, all we could do was recommend he try some different ammunition and make sure he was using a strong grip on the gun when shooting it. It didn't exhibit any problems with the budget/bulk factory loads we were using for qualification, though.
I think it's prudent to make sure the ammo being used in any of the light 5-shot guns be tested by the owner/user before being carried for defensive purpose. I even like to test-fire rounds taken from different boxes/production lots, since you can't know if something changed from one production lot to the next.
I also remembered that while discussing ammunition used in the little Sc/Ti guns with someone from the factory, they said that while they try to test their guns with as many different American factory loads as possible, that they obviously can't always buy everything from even the major ammo manufacturers all the time. He mentioned that they had recently seen at least one brand which was then exhibiting some bullet crimps that were on the looser end. I asked about one major load I was commonly using, but he said he wasn't aware of any of that particular load having been recently tested.
I remember talking with one of the other instructors a while back about a qual course of fire he had helped run the previous night. he said one gentleman's steel J-frame (an older M36) had experienced repeated functioning problems resulting from bullet pull stopping the cylinder from turning. The ammunition being used is an inexpensive, but well known, brand manufactured in Europe. The gentleman just didn't want to spend the money for one of the American made products, it seems. It was also an all-lead bullet load.
Another time when one of our guys was qualifying with one of the Taurus All-Titanium 5-shot guns, he said he was constantly having problems with jacketed bullets jumping their crimps and jamming up his gun. Since he hadn't brought an of that ammo with him, and couldn't remember the brand, all we could do was recommend he try some different ammunition and make sure he was using a strong grip on the gun when shooting it. It didn't exhibit any problems with the budget/bulk factory loads we were using for qualification, though.
I think it's prudent to make sure the ammo being used in any of the light 5-shot guns be tested by the owner/user before being carried for defensive purpose. I even like to test-fire rounds taken from different boxes/production lots, since you can't know if something changed from one production lot to the next.
Mike_Fontenot
New member
Just my 2 cents:
I think bullet-pull tends to be more likely with heavy bullets, not light ones. So the 120 grain restriction has nothing to do with bullet-pull.
And I think that the reason that the lighter bullets are more likely to produce cylinder erosion is because they move out of the case more quickly, when more powder is still burning. With the 158-gr bullets (at the least the Federal Hi-Shoks that I use), I suspect most of the powder has finished burning before the bullet leaves the case.
The super-light weight of my S&W360 is FAR more important to me than having a comfortable recoil. I wouldn't want my gun to weigh ANY more than it does.
I use a VERY relaxed grip, with relaxed arms, and bent elbows. That allows most of the recoil to get soaked up by just the inertia of my arms, with little being transfered to the rest of my body...I don't like the brain-jolting I get with a rigid grip. Some of the 158-gr cartridges I tested DID have bullet-pull, but I've never seen it with the Federal Hi-Shoks.
I think bullet-pull tends to be more likely with heavy bullets, not light ones. So the 120 grain restriction has nothing to do with bullet-pull.
And I think that the reason that the lighter bullets are more likely to produce cylinder erosion is because they move out of the case more quickly, when more powder is still burning. With the 158-gr bullets (at the least the Federal Hi-Shoks that I use), I suspect most of the powder has finished burning before the bullet leaves the case.
The super-light weight of my S&W360 is FAR more important to me than having a comfortable recoil. I wouldn't want my gun to weigh ANY more than it does.
I use a VERY relaxed grip, with relaxed arms, and bent elbows. That allows most of the recoil to get soaked up by just the inertia of my arms, with little being transfered to the rest of my body...I don't like the brain-jolting I get with a rigid grip. Some of the 158-gr cartridges I tested DID have bullet-pull, but I've never seen it with the Federal Hi-Shoks.