S&W Revolvers <120gr Ammo Limitations?

This is a discussion on S&W Revolvers <120gr Ammo Limitations? within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I have been looking at some of the lightweight S&W revolvers. Those with titanium cylinders specify that bullets less than 120gr should not be used. ...

Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: S&W Revolvers <120gr Ammo Limitations?

  1. #1
    Member Array Firkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    183

    S&W Revolvers <120gr Ammo Limitations?

    I have been looking at some of the lightweight S&W revolvers. Those with titanium cylinders specify that bullets less than 120gr should not be used. I went online and read the instruction manual and the reason given for this limitation is that it is to prevent premature wear of the titanium cylinder. However, Remington and Winchester both offer 110gr SJHP rounds that are loaded to lower pressure and lower velocities (around 1295fps) than full power magnum loads. I am thinking that the restriction that S&W gives is to prevent people from using ultra-fast, lightweight bullets, but that this should not stop someone from shooting a 110gr bullet that is essentially a very hot 38sp and not a full power 357 load. I am interested in these 110gr loads because they would be more powerful than 38sp but ought to be much more controllable than full-house magnum loads in a small, lightweight gun. Do any of you know whether S&Ws ammo restriction would apply to these lower power rounds or is my analysis of the situation essentially correct?
    Thanks in advance,

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array MountainPacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    319
    Quote Originally Posted by Firkin View Post
    I have been looking at some of the lightweight S&W revolvers. Those with titanium cylinders specify that bullets less than 120gr should not be used. I went online and read the instruction manual and the reason given for this limitation is that it is to prevent premature wear of the titanium cylinder. However, Remington and Winchester both offer 110gr SJHP rounds that are loaded to lower pressure and lower velocities (around 1295fps) than full power magnum loads. I am thinking that the restriction that S&W gives is to prevent people from using ultra-fast, lightweight bullets, but that this should not stop someone from shooting a 110gr bullet that is essentially a very hot 38sp and not a full power 357 load. I am interested in these 110gr loads because they would be more powerful than 38sp but ought to be much more controllable than full-house magnum loads in a small, lightweight gun. Do any of you know whether S&Ws ammo restriction would apply to these lower power rounds or is my analysis of the situation essentially correct?
    Thanks in advance,

    I don't think this issue is so much the power of the round but the fast burning powder. Also, short (light) bullets in light weight guns tend to jump crimp because there's less bullet inside the case. I would just find myself a nice 125gr. load and be happy.

  4. #3
    Member Array Firkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by MountainPacker View Post
    I don't think this issue is so much the power of the round but the fast burning powder. Also, short (light) bullets in light weight guns tend to jump crimp because there's less bullet inside the case. I would just find myself a nice 125gr. load and be happy.
    I have heard of lead bullets pulling out under recoil, but the loads that I mentioned have copper jackets (SJHP). Also, as I mentioned, the stated reason given in the manual was premature wear of the titanium cylinder, not bullets jumping crimp. My thought was that they were trying to exclude rounds like Glazers which are copper jacketed and exit the gun at such high velocity. The 110-grain bullets at 1295-fps are REDUCED-power 357 rounds, essentially very hot 38sp. I just don't see how such a round would cause the kind of cylinder wear of which the instruction manual warned.

  5. #4
    TOF
    TOF is offline
    Member Array TOF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    342
    Call S&W and ask them the question. They are the only ones that can give you a definite answer.
    "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." - Thomas Jefferson

  6. #5
    Ex Member Array FN1910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,235
    If you are talking about the airlite 340SP versions don't worry about it. You are not going to shoot enough .357's in it to cause any damage. The recoil from using a .357 in that gun has to be felt to be believed.

  7. #6
    Member Array mike benedict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    North Georga Mtns.
    Posts
    73
    The Titanium framed J-frames have substantial recoil with 38 Special carry ammo and are just about impossible to control with .357 ammo

    Gold Dot Short Barrel Personal Protection - 38 Special +P

    May be the best snubby round

    Mike

  8. #7
    Member Array Coach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    83
    During the waiting period for my 340 PD,
    I called Smith & Wesson and asked about
    the 120 minimum weight.
    They said it applied to 357 only
    and that any weight 38 would be OK.
    Mine is loaded with Double Tap 125 +P's.
    osCommerce
    1.875" bbl S&W - 1100fps
    Bullet: Speer Gold Dot Low Velocity
    336 ft. lbs. 1.875"

  9. #8
    Member Array roadsiderob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    199
    One other reason may be POI shift with too light a bullet.

  10. #9
    Member Array Desperado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Somewhere in Kansas
    Posts
    96
    "The Titanium framed J-frames have substantial recoil with 38 Special carry ammo and are just about impossible to control with .357 ammo"

    Mike --- I respectfully disagree that .357 loads are 'just about impossible to control'.
    I carry a 340 M&P which weighs in at 13oz unloaded. While the recoil from a
    .357 Mag. in the gun is "sharp", it still scores reasonably well out to about 7 yards.
    "Courage is being scared to death ...... but saddling up anyway" John Wayne

  11. #10
    Member Array OhShoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    440
    It's almost certainly the fact that lighter bullets are likely to unseat from the casing when firing, especially .357, and possibly .38 +.

    I was reading ammo reviews at CheaperThanDirt not long ago and there were several rounds where AirWeight users said the last couple rounds had extruded bullets from the previous recoils. Just not enough recoil absorption from the light frames, so force affected the bullet at the crimp.

    - OS

  12. #11
    Member Array Firkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by OhShoot View Post
    It's almost certainly the fact that lighter bullets are likely to unseat from the casing when firing, especially .357, and possibly .38 +.

    I was reading ammo reviews at CheaperThanDirt not long ago and there were several rounds where AirWeight users said the last couple rounds had extruded bullets from the previous recoils. Just not enough recoil absorption from the light frames, so force affected the bullet at the crimp.

    - OS
    Heavier bullets would have a greater tendency to pull out due to momentum. Heavier things at rest resist being put into motion more than lighter things. So, why the concern over LIGHTER bullets in the guns? Again, the instruction manual mentioned cylinder wear and NOT crimp jumping as the concern. Here is the quote from the manual:

    "Do not use Magnum loadings with bullet weights of less than 120
    grains - This will reduce the possibility of premature erosion in
    titanium alloy cylinders."

    This is why I asked about DOWN-loaded 357 rounds like the Remington and Winchester 110gr loads with factory specs of less than 1300fps from a 4" barrel. (This is below "Magnum" velocities for this bullet weight.) Since these loads are not quite "Magnum" power, then the caution "do not use MAGNUM loadings with bullet weights of less than 120 grains. . ." would not seem necessarily to apply to these "lighter" loads. Oh well, I guess I will just have to call S&W for an answer on this one.

  13. #12
    Member Array OhShoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by Firkin View Post
    Heavier bullets would have a greater tendency to pull out due to momentum. Heavier things at rest resist being put into motion more than lighter things. So, why the concern over LIGHTER bullets in the guns? Again, the instruction manual mentioned cylinder wear and NOT crimp jumping as the concern. Here is the quote from the manual:

    "Do not use Magnum loadings with bullet weights of less than 120
    grains - This will reduce the possibility of premature erosion in
    titanium alloy cylinders."

    This is why I asked about DOWN-loaded 357 rounds like the Remington and Winchester 110gr loads with factory specs of less than 1300fps from a 4" barrel. (This is below "Magnum" velocities for this bullet weight.) Since these loads are not quite "Magnum" power, then the caution "do not use MAGNUM loadings with bullet weights of less than 120 grains. . ." would not seem necessarily to apply to these "lighter" loads. Oh well, I guess I will just have to call S&W for an answer on this one.
    Hmmm, well, I guess I stand corrected, I guess...

    <Emily Latella>
    "Never mind."
    </Emily Latella>

    - OS

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Short barrel revolvers & .44Magnum ammo
    By Trebla in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 12th, 2009, 04:19 PM
  2. Holster Advice for One w/ Physical Limitations
    By DAGLOCK in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: February 9th, 2009, 02:07 AM
  3. Statute of limitations?
    By Cupcake in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 12th, 2008, 04:53 PM
  4. WA CCW Limitations?
    By Boeruine in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 18th, 2008, 03:15 PM
  5. Training and Physical Limitations
    By Sweatnbullets in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: March 4th, 2007, 03:16 AM

Search tags for this page

120 gr. ammo for sw pd revolver
,

bullet weight restriction revolver

,

no less than 120 gr bullet

,
no less than 120 grain bullet
,
s&w j-frame 120 grain limit
,
smith and wesson pd340
,
why 120gr bullets in s&w
,
why do s&w says no less than 120 grain
,
why does my s&w pistol say not less than a 120 gr bullet
,
why does s&w say no less than 120 gr bullet?
,
why no less than 120 grain bullet in titanium revolvers
,
why not use 110 gr or lower in s&w 340pd
Click on a term to search for related topics.