Are SW cylinders supported as well as Ruger?

[Spartan1980]

Are there any known failure of cylinders of the 629 (44 mag) due to cylinder cracking? In other words is the design good even with the cylinder stop notch located in the center of the chamber resulting in the “thin area”?

They are fine for .44 Mag but not .454 Casull. It's mainly applicable as to why S&W created the X Frame for the Godzilla Magnums and you won't see any .454 Casull N Frames. Meanwhile Ruger didn't have to worry about it in the slightest for their .454s and .480s in the Super Redhawk. Most folks don't think about it because the S&W frames are plenty strong enough for their chamberings and they just stop considering anything else. They get into trouble quickly when they try to make their Mod. 25 45LC into a .454.

[Rmiked]

I am considering buying a revolver since I sold my 686 about a year ago. I regret it but it’s done. Now that I know the Liberals don’t want to confiscate revolvers, like the semi-autos with magazines >10 rounds, I think having a revolver is smarter to own. I have looked at the Ruger GP100 and really like it. But I am evaluating getting a 44 vs 357 now. I like the 629 especially the 6.5” with full underlug barrel. I recognize the 629 may be 50% more powerful (depending on the round) than a 357 and just want to understand more about the design. I hear you saying it’s so tried and tested it must be a great design.

[Rmiked]

They are fine for .44 Mag but not .454 Casull. It's mainly applicable as to why S&W created the X Frame for the Godzilla Magnums and you won't see any .454 Casull N Frames. Meanwhile Ruger didn't have to worry about it in the slightest for their .454s and .480s in the Super Redhawk. Most folks don't think about it because the S&W frames are plenty strong enough for their chamberings and they just stop considering anything else. They get into trouble quickly when they try to make their Mod. 25 45LC into a .454.

You really sound like you know these pistols well. I understand there is a “rebound plate” under the hammer to prevent it from moving forward if dropped making it “drop safe”. I also understand there is a hammer block which prevents the hammer moving forward if trigger is not pulled rearward. What happens if you are uncocking the pistol on a loaded chamber, trigger is rearward but your thumb slips off the hammer while lowering? If you release the trigger after initially freeing hammer (but hammer thumbed), will the hammer block reposition so that an accidental discharge does not happen?

[Pol]

Are there any known failure of cylinders of the 629 (44 mag) due to cylinder cracking? In other words is the design good even with the cylinder stop notch located in the center of the chamber resulting in the “thin area”?

The "thin area" is not the weakest part of the cylinder. The walls between the chambers are generally the weakest part of the cylinders. When overly hot ammo is fired, the areas between the cylinders end up being bulged. (Normally)

Also, 5 and 7 shot S&W cylinders don't have what you refer to as the thin spot. They are found only on 6 and 8 shot S&W cylinders.

[Spartan1980]

I am considering buying a revolver since I sold my 686 about a year ago. I regret it but it’s done. Now that I know the Liberals don’t want to confiscate revolvers, like the semi-autos with magazines >10 rounds, I think having a revolver is smarter to own. I have looked at the Ruger GP100 and really like it. But I am evaluating getting a 44 vs 357 now. I like the 629 especially the 6.5” with full underlig barrel. I recognize the 629 may be 50% more powerful (depending on the round) than a 357 and just want to understand more about the design. I hear you saying it’s so tried and tested it must be a great design.

If you like the 629 it'll serve you well. They've sold many thousands over many years. Just don't try to turn it into a "Godzilla caliber" and stick with 44Mag pressures which it sounds like you'll likely do. The GP100 is also a fine choice. .357 Magnum is still one of the most versatile handgun rounds ever devised, IMO.

[Rmiked]

I understand there is a “rebound plate” under the hammer to prevent it from moving forward if dropped making it “drop safe”. I also understand there is a hammer block which prevents the hammer moving forward if trigger is not pulled rearward. What happens if you are uncocking the pistol on a loaded chamber, trigger is rearward but your thumb slips off the hammer while lowering? If you release the trigger after initially freeing hammer (but hammer thumbed), will the hammer block reposition so that an accidental discharge does not happen?

[Wingate's Hairbrush]

... I understand there is a “rebound plate” under the hammer to prevent it from moving forward if dropped making it “drop safe”. I also understand there is a hammer block which prevents the hammer moving forward if trigger is not pulled rearward. What happens if you are uncocking the pistol on a loaded chamber, trigger is rearward but your thumb slips off the hammer while lowering? If you release the trigger after initially freeing hammer (but hammer thumbed), will the hammer block reposition so that an accidental discharge does not happen?

On a S&W action, yes. The hammer block rides a pin attached to the rebound slide, so its travel is dictated by the trigger's travel -- the block lowers as the trigger is pulled rearward, and returns to "hammer block position" as the trigger resets forward.

You could theoretically have a negligent discharge in decocking from single-action and losing control of the hammer while still holding the trigger back; depending on where the hammer slips, there may or may not be enough momentum to pop a primer.

But the scenario you're asking about constitutes mishandling of the firearm because it's the incorrect method for decocking from single-action, and any kind of firearms mishandling on any kind of firearm can result in a negligent discharge; in other words, this is a user issue, not a design issue, and can't be escaped in some form whatever firearm we're talking about. Mishandling is mishandling and can lead to tragedy.

To safely decock a live S&W revolver: point it in a safe direction, with your finger OFF the trigger and firearm well controlled in hand; firmly take control of the hammer via your thumb on the spur; gently release the action via the trigger while maintaining control of the hammer via your thumb on the hammer spur; let go the trigger and KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF IT, which allows the trigger to return to rest as you SLOWLY AND WITH CONSCIOUS CONTROL lower the hammer.

[Rmiked]

I understand it would be a mishandling event IF you let the hammer go while uncocking. But if the trigger was already released if you accidentally removed thumb would the hammer block re-engage, thereby Preventing an inadvertent discharge? I realize know design features can prevent all accidents. But if you have released the trigger would the hammer block re-engage?

[Spartan1980]

I understand it would be a mishandling event IF you let the hammer go while uncocking. But if the trigger was already released if you accidentally removed thumb would the hammer block re-engage, thereby Preventing an inadvertent discharge? I realize know design features can prevent all accidents. But if you have released the trigger would the hammer block re-engage?

As long as your finger allows the trigger to go back forward, then yes the block will reposition and block the hammer.

[Wingate's Hairbrush]

I understand it would be a mishandling event IF you let the hammer go while uncocking. But if the trigger was already released if you accidentally removed thumb would the hammer block re-engage, thereby Preventing an inadvertent discharge? I realize know design features can prevent all accidents. But if you have released the trigger would the hammer block re-engage?

On a S&W action, yes. The hammer block rides a pin attached to the rebound slide, so its travel is dictated by the trigger's travel -- the block lowers as the trigger is pulled rearward, and returns to "hammer block position" as the trigger resets forward.