180gr trouble in my Model 69 .44mag

M

Mike_Fontenot

New member
Yesterday, I shot one round of my recently purchased boxes of Underwood .44mag 180gr XTP's. When I ejected the casing, it was extremely tight and hard to eject. I got it out OK (without needing any tool, like a hammer and board), but it was difficult. I think a full 5-shot cylinder-full of casings would be impossible to eject without the help of a hammer and board ... and I certainly wouldn't be able to do a speed-reload. This contrasts with many of the other types of .44mag rounds I've fired in that gun, whose casings just fell right out. An Underwood 240gr XTP round that I fired wouldn't just fall out, but it was easy to eject. I'm not going to shoot any more of the Underwood 180gr rounds.

Has anyone else had a similar problem with these rounds in a M69 (or in a M629)? The YouTube video of Jerry Miculec shooting 180gr .44mag's (he doesn't say the brand, but Underwood is the only source that I've seen) doesn't seem to show him having any trouble ejecting the casings (after shooting a full cylinder of 5 of them).
 
My experience has been that an unusually hard to eject casing is a sign of high pressure. Providing normal rounds come right out with ease. They use Starline brass too (unless they changed recently) and that is good brass. How did the primer look? Flattened any?

FWIW Buffalo Bore is known for pumping up the velocity. You may have some that are loaded a little too hot on the pressure side.
 
I have learned with the help of others that even todays production revolvers have slight variances in chamber throat diameters. I have a 460v that I cannot load to within .50 grain of the more conservative max of 2 sets of loading data I was working with..

Your 69 might simply have chamber throats a bit on the tight side as those who have helped me suggest is the case with my 460. This minor issue is usually only evident by sticky extraction pushing at or near max pressures.

I haven't had my throats checked, I just don't load to that power level.
 
Assuming no problems with your revolver, I would definitely agree there is a problem with pressure. I would quit using that ammo. Of course the ammo may function fine in another revolver.
 
The primer was slightly flattened, but less than I often get with DoubleTap, BuffaloBore, and Underwood in my 10mm.

I got a couple of responses on another forum that referenced two other makes of 180gr .44mag ... and also that the Miculec video shows a box of one of them (Hornady) in the background. I think that's why he didn't have the trouble I had. I'd still like to hear from anyone who has shot the Underwood 180gr .44mag in either a M69 or a M629, though.

I was also surprised that the perceived recoil for the UW 180gr round was about the same as for the UW 240gr .44mag ... for equal energies, a lighter bullet will have less momentum, and it is momentum which primarily correlates with perceived recoil. And, as best I recall, the UW 180gr round is listed as having a bit lower energy that the UW 240gr round.

One other question: My ejector rod isn't long enough to clear the .44mag casings from the chamber holes ... it is even slightly too short for .44Special. Is the ejector for the Model 629 long enough to clear the casings from the chamber holes?
 
Just get one of these! :)


635332f7-b983-4e9b-831d-50c510c6e646_zpsd4563298.jpg
 
The primer was slightly flattened, but less than I often get with DoubleTap, BuffaloBore, and Underwood in my 10mm.
Click to expand...
I recon a better point to make is that the ammo your listing is usually hot. Pressure within SAAMI specs are more subjective than most think (and I found out the hard way.) In the end the pressure being within specs does not tell the story of the Recoil Energy your enacting on the firearm. Just run the numbers through a recoil calculator and you can see the Pressure does'nt tell the whole story. It will wear the gun out faster to give you a slight increase in performance and for me that is unnecessary given it's already a 44 Magnum. If you want more, why not get a gun that gives you more not a cartridge that wears a gun out? That or shoot normal ammo and be happy with the results.
 
Without a set of calipers both my 629 and my 69 have the same length ejector and will not clear the chamber completely.
They are also both too short to extract specials fully.
 
Ozzieman said:
Without a set of calipers both my 629 and my 69 have the same length ejector and will not clear the chamber completely.
They are also both too short to extract specials fully.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That's very surprising ... the 629 cylinder is noticeably longer than the 69 cylinder, so I suspected that the 629 could completely eject a .44mag case. That makes it all the more important (in both guns) to have cases that are not at all tight in the cylinder holes after firing, so that a sharp "bap" on the ejector (with the muzzle pointing upward) will get the cases moving fast enough to clear the cylinder via their own momentum. If you have to finish the extraction by manually pulling out the cases, that really makes speed-loading a joke.
 
Real_Gun said:
I would set them aside and talk to Underwood.
Click to expand...

I did contact Underwood, and the owner (Kevin) established that the four boxes I bought consisted of two different lot numbers (I bought them in two two-box shipments, a month and a half apart). He asked me to shoot one of the other lot, to see if the other lot gives me the same problem. I agreed to do that, but I probably won't get back to the range for several weeks or a month. He said that once we determine how many of the lots give me a problem, he would email me a return label that will allow me to return one or both lots at no cost to me.
 
Mike F. quote:

"I did contact Underwood, and the owner (Kevin) established that the four boxes I bought consisted of two different lot numbers (I bought them in two two-box shipments, a month and a half apart). He asked me to shoot one of the other lot, to see if the other lot gives me the same problem. I agreed to do that, but I probably won't get back to the range for several weeks or a month. He said that once we determine how many of the lots give me a problem, he would email me a return label that will allow me to return one or both lots at no cost to me."


Mike,

You can't beat that kind of customer service. If I ever need factory ammo, I'll go directly to Underwood.

Paul
 
The first photo 69 VS 629, the top gun is the 69 and the round setting on the cylinder is a 44 mag. The lower gun is a 629 and the round is a 44 special. This shows that there is little difference between the 69 and the 629
The second photo 624 VS 629 the top gun is a 624 with a 44 special and the lower is a 629 with a 44 mag. This shows the minor difference between a 44 special cylinder and a 44 mag.
The 629 cylinder is 1.705
The 69 is 1.681
The 624 is 1.580
 
Last edited:
Ozzieman, have you actually tried to (slowly, and horizontally) eject an empty .44mag casing from your 629, to see if it will clear the cylinder hole? I'd be amazed if S&W didn't have a design requirement that the 29 and the 629 be able to fully eject the .44mag casings. I thought the 69 couldn't do it because the L-Frame was originally designed for .44Special, not .44mag. (But now I know that the 69 can't even fully eject .44Special).

I originally thought that I might be able to get an aftermarket ejector rod that is slightly longer than the stock one ... there is a little extra room in the recessed region where the ejector rod resides. But I discovered that it isn't the length of the ejector rod that limits how far the casings can be pushed back ... you reach the stop before the knob on the end of the ejector rod reaches the passageway through the crane. It is apparently the geometry of the piece inside the cylinder that connects the ejector rod to the ejector that limits the travel of the ejector. I thought the geometry of that piece might be different on the 629, and might allow longer travel of the ejector.
 
One thing I would disagree with is that the 69 was originally built for 44 special. The 696 was built as a 44 special. With the 69 they changed the frame and the barrel mounting and the barrel. The 696 had a very thin forcing cone where as the 69 is much larger, Since it is an L frame it was original loaded for the 357 mag with 6 rounds.
As far as your question NO the 629 will not completely clear the 44 special case. At least mine wont with the 3 inch barrel. With a longer barrel (ejector rod) it might but all my other N frames are special or colt, this is the only mag that I have in an N frame. Granted there is so little of the 44 special left in the cylinder that it will easily fall out but the case is longer than the extractor so it cant completely extract it.
My 629 has a cylinder that the chamber is NOT recessed into the cylinder. From the end of the cylinder where the rim would make contact to the end of the extractor where the ejector makes contact to the rim of the case is 0.940.
Since the Special case is 1.160 and the mag case is 1.285 the extractor is not long enough.

P.S. I don't know how long the 696 cylinder is. Any one have a 696 they can measure???

P.S. #2 Any one have a recessed cylinder 29 or 629. Since the case would be deeper in the cylinder would it completely clear the chamber?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top