625-3 and Moon Clips
- Thread starter AustinMike
- Start date
Bullrock,
Steels -- and every other material, for that matter -- have different characteristics based on their composition and molecular properties. There are no “goods” or “bads”, per se. However, some steels are superior in certain applications in comparison to other steels. Fundamentally, the principal differences between carbon (or ordnance) steel alloys and stainless steel alloys are easy to understand:
a) Carbon steels are harder and somewhat stronger than stainless steel. For virtually any handgun application, however, the design, structure, and materials utilized are more than adequate for safe, reliable, and multi-generation enduring use.
b) Stainless steels are highly corrosion resistant, while ordnance steels are far more susceptible to rust.
Both types of steels do perfectly well in firearms uses, with a minimum of preventative maintenance.
Steels -- and every other material, for that matter -- have different characteristics based on their composition and molecular properties. There are no “goods” or “bads”, per se. However, some steels are superior in certain applications in comparison to other steels. Fundamentally, the principal differences between carbon (or ordnance) steel alloys and stainless steel alloys are easy to understand:
a) Carbon steels are harder and somewhat stronger than stainless steel. For virtually any handgun application, however, the design, structure, and materials utilized are more than adequate for safe, reliable, and multi-generation enduring use.
b) Stainless steels are highly corrosion resistant, while ordnance steels are far more susceptible to rust.
Both types of steels do perfectly well in firearms uses, with a minimum of preventative maintenance.
There are right many M625s in .45 Colt out there. The 3 inchers, which were made in fewer numbers no matter the caliber, only had a production number of 300 in .45 Colt. There was even the 625 Mountain Gun in .45 Colt.
I disagree here. Carbon steel is more ductile, but stainless steel (the 416 variety used in firearms) is harder. One of the reasons the industry have went to SS barrels on rifle barrels to slow down the throat erosion of certain cartridges. For a handgun application the SS doesn't rust as quickly as carbon steel because of the nickel content of SS (notice nickel plated handguns don't rust). This nickel added to the alloy to make stainless steel is also what gives it it's strength.
Bullrock, now stop that!
you're just sitting there with a worm on a hook looking to see what kind of fish will bite!
Knock it off and go stand in the corner for 20 minutes. After that, as a punishment, you must ship your new 625JM to me for a week!
(oh, and that new Ruger P345 too just to make the lesson stick!)
bet you wish that you never confessed to your little game now, huh?
you're just sitting there with a worm on a hook looking to see what kind of fish will bite!
Knock it off and go stand in the corner for 20 minutes. After that, as a punishment, you must ship your new 625JM to me for a week!
(oh, and that new Ruger P345 too just to make the lesson stick!)
bet you wish that you never confessed to your little game now, huh?
Majic,
I no longer own the Rockwell Hardness tables I used in college, 40 years ago (wife insisted on throwing all that stuff I had retained for decades "just in case"). However, I recall (although, I could easily be wrong) that stainless alloys were softer than carbon steel alloys. Also, I thought the primary reason S&W/Ruger had shifted to stainless alloys was the decreased manufacturing time/cost associated with reduced final machining time (etc.), all due to stainless steels' comparative "softness". Please enlighten me if I have forgotten since my Properties of Materials class in '65!
Regards.
PS: You’re right re 625s in .45 Colt. I own a Smith 625-9, four-inch, .45 Colt Mountain Gun. Regardless of JC's diatribes, I'll tell you it is a great N frame, and the .45 Colt has a very wide range of loadings, from .45 ACP +P power up to almost .44 magnum power (although I don't use the hot loads in any N frame). VERY accurate, great fun to shoot, and a fine defensive sidearm for hiking and camping (real potency against all local critters, two- or four-legged).
I no longer own the Rockwell Hardness tables I used in college, 40 years ago (wife insisted on throwing all that stuff I had retained for decades "just in case"). However, I recall (although, I could easily be wrong) that stainless alloys were softer than carbon steel alloys. Also, I thought the primary reason S&W/Ruger had shifted to stainless alloys was the decreased manufacturing time/cost associated with reduced final machining time (etc.), all due to stainless steels' comparative "softness". Please enlighten me if I have forgotten since my Properties of Materials class in '65!
Regards.
PS: You’re right re 625s in .45 Colt. I own a Smith 625-9, four-inch, .45 Colt Mountain Gun. Regardless of JC's diatribes, I'll tell you it is a great N frame, and the .45 Colt has a very wide range of loadings, from .45 ACP +P power up to almost .44 magnum power (although I don't use the hot loads in any N frame). VERY accurate, great fun to shoot, and a fine defensive sidearm for hiking and camping (real potency against all local critters, two- or four-legged).
juliet charley
New member
RWK -
AustinMike was talking about the five-inch model (as I was)--not the three-inch or the Mountain Gun. I'd love to get my hands on .45 Colt MG--I traded the one I had off and been kicking myself off and on ever since. The five-inches are a lot more common in .45 ACP, and the remark about "rhyme or reason" is basically what Supica and Nahas said.
What diatribes?
AustinMike was talking about the five-inch model (as I was)--not the three-inch or the Mountain Gun. I'd love to get my hands on .45 Colt MG--I traded the one I had off and been kicking myself off and on ever since. The five-inches are a lot more common in .45 ACP, and the remark about "rhyme or reason" is basically what Supica and Nahas said.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but you said: “Actually, there were a few 625s made in .45 Colt (without much rhyme or reason)”. I interpreted this as criticism the .45 Colt, since “without much rhyme or reason” certainly seems to indicate without a logical basis. I now suspect this was only a semantically difference.
Regards.
Regards.
juliet charley
New member
I see what happened. You didn't finish the sentence which read:
Supica and Nahas were referring primarily to S&W naming Model of 1988 and Model of 1989 (when it didn't appear until 1989), that there was not a "no dash" or dash 1 model, and S&W doesn't normally mix calibres in a single model series. So, I could have added a little more explanation I guess, but Supica and Nahas are a pretty much a standard work, isn't it?
No big deal--I guess we all sometimes shoot before we're sure of our target.
You seem to have even misquoted it this time around. It was, of course, in response to AustinMike who asking specifically about the five-inch 625-3 in .45 Colt. I could have certainly been more specific instead relying on the context of the thread.
Supica and Nahas were referring primarily to S&W naming Model of 1988 and Model of 1989 (when it didn't appear until 1989), that there was not a "no dash" or dash 1 model, and S&W doesn't normally mix calibres in a single model series. So, I could have added a little more explanation I guess, but Supica and Nahas are a pretty much a standard work, isn't it?
No big deal--I guess we all sometimes shoot before we're sure of our target.
Last edited:
juliet charley
New member
Obviously, you are not a true S&W fan!
Supica and Nahas are the authors of the The Standard Catalog of S&W. If your talking about different models/calibres of S&W handguns, they are very germaine. That's sort of like not knowing who Roy Jinks is. Have fun!
Supica and Nahas are the authors of the The Standard Catalog of S&W. If your talking about different models/calibres of S&W handguns, they are very germaine. That's sort of like not knowing who Roy Jinks is. Have fun!
Last edited: