Author Topic: Model 610 Chambers  (Read 6298 times)

REDLINE

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2307
  • MAXIMUM POWER
    • View Profile
Model 610 Chambers
« on: July 27, 2012, 10:19:20 PM »
What is the max COL in a 610?  I suppose that is the equivalent of asking the length of the cylinder.
Gun Control?  Oh yes, the theory that becoming a victim is somehow morally superior to defending yourself & your family.  Makes perfect sense.

DM1906

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1191
    • View Profile
Re: Model 610 Chambers
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2012, 11:31:46 PM »
It's still 1.260".  More than that requires poetic license.  I can run up to 1.285" in my Ruger before interfering with the cylinder throat with WFN bullets (I limit it to 1.275").  Revolvers are different than autos, having a cylinder gap to deal with.  If the bullet isn't allowed to accelerate prior to hitting the forcing cone,  you get a pressure spike, and excessive gas passes the gap.  This is bad for the cylinder (excessive pressure) and the strap (flame cutting).  The .357 Max was discontinued for these reasons.  A similar condition can happen in an auto (or single shot, etc.), when the bullet run is so little, the pressure spikes before the bullet accelerates to accommodate the pressure rise.  Slower powders don't help much with this, as they tend to accelerate slower, as well.
Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid. -- The Duke

The_Shadow

  • Moderator
  • Sharpshooter
  • *****
  • Posts: 7503
    • View Profile
Re: Model 610 Chambers
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2012, 07:59:40 AM »
If you're loading outside of 1.260" then basicly its not the same anymore...Like those long loading the 40S&W's.  To achieve performance the bullet needs its proper tension.
Some have taken the 610's and reamed them to 10mm magnums so the cylinder is long enough to accomadate them.
The "10mm" I'm Packin', Has The Bullets Wackin', Smakin' & The Slide is Rackin' & Jackin'!
NRA Life Member
Southeast, LoUiSiAna

REDLINE

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2307
  • MAXIMUM POWER
    • View Profile
Re: Model 610 Chambers
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2012, 11:33:17 AM »
The_Shadow;  You don't believe a 200gr XTP out to 1.285" (+0.025") allows for enough tension in the case?

DM1906;  You don't believe there would be enough acceleration from a 200 XTP @ 1.285" at the forcing cone to keep excessive amounts of gas from going through the barrel/cylinder gap?

I'm just looking at a specific scenario and wondering if both of your generalities include the specific scenario with the 200gr XTP.  Not questioning what you're saying overall.
Gun Control?  Oh yes, the theory that becoming a victim is somehow morally superior to defending yourself & your family.  Makes perfect sense.

DM1906

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1191
    • View Profile
Re: Model 610 Chambers
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2012, 02:36:54 PM »
The_Shadow;  You don't believe a 200gr XTP out to 1.285" (+0.025") allows for enough tension in the case?

DM1906;  You don't believe there would be enough acceleration from a 200 XTP @ 1.285" at the forcing cone to keep excessive amounts of gas from going through the barrel/cylinder gap?

I'm just looking at a specific scenario and wondering if both of your generalities include the specific scenario with the 200gr XTP.  Not questioning what you're saying overall.

It's still more than just that.  I think the 200 XTP will seat fine at 1.285", as it appeared when I tried it.  I don't have a 610 to compare, but it was too tight in my Ruger for comfort.  It fit, but was too close for my liking.   I don't know how the S&W throat and cone would compare to Ruger specs within the same caliber.  I have other S&W's to look at, and they're pretty tight.  The problem isn't necessarily the forcing cone, in this instance, but the cylinder throat diameter.  If you go with something that long, you may have to extend the throat.  Not difficult, with a little fire-lapping.

I don't suggest reaching too far before you actually get one in your hand.  Pursuing what you're asking will leave you with weapon-specific rounds, which pretty much negates the versatility factor.

As The Shadow suggested, ream the cylinder to fit 10mm Mags, and have the best of 3 worlds.  Full 10 Mag power, full 10mm Auto power (with room to use longer bullets), and .40's, whatever your heart desires at the moment.  Actually, this gives me a few ideas.....
Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid. -- The Duke

REDLINE

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2307
  • MAXIMUM POWER
    • View Profile
Re: Model 610 Chambers
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2012, 03:48:32 PM »
Pursuing what you're asking will leave you with weapon-specific rounds, which pretty much negates the versatility factor.

I've always been under the impression that that's part of the joy and benefit of handloading in the first place, being able to taylor loads for individual firearms one owns.
Gun Control?  Oh yes, the theory that becoming a victim is somehow morally superior to defending yourself & your family.  Makes perfect sense.

DM1906

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1191
    • View Profile
Re: Model 610 Chambers
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2012, 05:31:28 PM »
Pursuing what you're asking will leave you with weapon-specific rounds, which pretty much negates the versatility factor.

I've always been under the impression that that's part of the joy and benefit of handloading in the first place, being able to taylor loads for individual firearms one owns.

I don't disagree.  I do the same thing, only because I can (and it's fun).  I was referring to the versatility of the cartridge, not the weapon.  Many of us have a lot of 10mm's and conversions to exercise the versatility.  Creating a cartridge of the same caliber that only works in one gun removes that notion.  Not saying don't do it, or you shouldn't, just commenting.  Nothing wrong with it, at all.  What's your objective?  More power, bigger bullets?  No reason, just for the fun of it?

I have two 10mm platforms, and I don't mind separating them:  Semi-auto handgun/rifle; single-action handgun/rifle (lever, work in progress).  The single-action option can go way long on the cartridge, while the semi's are stuck at original length.  Versatility within either platform, with a crossover using original length cartridges.  Most of my favorite calibers enjoy this level of versatility (still in the market for a .41M rifle).
Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid. -- The Duke

REDLINE

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2307
  • MAXIMUM POWER
    • View Profile
Re: Model 610 Chambers
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2012, 11:09:04 PM »
Looking to gain overall knowledge.  Sometimes there is more than one way to skin a cat that the individual can decide for themself, other times there is simply cold hard fact.  I'm just trying to sort it all out while gaining additional knowledge along the way where I can.

I've never had an intention of owning a 610.  BUT that's from a very limited knowledge standpoint on the 610, and if the facts were juicy enough you never know what might get me to jump all over one.

There's also the T/C Contender platform out there that may allow COL to be toyed with.  Buuuuuuuut, it's a single shot, whereas I was pondering the 610 maybe allowing COL to be toyed with (beyond 1.260") along with have a higher round count on board than just one.  Don't know till you ask.

Something crossed my mind and I started a thread.  You never know where it might lead.  That's where I'm at in this thread.  Then there's all those other thoughts swirling around in my head regarding:  other platforms, handloading, limitations of varying degrees surrounding various subjects in shooting...  .  Does it ever end? :-\

You can never know too much.  By the same token, never say never, can apply there too.  It can be a confusing world out there.  And that's on top of sometimes having to diseminate good info from bad.  Now where did I leave my meds again? :P
Gun Control?  Oh yes, the theory that becoming a victim is somehow morally superior to defending yourself & your family.  Makes perfect sense.

DM1906

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1191
    • View Profile
Re: Model 610 Chambers
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2012, 01:01:42 AM »
Again, I don't disagree.  However, if you intend to learn, learn the science behind the practice.  Physical laws are a good place to start, along with fluid dynamics.  Followed by metallurgy and pyrotechnics.  Add an engineering science (any), and you'll be set.  Don't forget to have fun along the way....
Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid. -- The Duke

The_Shadow

  • Moderator
  • Sharpshooter
  • *****
  • Posts: 7503
    • View Profile
Re: Model 610 Chambers
« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2012, 08:12:28 AM »
The_Shadow;  You don't believe a 200gr XTP out to 1.285" (+0.025") allows for enough tension in the case?

DM1906;  You don't believe there would be enough acceleration from a 200 XTP @ 1.285" at the forcing cone to keep excessive amounts of gas from going through the barrel/cylinder gap?

I'm just looking at a specific scenario and wondering if both of your generalities include the specific scenario with the 200gr XTP.  Not questioning what you're saying overall.

I wasn't trying to say it would not work...
The point I was making is when working outside of the "normal" parameters then it is not the exact same any more...

The ammo loaded to that 1.285" would work just fine if it fits in the cylinder of the revolver but now it doesn't fit in most magazines of a semiauto any more.
The "10mm" I'm Packin', Has The Bullets Wackin', Smakin' & The Slide is Rackin' & Jackin'!
NRA Life Member
Southeast, LoUiSiAna

REDLINE

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2307
  • MAXIMUM POWER
    • View Profile
Re: Model 610 Chambers
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2012, 11:45:30 AM »
Cool.  Thanks guys. 8)
Gun Control?  Oh yes, the theory that becoming a victim is somehow morally superior to defending yourself & your family.  Makes perfect sense.

sqlbullet

  • Moderator
  • Sharpshooter
  • *****
  • Posts: 5893
    • View Profile
Re: Model 610 Chambers
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2012, 06:55:51 AM »
In theory, you could probably seat clear out to around 1.600".  That is about the max I think an N-frame cylinder frame window will accept.

But, in practice, lots of other variables in play.