The M-19-4, 5, etc.

It has been suggested that later M-19 designs were more vunerable to force cone cracking when using hot 125 gr loads.

Is there anything about the Pinned and Recessed ones that were made up until 1982 when the 19-5 was released that are stronger than M-19-5 and above?

NOTE: I realize from online research and conversations that there are a wide field of opinions on if you should or shouldn't use 125 gr magnum loads (or any magnum loads) and how much it will or won't affect the M-19 and other K frame magnum guns.

The problem is the very thin forcing cone in all versions of the model 19(especially the flat at the bottom to allow yoke/gas ring clearance). It was designed in a day where most shooting was done with .38s and full power .357s only rarely used.

After the Newhall incident, liability insurance carriers started requiring training and qualification with full power loads. This lead to cracked forcing cones and excessive wear. The result was the L frame that largely solved the problems.

The 125 gr .357 load is a problematic load in any revolver.

I have shot a lot of different ammo in my old (1967) model 19 and other K frames.
I have always been loyal to the Gospel of Elmer, I have shot heavy bullets.
150 and up. I am very fond of the 160 grain.

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

I have the 19-4 I shoot 158 generally, 38 for plinking.i have ran the odd 125 gr through it . If you want to shoot 125 regular get an N frame and don't risk damaging a fine gun with a hot load��

My 02 mate

Thewelshm

Aww Jeez! Not this again!

The issue of cracked forcing cones has been WAY overblown by the Internet.

We put millions of magnums through just over two thousand model 66s with one cracked forcing cone.

However, if you really want to believe that these forcing cones are as fragile as the Internet would make them out to be, just buy a spare barrel keep it around until(if) it is needed.

Then shoot anything you want

I've heard and/or had people tell me: "The model 19 should be shot with .38s for practice and .357 Magnum 158 and above only for defense."

I've heard and/or had people tell me: "The model 19 should not be shot except for defense with 125 loads because too many of them will crack the force cone, stretch the frame and shoot the gun loose. Heavier magnum bullets are fine."

I've heard and /or had people tell me: "The force cone will not crack under any load, 125 gr, magnum or otherwise, as long as you keep the force cone clean and free of lead buildup"

I've heard and/or had people tell me: "125 gr damaging the force cone was a problem with hot ammo loaded back in the 70s but that has become a non issue since they toned it down in the 1980s or 90s. Shooting Magnums in your M-19 is fine but a steady diet will wear the gun faster than shooting .38s."

I've heard and/or had people tell me: "The M-19 either will hold up to magnums forever or it won't. Some guns crack, some guns don't."

I've heard and/or had people tell me: "I've had my M-19 for 30 years and have shot 30,000 magnums through it, mostly 125 gr, and it's still holding up fine."

HOWEVER. ^ is not exactly what I'm asking.

I've also heard it said that the 125 gr damaging force cone problem is unique to later M-19s because of the way the barrel was designed (or something).

It's a question of whether one version of the M19 is more durable than another version

No

Not by any quantifiable means

No. It's the same gun from day one for your specific question.

This goes same for the model 13 and 66.

The answer likely is: assuming there is an inherent Model 19 forcing cone issue with certain .357 loads, no, nothing definitive has demonstrated it's more or less prevalent in a particular dash iteration, to my lengthy reading on the subject.

I have encountered one theory that the the -5s were most prone to the issue because of post barrel pin changes to how the barrel was mounted at the factory; to the best of my knowledge this holds no water, because other than the deletion of the barrel pin, there were no changes to how the barrels were mounted at the factory.

Too, the supposed forcing cone cracking issues arose well before the -5s did.

Suggest that dash iterations are less of a concern than finding and owning a 19 that's well cared for and keeping it that way.

It does not have to do with pinned and recessed. The issue is the flat, thin section of the barrel shank at the 6 o'clock position when looking at the back of the barrel inside the frame window. That position is vulnerable when high velocity magnums with 125 grain and lower weight bullets are used. The lighter the bullet, the shorter the bullet, and the shorter the bullet the less time the bullet seals the barrel/cylinder gap. That tiny fraction apparently makes a BIG difference as the issue does not appear with the 145 grain Silvertips and the standard 158 grain loads.

This is only a problem with Magnum loads. Any weight bullet in a factory loaded 38 Special is so far under the danger zone in this respect that it does not merit any worry.

So, it is not the pinning and recessing. S&W have apparently made a HUGE improvement in the ability of the K frame to withstand Magnums with the new design of the barrel on the 2014 Model 66, which has a two-piece barrel and a ball-detent lock-up. The rear of the barrel does not have the thin flat as on the older 19/66, and is said to be considerably tougher.

Use 158 grain loads, and take care of your revolver, and it will serve you well.

This begs the question: Can a 2014+ made barrel be ordered and put onto an older 19/66? (for those of us who prefer the old S&W frame, action, hammer mounted firing pin, recessed cylinder and lockless sideplate

You just asked a different question. The answer to your new question is: Yes, a new production barrel could be fitted to your old frame without much fuss or bother. This isn't a kitchen table operation if done correctly.

I'm going to doubt that S&W is making .357 barrels for K frames for outside sales. The old practice was that Magnum barrels had to be factory fitted. (Largely to prevent folks from trying to turn model 10s-or earlier M&Ps- into 19s.))

No. The 66-8 was extensively redesigned. Its center pin no longer extends through the extractor rod ahead of the cylinder. The lock on the bottom of the barrel was replaced by a ball detent lock at the crane to make that possible. The 66-8's ejector rod is thin where it passes through the yoke allowing the top of the yoke to be lower. That eliminated the need for the clearance cut under the forcing cone.

Incidentally, it wasn't so much a matter of the barrel being thin at the flat as the flat creating a stress riser. The rear of a 66-7's "two piece barrel" is thin all the way around and I have not read of any of their forcing cones cracking.

The best post I've seen on K frame magnums cracking at the bottom of the flat spot is colt_saa's right here in this thread. I have not read anyone else post an observation of as large a sample size.

The multi piece barrel design came out with the -7 engineering revision of the model 66 about 8 years ago. There is no model 19 counterpart for it.

I have never checked to see if the thread pitch on the two barrel designs are interchangeable without re-threading

Things have changed too much. Model 66-7s and 66-8s use a completely round barrel that slips in through a shroud. Their barrels have no right side up. A flange at the muzzle pins the shroud against the frame. The shroud is keyed into the frame to stop it from rotating. See my last post for differences between 66-7s and 66-8s.

After all the bear threads the I'm surprised this is not the question.

If a bear pounces on me while I'm reading the S&W forum should I let the bear devour me or risk cracking my model 19's forcing cone shooting the bear?

I'd shoot it to failure, then get another one.

Seems simple to me.

__________________
John 3:16 .