I'll probably take some heat for it but IMO the K frame really isn't well suited to the 357 Magnum. One poster stated that he felt that the failures were "only" 30% a fault of the design. As an Engineer I do NOT think that is even on the threshold of acceptable. Would you drive a car or fly on an airplane that only crashed 30% of the time due to a design flaw? I rather doubt you would. BTW, the actual failure rate is undoubtedly much much lower but even 1/2 of 1 percent is unacceptable if you think about it happening in airplane terms. In addition there is the matter of the lifetime warranty which I have no doubt had some influence in the decision to drop the 357 Magnum K frames.
Fortunately, and unfortunately, there is an L frame that approaches the weigh of a 4 inch model 19 or 66 within an ounce or two. Fortunate in that you can find one if you are dilligent. Unfortunate in that it's not easy to find. That is the 686 Mountain Gun with the 7 shot cylinder. IMO S&W really need to wake up and smell the coffee and put a light barreled L frame into regular production, they could build a version in blued steel and call it the "new Model 19" and I doubt that there would be many objections to that at all. They could also drop that billboard engraving on the 686 and call it a "new model 66" for the stainless version.
Personally I think the L frame was an excellent solution to a known design weakness and the only mistake they made was putting a full length lug on nearly every barrel in the L frames. It would be nice to see the half lug or partial lug tapered barrels make a comeback because they do feel better balanced to me.
As for the 357 Magnum as a Defesive caliber, with today's modern bullet technology I think it's a poor choice, especially in a short barrel. It's too loud, has too much muzzle flash, and the increase in velocity over a good 38 +P isn't worth the risk of long term hearing loss of using a Magnum for defense. BTW, my ears ring every day when I wake up and go to bed, so I'm very well acquanted with the effects of hearing damage and loss. Magnum are fun at the range and a great hunting caliber but NOT my choice for Defense, for that I'll select a load that doesn't do any more harm to my remaining hearing.
anything and everything is fallible, human or mechanical, the K frame magnums have been around since 1955 and made up until about 20 years ago so some are bound to falter over time and to my knowledge none have locked up on anyone with the first six shots of magnum ammo or gotten anyone killed with that tiny crack in the forcing cone.
and that 30% referers to the post 1980 guns in my book, which I will not touch with a 10 foot pole...... atleast when it comes to their revolvers.... because of an L frame 686 and a **** K22 from that era that never worked right in its life after being sent back to smith and wesson at about 06, twice and a master gunsmith twice as well
damn thing never could fire all 6
plus remember it said a colt python was one of the ones reported with this problem too, under the chart on the bottom
Use of Magnum Loads in S&W Model 19 and Other K-Frame Magnums
I looked into this awhile back with the pythons as well, but that was more for the going out of time thing than the barrel cracking as that was the first time I had ever really heard of it
anyways colt started crushfitting the barrels into the python like smith and wesson with all of their model revolvers in 1980 and I betcha its one of those post 1980's models too that had that crack
plus tooling started wearing out for both SW and colt and with the emphasis moving over to semi autos for LEO contracts in the 1980's well, keeping the quality control on revolvers high evidiently became a low priority
plus they started taking shortcuts like not pinning the barrel which apparently is still biting them in the butt to this day judging by these examples:
S&W Model 29-3 Problem!!! - YouTube
Poor Customer Service From S&W - YouTube
and then the glock came around in 85'...
so basically quality control and the low emphasis of creating a lifetime lasting revolver like they used to back in the 50's till the late 1970's became a low priority for both companies in the 1980's and thus I think this is how that issue really came to the forefront, their quality control problems, mixed in with the cost cutting messures and the crushfitting is what gave the K frame its bad rap, not the design
although the area they took out around the forcing cone to fit the .357 cylinder into a K frame in 1955 could have had a factor in this but I think that if it did it would have been a simple fix if the above hadnt happened with colt and smith and wesson in the 80's and I think there was no real need for an L frame to begin with, with factory loads atleast.
and as people like to hotrod stuff like idiots, and then blame the machine when it couldnt take it and not themselves the L frame was probably ment to stand up those hotrodded loads that the K frame couldnt which the rugers could, which doesnt mean that the K frame cant take the factory loads it was ment for in 1955.
it just means that only factory rated ammo that matches what the gun was designed to take should be used it, like the properly rated fuel for your car.
and if your carrying a gun for self defense why didnt you bring along ear plugs to begin with? its a practice I've been doing for many years now and thats just in general, not for carrying guns but just for general purpose, at the range or at the shopping mart as you never know when some idiot is going to pull the fire alarm somewhere.
and I put them on under my headsets at the range and keep them in all the time and it has saved my butt a few times there too, specifically on a short stocked ak variant that knocked off my headset while firing it.
No disrespect of that frame intended, I have no doubt that they are fine revolvers, but just haven't fitted into my template thusfar.
