- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,930
- Reaction score
- 11,003
How much have these guns been fired? Most J-frame guns, lightweight or steel, see little in the way of use, so they hold up well.
Articles about J frame failures
- Thread starter lrrifleman
- Start date
How much have these guns been fired? Most J-frame guns, lightweight or steel, see little in the way of use, so they hold up well.
heeter3
Member
My early 90s 442 had a broken firing pin after 20 years of service.Other than that it's been carried everyday for about 25 years.
Chubbs103
US Veteran
I've been reading about the crack for years, but thankfully have never seen one in person.
My 442 Pro gets carried a lot, so I make sure I shoot it. I put 150 rds through it this past week-end. My hand is still sore. I try to put a couple hundred rounds a month through it. Usually 100 is my limit at one time. When/if I have any issues it will go back to S&W.
My 442 Pro gets carried a lot, so I make sure I shoot it. I put 150 rds through it this past week-end. My hand is still sore. I try to put a couple hundred rounds a month through it. Usually 100 is my limit at one time. When/if I have any issues it will go back to S&W.
HOUSTON RICK
Member
I will not be going with you on any Seal team missions or crawl in the Grizzly cage at the zoo.
Rock185
US Veteran
We have a 642 with a CLW prefix that, thus far, has survived just fine. It was purchased new, and just used for carry, training and qualification. So not a high round count, even though it's 10+ years old. But I have to admit, that having seen some of the photos of the airweight guns with that longitudinal crack in the frame under the barrel, I've started to inspect our 642 in that area once in a while...
7shooter
Member
I just changed my name to Charity.
SuperMan
Member
I've only had three aluminum frame Js and two out of the three developed cracks under the barrel. One was a 50s vintage 42 and the other a 70s vintage 38. Had a 642 for a short period of time but decided it just wasn't worth the risk and sold it, replacing with a 649...just love the gun.
I once read that when the Airweight Js first came out S&W said they good for 300 rounds... I can see that because back in the 1950s no one really shot their guns very much.
Bob
I once read that when the Airweight Js first came out S&W said they good for 300 rounds... I can see that because back in the 1950s no one really shot their guns very much.
Bob
CCantu357
Member
It seems the durability of lightweight J-frames has always been a question. Even today, it seems they fall under the idea of carry a lot, fire a little. They might be rated for +P ammo, but I figure that standard pressure rounds would be better suited for these models. As my fellow Louisianian said, get the SP101 if you want to shoot magnums. Or a steel framed J-frame for +P extended use.
Either way, these guns serve a defensive purpose. They might not have the capacity of a 9mm. But Airweight J-frames fit where other guns don't.
Either way, these guns serve a defensive purpose. They might not have the capacity of a 9mm. But Airweight J-frames fit where other guns don't.
I believe the "lightweight" J Frames were never intended to be used as some people insist on using them. They were intended to be carried and only occasionally fired.
If you want to practice weekly, you need to have a all steel frame J Frame. If S&W would address this in their literature it would cause a lot fewer questions.
If you want to practice weekly, you need to have a all steel frame J Frame. If S&W would address this in their literature it would cause a lot fewer questions.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,619
- Reaction score
- 31,123
If you have read some of my posts over the past few years you already know I don't think too highly of the current production S&W' line up. That said, I own many vintage J Frames including a Nickel "I/J Frame from the first years production (1951). It was my Dad's back up gun, his off duty gun and his "side match" gun when he served as a Fed. He literally shot 10's of thousands of rounds through the little Revolver over the 60 years he owned it. After he died, I have shot hundreds of rounds through it. Now bare in mind, almost all ammo was standard velocity but a very few +P's have seen their way through the barrel too.
After 10's of thousands of rounds I have replaced the parts that wear such as the Hand, the Cylinder Bolt, all springs and even the Cylinder Ratchet assembly, but the frame, barrel and cylinder are still original and numbered. The barrel/cylinder gap measures 0.006" and the Cylnder locks up tight. The little Revolver now functions 100%, is still super accurate and while I no longer would opt to carry any 5 shot Revolver for SD, I would not be afraid to use it in a SD situation if that is what I had.
There was also an article written by Skeeter Skelton that I read in one of the gun rags 40 years ago where he states he had fired 1000 rounds of +P through a new at the time J frame and there was not any detrimental wear to the gun. It was a torture test of the often knocked J Frame that turned out to be more hype and BS than reality.
So if there is any reality to premature wear and tear with proper ammo used in one, I am truly not aware of it. NOW..... obviously a lightweight Aluminum Alloy gun WILL wear at a faster rate than a steel one (in the same configuration) but there are very few who dare shoot hot +P loads or Magnums through J Frames too often due to the "hurt" factor.
My other J Frames that were made in the 1960's, 70's, 80's and 90's have all been shot extensively and I have not replaced any parts due to wear. So can I say that J Frames wear "prematurely"? Not really. Will they wear faster than a K, L or N frame..... absolutely.
My AEM**** M49 I've fired since 1982 with nearly all rounds being the so-called 'FBI Load (158 grain +P LHP).' I had to qualify with it 4x annually to 2001 and still shoot it monthly. No troubles.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,930
- Reaction score
- 11,003
If you fire fifty rounds at each qualification four times per year, that's about 4,000 rounds in about twenty years, plus what you've fired in the last twenty. That's a good bit of shooting for any J-frame and a worthy endorsement as well.
SuperMan
Member
...but it is a steel frame... Have never heard any issues with them...
My first snubbie was a 1974 vintage 49...as it was one of only four handguns I owned it saw a lot of use and zero issues...
My first snubbie was a 1974 vintage 49...as it was one of only four handguns I owned it saw a lot of use and zero issues...
As for the difference in weight between alloy-framed guns and steel-framed versions - the weight discrepancy is obvious when these guns are unloaded. When loaded, it's hard to see much of an advantage, particularly if you're using the 158 grain bullets these guns were designed for. Quite right the difference is the weight of 3 quarters in your pocket. I carried a Mdl 36 for years.
I believe your assessment is correct. This was also the same logic applied to the original Colt Commander. The aluminum receiver Commander was for carry, but if you wanted to shoot a lot, you bought the steel receiver Combat Commander.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,930
- Reaction score
- 11,003
That may or may not be true, but I tend to believe there is validity to your statement. How much validity, I don't know. Did Colt or S&W ever mention such? One would assume these manufacturers performed some endurance testing using their alloy-framed guns, providing them with a realistic estimate as to how these lightweight models held up to repeated firing. If so, I guess that would be proprietary and confidential information.
I'm not a collector or minutia-oriented on this stuff; my comments are speculative at best.
OP
Just as an update, I consider that J frames always equal standard pressure 38s, I don't use +P in any of my 38s, and (due to age combined with multiple musculoskeletal injuries) I am not anxious to put Magnums in a J frame. If I am eager to let go a few Magnums, that is why I have a 686+, a 57, a 629, and a Colt Trooper MkIII for!
The Airweight Js that have caught my eye are a 637 and a 442. While I am intrigued by the design of the Centennial line, I (personally) would love to see a Centennial (or any of it's variations) offered with the original style grip safety a la 1911! While the grip safety may have a dubious value, I still like the look!
The Airweight Js that have caught my eye are a 637 and a 442. While I am intrigued by the design of the Centennial line, I (personally) would love to see a Centennial (or any of it's variations) offered with the original style grip safety a la 1911! While the grip safety may have a dubious value, I still like the look!
sigp220.45
US Veteran
This worthy thread deals with an Airweight K-frame, but is still worth a look:
+P Through a Model 12: THE TEST...is done!!!!
I’ve owned a couple of Model 37s and they were great guns. Not a lot of fun to shoot, though.
I suspect most guns with the dreaded crack were damaged when the barrel was torqued in.
I would also bet there are plenty of ones with the crack that are just soldiering along, with the condition unnoticed by the current owner.
I also suspect many are “fixed” prior to sale with the use of an anodizing pen.
Has anyone seen one with a crack actually fail catastrophically?
+P Through a Model 12: THE TEST...is done!!!!
I’ve owned a couple of Model 37s and they were great guns. Not a lot of fun to shoot, though.
I suspect most guns with the dreaded crack were damaged when the barrel was torqued in.
I would also bet there are plenty of ones with the crack that are just soldiering along, with the condition unnoticed by the current owner.
I also suspect many are “fixed” prior to sale with the use of an anodizing pen.
Has anyone seen one with a crack actually fail catastrophically?
Attachments
OK, so I went and dug my 637-2 out and looked...no cracks...but, S&W has replaced the barrel..it looked like the forcing cone had been threaded from the factory..dont look like robust materials though.....
I have tried to buy two different Model 37s over the years. Both had cracked frames. I steer clear of them now.
