S&W M-19 Force Cone: How Many Rounds?

[Doug.38PR]

This forum (and others) are littered with thread after thread about the model 19 force cone cracking and how many guns have cracked under it from shooting X number of hot magnums, etc.

Well, this is NOT one of those threads.

Instead, I’m asking about how many M19-# guns are out there that have NOT cracked, how well you take care of them, and how many rounds (magnum or not, bullet weight, etc) you’ve put through it (or you think have been put through) in the gun’s lifetime.

Go!

[D Brown]

I think the stock answer is to avoid lightweight (110 grain and 125 grain) hot magnum rounds. As long as you do that, and stick to mostly 38 Special loads, your Model 19's should last practically forever!

[A10]

I have 3, and traded off another. My brother has 1. Never personally seen a cracked one though I've seen a lot of pictures...

[cowboy4evr]

The cracked forcing cone thing is highly over blown . Yes , it did happen but the percentage is very very very low . I can tell you that it was designed for 158 gr bullets or heavier in 357 magnum loads . S&W stated that in memo's . If shooting 38 spl , then the lighter bullets are fine .
The biggest problem the K-frame 357's had was shooting " loose " because digesting too many " hot " loads using 125 gr or lighter bullets in 357 magnum loads . They would load up to 21 grs of H-110 in a 357 case using 125 gr bullets . That is about the same load for a 41 magnum using a 210 gr bullet in the " N " frame revolver ,which is much larger and stronger . I feel that modern day factory 357 loads are not the hot loads of yesteryear . But , just don't use the light weight bullets in your 19 and you will be fine . I have had 19's and they are as tight as the day I bought them and they have digested many many 180 gr cast bullets using a max load of H-110 , current load data . Today , I restrict my 357 loads to mid- upper range loads using mostly the 173 gr " Keith " swc (358429) with Alliant 2400 in my K-frame 357's . They just don't have to prove anything to me anymore . Regards, Paul

[Joed49]

As stated todays loads are not as hot as those from the 70's and 80's. If you stay away from .357 light bullet loads the model 19 will probably outlast you.

I rarely shot 125 gr bullets from my 19 and preferred the 140 gr. I sold the 19 a few years ago and moved on to a model 66. To be honest I don't shoot anything really hot in the 66 preferring a lower mag load with bullets of 140 gr.

[THE PILGRIM]

Have shot probably several thousand rounds through my Blue 4 Inch - the one I bought in Guam in 1967.
The 357s were mostly all heavier bullets, including hot handloads. I was closely following the Gospel of Elmer in those days.
Lots of 38, a bunch of GI 130 Grain.
38 Handloads were mostly 150 Grain Cast.

[Doug.38PR]

We see photos of cracked cones, hear from people that have seen cracked cones, gotten advise one way or the other about what not to shoot, etc. (sometimes you get the impression that a K frame magnum is a delicate toy waiting to break with just one more round)

But my point is: lets hear from the m19 owners that still have theirs, lets hear about the m19s that are still chewing up and spitting out rounds (yes even 125 gr hot magnums) and still have all their teeth so to speak. Could it be that for every cracked cone, there are 50,000 cones still out there still passing plenty of rounds through them with no problem?

In short: let’s hear the success stories rather than the tragedies for a change and be able to take that into account.

[stansdds]

No more 110 or 125 grain magnum loads in my old 19-3. I quit shooting those loads years ago. So far, the only thing I see is a tiny bit of erosion at the edge to the entrance of the forcing cone.

[noro]

Doug,

One of the local ranges in my area had a 19-2 that was a rental.
According to the owner, it went 100,000 rounds before the forcing cone cracked, and had to be rebarreled. Its still serving today with a new barrel.

[old bear]

I am lucky enough to have a total of 13 model 19, 65, and 66's. With the exception of one I shoot all of them. Ammo is generally hot 125 or 158Gr. 38 special ammo. When I shoot .357 Magnum rounds, it's generally a mid-range load. Never had any problems with forcing cone erosion or abnormal top strap flame cutting. Over the years I shot thousands of rounds of the above.

As I understand that a carbon build up can and will cause forcing cone erosion, I follow Jeff Cooper's advise, "the sun should never set on a dirty firearm."

[Joed49]

I owned my 19-4 from 1982 till 2006. I shot it quite a bit but mostly with heavier bullets. Yes, the forcing cone was eroded and I'd bet by now it would have cracked.

You have to realize the model 19 was made when the most popular load was the 158 gr bullet. It was designed as a gun that could occasionally shoot .357 mags.

This is the reason I no longer shoot heavy loads in my model 66. When I carry it I load it with .357 mag 140 gr loads, but for range use I shoot much less powerful ammo.

If you're constantly going to shoot a lot of .357 mag loads in a 19 or 66 eventually it will need service.

[crazyphil]

Here's my 19-4 that I got new in the box back sometime in the 1970s.
It is wearing Herrett's Jordan Patrol walnut stocks and a McGivern gold
bead up front. Photo on the left.

I took Bill Jordan's advice and always practiced with .38s. Probably in
the thousands by now. Carried .357 125-gr JHPs for bidness. Fortunately
never had to use any. No cracks. Still tight.

A few of my model 19's favorite suits:
2nd from left Seventrees Combat Speed Scabbard.
3rd from left Lawrence #34 extra quick draw FBI model.
4th from left Burns-Martin Universal Speed Holster.
5th from left Floral Threepersons with "dog ear" by Lt. Oliver Ball.

You can enlarge a photo by clicking on it once or twice.

[Trooper224]

Another thing to bare in mind is keeping the forcing cone clean. This is often overlooked when talking about cracked forcing cones. Everyone tends to fixate hot loads using lighter bullets. A lot of the cracked forcing cones we saw in law enforcement were also due to lead build up at the forcing cone, which caused an increase in pressure, thereby leading to the end result of a cracked forcing cone. Keeping the FC clean goes a lot way towards preventing this issue.

[Grayfox]

I've got a 1978 4" 19-4 that I bought used almost 20 years ago. While it still looks decent enough, you can tell its been used hard in its life. I couldn't even begin to guess how many rounds are been through it, but I've shot it a lot. The forcing cone and mechanics are still just fine and its a great shooter.
I also have a 1982 2 1/2" 19-5 that I bought used back around 2004 (?) which had to go back to the factory for a completely unrelated issue. While it was there, they examined it, set the barrel back and recut the forcing cone. No explanation why in the paperwork, but I suspect it measured some forcing cone erosion that wasn't bad enough for me to notice and S&W just decided to go ahead and fix it before it got worse. The barrel was not cracked.
Over the years I've put some serious .357 handloads through both of these guns. Including some real 125gr flamers. But for the most part they shoot my favorite handload which pushes a 158gr LSWC at about 1100 fps.
Both guns are just fine and I expect them to outlast me.

[oddshooter]

I have several favorites in my 19's and 66.
I have one scoped and use it as my "reference gun" for 38/357.


I reload and see around 1300 to 1400fps.
I shoot 158gr and up to 180gr.
I use a lot of H110 and 4227. Magnum primers.

I consider these hot loads and I do not see any signs of damage to the forcing cone, the crane, the frame, or excess play.

I decided long ago to shoot what I liked. If I have to repair or replace a handgun in say 20 years or so, OK with me, I got my "goodie" out of it.
I also use my hammers real hard. I hit steel nails with them and never worry about replacing.

If it bothers you and you worry about such stories, trade it for something that brings you joy, not anxiety.
It's a hobby, not a business.


Prescut

[BB57]

Originally Posted by cowboy4evr

…/

/….The biggest problem the K-frame 357's had was shooting " loose " because digesting too many " hot " loads using 125 gr or lighter bullets in 357 magnum loads . They would load up to 21 grs of H-110 in a 357 case using 125 gr bullets . That is about the same load for a 41 magnum using a 210 gr bullet in the " N " frame revolver ,which is much larger and stronger . I feel that modern day factory 357 loads are not the hot loads of yesteryear . But , just don't use the light weight bullets in your 19 and you will be fine . I have had 19's and they are as tight as the day I bought them and they have digested many many 180 gr cast bullets using a max load of H-110 , current load data . Today , I restrict my 357 loads to mid- upper range loads using mostly the 173 gr " Keith " swc (358429) with Alliant 2400 in my K-frame 357's . They just don't have to prove anything to me anymore . Regards, Paul

I agree with you in general but disagree on some of the details.

Recoil wise any K-frame .357 won't much care whether the hot load uses a 125 gr or 158 gr bullet in terms of "shooting loose". However, I agree with you that a hot 125 gr load is a bit different than a hot 158 gr load.

Consider for example a 158 gr load using 16 grains of a slow burning (for a handgun cartridge) colloidal ball powder like H-110 / Win 296 or the commercial non cannister equivalent.

Then consider a 125 gr load using 21 grains of the same powder in the same 2.5 pound revolver.

The 125 gr load at 1,450 fps has:

- a recoil impulse of 1.27 pounds second;
- a recoil velocity of 16.36 feet per second; and
- a recoil energy of 10.39 foot pounds.

The 158 gr load at 1,300 fps has:

- a recoil impulse of 1.27 pounds second;
- a recoil velocity of 16.31 feet per second; and
- a recoil energy of 10.33 foot pounds.

The differences between the loads in recoil impulse, velocity and energy are virtually zero. That's because the increased mass of the powder charge exits the muzzle at about 3 times the velocity of the projectile and that powder still has mass, even as plasma. That 5 grains of powder at 3x the muzzle velocity creates the same effect as about 15 more grains of bullet weight, and the rest is due to the higher velocity of the 125 gr bullet.

That however is also the key to why a 125 gr load is more destructive to the forcing cone. That 21 grain charge in the 125 gr load is 31% more powder than the 16 grain charge in the 158 gr. load. That additional 5 grains of slow burning colloidal ball powder flowing through the forcing cone creates at 31% more heat and mass flow going through the forcing cone which creates at least 31% more wear per round fired, and probably closer to 50% more wear as higher heat accelerates the wear that occurs per shot.

My preference for a .357 Magnum load in my Model 19, Model 13, or Model 66 is a 125 gr bullet on top of 9 grains of Unique. In a short barrel (2.5") I get no significant loss of velocity (around 1,300 fps) compared to a full charge of H-110, but the recoil numbers are significantly better:

125 gr, 9.0 gr Unique at 1,300 fps (2.5" barrel):

- a recoil impulse of 0.92 pounds second;
- a recoil velocity of 11.86 feet per second; and
- a recoil energy of 5.46 foot pounds.

125, gr, 21 gr H-110 at 1,300 fps (2.5" barrel):

- a recoil impulse of 1.19 pounds second;
- a recoil velocity of 15.29 feet per second; and
- a recoil energy of 9.08 foot pounds.

Comparing these two 125 gr loads, there is less heat and 58% less mass flow through the forcing cone with the Unique load, and about half the recoil energy in total. That's due to the significantly reduced mass of the faster burning powder charge. That faster burning powder is also more fully combusting in the case with significantly less abrasive, partially burnt, powder scrubbing its' way through the forcing cone.

----

Historically speaking this makes sense as well, as reports of cracked forcing cones in Model 19s started occurring:

- after law enforcement switched from 158 gr to 125 gr. loads, but also
- after ammo manufacturers started developing 125 gr loads using less expensive and slow burning colloidal ball powders in the .357 Mag; and
- after law enforcement agencies switched from the practice o using .38 Special ammunition for training and reserving .357 Magnum for duty use, to using .357 Magnum for training as well as duty use. (This was the result of a number of lawsuits where police departments were sued for "under training" police officers by using .38 Special for training when they carried .357 Magnum on duty.)

So in effect, you had a perfect storm of the increased popularity of 125 grain loads, using significantly larger charges of much more abrasive slower burning colloidal ball powders, at the same time that departments started switching to .357 Magnum for training in addition to duty use. That create a real world use that went way beyond the original design assumptions.

[mm93]

I only have one Model 19, but I've owned it since 1980. I don't shoot much in the way of hot loads over the last 4 decades, so it's not typical of others who do. Mine looks like new, and has no issues at all. Can't even guess how many thousands of rounds have been through it, but I'd guess very few were hot magnum loads.

[Doug.38PR]

Here’s a thought, and maybe we could hear from some active or retired police officers, with the cases of officers that had cracked cones from constantly firing hot magnums in practice, how many more officers did NOT have this happen in their K frame magnums?

[Trooper224]

Originally Posted by Doug.38PR

Here’s a thought, and maybe we could hear from some active or retired police officers, with the cases of officers that had cracked cones from constantly firing hot magnums in practice, how many more officers did NOT have this happen in their K frame magnums?

To what purpose, so everyone who owns a K frame magnum feels better about it? The ones who never had a problem would be in the vast majority. It wasn't exactly an issue of epidemic proportions, but it happened enough to be a known issue. S&W didn't develop the L frame on a whim.

[sw282]

Originally Posted by Trooper224

To what purpose, so everyone who owns a K frame magnum feels better about it? The ones who never had a problem would be in the vast majority. It wasn't exactly an issue of epidemic proportions, but it happened enough to be a known issue. S&W didn't develop the L frame on a whim.

Smith & Wesson wanted a ''COLT PYTHON'' too

[6string]

This topic often reminds me of the forcing cone issue on 357 Maximum revolvers. Ruger and Dan Wesson both faced this problem shortly after the introduction if their 357 maximums in the very early 1980s.
The problem, as with the M19, was the use of 125 gr jacketed bullets driven as fast a possible, generally with a case full of H110 powder. Those revolvers were fine with heavier bullets, especially 180-200 grain bullets. Even better if they were cast.

Thankfully, S&W kept the M19 in production, whereas the 357 maximum was quickly discontinued in general revolver production.

On the other hand, the French GIGN tore through M19s like gym socks due to their daily 150 round practice regimen using full power ammo.

Jim

[Art Doc]

Much discussed topic. No pat answers. Some cracked first time fired. Some cracked with 38 ammo. I think most had metal defects from manufacturing. One theory I like is that carbon deposits built up in cone caused hot spots that cracked the metal. Vast majority of 19s had no problems.

I bought a 19-3 from a retired federal officer (it letters as sent to the federal office) who said he never used anything except 125 grain JHPs in it. Said he fired 50 rounds every month. You do the math. No cracks. It was and is kept clean of carbon.

[BB57]

Originally Posted by Trooper224

To what purpose, so everyone who owns a K frame magnum feels better about it? The ones who never had a problem would be in the vast majority. It wasn't exactly an issue of epidemic proportions, but it happened enough to be a known issue. S&W didn't develop the L frame on a whim.

Exactly.

Ruger introduced their Security/Police/Speed Six revolver in 1972 as a response to perceived issues among law enforcement agencies with 125 gr JHP .357 Magnum loads in the S&W K frame .357s that surfaced in the late 1960 when many agencies started using .357 Magnum exclusively rather than training with .38 Special. Unlike the Model 19, 66, 13, etc the Ruger Six series were designed for a steady diet of .357 Magnum ammunition.

The L frame 581 and 586 in .357 Magnum were introduced in 1980, after S&W figured out it was losing a lot of market share to Ruger's stronger revolver. They were eight years behind in doing that, but on the other hand S&W probably did not want to undermine K frame .357 sales, or create dissatisfaction with the legions of customers that already owned K frame .357s. They waited until they were forced to acknowledge the problem

[Doug.38PR]

Originally Posted by Trooper224

To what purpose, so everyone who owns a K frame magnum feels better about it? The ones who never had a problem would be in the vast majority. It wasn't exactly an issue of epidemic proportions, but it happened enough to be a known issue. S&W didn't develop the L frame on a whim.

Well, you really answered your own question. To establish exactly what you said. We have countless threads discussing the M19s cracked cone, so much you'd think it was a very delicate gun. But I think it helps to put some perspective on it rather than getting lost in details. It helps to be reminded that the vast majority did not crack.

[Mike, SC Hunter]

Originally Posted by BB57

I agree with you in general but disagree on some of the details.

Recoil wise any K-frame .357 won't much care whether the hot load uses a 125 gr or 158 gr bullet in terms of "shooting loose". However, I agree with you that a hot 125 gr load is a bit different than a hot 158 gr load.

Consider for example a 158 gr load using 16 grains of a slow burning (for a handgun cartridge) colloidal ball powder like H-110 / Win 296 or the commercial non cannister equivalent.

Then consider a 125 gr load using 21 grains of the same powder in the same 2.5 pound revolver.

The 125 gr load at 1,450 fps has:

- a recoil impulse of 1.27 pounds second;
- a recoil velocity of 16.36 feet per second; and
- a recoil energy of 10.39 foot pounds.

The 158 gr load at 1,300 fps has:

- a recoil impulse of 1.27 pounds second;
- a recoil velocity of 16.31 feet per second; and
- a recoil energy of 10.33 foot pounds.

The differences between the loads in recoil impulse, velocity and energy are virtually zero. That's because the increased mass of the powder charge exits the muzzle at about 3 times the velocity of the projectile and that powder still has mass, even as plasma. That 5 grains of powder at 3x the muzzle velocity creates the same effect as about 15 more grains of bullet weight, and the rest is due to the higher velocity of the 125 gr bullet.

That however is also the key to why a 125 gr load is more destructive to the forcing cone. That 21 grain charge in the 125 gr load is 31% more powder than the 16 grain charge in the 158 gr. load. That additional 5 grains of slow burning colloidal ball powder flowing through the forcing cone creates at 31% more heat and mass flow going through the forcing cone which creates at least 31% more wear per round fired, and probably closer to 50% more wear as higher heat accelerates the wear that occurs per shot.

My preference for a .357 Magnum load in my Model 19, Model 13, or Model 66 is a 125 gr bullet on top of 9 grains of Unique. In a short barrel (2.5") I get no significant loss of velocity (around 1,300 fps) compared to a full charge of H-110, but the recoil numbers are significantly better:

125 gr, 9.0 gr Unique at 1,300 fps (2.5" barrel):

- a recoil impulse of 0.92 pounds second;
- a recoil velocity of 11.86 feet per second; and
- a recoil energy of 5.46 foot pounds.

125, gr, 21 gr H-110 at 1,300 fps (2.5" barrel):

- a recoil impulse of 1.19 pounds second;
- a recoil velocity of 15.29 feet per second; and
- a recoil energy of 9.08 foot pounds.

Comparing these two 125 gr loads, there is less heat and 58% less mass flow through the forcing cone with the Unique load, and about half the recoil energy in total. That's due to the significantly reduced mass of the faster burning powder charge. That faster burning powder is also more fully combusting in the case with significantly less abrasive, partially burnt, powder scrubbing its' way through the forcing cone.

----

Historically speaking this makes sense as well, as reports of cracked forcing cones in Model 19s started occurring:

- after law enforcement switched from 158 gr to 125 gr. loads, but also
- after ammo manufacturers started developing 125 gr loads using less expensive and slow burning colloidal ball powders in the .357 Mag; and
- after law enforcement agencies switched from the practice o using .38 Special ammunition for training and reserving .357 Magnum for duty use, to using .357 Magnum for training as well as duty use. (This was the result of a number of lawsuits where police departments were sued for "under training" police officers by using .38 Special for training when they carried .357 Magnum on duty.)

So in effect, you had a perfect storm of the increased popularity of 125 grain loads, using significantly larger charges of much more abrasive slower burning colloidal ball powders, at the same time that departments started switching to .357 Magnum for training in addition to duty use. That create a real world use that went way beyond the original design assumptions.

I agree with you 100%. The only light bullet load cracking FC's is a MYTH!. Stated over and over and over. Some crack some don't. Mine 19 cracked with 150 grain cast bullets.*1986) My 66 from the same era is still going strong.

[colt_saa]

Originally Posted by Doug.38PR

Instead, I’m asking about how many M19-# guns are out there that have NOT cracked

Many hundreds of thousands of K-frame Magnums have not cracked

Yes cracked forcing cones happened on K-frames but they were kind of as common as getting T-boned by a
Tractor Trailer

We all have a friend who knows a buddy that had one, many of us have seen one or more, a few of us even had it happen. However it was not an epidemic

We had almost 2000 K-frames and I remember there being one cracked forcing cone. We just rebarreled the revolver and put it back into service

In terms of making a revolver non-fucntional . . .
I have seen many more broken hammer studs than cracked forcing cones
I have seen many more broken trigger studs than cracked forcing cones
I have seen many more broken hands than cracked forcing cones

The FULL POWER, 125 grain JHP, 357 Magnum is my favorite K-frame round. My family and I have put tens of thousands of them down range over my lifetime. I have 7,000 sitting in my hobby room right now waiting to be shot.


Mechanical things wear out or break. When that happens we repair or replace them. No Big Deal

[rubiranch]

Too funny.

Until I read this thread I had no idea what a force cone even was but now I do.

I also understand that its rare that they crack. I was seriously considering getting a M19, hopefully a very early one but now I have no interest in one. Weird.

I may change my mind when I see the one I and hold the one in my hands that I was considering.

[loc n load]

The “ cracked forcing cone” syndrome has been with us for decades. I went to the S&W revolver armorers school in the 80’s and this was a topic of discussion then.
I instructed at FLETC in the 80’s and there were many federal agencies issuing combat magnums back then and issuing the 125 gr. 357 magnum loads.
I have seen a lot of “high mileage” combat magnums that had thousands of 125 grain magnum rounds through them.
My agency issued combat magnums and we had thousands of them in service, but the academy guns were the ones that got shot a lot. These training guns were shot much more than any issued duty weapons in the field.
My experiences pretty well mirror Colt-SAA’s in regard to broken parts in k frames along with hammer noses.
I have seen cracked forcing cones on model 10’s and 15’s that obviously were not digesting 357 magnum loads. I competed in PPC for a couple of decades and occasionally someone would come up with a cracked forcing cone on a k frame that only digested wadcutters.

There were and are tens of thousands of combat magnums in the hands of shooters that are still quite functional, I own my share of them.

[BB57]

Originally Posted by rubiranch

Too funny.

Until I read this thread I had no idea what a force cone even was but now I do.

I also understand that its rare that they crack. I was seriously considering getting a M19, hopefully a very early one but now I have no interest in one. Weird.

I may change my mind when I see the one I and hold the one in my hands that I was considering.

That's unfortunate. The Model 19 is IMHO a thing of beauty and my 6" Model 19-4 is arguably my favorite target/range revolver. And it's got stiff competition given that I also own a 6" Model 66 (a Model 19 in stainless), a 4" Model 15, a 6" Model 14, a 4" Model 10, a 6" K-22, a 6" Model 17, a 6" Security Six, a 4" Service Six and eight snub nosed .38s and .357s in J, K and L frame sizes as well as a Ruger SP101 and a Speed Six.

There is just something about a Model 19 - it is near perfection at what it does.

The only limit it really has is that it was designed to primarily be shot with .38 Special with .357 Magnum reserved for carry use and only occasional shooting, with a ratio of .38 to .357 magnum probably on the order of at least 100 to one. Stay within those parameters and it will outlive you.

[BB57]

Originally Posted by Art Doc

Much discussed topic. No pat answers. Some cracked first time fired. Some cracked with 38 ammo. I think most had metal defects from manufacturing. One theory I like is that carbon deposits built up in cone caused hot spots that cracked the metal. Vast majority of 19s had no problems.

I bought a 19-3 from a retired federal officer (it letters as sent to the federal office) who said he never used anything except 125 grain JHPs in it. Said he fired 50 rounds every month. You do the math. No cracks. It was and is kept clean of carbon.

-----

If it's true that some Model 19s cracked with .38 Special use only, then I don't see it being any more frequent than with the Model 10, Model 14 and Model 15 revolvers which (with a few Model 10 exceptions) were only chambered in .38 Special.

That said, there is standard pressure (17,000 psi) and there is .38 Special +P pressure (18,500 psi or 20,000 psi depending on the era). And then there is .38/44 and .38 Special +P+. The latter two approached or exceeded the current maximum .357 magnum pressure of 35,000 psi) and are not what I'd count as ".38 Special".

----

As an aside, maximum pressures have changed over time as well and folks get confused about the numbers. For example, I recall a recent article In American Handgunner, where John Taffin (who normally is reasonably credible) mentioned Elmer Keith developing loads for a .38/44 Heavy Duty and having his top load sent off for pressure analysis and coming back at "42,000 pounds" of pressure and then compared that to the much lower pressure of the .357 Magnum (the current SAAMI max pressure for .357 magnum is 35,000 psi).

The thing is back then there was no piezo electric pressure testing in PSI, everything was done in CUP and 42,000 CUP was still well under the old SAAMI standard of 46,000 CUP for the .357 Magnum. There's no direct linear comparison between CUP and PSI but for broad comparative purposes 46,000 CUP is roughly 43,500 psi. In 1995 SAAMI reduced the current maximum average pressure standard for the .357 Magnum to 35,000 psi, reducing the maximum average pressure by approximately 24%.

That becomes another factor in the Model 19 forcing cone crack debate. Back when it was identified as an issue, .357 Magnum pressures and powder charges were higher. If you look at the Hornady 3rd edition from 1982 you'll find max charges for a 125 gr bullet of Win 296 and H110 of 21.0 and 20.8 gr respectively. In the 6th edition in 2003, the same powders have maximum charges of 20.3 and 19.9 grains - nearly a 1 grain decrease with a 50 to 100 fps decrease in velocity.

----

I don't agree about carbon build up creating hot spots. It's just a theory and not one for which I have seen any credible data, nor have In heard how the carbon deposit is supposed to create a hot spot.

The short bullet myth is also a "theory". That theory holds that the gasses rushed past the bullet and pre-heat the forcing cone before the bullet arrived, making the forcing cone more susceptible to cracking. If you ever sat through a course in thermodynamics you'll understand the time interval is way to short for the required heat transfer to occur - so that 'theory' is utter baloney.

----

What does cause cracking the formation of stress risers that are formed by the v shaped cuts in the forcing cone (from the bore side outward) that are caused by erosion. And that erosion is caused by the much longer period of heat transfer of the plasma and partially burned powder following the bullet. Heavier powder charges used with lighter bullets increase the total heat transferred as well as the mass flowing through the forcing cone eroding the surface of the metal.

Once a v shaped cut gets going in the 6 o'clock position of the forcing cone, where the outside has been milled flat to provide clearance for the crane, it's only a matter of time until the cut gets deep enough that the metal between the bottom of the cut and flat section of the outside of the cone is so thin that it can't withstand the stress and a crack forms.

[cowboy4evr]

The above post about that it was designed primarily for 38 spl and should only digest 357 magnum on a ratio of about 100 to 1 . That is completely false . They are not the " weak sisters " some will tell you . The gun was labeled a " 357 " , it was designed to shoot 357 magnum loads . S&W spent over a year testing different metals and heat treatments to develop the 19 . It has a longer cylinder to accept the Lyman (Keith ) 173 gr swc in a 357 case crimped in the crimp groove . That is something the " N " frame 357's can't do . Don't be afraid to shoot 158 gr or heavier bullets in 357 cases . Regards, Paul

[BB57]

Originally Posted by Art Doc

…/

/….I bought a 19-3 from a retired federal officer (it letters as sent to the federal office) who said he never used anything except 125 grain JHPs in it. Said he fired 50 rounds every month. You do the math. No cracks. It was and is kept clean of carbon.

I'd like to do the math but I don't have the required information.

What federal agency? The FBI issued .357s toward the end of their revolver era, but primarily used .38 +P loads. Use of .357 Magnum required permission of the special agent in charge of the office.

I shoot 125 gr JHPs in mine as well - but they are .38+P loads, did he specify .357 Magnum 125 gr JHPs?

If they were .357 Magnum, what load - what powder (slow burning colloidal ball, medium burning flattened spherical, or even faster burning flake) and to what pressure spec (old SAAMI or new SAAMI)

50 rounds per month is a fair bit for LEOs in general and is somewhat suspect, but it's also useless without knowing how many months were involved. I've worked with career prior military folks who "retired" from federal service after only 5 years.


I'm not doubting you in any way or suggesting you're reporting anything other than what he told you. I'm just pointing out this kind of heresay evidence is always problematic. Memories fail, context is absent, and details that matter are unavailable.

And at best this ends up being a single case study and isn't overly helpful when it's well understood that many Model 19s never cracked. Since cracked forcing cones are rare, it's actually more useful to look at Model 19s that did crack and then try to determine patterns of use they have in common.

[BB57]

Originally Posted by cowboy4evr

The above post about that it was designed primarily for 38 spl and should only digest 357 magnum on a ratio of about 100 to 1 . That is completely false . They are not the " weak sisters " some will tell you . The gun was labeled a " 357 " , it was designed to shoot 357 magnum loads . S&W spent over a year testing different metals and heat treatments to develop the 19 . It has a longer cylinder to accept the Lyman (Keith ) 173 gr swc in a 357 case crimped in the crimp groove . That is something the " N " frame 357's can't do . Don't be afraid to shoot 158 gr or heavier bullets in 357 cases . Regards, Paul

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Where we differ and why rests in the context in which the Combat Magnum was developed and how engineers actually work.

In May of 1954, S&W's president Carl Hellstrom, met with Bill Jordan to discuss his thoughts and get recommendations regarding an ideal revolver for law enforcement officers, something that would be better suited than the current and heavy N frame revolvers.

Bill Jordan suggested a K frame .357 Magnum with a heavy barrel, an N frame styled shrouded extractor rod, target grips and adjustable sights. S&W did work on improving the metallurgy used on the K-frame and 18 months later in November 1955, introduced Combat Magnum.

In that regard you are absolutely correct that S&W tweaked the metallurgy on the Model 19. However, engineering isn't about making things stronger, it's about making them lighter or less expensive to produce while still ensuring they are strong enough to do the job.

Before you start accusing modern engineers of going cheap, etc, consider the P-51D and P-51H Mustangs in and shortly after WWII. The P-51H was developed as a redesigned P-51 Mustang, with the intention of making it lighter with improved performance and making it cheaper to produce. The fact was that we learned a lot about aviation in WWII, and one of the things we learned is that aircraft rarely lasted more and a few hundred hours of flight time in combat. So North American developed the XP-51F and XP-51G with a different wing design that was 1600 pound lighter than the P-51D. This was continued in the development of the P-51H, with a design life of just 500 hours. By that standard the P-51D was massively over built and the P-51H with a heavier, more powerful engine (1,930 HP compared to 1,590 HP) was still 950 pounds lighter than the P-51D.

However, the P-51H did not have the same long airframe fatigue life as the P-51D as the airframe was not as conservatively designed. That was however by design, as fighter aircraft in WWII didn't last long in combat and both North American and the USAAF preferred increased performance over a fatigue life that was in excess of what was required.

That's the long way putting some context to the design challenge faced by S&Ws engineers when developing the Combat Magnum / Model 19. Their starting point was the common law enforcement practice of that era of doing nearly all training with .38 Special and reserving .357 Magnum for carry use, and perhaps for expending carry ammunition in practice once it's "shelf life" was exceeded.

That was the design requirement and no additional strength or fatigue life was required, thus when that requirement was met, S&Ws engineers could stop fiddling with the metallurgy and focus on the processes needed to get the Combat Magnum into production.

In other words, they were developing the revolver equivalent of a lightweight, high performing "P-51H". They didn't need to make it strong enough for a steady diet of .357 Magnum ammo as they already had the heavier duty "P-51D"in the form of the N Frame .357 Magnum. And the N Frame revolver was still the obvious choice for a steady diet of .357 Magnum.

The Model 19 wasn't designed for a steady diet of .357 Magnum, because it never envisioned that it would need to endure a steady diet of .357 Magnum ammunition. None the less, it's a tribute to the engineers, the metallurgy and the design that it does stand up to steady .357 Magnum loads with only minimal issues.

On the other hand those comparatively few failures are the reason S&W designed the slightly heavier L frame in 1980 for customers and agencies that wanted to shoot a steady diet of .357 Magnum loads through a roughly K framed sized revolver. The L frame was designed around that more demanding requirement.

The J Magnum frame revolvers are again very much like the lightweight short fatigue life P-51H. In this case the S&W engineers are betting that the level of discomfort in shooting a J magnum frame revolver with full power .357 Magnum loads will be sufficiently high to limit the actual round count and percentage of .357 Magnum versus .38 Special loads and stay within the limits of a design that is much weaker than the Model 19. Another factor is of course the reduction in SAAMI pressure for the .357 Magnum that occurred in 1995. The J Magnum frame .357s don't have to be as strong.

Having shot my Model 60s a fair bit with .357 Magnum, and the lack of complaints of failures, I think the S&W engineers have made a pretty safe bet in terms of the actual round count for .357 Magnum that most J magnums will see in actual use.

[cowboy4evr]

The k-frame 19 was developed as a 357 , not a 357 -- only occasionally . It has stood the test of time with many , now retired LEO's having a testimony of their usage . The loads of today , IMO are not nearly as " hot " as the loads of yesteryear . So , using current load data , the 19 will be fine shooting only 357 magnum loads using what it was designed for , 158 gr or heavier bullet .
We will just have to agree to disagree . Regards, Paul

[Art Doc]

BB57- The one 19 I heard of that failed with 38 ammo was shot with standard pressure loads with lead bullets.

To my knowledge 13s, 66s, and K frame 38s don't experience this failure. Seems to be limited to 19s and from my observation the 19-5 model is most likely. I have no certain explanation. Nobody seems to have one. Not even S&W.

To me the two theories that make the most sense are carbon deposits and faulty barrels. The fact that some guns have failed after only a few rounds fired suggests to me that once in a while a barrel isn't tempered properly or is off in machining. I think these both would be classified under "human error" and that is always the most likely culprit.

[colt_saa]

Originally Posted by loc n load

I instructed at FLETC in the 80’s and there were many federal agencies issuing combat magnums back then and issuing the 125 gr. 357 magnum loads.

My experiences pretty well mirror Colt-SAA’s in regard to broken parts in k frames along with hammer noses.

Yes, I forgot hammer noses