Why did S&W discontinue the M-19 K frame but kept making .357 Mag. J frames???

Everybody says, "the K frame would shake apart or crack up under light high velocity .357 Magnum bullets so they discontinued it" (after 45 years) yet started producing lil' biddy 5 shot J frame .357 Magnum guns.


Doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense to me.

Me neither.

This forum needs "beating a dead horse" and "do a search" icons.

OK, that'll do.

Never could figure that out. They never made a K in .327 either. Larry

Perhaps it was due to S&W phasing out many blued guns in favor of stainless steel versions. The 19, of course, remains as the 66. Not as pretty, but a darn nice revolver.

Chuck

I'd be willing to bet it was because of the size of the frame of the gun that got it discontinued. Now, this post is simply conjecture, but here goes.

If you look at the size of the J Frame, its easy to see what its purpose in life is: a powerful carry piece, yet small and portable, to even the odds for an armed civilian or as a viable back-up for law enforcement.

The N frame, in my opinion, was designed and built for law enforcement, sportsmen, and perhaps the military. A large, heavy, durable firearm with obvious advantages bestowed by these attributes. Never really intended for CCW.

Then we have the K Frame. A frame size that splits the difference between the other two. Bigger and more stable than the J frame, but more portable than the N frame, while still having a bit of heft to make it a viable primary weapon for law enforcement and the military. What the problem is, is that it has become a victim of that very compromise. It's too big to put in a pocket (the J frame's bread and butter) and not as robust and sturdy for digesting mountains of hot 357 rounds (the N frame's bread and butter).

When you combine these points with the fact that law enforcement have moved onto semi automatics, I think that the brass at S&W probably thought that the marketability of the Magnum K Frames would have a relatively limited target group of consumers. You would largely be left with sportsmen and, to a lesser extent, for home defense.

Now, I definitely agree that they should still be building the Model 19/66, but they are still a business at the end of the day and cannot offer a product that they aren't sure will be financially viable in a fickle and constantly evolving market.

You could learn a lot if you measured the barrel threads that go into the frame on the J and K.

The entire issue on the K frame was cracking the barrel at the forcing cone when shot extensively with hot, light bullet loads in .357 magnum.

Everybody says, "the K frame would shake apart

Click to expand...

Everybody does NOT say that, and it is simply not true.

"Then we have the K Frame. A frame size that splits the difference between the other two. Bigger and more stable than the J frame, but more portable than the N frame..."

__________________________________________________________


While the K-Frame may fit squarely in between the small J-Frame and large N-Frame it must be remembered that it came along first, beating either of the other frame sizes to the market by several years.

I think the K-Frame is amply sturdy to handle .357 Magnum. It's more a matter of dimensional restrictions.

Here's a couple of illustrations of the problem as I understand it. J-Frame seen is an early Chiefs Special and K-Frame is a Model 10 but these characteristics are common to all J-Frames and K-Frames.

J-Frame


K-Frame


The K-Frame's size requires a cut to be made on the bottom of the barrel shank for yoke clearance. This leaves the bottom of the barrel shank with somewhat less "meat" than would otherwise be available to sustain long term Magnum stresses. Cracks are said to develop in this area.

The 5-shot J-Frame doesn't require any clearance cut in the barrel shank for yoke clearance. Additionally, the shank is short and well-supported.

The taller L-Frame's frame eliminated this problem as it is able to provide for a full barrel shank while having clearance for the yoke.

No matter. I've owned K-Frame Magnums and have only used them with Magnum ammunition with no problems. A K-Frame .357 Magnum revolver is such a great idea that it ought to still be produced. My most recent K-Frame .357 Magnum was a good deal from a kind brother-in-law and I'm grateful to have it. A very handy size for a .357 belt gun and the 2 1/2-inch and 3-inch K-Frame Magnums make the ultimate concealable .357 Magnum revolvers. Almost as compact as popular 5-shot models, they offer 6 shots and the unsurpassed Smith & Wesson action.



I am not enamored of the overrated and oversold 125 grain .357 Magnum loadings anyway. The .357 Magnum is more capable than that. I like 158 grain bullets or heavier in magnum loadings best. The lightweight 110-125 grain bullets may be used in lesser cartridges like 9mm or .357 SIG. Besides, there seem to be so many popular "-P" .357 Magnum loads marketed these days for those who insist on carrying Airweight .357 Magnum revolvers but don't want the belting and the noise of the genuine full-powered .357 Magnum article. None of the watered-down stuff is going to hurt anything.

OKFC05 said:

You could learn a lot if you measured the barrel threads that go into the frame on the J and K.

The entire issue on the K frame was cracking the barrel at the forcing cone when shot extensively with hot, light bullet loads in .357 magnum.


Everybody does NOT say that, and it is simply not true.

Click to expand...

That's part of what I mean't when I said that. So that would follow that the force cone on J frames would crack sooner

The j-frame is fairly unpleasant to shoot with the .357 mag loads, so not many folks will shoot enough to wear one out. Most people will admit that their j-frame is carried a lot and shot very little, even with .38 special.

The K frame, being larger would be more likely to be shot a lot, and with bigger loads, and have more issues.

The preceding is just my opinion, but it makes sense to me. Ed

66snub said:

...law enforcement have moved onto semi automatics, I think that the brass at S&W probably thought that the marketability of the Magnum K Frames would have a relatively limited target group of consumers.

...they are still a business at the end of the day and cannot offer a product that they aren't sure will be financially viable in a fickle and constantly evolving market.

Click to expand...

Drum roll, followed by trumpet: Ta-Da!

In all likelihood, the real answer.

My comment was more to reflect that if I really needed/wanted a .357 Magnum, I am far more interested in a K-frame than a J-frame. I always thought J-frames in .38 Special were just fine. The more modern chambering in 9x19 is probably even better. If you just couldn't be content with 9x19, maybe go to .38 Super or 9x23? Going to .357 Magnum was freakish - the wrong way, IMHO.

I haven't read anything here about the L frames. Only slightly larger than a K, and built to withstand mags. The 686's, for example, have replaced the 66's, on a slightly larger frame- but smaller than the N, and are still in widespread production. I still love the K's, though!

Chuck

Short answer:

K frames had no issues when used as originally intended: most practice with 38 special, some firing with carry load, 158 grain 357 magnum.

In the 70s, the 125 grain 357 magnums became popular. Shorter length projectile (because of reduced weight) meant a fraction of a second less seal time as bullet passed through barrel/cylinder gap, and the hotter flame and gasses which did not have that slight extra time to calm down caused havoc with the 6 o'clock area of the barrel shank (its thinnest part) resulting in occasional cracks. The reason the barrel shank is thin at the 6 o'clock position is to allow clearance for the ejector rod.

J frames have locking notches offset (odd number of charge holes), thus cylinder is stronger and the vulnerable area of the barrel shank is not as vulnerable because of different geometry in that 6 o'clock area of the barrel shank.

Sounds crazy, but J frame is enough stronger in the affected areas that it is just not as much of a problem.

L frame solved the problem of the K frame by making cylinder a little larger in diameter, meaning more steel in bottom part of barrel shank while still allowing clearance for the ejector rod without having to cut that small little flat area to the very thin dimensions on the bottom of the L frame barrel shank. Thus, L frame is a bit taller than the K frame due to larger cylinder diameter and correspondingly larger frame window to accommodate it. Also, more steel in lock notch areas. 7 shot L frame is even stronger as locking notches are in between charge holes (odd number of charge holes) meaning locking notches are in the weakest area of the cylinder right over the narrowest part of the outside wall of the cylinder.

Thus, while K frame is safe with any magnum load, it was designed for the 158 grain and the whole issue taught us to use bullets no lighter than 145 grains in magnum rounds in the K frame. Bullet weight is not an issue in any 38 Special load in the K frame.

It was most likely a matter of simplification of the product line and saving money.

In the "J" frame S&W could offer a minimalist small revolver for easy concealed carry.

In the "L" frame they had a medium frame revolver that could handle extended use with full charge Magnum ammo, and could be used for everything from 2 1/2" concealment guns to 8 1/2" hunting guns and everything in between.
It was simply a slightly beefier frame and larger cylinder then the "K" frame.

Since the "K" frame did have issues with powerful light weight bullet loads, and the "L" frame was so close in size, they probably just decided it would be simpler to sell the "L" frame in all the versions normally filled by the "K" frame.

This allowed discontinuing an entire frame and cylinder size, along with barrels and internal parts.
since the "K" and "L" frame models could be made in virtually the same configurations, it was cheaper to just discontinue the "K" frame and use the stronger "L" frame for the same type guns.

flycaster said:

I haven't read anything here about the L frames. Only slightly larger than a K, and built to withstand mags. The 686's, for example, have replaced the 66's, on a slightly larger frame- but smaller than the N, and are still in widespread production. I still love the K's, though!

Chuck

Click to expand...

Good point and the reason the 19/66 was put aside. The L frame was a ground up design for the 357 and it's popular. The 19/66 is a wonderful revolver but the frame is not going to manage a steady diet of magnums. I think that was proven and the reason for the 686. I have a 19 purchased new by me in 1990 and I will never part with it. With a 6" barrel it has to be the most accurate revolver I have ever shot. I only shoot 38's in it now because it looks new and I want to keep it that way. They will never make another as good as the K when you want a 38.

I think carriability....

Carriability/concealability is the order of the day.

This allowed discontinuing an entire frame and cylinder size, along with barrels and internal parts.
since the "K" and "L" frame models could be made in virtually the same configurations, it was cheaper to just discontinue the "K" frame and use the stronger "L" frame for the same type guns.

Click to expand...

The K frame is alive and well in the current S&W catalog in .38 and .22 versions, blowing this whole theory of "discontinuing an entire frame." Model 67, Model 17, Model 10, etc.
Med. Frame (K/L) - Smith & Wesson

Why? Sales.

Next question.