I hear a lot of talk about 125gr damaging revolvers (forcing cone erosion, flame cutting). I have always used 158gr for this reason but how many thousands of rounds would it take for those issues to actually become a problem on any a 686 L frame?
125gr 357 in an L frame
- Thread starter 15mtyler
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Smithbug
Member
Well my understanding of the issue is that it's only a big problem in the k-frame guns because the bottom side of the forcing cone is flat. The L-frames have a full diameter forcing cone and therefore last a lot longer. I can't say how many rounds you could shoot through one before causing erosion problems but I think you would get tired of shooting before ruining the gun. At least that's my opinion. I don't shoot enough to worry about it lol.
Protocall_Design
Vendor
The K frame barrels and sometimes the frame will crack at the bottom with enough high intensity loads, sometimes with enough target loads.
Erosion is worst with high pressure loads using a ball powder. This type of erosion makes longitudinal grooves around the forcing cone similar to water erosion of soil. It doesn't take long for it to start, but a barrel can get pretty bad before it has to be replaced. The L frame can get erosion, but won't crack.
Erosion is worst with high pressure loads using a ball powder. This type of erosion makes longitudinal grooves around the forcing cone similar to water erosion of soil. It doesn't take long for it to start, but a barrel can get pretty bad before it has to be replaced. The L frame can get erosion, but won't crack.
Last edited:
cowboy4evr
Member
I have often felt that todays factory stuff is not as hot as the loads of " yesterday " . Don't misunderstand me , the 125 gr loads are still pretty hot . The L frame will handle the 125 gr factory loads . It was built for the hotter loads in factory stuff . If you hand load using the older load data then , I would still limit them . Personally , iMO -- 140-158 gr is still the ideal 357 loads . Using current load data is more sensible . The Ball powders , W296-H110 are the hardest on a revolver . IMR 4227 is the easiest magnum powder on any hand gun . It looses a bit in velocity but is easier on the frame / forcing cone etc . Good Luck, Paul
Last edited:
one eye joe
US Veteran
WELCOME TO THE FORUM, Smithbug. I AM IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH YOU. THE L FRAME M686 WAS DESIGNED TO OVERCOME THAT WEAKNESS IN THE K FRAME M66......
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE M686 CAN WITHSTAND AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF ANY FACTORY AMMO, WITHOUT INCURRING ANY DAMAGE. I CAN'T RECALL ANY POSTS ON OUR FORUM, REPORTING FLAME CUTTING OR EROSION PROBLEMS, ON A M686.....
I HAVE A SEVERAL 686s, THAT I EXPECT WILL OUTLAST ME AND MY CHILDREN........
Tom_R
Member
No problem in an L Frame.
Shoot away and enjoy.
Shoot away and enjoy.
Paul you are 100% correct. Some of the 'old loads' bordered on proof rounds. One reason was the testing equipment of the day, especially in measuring chamber pressures. If you were to compare loads printed in older reloading manuals say Speer #5 or #6 with what appears in the newest version, you'll see some of the old powders still in use today have much lower charges than they did way back when. Some guns have also had the maximum chamber pressure lowered as well. Although I have some old reloading manuals, I keep them for entertainment comparisons and NOT for reloading.
Back to the OP's question, you'll undoubtedly wear out other internal parts shooting full house 125 grain bullets in an L frame before the forcing cone needs to be replaced. Even then, replacement parts are still in plentiful supply either as the more recent MIM parts in newer guns or used/NOS parts if you want to retain originality in an older firearm.
BigBill
Absent Comrade
I'm not sure we're the ballistics are on the new 357mg / 125gr that's being offered today. The s&w 357 mg / 125gr jhp that was offered decades ago was 1597 FPS. We're talking full house factory loads. My reloads weren't too far off from the factory loads. My Python and police service six had no problem handling these loads. I had fun in my twenties with hot loads. Now I'm older and wiser plus shoot more for accuracy rather than looking at the flames �� on both sides of the cylinder and flames �� out the muzzle. I searched for the ultimate load in accuracy and tested a whole bunch of different bullet weights and powders. My most accurate load in my 357 magnum Python with a 6" barrel turned out to be the 140gr JHP using the 2400 powder with a small pistol magnum primer.
Last edited:
Nanuk
Member
I have a 686 no dash that I carried as a duty gun in the 80's. Shot PPC and shoot IDPA with it. Tens upon 10's of thousands of rounds many were magnums.
derek45auto
Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2012
- Messages
- 441
- Reaction score
- 813
S&W engineered the L-frames to withstand a lifetime of Magnum shooting...including the then very popular 125grSJHP.
your 686 will handle decades of 125gr magnum loads
The K-frames were designed for 38 special, I avoid 125gr magnums in those.
your 686 will handle decades of 125gr magnum loads
The K-frames were designed for 38 special, I avoid 125gr magnums in those.
Don't confuse cone wall thickness (strength) with resistance to erosion.
The L-Frame was designed to resist the CRACKING at the bottom of the cone in K-Frames, NOT to resist erosion from gas cutting.
The L-Frame's cone is just as vulnerable to erosion every bit as much with hotter 125s as the K-Frame was (and still is in the newer Ks).
Erosion is more a function of bullet configuration than cone thickness.
Cracking is a different matter.
Denis
The L-Frame was designed to resist the CRACKING at the bottom of the cone in K-Frames, NOT to resist erosion from gas cutting.
The L-Frame's cone is just as vulnerable to erosion every bit as much with hotter 125s as the K-Frame was (and still is in the newer Ks).
Erosion is more a function of bullet configuration than cone thickness.
Cracking is a different matter.
Denis
jimbo728
Member
i am in agreement with this statement based on my 586 no dash with a conservative round count of 25 000 rounds through it. Most are .38 spl lswc`s but at least 3-4 thousand 125gr XTP`s. This is over a 29 year time period. There is considerable FC erosion. It probably is limited to where it is now. It has no effect that I can point to to suggest it is a problem. It remains extremely accurate and functions as it should.
Jim
No common combination at any load.....
No common combination of any load will damage an L frame. It's specifically made to shoot .357 magnum and any .357 magnum cartridge within pressure limits will not damage the gun in any way.
K frames had a flat on the forcing cone that was vulnerable to certain combinations. The L frame doesn't have that flaw.
No common combination of any load will damage an L frame. It's specifically made to shoot .357 magnum and any .357 magnum cartridge within pressure limits will not damage the gun in any way.
K frames had a flat on the forcing cone that was vulnerable to certain combinations. The L frame doesn't have that flaw.
I reload.....
Phooey on new ammo. You can get 'boutique' ammo that is fully loaded or I can reload .357 cartridges to max and it won't hurt it. And with any bullet. I don't shoot full loads exclusively at all, but neither do I avoid them.
Phooey on new ammo. You can get 'boutique' ammo that is fully loaded or I can reload .357 cartridges to max and it won't hurt it. And with any bullet. I don't shoot full loads exclusively at all, but neither do I avoid them.
The flat weakness on the old K-Frames had nothing to do with erosion.
Erosion is a factor of high pressure gas cutting with lighter-weight jacketed bullets, and there's nothing about the L-Frame's barrel/cone that changes that vulnerability.
This erosion also has occurred in Ruger GPs, and it has ZERO to do with the old flat bottom section of the cone, or the lack of one.
The old flat was prone to cracking with repeated use of magnum loads, because the old K-Frame was never designed or intended for REPEATED heavy use of full-bore magnum rounds, and eventually the impacts could crack that thin section.
Denis
Erosion is a factor of high pressure gas cutting with lighter-weight jacketed bullets, and there's nothing about the L-Frame's barrel/cone that changes that vulnerability.
This erosion also has occurred in Ruger GPs, and it has ZERO to do with the old flat bottom section of the cone, or the lack of one.
The old flat was prone to cracking with repeated use of magnum loads, because the old K-Frame was never designed or intended for REPEATED heavy use of full-bore magnum rounds, and eventually the impacts could crack that thin section.
Denis
Doug M.
Member
I saw a report from a person I know to be credible (either here or another forum to which we belong) regarding an N frame that had real erosion. It can happen - but no telling how many thousands of hot rounds that took - more than most of us could afford financially or physically, and certainly not something about which I would worry. I am sure that the L frame has some threshold at which it would show real wear, and maybe even need some serious work. I am also sure that the amount of shooting required is still well beyond the financial and physical threshold of almost everyone.
derek45auto
Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2012
- Messages
- 441
- Reaction score
- 813
Back in the 1980's & 1990's I'd buy 125gr SJHP in 1000 bulk along with 8lb jugs of H110/win296 magnum powder. Loaded on two DILLON machines.
My 586 and 686's didn't mind at all.
My 586 and 686's didn't mind at all.
Last edited:
