K-Frame .357 Magnum

[47D]

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.

While I generally agree with you and the points you made, I would point out that saying "what failures do occur are only 30% the fault of the design" is quite different than saying "a design has a 30% failure rate."

 

[Kavinsky]

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.

 

[47D]

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

So post-1980 corner cutting is the reason for cracked forcing cones?

That doesn't really explain the picture in this thread: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-smithing/187162-19-4-cracked-forcing-cone.html#post135975117 (19-4s and earlier have pinned barrels/are pre-crush fit).

Or this 19-3 thread: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1961-1980/85493-model-19-3-cracked-forcing-cone-any-help.html#post775133

Or this one: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1961-1980/79499-19-3-dilemma-cracked-forcing-cone-can-i-use.html#post766464

 

[M3Stuart]

Guys. Um. I was having more fun reading this thread when we were just talking about how much we like K frames.

Back to the OP;
I'll fish out some pics of my 3 K's:
2.5" 66 38/357 - oops, posted that on page 2.
3" 10-4 .38 only - Aussie trade in - BTW; there's another batch of 3 inchers on Bud's out there today!
4" 64-5 great all around shooter. This is what I train people with. You just can't go wrong with a 64.

Just look at those 66 collections earlier in the thread! Any one of those will last your lifetime and your kids, and their kids, and their kids....

 

[47D]

Guys. Um. I was having more fun reading this thread when we were just talking about how much we like K frames.

The OP didn't say "tell me how much you like K-frames." He noticed that .357 magnums were not currently available from Smith and Wesson in a K-frame. Thus the entire discussion: why we like .357 K-frames and reasons why they aren't available anymore.

 

[47D]

BTW; there's another batch of 3 inchers on Bud's out there today!

I only saw 4 inchers when I looked earlier today.

 

[Kavinsky]

So post-1980 corner cutting is the reason for cracked forcing cones?

That doesn't really explain the picture in this thread: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-smithing/187162-19-4-cracked-forcing-cone.html#post135975117 (19-4s and earlier have pinned barrels/are pre-crush fit).

Or this 19-3 thread: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1961-1980/85493-model-19-3-cracked-forcing-cone-any-help.html#post775133

Or this one: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1961-1980/79499-19-3-dilemma-cracked-forcing-cone-can-i-use.html#post766464

you've got your numbers mixed up, its 19 - 3 and earlier that have pinned barrels and are non crush fit, the numbers vary for either model

although supposedly the crush fitting thing started a little earlier than 1980, not really sure when exactly so the latter 19 -3s could be crush fit as well

with the 29's its a dash 2 and earlier that means its a pre 1980, although mines a 1979 - 1980 one with the pinned barrel 6 incher as they did away with the 6 1/2's the time that was made and its probably one of the first crush fit ones but I still trust it absolutely and I love the damn thing and the forcing cone doesnt look weak either, but the N frames arent known to have this issue to begin with, atleast to my knowledge.


and I think its a basic quality control issue where sometimes the steel would be thicker in that area than others and its possibile that maybe because of the longer barrel with the gunblast guys gun, which is a 6 the forcing cone was thicker than on the 4 inch ones with his particular example

and I wouldnt think that's just the reason why it was like that on them, its just one of the factors I noted, but notice how those guns are still usabile and in a repairabile state, still the 158 grain rule is probably the best possibile choice for ammo for it to lower the chances of that happening

mixed in with the earlierst one you can find

with my pre 1980 rule its because of what happened with the 686 my father bought back then, first 6 shots of magnum ammo and the thing locked up on him and I've been hearing this and that report about smiths not being as good as they used to be with the modern ones and ones of the same era as the 686, and about 4 other 686's with the same problem that happened to my father on here.

basically I think its a shot in the dark whether or not you get a good revolver that's a post 1980 regardless of the model for those reasons, including the guns there making nowadays, plus the keylock that never should have been added in the first place.

semi autos discluded as honestly while I've heard the horror stories and seen them with their revovlers the semi auto pistols they make seem to be what the revolvers used to be, damn near bulletproof.



so my rule is generally try and find a dash 2 or earlier and so far I have yet to get a lemon or a problem child of a smith and wesson like the 1980's K22 with it and I'm going to apply the same logic to the hunt for a model 19.


and besides with the exception of the model 29 where I shoot 180's instead of 240 because of the noise it makes I'd be trying to use only the 158's anyways as I like the number better than 124 and I make a point to shoot the heaviest avalabile factory ammo for all my guns.

Guys. Um. I was having more fun reading this thread when we were just talking about how much we like K frames.

Back to the OP;
I'll fish out some pics of my 3 K's:
2.5" 66 38/357 - oops, posted that on page 2.
3" 10-4 .38 only - Aussie trade in - BTW; there's another batch of 3 inchers on Bud's out there today!
4" 64-5 great all around shooter. This is what I train people with. You just can't go wrong with a 64.

Just look at those 66 collections earlier in the thread! Any one of those will last your lifetime and your kids, and their kids, and their kids....

fair enough I just didnt want to leave my viewpoint unexplained to anyone reading it.

 

[47D]

you've got your numbers mixed up, its 19 - 3 and earlier that have pinned barrels and are non crush fit, the numbers vary for either model

although supposedly the crush fitting thing started a little earlier than 1980, not really sure when exactly so the latter 19 -3s could be crush fit as well

Per the Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson, Model 19 engineering change dash 5: "Eliminate cylinder counterbore and pinned barrel; small change in cylinder length to 1.62"." Now, I'm sure there were a few models that right around the change that don't match up exactly as the last of the pinned barrels were used, but generally 19-4s are pinned and 19-5s are not. Either way, dash 3s (1967-1977) are not crush fit, but they've suffered the problem too.

with my pre 1980 rule its because of what happened with the 686 my father bought back then, first 6 shots of magnum ammo and the thing locked up on him and I've been hearing this and that report about smiths not being as good as they used to be with the modern ones and ones of the same era as the 686, and about 4 other 686's with the same other problem on here.

Not exactly a representative sample you have there. Perhaps your father's 686 needed the "M" modification.
If you are so against 1980 and onward Smiths, why exactly are you hanging out in the "1980 to the present" forum?

 

[Kavinsky]

Per the Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson, Model 19 engineering change dash 5: "Eliminate cylinder counterbore and pinned barrel; small change in cylinder length to 1.62"." Now, I'm sure there were a few models that right around the change that don't match up exactly as the last of the pinned barrels were used, but generally 19-4s are pinned and 19-5s are not. Either way, dash 3s (1967-1977) are not crush fit, but they've suffered the problem too.

Not exactly a representative sample you have there. Perhaps your father's 686 needed the "M" modification.
If you are so against 1980 and onward Smiths, why exactly are you hanging out in the "1980 to the present" forum?

the gunblasts guy's model 19 was aquired in in 1973 as a - 3 model so I'm just going by what I know as he's had the thing from the getgo and hasnt tried hotrodded ammo in it like some of the previous owners could have potentally done with those examples before they were bought by their current owners, so that kind of elimintates the chance of some person pushing the limits of the guns like what could have happened with the others as a legitimate failure of the gun rather than user error.

hence why I'm going off of primarily his example there and hickok45's with the 29' as I trust both of their opinions entirely and hickok's M29 was also one he bought new at the same time as the 19, a 1973 model

and yes I've heard his 686 was one of those and he did send it back to smith and wesson for that recall but he lost all faith in the gun and smith and wesson because of it and the K frame model 19 was first made in 1955 till about 20 years ago and I have been looking for one myself and someone was talking about the 158 grain rule and posted what I knew about it here.

plus it showed up on the new posts thing and I dont restrict myself to the pre 1980 guns on the forums, I just click on whatever someone posts that sounds interesting regardless of my feelings on the matter to see what they say.

plus I've kind of been debating weather or not to drop the rule for a few exceptions but everytime I consider it something pops up that makes me stick to my guns on that rule, no pun intended.

as honestly I have seen a few I like like the thunder ranch .45 acp but the keylock and those customer service complaints just dont fill me with a lot of confidence in them.

plus that K22 was sent to springfield MA twice and came back the same both times and its just like okay 50/50 shot I get a good one, do I really want to risk getting a bad one that will never get properly fixed?

and then its marked as being sent back to the factory and the value goes down when I try to get rid of it?

I mean yeah I dont like rugers, I dont like their triggers and given the choice I'd take an old smith over a new ruger everyday but if I had to choose between a new smith and wesson revolver and a new ruger revolver I'd be inclined to go with the ruger as atleast the thing has a 90% chance of being a good one with no problems I reckon, provided its a reasonabile gun design, not that 357 magnum J frame like gun they've been making now that has apparently has had the same damn problem as the 390PD

 

[NE450No2]

I stated my thoughts on the History of the 357 Mag K frames on another thread.

IF you use a K Frame as a "Light Duty, 357 Mag, ie shoot 38's most of the time and save the 357 Mags for serious use, the K frame 357 Mag makes an excellent concealed carry 357 Mag.
It makes an excellent field carry 357 Mag.

That is what it was concieved for. And it is excellent at it.

If you want a High volume Master Blaster 357 Mag, get an L frame or a N frame.

This is one of the best things about the 357 Mag. You can get S&W 357 Mags in the J frame, the K frame, the L frame and the N frame, with barrels from under 2" to 8 &3/8ths. you can shoot light target 38 Specials to full power 357 Mags AND Speer shotshells.

Sometimes I wish I was a 357 Mag kind of guy... It has a lot going for it...

 

[scooter123]

Kavinshy, we are getting into a bit of thread drift here but sometimes I think that can be a good thing.

I believe that you are doing yourself a dis-service in avoiding revolvers made after 1980. You may not remember it but S&W during the Bangor Punta Era had periods when their reputation for Quality was pretty miserable.

All of my revolvers are post 1980 and I really can't complain about any of them. In fact my model 67-1 from 1988 is as close to perfect as can be made. My model 620 from 2008 is far more accurate than I'm capable of shooting even by "cheating" with a scope and rest. As I've learned, 50 yards out ANY error in technique results in flyers and all I can do is achieve occasional flashes of "brilliance". Fact is that even with the Lock, S&W is building very serviceable revolvers that are an excellent value for the money invested. In addition they remain very easy to work on. In fact the post frame mounted firing pin and MIM revolvers are the easiest revolvers I've found to do an action tuning on.

BTW, IMO the reason the 357 Magnum has been dropped from the K frame is mainly due to the lifetime warranty. It has proven to be a bit more sensitive to proper care and ammunition choice that would be desireable in a gun with a lifetime warranty.

 

[amplifryer]

Model 19-5

Seems like as good a place as any to jump into a thread ... I ran into Combat at a gun show yesterday and he put me onto a deal from a guy walking around looking for trades just before closing time. I was actually shopping for something else yesterday (used Beretta 3032 or a 38/357 derringer) but this hog leg for $300 changed my direction instantly.

Numbers stamped into the metal:
MOD 19-5
C14
919XX
F5

Numbers stamped in ink on the back of the grips:
FEB 910XX

The guy said that his dad passed down two of them and he was letting one go and keeping the other. My guess is that the grips got mixed up somewhere along the way since the numbers don't match. No idea about the actual age but I read somewhere that the 19-5 was produced from 1982-88. Sound about right?

 

[amplifryer]

Went to Shooter's on my way home from Columbus today ... I like it ... a lot! Sadly, just about everything I own is pretty much equity. There are only a few firearms in the safe that can be considered part of a permanent collection and everything else is subject to horse tradin'. This K-frame might actually be around for awhile.

12/12 - 158gr JHP .357mag@10 yds.

 

[Combat]

Pretty good shooting for the first time with that gun. A little more practice and you will be getting them all in the 10 ring. They are great shooters.

 

[amplifryer]

Pretty good shooting for the first time with that gun. A little more practice and you will be getting them all in the 10 ring. They are great shooters.

Thanks! I sent my 6" Taurus .357 M66 (7-shot) to Chris for his birthday last week. It's pretty minty, with box and paperwork. Don't need it anymore now that I've got this. Thanks again for finding the guy who was selling it at the gunshow ... it was the only deal I saw all day long.

I sold my old H&R Guardsman carry pistol and remaining supply of .32 S&W Long and got almost got as much as I gave the guy for the 19-5. The Model 35 Beretta 7.65 fits great in the same ankle holster so I'll never miss it.

For as much as California firearms laws suck, they've got pretty good regs for family transfers. Download a PDF, fill it out and send it in with 19 bucks. No FFL transfer. Chris is really happy with it ... he never even considered a wheel gun before.