I've done barrel swaps on a 629-1 (8 3/8" standard to 7.5" slabside Performance Center) and a 10-3 (4" to 2") I now have a 15-3 and would like to explore stuffing a model 66 cylinder in. I know it may entail using a model 19 barrel or trimming the mod 15 barrel and cutting a new forcing cone (I'm thinking a 19 barrel would be the better idea). I searched on here and can't find where anyone has even asked the question if it can be done. Seeing how they are the same frames the only problem I see is the cylinder length. I will not use full power 357s in it and I think the stainless cylinder in the blue gun would be quite the conversation piece. To answer the question as to why I want to do it. Because it should be possible and if it is, why not?
K frame 38 to 357 conversion.
- Thread starter lilwoody
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
scooter123
Member
If you can find one I think a model 66 barrel would be a good addition. With barrel and cylinder fully polished you would end up with what used to be occasionally produced as Pinto Nickel/Blued revolvers in a Stainless/Blued modern interpretation.
Now some may state that the Frames of the Magnum may be heat treated differently than the 38 specials but I expect that the frames on all the K frame revolvers are in fact identical. Because trying to keep non special heat treat frames from getting into the mix of frames with a Magnum heat treat would require stamping the frames with a specific mark that is missing from any K frame I've ever seen or read about. With over 30 years of working as a Manufacturing Engineer I can state with absolute certainty that without specific marks S&W would NOT be able to ever keep two differently heat treated frames from getting mixed up. So, IMO you can safely use a standard 38 special frame to build a Magnum without concern about it coming apart or "stretching" from use. Especially if you use moderate Magnum loads as you have stated you intend to do.
Now some may state that the Frames of the Magnum may be heat treated differently than the 38 specials but I expect that the frames on all the K frame revolvers are in fact identical. Because trying to keep non special heat treat frames from getting into the mix of frames with a Magnum heat treat would require stamping the frames with a specific mark that is missing from any K frame I've ever seen or read about. With over 30 years of working as a Manufacturing Engineer I can state with absolute certainty that without specific marks S&W would NOT be able to ever keep two differently heat treated frames from getting mixed up. So, IMO you can safely use a standard 38 special frame to build a Magnum without concern about it coming apart or "stretching" from use. Especially if you use moderate Magnum loads as you have stated you intend to do.
While firing a 357 Magnum cartridge in a 38 Special frame may not cause catastrophic failure, it is not a safe practice.
The firearms were absolutely heat-treated differently, at least according to S&W's Chief Metallurgist from that era. I have known him for more than a decade now and tend to believe him on such matters
The frames were absolutely stamped with specific marks in such a manner as to tell them apart. One was stamped as a model 15 and the other was stamped as a model 19
If your goal is to get a pinto look, I would use model 67 parts
The firearms were absolutely heat-treated differently, at least according to S&W's Chief Metallurgist from that era. I have known him for more than a decade now and tend to believe him on such matters
The frames were absolutely stamped with specific marks in such a manner as to tell them apart. One was stamped as a model 15 and the other was stamped as a model 19
If your goal is to get a pinto look, I would use model 67 parts
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,020
- Reaction score
- 7,101
I cannot stress how bad of an idea this is for safety reasons. Sorry. Please do not do it. If you do, never, ever fire it next to anyone at a public firing range. It may not blow initially, but measuring stress on a revolver not sufficiently heat treated is not something you do at the kitchen table.
I find this very curious. I have an early 13-1 that is built on a 10-6 frame. The 13-1 marking has been stamped over the original 10-6 stamping. So what did the factory do in a case like this? Re-heat treat the 10-6 frame when they decided to re-purpose it for building a 13-1?
Last edited:
Alk8944
US Veteran
Totally aside from the advisability of modifying a revolver as mentioned safety isn't the consideration! The idea that S&W used different material or heat-treating on the different K-Frame revolvers depending on caliber is one of those things that "sounds right so it must be" simply isn't so!
I was my department's armorer when I was sent to the S&W Armorer's School in 1974. Since in addition to being a police armorer I am also a school-trained practical gunsmith that has practiced on and off since graduation in 1964. Since firearms have been both my vocation and avocation for many years I have an innate curiousity about such things as this question.
My first day at S&W I directly asked the question, "Is there any difference in specifications for either materials or heat-treating for the various models built on the K Frame?" (Admittedly the result of my recollection after 41 years, but accurate in content!). The answer I received to this question was an unequivocable NO. All S&W K-Frame revolvers, at least those being produced at that time are made of the same material and using the same heat-treating process! There is absolutely no logical reason that this should have changed from that date forward to today.
What is the reason for this? Read scooter 123's explanation! Can you imagine the nightmare in keeping batches of otherwise identical frames separated based on these factors? Can you imagine the liability exposure if a "weak" frame was used in a high pressure Model 19?
The other side of the coin is the claims that the Model 19 frame was strengthened by a dimensional change. The difference is a slight change in the profile of the front of the frame for cosmetic reasons! The change was to accommodate the extractor shroud, just as in the N-Frame. I have compared 4 of my K-Frame revolvers in this area. These were a ca. 1917 M&P, ca. 1948 M&P, a 14-2 Dayton and 19-2. In all dimensions of the front member of the frame they all measure within .010" in both front-to-rear and thickness. Hardly enough to have resulted in a significant improvement in strength. All of the strength in a revolver which is critical to safety is vested in the CYLINDER, not the frame. If the cylinder doesn't fail the worst that can happen to the frame is somewhat accelerated wear! Think about it. Have any of you ever seen, or even heard of a frame failure which did not occur as a direct result of a catastrophic failure of the cylinder???? The answer is NO!
PLEASE UNDERSTAND that I am not trying to encourage the OP, just point out that there is no direct safety concern based on the original model gun. Being a -3 there should be no issue whatever. Consider BC38's observation, there is no other logical answer to his question than the only change made to the frame was to over-stamp the -5 with a 6!
I was my department's armorer when I was sent to the S&W Armorer's School in 1974. Since in addition to being a police armorer I am also a school-trained practical gunsmith that has practiced on and off since graduation in 1964. Since firearms have been both my vocation and avocation for many years I have an innate curiousity about such things as this question.
My first day at S&W I directly asked the question, "Is there any difference in specifications for either materials or heat-treating for the various models built on the K Frame?" (Admittedly the result of my recollection after 41 years, but accurate in content!). The answer I received to this question was an unequivocable NO. All S&W K-Frame revolvers, at least those being produced at that time are made of the same material and using the same heat-treating process! There is absolutely no logical reason that this should have changed from that date forward to today.
What is the reason for this? Read scooter 123's explanation! Can you imagine the nightmare in keeping batches of otherwise identical frames separated based on these factors? Can you imagine the liability exposure if a "weak" frame was used in a high pressure Model 19?
The other side of the coin is the claims that the Model 19 frame was strengthened by a dimensional change. The difference is a slight change in the profile of the front of the frame for cosmetic reasons! The change was to accommodate the extractor shroud, just as in the N-Frame. I have compared 4 of my K-Frame revolvers in this area. These were a ca. 1917 M&P, ca. 1948 M&P, a 14-2 Dayton and 19-2. In all dimensions of the front member of the frame they all measure within .010" in both front-to-rear and thickness. Hardly enough to have resulted in a significant improvement in strength. All of the strength in a revolver which is critical to safety is vested in the CYLINDER, not the frame. If the cylinder doesn't fail the worst that can happen to the frame is somewhat accelerated wear! Think about it. Have any of you ever seen, or even heard of a frame failure which did not occur as a direct result of a catastrophic failure of the cylinder???? The answer is NO!
PLEASE UNDERSTAND that I am not trying to encourage the OP, just point out that there is no direct safety concern based on the original model gun. Being a -3 there should be no issue whatever. Consider BC38's observation, there is no other logical answer to his question than the only change made to the frame was to over-stamp the -5 with a 6!
Last edited:
Go and buy a .357 Magnum. Your personal or liability insurance will not cover you in the event of an accident. Even changing barrels in semi-autos which is considered mostly safe leaves your insurance with an excuse for not paying out.
walkin' trails
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,377
- Reaction score
- 831
I had heard basically the same thing as AIK8944 described as my dad was a police officer in that era and the range masters had all attended the S&W school. I heard of some crazy things as a result, including boring out the cylinders of department issued Model 10s to 357. I also remember a gun writer years ago saying he did the same thi g to a Model 60 before leaving for Viet Nam. Considered doing that to a 640
but never got around to finding a Smith who'd touch it. Not saying that you should do it, but at least be cautious.
but never got around to finding a Smith who'd touch it. Not saying that you should do it, but at least be cautious.
usnrigger
Member
I'd say buy a 19 or 13 and sell off the 15. Its not that it can't be done it's the pure fact that you can buy one in factory offerings. I've talked with guys who converted a bunch of 38's to 357 and it's hard on them with constant 357 loads over time.
I've been looking into doing a conversion to 9x23 allowing me to shoot 9mm, 38 super and 9x23. I've seen in done on both k frames and j frames. After research I will probably do it on a L frame as the 9x23 is no slouch. Producing pressures at up to 55,000 from some published data. 55,000 is on par with 223rem and the 454 casull.
357 mag comes in at 35,000 and 38spl 17000 - 20,000'ish. If someone wanted me to blow out a chamber on a k from 38 to 357 I'd simply say go buy a 19 ext... The other thing is it would cost more to convert it to 357 then to just buy one.
As for the other conversion I mentioned of the 9x23 it will go into a L frame for simple life of the pistol and overall safety, and I wouldn't do j or k frames even if asked. Even on a L frame I'd have customer sign waivers, not that it would help if something did happen.
To me it comes not to a question of can it be done, but what's the best way to do it as far as safety and usability over time. Even then why would you do it and not want to have ability or want to shoot full power 357 loads.
I've been looking into doing a conversion to 9x23 allowing me to shoot 9mm, 38 super and 9x23. I've seen in done on both k frames and j frames. After research I will probably do it on a L frame as the 9x23 is no slouch. Producing pressures at up to 55,000 from some published data. 55,000 is on par with 223rem and the 454 casull.
357 mag comes in at 35,000 and 38spl 17000 - 20,000'ish. If someone wanted me to blow out a chamber on a k from 38 to 357 I'd simply say go buy a 19 ext... The other thing is it would cost more to convert it to 357 then to just buy one.
As for the other conversion I mentioned of the 9x23 it will go into a L frame for simple life of the pistol and overall safety, and I wouldn't do j or k frames even if asked. Even on a L frame I'd have customer sign waivers, not that it would help if something did happen.
To me it comes not to a question of can it be done, but what's the best way to do it as far as safety and usability over time. Even then why would you do it and not want to have ability or want to shoot full power 357 loads.
Last edited:
Model 15-4ever
Member
I attended S&W Revolver Armorer school in 2001. I asked the very same question, and received the very same answer. In fact was told that it had been that way for at least the previous 30 years.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 19,872
- Reaction score
- 31,883
If you are looking for a play-project" (and not saying there is anything wrong with that - been there / done that) then by all means have at it. If you are wanting to know the practicality of your idea, I wouldn't bother.
Pretty much anything (within reason of course) could be done as long as one has the skills, knowledge, tools, patience, parts and money to do so.
Since one of my all time FAV's is the M15, I cringe when I hear someone taking a perfectly good one to make a Frankengun out of it, but that's just me - it's your gun and you should do what floats your boat. Again, I love building things so while I personally would never modify one of my M15's, I can understand the fiddle-futz factor that may be enticing you.
Pretty much anything (within reason of course) could be done as long as one has the skills, knowledge, tools, patience, parts and money to do so.
Since one of my all time FAV's is the M15, I cringe when I hear someone taking a perfectly good one to make a Frankengun out of it, but that's just me - it's your gun and you should do what floats your boat. Again, I love building things so while I personally would never modify one of my M15's, I can understand the fiddle-futz factor that may be enticing you.
Did basically the same thing using a model 10 frame and a 19 cylinder. All is good here. Even milled it for adjustable sights. Got a stubborn barrel for it that's going on it soon.
Lee's Landing Billy
Member
I passed on one of these "transitional" guns years ago. Stamped 10-6 on the frame and the barrel marked .357 magnum. Yeah, I still do stupid stuff occasionally.
Similar threads
