otis24
Member
Why did they develope an L frame .357 and an N frame .357? Aside from asthetics, which would you choose and why?
L frame .357 vs N frame .357?
- Thread starter otis24
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Pistol Toter
Member
The "L" frame came about to correct certian deficiencies of the "K" frame. The "K" .357 sometimes had problems when firing the 125 gr and lighter projectiles. Probelems included bad forcing cone errosion and spliting. This seemed to stem from a thin forcing cone wall at the 6:00 position. This thinner point was to accomadate the ejector rod. The "L" frame change that design. The "N" predates the "L" frame. Which is best? Neither! It all depends on the use or purpose of the gun. The "N" is a heaver frame bigger grips, a real boat anchor. "L's" and "K's" are simular in grip size but generally have full lugs and beefier in the barrel to frame area. The "K" frame or medium size will do about anything and seem to balance or handle better or least for some. They graced untold numbers of police officers holsters. "J" frames are small 5 shot concealable guns.
Otis, what are you trying to do? I think we need to establish your motive and intended use to even begin to answer the last part of your question.
Otis, what are you trying to do? I think we need to establish your motive and intended use to even begin to answer the last part of your question.
Pistol Toter
Member
The "L" will handle the .357 mag all day long, but not the .44 mag., that takes an "N" frame. "N's" are made in .357 and .44 magies. The latest is the "X" frame which is the .500 magnum gun; too big for me. I vastly prefer the "K" frame.
ruru
Member
i thought the model 28 was gospel until i purchased a 681
Bullseye Smith
Member
The "L FRAME" is a nice gun to shoot. It is the best way to go for the 357. The "N FRAME" is the best for 44 and up. If you have a big hand, then the "N" will fit well. If everyone liked the same thing, we would still be driving a model "A". I like the "K and L FRAME" myself. Have Fun - John
Vanilla Gorilla
Member
I know I'm considered an oddball for this, here, but I greatly prefer N frame .357s to L frames. No revolver feels better in my fist than a 4 or 5 inch barrelled N frame .357.
Poohgyrr
Member
You can get speedloaders for the seven shot L frames, and use moonclips for the eight shot N frames.
S&W still makes the classic six shooters too.
All the Smith .357s are good, and each has its' own advantages.
S&W still makes the classic six shooters too.
All the Smith .357s are good, and each has its' own advantages.
29Wheelgunner
US Veteran
I like the L frame in .357 and the K frame over the N because of the shorter lock-time.
N frames are great, being an old PPC shooter where everything is shot double action, I shoot mostly double. The short lock-time really helps.
N frames are great, being an old PPC shooter where everything is shot double action, I shoot mostly double. The short lock-time really helps.
OFT
Member
I'm with you guys. The N frame just feels right and I don't notice much difference in the weight between an N frame 357 and an L frame 357.
powerkicker
Member
I chose the L frame because I like to shoot and rarely carry a revolver for ccw ,and when I do ccw a revolver it's a J frame.
Pistol Toter
Member
Thanks Todd, I forgot the .41.
bmcgilvray
SWCA Member
I remember when the L-Frame was introduced. It would have been a commercial flop waiting on me to buy it as an improvement over the K-Frame or the N-Frame. I've handled 'em and shot 'em but just don't care for the full-lug barrel. I dislike the front-heavy feel. I might have tried one if they'd made them with a more conventional barrel.
I like the N-Frame .357 revolvers' heft and balance and feel it's the very best home for the .357 Magnum cartridge. There's nothing better for the hand loader, handgun hunter, or competitor who wants to shoot lots of full power loads. If one desires a .357 Magnum of more trim proportions then the K-Frame answers. It is a sensible choice for carrying. I don't think it's as fragile as it's been hyped up to be in more recent times.
The L-Frame .357 Magnum is neither fish nor foul and the J-Frame .357 Magnum is just plain silly in my view.
I like the N-Frame .357 revolvers' heft and balance and feel it's the very best home for the .357 Magnum cartridge. There's nothing better for the hand loader, handgun hunter, or competitor who wants to shoot lots of full power loads. If one desires a .357 Magnum of more trim proportions then the K-Frame answers. It is a sensible choice for carrying. I don't think it's as fragile as it's been hyped up to be in more recent times.
The L-Frame .357 Magnum is neither fish nor foul and the J-Frame .357 Magnum is just plain silly in my view.
Pistol Toter
Member
I own one "L" frame. I bought it because it was one of the 1987-88 model 686's in midnight black. It doesn't have a single blemish or drag line and I figured that someday it might be an oddity. Like bmcgilvray, it doesn't hunt for me either as it's neither heavy or light and was /is a solution to a nearly non-existant problem. But to each his own; some like chocolate and some like vanila and so forth. I own one "J" frame a model 36 because, again it was in perfect condition, I couldn't resist and it's so darn cute. The only gun that when I brought it home my wife said OH how cute, I ike that one. My everyday carry is a Ruger SP101 which IMHO is a "K" frame size gun, the size that is everything you need in the ideal package.
VAdoublegunner
Member
I prefer the S&W L-frame improvements for .357 Magnum chamberings over their Ks. The Ks just look too lightly constructed to handle a steady diet of full house mag loads, and this was shown to be the case empirically. They especially seemed wanting when compared to the tougher, but roughly (some would agree that is an appropriate word when compared to S&Ws
)comparable in size, Ruger Security-Six family. And, indeed, the Ks were meant to be carried more than shot with full loads, and use light loads for practice. I consider most 357 loads kind of light anyway compared to big bores.
However, I have a 6" 586 and now a 4" 681 and they seem to be a good compromise for a full capability mid-sized revolver, especially if you intend to carry it afield.
But, if it was only for range or hunting use I would choose an N-frame .357. They are almost overbuilt for the task now, perhaps not so when first introduced in the mid-30s, and will hold up well with the heaviest of loads. Plus, I like the balance point a bit better than the underlugged Ls. An older Model 27 is a testament to the revolversmith's art.
However, I have a 6" 586 and now a 4" 681 and they seem to be a good compromise for a full capability mid-sized revolver, especially if you intend to carry it afield.
But, if it was only for range or hunting use I would choose an N-frame .357. They are almost overbuilt for the task now, perhaps not so when first introduced in the mid-30s, and will hold up well with the heaviest of loads. Plus, I like the balance point a bit better than the underlugged Ls. An older Model 27 is a testament to the revolversmith's art.
There was never any shortcomings to the K frame .357s, they were, and still are, the best gun made for their intended purpose. The L frames came along about the same time Ruger was advertising their Security Six as being better for a number of reasons that were noting but advertising hype. But people were buying the hype and the Rugers and it was cutting into S&Ws market. The L frame addressed every issue Ruger was bragging about, but was pretty much like "New Coke" in that it wasn't an improvement over anything. It weighs almost as much as an N frame and is too barrel heavy for my liking. I think the barrel was made heavy to satisfy the bullseye shooting crowd which was a large part of the market at the time too.
Wickahoney
US Veteran
I own one S&W "L" frame, a 696.
If I was going to own one S&W in 357 then I guess I'd get a "L" frame. It's a compromise in my opinion.
I caried 19s and 66s as a LEO for 20+ years and never considered myself under gunned. Yes, they were designed to be carried all day, every day and give you the ability to fire 357s. That was considered an improvement over the various 10s and 15s with 38s.
Many of my 19s have thousands of rounds through them with no problems. The problems with the "K" framed S&W came when SuperVel brought out the HOT loads with light 115 grain and 125 grain bullets. Some people insisted in shooting them though "K" frames on a regular basis. Some guns had problems. Those of us that stuck to 158 grain bullets, even hot loaded, never had a problem.
The underlug was more of a marketing ploy than anything else and was to compete against the Colt Python. The Python was on the old 41 frame and was just sligftly bigger than the "K" framed Smiths. A lot of SMOLTS, 19s with Pythion barrelss were being built and carried by LEOs in the 70s and early 80s. Heck, I still have mine.
So with complaints about the durability of the "K" framed S&W 357s in question, S&W came out with a 357 on a frame almost identical in size to the Python with a full lugged barrel, like the Python.
As I already owned various 19s and 66s I saw no need for an "L" frame. As a duty weapon or every day carry weapon I like the "K" is a better choice.
If I want to pound a 357 with the hottest loads I can run through it, I choose one of my 27s.
If I choose to hunt with a 357, it's with a "N" framed S&W.
RWT
If I was going to own one S&W in 357 then I guess I'd get a "L" frame. It's a compromise in my opinion.
I caried 19s and 66s as a LEO for 20+ years and never considered myself under gunned. Yes, they were designed to be carried all day, every day and give you the ability to fire 357s. That was considered an improvement over the various 10s and 15s with 38s.
Many of my 19s have thousands of rounds through them with no problems. The problems with the "K" framed S&W came when SuperVel brought out the HOT loads with light 115 grain and 125 grain bullets. Some people insisted in shooting them though "K" frames on a regular basis. Some guns had problems. Those of us that stuck to 158 grain bullets, even hot loaded, never had a problem.
The underlug was more of a marketing ploy than anything else and was to compete against the Colt Python. The Python was on the old 41 frame and was just sligftly bigger than the "K" framed Smiths. A lot of SMOLTS, 19s with Pythion barrelss were being built and carried by LEOs in the 70s and early 80s. Heck, I still have mine.
So with complaints about the durability of the "K" framed S&W 357s in question, S&W came out with a 357 on a frame almost identical in size to the Python with a full lugged barrel, like the Python.
As I already owned various 19s and 66s I saw no need for an "L" frame. As a duty weapon or every day carry weapon I like the "K" is a better choice.
If I want to pound a 357 with the hottest loads I can run through it, I choose one of my 27s.
If I choose to hunt with a 357, it's with a "N" framed S&W.
RWT
