- Joined
- Aug 14, 2023
- Messages
- 18
- Reaction score
- 39
Of the models 13, 19, 65, 66, never a problem in at least 60 years of shooting them, as forcing cones go. I have shot a few loose, tighten ‘em back up and get at it.
Let's talk 1970s K frame magnums
- Thread starter magnum0710
- Start date
OP
magnum0710
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2024
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 57
That's pretty much the story I've always heard and it is true, the 125s and 110s are very hard on the gun especially with slower powders.
The K frame magnums were intended to be shot with 38 and carried with 357, that's also true but notice there weren't too many issues with it until later on. I still think the gas ring being moved and more metal being filed off at the 6 o'clock position along with the 125s and 110s becoming popular, and police starting to practice with carry ammo is when it really became an issue. It seems like all those things together made things worse.
An above comment noted the barrel shank diameter difference between smaller and larger frame Smiths.
Going back to the original post, the author sought to compare Smith and Ruger, and how Ruger seemed to do fine with a flat to bottom of cone....but likely an apples and oranges comparison.
The Smith design ejector rod running on center of the cylinder requires a larger frame and cylinder to match in order to increase barrel shank diameter and it clear the ejector with its gas ring on cylinder.
Ruger ingeniously side stepped this assumed fact by using a two-piece ejector rod assembly with front section offset lower when cylinder was latched, leaving them more room for a larger diameter barrel shank and thicker walls to the forcing cone of shank. Also, I should not be suprised to find Rugers having less unsupported shank protruding from frame, and a steeper angled cut leaving more thickness.
As for barrel burner loads, they exist in all chamberings, for a variety of reasons/causes, but in regards to cracked/eroded Smiths, the 158gr bullets required a slower powder to prevent pressure spikes while still getting the velocity by barrel exit, but the 125gr loads of the time could use faster powders since the bullet moved easier, but also yielded a higher velocity gas pressure front with also solid and semi-solid burning powder slamming into the cone, and the spherical powders giving a sandblast effect AND much higher temperatures from the faster powders. This all applicable to the loads of the times, while powders available today may reduce those earlier problems while introducing a host of their own. There is no free lunch in physics, only compromise to achieve a purpose, whether perfomance or service life.
Going back to the original post, the author sought to compare Smith and Ruger, and how Ruger seemed to do fine with a flat to bottom of cone....but likely an apples and oranges comparison.
The Smith design ejector rod running on center of the cylinder requires a larger frame and cylinder to match in order to increase barrel shank diameter and it clear the ejector with its gas ring on cylinder.
Ruger ingeniously side stepped this assumed fact by using a two-piece ejector rod assembly with front section offset lower when cylinder was latched, leaving them more room for a larger diameter barrel shank and thicker walls to the forcing cone of shank. Also, I should not be suprised to find Rugers having less unsupported shank protruding from frame, and a steeper angled cut leaving more thickness.
As for barrel burner loads, they exist in all chamberings, for a variety of reasons/causes, but in regards to cracked/eroded Smiths, the 158gr bullets required a slower powder to prevent pressure spikes while still getting the velocity by barrel exit, but the 125gr loads of the time could use faster powders since the bullet moved easier, but also yielded a higher velocity gas pressure front with also solid and semi-solid burning powder slamming into the cone, and the spherical powders giving a sandblast effect AND much higher temperatures from the faster powders. This all applicable to the loads of the times, while powders available today may reduce those earlier problems while introducing a host of their own. There is no free lunch in physics, only compromise to achieve a purpose, whether perfomance or service life.
Last edited:
DRankin
Member
I was a S&W armorer back in the day. My department issued model 13's and we had a constant problem with not just cracked forcing cones, but actual chunks of the forcing cones blown off the completely off the gun.
The problem was the duty ammo, a Federal 125/.357 load. Those loads developed peak pressure right at the forcing cone, unlike traditional 158/.357 loads that hit peak pressure a couple inches down the barrel.
Watching those rounds operate on a darkened indoor range was a sight to behold. We had to space people further apart on the firing line to avoid them being peppered by ejecta from the barrel/cylinder gap of guns next to them.
Those Federal duty loads would chronograph an honest 1450 fps out of a 4" barrel and right at 2200 out of my Marlin lever gun.
I don't remember any of those damaged guns were carried by handloaders or active off duty shooters.
Some of our canine cops would only carry and qualify with Federal .38 Plus P rounds to protect the dogs hearing and eyes in the field and those guns never seemed to have the same wear and tear issues.
The problem was the duty ammo, a Federal 125/.357 load. Those loads developed peak pressure right at the forcing cone, unlike traditional 158/.357 loads that hit peak pressure a couple inches down the barrel.
Watching those rounds operate on a darkened indoor range was a sight to behold. We had to space people further apart on the firing line to avoid them being peppered by ejecta from the barrel/cylinder gap of guns next to them.
Those Federal duty loads would chronograph an honest 1450 fps out of a 4" barrel and right at 2200 out of my Marlin lever gun.
I don't remember any of those damaged guns were carried by handloaders or active off duty shooters.
Some of our canine cops would only carry and qualify with Federal .38 Plus P rounds to protect the dogs hearing and eyes in the field and those guns never seemed to have the same wear and tear issues.
Rock185
US Veteran
FWIW, The .357 Remington and Winchester 125 JHP averaged the same approx. 1450 FPS DRankin indicates for the Federal loads his department issued. Our rangemaster asked me to chronograph some department issue ammo all those years ago; I still have the data in an old notebook. The Remington .357 125 JHP averaged 1442 FPS in my 4" model 66 revolver.
I never heard of the 110 grain .357 creating a revolver durability problem back then. The 110 was actually a sort of medium load, i.e., a lighter bullet at a lower velocity than the 125 grain .357. The 110 grain only developed approx. 1300 FPS. I had the opportunity to shoot some factory 110 grain .357 in a Coonan pistol one time. The 110 grain .357 did not have enough "umph" to reliably cycle the Coonan action, and routinely stove piped...
I never heard of the 110 grain .357 creating a revolver durability problem back then. The 110 was actually a sort of medium load, i.e., a lighter bullet at a lower velocity than the 125 grain .357. The 110 grain only developed approx. 1300 FPS. I had the opportunity to shoot some factory 110 grain .357 in a Coonan pistol one time. The 110 grain .357 did not have enough "umph" to reliably cycle the Coonan action, and routinely stove piped...
