Model 19 (K frame) + .357 Ammo = 'Splain Please

[Voyager28]

OK, I've read lots and lots of articles and threads about "possible" problems when firing a "steady diet" of .357 ammo, particularly 125 grain or smaller, through a Model 19. I've read about "reported" problems with everything from frame stretch to cracked cones. (Have not read anything from someone who actually experienced such a problem)

My first question is; Can anyone quantify the term "steady diet"? Does it apply to a guy that fires 100's of rounds a year or does it apply mostly to the guy who fires 1000's of rounds a year? In short, how much is too much?

Secondly, does this problem also extend to 38 +p or +p+ loads?

I take my 19 to the range 3-4 times a year and really enjoy shooting it. I shoot mostly 38 +P, off the shelf (I do not do any loading) ammo. But, occasionally, I like to shoot the big bang, hot ammo just for the fun of it.

Lastly, why the heck would S&W make a .357 revolver and then recommend not to fire a "steady diet" of .357 ammo through it? I don't get it.

Mostly, I'm just interested in experienced opinions as to how much is too much.

Thanks,
Bob

 

[Snapping Twig]

K frames were not originally made to handle magnums. They were modified through various means to do so.

That said, there's two issues that affect the forcing cone and I'll try to explain them here.

First off, the 125g JHP is short. Less mass = smaller length. This allows for a brief period of unguided flight, namely the transition from the cylinder to the barrel - forcing cone.

Recoil moves the revolver up. If the bullet exits the cylinder before it fully seats in the forcing cone, it is free to obey the laws of physics and impacts the lower edge of the forcing cone.

Second issue is powder type and volume of charge. Magnum powder like W296 burns slowly relatively speaking. Gas plasma blasting directly onto the forcing cone changes the metal over time, creates a scale that can be detected on inspection.

So, these two forces combine.

Short bullets, unguided, allowing gas plasma to pass by the bullet directly onto the forcing cone and the bullet nose peening the lower portion of the forcing cone can eventually lead to the infamous forcing cone failure.

Longer 158g bullets allow the gasses to combust more thoroughly before the bullet exits the cylinder. Additionally as they are still in the cylinder as they enter the forcing cone, they are guided into not impacting the lower portion of the forcing cone.

Hope this helps.

 

[GB]

The forcing cone issue is real. I have held two in my hands that had the problem.
In the late 70,s most agencies went to a policy of practice with what you carry and for many that was 125 gr. JHP (in my area Rem. was the brand of choice)
When the 19 was designed, most practiced with 38 spc. (usually reloads, 3-D, and later Black Hills and other local brands) but most of us shot less than a box of Magnums a year.
In the late 70s and early 80s this problem started to appear with a little more regularity and Smith solved the problem with the L frame guns.
As for what is considered a steady diet of 357? I really can't say. Again the guns that I handled were fired with literally thousands of rounds of 357s andthe problems weren't discovered until they were turned in for the latest spray and pray nifty 9s in the mid to late 80s. HTH GB

 

[tgmr05]

You will most likely shoot the gun loose, before experiencing forcing cone issues, and probably shoot it loose more than once before experiencing frame stretch. Both can and do happen, though, with lots of lighter weight bullets being fired with magnum loads. How many? Varies from gun to gun, and varies based on how well you maintain the gun. The ones I saw, were used very heavily. In reality, if you can afford to shoot it enough to failure, you can afford to replace it.

When I worked in LE, we were issued k frames, back in the day, but they were 38s. We would purchase our own K frames, and/or the L frames in 357. I never shot one enough to see forcing cone issues, and I burned through a lot of 110gr 357s.

 

[Voyager28]

Thanks guys, some good info. I used the term "steady diet" in the OP because that's the term I keep seeing used when someone writes about this subject. i.e. "Don't feed it a steady diet of 357 ammo", or "a steady diet of 357 hot loads is not recommended" and such as that. So, I kept wondering, does a few hundred rounds constitute this so called "steady diet" or are they talking about 1000's and 1000's of rounds.

I don't shoot a lot of 357, mostly 38 +p, at the range but I do shoot some. Mostly it is 158 grain 357 from Hornady. When I really want to just bang away with hot 357 ammo I take my 686 to the range for that.

But, I really like my 19-3 and want to make sure I'm keeping it within it's capabilities. It gets regular TLC, cleaning and inspection and, so far, I see nothing irregular. I just want to make sure I understand what I am reading on this subject and understand the terms I most often see.

As for "shooting it loose". So far, no way. In full lock up the cylinder feels like it's welded to the frame, no movement at all and virtually no end play.

Thanks,
Bob

 

[sac-gunslinger]

I don't shoot a lot of 357, mostly 38 +p, at the range but I do shoot some. Mostly it is 158 grain 357 from Hornady.

The problems were all with the 125 grain loads that became popular in the late-70's through the 80's. There was a greater emphasis for LEO's to "practice with what you carry" in this time frame and a growing understanding that coppers needed to practice more to avoid nasty lawsuits leading to more time shooting. (I once knew an older cop whose clam shell holster had rusted shut and could not be opened at an inpsection, it had been years since he had his gun out of his holster). 158 grain magnum loads do not cause problems with your M19 (only with your budget).

 

[Doug M.]

Like the .38 and probably most other ammo, today's magnum loads are not what they were in the 70s. I'd guess that the velocity levels are roughly 15% lower than was common 40 years ago. Net result: less strain on the gun now; more then. I do not know if the resulting change in strain on the gun is linear or compounded; I'm a lawyer, not an engineer.

Back then, there was the movement described that advocated training with what you carried on duty. Newhall and other incidents had real impacts on training. People in some agencies that were serious about this shot a lot more than most of us, and a lot more than most of us can afford.

The 125 grain .357 was considered the top of the heap in delivered ballistics for use on humans, and rightly so from everything I have seen. It did in fact have the effect on a revolver described so well above, but not quickly - it took a relatively high amount of shots fired. But, see then the second paragraph. Oops.

The Combat Magnum as conceptualized and driven by Bill Jordan came about in the early-mid 50s (before model #s). The .357 ammo of the time was almost all 158 grain SWC, which was not as hard on the gun. (Lighter high velocity stuff came about roughly 10 years later, mostly from the efforts and advocacy of Lee Jurras of SuperVel, as I recall.) Jordan also advocated doing most practice with .38s; even less hard on the gun.

Combine all these things: potential for trouble was a lot higher, and at the edge or beyond of the design envelope for the Combat Magnum. I chatted with an NYSP trooper back in the late 70s, after they had moved away from the K frames (I think he had an M28). He had an M19 (IIRC) tire out from all the shooting they did. I also spoke to a lawyer for NYSP in the 80s who had trained with them when she learned to shoot. My recollection is that they did one day with .22s, one with .38s in the service revolver, and all their subsequent academy and in-service shooting with duty ammo. (NYSP had lost a case about their training in the late 50s, which is why I was following up with her as part of my research for an article.) I don't recall the #s now, but they shot a lot, and it was all service ammo.

Most of us don't have that kind of budget or incentive. I doubt that a couple hundred rounds a year in your M19 will present an issue in your lifetime.

 

[chief38]

I won't repeat all the advise the above posters have given, but would like to say that on occasion when I feel the need to make a lot of noise I'll grab an L or N frame. If I do shoot a few Mag's from the M19 it's always a 158 grain bullet. K's are really .38 Specials adapted to the longer Magnum cartridge. I have seen a few loosen up but I have never personally seen one crack - not saying they don't (I have seen plenty of pictures over the years) but have not personally experienced a catastrophic failure.

 

[larry21556]

For those of the forum who missed it or are not familiar with it, Doug M.'s reference to "Newhall" is a must read for those interested in the evolution of today's training methods. Google "CHP J's Newhall" the results of that incident can be traced directly to the lack of real world awareness (bureaucratic stupidity?) that was endemic in law enforcement training in those days. In spite of political correctness we are a lot better off today. When I was in the academy we toured the LA Coroner's office and they were still showing the photos of the aftermath. Every time I go through Newhall I look for the J's sign, it is now a Marie Callendar's but I still look. By the way I carry a 2 1/2" M-19 with 158 gr. Norma .357 SWC's. Just my preference.

 

[Pizza Bob]

The forcing cone issue is real, but I'm not sure I buy the "tipped bullet impacting the lower edge" theory. It was my understanding that the fact that the forcing cone had to have a flat milled at the 6 o'clock position for crane clearance, that flat created a stress riser, which is where it eventually failed (longitudinal cracking). Not a problem with less intense ammo, but once the PD's started shooting lots of light bullet/full power magnums it manifested.

Here's my question: I understand that the new model 66, just introduced, no longer has the flat on the bottom of the forcing cone. I'm assuming that this was accomplished by using the two-piece barrel, but I'm not sure how. Does the shroud stop at the cylinder opening of the frame, with a skinnier barrel (forcing cone) protruding into the opening to the cylinder face? Guessing that even though the forcing cone may have a thinner wall than the original K's, it survives by virtue that without the flat there is no stress riser. Yes?

Adios,

Pizza Bob

 

[federali]

Model 19 Index Notch Issues

I had a 4" M19 in the 70s or early 80s, After shooting some Norma factory loads, known to be hot, I swear that upon cleaning the gun and holding it up to the light after cleaning, I could see a different reflection on the chamber side of the indexing notches, causing me to suspect that they pushed out slightly, or at least enough to change the light reflection from them.

This is one aspect of S&W handguns that always caused me concern, compared to Colts: the indexing notches are at the weakest part of the chamber wall. But then, I've never seen a notch blow out. The few S&Ws I've seen which suffered total failures resulted in the cylinder blown roughly in two, lengthwise, with the top strap severed at its rear.

 

[David R]

Thanks for the information. I have heard of forcing cone problems, now I understand what causes it.

David

 

[Sgt 127]

I would guess the vast majority of .357's are fired with a ratio of 80% .38 Special-20% Magnums at most. At that rate, the average K frame .357 should hold up a long time.

Also, scrub the heck out of the inside of the forcing cone, even with a Lewis lead remover. There is a theory that lead build up there will really cause a pressure spike and the mechanical effect of the bullet "slamming" into a slightly obstructed forcing cone.

I've seen three cracked K frame forcing cones in almost 40 years of shooting. It can happen, but, the odds are on your side that your won't.

 

[Vulcan Bob]

Well. I take the stance of "they don't make them anymore" and why take a chance? I feed mine a mid range 158gr LSWC load at around 1,050 fps and do have some factory 158 JHP's for carry use. When I want to go boom with a mid bore I turn to my L frames.

 

[palmetto99]

I have a 19-4 that was a LEO trade-in. While the forcing cone does have some "erosion" (no cracks), it's the flame cutting of the top strap that is the most noticeable. It's not very deep. This example of the breed had a pretty hard career (a lot of holster wear and dings) and I've put it out to pasture as a test mule for .38 spl reloads. The lock-up is tight, action is wonderful and it's still a great shooter even with all of the abuse. Like others have stated, when I want to go .357 magnum, I pull out the L or N frames.

 

[Art Doc]

From my research into this situation I learned several things.

1. Most of the 19s with cracked forcing cones are 19-5s, the first one without the barrel pin. Coincidence? Very few 19-4 and earlier models suffer this condition.

2. A popular theory is that the hot 125 JHP loads cause this failure. But some 19s have cracked that were shot only using 158 grain ammo, and at least one is known to have cracked from firing 38 Special ammo.

3. A member here who was a police armorer said he saw numerous damaged 19s in his agency and all were dirty. He suspected maybe carbon build up in the forcing cone caused increased pressure in the cone as the bullet passed through or created a hot spot of intense heat that might damage the cone. He said he never saw a clean gun with a cracked cone. I think this is an interesting theory.

I have a 19-3 made in 1970. It was carried by a federal officer for 18 years then he retired and sold it to me. As far as I know this gun has never been fired with anything other than 125 JHP full loads as that's what he had to qualify with, carry on duty, and that's what I've shot in it. The cone is fine. But then, the gun has been kept clean.

 

[Doug M.]

^ That's interesting. NYSP carried 158s as I recall, so this is consistent with what I have heard. Question: is there similar knowledge re: M66s and pinned barrels, as in your first numbered paragraph?

 

[Art Doc]

I am unaware of 13s or 66s or 65s suffering the cracks. that makes me suspicious that there is something about the 19s in particular.

 

[Doug M.]

My recollection, and it is iffy, is that the issue was discussed with regard to the M66 in columns in American Handgunner back in the ... early 80s maybe.

 

[Rpg]

As a practical matter, you are unlikely to shoot enough .357 ammo through your M19 in your life to make any difference in the soundness of the revolver.

Between the cost of full house ,357 ammo, the shortages now prevailing, and the predictable disinclination to use full house ammo very much that you will develop over the years, I doubt you'll shoot enough of the hot stuff to worry about it.

This all assumes that you begin with a sound revolve.

Just my opinion, of course.