Smith, Bill Jordan Got It Wrong

[BB57]

My 19-3 has fired over 19,000 rounds of full power 125 JHP Magnums. Now J frames are made in 357 Magnum. Forgive me if I don't worry about shooting K frame 357s.

The metallurgy has no doubt improved in the J-Magnum frame revolvers, as that forcing cone is mighty small. However, I'm also certain that S&W's engineers are counting on the fierce recoil of full power loads in J-Magnum frame revolver to keep the round counts down low enough to avoid issues.

Put 19,000 rounds of full power .357 Magnum through a Model 60 and then get back to us on what broke first, your hand or the forcing cone?

Ruger used a much more substantial forcing cone on the SP101, but they weight about 5 oz more than a Model 60 of the same barrel length.

Model 10:

Model 19 (with improved metallurgy):

SP101 and Model 60:

 

[K Frame Keith]

I have to disagree with you UncleEd, the M19 was designed for a specific niche market, uniformed police carry. The police officer's dream was designed to be light weight in comparison to other .357 handguns of the time. Easier to carry for hours on end, highly accurate and powerful. I was issued a M67 in 1984 and we were still firing wadcutters for practice. JHP was reserved for duty use. Not bright but that was the mindset at the time. I do share your sentiments on the L frame, the ultimate .357. Thanks for starting up a great thread!

 

[jkmo]

Carried one (19-4) on duty starting in 78 and shot it hard for a few years and in competition. Not a lot of 357's but some. The forcing cone cracked on it. Got a 19-6 to replace it but not pinned and recessed of course. Bought a used barrel for it and it has sat for several years waiting for me to resurrect it. Somebody motivate me to bring it back to life

 

[DWalt]

"However, in the 1960s Dupont found that colloidal ball powders could be manufactured very inexpensively by recycling WWII surplus reccannon powders, used in both artillery and naval guns."

Actually, back in the 1920s, the ball powder process development was motivated as a method of using up the huge quantities of smokeless powder in storage which became surplus after WWI.

 

[Waveski]

From the OP:
"Yes, the Model 19 was a beefed up Model 15 ... "

In what way was the 19 "beefed up" ?

 

[Muley Gil]

From the OP:
"Yes, the Model 19 was a beefed up Model 15 ... "

In what way was the 19 "beefed up" ?

The addition of a shrouded ejector rod, heavier barrel and heat treatment is what I have read.

 

[Waveski]

OK , thank you for that clarification.

For the sake of my understanding , would this summary be reasonable :

The model 19 , a K frame chambered for 357 magnum , was successful in it's intended mission , which was : To equip law enforcement with a revolver that was more powerful than the ,38 special , but not as heavy as an N frame , and that the intended use was to perform proficiency shooting primarily with .38 wadcutters , carry loaded with 357 on duty , on not log huge numbers of magnum rounds discharged ... ?

 

[Homie]

"But carrying that for a while, i think keith and skelton were genius with the 19."

Elmer had little use for any .357 and he never claimed any input towards the Combat Magnum. Skeeter did carry the Combat Magnum (M19), but preferred the M27. He never claimed, in any of his writings that I have ever read, to have any influence in the design of the Combat Magnum.

GLAD SOMEONE FINALLY GOT THE STORY STRAIGHT- Thank you!

 

[usmc2427765]

I carried a model 19 for about 7 or 8 years until the bad guys started carrying semi-autos and I started carrying a 1911. I have fired hundreds and hundreds of rounds of 38 special ammo along with about 200 magnum rounds through this weapon. I still have my origional LEO 19 and still shoot for enjoyment in my retirement.

My point is that it was never intended for extended magnum use, such as hunting or long range revolver target use. I had a model 28 and 27 in 6" versions for that purpose. I never felt under armed carrying the 19 and really appreciated the lighter weight on the belt . I had a really good gun mechanic do an action job on it and won several small matches with it.

 

[Old Corp]

Good thread - I'll not beat the cracked forcing cone horse into further mush.....
Something I've always pondered on - those early commercial .357 158 gr . LSWC rounds with the literally butter-soft swaged lead bullets at truly impressive velocities...a horrible combination for accuracy and make for a LOT of cussing for anyone tasked with cleaning the gun after more than a cylinder-full.
Seems like the R&D for that ammo fell far short. Have to wonder if Remington and Winchester ammo folks looked at ANY other alternatives?
Yes, I know it pre-dated the JHP ammo we all know, and their only high-volume choices were either FMJ or the soft swaged stuff, but still - it was awful.
Early handloaders crafting well designed LSWC's brought that round up many notches from available factory ammo - but it was many years before commercial ammo sources did better with bullets.

 

[jtcarm]

As best as I can tell, there were no jacketed .357s available as loaded ammunition until Super Vel came along in the 1960s. The only available .357s were 158 grain gas checked lead.

Engineering a new frame, like the L frame, is expensive. Elmer, Bill and Skeeter wanted a midframe S&W chambered in .41 with a police load of a hard cast SWC at around 900 fps.
What they got was the N frame .41 Magnum Models 57 and 58. I have read that the hotter, true magnum load arrived first, as did the fixed sight, lighter M58. A lot of police officers couldn't handle that combo.

The L frame didn't appear until 1980.

Jordan wrote years later that he'd been naive to think Smith would design a new frame around the .41 magnum.

As it ended up, they might as well have lobbied for a .44 magnum police load.

 

[Engine49guy]

Great thread but regarding the statement "A model 586 is virtually the same weight as the Model
27. "
IIRC the 686-5+ (seven shot) Mountain Gun variation weighs less than the four inch Model 19/66

 

[Muley Gil]

Good thread - I'll not beat the cracked forcing cone horse into further mush.....
Something I've always pondered on - those early commercial .357 158 gr . LSWC rounds with the literally butter-soft swaged lead bullets at truly impressive velocities...a horrible combination for accuracy and make for a LOT of cussing for anyone tasked with cleaning the gun after more than a cylinder-full.
Seems like the R&D for that ammo fell far short. Have to wonder if Remington and Winchester ammo folks looked at ANY other alternatives?
Yes, I know it pre-dated the JHP ammo we all know, and their only high-volume choices were either FMJ or the soft swaged stuff, but still - it was awful.
Early handloaders crafting well designed LSWC's brought that round up many notches from available factory ammo - but it was many years before commercial ammo sources did better with bullets.

Yes, many folks back in the day discovered that factory .357 ammo was only good for coating the bore of your revolver. I wonder how shot shells would do after you first fired a box of .357s through it.

For many, many years, cast bullets were the superior choice.

 

[jtcarm]

I'll go with the words of two LEO instructors who were there during the heyday of the .357/125 load, one of whom I had the pleasure of training with.

As they reminisced about the difficulty of getting everyone qualified with that load, I asked if it was as hard on the K-frames as I'd always heard.

Without elaboration, both replied "Yes it was."

 

[UncleEd]

I'll go with the words of two LEO instructors who were there during the heyday of the .357/125 load, one of whom I had the pleasure of training with.

As they reminisced about the difficulty of getting everyone qualified with that load, I asked if it was as hard on the K-frames as I'd always heard.

Without elaboration, both replied "Yes it was."

As the Original Poster of this thread a month ago,
this sums up some of what I was trying to get across.

Smith & Wesson's mistake was not researching and
developing a Colt-sized Official Police frame (the basis
for the Python) rather than just slightly adjusting the
somewhat puny K-frame for the higher pressures.

Smith was wed to the K- and N-frames. Eventually
by 1982 or so, the L-frame came about. But it aped
the very popular Python in not only size but configuration.
I wished Smith had left off the heavy lug but even so,
eventually Smith got to where it really needed to go.

Today, the Smith 686 SSR reflects more what was really
needed in 1955. To compete back in the 1980s, Ruger
came up with the very fine GP-100. But it had that darn
lug. The Match Champion was designed to compete with
the SSR concept.

As to the quote above, I think an awful lot of shooters
be they weekend plinkers or police officers are just not
ready for the blast and whump of the .357 in any frame
size. So perhaps back then the Model 19 just wasn't
what any average, I stress average, officer was ready for.

One other thing, however, is stocks/grip design. Be it the
Smith Model 19 of those long ago days or the Python or
the later Model 586, and even today, revolver makers
often don't seem to give enough thought to the stocks/grips.

I know hand sizes and preferences abound, but in the world
of the automatic, manufacturers seem to try and cater to
the various demands of grip preferences.

 

[LPD256]

It seems to me that agencies just tend to think if the feds do it, let's follow. They do research, our municipal department doesn't. Hence the switch to .40 cal. Then more officers have trouble qualifying and the feds come out with research that says "improved" 9mm ammo is the way to go and also more people can qualify. So the locals switch to 9mm. In the 70's, veterans coming back from Nam didn't have any issues. Shooters can qualify shooting anything. Then there was a trend to hire more college educated recruits, more women, and many others that weren't shooters or hunters. No surprise that adjustments are made to accommodate. At the department here, I understand there are two different makes of guns offered to accommodate different hand size. Officer A mags won't work in Officer B's gun. Maybe that's why the Sig 320 with three size grip modules is becoming the choice for many departments.

 

[AZretired]

I like the post, except for the bold bit.

From a thermodynamics perspective, the small amount of plasma that might beat the bullet to the forcing cone doesn't have enough time to act on the the forcing cone and heat it to any significant degree. The short bullet explanation sounds great on the surface, but it just doesn't hold up when you apply some science to it.

Additional heat however is the issue. Let's look at Hornady XTP data for different bullet weights using Hodgdon H-110/Win 296, and Alliant 2400.

Maximum loads of H-110 (a colloidal ball powder):


- 180 gr XTP, 13.1 grains
- 158 gr XTP, 15.6 grains
- 140 gr XTP, 18.4 grains
- 125 gr XTP, 19.9 grains

In this case, the 125 gr load has 28% more powder than the 158 gr load.

Maximum loads of 2400 (a flattened spherical powder)

- 180 gr XTP, 12.6 grains
- 158 gr XTP, 14.3 grains
- 140 gr XTP, 15.5 grains
- 125 gr XTP, 16.9 grains
- 110 gr XTP, 18.8 grains

In this case, the 125 gr load has just 18% more powder than the 158 gr load.

The point here is that the hot loads with 125 gr bullets have significantly more slow burning powder that flows through the forcing cone in a partially burnt and abrasive state along with a larger amount of hot plasma and with significantly more heat.

The increased heat from the larger powder charge, applied to the forcing cone, along with the larger amount of partially burnt powder flowing through the forcing cone with that plasma produces significantly more erosion of the forcing cone.

That erosion creates "v" shaped cuts in the forcing cone and those V shaped cuts are stress risers. Since the forcing cone is thinner where it has been milled flat, that area is more susceptible to cracking.

In short, it's not the shorter bullet, but rather a combination of 1) a larger charge of a 2) slower burning colloidal ball powder, used with the lighter weight bullet.

If you look at the data above, you'll also note the absence of an H-110 charge for a 110 grain bullet. Those slow burning colloidal ball powders are not efficient with a 110 gr bullet, and despite it's even shorter length, you don't hear about cracked forcing cones due to 110 grain loads.

Nice post but all you are really saying is the Hot 125gr loads were the real cause of the problem.

I carried a department issued M-19-3 form '78 to '83 and never had any issues. I also sometimes carried a M65-2 I bought is '79 (still have it). Our duty load was the Federal 125 gr JHP rated at 1450 fps fro a 4"barrel as I recall. We qualified quarterly with Wadcutters and rarely shot magnums unless like me you were a shooter and reloader. Back then (as now) most of my magnum reloads were 158 gr as I found them more accurate. Out department started have problems (FC & Flame Cutting and general getting beat up) after we started a mandatory twice per year qual with duty ammo. That was a minimum 200 rounds per year if you qualled first time around.
I also had to do this with my 65 and at my cost! The 65 is still a great shooter tight and accurate, only work ever done to was a hand replacement about 10 years ago. Since then I've shot less than 100 rounds of magnum ammo but thousands of .38s.

 

[Muley Gil]

Great thread but regarding the statement "A model 586 is virtually the same weight as the Model
27. "
IIRC the 686-5+ (seven shot) Mountain Gun variation weighs less than the four inch Model 19/66

The problem is, how many M686 Mountain Guns are out there? I have seen and worked on many, many standard 4" M686s, but have only seen a handful of the MG variety. I would probably like a M686 MG for a carry and shooter sidearm, but they seem to be hen's teeth.