Smith, Bill Jordan Got It Wrong

[UncleEd]

Often when I read about the frailty
of the Model 19, a K-frame, in .357 I wonder
if Smith & Wesson and Bill Jordan, who promoted
it, didn't think far enough "out of the box."

Yes, the Model 19 was a beefed up Model 15,
but Smith obviously didn't consider all the power levels,
weights of .357s. Colt's eventual .357s were on its
so-called .41 frame, which in Smith terms became
the Model 586.

Perhaps Smith at the time was too wed to the concept
of the K and N frames and the weakened forcing cone
was the Model 19s Achilles heal. (Enter some of the
populatiry of the Ruger Security Six in the 1970s.)

In checking "Classic" Smith weights, I see the Model 19
today and the Model 27 in 4-inch models is 4.9 ounces.
A model 586 is virtually the same weight as the Model
27.

And when the 586 came in, revolvers were just beginning
to fade in police circles.

I wonder what if Smith had met Colt head to head with
its Model 586, a virtual clone to the Python in size and
weight, in 1955. Would it have shaded the Python
into oblivion?

Still, Smith sold tens of thousands of the Model 19 so
its decision was justified, despite the gun's weakness
which only became more apparent as years passed.

 

[H Richard]

The object of the Mod 19 was to use 38's for practice and only carry .357's for actual duty. It was intended to fire 357's very seldom. The advantage of a .357 without the weight on the gunbelt.

 

[Laketime]

The 125 gr semi jacketed hollow point hot load had not been introduced at the time the Combat Magnum came on the scene.That round changed everything regarding the forcing cone and top strap cutting.

 

[Muley Gil]

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.

 

[UncleEd]

Points well taken.

But in the ensuing decades nothing apparently
was done about it until the introduction of the
Classic. Is that true?

 

[Grayfox]

Yes, some Model 19s did crack the forcing cone using hot .357 loads. However, I don't think it happened as often as the internet would have us believe. In fact, I think the condition us quite rare and requires a pretty steady diet of the hot loads to happen.
Of course there's no harm in erring on the side of caution. I rarely shoot .357s in my Model 19s.
OTOH, I do believe the L-frames are the ideal .357. These are what I shoot magnums in these days.

 

[LPD256]

I wonder how many Model 19's were sold before Smith and Jordan figured out they made a "mistake".

 

[Narragansett]

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.

I still have a box of super vel 38's from that period

 

[LPD256]

I still have a box of super vel 38's from that period

Like these Pete?

 

[Narragansett]

Like these Pete?

I would have to check to 30 cal ammo can, but my 50 year memory says they are not hollow points

 

[LPD256]

I would have to check to 30 cal ammo can, but my 50 year memory says they are not hollow points

Jurras did the first hollowpoints starting in 1966. I think my box is circa 1973. I carried some Super Vel .45acp in a Combat Commander for awhile also. And some .357JHP Remington Peters in two different Model 19's.

 

[BB57]

There was more to it than just the bullet weight with the advent of the 125 gr JHP and forcing cone cracks.

When the Model 19 was developed, departments trained with .38 Special and carried .357 Magnum, and the Model 19 was designed accordingly - to be fired primarily with .38 Special but tolerate duty use with .357 Magnum.

The 125 gr load came along when three things were changing.

1) The 125 gr JHP load itself was replacing the 158 gr lead bullet loads; but more importantly,

2) One of the findings in the aftermath of the Newhall shooting was that three of the officers who fired were using .357 Magnum rounds, although they had trained and been certified only with .38 Special ammunition. That finding followed on the heels of a few other incidents and or lawsuits in the late 1960s regarding departments "undertraining" officers by using .38 Special for training and qualification, but then carrying .357 Magnum.

Some departments responded by switching back to standard pressure .38 Special for everything, some departments used .38 +P, while still other departments used .38 "+P+" loads (getting .357 Magnum in a .38 Special case wand still calling it a .38 Special). However most departments using .357 Magnum for duty use, just switched to .357 Magnum for training as well.

3) Colloidal ball powder was developed during WWII and saw its first use in .30 M1 Carbine ammunition. Colloidal ball powder could also be made very quickly - on the order of 2 days compared to about 8 weeks for an extruded powder. In addition, different lots of colloidal ball powder with different properties could be mixed by the ballistician to create powders with very specific burn traits. The military started specifying ball powders for M80 ball and later M193 ball ammo, due to the ease of production.

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.

These powders thus became very attractive for use in commercial ammunition around the same time that the 125 gr JHP load became popular, especially in the .357 Magnum where they'll produce excellent velocity in 4" and 6" barrels.

The downside is that these powders are rather abrasive when flowing through the forcing cone and use comparatively large charges, and even larger charges with light bullets. For example, a particular colloidal ball powder might use 16 grains under a 158 gr bullet, but use 21 grains with a 125 gr bullet. That compared to 8 or 9 grains of a faster burning flake powder. That greater mass of powder combined with it's more abrasive nature was a lot harder on forcing cones.

 

[S&WsRsweet]

Wow now that is one of the very best explanations of powder development/ burn characteristics etc I have read BB57 .

 

[Sgt 45]

Broke 3 M19's, but it was timing that went after about 2500 rounds of fairly hot 125gr .357's. I did get a kick out of one of our officers having never fired a .357 but only wad cutters, throw/dropping his gun and screaming that it blew up. It hadn't of course but the S&W 125 HP was a fierce round with a huge muzzle flash and thus began my affair with the 1911 .45 ACP.

 

[kaaskop49]

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.

Not entirely true. R-P did produce a 158gr jacketed soft point .357 in addition to the SWC load. This round dates back to the 1960s.

Sorry, but I don't think Jordan/S&W made a mistake in sponsoring/producing the Model 19. It weighs about 1/2 a pound less than the N-frame .357 guns, and that meant something to LEOs with full equipment belts.

Funny how the 19/66 became the "whipping boy" for the "cracked forcing cone" crowd, while little is made of the Models 13/65, also K-frames, suffering from this 'defect'.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

 

[oink]

The 19/66 was the best general use cop duty revolver ever made (Yeah I carried a 629 more). That they might not last forever under heavy magnum use should have just been figured into the budgets.

 

[austintexas]

I bought my first M-19 in '62, I used to shoot 4 boxes of hot 158 grain semi-wadcutters every Saturday at the base range. It was the only 357 I had for years and it has had a lot of rounds down range. I never shot any 125 grain ammo. I still have that M-19 and it looks and functions like new. The only Smith I've owned that cracked a forcing cone was a 5 screw M-15 I bought at a gunshow, I fired 6 rounds and knew I had been cheated, the vendor must have known the revolver was broken. Got lucky, bought a used bbl at LGS for $25.00, screwed right on and needed a little filing on the forcing cone for cylinder clearance. If they are not abused there should be no problems.
SWCA 892

 

[Curt Blunt]

"Perhaps Smith at the time was too wed to the concept
of the K and N frames and the weakened forcing cone
was the Model 19s Achilles heal. (Enter some of the
populatiry of the Ruger Security Six in the 1970s.)"

My Stainless Security Six also has a flat spot at about 6 o'clock (I say about because it's a bit cockeyed) like the M19/66. It anything, the Smiths look like they may be a bit more robust in that area. Anyone else noticed this?

 

[LEO918]

In all my years handling thousands of revolvers, the only cracked forcing cone I have encountered was on a Colt Python.

Just lucky I guess.

 

[Pisgah]

I wonder what if Smith had met Colt head to head with
its Model 586, a virtual clone to the Python in size and
weight, in 1955. Would it have shaded the Python
into oblivion?

Maybe the 586 would have put the Python out of business -- but the Model 19 DID. Because of size, weight, cost plus the fact that the "weaker" model 19 actually had a much more robust action than the Python, the Python never captured more than a small fraction of the market. Talk of Model 19 "frailty" is and has always been largely bunk in PRACTICAL terms -- in other words, while it is not as strong as larger-framed guns it is plenty strong for the use intended. If you want a gun to digest tens of thousands of magnum loads at the range, the larger-frame guns fit the bill; if you want a gun to carry on a day-to-day basis, the 19 wins hands down. The fact that it dominated police magnum carry for a couple of decades demonstrates that fact pretty conclusively.