The K-Frame .357 Magnums, Eroded Cones, and 140 Grain JHP's

[semperfi71]

I have read throughout about the 158 grain versus 110/125 grain bullets in the K-frame .357s and the reports of forcing cone erosion and cracking due to the 110/125s and top loads of powerful ball powders like H-110 and W-296.

I have read here whereby supposedly the short length of the lighter bullets also contributed to the destruction. I think the 140 grain bullets are longer and therefore closer to the 158 grain bullets in length.

But what about the various 140 grain JHPs with either to ball powders mentioned or other powders?

I am thinking of shooting my K-Frames with 140 grain loads and powders other than H-110 or W-296.

Any suggestions? Or information?

 

[roaddog28]

Hi,

My take on 140 grain rounds is a person has to look at velocity too. Fiocchi makes a 142gr Truncated Cone round. I have tried this round in my heavier frame revolvers like my 686, M28 and a Ruger GP100. This round is very warm and is a handful. I have a M66 and M19. I have not tried this round in either because I think this round is a little high on velocity for the K frame magnum. I have always read and believed the best rounds are in the 140 gr and up but stay in the range of 1100 to 1250 FPS in speed. The K frame magnum was designed for a 158 gr at about 1100 FPS. Any other members with experience chime in on this.
Hope this helps.
regards,
roaddog28

 

[bmcgilvray]

I've always shot heavier bullets in my .357 Magnums, preferring to leave the lighter 110-125 grain bullets for "lesser" rounds like 9mm and .357 SIG. I'm sure the 125 grain bullet is great in .357 Magnum but its reputation is overstated. That bullet weight doesn't represent some mystical magic.

I've had great results using H 110 in Model 19s in the past and have loaded quite a lot of it though my favorite powder for .357 Magnum is 2400.

I've also had good results with Blue Dot but it has apparently fallen out of favor. I went through a phase where I was loading a lot of Blue Dot behind a Sierra 150 grain jacketed HP and shooting it from a Model 19. Sierra has since discontinued that bullet and I no longer have a Model 19. I may have to sneak up on another Model 19 if it is reasonable one of these days.

My Model 19s were only used with Magnum handloads and heavier bullets and gave perfect satisfaction.

 

[NFrameFred]

Some may disagree, but my opinion from my reading of the old timers like Bill Jordan, the K frame magnums can be looked at like 38's designed to withstand 357 magnum pressures to a point, that being, it became clear early on that the frames would not stand up (as well) to an exclusive steady diet of stout magnum loads. The guns would "shoot loose".

The gun was designed to handle full power loads safely but was designed more in mind for ease and comfort of carry on a daily basis primarily by uniformed police officers as holstered sidearms. If anyone originally ever had any idea that these guns were to be used exclusively for magnum loads and shoot thousands of rounds like that, I believe they quickly revised the opinion once they observed the real world results.

Then in the 60's-70's when the Remington 125 grain police load was introduced it was found to be very effective in police documented shootings. But the forcing cone complications were soon discovered and that is where we are - thousands and thousands of K frame guns out there decades later among humans who decide that whatever something was designed for, it can always be pushed a little harder.

I don't know how many 44 magnum shooters I have met that aren't happy with factory ammo performance and insist on shooting hotter and hotter loads. To the point where S&W had to beef up the model 29 with an "endurance package". Nothing wrong with wanting increased performance - my point is just that trying to turn a VW Beetle into a rail dragster doesn't work. Restrained by the limitations of it's design, it eventually reaches a point of performance where things start to break from pushing the envelope.

As I said, some may disagree, but in my opinion, if you insist on firing hundreds and thousands of rounds (and very few shooters actually do) of full power magnum loads, don't expect a K frame S&W to stay tight and safe for an indefinite number of rounds. The L and the N frames were designed to accept the punishment of the 357 magnum round more so than the K frame. Everyone knows at least one wag who insists " I've had this model 19 for 40 years and I've shot 47 quadrillion magnums through it and it's as tight as the day I bought it !"

Yeah, right . . . . . .

And I have 19 with a replacement barrel in it ( that I was lucky to get) courtesy of someone who fired one too many light bullet/high pressure magnums through it and split the original barrel. Yes, you can push them past what they were designed to do - doesn't mean it's smart and there won't be consequences. If you're lucky, the gun is all that will be hurt.

Didn't mean to post a rant or step on the OP's original questions (which I did not really address); it's just inevitable when talking about 357 magnum loadings and bullet weights that these things always come up.

 

[aterry33]

Fred, you're right. The K Magnums were designed to practice with 38s and carry 357s. Folks like Jeff Cooper were right that it was a bad idea to practice with different rounds than you carried, and gradually the shift was made to firing a lot more magnums in K Frames, which they weren't designed for. The real culprit was the 125 grainers, especially the hot loads of the time, but if you fire enough magnums out of a K frame it will wear it out just like anything else. But for most of us, our wrists will wear out before we can wear out a K Frame with magnums.

I think the bottom line is, it is not all that comfortable to shoot a lot of magnums out of K Frames anyways. If you want to shoot a lot of magnums do it out of an L or N frame and your hand, wrist, and arm will thank you for it.

 

[ENGINE18]

My M28 really soaks up factory magnum recoil. Like the fellers said, use an L or N-frame. I'm scared to shoot magnums in my Ks. (OK, I've fired maybe a dozen 158s just to be sure it works!)

 

[roaddog28]

Hi again,

I am in agreement with others that the K frame magnum was a 38 special revolver that was modified by Smith to shoot 357s on occasions. And then S&W recommended 158gr at about 1100 fps. It was the law enforcements dream carry revolver. The K frame was never meant to shoot hundreds of light full power 357s all the time. My L,N and my two Rugers were meant to shoot 357s. I will wear out before the above revolvers will. After a 100 rounds my small hands need a rest. My M28 handles the 357s the best but still my hands get tired. I have two K frame magnums too, one a M66 and one a M19. They rarely see 357 rounds. I finally put some 158gr rounds through my M66 and my hands felt it for at least a hour. That's why the heavier revolvers I have see the 357s.

Well I have bored everybody enough, so shoot 357s in the N and L frames. You will be glad you did.

Regards,
roaddog28

 

[old bear]

NFrameFred

Your information was short but sweet, and should be required reading for all K frame .357 owners. sadly I shot an M 19 to death, many years ago, with Hot loads . I finally learned my lesson but not before I felt it best to retired my M 66 2 1/2" to nightstand duty. Now I shoot a Taurus M 617 and if it goes south on me I'll just get another one.

 

[cp1969]

The reason people keep wanting "more and more" from the .357 & .44 Magnums is because the ammo suppliers keep providing less and less.

The .357 started life as 158 gr SWC @ 1510 fps; the .44 was up around 1450. Try to find any loads like that now.

It seems strange to me that we consider the M19 to be too weak to withstand today's 1200 fps ammo when the gun was designed around a much hotter loading. Same for the M29.

 

[Gary7]

The .357 started life as 158 gr SWC @ 1510 fps; the .44 was up around 1450. Try to find any loads like that now.

It seems strange to me that we consider the M19 to be too weak to withstand today's 1200 fps ammo when the gun was designed around a much hotter loading.

But it wasn't. If the K-Frame could easily handle high pressure .357/38 Special rounds (20,000 psi and up), the engineers at S&W would not have used the N-Frame to build the 38/44 and then a few years later, the .357 Magnum.

When the 38/44 came out Colt had a medium frame that could handle it--their "41" frame that later became the I-Frame. When the .357 Magnum came out, Colt chambered their "41" frame revolvers in that, too. But S&W had no such medium size frame, they only had the huge N and the smaller K. Prior to the introduction of the Model 19, police departments that wanted a 357 revolver had two choices: the big N-Frame S&W, and the smaller and lighter Colt Trooper 357. Building a K-Frame 357 was a compromise pretty much forced on S&W by law enforcement officers who did not want to carry the heavy Model 27 or Model 28. Early on it became clear the Model 19 could not handle a steady diet of 357 and S&W instructed department armorers that 38 Special should be used for practice and training, and 357 for duty carry. It was 25 years later that S&W finally designed a medium frame roughly the same size as the Colt I-Frame to create a 357 duty revolver that was smaller and lighter than a N-Frame, but could still stand up to constant use of 357 loads.

 

[cp1969]

You're missing my point--today's .357 loads are MILD in comparison to the original loading.

And the M19 can't even stand up to them?

 

[Gary7]

You're missing my point--today's .357 loads are MILD in comparison to the original loading.

And the M19 can't even stand up to them?

I don't really think they are all that milder. Published ballistics on factory ammo now are based on vented test barrels that more accurately duplicate actual revolver ballistics. Test barrels back in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, were closed breach and usually longer than the typical 4" or 6" revolver barrels.

When I was testing out my two new Model 28s at the range this past Wednesday, I fired some 158 SJHP 38 Specials and some 158 SJHP 357 Magnums. There was a HUGE difference in felt recoil and muzzle blast between these two. The 357 rounds were hammering the gun and my hand while the 38 had virtually no felt recoil.

 

[cp1969]

I've shot some of that old WW ammo.....It is *hot*; there's nothing on the market like it today.

 

[NFrameFred]

The reason people keep wanting "more and more" from the .357 & .44 Magnums is because the ammo suppliers keep providing less and less.

I don't know about that, since the manufacturers have more knowledge and much better equipment now and have a more accurate idea of the pressures and forces involved. The advances in bullet design have more than made up for the reduced velocities. Don't want to start another great debate but look at the improvement in performance of the 9mm round as one example.

The .357 started life as 158 gr SWC @ 1510 fps; the .44 was up around 1450. Try to find any loads like that now.

See the above and take into consideration the proliferation of lawyers and liability issues that were not present when those rounds were introduced and anecdotal evidence of people shooting their guns loose with steady diets of those kinds of loadings.

It seems strange to me that we consider the M19 to be too weak to withstand today's 1200 fps ammo when the gun was designed around a much hotter loading. Same for the M29.

I don't recall reading that anywhere here - and your supposition doesn't negate the point being made. The round you say the gun was designed for shot the guns loose. The point is that whether one wishes to believe it or not the K frame appears to have been designed to carry a lot and shot a little with full power magnum loads.

I have an acquaintance who makes all the same arguments you have. He insisted years ago on loading everything hotter than the reloading manuals because (in his 'expert' opinion) "they build a big cushion into their figures for liability purposes". He took perverse pride in bragging that after 3 or 4 loadings his 44 mag brass had the head stamp markings erased. I won't stand close to him when he shoots.

My point is there are demonstrated results and consequences and one is free to shoot whatever he feels comfortable risking as long as he is responsible enough to not endanger those around him. As far as wearing out a gun, if it's yours you can hook it to a logging chain and drag it behind your truck if you want to make a point about it's durability and while the rest of us might scratch our heads it's your business and your property to do with as you please.

 

[cp1969]

Don't confuse me with being a clone of your hot-load friend. You need to read some of my other posts. I didn't say 'hot was better'; I said 'factory loads used to be hotter' and that was the ammo around which the M19 was designed. If they shoot apart now, with today's factory ammo, that problem would have been brought to light MUCH quicker with that ammo.

I've never owned one; I have a 586 and a 60. If the M19 can't stand up to a factory shell, I'd hate to think what will happen to the M60. But a friend owned an M19 and shot the daylights out of it. Of course, that was before all this enlightenment occurred, so I guess he never realized he'd ruined it and just kept on shooting it until he got sick and died....He never knew.

 

[Texas Star]

To answer the original question, some years ago, I was writing an article on .357 ammo. Actually, I think I was the first scribe to say that the 158 grain ammo was easier on K-frame guns, that info being imparted to me by a couple of factory reps at the time that the L-frame guns were reaching the market.

Anyway, I contacted engineers at several major ammo companies. I specifically asked if the 140 grain bullets were close enough to 158 grain to show similar wear patterns.

The gist of it is that no one knew of any studies along those lines, but that if the same powders were used, and the 140's weren't pushed a lot faster, the wear should be similar.

The lighter bullets were definitely known to cause problems.


T-Star
P.S. The late Skeeter Skelton liked the Speer 140 grain load, and he probably fired quite a bit of that in M-19's. I think it was his favorite .357 round after his hot .38-44 handload. Skeeter was best known for liking the five-inch barrelled M-27, but he also grew quite fond of the M-19. That Speer load seemed pretty hot to me, and I limited its use in K-frame guns. But Skeeter never seemed to have any problems with it.

The 140 grain at .357 speeds may be the best round in guns with three-inch barrels. Velocity in tests that I've seen runs about 1200 FPS...a serious load. But blast and recoil in smaller guns is certainly noticeable. The better 140 grain bullets are enough to take average deer at average handgun ranges. Bigger animals probably warrant more bullet weight, although if I want more than Remington's 165 grain hunting load, I think it's time to step up to a .44 Magnum. (That 165 grain load may no longer be listed. But I have some, saved for when I may encounter a bear.)

 

[daa9mm]

I'm almost into 1000 rounds of 357 in 125 gr loaded to 1400 fps in one revolver in the last two years. I've also shot about 1500 rounds of 158 gr lead bullets loaded to 1000 fps out of the same gun.
The forcing cone on that K frame barrel doesn't really show any problems. I do have one that shows a "burred" or rough edge on the forcing cone but I don't shoot many heavy loads out of it.
One day I'm going to get the forcing cone reamer and plug and fix it. But only when I think it is getting worse or the accuracy goes south.
I don't know at what point you see the forcing cone/barrel problems with the 125 gr bullets but I haven't experienced any yet.
I clean my guns thoroughly after shooting. Each probably gets 100 to 150 rounds shot through them each time I take one out.
I loaded some 180 gr bullets ahead of 11.5 gr of 2400 and they are very heavy in recoil. I'm more afraid of damaging the gun with the 180s than I am the 125s.
If the gun isn't cleaned and closely inspected after each time at the range, then I can see how a small problem can cause a huge one.
I sure watch the wear on my forcing cones closely now.

 

[kenpofan]

FWIW,

My opinion is that shooting the heavier .357's and keeping the gun clean will be the trick.
I have a M-19 and a M-65 (both shoot .357's )..I clean them each and everytime I shoot them !
Others will argue the K-frame has an inherant weakness I respectfully think if you are using a weapon correctly and within reason you should expect it to operate as advertised..

I have missed the recall from S&W on .357 K-frames.

My Humble Opin.
Patrick

 

[G.T. Smith]

FWIW,

My opinion is that shooting the heavier .357's and keeping the gun clean will be the trick.
I have a M-19 and a M-65 (both shoot .357's )..I clean them each and everytime I shoot them !
Others will argue the K-frame has an inherant weakness I respectfully think if you are using a weapon correctly and within reason you should expect it to operate as advertised..

I have missed the recall from S&W on .357 K-frames.

My Humble Opin.
Patrick

There you go, I was wondering if anyone was going to mention the cleaning aspect of shooting a K frame using ANY type of .357 round. It doesn't matter to me if I shoot 1 or 100 rounds through my M65, I make sure there is no build up of any sort on the forcing cone. For a while there I was worried about shooting any kind of .357 magnum through my S&W .357 magnum, and that just didn't seem right because it is clearly marked .357 on the barrel and figgerd that if it needed to shoot only .38's it would probably be marked .38 on the barrel, right?
I have shot just about every kind of .357 ammo through mine and it is still tight and I cant see any erosion in the come or anywhere else. I have some WWB 125 grain jhp's in .38 special. they are +P's and it seems to me that the increase of distance between the bullet and the forcing cone would have a more detrimental effect than shooting rounds that the weapon was originally designed to shoot.
I say clean it good and clean it often and it will outlast the owner. This is just my opinion arrived upon by my own personal shooting habits and knowledge of problems which arise from shooting dirty guns. Has anyone ever cracked a spotless forcing cone in a K frame? Does the build up in forcing cone still continue to erode even after it is removed? I truly hope not. I love my little K frame and I hope it outlives me.
Just my Hick's 2 cents worth.
Peace,
gordon.

 

[roaddog28]

There you go, I was wondering if anyone was going to mention the cleaning aspect of shooting a K frame using ANY type of .357 round. It doesn't matter to me if I shoot 1 or 100 rounds through my M65, I make sure there is no build up of any sort on the forcing cone. For a while there I was worried about shooting any kind of .357 magnum through my S&W .357 magnum, and that just didn't seem right because it is clearly marked .357 on the barrel and figgerd that if it needed to shoot only .38's it would probably be marked .38 on the barrel, right?
I have shot just about every kind of .357 ammo through mine and it is still tight and I cant see any erosion in the come or anywhere else. I have some WWB 125 grain jhp's in .38 special. they are +P's and it seems to me that the increase of distance between the bullet and the forcing cone would have a more detrimental effect than shooting rounds that the weapon was originally designed to shoot.
I say clean it good and clean it often and it will outlast the owner. This is just my opinion arrived upon by my own personal shooting habits and knowledge of problems which arise from shooting dirty guns. Has anyone ever cracked a spotless forcing cone in a K frame? Does the build up in forcing cone still continue to erode even after it is removed? I truly hope not. I love my little K frame and I hope it outlives me.
Just my Hick's 2 cents worth.
Peace,
gordon.

You won't get a argument out of me on keeping the forcing cone clean on a K frame. For that matter keeping any forcing cone clean on a revolver is a key to long life. But I want to keep my K frame magnums along time and barrels are getting harder to find. My gunsmith will confirm that. Here is my point. Even S&W recommended shooting only 158g 357s on a limited basis. Also the high velocity rounds are harder on the revolver. I think if a person stays in the neigborhood of 140gr to 158gr at 1100 fps to 1300 fps and cleans the revolver after every session it will lessen the forcing cone issue. But also I had read that high round counts of 357s will eventally cause the K frame to shoot loose. I would rather shoot mostly 38 specials for practice "Smith recomendations" and 357s only on occasions. I have two other revolvers that can take a steady diet of 357s with no issues It just doesn't make sense to abuse in my opinion the finest handling revolver Smith ever built.