The Model 19 "Controversy"

[pistolpete10]

Got my first 19 in 1979. It was stolen in 1994. By then the forcing cone was "frosted" looking still my favorite shooter. I shot a lot of heavy 141 gr cast SWC thru it. I bought a used replacement that still looked new in the forcing cone, shoot 38s in it for the most part now days. Still looks new. I have a 586 and a 686 too. Don't shoot much .357 in them either.

 

[Gearhead Jim]

Seems to me the .38 special +P+ was, in practice, a politically correct .357

Agencies that adopted it almost always had some political policy prohibition against ."357 mangle 'em" as being needlessly mean to criminals. Usually the same whiny bunch that complain cops use ammo that would be against the "Geneva Conventions."

There are a couple of actual advantages to .38 +P+:
The shorter case allows for better ejection when reloading in a hurry.
+P+ pressures are high, but usually lower than Magnum, and often use a lighter bullet. The +P+ I've fired was easier to control, especially in a small gun, than Magnum Force.

 

[ancient-one]

The first S&W that I bought was a 19-4 4 inch for the ghastly sum of $198. It has been shot mostly with 38 Specials but has had several hundred .357's through it. Most were 125 and 140 Gr. and were slightly lightened up hand loads. Nothing yet.
My grandson has it now along with a lot of my hand loads. He knows the story of the light, hot hand loads. My goodness, it is a pretty gun.

 

[Doug M.]

Remember when the 19 was introduced, most training was with .38s, often wadcutters, and carry was with full house magnums. The difference was not a problem to Jordan, who as I recall was 6'6 with really big strong hands. Subsequent events and some litigation made it important to make training more realistic and valid - there is even a case from the very late 50s involving the NYSP addressing that. That shifted the training and shooting paradigm to one not expected when the M19 came about. It is possible that relatively modest differences between specimens resulted in different outcomes.

 

[LostintheOzone]

I own two model 19's. One a -6 and the other a -3. In my 20's I owned a Ruger Blackhawk and shot lots of 357 mags in that. That frame was heavier than a model 19 and it never occurred to me that it wasn't up to the task. When I purchased my first model 19 I had some serious doubts about using 357 factory ammo it. I didn't shoot it a lot so it stayed almost like new for a long time. Eventually I purchased another one and came to the conclusion that they were an excellent platform for 38 spl. and not a real good 357 platform. I think the good col. was correct in his assessment. I now use 357 brass in my 19's but the load is closer to 38 spl than 357. If I were serious about shooting 1250 fps loads I would just by a model 27 or 28 and be done with it. Needless to say both of my 19's are still in excellent condition and they're going to stay that way.

 

[oddshooter]

Isn't it the extra powder?

I for one don't think the 124gr bullet is tougher on the forcing cone than a 158gr bullet. They are the same diameter.

As a handloader:
To compare lighter bullets to heavier bullets requires getting them to the same velocity.
I believe the EXTRA powder required to get a 124gr bullet to the same velocity as a 158gr bullet is the culprit. More powder equals more pressure and more heat which are required to split that forcing cone.

Am I incorrect about this?

Prescut

 

[Muley Gil]

I've always wondered why the Model 19 has such a prominent forcing cone.

Look at a Chief Special - there's really no forcing cone to speak of.

Why didn't they either make the cylinder longer, or the frame window shorter?

For the same reason the .41 magnum is built on the N frame and not a frame between the K and the N. It costs money to introduce a new frame forging. The .357 round fit in the existing K frame and all that was needed was a cylinder with recessed case heads (it wasn't really needed, but the other .357 had it ) and different heat treating.

Bill Jordan wrote that most officers trained with .38 special ammo and then reloaded with .357s for duty use.

 

[Muley Gil]

Seems to me the .38 special +P+ was, in practice, a politically correct .357

Agencies that adopted it almost always had some political policy prohibition against ."357 mangle 'em" as being needlessly mean to criminals. Usually the same whiny bunch that complain cops use ammo that would be against the "Geneva Conventions."

Having started my firearms education in those times, that is exactly what happened. Police departments, mostly headed by politically appointed chiefs, wanted to say that their officers were armed with .38s, not those nasty, mankilling hollow point .357s.

On a related matter, the State of New Jersey only allows hollow point ammunition for police officers. In contrast, the Commonwealth of Virginia requires that security officers to carry hollow point ammo.

 

[LostintheOzone]

Isn't it the extra powder?

I for one don't think the 124gr bullet is tougher on the forcing cone than a 158gr bullet. They are the same diameter.

As a handloader:
To compare lighter bullets to heavier bullets requires getting them to the same velocity.
I believe the EXTRA powder required to get a 124gr bullet to the same velocity as a 158gr bullet is the culprit. More powder equals more pressure and more heat which are required to split that forcing cone.

Am I incorrect about this?

Prescut

Nope. More powder (energy) is needed to move a heavier bullet to the same velocity as a lighter bullet. Hornady lists a 15.9 grn load of 2400 at 1350 fps. The manual doesn't list a 1350 fps load using a 158 grn bullet and 2400 because the max load there is 14.4 grns and 1200 fps.

It just takes more energy to move a heavier bullet. The high velocity of lighter bullets is what destroys the forcing cones, thus it's been recommended to shoot 158's in model 19's and avoid 125's and 110's.

I've loaded 125's but I load for 1250 fps. 357 mag was designed for 158 gr bullets and that's what I generally load.

 

[UncleEd]

When it comes to handgun cartridges
and how sometimes too much is just
too much, look at the .357 Remington
Maximum.

Designed for the Ruger Blackhawk,
the Maximum "ate" the top strap.
Dan Wesson also had a model for
that cartridge.

I believe the only chamberings for
the Maximum today are the Thompson
Center and maybe some rifles.

 

[orionengnr]

Shortly after buying my well-used 66-no-dash back in 2001 or so, I started reading of this plague upon K-frames.

As a result, I have shot largely 158 gr mag loads (with a cylinder or two of 125s JHPs from time to time), and never seen any problems. When I carry it, it is with Winchester 125s. I'm not sure it has seen more than a cylinder full of .38s since I've owned it (ran out of .357s at a match because my skills ran short and substituted a cylinder of .38ss).

My 19-3...well, to be honest, I seldom shoot it. But when I do, same regimen.

When/if I have a problem, I will deal with it.

Yes, I have several N-frames that shoot pretty well, but (IMHO) there is nothing quite like a 4' K-frame....