Which are more durable 357s - k frames or modern J frames

C

Cal44

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2013
Messages
3,601
Reaction score
6,467
Location
Northern California
The story I've always heard was the K frames proved to have durability problems with 357 magnum cartridges.

This lead S&W to design the beefed up L frames like the 586/686.

But also, Smith has come out with J frames that have been upgraded to shoot 357 magnum.

So, are modern 357 magnum J frames more durable than K frames with the same diet?

Or should guns like the current production M60 not be shot much with 357?
 
Register to hide this ad
I have a M681 modified revolver six shot and,a Ruger and a Ruger Speed Six Post Office old timer back 30+ years ago. I like and love these more than these newer S&W's with that Klinton Lock on it.
 
The only problem K frames have with .357 mag. is the lighter bullets shot from them. The thinner part of the forcing cone is prone to wear with the lighter bullets (110gn).

By "forcing cone" I mean the first part of the barrel that has a thin underneath section that may crack.

For some ballistic reason I don't understand the heavier bullets (158gn) don't cause a problem.
 
Last edited:
H Richard said:
My opinion is the J Frame should have never been chambered for the .357. Even K Frames (with a steady diet of heavy loads) show increased wear. The L Frame was made to shoot the 357 as were the N Frames.
Click to expand...

I fully agree! EVEN IF the J Frames did stand up to the 357's well, a 19 ounce J Fame is NOT an easy gun to shoot well! The other important factor here is that a 357 Mag. out of a 2" tube is just about what a Buffalo Bore +p 38 special is and the Magnum load leaves big long flash behind as it exists a 2" bbl.

The shortest gun I own in 357 Mag. is a 3" M65 and IMHO the 357 was actually developed for a 6" bbl. gun.
 
I have fired thousands of 357s in K frames with no ill effect that know of. I have fired dozens of 357s in J frames and don't actually enjoy it that much. Probably will get to thousands fired in J frames!
 
The K frame revolvers will safely handle .357 Magnum ammo, it's just not a good idea to shoot any hot ammo with a bullet that weighs less than 158Grs.

As for .357 magnum ammo in a J frame, I'm sure it is safe to do, but that is something this old man has no desire to try more than once, thank you....
 
Disclaimer: The following is personal opinion and worth exactly what you are paying for it.

The K-frame was designed and intended as a platform for the 38 Special cartridge. When S&W wanted to shoot heavy loaded 38 Specials (38/44) they went to the N-frame...the Heavy Duty and Outdoorsman.

The J-frame was designed and intended as a platform for the 32 caliber if I'm not mistaken but was stretched to take 38 Specials by reducing the cylinder to 5 holes from the original 6.

The K-frame is an absolute delight with 38 Specials, from target wadcutters to +P defensive loads. The J-frame is doable in 38 Special although in almost 20 years of firearms instructing/training I never saw or met anyone who could shoot one really well when pushed to go very fast. I personally can't shoot the little guns as my hands are either too big or just shaped wrong. After a very brief stint with them in my early LEO career I gave up on the J-frame and haven't owned one in years.

As for 357 Magnums, yes the K-frames are made to take them and countless people own and shoot them. Tens of thousands of rounds of full Magnums are fired through K-frames (at least on the internet) with no ill affects. And yet, there is a reason why S&W came out with the L-frame. That was a major financial investment on their part and there was a real, not imagined, reason behind it. Magnum ammunition is hard on the K. Simple as that. I personally saw many examples of it at my department with their M-66s.

But when it comes to the J-frame I sincerely believe the 357 chambering is a classic case of, "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should!" Chambering J-frames for the 357 was purely a marketing ploy, nothing more.

Finally, and I know this is going to start an argument, metallurgy hasn't change all that much. There are no new, magic, lighter and stronger secret alloys out now. Do a little research. Gun steels are pretty simple and the same series of carbon steels and stainless steels are being used as in the past. Better heat treating may have made some difference but science and engineering have had a pretty good grasp of materials and their use for the past 100 or so years.

YMMV,
Dave
 
Marketing is the main reason that the S&W J frame is produced in .357/.38Spl caliber. A small powerful "magnum" revolver has a strong appeal to the CCW holders. Even though the revolvers will shoot the .357 most owners will opt for the lighter .38Spl loads.
Smith was in a unique position producing the K and N frame .357 revolvers. The S&W guns were in high demand and selling well in spite of the difficulties some few were experiencing with the K frames. Colt was Smith's main competition at the time and the Python and Trooper models were admired for their mid size and ability to handle the heaviest .357 loads.
Smith decided to add a like size .357 to compete which resulted in the L frame. It was no coincidence that it was produced with a full lug resembling Colt's Python. The K frame 19 and 66models stayed in production long after the introduction of the L frame and are still sought after today. As ownership of S&W changed, corporate cost cutting and the demand for L frame spelled the end of the K frame .357s.
 
Last edited:
What DaveT and JDavis said. The answer to your question is "neither the J frame or K frame was originally designed for a steady diet of 357."
If you want to shoot 357 a lot buy an L frame or N frame. If you want to hotrod your 357 loads buy an N frame.
 
Last edited:
It is apples and oranges. Cylinder strength probably goes to the J frame as the locking notches are cut into the thickest part of the cylinder between the charge holes, rather than over the charge hole where the steel is thinnest.

That said, the issue with K frames was the amount of steel at the 6 o'clock position of the barrel shank, which created a thin section which was subject to more aggressive wear once the shorter bullets at high velocity became more popular. Shorter bullets close the gap just a very minute amount of time less than longer bullets, allowing correspondingly hotter gasses and flames.

Stay with 158 grain Magnums, shoot them occasionally and practice with 38s and you will be ok with either gun.

Quite frankly, most people never get around to damage as such ammo at today's prices will send you to the poor house before your gun has to go to the repair shop.

On the other hand, K frame magnums are no longer in production, certain parts are hard to find, so I would limit my shooting of magnums in K frames for that reason alone.
 
Last edited:
Cal44 said:
The story I've always heard was the K frames proved to have durability problems with 357 magnum cartridges.

This lead S&W to design the beefed up L frames like the 586/686.

But also, Smith has come out with J frames that have been upgraded to shoot 357 magnum.

So, are modern 357 magnum J frames more durable than K frames with the same diet?

Or should guns like the current production M60 not be shot much with 357?
Click to expand...
K frame 357 Magnums have been around almost 60 years now. In that time there have been advances in both metallurgy and manufacturing techniques

A modern K-frame is more durable than a modern J-frame

A modern J-frame is more durable than a 1950s or 1960s K-frame
 
murphydog said:
few owners have pushed large numbers of full-house .357s through their J frames. I certainly haven't.
Click to expand...
What is your definition of "large numbers of full-house .357s"?

I have been shooting, and teaching with J-magnums since they were introduced more than 15 years ago. My oldest model 60 has well over 10,000 Remington factory 357 Magnums through it. My oldest 340 has 6000+ Remington and Hornady factory 357 Magnums through it so far
 
Dave T said:
But when it comes to the J-frame I sincerely believe the 357 chambering is a classic case of, "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should!"
Click to expand...

I agree. The J-frame is not an easy gun for most folks to shoot well in .38 Special. In .357 Magnum it's exponentially tougher for nearly everyone I know who owns one. They almost invariably load their J-magnums with .38 +P.

Call me an old wuss, but I am not nearly fond enough of hard recoil, muzzle jump, or hellacious flash and blast to fire .357 stuff in a 21 ounce gun with a short barrel. Especially in a self-defense situation that may call for a fast second shot.
 
Have been out of the revolver world for a long time. Recently went to the range with a 3"barrel "J" frame size Rossi .357. Had some .38, some +p and some +P+ that I found in my closet. And 10 rounds of
.357 It was a pleasant little gun to shoot until the +P+, and the magnums left my hand a bit numb. When I was 20 I would never waste time on .38s but at sixty I think I will not waste my time on magnums anymore. Just was not fun. The +P+ had to be from the late '80s. Still packed some punch. My wife has a 640 Centennial I bought in the '80s and its rated for +P+.
 
Hikok45 did a video on s&w frames. There's another one with two guys shooting 357 J frame it looked uncomfortable.
 
I don't like shooting .357 out of my Model 60-15.

I like shooting .357 out of my Model 19-2.

But what I mostly shoot out of both is a .38 special.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

housedog
Durability of new crane mounted lock K frames? 66-8 or 19 classic
Replies
3
Views
518
chase45
C
M
Let's talk 1970s K frame magnums
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
magnum0710
M
D
Which models are J-Frames?
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Hawg Rider
H
S
S&W N Frame Grip Adapters
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
StrawHat
StrawHat
CKPOMEH
686 Midnight Black SS, 586 137 Years, 586 (no dash) and 17-6 Pics
Replies
3
Views
649
CKPOMEH
CKPOMEH

Latest posts

Back
Top