Quantcast
New S&W K-frame .357? - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Tools and Technologies > Handguns: Revolvers

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 14, 2014, 11:50 PM   #1
peacebutready
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 20, 2011
Location: South West
Posts: 451
New S&W K-frame .357?

Looks like S&W brought back their K-frame in .357. Anyone know if these can take a steady diet of .357 factory loads?
peacebutready is offline  
Old August 15, 2014, 12:06 AM   #2
rcmodel
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: September 17, 2007
Location: Eastern KS
Posts: 49,074
No.
They haven't been out long enough to tell yet.

But with a lifetime warranty?
It seems very likely S&W testing thinks they will.

Or they will go broke repairing them free.

rc
__________________
Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
Or all your primers in a glass jar!
rcmodel is online now  
Old August 15, 2014, 12:07 AM   #3
ArchAngelCD
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 25, 2006
Location: Northeast PA, USA
Posts: 17,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacebutready View Post
Looks like S&W brought back their K-frame in .357. Anyone know if these can take a steady diet of .357 factory loads?
Of course unless you have a track record there is no way to know for sure BUT I highly doubt S&W would re-release their K frame .357 Magnum unless it will hold up. Besides, the factory .357 Magnum ammo of today is not the same as it was back in the 70's...

I'm betting the new M66 doesn't have the cut-out at the bottom of the forcing cone which was the point of weakness on the original .357 Magnum K frames.
__________________
Remember boys and girls, gun control only prevents law abiding Americans from owning guns because the Bad Guys donít obey the laws, no matter how restrictive or lenient the laws are!
ArchAngelCD is offline  
Old August 15, 2014, 12:15 AM   #4
peacebutready
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 20, 2011
Location: South West
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchAngelCD View Post
Besides, the factory .357 Magnum ammo of today is not the same as it was back in the 70's...
Off Topic: About 200 fps difference, right?

On Topic: This new K-frame is something like 36.5 oz. That's light.
peacebutready is offline  
Old August 15, 2014, 12:19 AM   #5
Snubshooter
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 17, 2010
Location: FINALLY IN FREE AMERICA
Posts: 99
My guess is that the same changes they made in the L frames to make a 69 would translate to the K frames to do a very reliable .357.
__________________
Snubshooter
Si Vis Pacem Para bellum
Noblesse Oblige
Snubshooter is offline  
Old August 15, 2014, 12:29 AM   #6
rcmodel
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: September 17, 2007
Location: Eastern KS
Posts: 49,074
Quote:
This new K-frame is something like 36.5 oz. That's light.
No, thats heavy.
The old K-Frame Model 19 / 66 Combat Magnum was listed at 36 oz. with a 4" barrel.
Closer to 40 oz loaded.

Light weight was the only reason there ever was for the Combat Magnum in the first place.

Without going into great detail on the history of them, police wanted a lighter .357 Magnum they could carry a lot, and shoot a little.

A man named Bill Jordan had all to do with getting S&W to make the first ones as the ultiment, easier to carry all day, .357 LEO belt gun of the time.

And it was.

If you want a heavier, heavy duty, shoot 1,000 rounds a week .357?
Buy an L or N frame .357.

rc
__________________
Don't put all your eggs in one basket.
Or all your primers in a glass jar!

Last edited by rcmodel; August 15, 2014 at 12:37 AM.
rcmodel is online now  
Old August 15, 2014, 12:33 AM   #7
peacebutready
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 20, 2011
Location: South West
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcmodel View Post
No, thats heavy.
The old K-Frame Model 19 / 66 Combat Magnum was listed at 36 oz. with a 4" barrel.
Closer to 40 oz loaded.

The new one has a 4.25" barrel.
peacebutready is offline  
Old August 15, 2014, 02:22 AM   #8
Steve C
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 5, 2006
Posts: 4,256
The K frames where faulted for cracking the forcing cone in the thinned out part at the bottom due mostly to full powered 125gr JHP's. If you look at the picture of the forcing cone of the new model 66 vs the older model shown from the "Gunblast" article you can see that it no longer has a thinned out are at the bottom so it looks like S&W has "fixed" the problem and one should be able to shoot any .357 mag ammo loaded by the major companies (Fed, Win, Rem, CCI, Hornady) without fear of damaging the forcing cone.

As to if it "can take a steady diet of .357 factory loads?", that will depend upon the definition of "steady diet" and who's factory loads. Like any gun, heavy loads from Buffalo Bore or DRT will likely wear the gun out faster than loads by Win, Fed, Rem, CCI, Etc. All things mechanical will wear out eventually but I'd wager you will spend many times the cost of the revolver in ammo before you wear it out and even then it will likely be able to be rebuilt.

NEW


Vs OLD

Last edited by Steve C; August 15, 2014 at 02:36 AM.
Steve C is offline  
Old August 15, 2014, 03:57 AM   #9
19-3Ben
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 5, 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 4,560
Quote:
The new one has a 4.25" barrel.
To quote South Park, "Blame Canada."

Canadian min. Barrel length is 4.2" iirc.
__________________
"You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough." Mae West
19-3Ben is online now  
Old August 15, 2014, 05:26 AM   #10
gotboostvr
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 13, 2007
Location: Buckeye Country
Posts: 262
If they bring back the 2.5" I'm snapping one up.

If it's alloy framed with night sights I'll knock over little gray haired grandma's To get one.
gotboostvr is offline  
Old August 15, 2014, 06:42 AM   #11
bannockburn
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 24, 2007
Posts: 7,282
I wold definitely be interested in a new K frame .357. Never should have traded my Model 13.
__________________
"An elegant weapon for a more civilized age."-Obi Wan Kenobi
bannockburn is offline  
Old August 15, 2014, 06:55 AM   #12
RealGun
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 21, 2004
Location: SC
Posts: 5,336
Not loving the black trigger, cylinder release button, and hammer (?). Not loving a glass bead finish either.
__________________
RealGun
---------------

Last edited by RealGun; August 15, 2014 at 07:20 AM.
RealGun is offline  
Old August 15, 2014, 08:33 AM   #13
Goosey
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 19, 2012
Posts: 36
Quote:
To quote South Park, "Blame Canada."

Canadian min. Barrel length is 4.2" iirc.
105 mm / 4.13 in

Ruger did this first I believe, so I'm guessing they sold a lot of 4.2" GP100s up there. S&W seems to be following their lead.
Goosey is offline  
Old August 15, 2014, 09:00 AM   #14
460Kodiak
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 12, 2011
Location: In a place.....by cool stuff.
Posts: 2,706
Quote:
Not loving the black trigger, cylinder release button, and hammer (?). Not loving a glass bead finish either.
Me neither. I recently handled a M69 that has it's fit and finish along the same lines as the new 66. It did nothing for me. To each his own though.

I'm sure they are useful sidearms. But as RC said, it is impossible to know at this point if they will hold up. I don't care to be a test driver on this go around.
__________________
Me........ "I need a screen name."
Friend.... "What's your favorite cartridge?"
Me........ "460 magnum."
Friend.... "You should be 460Kodiak....... yeah"
Me........ "Great...... now I have to grow a mullet."

Last edited by 460Kodiak; August 15, 2014 at 09:05 AM.
460Kodiak is offline  
Old August 15, 2014, 09:26 AM   #15
edmo01
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 25, 2009
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 21
I am smitten with S&W revolvers and own more than a few, including a mid '80s production 4" model 19-5 K frame. The K frames are a great balance of size, weight, and power. The L frames came about to fix some of the K frame weaknesses with magnum rounds. My 686 L frame has been flawless in the 25 years I've owned it.

All of my older S&W revolvers have been great. However, I've owned four new production S&W revolvers and only one of those four hasn't had issues. Not a good track record for me. The lifetime warranty is a great thing, but I don't want to use it on almost every new gun!

The ones I've had with issues have been a 642-1 (misfires - replaced), a BG38 (misfires - replaced), and a 640 Pro Series. The 640 was the replacement for my broken 642 and arrived with numerous issues straight from S&W. It was never fired, boxed back up, and is currently back at S&W for repairs. This replacement process is currently at five months and it will be another two-three weeks (at least).

I guess I'm an unlucky S&W revolver guy, but my thoughts on current production guns is to look them over very closely before you buy.

Edmo
edmo01 is offline  
Old August 15, 2014, 10:01 AM   #16
Jim Watson
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 24, 2002
Posts: 18,179
I know that cracked forcing cones are documented for K magnums, but they are not a certainty. A guy here fired a documented 6000 rounds of magnums through his M19 with no damage.
But they were "traditional" magnums, 160 gr SWCs and lots of #2400; none of these 125 gr blowtorches.
(Another of that group just flat wore out a Blackhawk .45, they were shooting a LOT in the 1970s.)
__________________
I have a few facts and a lot of opinions.
Jim Watson is offline  
Old August 15, 2014, 10:46 AM   #17
ArchAngelCD
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 25, 2006
Location: Northeast PA, USA
Posts: 17,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goosey View Post
105 mm / 4.13 in

Ruger did this first I believe, so I'm guessing they sold a lot of 4.2" GP100s up there. S&W seems to be following their lead.
I read the original laws were 100mm but of course they wanted to make thing difficult on the people to own guns so they lengthened the min barrel to 105mm. I'm happy Ruger and then S&W countered with making the barrels a little longer to comply with the arbitrary barrel length and allow the people of Canada to again legally own a nice revolver.
__________________
Remember boys and girls, gun control only prevents law abiding Americans from owning guns because the Bad Guys donít obey the laws, no matter how restrictive or lenient the laws are!
ArchAngelCD is offline  
Old August 15, 2014, 12:55 PM   #18
buck460XVR
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 6, 2007
Posts: 4,278
Odds are the gun will hold up better than the shooter's wrists/hands, and as RC stated, with a lifetime warranty, why would you worry about it?
__________________
Guns are like Harleys and women.....you can never have too many.


Theiyr're...........take that Grammar Nazis!
buck460XVR is online now  
Old August 15, 2014, 03:36 PM   #19
Old Dog
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 11, 2004
Location: somewhere on Puget Sound
Posts: 3,449
Quote:
If they bring back the 2.5" I'm snapping one up.
Yeah, me too; lock and MIM notwithstanding ...
__________________
Will
Old Dog is offline  
Old August 15, 2014, 04:23 PM   #20
gamestalker
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 10, 2008
Location: SW Arizona
Posts: 7,094
I've got two, a 66-2 and a -5, both snubs. Both of those have had each, at least several thousand full house jacketed 296 / H110 loads run through them, especially the -2 I've had since the 80's. And although I haven't put a whole lot of 110's and 125's through them, they have had a good deal, again all full house 296 / H110 stuff.

I keep the FC's clean of any possible build up, as that is what greatly contributes to their failure.

They aren't as weak as one might think, IMO.

GS
gamestalker is offline  
Old August 15, 2014, 06:48 PM   #21
1911Tuner
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: May 22, 2003
Location: Lexington,North Carolina...or thereabouts
Posts: 18,060
Quote:
I'm betting the new M66 doesn't have the cut-out at the bottom of the forcing cone which was the point of weakness on the original .357 Magnum K frames.
If it's a true K-Frame...you'll lose your bet.

The reason for the cut was to allow the crane to clear the forcing cone in the K-Frame window.

Quote:
The K frames where faulted for cracking the forcing cone in the thinned out part at the bottom due mostly to full powered 125gr JHP's.
Actually, any jacketed bullet loaded to .357 levels is hard on the K-Frame forcing cone. Shooting lead bullets is the answer to that particular problem.

Quote:
Light weight was the only reason there ever was for the Combat Magnum in the first place.

Without going into great detail on the history of them, police wanted a lighter .357 Magnum they could carry a lot, and shoot a little.

A man named Bill Jordan had all to do with getting S&W to make the first ones as the ultiment, easier to carry all day, .357 LEO belt gun of the time.

And it was.

If you want a heavier, heavy duty, shoot 1,000 rounds a week .357?
Buy an L or N frame .357.
This.

Jordan's caveat: .38s for practice and .357s for business." was sound advice for K-Frame .357 owners. Sadly, too many ignored it...and the result ushered in the L-Frame. Smith & Wesson was losing money repairing and/or replacing Model 19s and 13s...so the L-Frame was mostly their way of throwing in the towel.
__________________

Speak kindly to me, beloved master. Revel in my unconditional love, and give me every minute that you can spare, for my time with you is short.

-your faithful dog-


[/i]
http://www.collierescue.net/available/index.html


To see my real work:

http://www.pets-r-great.org:80/magaz...ue1/cover.html
1911Tuner is offline  
Old August 15, 2014, 07:23 PM   #22
MCgunner
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 3, 2005
Location: The end of the road between Sodom and Gomorrah Texas
Posts: 23,218
Since SAAMI neutered the pressure limits of .357 in the early nineties (was discussed on another thread) when the J frame magnums came out, I'd think an old k frame, new K frame, whatever, would handle any modern factory load just fine. I shot many 158 grain cast gas checked SWCs over 14.5 grains 2400 out of my M19 which I sold off 20 years ago. It never had a problem with those loads and they were hotter than today's standards. They were the late Skeeter Skelton's standby and i figure if it was good 'nuf for Skeeter......;D

I'm glad they did away with the flat at the bottom of the forcing cone, if it's true, even if they had to make a little more room in the frame. I had that split on my M10 from lead build up at the forcing cone (my theory) and had to rebarrel it. Wasn't just 125 grain Super Vels that were hard on that forcing cone. You really have to keep the lead out of 'em from standard cast bullets.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
Ben Franklin

Last edited by MCgunner; August 15, 2014 at 07:30 PM.
MCgunner is offline  
Old August 16, 2014, 12:00 AM   #23
ArchAngelCD
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 25, 2006
Location: Northeast PA, USA
Posts: 17,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchAngelCD View Post
I'm betting the new M66 doesn't have the cut-out at the bottom of the forcing cone which was the point of weakness on the original .357 Magnum K frames.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911Tuner View Post
If it's a true K-Frame...you'll lose your bet.
We all know it's not a true K frame. If it were there would be no ILS, forged instead of MIM parts and not fitted with a 2 piece 4.25" barrel either. This is why I said "new" K frame. I think my wager is safe.
__________________
Remember boys and girls, gun control only prevents law abiding Americans from owning guns because the Bad Guys donít obey the laws, no matter how restrictive or lenient the laws are!
ArchAngelCD is offline  
Old August 16, 2014, 12:08 AM   #24
Jim Watson
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 24, 2002
Posts: 18,179
I thought the New 66 had potential but the 4.25" barrel is a liability.

IDPA revolver shooters (all 10% of the membership) were limited to 4" barrels until the Canadian wing got it increased to 4.20" to pass their Anti's sniff test.
Now we are talking about measuring the barrel from forcing cone to muzzle instead of cylinder face to muzzle so the nominal 6 thou of cylinder gap isn't included.

S&W is a major sponsor. Did they not have anybody there who knew the rules? Did they really care?
__________________
I have a few facts and a lot of opinions.
Jim Watson is offline  
Old August 16, 2014, 12:16 AM   #25
ArchAngelCD
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 25, 2006
Location: Northeast PA, USA
Posts: 17,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Watson View Post
I thought the New 66 had potential but the 4.25" barrel is a liability.

IDPA revolver shooters (all 10% of the membership) were limited to 4" barrels until the Canadian wing got it increased to 4.20" to pass their Anti's sniff test.
Now we are talking about measuring the barrel from forcing cone to muzzle instead of cylinder face to muzzle so the nominal 6 thou of cylinder gap isn't included.

S&W is a major sponsor. Did they not have anybody there who knew the rules? Did they really care?
Maybe they thought the M64 and M67 had that covered since they are still fitted with a 4" barrel. Does anyone in IDPA shoot .357 Magnum ammo or are the two .38 Specials good for their needs?
__________________
Remember boys and girls, gun control only prevents law abiding Americans from owning guns because the Bad Guys donít obey the laws, no matter how restrictive or lenient the laws are!
ArchAngelCD is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.