"K" frame question?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

christcorp

Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
1,400
Location
Cheyenne, Wyoming
First, let me say that this forum is excellent. Also, I have read all the posts here concerning my question, but I can't seem to get a definitive answer. So, here goes.

The question concerns the "K" frame S&W and the supposed "Weakness" of it when shooting a lot of 357 mags. Specifically the 125g type. There seems to be 3 groups responding.

1st group says that in FACT the "K" can NOT handle a steady diet of 357 magnum ammo. Especially the 125g. Supposedly it with weaken and/or stretch the frame, and cracks or harms the cone. That being the reason for the invention of the "L" frame.

2nd group says that it ONLY affected the very first "K" frames that came out; Model 19 circa 1955; but since then, S&W has fixed any problems. And even then, it was only with "HANDLOADS" and that is NEVER was a problem with factory loads.

3rd group says that there has never really been a problem, and that a couple of production problems in some guns, which any product can have some lemons, are to blame for a bad reputation for the "K" frame which is supposedly totally bogus. That in fact, the "K" can shoot 357 mag ammo just as reliably as the "L" frame, the Rugers, or anyone else.

Now, the question posed is; If the model 19 was introduced in 1955 +/- a year, and the model 66 was released in 1971; and the model 13 and 65 were introduced in 1974; is the "SUPPOSED" problem with shooting 357 mag inherit to ALL these models of "K" frame or is it isolated to just the model 19 prior to the 1970's? Has in fact, the model 13/65/66 also had affected cones and frames because of 357 mag ammo? All posts and readings I have found, mention either the "K" frame generically, or specifically mention the model 19 which has been around the longest. I haven't seen or heard about any model 13/65/66 having a problem.

I have been shooting and training others to shoot for a long time. I believe in practicing with what you plan to shoot. No hidden surprises. (God I hated it in the 70's when the military tried to save money by putting in .22 cal adapters in the M-16 so they could save money on ammo when the troops were qualifying.) Anyway, I prefer to shoot 357 mag ammo in my 357 mag model 13. Preferably 125g HP. This is what I will use, therefore that is what I want to practice with. Granted, if the family wants to go out shooting on a Saturday, I will probably use 38 specials because it's cheaper and won't kick my daughter or wife's butt. But for all intent and purpose, I want to shoot the mags through it.

So, what are the thoughts here? FWIW, I am not the type that goes through 1000 rounds a month. I would say closer to about 1000 a year, or about 100 rounds a month. Again, I want it to be factory mag rounds. Preferably 125g ammo. Later... Mike....

P.S. I posted a partial similar question in another thread a couple of days ago, but hadn't gotten a response. I didn't want to hijack their thread. However, someone did give their comments just prior to me posting this new thread. I would still like people's opinions on this so I don't hijack the other thread. Thx... Mike.....
 
Last edited:
I have never shot that much ammo through any magnum of mine in a year. I am with Baron though I don't believe that amount will hurt it. The only handguns that I have shot close to that in a year have been my issued duty weapons and with .38 Spec +P loads or the current issue 9MM.
 
Ironically, a friend just showed me this article. It's only about a year old.

http://www.gunblast.com/Butch_MagnumLoads.htm

Some pretty good reading. Again however, it only talks about the model 19. Again, the model 19 had almost 20 years before the model 13/65/66 came out. Just wondering if anything changed prior to the introduction of the model 66 in 1971 or the model 13/65 in 1974? Thanks... Mike....
 
Here's what I know about the K frame 357 forcing cone problem:

1: It's fairly rare. Many shooters report firing many thousands of Magnum rounds without difficulty.

2: From my observation an unusually high number of failed guns are 19-5s. Failure is less common on earlier models and I have not heard of any 13s failing, only 19s.

3: The failures are not limited to guns used with 125 JHP ammo. Some guns have failed that never fired anything but 158 grain ammo and a very small number have failed when shooting 38 Special ammo.

I have always suspected the problem was with individual barrels being defective in manufacture. Perhaps a tempering problem.

Another suggestion offered by a retired police armorer who saw failed 19s in his shop was the possibility of failures resulting from dirty forcing cones. He noted that all of the revolvers he saw with cracked cones were filthy. He theorizes that carbon build-up in the forcing cone reduces clearances and raises pressures to the point where the metal fails. Or perhaps the carbon heats up during firing creating a hot spot that can burn through the metal causing it to crack.

His notion has merit IMO.

My suggestion to anyone with a Model 19 is to keep the forcing cone and barrel clean of carbon accumulation. A clean gun is a happy gun.

I have a 19 made in 1970 and carried by a federal agent for 18 years before I bought it. The only ammo ever used in this gun is full-power 125 JHPs (the agent's issue ammo and my load of choice) and so far the gun shows zero effect. But then, it has been kept clean.

PS: Much of what's in the article linked above supports a lot of what I posted. I am still of a mind that individual barrels may be improperly tempered or machined and unclean conditions contribute greatly.
 
Thanks Saxon. I pretty much was thinking on the same lines. Especially considering that I hadn't heard of any model 13/65 having that issue. I definitely keep the barrels and the gun clean. I prefer to shoot 125g 357 mag ammo in it because that is what I plan to use should I need it. Thanks for the input.

If anyone else has anything that might contradict this information, it would be greatly appreciated. I am open to facts, even if I don't happen to like them. I don't go with the premise however that "The safe thing to do is to shoot mostly 38 specials and only shoot 357 mag occasionally. That's like saying even though I bought a Porsche, it's best to drive it at 55. If I only wanted to go 55, I would have bought a Ford Focus. I may shoot 38 special more often, because of the price, but I am really concerned that the gun itself, model 13, is in fact a "Real" 357 magnum, and as such I can fire as much 357 mag through it as I want and the gun should hold out as expected. Thx... Mike....
 
but since then, S&W has fixed any problems
Click to expand...

I think the "definative answer" is found in what S&W did to "fix" the problem. They discontinued the K frame magnums, and replaced the line with L frames.

That action alone would seem to speak volumes.

There are several decades worth of K frame magnum production still in use. Many have been shot on a regular basis without any problems. Heck... I own a couple.

Buy the model 13 if you want it. I would. But if your heart is going to break if it wears out, you may want to consider something else.

Good Luck...

Joe
 
Like I said, I never heard of a 13 failing. The 65 and 66 are stainless which is tougher than carbon steel so unlikely they would have any problems. If this really concerns you buy a 66.

Um, if S&W discontinued the K frame Magnums because they were too small then why did they introduce the J frame guns in 357 Magnum?
 
I already own a really nice and tight Model 13. I bought it even hearing some of the comments about shooting a "Steady Diet" of 357 mag through them.

The reason for the post and comments, was because with the exception of a couple of posts making isolated claims, I have yet to see anything that considered this a wide area problem. I.e. In all the reloading manuals, it mentions certain loads for the 45 Long Colt that are intend "ONLY" for the Ruger Blackhawk or other manufacturer that says it's OK. I've seen ammunition labled for Ruger Blackhawk ONLY.

I have yet to see an ammo manufacturer, reloading data, S&W safety bulletin, etc... that specifically states that a certain ammunition is not to be used in the following S&W models. Maybe there's something that was published officially some place, but I haven't seen it.

Yes, there was a large gap between the "K" and the "N" frames. Building the "L" frame seemed like a very good way to find a happy medium. Whether or not the "L" frame was specifically designed to eliminate an issue with shooting a "Steady Diet" of 357 mag out of a "K" frame doesn't necessarily "Speak Volumes". I haven't read any place official from S&W or other reputable source that says that is the definitive reason for making the "L" frame. Ford came out with the Focus to replace the Escort, and the 500 to replace the Taurus. Not because the former two cars were problems, just because modern technology allowed them to build a better vehicle and they didn't need to keep both. Maybe this is a reason for the "L" frame. It's obviously better than the "K" frame in MOST respects. Not as big as an "N" and not as small as a "K". Maybe producing it didn't make sense to keep the "K" frame. I don't know. That's the purpose of the thread.

With all the inputs on this thread, I have gotten more educated. Obviously, there still isn't any definitive answer. There isn't anything official from S&W that I've seen. There's nothing official from ammo companies that I've seen. If anyone knows of anything, please let us know. The only thing that is definite, is that the model 13/19/65/66 are "K" frame revolvers that are chambered and set up to shoot 357 magnums. Until something more comes up, I guess that is the position I will have to believe. If not, then just about any handgun that can shoot a lighter load than what it was intended to shoot, should be used. The 44/44mag, 45lc/454, etc... Anyway, a lot of good info. Thanks.... Mike.....
 
The K frames are not only nice they're easier to carry all day hunting or hiking:)
 
Steve, that's a very good article. I referenced it above in my earlier post. Again however, there hasn't been anything definitive provided. I have however sent an email directly to S&W. I have specifically asked them about the 4 "K" frame revolvers in 357 magnum and what their "Official" position and suggestions are. When they reply; if they do; I will provide their feedback to this forum. Later... Mike....
 
I live in bear country and my only handgun besides a .45acp is my 19-4.

From what I am reading I think I am ok but to be sure...am I ok in shooting the 200 grain hardcast Cor-Bons through my gun?
 
SteveC- I realize the problem is the thin barrel at the bottom of the forcing cone due to cutting it to clear the ejector rod. But doesn't the J frame require a similar cut? I haven't gone and looked but I can't believe a 357 J frame has more room for the barrel than a 357 K frame.
 
Several points are worth making...

It would be useful to ask this question over to the S&W forum.

Quoting here from the "Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson" 3rd Edition by Supica and Nahas, pg. 247 "The K frame .357 Magnums became immensely popular as police revolvers. However, some felt that extensive firing of full power .357 ammunition in the relatively light framed guns was wearing on both gun and shooter. There appeared to be a demand for a .357 that handled like a K frame with the heft and durability of an N frame. The L frame was introduced as this compromise size with design input from Roy Jinks, and quickly established itself in the law enforcement and hunting markets." They also had a full length underlug which many shooters felt held down recoil.

From the beginning of their production the K frame .357s , beginning with the M19, were thicker in the area of the yoke at the forceing cone than other K frames. The most significant engineering change regarding this was the movement of the gas check from the frame to the cylinder which helped in flame cutting specifically with the lighter 125 gr. loads. This occured about 1977 and occured with all S&W revolvers.

When Bill Jordan proposed the idea of a K frame .357 to S&W it was with the concept that mostly .38 Spl. would be shot out of it and .357 used for carry. This was meant to be a boon to LEOS who tired of the weight of an N frame but wanted a .357.

Was there a problem with K frame .357s? Yes. But the problem was not so much the gun as how they were used. The problems were:

One; Poor maintenance. A poorly maintained gun is more likely to go out of time than a well maintained one. Once out of time (spitting lead, barrel to cylinder gap grows, etc.) they will wear more rapidly in all areas, including the forceing cone. Filth allowed to build up in the area of the forceing cone, as has been mentioned, will lead to cracked forceing cones.

Two; Misuse. Exactly what is a "full power load" or a "hot load"? A 180 gr. bullet at 1300-1400 fps out of a 6" barrel is a hunting load. The K frame .357s are relatively light weight guns. A steady diet of this load will accelerate wear on both the gun and the shooter in a K frame. I've worn out a M28 with these loads with 180-200 gr. bullets. Many shooters wanted their .357s in the K frame to do what an N frame could and complained when they could not take the same wear or developed problems more rapidly than the larger guns. If after 450 rounds(or 700, or whatever) of 158 gr. jhp hunting loads at 1400 fps the relatively thin area of the forceing cone cracks it was because the shooter was useing the piece in a way it was not intended to be used and a way most shooters did not use their light weight .357s when first introduced.

The 125 gr. loads at 1300 fps tend to have more flame cutting going on (as well as muzzle blast and noise) than some other loads. This may accelerate wear and the syptoms of wear can be addressed and the gun restored. If ignored, well wear just don't fix itself.

There are different power levels of the .357 some better for self defense and some for hunting.The latter in a K or J frame will cause problems over time and in the J hurt like hell right away.

Yes the N, L, K and J frames can all shoot .357. But not all .357 is made equally and some will rapidly wear out a lighter and less burly gun more rapidly. When you think about it this should comes as no surprise, however to some it does, likely cuz they never thought of it.

So that's my understanding of the sit. Hope this adds something.

tipoc
 
tipoc; while your explanation doesn't answer the question conclusively, it by far is a very logical means of describing what could or might lead a gun to premature wear and tear. Just like there is no ruling from Ford that says that you CAN'T use a Ford Focus to move a Piano, it makes sense that if you did, you'd be expected to hear the Focus scream as though it got kicked in the balls.

As such, S&W doesn't have to mention the limitations of their weapons. Unfortunately, in their FAQ on their website, the question of what kind of Ammo can I use in my handgun? The answer states; Any Factory Loaded Ammo. This is a bit misleading. Because you bring up a great point that the model 13/19/65/66 wasn't intended necessarily to go bear or elk hunting with 180g bullets doing 1400 fps with thousands of rounds. On the other hand, is that just an assumption? Could the larger "N" frames that ARE primarily used for hunting, larger and such, NOT because they can shoot a faster and heavier bullet, but because it's a hunting handgun it needed to be bigger and easier to hold onto. Also the fact that it is possible to want to put a scope on it?

So, I can definitely see both sides of this. A 3" model 19 may be a crappy gun for hunting. It's hard to hold. Not very accurate. Hell of a kick. Lot of flash. etc... No, it's definitely not a good hunting gun. But does that mean the gun can't be used to shoot the same ammo. I mean, a 12 guage 3" magnum 870 remington shotgun is simply a 12 guage shotgun. I don't believe that there are certain 12 guage shotgun shells that it can't shoot. Just like the "L" and "N" frame, based on their stature, can shoot any 357 mag ammo on the planet. (Safely loaded). Is the "K" frame different because it originally was intended as a 38 special????

I already have an email in to S&W with the question. I think that is better than posing the question again in another public forum. Whatever S&W says, I will live by. Personally, I would prefer that all gun manufacturers simply state that a certain weapon is capable of using ammo up to 1X,XXX CUP or PSI. Then, ammo could be bought and reloaded UP TO such a pressure. Anyway, hopefully I'll get an email in the next couple of days. As I said earlier however, you definitely bring up a very could point of using the gun for what it was intended to do. In theory however, using a 125g JHP that is high pressure, according to some, seems to be exactly what a Model 13 is designed for when shooting a person. Anyway, let's see what S&W has to say. later... mike....
 
I have however sent an email directly to S&W. I have specifically asked them about the 4 "K" frame revolvers in 357 magnum and what their "Official" position and suggestions are.
Click to expand...

Their "official" position is whatever the lawyers say it is--and I'm sure they'd be much happier if you bought a new gun with one of the built-in locks :barf:

Don't forget, too, that there can be a lot of variation between .357 loads. I came across a box of "Federal BallistiClean" (Close Quarter Training :rolleyes:) The recoil from this 125 grain lead-free round was ATROCIOUS!! I could barely control the gun! This stuff should be labeled ".357 Magnum +P"! This round would wear down any gun; whereas the Miwall 357 Mag SWC 158 gr was pleasant in comparison.

I don't shoot a lot of ,357 in my Model 66 because .38 is more pleasant and less costly; I'm much more concerned with accuracy and consistency right now than sheer power.
 
At the risk of belaboring a point...

CC you're not the first person to write S&W a letter or email about this.

Bill Jordan discussed it with them. The FBI discussed it with them. Roy Jinks, the official S&W historian and a knowledgeable fella in the field of firearms talked with them about it, along with many others.

S&W rates their guns for .357 at SAMMI specs. They will shoot all types of factory .357. They can shoot a lot of it and a lot of handloads. They will shoot the ammo well until you wear the gun out. At which point S&W will repair it for you likely for a modest charge.

Because they do not know how well a gun will be maintained they can't tell you how many rounds it will last. Because there are small mechanical variations between guns they can't tell you how long they will last.

The speedometer on my vehicle goes up to 140 MPH. I've looked all over and no where in the manual does it say for how many hours, days or weeks I can drive at 140 MPH, or 120 or 100. Is this an oversight on their part?

Like a lot of things in the world of firearms, K frame .357s wearing out and forceing cones cracking, well some of it is true, some gunshow BS and some just common sense. Some stories just linger for decades.

tipoc
 
And that is where we totally agree. I anticipate any response from S&W to basically be; "Model 13 is designed to shoot factory loaded 357 magnum ammunition. If the ammunition is within SAAMI standards, then the weapon should work and last as intended."

While this may seem like a vague answer, it is the right one. Any other explanation from S&W or any other poster on the internet that says something like; "While these guns state that they are capable of shooting 357 magnum rounds, they were intended to shoot 38 specials on a regular basis and only 357 mag ammo on occasion." That is the WRONG answer.

I believe that most people have agreed and concluded that the "K" frame model 13/19/65/66 are IN FACT 357 magnum revolvers. As such, any 357 magnum ammunition that is factory loaded and bought retail is FINE for shooting. Any ammunition that is handloaded, must not exceed the standards set by SAAMI that factory loaded ammunition conforms to. As such, your "K" frame 357 magnum will perform as expected for many years to come. If however at any time, your "K" frame revolver become defected in the course of "Normal" usage as described before with standard ammunition, S&W will repair or replace the gun.

I think that is probably all that needs to be said. The "K" frame model 13/19/65/66 IS IN FACT A 357 MAGNUM REVOLVER. You can shoot cheaper 38 special ammo in it if you want, or you can shoot normal 357 mag ammo because that's what it can do. I think anyone who states; "THE "K" FRAME 357 mag MODELS WERE NOT INTENDED TO SHOOT A STEADY DIET OF 357 MAG AMMO" is talking inaccurately. A few "K" frames have had problems. Just like a few Fords, Chevy's, SONY's, Panasonic, DeWalt, CRAFTSMAN, Makita, etc... have had problems. That doesn't make that brand or model bad. Just means they had a problem with that particular one. But, because these companies are very reputable, they took care of the problem.

Maybe more "K" frame models have had more than their fair share of problems shooting 357 mag ammo. That is a perception. And for the "Collector" who doesn't want to take a chance, chances are they aren't putting thousands of rounds though the gun each year anyway. Collectors don't do that. So, I feel a lot more comfortable in believing that the cracking cone issue is a "Rare" happening that is even rarer with modern Factory ammo compared to the ammo of 30-50 years ago. That the "K" frames are indeed capable of normal use of 357 mag ammo and that S&W will stand behind their products. I'll see what they have to say, but I think this is a good position based on everything I've seen, heard, and read. Later... Mike.....
 
Dispatch; unfortunately you are quite mistaken on this one. Handgun ammunition is different than rifle ammunition. When comparing apples to apples; e.g. 357 mag to 357 mag; then larger bullets are not necessarily better. In the case of the 357 mag handgun round, it has been pretty well accepted that the 125-gr Hollow point is much better than the 158-gr Hollow point. To give you an EXACT difference. A Hornady 125-gr Hollow Point is 1500 fps at 624 ft/lb out of an 8 inch barrel. The 158-gr bullet is 1250 fps at 548 ft/lb out of the barrel.

Granted, at 100 yards, the 158-gr bullet will have retained more energy than the 125-gr has; but it is doubtful that you will be shooting at a person with a handgun at 100 yards. You will see that it is pretty much the same with any ammo. In the 357 mag, there is so much powder, that the lighter bullet goes so much faster, that it overcompensates for the loss of initial mass energy. So, for home defense and ccw, if I was going to stay with the 357 mag instead of a 38 special +P, then it definitely would be the 125-gr. It's faster and it hits with more power. Later... Mike....
 
dispatch,

I think it's a matter of shooter's choice. "Back in the day" the 125 gr. JHP was considered the last word in self defense rounds, most law enforcement agencies used this round. It developed a good rep. This was largely due to the lack of good expanding bullets at slightly lower velocities. But that's not the case anymore. Speer, for one, makes a good expanding 158 gr. round at around 1100 fps out a 6" barrel. To me this is a good self defense round as it has less muzzle blast, noise and felt recoil than the 125 gr. loads at higher velocities. It is easier on my K frames (to touch onthe original question that began this thread) and personally I am faster and more accurate with them.

Shooters choice IMHO as both are effective.

tipoc
 
Some good food for thought here. I have little to add other than my own opinion, which is only opinion.

I will, however add this link to a discussion of this issue on the S&W Forum.

Too, I will add a bit of devil's advocate to Saxon Pig's statements (which I find to be pretty astute).

1: It's fairly rare. Many shooters report firing many thousands of Magnum rounds without difficulty.
Click to expand...
Many shooters exaggerate the actual amount that they shoot, especially in full house 357 ammo.

2: From my observation an unusually high number of failed guns are 19-5s. Failure is less common on earlier models and I have not heard of any 13s failing, only 19s.
Click to expand...
True enough, but wasn't there a problem with revolvers having entire barrels falling off recently? North Carolina, I think?
 
As an aside, with the clear understanding that the L frame's birth was to yield more frame thickness at the front for a larger OD barrel hilt - yielding a thicker forcing cone, recall that the rear frame thicness is the same as the K-frame. recall that the K & L frames will take the same grips - as long as they are both either RB or SB. The frame opening is taller on the L-frame - this permits a larger OD cylinder, required to better clear that fc. It also permits seven chambers in said cylinder for .357M's... or five for .44 Special! Ah, therein lies another 'rub'... check out the minute fc rim on a 296/396/696. My 296 & 696 make my 2" 10 & 6" 66 feel over-endowed. People wet themselves when they see the 696 - and seemingly are happy to sell body parts to get one. Don't... a 629MG or stock 4" 629, at 4 or 6 oz more, is a far better shooter - and will take Keith level loads - and six of them at a time. I've seen used 696's sell for more than a new 4" 629 - several times.

Back to the K-frame... I love my 6" 66 - when I bought it new, nearly four years back, it was the first .38/.357M I'd ever shot. It still doesn't know what a 'real' Magnum is, my reloads being particularly wimpy. Yes, it launches Remi R38S12 158gr LHPSWC .38 Spcl +P at a chrono-ed speed of 997 fps. This round has an earned reputation as a stopper, yet, other than a little leading, is relatively easy on a K-frame. I 'baby' my 696, too... the 200gr GDJHP Blazers, or GA Arms variants, make 840 fps from the 3" barrel - my 240gr LSWC's are under 800 fps. My guns will last... partially my wimpy ammo, partially my anal cleaning habits (That just doesn't sound right...).

To the original poster's query, I doubt you'll hurt that K-frame with 1k rounds a year... S&W should have replacement barrels for quite some time, should you do so.

Stainz
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MMCSRET
  • Locked
S&W K forcing cone ??????
Replies
9
Views
1K
rscalzo
rscalzo
M
  • Locked
Which S&W's are the K-Frames?
Replies
3
Views
437
smee781
S
D
  • Locked
Sound off if you haven't destroyed your K frame with magnum loads...
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Gary in Pennsylvania
G
rbernie
  • Locked
K-Frame Question
Replies
10
Views
847
BluesBear
B
C
  • Locked
new Ruger GP100 or used S&W 66, 65, or 13?
Replies
20
Views
1K
18DAI
1
Back
Top