I work for private security agency and have carried a Smith Combat Magnum for some time. We qualify with 68 rounds every six months. In the past it was always .38s for the 50 and 18 357 Silvertips to qualify if we carry a sixgun. However new ammo polices have come in and we must now shoot 50 158 grain 357 Blazers and 18 125 grain Federal 357B every six months. I was wondering if this may be too much for my K-frame, even if i keep the cone clean. I really hate to give it up, I just find the 686 too darn heavy.
Another K-frame Magnum Question
- Thread starter BTR11584
- Start date
- Status
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
I have a Model 19 (K-frame) in which consistent use of full-house .357s split the forcing cone right at the known weak point, the cutout for the cylinder hinge. However this was after years of use of the 357, where during my competition days I would shoot 50 rd almost every day on my private range --plus the rounds I fired in Metallic Silhouette competition. Total unknown, but a lot. ( I replaced the original 6" bbl with a 4-incher.)
I don't think 36 extra .357 rounds a year are going to significantly affect your use of .357s in the field, especially (as I understand it) the Blazer aluminum cased rounds are down-loaded a bit.
However, it's certainly a good thing to be aware of and check for incipient splits frequently. There's some kind of magic-marker test you can use for tiny cracks in metal, but I forgot how that works. My first symptom was binding of the cylinder, making it hard to cock. However, you will know exactly where to look.
It's sort of like my J-frame, which is rated for .38 +Ps to (if I recall correctly) 5000 rd before it should be inspected by a gunsmith and possibly overhauled. So it's something to remember, and my usual practice with it is with .38s at defense ranges, and then a recheck of my laser sights with 5 rd of +Ps.
Which means (hopefully) 1000 range sessions with no "street use."
Terry, 230RN
I don't think 36 extra .357 rounds a year are going to significantly affect your use of .357s in the field, especially (as I understand it) the Blazer aluminum cased rounds are down-loaded a bit.
However, it's certainly a good thing to be aware of and check for incipient splits frequently. There's some kind of magic-marker test you can use for tiny cracks in metal, but I forgot how that works. My first symptom was binding of the cylinder, making it hard to cock. However, you will know exactly where to look.
It's sort of like my J-frame, which is rated for .38 +Ps to (if I recall correctly) 5000 rd before it should be inspected by a gunsmith and possibly overhauled. So it's something to remember, and my usual practice with it is with .38s at defense ranges, and then a recheck of my laser sights with 5 rd of +Ps.
Which means (hopefully) 1000 range sessions with no "street use."
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
ArchAngelCD
Member.
The 158gr .357 Magnum ammo will have no ill effect on your K frame, it's the 125gr high velocity magnum ammo that can cause a problem. The current 125gr .357 Magnum ammo on the market is a far cry from that of years ago so it's not as bad as it once was for your revolver. Shooting only 18 rounds every six month is not a steady diet so I wouldn't worry about that small number of rounds for qualifications. What do you usually carry in your K frame?
Well on the job or for SD I have to use the 125 grain full house Federal. But I mostly shoot 38s or 158 grain 357s, as well as the old 110 357 WWB Border Patrol round but that is a very mild 357 load. By the way I carry the six gun because they only other approved handgun is the G19, and I cannot shoot a Glock comfortably. Good gun, just feels like a 2x4 in my hand.
I also stress keeping it clean around the forcing cone because I have been told a lot of build up is the main cause of the cracking issue.
I also stress keeping it clean around the forcing cone because I have been told a lot of build up is the main cause of the cracking issue.
Last edited:
Radagast
Member
Best write up on the subject I have read is here:
http://www.gunblast.com/Butch_MagnumLoads.htm
http://www.gunblast.com/Butch_MagnumLoads.htm
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
ArchAngelCD said,
Sorry. that is simply not true, by practical and personal experience. I used nothing but 158 gr bullets throughout that period --see post 2. And it is a known problem with K-frames. No offense, but.
The line in Butch Kent's article cited above,
(19-4) (2) (N) (5,000+) (<500-1,000 )
Should read
(19-4) (3) (Y) (5000+) (0)
When you include my gun.
I also point out that the problem has ben around for a lot longer than since 125 grainers started to be commonly used.
Terry, 230RN
Sorry. that is simply not true, by practical and personal experience. I used nothing but 158 gr bullets throughout that period --see post 2. And it is a known problem with K-frames. No offense, but.
The line in Butch Kent's article cited above,
(19-4) (2) (N) (5,000+) (<500-1,000 )
Should read
(19-4) (3) (Y) (5000+) (0)
When you include my gun.
I also point out that the problem has ben around for a lot longer than since 125 grainers started to be commonly used.
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
ArchAngelCD
Member.
Can you show where you got that information? The 158gr rounds were never a problem because they were the standard when the K frame was designed. It wasn't until the velocities increased substantially because of the lighter bullet that the forcing cone issues became a problem, especially with jacketed bullets. I stand by what I said.ArchAngelCD said,
Sorry. that is simply not true, by practical and personal experience. I used nothing but 158 gr bullets throughout that period --see post 2. And it is a known problem with K-frames. No offense, but.
Terry, 230RN
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
It doesn't matter that they were standard. The problem would not show up until some thousands of rounds had been shot with any single gun. Like the Pinto gas tanks and the Saddle tanks on Chevy pickup trucks. You need to accumulate enough highway miles and rear-end and T-bone accidents resulting in deadly fires to occur before someone does some head-scratching about it.
Look, I don't want to start an argument here, but when the problem occurred in my gun (the "personal experience" I noted), I did extensive research on it which indicated that the problem has been around for a long time. I am not going to do that research again. (Some of it was done and results found on the now-defunct packing dot org website in which I was a very active participant.)
It may also occur with 125-grainers more than with 158 grainers, but as I pointed out, it was occurring with 158-grainers long before 125s were common. There may also be additional variables such as better steels and better production methods in the later guns, but at least with mine when it occured, it was with 158s only, and I was a little ticked off that shooters had known of this problem for a while but nothing was done about it. Despite the fact that Colt revolvers do not have either the notch or the problem with forcing cone splits.
However, the Kent article may well be 100% accurate as far as it goes with more modern guns.
Mine is a 19-4 with screwed-in and pinned barrel and recessed chambers if that helps you date it.
Having not shot the gun for years, about ~fifteen years ago I brought it out of retirement for some field carry and plinking at rocks and pine cones and whatnot, and that's when I first noticed the cylinder binding. (All with 158 grainers, which is all I ever shot out of that gun, since I knew the gun and the trajectory very well.) I let it sit for a while before I investigated further, discovered the problem, and did the research I mentioned. Several posts on the S&W forum were informative about it, but I'm not going to dig them up again.
I agree with you that OP's occasional use (18 rd twice a year) of .357s (especially aluminum Blazers) will not significantly affect the useful life of his gun.
Respectfully submitted,
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
