Bunch of .357 and S&W questions

[Nightcrawler]

From a lot of the discussion I've read on here, the S&W K-Frame .357 Magnums aren't strong enough to hold up to a steady diet of .357 Magnum ammo. I mean, from what I've gathered, if you shoot .357 Magnum ammunition every time you practice (perhaps even "lite" magnum stuff like most companies make, instead of "hot" magnum stuff like Buffalo Bore makes) you'll knock the revolver out of time long before it should

So Colt introduced the Python to make a stronger .357, making it on a slightly larger frame (but smaller than S&W's original "strong" .357, the M27 family). Ruger upgraded from the Security Six line to the GP100 to make a stronger .357. Dan Wessons, though only slightly larger than K-Frames in size, were apparently stronger all along due to having forged frames.

Eventually, I've gathered, S&W introduced the L-Frame to lay to rest concerns with K-Frame S&Ws being "weak".

But that was then.

While S&Ws still probably aren't as "strong" as Rugers, they can more than hold their own. They now have a 7-Shot L-Frame .357 and an EIGHT shot N-Frame .357.

So, from looking at it, you might be tempted to think that, amongst .357s:

-J-Frame = 5 Shots
-K-Frame = 6 Shots
-L-Frame = 7 Shots
-N-Frame = 8 Shots

Fair enough, right? Larger frame, more rounds!

But, what does that have to do with strength? Or, have improvements in metallurgy made it possible to drill more holes in the cylinder without compromising the ability to handle a steady diet of warm to hot magnum loads?

Is an 8-shot 627 as durable as a 6-shot 27? Is a 7-shot 686P as durable as a six shot version? Will a five shot J-Frame or a six shot K-Frame stand the same diets of .357 Ammo that a 7-shot L-Frame will?

I mean, S&Ws aren't really fragile, are they?

Because, while I've more or less decided that if I buy a new .357, it'll be a GP100, I don't want to make a decision well before the fact, either, and who knows? I might find a good deal on a 686 or a 686P. In the latter case, that extra hole in the cylinder might be awfully tempting.

Hmm...I guess .45 Colt has spoiled me, as did the .41 Magnum I had for a time. 175 grains at 1250 feet per second (which would probably be considered pretty hot in a .357 load) were fun to shoot in .41, as are 200 grainers at 1100 feet per second in .45 Colt.

There aren't .357 Magnum rounds available that are made cheap for practice, but are loaded hotter than a lot of the watered-down plinking stuff you see, are there? (I mean, 158 grains at 1250 feet per second really isnt' all that hot for a .357....doesn't mean they're not good rounds, I'm just wondering how much oomph I can get for my buck with a .357 magnum.)

 

[Ultima-Ratio]

Ya Gotta Problem With N-Frames?

Once upon a time in 1935 the .357 Maggie was introduced in the large N frame then later the police version (the model 28) also a N frame.
BTW, the Python is anything but strong.

 

[Lone Star]

Nightcrawler-

Your timetable is off. The Python came out at almost the same time as the Combat Magnum, later called M19 or M66, depending on whether it's stainless. Both were on the market circa 1956.

Colt used the .41- framed Python and Trooper because it was the likely Colt frame. Their larger New Service was discontinued, and their small frame (for the Cobra, etc.) was too small for a general use .357. (I know they MUCH later made some D-frame 357's, but those are specialized concealment guns.)

Lone Star

 

[ChristopherG]

Nightcrawler, let me offer input on a couple of your questions.

First, on cheap 357: Zero ammunition makes new and reloaded ammo that's very affordable (see rozedist.com), including jacketed 357 at very moderate load levels (1150 fps 158 JHPs, e.g.--also 125s etc.)

Second, on the quest for a superstrong 357; Why? I'm pretty sure you have big bore revolvers, yes? If I want more than my K-frame will handle with aplomb, I shoot a .41. The K-frame may be legitimately said to have issues of long-term 'poundability' with constant 357s, since S&W had no other reason to produce the L. But the L, esp. in 7-shot configuration, is surely strong enough to shoot any reasonable load (the odd number of chambers meaning the bolt cut falls between rather than on the chambers). If you want to shoot something more powerful, why not just shoot a more powerful caliber? I don't know, I just find S&Ws so much more ergonomic and smooth than the rugers I've handled, I'd much rather move up to a bigger Smith than a Ruger.

So really, I'm curious: Why shoot a 357 if what you're after is a 357 Maximum or a .41?

 

[Standing Wolf]

So Colt introduced the Python to make a stronger .357, making it on a slightly larger frame (but smaller than S&W's original "strong" .357, the M27 family).

Actually, Colt followed Smith & Wesson to market with a .357 magnum revolver by nearly two decades. The Python frame, like the Smith & Wesson N frame, dates to the early years of the twentieth century.

BTW, the Python is anything but strong.

Baloney! The Python frame is entirely strong enough to handle the .357 magnum round loaded all the way up to original 1935 pressures and velocities. The Python's weakness is the hand—but that's if and only if the shooter puts lots of full house rounds through the gun firing fast double action.

 

[Plinkerton]

Just to add, you should definitely check out the smith and wesson forum. There is a lot of extremely knowledgeable people over there. I started a thread a while ago, when i was debating between a GP-100 and the 686, both in 4". I was eventually steered towards the S&W, for more reasons than simple bias. I have also received other information to go for the S&W. I did, and I definitely think I made the right choice. The S&W's seem to be, overall more finished and refined than the GP-100, while both are EXTREMELY strong, and you will NEVER "break" either of them.

 

[Wil Terry]

MY S&W M19 4" 357MAG SIXGUN HAS A TINY BIT LESS THAN 50,000

Rounds through it as we speak. It is about evenly divided between 38SPL handloads of 38/44 proportion with lead bullets and 357MAG factory loads and my handloads none of which were on the wimpy side. So far the only problem I have ever had was shooting the gasring loose at round 39,101. It was out of my hands for eight days and fixed for free by S&W.
Now, does that meet your views of the S&W K-frame sixguns being on the sickly side?
PS: The new guns don't even have a seperate gas ring to shoot loose anymore.
PPS: Quit worrying about gun life and just go shoot the bejesus out of 'em. I have numerous guns with 40,000, 50,000, and over 60,000 rounds through them and I haven't warn one out yet in 53 years of trying. When I manage to do so I will throw it in the trash and go buy a new one [ I ain't holdin' my breath here, guys...]

 

[BluesBear]

Back when I was working on PD carry guns most of the officers purchased their own Model 19s. Many of them also purchased 2½" ones for off duty.

The only problems I ever saw in regard to "pounding" was on older models with the older style gas ring. But that's why they were made separate, so you could REPLACE them when they became worn. Officers that shot them to death suffered most of the damage long after they should have replaced the ring. Gas cutting of the frame became more pronounced as the barrel/cylinder gap opened up.

I also saw plenty of bent ejector rods. This was usually caused by officers never cleaning the excess fouling from shooting tons of lead bullet practice reloads. When it came time to qualify with magnum loads they had to bang the rods to get extraction.

With standard factory loads, by this I mean any semi-reasonable 158gr or lighter loading, a properly maintained and cared for Model 19 from 1960 will outlast all of us here. And I'd even shoot the Buffalo Bore and Garrett extra-mother-thumper loads in it without worry. I know the gun can stand more of them than my hands can.

As for Pythons not being strong? Poppycock! I put over 15,000 through my first one in less than 5 years and it was as tight the say I got stupid and sold it as it was the day I bought it. I have heard from reputable people that every now and then they'll see one that has timing problems. But the ratio isn't really any higher than any other gun.
Forget about the one your sisters friends brother-in-laws cousins babysitters mothers boyfriends next-door-neighbors uncle used to have. How many out of time Pythons have any one of y'all actually seen in person?

Anyone here remember the outfit in Texas that was converting Pythons to .41 magnum back in the 1970s? I didn't hear any reports of any of them breaking.

 

[Ala Dan]

A Plug For S&W L- Frames

Greeting's All-

Nightcrawler my friend, with all due respect to Smith's
excellent N-frame series of weaponary; I think they
answered the call in 1980 with the introduction of the
L-frame. Take all the best qualities of the K-frame, and
instill them in a frame thats "beefed up" in the critical
areas; and you have a winner. I'm a little on the "old
fashioned" side of things, as I think revolver's should
only chamber 5 or 6 rounds; not 7, 8, or 10 (.22 cal).

My experience with the L-frame has been a positive one.
After owning numerous N-frames, I believe that my 6"
686-5 shoots as good (if not better ?) than many of the
old N- frames?

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[Nightcrawler]

thanks, guys

I was just curious. It seems like I've heard a lot of discussion of "fragile" K-Frame S&Ws and I wanted to see if there was anything to it.

There's a 7-Shot 686P in a local Gander Mountain that I liked. But I'm not buying anything from those guys. (Not only is it more than a hundred dollars more than the Ruger GP100 there, everything they sell is overpriced and their customer service has been known to be lacking.)

I also noticed that the 5-Shot Ruger SP101 seemed to be the same size as a 6-Shot S&W K-Frame snubby...

 

[Jim March]

The K isn't fragile. A *lot* of the hottest 125grain 357s will rattle them. It's because of the speed they've got going as early as the barrel rear end.

The Ruger Security/Service series is more or less in the same boat.

My personal opinion: Speer's 158grain 357 Gold Dot at around 1,250fps is a damned good load, and easier on both you and the gun than the hottest 125s. You've also got lots of good 158grain 38spl practice loads and 158 lead hollowpoint 38+P mellow combat loads available that will all shoot to about the same place.

In a 4" - 6" K, L or GP100 I believe these 158 Gold Dots to be a really solid alternative to the 125s. I have concerns about them in a 2" barrel, they need at least 1,100 and they might not get it from a short tube and a longer shot.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Honestly, I'm not that enthused about the 125 grain loads in any case. It's talked about how "hot" they are, but 125 grains at 1450 feet per second isn't really much of what .357 Magnum can do. In any case, in addition to the light bullet, I hear they've got a lot of flash and noise.

I think I'd personally prefer to stick with the 158s and up.

 

[ChristopherG]

I'm not that enthused about the 125 grain loads in any case. It's talked about how "hot" they are, but ... I hear they've got a lot of flash and noise

I'm not so keen on them either. First, because they haven't proven as accurate in any of my guns as heavier bullets; and second, because the flash/noise/bang really is rather ridiculous compared with even a powerful heavier load--say, a full load of 296 under a 158 gr. JHP.

These generate so much noise and flash, in fact, that I'm nursing a private theory that the 'street record' of the 125 load (which logically and experimentally can be shown to have problems with overexpansion/underpenetration) is largely attributable to the PSYCHOLOGICAL impact of being shot with something SO DANG LOUD.

 

[1911Tuner]

K-Frame Issues

Howdy Nightcrawler,

Early K-framed .357 revolvers did have a few problems with the lighter,
high-speed rounds like the vaunted 125-grain JHP. Cracked and eroded
forcing cones were the main point, but a steady diet of ANY high-pressure
.357 ammo took its toll on the relatively light revolvers. Strecthing of the
frame and resulting end-shake is the first indication that you're stressing
the gun too much.

Modern metallurgy has done a lot to solve these issues, but the M-19/M-13
class of Smith & Wessons are still pretty light when compared to even the
L-frames, and won't hold up quite as well to a steady diet of a given lot
of full-powered stuff.

If you want the ".357 Magnum" experience, I suggest handloading. Reducing a load just 5% or so will triple the service life of the K-frames,
and you'll be hard-pressed to tell the difference in the ammo even fired back-to-back.

My all-time favorite load for the .357 is 14 grains of 2400 with a 155-160-grain bullet...cast or jacketed. That's a 90% top-end load that is accurate in most revolvers. It hits hard and will provide all the flash and bang that you'll want. The hard-cast lead bullets are easy on the forcing cone and rifling, and any leading that is left in the barrel can easily be removed with a Lewis Lead Remover kit. Velocities from a 4-inch barrel typically run in the
high 1200 to low 1300 FPS range...and will top 1350 in a 6-inch gun.

Luck!

Tuner

 

[Lee Woiteshek]

I had a lemon Python. I purchased it for off duty use during the mid 80's. It was also manufactured during the strike that eventually killed the firm. First shot blew the nickel plating off the crown of the barrel. Colt sent a new barrel to the place of purchase as it was also a Colt repair facility. It went badly out of time after the installation. I was disgusted with the weapon by then, and got rid of it for a 2 1/2 S&W 66 and some change. When I carried a revolver the 2 1/2 66 was the best of all worlds for off duty carry for me. I proably went through three or four in the search for the ultimate off duty carry, and always went back to the 66. I now carry autos exclusively. Having said that, I noticed that my safe no longer contained a revolver, I remedied that by purchasing a 627. Colt wasn't even a consideration. Ruger makes a solid weapon also, but every auto, or DA revolver they make just seems butt ugly to me.

 

[L-Frame]

Hello,

Here's a strong vote for an L-frame S&W. In regards to the Python, I've spoke with MANY gunsmiths about them because they are so darn pretty and I've always wanted one. Of the 6 or 7 gunsmiths I've talked to I've heard the same story from all but 1: Their frames are very strong but their lockwork is ancient and goes out of time too often, and they are difficult to work on. The one dissenting gunsmith said that he didn't work on them so only had second hand info.

When I finally did buy one I was not impressed with the trigger, even though it was supposed to have had a really nice action by some colt guy from the '60s. It didn't have a good feel to me. I sold it to a Python collector, which, for him was his 27th python (he showed me pictures like most show pics of their kids). He paid very close attention to the timing and told me that in his python searches he came across out of time pythons often.

 

[1911Tuner]

Pythons

Howdy L-Frame.

Good post and correct. The Colt's lockwork could use an upgrade.
Pythons have a couple of things that work against them. One is that
they time as the hammer breaks, which allows for much less wear before they go out of time. The fact that they're chambered in .357 Magnum
only hurries this along. The Smith & Wesson lockwork pre-times...That is,
the cylinder hands off and locks before the hammer finishes its backward
arc toward the break point.

The other thing is that, the "V" mainspring "stacks" as it compresses, and
makes it harder to get a really good double-action trigger pull.

Before the debut of the L-frame Smiths, the only other options were
the N-frames and the K-frames, unless you wanted to go with the
Ruger "Six" series of revolvers. Though strong and durable, they
were tricky in getting a good, smooth action...besides which they
were just butt-ugly...at least I thought so. (Flame suit on)

I had always been a K-frame buff. They were just sweet, and still are...
but the first L-frame that I handled just flat turned my head...especially
after I slicked'er up a little. The more I used it, the more I liked it...and
I wound up buying several.

Anybody for a 5-shot, fixed sight L-frame in .41 Magnum? 4-inch barrel,
with square butt, and 3-inch with a round butt, please Smith & Wesson.
Oh yeah! Put the firing pin back on the hammer, where it's supposed ta be!

Cheers!

Tuner

 

[BluesBear]

Put the firing pin back on the hammer, where it's supposed ta be!

AMEN BROTHER! TESTIFY!

I could put up with that stupid lawyer lock if I had to. But not that damned frame mounted firing pin.
Besides you can't get real solid steel replacements for the triggers and hammers. I put .500" Target Triggers and Hammers on all of my N-frames.
(Except for the .400" Target triggers on my 3" ones)