Can a K frame Smith handle 5 rounds of 41 magnum?

[Zaydok Allen]

I don't know much about this cartridge, but I was thinking the other day. Since a K frame can handle 6 rounds of 357 ammo (M66), and now the S&W 69 (L frame) has been developed to hold 5 rounds of 44 magnum ammo, could a K frame be developed to safely hold and shoot 5 rounds of .41 magnum ammo? I mean that has never been done on a Smith before correct?

The cylinder diameter of the k frame, and case diameter of the 41 magnum seems to indicate it is possible. I might be wrong there, not knowing the required chamber thickness for a full house 41 mag.

Also, if it is possible, could the forcing cone be made thick enough to withstand long term use? Heavier bullets would likely be less of a strain on the forcing cone I'd think. I know there were issues with the old .357 K frames, but the model 69 really makes me wonder if it could be done nowadays.

Sorry if this has been discussed to death already. It just seems a 5 shot K frame would be a dandy, though hard kicking woods gun.

 

[Monac]

Given that the S&W L-frame was developed to handle 357 Magnum because the K-frame was having trouble with it, I don't think this would be a good idea. OTOH, wasn't there a 5-shot .44 Special Scandium hammerless K-frame, or did I just dream that? 41 Magnum is a lot more powerful than 44 Special though.

Edit: Found it. It was the S&W Model 296, and it was an L-frame.

 

[rcmodel]

No.
The K-Frame barrel shank & forcing cone are already eggshell thin at the gas ring clearance flat on the bottom of the barrel.
It is the only weak link in the K-Frame .357 magnum guns.

http://s1088.photobucket.com/user/steamloco76/media/K-L-forcing.jpg.html

Opening the .357" barrel up to .410" would leave virtually no barrel shank strength at the gas ring cut.

The L-Frame has a larger frame window, a larger cylinder, and no need for a gas ring lea fence cut on the bottom of the barrel shank, so it has enough room for a .41 Mag.

The K-Frame doesn't.

rc

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Thanks RC.

So is the L frame only large enough for 5 shots, or do you think they could cram 6 in there?

 

[evan price]

Monac, I've got a 296. Yes, the diameter would work. Length would not.

 

[rswartsell]

There is an L frame .44 mag. that clearly had to be cut to 5 rounds. Doubtful it will prove to be a comparatively "strong" .44 mag. at that. I'm no S&W engineer, but logic says it would be cutting a bit close (in an L frame) at 6 rounds of .41 mag. I don't think it would have the "reserve strength" that I would consider desirable even it you could shave that chin.

 

[1911Tuner]

The problem isn't so much in the cylinder strength as it is in the frame. Frames suffer tremendous tensile stresses under the pounding of magnum-level cartridges. The L-Frame is Smith's answer to the Colt Python...recognized as a ".41" frame...but the engineers weren't thinking in terms of .41 Magnum when they designed it...and they didn't factor in jacketed bullets.

Even the Model 29's N Frame was marginal for its cartridge, and with the proliferation of jacketed bullets, it became even more so.
Smith has done what they can to beef it up, but there's only so far they can go and still have it meet N Frame specs dimensionally.

The K Frame reached its absolute top-end limits with the .357 Magnum chambering. With anything smaller than the big target-style stocks, it's on the edge of practicality. Try firing a 3 or 4-inch Model 13 with the old Magna stocks and full-throttle .357 ammo. It's painful and it's right on the peg, control-wise.

And, then...there's the physics side of the question to be considered...aside from the punishing recoil. With a K Frame revolver in .357 Magnum, it's not uncommon for bullets in the 150-160 grain range to jump the crimp in the last round or two in the cylinder. The race to smaller and lighter powerhouses isn't without its limits...and drawbacks.

In my studied opinion, the L Frame chambered for .41 Special would be just about right. There's little that you can do with a 210 grain bullet at any reasonable range that can't be done at 950-1,000 fps.

41 magnum in an L Frame would be a bit off the scale. Full throttle .41 Magnum ammunition in my Magna stocked Model 58s is past my personal comfort limit...and I'm not at all recoil shy.

 

[Lucky Derby]

There have been L frames convered to .41 Special.
I have heard of K frames being converted to .44 Special by a long gone gunsmith in the Spokane Washington area. I believe he modified the forcing cone area.
Personally I wouldn't want to shoot a K frame that was converted to .41 Mag. I think that .357 is the top end of what that frame is capable of.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

And, then...there's the physics side of the question to be considered...aside from the punishing recoil. With a K Frame revolver in .357 Magnum, it's not uncommon for bullets in the 150-160 grain range to jump the crimp in the last round or two in the cylinder. The race to smaller and lighter powerhouses isn't without its limits...and drawbacks.

That's a really good point about bullets jumping crimp. I hadn't really thought about that possibility.

 

[CraigC]

There's just not enough meat left in all the right places for this to work and I don't know of anyone doing custom five-shot cylinders for S&W's.

 

[Panzerschwein]

The difference in weight between a K-frame Model 65 .357 and an L-frame Model 686 is only about 3 oz, with the Model 65 weighing 36 ounces or so unloaded.

How and why would .357 magnum bullets want to jump crimp more in the K-frame? There is less than a 10% difference in weight between the two guns.

 

[1911Tuner]

Model 65 weighing 36 ounces or so unloaded.

My 4-inch Model 13 tips the postal scale at 31.5 ounces. The 3-inch...30.

How and why would .357 magnum bullets want to jump crimp more in the K-frame?

With 158-grain bullets loaded up full tilt...fire five and check the 6th. For some reason, it's worse with jacketed bullets. Probably due to the mouth of the case getting a better bite in the crimp groove with cast or swaged bullets.

These are my own observations. YMMV

 

[Jim Watson]

I have read on the internet and therefore it must be true*, that the M69 L frame .44 magnum has a beefed up barrel tenon relative to the .357s. It was not stated whether the receiver ring was enlarged or if they just accepted a thinner section there.
Surely somebody here can make a side by side comparison.

Theoretically you could do the same to get a .41 Special in a K frame, but at great expense.
The occasional custom .44 Special K frame is probably marginal even with standard velocity lead bullets.

I wonder if there could be a metallurgical fix. Gun barrel steels are a compromise of strength and machinability. What would happen if you made a thin shanked K barrel out of some exotic alloy with elaborate heat treatment? EDM/ECM would not care if it were of low machinability by conventional cutting tools.

I don't know how the dimensions compare, but there are some .41 Special Ruger Single Sixes out there. The guy near me reportedly said he would do no more and would not repair the existing ones again if the owners insisted on magnumizing them and shaking them loose. He recommends sticking to standard velocity in his .38 Special Single Sixes, too.

*I think we need an abbreviation here: Seen On the Internet, Must Be True = SOIMBT. Kind of like the term seen for police encounters and emergency room cases; SOCMOB - Standing On the Corner, Minding my Own Business.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I've always wanted to see a .41 magnum 6 shooter on an L-frame.

Shame there never really was a well designed .41 magnum 6 shot on the proper size frame.

 

[1911Tuner]

Shame there never really was a well designed .41 magnum 6 shot on the proper size frame.

There was. Smith & Wesson 57 & 58.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Cooldill:

I've always wanted to see a .41 magnum 6 shooter on an L-frame. Shame there never really was a well designed .41 magnum 6 shot on the proper size frame.

It would fit, but did you read this?

Posted by 1911Tuner:

In my studied opinion, the L Frame chambered for .41 Special would be just about right. There's little that you can do with a 210 grain bullet at any reasonable range that can't be done at 950-1,000 fps.

41 magnum in an L Frame would be a bit off the scale. Full throttle .41 Magnum ammunition in my Magna stocked Model 58s is past my personal comfort limit...and I'm not at all recoil shy.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Posted by Cooldill: It would fit, but did you read this?

Posted by 1911Tuner:

Okay.

Well that's one personal opinion. I'd still like to see it happen if it's technologically feasable. It would make a great package for shooting "police load" .41 magnums, with the option of firing full power loads for wilderness defence etc. etc.

Besides, .41 Special is pretty much a vaporwear cartridge for those who don't reload anyway.

 

[CraigC]

A K-frame and a Single Six have similarly dimensioned cylinders but the basepin of a single action is much smaller than the yoke/ejector of a double action.

I did find out that Jack Huntington will do a five-shot cylinder for a S&W but I think a low pressure .41Spl would be the most one could hope for. No 1200fps loads.

Using a model 69 as a base gun, if you REALLY wanted a mid-frame .41Mag would introduce possibilities but also its own challenges. Or you could make it real easy and just do a custom five-shot GP100.

Besides, .41 Special is pretty much a vaporwear cartridge for those who don't reload anyway.

It's a wildcat, not vaporware. They've been around since the late 1980's.

 

[1911Tuner]

Well that's one personal opinion. I'd still like to see it happen if it's technologically feasable.

Sure it is...but a wise man once observed:

"Just because you can doesn't mean that you should."

Besides, .41 Special is pretty much a vaporwear cartridge for those who don't reload anyway.

These days, so is the .41 Magnum. It's always had a small but faithful fan base...including yours truly...but for the most part, it's always been looked on as a bastard stepchild.

Again...it's not just the cylinder wall thickness that makes a medium-framed .41 Magnum a little less than optimum...unless you don't plan on shooting it a lot with full-throttle ammunition.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

"Just because you can doesn't mean that you should."

True enough. Based on the responses in this thread, it sounds like we shouldn't. It make me wonder about the life expectancy of the M69.

 

[CraigC]

Again...it's not just the cylinder wall thickness that makes a medium-framed .41 Magnum a little less than optimum...

Nope, it's everything really. The barrel shank is too small. The lockwork is known to loosen up with a lot of full power .357's and the .41 would greatly accelerate that wear. IMHO, all moot because there just isn't enough room in the cylinder.

We must remember that there is no such thing as an extra beefy S&W. They are all pretty much built to handle their designated chamberings and no more. Rugers have spoiled us in that regard because there is so much extra meat in them that the engineering of a master gunsmith can squeeze a lot more out of them when built properly. There's just no room to play such games in a S&W.

 

[Drail]

If the .357 cartridge can beat a K frame to death then a .41 Mag. would do it even quicker. I've been shooting a S&W 57 for many years and the idea of putting those loads through a K frame would be like putting a big block V8 into a stock Jeep. It would be lots of fun - for a little while.

 

[1911Tuner]

It would be lots of fun - for a little while.

Depends on your idea of fun.

I have a pretty high pain threshold...but that doesn't mean that I like it.

I had one of those .44 Magnum Mountain Revolvers for a time.

It was not fun to shoot, especially with my "Keith" duplicate loads consisting of a 250-grain cast SWC and 22 grains of 2400. A friend of mine shot it twice...laid it down...and indicated that he'd had enough. Even backing it up to 20 grains...six rounds was more than I wanted to fire that thing in a day.

It weighed 40 ounces, according to the postal scale.

I'd have to approach even an L Frame .41 Magnum with a good measure of trepidation. A K Frame? No, thank you Santa. I'll pass.

 

[Kleanbore]

Heavy recoil can result in permanent damage to nerves, tendons, and joints. Ask John Taffin.

 

[crazysccrmd]

True enough. Based on the responses in this thread, it sounds like we shouldn't. It make me wonder about the life expectancy of the M69.

I don't think most shooters will be willing to fire enough full house magnum loads to wear a M69 down. I know I wouldn't. That light gun is awesome a few cylinders of magnums is about all I care to shoot in one sessions. It's a blast with specials loaded and amazingly light and compact to carry compared to an N frame.