Do I have this correct?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

corpsmanup!

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
72
Location
Appalachia
I have a Smith K frame mod 65-5 (stainless mod 13- which was the M&P?) with perfect timing, that I just picked up 2 days ago. I have 2 boxes of 158 grain 357 HP and 1 box of 38 +p HP . The general consensus is practice with the .38s and save .357s for social situations- but NEVER use 125 grain 357 as they will eat the forcing cone. (Any discrepancies yet?)
Are the stainless models supposed to be better than the blued steel because the flame will "cut" the top strap by pulling carbon from it and making it brittle?

These are just things I am picking up by reading about K frames- I think I got one damned fine revolver.

Doc
 
Last edited:
You do have a "damned fine revolver" but I wouldn't worry about shooting 125 grain .357 bullets on an occasional basis. "NEVER" is a big word.The "consensus" does seem to be to practice with .38s, and to shoot .357s on a "nonregular" basis with K-frame Smiths but I'm not aware of any empirical evidence to support said strategy. There is a lot of anecdotal opinion out there admonishing K-frame users to limit the use of .357 ammunition that does seem to make some sense.

.357 Magnum ammunition will always cause more wear and tear on a handgun than will the milder .38 Special stuff, no matter the size of the frame. It's the prolonged usage of .357 Magnum that might dictate going to an L-frame or larger. It's been my experience that the occasional use of +P .38 Specials and .357 Magnum ammunition in my own K-frames, including 125 grainers, have not caused any undue erosion of the "forcing cone" or the "top strap". And said shooting has been done mostly out of blued revolvers (a Model 13 and a Model 19) but also with a Model 65 that I no longer have (gave it to my oldest daughter for home defense duty after I retired from le-would like to get another one!).
 
I agree with swampwolf and would keep the round count low with hot 125gr .357's. I personally keep 158gr .357's in my revolvers.
 
The "consensus" does seem to be to practice with .38s, and to shoot .357s on a "nonregular" basis with K-frame Smiths but I'm not aware of any empirical evidence to support said strategy.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is. It's called the "L-Frame" revolver and Smith & Wesson introduced it for those folks who wanted a reasonably sized double-action revolver that they could feed a steady diet of full-power .357 ammo. Prior to that, the only Smith & Wesson .357s were the N-Frames.

The K-frame .357s shoot loose pretty quickly with the 158 jacketed ammo...and the hot 125s and 110s were and are rough on forcing cones. 158-grain lead bullets at full power levels weren't so hard on'em as the jacketed stuff.

But, "never" is a big word. A limited amount won't hurt the guns. Just don't make it a habit.
 
The 125 grain bullets driven to maximum velocities used large charges of relatively slow-burning powders. Handloaders know the powder types as WW296 and H-110, among others. The combination of slow ball-type powders and the short bearing surface of the 125 bullets allows prolonged gas cutting of the forcing cone and top strap area, accelerating erosion and wear.

Borescope studies of rifle, machine gun, and auto cannon chamber throats shows a lizzard-skin-like texture due to this gas cutting damage, called "brinelling". The results of brinelling are fine microcracks that weaken the surface of the steel, and further promote erosion. In machine guns and auto cannons, barrel life is measured in terms of "useable accuracy", and round counts that determine this are based on group sizes at engagement ranges.

In the K-frame magnums, the forcing cone dimensions combined with the barrel shank dimensions results in a relatively thin shank at the 6 o'clock position, where a machine cut is made to clear the crane. This is usually where the forcing cone cracks. The L and N frames use much beefier barrel shanks and do not have this cut. S&W intended the K frame magnums to be "carried much and fired seldom" service arms, designed to fire .38 Specials indefinitely, with light to moderate use of .357 Magnums. You notice that S&W has discontinued production of K frame .357 magnums, no doubt due to product liability issues and a couple generations of K frame magnum experience.
 
There is some question on the K frame 357s. One former police armorer reported a 19 that split the forcing cone after 500 rounds of lead 38 target loads. Others note thousands of rounds of Magnum ammo without incident. The armorer had a theory that carbon build up caused the increased stress and cracking. He noted that the really clean guns never failed while the dirty ones did.

At this point I don't know what to say. I would point out that from my observations the most suspicious model is the 19-5. Seems to be more of these than all others combined that have failed.

I have a Model 19-3 shipped in 1970 to a federal agency that was used fairly extensively with 110 and 125 Magnum loads. After thousands of rounds it remains in perfect mechanical condition. I also had a 13 that was a former cop gun and showed evidence of much hard use. It rattled a bit from all the shooting but still worked fine. While I owned it I shot nothing through it but 125 Magnum loads without any serious problems developing.

Stainless is tougher than carbon steel. I suspect you could shoot your 65 all you want. I can tell you that I would not own a gun I was afraid to shoot. I would either shoot it and not worry about it or sell it.
 
I am certainly not worried about it. I have never had to use a ccw in a sd situation- and I hope never to have to. However I will not think twice about loading the 357 for sd and shooting 38s for practice as I do not reload and would rather shoot more often with 38. I molested most of the guns in the case the day I bought it, and believe I found the best specimen with the tightest lock up, best timing and butter like action.
Thank you for all of the replies.
Doc
 
My 3" M-65 gets a steady diet of +P .38. Good energy, repeatable performance, does not rattle the weapon in any way.
I have read descriptions of the M-65 as "the finest fighting handgun", "everything you need, nothing you don't", & etcetera...
I much enjoy enjoy shooting my example and hope to gain enough proficiency to use it as my primary weapon in some classes.
MM
 
I've run many thousands of rounds through my 1984 Model 65-3, including SOME of the nasty 110 grain stuff that was even more rough on K frames than the hot 125 grain defense loads. My M65 is still nice and tight too! Never a problem.


HOWEVER . . . for fun shooting, I usually shoot 148 grain wadcutter bullets loaded in .357 cases. They are tons of fun to shoot. Ditto too on the same bullets loaded into .38 Special brass.


Other than a shooter's curiosity, and to make sure any handgun shoots to point-of-aim, WHY shoot super-expensive and HOT ammo in ANY gun in casual practice sessions? To do so wears on guns and shooters alike.


It amazes me how folks continually post to ask "Will such and such load wear out my guns early." The answer is sure, ANY hot load will accelerate wear. The solution is to invest in a low cost reloading rig and "load yer own" powder-puff loads for fun AND economy. I guarantee you that you'll save so much money, so fast . . . that you can buy another gun soon . . . and shoot a whole lot more too with the ammo savings! Just as the statement "Cameras are cheap, compared to the film you buy for it," so is the statement "Guns cost far less than the amount of ammo you will run through them," if you are an avid shooter!


BTW . . . WHAT DO I LOAD IN MY 65-3 FOR SELF DEFENSE?
It is loaded for self defense right now . . . with the legendary Federal 125 grain HydraShock. It has the best one-stop ratings, of any handgun bullet and cartridge, of all time in actual gunfight data.

I have zero fear, with my ammo loading choices, that I'll ever wear out my M65. I wish my new car would last as long . . . and increase in value each year like a fine old Smith!

210304565-3.jpg
 
So, I guess the consensus is that the heavier bullets are better for the 65's, and keep the gun clean?

I just bought a 65-6 that I'm dying to fire. The gun had a problem though that required a trip to the gunsmith. The cylinder release wouldn't work properly and the gunsmith is now waiting on a part. After that, well, we'll see how the gun does with some of my favorite loads, which include 125 gr. flat nosed Sierra hollowpoints---with 5.0 gr. of Unique in a .38 casing or 8.0 gr. of Unique ina .357 casing. I also have some Lil Gun standing by to see what happens with 158 gr. hollowpoints. It should be fun! BTW, this gun is a stainless steel.
 
No.
It just offers more rust resistance with less maintenance.

Not rust-proof, just more rust resistant.

Given enough neglect, even stainless can rust.
 
"Practicing" (training?) with ammo that is lighter than what you carry can get you killed. This was the lesson of the 1970 Newhall Massacre when 4 CHP officers were gunned down largely due to being unaccustomed to firing 357s in their revolvers. After this, the CHP (and many others) mandated carry ammo for practice. Unfortunately they stepped back and ordered all officers to carry only 38s rather than train them with the much more effective 357s but the lesson was still the same. You want the gun to feel the same in practice and in reality.

MM- If all you shoot is 38s you might as well have a 38 revolver. IMO (after much research and testing) factory 38 Special +P is a good plinking load. I would not relay on it to defend my life. I load my own Special loads with a 125 JHP at a clocked 1,100 from my 2" M40. No problems in this or any other gun I used it in and performance is enhanced with the additional 200 FPS over +P. Only drawback is that it does tend to shoot a bit low in the fixed sight guns but at the anticipated range likely not a big problem. If I am going to pack a 357 it for damn sure will be loaded with the superior Magnum ammo.

Call me kooky.
 
I have a .44 mag as well and after shooting it- 357 is light. Point taken on the practice with what you carry though.
 
"Practicing" (training?) with ammo that is lighter than what you carry can get you killed. This was the lesson of the 1970 Newhall Massacre when 4 CHP officers were gunned down largely due to being unaccustomed to firing 357s in their revolvers.
Click to expand...

No, they were gunned down mostly due to inadequate training in terms of tactical deployment and basic self-defense strategies. As a retired le I can tell you that the Newhall tragedy as well as the Miami FBI debacle became models of what not to do in armed confrontations and set the stage for practical training techniques that work in real life survival scenarios.

Which isn't to say that training with the ammunition being carried isn't a good idea.
 
Corpsmanup! Congrats on the new 65... GREAT gun

I think if you plan to holster it most of the time and use outdoors, stainless is a much better option than blued. Holsters and weather are tougher on blueing (probably more the holstering than weather).

Enjoy,

Bflobill69
 
SwampWolf- The official report issued on the tragedy (which I have read) specifically and directly cited the officers' inability to direct accurate, controlled fire from their 357 Magnum revolvers as a contributing factor to their deaths. Yes, other issues played a role, but the investigating committee noted that the officers were unable to fire their 357 revolvers with any degree of effectiveness due to their having practiced with lighter 38 ammo. Three officers emptied their 357 revolvers during the exchange without a single hit being scored. It was felt by investigators that lack of familiarity with the more powerful ammo was a major factor for this.

It was this event, and the situation noted above, that directly led to the CHP issuing orders that all officers would henceforth practice with the same ammo they carried on duty. They decided that not everyone could handle 357 ammo so it was decreed that all would use the 38 Special. A +P load was specified as approved for duty and all training was conducted using this ammo. No more qualifying with light target loads as was previously done.

This quote is from Massad Ayoob's 1995 report on the incident.

"The three officers who fired their handguns were using .357 revolvers even though all of them had only been trained and certified with .38 caliber rounds. Soon after the shootout, the CHP standardized their ammunition on the .38 caliber round, ensuing all officers trained with the same weapons they would use on duty."

I stand by my contention.
 
You can "stand by your contention "all you want but a "contributing factor" is different than "largely due to". The "other issues that played a role" were the "major factors" that led up to this unfortunate event: improper/inadequate training. Again, practicing with the ammo you are carrying is laudable and, no doubt, not doing so was a "contributing factor"to this tragedy. But the Newhall incident exposed training techniques that sorely lacked proper tactical responses to officers being under fire. And the unfortunate deaths of the officers involved were a direct result of insufficient training. Using ammunition they were not trained with may have contributed to their deaths but their demise was ultimately "largely due to" poorly construed training. And I stand by this contention.
 
Back to the issue at hand- here is a pic of my new beauty.
1104081037-2.gif
Smith and Wesson Mod 65-5 with 4" barrel, Kirkpatrick leather holster, and Buck mod 408 Kalinga Pro.
 
I'll add a bit. As another poster said keeping the area of the forcing cone clean and free of lead build up is an important factor in preventing cracks in that area.

Jacketed bullets on top of lead build up are hard on any gun but particularly the K frames. If maintained these guns can fire .357 for a good long time. They were built with a stedy diet of .38 Spl. in mind and occasional .357. Do that, keep the barrel clean of lead build up, and they do well for years.

tipoc
 
As a fan of the Model 13/65 Smiths...I often carry a 3-inch round butt M13, I say...nice score, Corpsman. :cool:

If you handload, you can use .357 brass and avoid the buildup in the chambers that can come with firing a lot of .38s in a .357 revolver. I might suggest a mid-range load of 6.0-6.5 grains of Unique with a 150-160 grain bullet...jacketed or cast. It provides a little more oomph than +P .38 without overstressing the gun, and tends to be an accurate load in all the revolvers I've used it in.

Be aware that commercial cast bullets are very hard, and coupled with the normal beveled base that most casters use...they tend to lead the barrels pretty badly. If you cast, use a plain base with a little softer alloy and a soft lube, and you won't have a problem with a properly sized bullet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
(158 gr.) 38 +P or 357 (home def. for K frame) ?
Replies
19
Views
2K
Hanshi
Hanshi
W
  • Locked
  • Poll
S&W L-Frame - long term Magnum use/abuse - a Poll!
Replies
13
Views
851
Peter M. Eick
P
B
  • Locked
Another K-frame Magnum Question
Replies
8
Views
518
230RN
230RN
P
  • Locked
S&W forcing cone damage
Replies
6
Views
2K
Old Fuff
O
Nacho Man
  • Locked
Nice & Shiny
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Nacho Man
Nacho Man
Back
Top