LoadedDrum
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 612
Do the stainless versions of the K frame suffer the same problems from high round counts of hot 357 as their carbon steel counterparts? I was wondering since they came out a few years latter.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
F frame vs K frame
- Thread starter LoadedDrum
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
Generally speaking the answer is, "yes" and the material doesn't matter.
However most of the problems - such as they were - were caused by extensive use of hot .357 Magnum loads with 125-grain bullets. These caused some gas cutting in the bottom of the topstrap, and erosion of the barrel's forcing cone.
In another area, magnums sometimes accelerated the development of cylinder end-shake (back & forth movement of the cylinder) but this is easily corrected.
Smith & Wesson responded two ways: They brought out the slightly heavier ’86 series of revolvers, and beefed up the K-frame magnums after 1998.
K-frame magnums make great carry guns, but if you intend to shoot a lot of .357 full-house loads it would be a good idea to consider an ’86 series S&W or GP-100 Ruger.
However most of the problems - such as they were - were caused by extensive use of hot .357 Magnum loads with 125-grain bullets. These caused some gas cutting in the bottom of the topstrap, and erosion of the barrel's forcing cone.
In another area, magnums sometimes accelerated the development of cylinder end-shake (back & forth movement of the cylinder) but this is easily corrected.
Smith & Wesson responded two ways: They brought out the slightly heavier ’86 series of revolvers, and beefed up the K-frame magnums after 1998.
K-frame magnums make great carry guns, but if you intend to shoot a lot of .357 full-house loads it would be a good idea to consider an ’86 series S&W or GP-100 Ruger.
I think that in general stainless is a bit tougher than carbon steel but I am not aware of K frames suffering undue wear. There have been a few reports of individual pistols failing (usually with cracked forcing cones) but this doesn't appear to be a wide-spread problem. My K frame Magnums have been shot extensively with full loads for many years with no ill effects observed, so far.
Any mechanical device will wear with use but few shooters actually shoot their guns enough to wear them out.
Any mechanical device will wear with use but few shooters actually shoot their guns enough to wear them out.
bpisler
Member
I've put plenty of semi-hot reloads thru my
3" 65-3 over the last 3 years with no ill
effects.I load 158gr LSWC's to 1200fps and
125gr JHP's to 1350fps,while these are not
quite full power they're wimpy either.
3" 65-3 over the last 3 years with no ill
effects.I load 158gr LSWC's to 1200fps and
125gr JHP's to 1350fps,while these are not
quite full power they're wimpy either.
mtnbkr
Member
In terms of physical toughness, the opposite is true. If you're talking about the finish, then yes, stainless is tougher.pete f said:The stainless material is a bit tougher than the blued carbon steel.
Chris
Lone_Gunman
Member
How often do you guys see K frames that have suffered physically from shooting a lot of 357s?
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.