peacebutready
Member
Looks like S&W brought back their K-frame in .357. Anyone know if these can take a steady diet of .357 factory loads?
Of course unless you have a track record there is no way to know for sure BUT I highly doubt S&W would re-release their K frame .357 Magnum unless it will hold up. Besides, the factory .357 Magnum ammo of today is not the same as it was back in the 70's...Looks like S&W brought back their K-frame in .357. Anyone know if these can take a steady diet of .357 factory loads?
Besides, the factory .357 Magnum ammo of today is not the same as it was back in the 70's...
No, thats heavy.This new K-frame is something like 36.5 oz. That's light.
No, thats heavy.
The old K-Frame Model 19 / 66 Combat Magnum was listed at 36 oz. with a 4" barrel.
Closer to 40 oz loaded.
To quote South Park, "Blame Canada."The new one has a 4.25" barrel.
To quote South Park, "Blame Canada."
Canadian min. Barrel length is 4.2" iirc.
Not loving the black trigger, cylinder release button, and hammer (?). Not loving a glass bead finish either.
I read the original laws were 100mm but of course they wanted to make thing difficult on the people to own guns so they lengthened the min barrel to 105mm. I'm happy Ruger and then S&W countered with making the barrels a little longer to comply with the arbitrary barrel length and allow the people of Canada to again legally own a nice revolver.105 mm / 4.13 in
Ruger did this first I believe, so I'm guessing they sold a lot of 4.2" GP100s up there. S&W seems to be following their lead.
Yeah, me too; lock and MIM notwithstanding ...If they bring back the 2.5" I'm snapping one up.
I'm betting the new M66 doesn't have the cut-out at the bottom of the forcing cone which was the point of weakness on the original .357 Magnum K frames.
The K frames where faulted for cracking the forcing cone in the thinned out part at the bottom due mostly to full powered 125gr JHP's.
Light weight was the only reason there ever was for the Combat Magnum in the first place.
Without going into great detail on the history of them, police wanted a lighter .357 Magnum they could carry a lot, and shoot a little.
A man named Bill Jordan had all to do with getting S&W to make the first ones as the ultiment, easier to carry all day, .357 LEO belt gun of the time.
And it was.
If you want a heavier, heavy duty, shoot 1,000 rounds a week .357?
Buy an L or N frame .357.
We all know it's not a true K frame. If it were there would be no ILS, forged instead of MIM parts and not fitted with a 2 piece 4.25" barrel either. This is why I said "new" K frame. I think my wager is safe.I'm betting the new M66 doesn't have the cut-out at the bottom of the forcing cone which was the point of weakness on the original .357 Magnum K frames.If it's a true K-Frame...you'll lose your bet.
Maybe they thought the M64 and M67 had that covered since they are still fitted with a 4" barrel. Does anyone in IDPA shoot .357 Magnum ammo or are the two .38 Specials good for their needs?I thought the New 66 had potential but the 4.25" barrel is a liability.
IDPA revolver shooters (all 10% of the membership) were limited to 4" barrels until the Canadian wing got it increased to 4.20" to pass their Anti's sniff test.
Now we are talking about measuring the barrel from forcing cone to muzzle instead of cylinder face to muzzle so the nominal 6 thou of cylinder gap isn't included.
S&W is a major sponsor. Did they not have anybody there who knew the rules? Did they really care?