S&W L-Frames - are they really that weak?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jon_the_Cynic

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
5
Can S&W L-Frames really not withstand a steady diet of FACTORY (not extra-hot handloads) .357 magnums without losing their timing or having some other problem? I keep reading that Rugers are stronger, but have never heard of someone messing up their S&W K or larger frame with .357's. I did read the opinion of someone who believed S&W's being weak was common internet folklore like Glocks being flawless in every way.

Has anyone actually messed up their S&W with normal-spec .357 magnums?

Note: Also posted on The Firing Line
 
Hello,

I think that it is true that the 686 is not quite as strong as the GP-100. But I believe that many times this often quoted fact gives people who don't have any experience with them the wrong idea. While not quite as strong as the Ruger, the 686 IS a very strong, durable, and reliable revolver. Overall, I think it is as fine a revolver as you can buy. It has always been my opinion that if you're shooting loads that you will have to shoot only in a GP because they'll damage a 686, you should be shooting a .44 mag. because they must be off the charts hot.

Remember, the fact that a Corvette isn't as fast as a Viper doesn't make is slow.
 
Until your post I had never heard anyone claim the "L Frame" S&W was weak or wouldn't take a steady diet of full power 357 Magnums. To the contrary, the L Frame was designed to do just that - shoot nothing but magnums.

I think you may be confusing the reputation of the K-Frame S&W with the L-Frame. The K-Frame can indeed be shot loose with a steady diet of magnum ammunition. My old department had S&W Model 66s and started training with magnum ammo along about 1978. By the early to mid 1980s we had a whole crop of 66s that were out of time, had end shake problems, and a few had cracked the barrel at the forcing cone.

Dave
 
The L frame was designed to overcome the shortcomings of the K frame. Basically, you could shoot a K frame to death by shooting a steady diet of magnum loads, especially the 110 and 125 grain loads. The L frame may be slightly weaker than the Ruger GP-100, but I have not heard of anyone doing a side by side shootout to see which one goes out of time or otherwise breaks first. Now that would be an interesting test. Quick, someone send me a new 686 and a new GP-100 and 500,000 rounds of ammo!
 
Although I personally prefer GP100s to L Frames (and N Frames to GP100s), L Frames are substantial revolvers. With a diet of FACTORY .357 magnums, I doubt if many L Frames would suffer mechanical problems in a reasonable "shooting lifetime".
 
S&W L frames being weak is a new one to me too. As stated, the L frame was specifically designed to compensate for the issues S&W experienced with the smaller K frames (which were really slightly beefed up revolvers originally designed for .38 Spls).

The S&W L frames and Ruger GP series revolvers are direct competetors - and purpose built to handle factory loaded .357's. For those that do an extream amount of full power .357 shooting - or hot hand load - the Ruger may prove to be a bit stouter. But for most average folks - the difference is really cosmetics, feel & brand preference between the two.
 
stans

If you get anyone to take you up on your offer could I help you with the test?
 
L Frames are notorious for failing...I am working hand in hand with Smith to reslove the issue. If anyone has a L Frame dont shoot it...send it to me and I will send you a brand new Taurus as a replacement...


WildtheheigthofgenerosityAlaska
 
The Ls ain't weak.

I *suspect* that the GP100 has it slightly beat in terms of long-term durability but the difference isn't at all extreme.
 
Yes, they are junk. Apparently all S&W revolvers are junk and won't handle full power loads or shooting in double action mode. If you don't believe me just scan the forum for the posts regarding all the S&Ws breaking down.
 
The L-frame is anything but weak as most have pointed out. It will handle many thousands of very heavy handloads, and many thousands of rounds of hard fast DA shooting. The purported strength advantage of the Ruger will never be a factor so long as loads used are even close to reasonable, you have to get WAY past the pressures 357 Magnums are rated for before the L-frame will have problems. IMO the L-frame is a better revolver than the GP is, mainly due to the smoothness (or capability of smoothness if tuned properly) of the action. I've owned GP's and shot several dozen over the years, but I've never handled one as smooth as a Smith with an action job or lots of rounds downrange. The GP is a great gun, but I prefer the Smith by a large margin. I would expect both guns to have similar life spans given similar treatment.
 
Greetings Again All-

In my experiences with the S&W L-frame, I have found them too be
totally reliable, and strong revolvers in their own right! I guess the
jury is still out as to whether or not they would qualify as being as
strong as the Ruger GP-100 series? Certainly, the Ruger's are built
like tanks; but I've never known anyone to shoot a S&W L-frame
loose with a steady diet of factory magnums, or hot handload's.
Both, are excellent quality firearms; its just a matter of preference!

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member
 
Whe the 586 first came out, I had to have one. Shot the dookie out of it, mostly fullhouse magnums. I have no idea how many, but I had a Star reloader set up and I would load 500 rounds every week or two. When I traded it off (for a mint ,in the box 3 1/2" S&W Pre 27 by the way...in case you are wondering why I would trade it away) It had a pretty decent amount of flame cutting on the topstrap, it was likely about as deep as it would get. But, the timing was still good, no end shake or any other problems. Of course, that was over twenty years ago and the web of my hand hurts whenever I shoot anything hot...I think I did myself alot more damage than I did the gun.
 
This is also the first time I have heard of a Smith L frame as being "weak". Also, lets not confuse size for strength in regards to the relative strengths of the L frame Smiths to the Ruger GP series guns. Everyone talks about how Ruger guns are "indestuctible" and such, but consider,...Rugers are investment CAST, while Smiths are FORGED. The difference is real. A cast gun needs to be thicker/heavier to do the same thing as a smaller forged gun. Look at the Ruger Magnum bolt guns. I thought they would be just the thing for a .375, but when I saw one in person, I couldn't believe what a big clunky thing they were compared to a Mauser in .375. Elmer Keith wrote about a guy that made a BIG mistake when loading 44 mag rounds, using the wrong data for the powder he had. He first shot them in a Ruger Super Black Hawk, the first shot took the top strap and top half of the cylinder off. Not to be detered, he proceded to shoot the same ammo in a Smith model 29. He shot at least 3 rounds thru it, and it bulged the cylinder in 3 chambers at the bolt notch, but it stayed together. Cast VS forged. OK, I may not have all the answers, but just give it some thought. For the next point, the Rugers use the highly vaunted transfer bar system. Part of the "indestructible" myth surrounding these guns was diminished for me when I broke 2 (yes 2!) tranfer bars in different Single Action Rugers. This after extensive dry firing over a couple of years. I have dry fired about 4 Smiths extensively over about a 20+year period and have not broken anything in them. For my ending, I will remind us all that the Navy Seals have used Smith 686's for some operations that required use in murky silty water that tended to clog up autos. They could have used anything they wanted, but chose the Smiths.

Alright, now that the Ruger guys are ready to flame me for defaming their favorite make, I will add that I carry daily, and shoot mostly a Ruger Blackhawk in 45 colt(There's Bears out there!). I can't shoot heavy loads in a DA gun because of a hand injury, but the SA is OK as it rolls in the hand in recoil. I just don't dry fire them much any more. I also keep spare tranfer bars around.

BTW, I recently heard of a guy whose dad has a 586 smith that he says has a true 300k rounds thru with no problems. Don't know if they were Spls or mags.
 
Thats a new one to me too. I do prefer the GP to the L frames but I like the weak old K frames even better. I've sent a couple Ks back to SW and one did have a cracked forcing cone but I had shot the snot out of them with a lot of 125 grainers. Except for a rare parts failure, I'm sure the L frames would hold up just fine.
Malamute, no offense intended but as much as I like reading Keith, he might have had a tendancy to stretch a yarn a bit. If the guy was still in any shape to shoot after blowing his Blackhawk up like that, he was a fool to shoot it in his 29. Investment cast or not Blackhawks and Redhawks are immensely strong. That is why they are used for platforms on custom hand howitzers. Your Blackhawk will take loads that I sure wouldn't put into a .45 N frame. Not flaming you, just wanted to let you know you don't have to baby that Blackhawk.
 
If I were choosing GP100 versus 686, I'd buy the GP for one reason: easy disassembly and maintenance. This is important if I'm going through a financially strapped spell, or (as I often do) have taken off on my motorcycle for a long-haul backwoods adventure of no specific destination.

I am more confident of my ability to personally maintain a Ruger versus an S&W, esp. under adverse conditions using the tools I would otherwise have along to fix my bike.
 
The L frame S&W is not 'weak'.....

I've seen them go through many year's worth of hot ammo loaded to knock down metallic silhouettes without a bobble.

Our club's "loaner" 686 is still going well after years of such use.

That said, the GP-100 is every bit the equal of the L frame, and easier to maintain.

Some folks, like myself, prefer the grip of the GP-100.

It's really a matter of preference, despite the sometimes fierce partisan bickering on web forums.:)
 
Kaz 67, no offense taken, and trust me, I don't baby the Ruger SA's, I just keep spare transfer bars around in case I have another one break. And yes, I agree that the Rugers should take heavier loads than the Smith's in a similar caliber/cylinder size. The Keith story could be a tall tale, or it could be a Ruger that got through with a flaw or improper heat treatment. I just don't fall into the "Rugers are indestructible" camp after the parts breakage I've experienced. I LIKE Rugers a lot, but feel the Smiths are better fitted and finished, and are very tough and reliable guns. Nothing is perfect, especially anything that is made by an imperfect person, as we all are. We all get to choose what we like best. I like Ruger SA's and Smith DA's. Neither are perfect.
 
To pick up and amplify Jim's point above, the one distinguishing difference between a S&W and a Ruger (IMO) is that the Ruger is easy to field strip, flush and relube in the field. Drop one of each into deep mud and see what happens. I am very comfortable with detail-stripping a S&W, but you need tools and a lot of small pieces can be exposed to going places where you'll never find them. The Ruger, on the other hand, readily gives up the trigger group and could be, if necessary flushed with kero or diesel as an emergency CLP.

Having once actually had this happen, for down and dirty field service, my choice would be a Ruger. However, for almost any other role, I do really prefer the Smiths...ymmv. Both are truly fine firearms.
 
I'm the type that will always own the fewest guns possible that fill the roles I need. IF at all practical, I would want the same gun for street carry and woods carry, so I'd pick based on the worst-case needs and then just master (and improve as needed) that one gun.
 
Well I have to say, I'm like this March guy, I've whittled it down to the very rock bottom in gun pile size. If I can't fit them all into a full sized pickup truck, then there's just too many. That doesn't include ammo tho.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Bunch of .357 and S&W questions
Replies
17
Views
2K
BluesBear
B
Sergei Mosin
  • Locked
S&W Model 69 durability
Replies
20
Views
9K
eldon519
E
I
  • Locked
J-Frame vs. K-Frame .357 magnum
2 3
Replies
50
Views
7K
357 Terms
357 Terms
W
  • Locked
K-Frame Endurance Question
Replies
7
Views
762
Jim March
J
ArchAngelCD
  • Locked
Is It Possible S&W Will
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
Panzerschwein
Panzerschwein
Back
Top