New S&W Model 19; any good?

[hhilljr]

As for the new S&W DA revolvers with two piece barrels (shroud & liner), MIM parts and other changes; I don't own one.

I think the jury is still out on those and time will tell if they hold up over the years. Most of the changes are incorporated to reduce assembly time and cost. The MIM process produces small, intricate parts quickly and eliminates the need for most fitting. The two piece barrel system is similar to the old Dan Wesson system where the barrel liner is held in tension against the shroud. There are several advantages concerning assembly with that system:
1. The shroud is keyed to the frame so that the front sight is always "clocked" correctly.
2. Different barrel lengths and shroud styles can be assembled at the factory by simply selecting different combinations of shrouds and barrels.
3. The Barrel to Cylinder gap is very easy to set up during assembly and doesn't require highly skilled workers.
4. The barrel ends up in tension, which may promote accuracy and there is reduced risk of thread choke when the assembly is tightened.

Smith & Wesson is trying remain competitive in today's environment and these engineering changes are necessary to keep costs down.

I really like the K-frames but I've never considered the K-frame to be an appropriate platform for the .357 magnum cartridge. We all know the history behind the magnum K-frames and Bill Jordan, there's no need to go over it again here.
S&W finally acknowledged that the K-frame just wasn't up to handling the .357 Magnum over the long run and they came out with the L-frames to address that issue.
While some magnum loadings, particularly the lighter/shorter bullets, are harder on the magnum K-frames (models 13, 19, 65 & 66) than others, the K-frames will live longer if magnum loads are used sparingly.

I don't think I could bring myself to spend $800+ for a new model 19 when I could buy a good used L-frame for far less money.

Just my $0.02 worth.

I would point out that point number one above is not always true. My 69 uses that barrel system, and it had to go back for repair as the front sight was misaligned. When it came back, it was better, but still not exact. I agree that this should not be possible with a correctly designed system, but the current setup fails quite often.

[Patrick L]

I think you have to consider what the gun was designed for. It was envisioned as a peace officer's sidearm, carried for hours and shot (hopefully) sparingly. And in the day the 19 premiered, doctrine was to train with .38s, carry .357s. Time proved this to not be a very smart approach, but that's not the point.

The 19 and later 66 did what they were designed to do, and did it superbly.

These arguments often remind me of the people who trash M1 carbines because they are not as powerful, accurate, etc. as a Garand. Apples and oranges!

[NSB]

I think you have to consider what the gun was designed for. It was envisioned as a peace officer's sidearm, carried for hours and shot (hopefully) sparingly. And in the day the 19 premiered, doctrine was to train with .38s, carry .357s. Time proved this to not be a very smart approach, but that's not the point.

The 19 and later 66 did what they were designed to do, and did it superbly.

These arguments often remind me of the people who trash M1 carbines because they are not as powerful, accurate, etc. as a Garand. Apples and oranges!

All true, but it makes you wonder why a non law enforcement person would want one. CC with one of these really isn't all that popular now days since the whole world seems to have gone to semi auto for that purpose. Aside from any nostalgia, it's not a great choice for general woods walking, hunting, etc.

[onelight]

All true, but it makes you wonder why a non law enforcement person would want one. CC with one of these really isn't all that popular now days since the whole world seems to have gone to semi auto for that purpose. Aside from any nostalgia, it's not a great choice for general woods walking, hunting, etc.

I see it as a great choice for woods walking you can load it with everything from round ball loads at 400 FPS to deer weight bullets at 12 to 1400 and it cycles perfect with all and as a bonus you don’t have to look for brass.

[tazman]

That 38/357 mag cartridge combination is just as effective now as it has ever been.
A 6 inch model 19 is a great gun to have in your hand for just about any purpose.
Kind of like a handgunners version of the 30-06.

[NSB]

Having had a model 19 "back in the day", to me it's not as good a woods walker as my new Ruger 101 in 357mag. The Ruger will take a steady diet of full power loads....and I don't have to look for empties with it either. Not meaning to call anyone's baby ugly, I personally think it's past its time. I'm a SW fan at heart, but this gun just isn't one of my favorites for a lot of reasons.

[curioushooter]

First of all realize the new model 19 is not really the same as the old model 19. The crane locks differently with a ball detent not the ejector pin. The new one uses the two piece barrel system. The dimensions are slightly different. The hammer and lockwork and the interlock are all very different. Few parts besides the grips and maybe the rear sight would interchange.

If anything the new model 19 is a better revolver, owing to improvements in manufacturing, metallurgy, and lessons learned from the past. The new model 19 looks almost as good as the old, too. So I don't see any drawback. Every new S&W revolver I've personally tested has bested any old one (and any Ruger) in both velocity and accuracy. Some of the new two-piece barrel units have gaps just over a thousandth. Only the best of Dan Wessons compare among double actions.

But for a couple ounces more you can have yourself a L-frame 686 with an extra chamber! I won't buy a Smith with an even number of chambers as the cylinder stop cut is made over the chamber. On odd numbers the cut is made between the chambers. Plus you don't have to remember if you fired six shots or only five...what a relief!

The L-frame was designed to address the weaknesses of the K-frame model 19. It was "for continuous magnum usage" unlike the K-frame model 19s.

[Forrest r]

Don't know if I'd be interested in the new "classic" 4.25" bbl'd model 19's. But the k-comp 3" bbl'd 19's are sweet.

[Patrick L]

I'm with Onelight. For a woods walker, a light gun like a K frame with magnum capability makes perfect sense. In fact, if I recall correctly, there was a S&W ad for the 19/66 back in the 80s that went something like " there's a difference between a hunting handgun and a hunter's handgun". Or something like that.

I'm not debating that an L frame is a stronger gun. It is. Period. What I'm saying is you need to carefully analyze YOUR particular needs and wants. A K frame .357 may very well be the answer.

As an aside, I remember back in the 80s when I was contemplating my first handgun purchase. I agonized over the K vs L issue, and since the L was brand new then this issue was discussed constantly in the gun mags. In the end I went with a model 66. It turned out to be a perfect choice. I have literally fired 10s of thousands of .38 wadcutters. Probably less than 1000 magnums, and almost exclusively 158 gr loads. My gun is still tight as a drum. As I said, perfect for my needs, wants, and desires.

Your mileage may vary, and that's fine too.

And I think the poster above who said a K frame .357 is the .30-06 of the handgun world said it about as well as it can be said.

[NSB]

The difference in weight is about six ounces. Hard to believe anyone would suffer carrying an extra six ounces of anything around in the woods. I can see preferring one over the other for some reasons, but that's a hard one to swallow. Really? If you're that out of shape stay on the couch.

[WRideout]

I bought a 6 in. Mod 19 back in 1986, when I had a travel expense check from the army burning a hole in my pocket. It remains the favorite of all my firearms, and is in near perfect shape yet. My normal load is the 35891 WC over 2.7 gr Red dot, but every trip to the range I shoot about twelve 357 mags loaded light with the 358477 SWC. There is no discernible wear on the forcing cone or top strap, but then I don't shoot it a lot, compared to some others. I don't really care for the recoil of full house magnum loads in that light revolver, and really don't have a need for them either.

Wayne

[curioushooter]

Actually the difference in weight is about 2-3 oz between the K and the L when equipped with the same barrel weight/length and grip (they use the same grips round or square butted).
I think the K was a great gun. The new 66 with 4" barrel weighs 37 oz. But there is no doubt in my mind that the L is better and worth a couple oz. They have the same grips, there is hardly any difference in handling when the barrel is the same.
One thing that is annoying is most Ls are 686s and most of them have the full under lug, which makes them "steer" slowly and muzzle "heavy." In fact I prefered the heavier by less muzzle heavy n-frame model 28 (49 oz) for this reason. But once I held the rare, 5" half underlug 686+ (40 oz), I knew I was holding the queen of revolvers. Interestingly there is a L frame 5 chamber 44 mag, the 69. If that isn't a testament to the strength of the L what is? And could you imagine a better fly fishing in bear creek revolver?

[curioushooter]

Speaking of light revolvers. There are model 60 J-frame magnums. I will not shoot mine with pre-'95 40k psi loads. Even sub 35k psi range loads are stout in the short barreled ones. After letting a few 158s rip out of my 60-18 (26 oz) I decided it was for mid range or specials. Still it is a great packin revolver at 10oz less than a K of the same barrel length (though it has one less chamber). A 125 grainer flattens a coyote with authority and moderate recoil. Not the piece for long range sessions or experimentation, however.

[onelight]

I like the whole alphabet of smiths