New S&W Model 19; any good?

[Idaho45guy]

Saw an article in the latest American Rifle issue and they did a review of the new S&W Model 19.

Quickly scanned it and it sounded like it really isn't close to the same gun at all, and has a MSRP of over $800.

First, are they any good now? And second, can't you get a decent original Model 19 for around $800?

[NC_JEFF]

Used model 19s can be bought for well under $800, so can the 66s. As always, it will depend on the condition of the gun. Try looking at a few gun auction sights and you'll get an idea of what they cost.
Jeff

[osteodoc08]

I’d be looking for an older original model.

[TNsailorman]

Bill Jordan made the Model 19 into a national celebrity. It was a great little weapon in its day but I have no idea about the "new" issue revolvers that S&W is coming out with under the "classic" line. Just do not shoot a steady diet of +P 125 grains bullets in the older versions. It might stand up to them or you might just get a cracked frame as some others have done. My take anyway, james

[Thumbcocker]

I would take an old cut rifled Smith over anything they make now with the EDM barrels. Look at an old Smith side by side with a new one. There is no comparison.

[NSB]

"Back in the day" I owned two model 19's. I never found that gun to be anything special. Yes, Bill Jordan made it something to be desired based on his shooting ability. However, he could have done that with a lot of guns. I didn't find it to be more accurate than any other S&W .357mag I ever owned, and as far as I'm concerned it falls short of the newer L frame guns in every respect except weight. It's selling on nostalgia, not quality or any other features. If you're one of those people who can't live with anything new, get an older one. If you're looking for a better revolver, get a 686. If it drives you nuts that there's a lock on the new guns, find an L frame prior to the lock being put on the gun. I've owned a lot of .357 mag revolvers over the years and the model 19 didn't impress me compared to the other quality revolvers I've owned over the years. Just my opinion, everyone has one.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

I can't really disagree with anything anyone has said so far. I think that the Model 19 of the '60s was a great gun for it's time. It was a follow-on of the .38 Special K-Frame series like the Mod. 15, which was considered the best Police revolver of it's time for a couple of decades, but which was not chambered for .357. The difference, according to S&W at the time, was in the heat treatment resulting in superior strength in a revolver of the same size. Don't ask me how I know-- too long of a story.

Anyway, although the 19 could handle .357 cartridges the wisdom derived after they'd been in circulation for several years was that a steady diet of heavy loads would shoot them loose. Law Enforcement very often did their practice with .38 Specials and their qualification and carry with .357s. If you desired a gun that would shoot .357s all day long forever (well-- maybe not forever) a S&W Mod. 28 or Colt Trooper was a better answer. S&W recognized the problem, and made a compromise design in the 586/686 series that had the K-Frame grip, but everything else was a N-Frame. They are great guns. Most of these S&Ws of that time period exhibited great craftsmanship and function. Of course, there was always the guy who claimed to have gotten a lemon, but their stories were often suspect as the vast majority of these revolvers were uniformly excellent and with a little gunsmithing of the actions could be made to really shine. Just like it wasn't the best practice to shoot a continuous diet of heavy .357 loads in the Mod. 19, it wasn't really the best policy to constantly shoot lots of +p and +P+ ammo in the standard K-38s.

That brings us to the current crop of S&W revolvers. Times, designs, and manufacturing changes. The new products aren't what the old products were, but different doesn't necessarily mean bad. Because the older S&Ws were finished to such a high standard (read expensive to make) and the handgun world has shifted away to semi-autos with polymer frames (read plastic) the product line was redesigned to be competitive. I recently purchased a newer Mod. 67-6 from a fellow forum member, and it's rapidly becoming a favorite. It was made as a +P .38 and one can see where it's a little beefier than the older Mod. 15. It's in stainless, another good thing for damp climates, and although it has the key lock that doesn't interfere with anything. It shoots well, is accurate, and I've got no complaints. I haven't handled the new version of the Mod. 19, but don't see how it can be much different.

I have a lingering fondness for the S&Ws of their "golden age", as you can see if you look at the photos in the thread about "what's the last gun you bought" (or similar title -- I believe it's in the Factory Rifles sub-forum), where I displayed a newly purchased Mod. 10, Mod. 15 and the 67 mentioned above. One thing about S&Ws, they were made to be used, and used they mostly were. I don't know if there's a resurgence in interest in them, but really nice examples are becoming scarcer just like pristine VW Beetles. Those of us who were around in their hey-day and used them daily still appreciate them, and the fact that S&W has seen fit to bring the Mod. 19 back says something. Newly made or older, if a nice once comes my way I won't pass it by.

[tazman]

I owned a 6" model 19 back in the day. I shot it a lot. Nearly all 38 special but enough 357 mag that the forcing cone cracked at the bottom where it was thin. I assume they changed that for the new ones but since I haven't seen one, I don't know.
I own both an older 686 and one of the new 686+ models. I have shot them both quite a bit. I can't tell the difference in how they shoot. Both are extremely accurate with either jacketed or cast.
The new one is a 7 shot with a 6 inch barrel. The trigger was good from the factory so I have made no changes to it except for the grips.
No problem with cast in it. I have used 125 grain Lee boolits, 158 grain rf style, and the Lyman 358429 as well as some full wadcutters.
No issues at all. Good accuracy and no leading.
I like a good looking handgun as well as anyone, but, for me, a handgun is a tool. As long as it performs well, I don't really care what it looks like as far as finish.

[engineer401]

The American Rifleman has an article this month. I haven’t read it yet. I had an older 4- inch barrel 19. It had recessed cylinder and the barrel was pinned. It was one of the best shooters I owned until the divorce. I replaced it with a new Classic 586 which also shoots well. I never shot full loaded 357 in either of them. My only concern is the forcing cone of the early models where some shot light bullets with full magnum loads. Careful inspection of the forcing come is a good idea. Truth is, older models in great shape are as costly as new ones so I opted for the new one when I bought the 586. I never looked back.

[NSB]

I had Bill Davis build me two custom .357mag revolvers. I sent him a SW model 27 and a Ruger Security Six to work with. Both of those guns came back as his "one holers". Man, could those guns shoot. A couple of years after than I got a 586 then a 686. Both of those guns shot nearly as well as the Bill Davis guns did. I'd say probably 95% as accurate. The 586 could shoot five shots in an inch at 50 yards on the days I could do my part, and that's with full power mag loads and J-bullets. No one on the planet can convince me that the L-frames aren't the best revolvers SW ever made....for accuracy anyway.

[Petrol & Powder]

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.

[gnostic]

The beauty of the model 19 is the way it feels in your hand. I have a mid 80's 2.5" round grip with matt finish that I have total confidence in. This handgun is a slick, quick, fierce self defence weapon...

[tazman]

The beauty of the model 19 is the way it feels in your hand. I have a mid 80's 2.5" round grip with matt finish that I have total confidence in. This handgun is a slick, quick, fierce self defence weapon...

I agree. I have a model 15 with a 4 inch barrel and it feels just as you describe. The model 19 I used to have felt the same way. I think any of the K frame revolvers are like that.
I still won't give up my 686 revolvers.

[StrawHat]

I carried a M19 for a dozen years as a LEO. As a range officer I could carry whatever I wanted but settled on the M19 or sometimes a M10. The M10 was my standby when I as working on one of the 19s from a fellow Officer. I would take his/her 19, issue them mine and issue the 10 to myself.

They are good revolvers. I have not seen, handled nor shot the new 19s. Cannot really comment on them. I will say that each major change to the revolvers of S&W has been an improvement and have all been met with complaints when introduced. The internet makes it easier to find like minded folks and to speak into an echo chamber.

For the money, you should be able to find a great older model. Unless you are a competitive shooter, it will outlast you.

Kevin

[Elkins45]

The first centerfire handgun I ever owned is a 4” 19-4 I bought in 1981. People trashed those guns because they were made by Bangor Punta and “they are garbage compared to the good old S&W.” When people see that gun today they say “Now that’s a REAL S&W. They don’t make them like that anymore!”

If you want to shoot mostly 38 special or you just want to admire it then buy yourself a used original. If you want to shoot magnums then buy a new gun. With the new gun you don’t have the weak forcing cone and you do have the lifetime service policy. If your two piece barrel comes apart then it gets fixed for free. If your old forcing cone splits you get a repair bill.

Yes, I know the new guns have the stupid lock. It takes five minutes to remove if it bothers you.

[dogdoc]

New barrels not available for old 19. Buy the new if you are a shooter as you can shoot magnums til the exwife comes home.

[Norske]

I have my late father-in-law's model 19 from the 1970's. It's lovely, but not really good for full-power 357 ammunition. Look at the rear of a 19's barrel. There is a flat area to provide clearance for the cylinder pin bushing. My FIL split his original barrel shooting factory 125 JHP ammunition. S&W replaced it, but told him not to shoot that stuff anymore because it was too violent for the forcing cone in a 19. I shoot nothing over 38+p in it now.

[gnostic]

I agree. I have a model 15 with a 4 inch barrel and it feels just as you describe. The model 19 I used to have felt the same way. I think any of the K frame revolvers are like that.
I still won't give up my 686 revolvers.

They're different guns the 686 and the Model 19, I have both in 2.5" and wouldn't give up either. If you're shooting double action, the S&W is the only way to go...

[Petrol & Powder]

So a few folks here seem to be talking about model 19's as if they were all the same. There's a significant difference between a new model 19 and the older model 19.

An early model 19 with a pinned solid barrel, no MIM parts, no internal lock and a hammer mounted firing pin is not the same animal as a current production model 19 with a two piece shrouded barrel, MIM parts, internal lock and frame mounted firing pin.

I'm not saying the new ones are bad but I am unequivocally saying they are DIFFERENT from the older models. In some ways I think the new ones are better than the old ones and in other aspects, I prefer the older design.

Despite the changes to the modern model 19, I still hold that the K-frame is not a good candidate for long term use of magnum rounds. The forcing cone isn't the only place where those guns break with long term use of magnum rounds. A K-frame that fires a large number of magnum rounds will develop excessive end shake and timing problems even if the forcing cone holds up. Even with the new barrel design with its possibly stronger forcing cone, I would still select a L-frame or N-frame for long term use of magnum ammunition.

In its intended role as a gun that can fire magnum rounds occasionally but is predominately used with 38 Special; the magnum K-frames shine as a lightweight magnum. But for long term use of magnum rounds I would still opt for a L-frame or a N-frame.

I'm not trying to make anyone mad.

And BTW, I'll second what Elkins45 wrote: People complained about the Bangor Punta made Smith & Wesson's and now some folks see those models as "classics". A lot depends on one's perspective. I've owned both pre and post Bangor Punta era Smiths and while they are different, the Bangor Punta made ones weren't junk as they were often labeled.

[dogdoc]

So a few folks here seem to be talking about model 19's as if they were all the same. There's a significant difference between a new model 19 and the older model 19.

An early model 19 with a pinned solid barrel, no MIM parts, no internal lock and a hammer mounted firing pin is not the same animal as a current production model 19 with a two piece shrouded barrel, MIM parts, internal lock and frame mounted firing pin.

I'm not saying the new ones are bad but I am unequivocally saying they are DIFFERENT from the older models. In some ways I think the new ones are better than the old ones and in other aspects, I prefer the older design.

Despite the changes to the modern model 19, I still hold that the K-frame is not a good candidate for long term use of magnum rounds. The forcing cone isn't the only place where those guns break with long term use of magnum rounds. A K-frame that fires a large number of magnum rounds will develop excessive end shake and timing problems even if the forcing cone holds up. Even with the new barrel design with its possibly stronger forcing cone, I would still select a L-frame or N-frame for long term use of magnum ammunition.

In its intended role as a gun that can fire magnum rounds occasionally but is predominately used with 38 Special; the magnum K-frames shine as a lightweight magnum. But for long term use of magnum rounds I would still opt for a L-frame or a N-frame.

I'm not trying to make anyone mad.

And BTW, I'll second what Elkins45 wrote: People complained about the Bangor Punta made Smith & Wesson's and now some folks see those models as "classics". A lot depends on one's perspective. I've owned both pre and post Bangor Punta era Smiths and while they are different, the Bangor Punta made ones weren't junk as they were often labeled.

Maybe?
I have a new 69 in 44 magnum and it is one hell of a shooter. More accurate than my classic 24s and 29-2s. With new manufacturing , I think the new ones with heat treated yokes and radius studs may be stronger or at least as strong as the old 1980s l frames. Plus smith will fix it under there lifetime service policy if it did go out of time. Buy a new one and see if you can wear it out and let smith fix it if you do. I bet you won’t shoot it enough to wear it out

[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.:-P

[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 :guntootsmiley: