S&W Model 19 (K frame magnum) longevity

[curioushooter]

I recently aquired a model 19 and really like it. I have read up on the forcing cone cracking issue, but am not sure what to make of it really. For example all the "weak parts" of the design are in fact much beefier than the J frames, which are also in 357 and often used with 125 grainers. 357&44 mag were both downloaded in the mid nineties, the time when the J magnums were introduced. My thinking is that if I keep my loads to the 35k PSI max of today, or less, the model 19 should last a very long time, as it was designed to accommodate the full powered 40k+ pressures of loads in the 1950s. I am not sure I want to stoke it maximally anyway. I can already tell the recoil is noticeably more severe than with my 686. Just curious what others think and what your loading strategy is if any.

[M-Tecs]

https://www.gunblast.com/Butch_MagnumLoads.htm

[onelight]

The 19s are a great carry gun but if I wanted a range gun to shoot a lot of 357s I would pick a heavier gun it's not just the barrel issue you mentioned the cylinders will shoot loose , excessive end play is the result quicker than some heavier 357s they are a classic smith model but I would shoot 38 power loads with a few 357s on occasion , and carry 357s when needed.

[tazman]

Take a look at the bottom of the forcing cone right in front of the cylinder. There is a small flat spot there, at least on the older models. That is where they crack.
I had one crack there back in the late 70s.
There are a number of reason given for this that you can find online.
I just acquired another one recently. It will be fed 38 special unless there is a special need since I do have a 686 that doesn't have the cracking issue.
I love the way those K frame Smiths handle.

[reddog81]

What dash is your model 19? How much do you shoot?

It’s the 125 grain bullets loaded to the max with certain powders that’ll cause forcing cone issues. Avoid that combination and you’ll be fine for a long time.

[Hrfunk]

My 2 1/2" Model 19, and my 3" Model 66 have both digested a fair number of full-power 158 grain .357's without issue. I tend to avoid the 125 grain magnums since those were the ones most related to the cracked forcing cones. Interestingly, in the 4" M19 I used in my last video (my wife's revolver), I tend to prefer 158 grain .38 +P ammo. It's softer shooting than the magnums, but it still packs a wallop at any reasonable handgun distance; AND it's easier on that fine revolver.

Howard

[Petrol & Powder]

curioushooter - 1. you're making some false assumptions and 2. this is a well established but not well understood topic.


Starting with the statement: " 357&44 mag were both downloaded in the mid nineties, the time when the J magnums were introduced. My thinking is that if I keep my loads to the 35k PSI max of today,"
That's not entirely true. The SAAMI pressure limits for 357 and 44 mag (35K & 36K psi respectively) were not changed in the mid nineties. The methods used to measure pressures were changed over time (copper crusher vs. psi measurements via strain gauges and other systems) .

Comparing a K-frame to a J-frame and saying the K-frame must be stronger is also a bit flawed. Yes the K-frame is a larger frame but the failure point deals mostly with the barrel shank that protrudes from the frame and the spacing of the chambers from the center axis of the cylinder. So in some regards, the J-frame may actually be stronger in those areas.

Your statement, "the model 19 should last a very long time, as it was designed to accommodate the full powered 40k+ pressures of loads in the 1950s.
"
..is also a bit off. The model 19 was NOT designed to handle "full powered 40K+" loads, "of the 1950's". It was designed to handle some use of magnum loads and those loads were not 40K +psi loads.

OK, moving on now. The history of the magnum K-frames is well known. Bill Jordan was instrumental in convincing S&W that a magnum capable K-frame was needed and S&W came up with a way to make that happen. I can't really blame S&W for that over-reach. I think they looked at the concept and said, "yes, we can make this work". I don't think the magnum K-frames (models 13, 19, 65, 66) were ever intended to shoot magnum loads exclusively. In any event, the magnum K-frames were reasonably durable when fed a moderate diet of 158 grain bullets at magnum pressures. Problems began to show up when magnums were used exclusively in the K-frames and the shorter 125 and 110 grain bullets were loaded in magnum cartridges.

The K-frame (M&P) was a 38 Special design, and in hindsight, that was about the limit of that platform. The spacing of the chambers and the location of the center axis of the cylinder requires a flat to be cut in the barrel shank at the 6 O'clock position. This weakens the barrel at the forcing cone. It is no big deal at 20K psi and it can even handle the 35K magnum loads for a little while if the 158gr bullet is used.

Beyond the forcing cone issues, the magnum K-frames also suffer from some frame stretching and end shake issues when magnum loads are used for long periods of time.

The bottom line is the K-frame was never really a good platform for long term use of magnum rounds. Like the infamous "A Bridge Too Far", the idea of a magnum K-frame was just a little too much to ask of that platform.

Ruger knew this when they came out with their Service-Six and other DA Six series revolvers. Those Ruger's were about the same size as the S&W K-frame but they were designed from the beginning to be true magnum level guns. S&W finally acknowledged their over-reach when they introduced the L-frames (581, 586, 681 & 686). The L-frames were not much larger than the K-frames but the L-frames were true magnum guns from the beginning. The L-frame is what the magnum K-frame should have been from the beginning.

So, can a magnum K-frame be shot with magnum loads without damage? The answer is, "sort of".
With moderate use of 158 gr bullets and magnum loads, that model 19 and other magnum K-frames will give good service. I do think that even in moderation, those magnum loads will result in excessive end shake sooner than when used with 38 Special loads.
With the short 125 grain and 110 grain bullets in magnum cartridges you will see a cracked forcing cone in short order. I've seen it. I'm not talking out of school, it's real thing! How soon will the cracking appear? That's harder to say.

[Outpost75]

The K-frame .357s were never designed to last with a steady diet of full-charge .357 Magnum loads. Back in the day the Model 19 came out the usual practice was for police to use standard pressure .38 Special for practice and qualification, but the Model 19 could stand moderate duty use of .357 ammunition. The gun was not intended to exceed a ratio of 6:1 of .38 Special to magnums, and that being only when the gun would be touched by a factory-trained armorer on an annual basis to make adjustments necessary to keep the gun in proper time and adjustment.

By the 1980s police training and doctrine had evolved to require officers to qualify with the same ammo they carried on the street. This resulted in greater wear and tear and shorter service life of the guns. The Model 19 was no exception and recommended practice was not to exceed a 50-50 ratio of standard pressure .38 Special to +P service loads. Standard pressure ammunition was still used for practice, but duty ammo used for actual qualification. Use of .357 ammunition was still recommended not to exceed the 6:1 ratio of .38 Special (combined of all types) to .357s.

It is normal for a K-frame .357 to develop end-shake after about 1000-1500 rounds of magnum ammunition. When end shake reaches about 0.002" the crane arbor would be stretched and adjusted to remove the end shake. This can only be done twice before cylinder gap opens to the service maximum of 0.009". At that point either the barrel must be set back (common gunsmith fix) or a (+) cylinder fitted (usual factory fix) to correct the condition. Usually by this time the cylinder will not carry up correctly in DA fire, and a wider hand is fitted to correct the DCU (doesn't carry up) condition. If the locking notches in the cylinder are also peened, the cylinder stop will be replaced with an oversized one.

Later Model 19s had a small flat machined on the barrel extension at the 6:00 position to clear the gas ring on the cylinder. The cylinder gas ring was moved from the yoke onto the cylinder of later guns to mitigate cylinder binding with use of the Winchester X38SPD all-lead hollowpoint +P .38 Special ammunition (FBI Load). "Hubbed cylinder" guns are not recommended for frequent use with full-charge .357 ammunition. This is because if shot frequently with full-charge .357s the barrel extension will crack through the thin section where it had less heat capacity. Older Model 19s having the gas ring on the yoke, rather than on the cylinder, do not have this problem, but after about 5000 rounds of full-charge magnum ammunition will require both a long cylinder and oversized lockwork parts to stay in specs. Once a gun reaches this point, if it again goes out of time or develops further end-shake, it already has all the oversized parts in it. Factory practice is not to attempt further repair of an OFG (open front gage the factory term noted on the repair-reject tag) and return the gun because no repair parts are available.

Department guns tagged OFG and returned are scrapped.

In extensive testing by US Customs and Border Patrol at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, GA, it was determined that the K-frame .357s would not pass a 5000 round endurance test of full-charge .357 without malfunctions or requiring replacement parts that required maintenance above the user level.

246738246739246740

The Winchester .38 Spl. +P+ 110-grain Q4070 Treasury load was developed to improve handgun duty performance, but its higher chamber pressure of up to 23,500 psi caused excessive wear & tear on the guns, especially the forcing cone cracking issue. Repeated failures of K-frame .357s in CBP service led to development of the L-frame.

If you want a revolver which will handle a steady diet of full-charge in a volume of 5000+ rounds of .357s or +P+ LE .38 Special loads, without malfunctions or requiring parts replacement, buy an S&W Model 20, 27, 28, or modern L-frame, Ruger Six series 160- prefix or later (Mil-Q-9858A), GP100 or Colt Python.

[Petrol & Powder]

/\ Thank You, Outpost75

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Good post, Outpost75.

[curioushooter]

Thanks for the responses, though there is more to the pressure REDUCTION in the mid nineties than simply changing methods of measurement, though that did indeed occur. I've called or written every major powder company, including Vitavouri, which required the use of a translator (and they use a different method, CIP's, to measure pressure which is why some of their loads are HOT compared to SAMMI stuff. In 357 in particular some of their starting loads considerably exceed MAX loads when tested by SAMMI methods).

This is trivially demonstrable: max loads in of powder and bullet combinations before and after that period were reduced. Speer manual #12 discusses the point and contains both data where the test revolver was a M19 at 35K PSI and "silhouette loads" where a Contender was used at much greater pressure. Example: Lyman 47th (this is pre-reduction) lists 17.7 grains of H110 with a 158 grain Hornady XTP at 42,000 CUP. Hogdon lists the 158 XTP with H110 at 16.7 at 40,700 CUP. If you look at newer Speer data (using the 158 grain JHP) it's 15.5 with H110 (I've called Speer this was tested in 2018 by modern SAMMI MAP at limited at 35KPSI). Not the same bullet but similar. Sierra lists it at 16.3 with their 158 JHP. Hornady lists it with the identical bullet as Lyman 47th at 15.6 grains max (I've called them, I forgot when they tested this but it is at the modern reduced SAMMI recommend max). All of these loads used magnum primers. This represents two grains of powder reduction in the top load, or about 12%, meaning old starting loads often exceed contemporary max loads. The upshot: these are not full charge magnums anymore. And to be honest full charge magnums have problems like extraction that car be obviated by backing off a little. Those ultra high speed flyweight loads using heavy charges of slow, hot burning powders appeared to have been abusive. And they are still abusive when you put them in a larger revolver, it's just that it wont suffer as noticeably or quickly.

My point is that there was a genuine reduction in power level. It so happens this transpired at the time (~1995) of the introduction of the J magnums. Make of that what you will, but I have a J mag (a 60-18) and a dial caliper. J frames are less beefy in every dimension but one: because they are 5 shot their cylinder stop cuts are made between the chambers instead of over them, so K frames have less metal between the chamber at this point. But I've measured everything else. The Top strap, frame, crane, barrel, cylinder walls (very nearly identical), etc. are all larger. Even at the 6 o'clock position a K (19-3) frame's barrel is thicker than a J frame's barrel. The L (686-6) and N (28-2) larger still (though chamber walls on the 7-shot L frame are very nearly identical to the J and K frame). There is no doubt the L and N are stronger in my mind. Though it is surprising to me how little bigger the L frame is.

Another thing. The Model 19 and 29 came out the same year, both employ the same sound idea: use a higher pressure cartridge than the parent cartridge in the same sized frame using improved metallurgy to sufficiently strengthen the firearm and therefore delivering a small for power level revolver, making it more bearable to carry but sufficient to do a wider range of jobs. The real problem is that some people can never be satisfied and always seek too much of a good thing until it surpasses the physical limitations. This was something I struggled with until I realized how counterproductive it was.

I still stand by my reasoning that if a J is strong enough for properly loaded ammo than certainly the K frame should be as well as it is bigger is all dimensions but one and was designed at a time when the ammunition was higher pressure. I suspect problems arose in K frame because it was subjected to ammo that turned out far more stressful AND shot more frequently than it should have been. Take away either the excess stress or the excess frequency or BOTH and it should last. Basically stick with modern starting loads. But all this shoot it with 38 Special sounds like a gross overreaction. The things were proofed at whatever 357 magnum is proofed at. It says 357 Magnum on the side (mine does at least). It's not the platform to use for pounding away with uncle Earl's pissin' hot handloads no doubt, but that is not what K frames are all about IMO.

[alamogunr]

It's obvious to me that the two of you were typing your posts at the same time. Very interesting! Lots of good information in both posts and very little overlap.

I don't use .357 mag loads in my Model 19 so I'm not particularly concerned except I bought it used and I don't know what the previous owner did. I guess time will tell.

[El Bibliotecario]

After nineteen years of shooting a Model 19-3 with 13.5 grains of 2400 and Lyman 358156 bullets, the cylinder axis pin elongated to where I had difficulty opening and closing the cylinder, necessitating the axis pin's replacement.

Since I have yet to damage the forcing cone I am apparently doing something wrong.

[Outpost75]

What must be considered with K-frame and J-frame S&Ws in .357, as well as the newer L-frame .44 Magnums, is that none of these had as their "design intent" to withstand high volume use of full-charge magnum ammunition.

S&Ws marketing research presumes that civilian hobby shooters will shoot relatively few magnum loads, and upon finding them unpleasant to fire in their compact, light-weight gun, once their curiosity is satisfied, will use only a few, and from then on do most of their shooting with standard pressure and moderate level +P loads, in a 50-50 ratio which the gun can stand. In civilian hobby use, the manufacturers are banking on that assumption that few owners will shoot the guns enough with full-charge magnum loads to "wear them out."

The serious high-volume "gamers" and others who "love the bang" should not choose a K- or J-frame .357 in planning to shoot it alot, if they want it (and their hand) to last.

[Outpost75]

After nineteen years of shooting a Model 19-3 with 13.5 grains of 2400 and Lyman 358156 bullets, the cylinder axis pin elongated to where I had difficulty opening and closing the cylinder, necessitating the axis pin's replacement.

Since I have yet to damage the forcing cone I am apparently doing something wrong.

The center pin was not hardened on earlier K-frames, so its end normally gets peened in heavy use. A common gunsmith repair method is to disassemble the cylinder and to simply stone the burr off the muzzle-end of the center pin, and reassmble. The factory recommendation is to replace the older soft center pin with a hardened one.

Pre-1980 Ruger Sixes had the same problem.

[Char-Gar]

Bill Jordan was the spirtual father of the Combat Magnum/Model 19. He called it "The answer to a peace officers dream". The first one I saw, handled and shot came out of Bill Jordon's holster one hot day on the Rio Grande River about 1958.

I was plinking at a bend in the river near the old smugglers crossing of Las Prietas. Jordan and another guy rolled up on me in a Border Patrol Jeep. I was using the Republic of Mexico as a backstop and Jordon saw my tire tracks going to the river and follow the tracks to see what was up. They found a kid plinking with a Smith and Wesson K-22.

Jordon decided to join me in the plinking session and unloaded his Combat Masterpiece and reloaded it with factory wadcutter target ammo from his Jeep. He reloaded it with full snort hadloads before returning it to his holster.

This is just to confirm what Outpost 75 said. The pistol was not designed for a steady diet of full snort magnum loads and the original user knew that. As we get farther down the corridor of time, folks forget the past and the lessons learned.

If I want to shoot full snort 357 Mag loads, which I don't often do, I will turn to my 1972 3 screw Ruger Blackhawk.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Something not yet touched on -- changes in heat treatment and alloys. Today we have .357 Mag. "J" frames, but to bore out a J frame of the '60s to .357 Mag., or to load it to .357 Mag. power levels would be creating a hand grenade. Also, the modern "Classic" series of S&Ws including the 19 are doubtless more durable.

[onelight]

The center pin was not hardened on earlier K-frames, so its end normally gets peened in heavy use. A common gunsmith repair method is to disassemble the cylinder and to simply stone the burr off the muzzle-end of the center pin, and reassmble. The factory recommendation is to replace the older soft center pin with a hardened one.
Pre-1980 Ruger Sixes had the same problem.
I had to do this on my mod.29 I have had since the 70s it's been fed mainly 250 grain Keith bullets at 900 to 1000fps probably 10 to 1 with 240gc on 25grns. Of 296 it also developed excessive end shake I have no idea total round count in 45 years , a bunch :-o. Stoned the center pin , shimmed the cylinder still a great shooter.

[Outpost75]

Something not yet touched on -- changes in heat treatment and alloys. Today we have .357 Mag. "J" frames, but to bore out a J frame of the '60s to .357 Mag., or to load it to .357 Mag. power levels would be creating a hand grenade. Also, the modern "Classic" series of S&Ws including the 19 are doubtless more durable.

To a degree this is true, but the civilian small-frame .357s of today are still not engineered to law enforcement durability standards.

[El Bibliotecario]

The center pin was not hardened on earlier K-frames, so its end normally gets peened in heavy use. A common gunsmith repair method is to disassemble the cylinder and to simply stone the burr off the muzzle-end of the center pin, and reassmble. The factory recommendation is to replace the older soft center pin with a hardened one.

Pre-1980 Ruger Sixes had the same problem.

At nineteen years per axis pin, I hope I have the opportunity to replace it at least one more time.

[gnostic]

Let me begin by saying, if you heard it from me, it's probably wrong. I have a theory about cracked forcing cones in revolvers and the model 19 in particular. I believe shooting jacketed bullets after the barrel's leaded up causes them to crack. I've removed strips of lead, 1/8" wide and 3/4" long from revolvers, after shooting jacketed bullets from a previously leaded bore. I don't know what I was thinking, when I thought shooting jacketed bullets was ok to clean the fouled barrel, it's not something I'd do again. Those strips of lead had to cause the working pressure to increase a lot...

[onelight]

At nineteen years per axis pin, I hope I have the opportunity to replace it at least one more time.
Ha ha I'm with you Buddy. :drinks:

[onelight]

Let me begin by saying, if you heard it from me, it's probably wrong. I have a theory about cracked forcing cones in revolvers and the model 19 in particular. I believe shooting jacketed bullets after the barrel's leaded up causes them to crack. I've removed strips of lead, 1/8" wide and 3/4" long from revolvers, after shooting jacketed bullets from a previously leaded bore. I don't know what I was thinking, when I thought shooting jacketed bullets was ok to clean the fouled barrel, it's not something I'd do again. Those strips of lead had to cause the working pressure to increase a lot...
We can find a lot of ways to accomplish the same task :veryconfu

[Outpost75]

While there have been improvements in alloys and heat treatment since the 1980s, today's small-frame .357s are NOT engineered to law enforcement standards of durability. The design intent was NOT to be subjected to high-volume use of full-charge .357 Magnum loads.

S&W marketing presumes that once owners satisfy their initial curiosity and realize how unpleasant the smaller guns are to fire with .357s, they will stick mostly to .38 Specials. The improved metallurgy and heat treatment of modern J-frames and similar will be acceptably durable for civilian users firing modern .38 Special personal defense loads in the volume normally expected of "hobby shooters."

I don't expect that even modern J-frames could hold up in a FLETC-spec. 5000-round endurance test with +P+LE or Magnum loads, without requiring repairs or parts replacements beyond the user level. The 5000-round endurance test was the 1980s standard for revolvers purchased by Federal law enforcement. Never saw more than 50% of K-frames make it. That's why S&W developed the L-frame.

Those who love the J-frame to carry. try just one cylinder load of .357s, then decide how many more you want to shoot. Anyone who persists in doing so I can recommend referral to a hand specialist for wrist surgery when you are ready.

[tazman]

I have a J frame( model 60 in 38 special). I would not want one chambered in 357 mag. I quit shooting anything larger than 357 mag years ago because it hurt my hands and wrists.
My model 19 will do nicely with 38 special as I have larger frame revolvers for that.

[Petrol & Powder]

Just to be clear, there is no SAAMI recognized .357 Magnum +P.
There is 38 Special, 38 Special +P and .357 Magnum.

The SAAMI specs can be found here:
https://saami.org/technical-information/ansi-saami-standards/

It is a PDF document and it is listed under the centerfire pistol and revolver section.

+P+ designations are used by some ammunition manufacturers for law enforcement ammunition that is over +P SAAMI limits. +P+ is not an official SAAMI rating.

The SAAMI PSI limit for .357 Magnum is 35K psi and I know of no decrease in that rating, as a PSI measurement. There were older measurements listed as copper units but those numbers are not interchangeable with the psi ratings.

[Petrol & Powder]

Directly from the SAAMI publication:

"COPPER CRUSHER SYSTEM
This system employs a copper crusher cylinder that is compressed by a piston fitted to a piston hole into the chamber of the test barrel. The pressure developed by the gases from the burning propellant acts through the piston hole, allowing the gases to force the piston upward, and thereby permanently compressing the copper crusher cylinder. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute has adopted the pressure units designation of "Copper Units of Pressure" (abbreviated CUP) for this system. This designation applies only to values obtained using the particular crushers, tarage tables and methods outlined in this Standard.

PIEZOELECTRIC TRANSDUCER SYSTEM
This system employs a piezoelectric transducer flush mounted in the chamber of the test barrel. Pressure developed by the gases from the burning propellant exerts force on the transducer through the cartridge case wall causing the transducer to deflect, creating a measurable electric charge. This electrical charge is converted into a reading of pressure.
The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute has adopted the pressure units designation of "pounds per square inch" (abbreviated psi) for this system. This designation applies to values obtained with transducers and methods as outlined in this Standard."


Note that while CUP and PSI are both listed in the SAAMI tables, those values are reached by different methods.

[Outpost75]

Specs of the 110-grain +P+ .38 Special load from the Winchester Law Enforcement web page:

Winchester 38 Special +P+ (110) JHP
Symbol: RA38110HP+ – Winchester Ranger Jacketed Hollow Point
Shellcase: 38 Special +P+ nickel plated brass shellcase
Bullet: 110 grain (7.1 gram) Jacketed Hollow Point, Brass jacket, lead core
Diameter 0.357 inch (9.07 mm)
Powder: Clean burning, low flash
Primer: Winchester non-corrosive primer – boxer type
Accuracy: Product Mean of 2.5 inch (6.4 cm) Extreme Spread
5 shot targets at 50 yards (45.7 m) from a 7.71 inch (19.6 cm) SAAMI test barrel
Velocity: 990 ft/sec (302 m/s) nominal at 15 ft (4.6 m) Fired in a S&W Model 15 revolver
with 2 inch (5.1 cm) barrel

Energy: 239 ft-lb (324 joules)

Pressure: 23,500 psi max. average (1,621 bars)

Waterproofing: Lacquer applied to primer annulus and Black Lucas applied to mouth of case

RA38110HP+ PRODUCT INFORMATION SHEET #270
Rev. - 6-7-2005

INFORMATION PUBLISHED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT MANUFACTURER’S DISCRETION WITHOUT NOTICE.

OLIN CORPORATION • WINCHESTER DIVISION • 427 NORTH SHAMROCK STREET • EAST ALTON, IL 62024
WEB SITE: www.winchester.com

[Petrol & Powder]

Thank You Outpost, and just to be clear, that +P+ designation for that RA38110HP+ Winchester Ranger Jacketed Hollow point, is a Winchester Ammunition designation; not a SAAMI pressure category.

Correct?

[Outpost75]

Thank You Outpost, and just to be clear, that +P+ designation for that RA38110HP+ Winchester Ranger Jacketed Hollow point, is a Winchester Ammunition designation; not a SAAMI pressure category.

Correct?

Correct. Based on U.S. Treasury Department and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol spec. first revision originally dating from mid-1970s, subsequently revised concurrent with adoption of piezoelectric methods of pressure measurement as prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 as standardized in the 1980s.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a434627.pdf

[roysha]

Why would anyone want to shoot full power loads exclusively? To me this is akin to having a 550hp Corvette and leaving each and every stop sign or light, with the "pedal to the metal". Sure a few times it would be fun but after that it's kinda senseless.

I understand shooting them, full house magnum loads, often enough to be proficient with that load but for the rest of the time a reasonable 357 load, comparable to an average 38 SPEC load would give one plenty of trigger time and be fun to boot. I have put 10s of thousands of rounds through my 2 M-629-1s over the last 30+ years and 99.99% of them were comparable to a hot 44 SPEC load. Both guns are still in service although I did have to shim for end shake on one of them.

[Old School Big Bore]

As a longtime LE agency rangemaster, instructor, armorer etc I can tell you that the 19, 66, et al were meant to be, not exactly 'carried much and shot little', but shot more with training ammo such as .38 wadcutters than with full .357s, as most of the replies here have said. I've spent my life in medium-to-large Sheriff's Departments, not Federal agencies, and have had to battle for ammo dollars with administrators whose only concerns WERE those dollars. Even though I have always pushed for using carry ammo for official quals, when the boss says "shoot these!", you shoot 'em.
At any rate, my 66 has had a steady diet of .38 wadcutters because once I could carry whatever I wanted (44s & 45s), I have only used it as a competition gun in our local LE matches. I know it's had several thousand through it, and it hasn't displayed any signs of being worn out, but I retired it to plinkin'/family training status and found a 686 to use in the matches. Actually, I had the 686 match-ified and I'd really like for it to stay that way, so I only shoot full .357s through a 5" 27, which mostly stays busy being the only safe queen I'll tolerate, because, well, it's a 5" 27, okay? The 66 will get a 'yard period' eventually but I'm in no rush to send it in.
Long story short, shoot .38s in your 19 and since you already have a 686, use it when you get the urge to let off some .357s. You'll be happier in the long run.

[arlon]

I like a heavy bullet and less pressure. The recoil is also easier on my hands for basically the same power. Those light bullets and high pressures are just too snappy to be much fun for me in a light revolver. I have N frames for that. Model 13 and 19 are the only K-frame 357s I own and they never see a full power 357 (light or heavy bullet). Also haven't broken either of them.

[Petrol & Powder]

As a longtime LE agency rangemaster, instructor, armorer etc I can tell you that the 19, 66, et al were meant to be, not exactly 'carried much and shot little', but shot more with training ammo such as .38 wadcutters than with full .357s, as most of the replies here have said. I've spent my life in medium-to-large Sheriff's Departments, not Federal agencies, and have had to battle for ammo dollars with administrators whose only concerns WERE those dollars. Even though I have always pushed for using carry ammo for official quals, when the boss says "shoot these!", you shoot 'em.
At any rate, my 66 has had a steady diet of .38 wadcutters because once I could carry whatever I wanted (44s & 45s), I have only used it as a competition gun in our local LE matches. I know it's had several thousand through it, and it hasn't displayed any signs of being worn out, but I retired it to plinkin'/family training status and found a 686 to use in the matches. Actually, I had the 686 match-ified and I'd really like for it to stay that way, so I only shoot full .357s through a 5" 27, which mostly stays busy being the only safe queen I'll tolerate, because, well, it's a 5" 27, okay? The 66 will get a 'yard period' eventually but I'm in no rush to send it in.
Long story short, shoot .38s in your 19 and since you already have a 686, use it when you get the urge to let off some .357s. You'll be happier in the long run.



:goodpost:

[Dale53]

I had a 6" Model 19 and it shot extremely well for me. I mostly ran .38's but did use a goodly number of 158 gr. home cast bullets at magnum velocities in mine. Mine was more than satisfactory. However, when the information began to surface of cracked barrels, etc. I got a bit nervous. I decided to get rid of my Model 19 when the 686 appeared. I ended up with more than one 686 and have been completely satisfied and have shot mine a LOT!

However, I still have one "new in the box" Model 19. It is a Texas Ranger Commemorative inherited from my Step-Father. I am much more of a shooter than a collector and looked many times at the 19 with a strong desire to put it into service. However, my step-father was so proud of owning this particular piece that, I just cannot bring myself to shoot it (or use the beautiful Bowie knife that is part of the package). Such is life...

Dale53

[Drm50]

I have three 6" m19s and have never fired a magnum load or a jacketed bullet. I don't know how many 4" and snubbies I have owned just in last year. None bought new and most 19-3 or older. My point being that I am aware of forcing cone issue but have never seen it on a S&W 19. I have seen it on Charter Arms and a High standard 357 stub nose. Both of guns had fired nothing but Win 110gr factories. Thing is knowing the owners I would say the damage was done with 1000rds or less. The owner of the Hi-St bought a Ruger Speed-6 and kept on with 110gr Win and as far as I know it's still going strong. I'm wondering how many mag rounds it takes to do in a m19? The average joe that buys a 19 for SD is lucky to fire 50rds of mag loads. If they do any extra shooting it's usually with cheapest 38sp loads they can buy. I don't doubt m19s are victims of this but I believe it is not common because how many are going to have enough hot rounds through them to cause this?

On the other side of the coin guys by a new X magnum revolver and the first thing out of their mouth is they are looking for a load to jack it up to the performance of the next magnum up the ladder. I'm a S&W fan of P&R era guns. However while they are hard to beat for accuracy the swing out cylinder design will fail if they are shot extensively with full power magnum loads. I have never owned a J frame 357 so I can't comment on them but I do most of my 357 shooting with m27 and with WC target loads. The 19s get the least use because the 14s do same job and seem to be more accurate. I have only adj sight models of S&Ws in 6" & 8 3/8" barrels in K &N frames. I have one of each sighted for a heavy cast load but not necessarily the max. These are reserved for hunting and aren't shot that much. I only own one revolver that is tuned with full power magnum loads and JHP
bullets, a 3screw Ruger my main deer pistol.

[Tatume]

I have a friend whose first job as a newly minted gunsmith was repairing cracked barrels and frames in S&W Model 19 revolvers. The barrels were replaced with factory new barrels, and frames were welded, tempered, and polished. He got lots of practice.

[dogdoc]

I know forcing cones have cracked but it is rare. I have a 4 inch 66 I have been trying to break since I purchased it new in about 1983. I have shot the hell out of it with all kind of loads but like a timex watch, it keeps on ticking. Read the handloader magazine article by Brian Pearce on the model 19. He put 5000 full power rounds through one before it needed some tune up. I have 686s, ruger security sixes, and a colt python. The 66 and 19s feel the best and I think the most delicate is a colt python(overpriced). By the way, the later ruger security sixes have a flat filed at six o’clock and they do not have a cracking problem. I security sixes with and with out the flat. They moved the gas ring later requiring the flat

[Norske]

My FIL cracked the rear of the barrel of his Model 19. S&W repaired it and their letter accompanying the returned revolver said the damage was due to shooting 125gr HP ammo. They suggested nothing but soft 158gr lead bullets and prictice with 38SP, carry with magnums. I now have the lovely revolver, and it doesn't get magnum ammo any more.

[Outpost75]

I know forcing cones have cracked but it is rare....

By the way, the later ruger security sixes have a flat filed at six o’clock and they do not have a cracking problem...

On the S&W K-frames failure rate was about 50% in FLETC 5000-round endurance test done on 30 guns over the course of 30 days production, testing one gun at random selected from incoming receiving lots each day.

Flat on Ruger Six barrels was not "filed," but milled. Also the barrel extension was induction heat treated and oil quenched before turning the barrel into the frame with anti-seize, which is why they are less prone to fail.

Whether Ruger barrels have the flat or not depends upon the contract specs. and ammunition specified. Civilian revolvers for commercial sale may be of either type, depending upon what was available, unless a distributor ordered a specific type.

[dogdoc]

On the S&W K-frames failure rate was about 50% in FLETC 5000-round endurance test done on 30 guns over the course of 30 days production, testing one gun at random selected from incoming receiving lots each day.

Flat on Ruger Six barrels was not "filed," but milled. Also the barrel extension was induction heat treated and oil quenched before turning the barrel into the frame with anti-seize, which is why they are less prone to fail.

Whether Ruger barrels have the flat or not depends upon the contract specs. and ammunition specified. Civilian revolvers for commercial sale may be of either type, depending upon what was available, unless a distributor ordered a specific type.

Clearly a design change on the later 1980s ruger production as I have both and the gas ring is on the cylinder on the later ones. Now if ruger would make them both ways at the same time for different customers, I do not know?

Also what difference if filed or milled? I have a milling machine and you are removing metal either way.

[Outpost75]

Clearly a design change on the later 1980s ruger production as I have both and the gas ring is on the cylinder on the later ones. Now if ruger would make them both ways at the same time for different customers, I do not know?

Also what difference if filed or milled? I have a milling machine and you are removing metal either way.

Skilled hand filing can do it, but from my observations of the product produced by trained monkeys at S&W you cannot depend upon it. Most important at Ruger was online statistical process control to maintain minimum required clearance with the cylinder hub, while ensuring adequate wall thickness and then controlling differential heat treatment to provide the required strength to resist plastic deformation which otherwise resulted in ductile failure. I was QA manager for Newport Operations from 1984-87 during the French, India, RUC, DOS-Security and US CBP orders and have personal knowledge of exactly how it was done.

[Bigslug]

A lot of good info already, but consider the following:

Our understanding of terminal ballistics has improved A LOT since the '86 Miami shooting gave us the modern gelatin testing protocols. It's pretty much come down to "shoot accurately, penetrate deep enough, and not worry about expansion/diameter too much". We've gotten away from the idea of hydrostatic shock (in handguns) and "knockdown power", which were the two big perceived selling points of full-tilt .357 ammo back in the day. Current conventional wisdom suggests a good 9mm projectile is about as good as anything, and that even your pokey old heavy bullet 600-700 fps Webley, .44 Specials, etc... will do just fine. If you look at the old .38 +P 158 grain LSWCHP at about 850-900 fps (the "FBI Load"), it looks a lot like a current day 147 grain 9mm JHP, which by some estimates is about a 90% one-shot stopper.

By that logic, the only remaining reason to firewall a .357 Magnum is to improve trajectory for long range purposes - like well in excess of 100 yards.

When you also consider that the previously posted concept of 1 round of .357 to 6 rounds of .38 in an active police training cycle also took into account the notion that the guns would be regularly replaced on some kind of trade-out cycle; and that today we're in the mode of preservation for the long haul, I see no real sense in running the hot stuff in a K-frame at all. The world is full of L-frames, N-frames, and Rugers for that sort of thing.

[Outpost75]

^^^What BigSlug Said!^^^

[dogdoc]

Reading all these post would make you think model 19s and 66s are delicate . It just ain’t so. I shoot mostly 1000 to 1200fps 158 grain loads in mine which are not powder puffs but not full out magnums either. For every one that cracked a cone, there are many many more that have not. Most of us do not shoot enough or will not live long enough to wear one out especially with intermediate level loads. You do not have to shoot only light 38 spl in the guns, I know I have not limited mine to that and it is fine. This issue, in my opinion, is blown way way way out of proportion on the internet. Hell, if one breaks, buy another or buy one of the new ones with the shrouded barrel.

[Tatume]

..., if one breaks, buy another or buy one of the new ones with the shrouded barrel.

And the lifetime free-repair policy.

The Model 19 was deliberately made as light and small as it was so it would be comfortable for a uniformed police officer to carry all day. In most cases it would also fit existing Model 15 holsters as well. Life is a compromise, and this is just another example.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

This thread is going on and on, and most of it has been said. I own several Model 19s and 66s and use them as their creators intended. I almost always shoot .38 Specials in them, but take comfort in knowing that they have the magnum potential if needed. I think that Bill Jordon would agree with me. He envisioned needing a .357 Magnum for law enforcement and self-defense purposes, but just how often did he, or anyone else, need to shoot someone? And, in all of his countless exhibitions and demonstrations he used .38 Specials and wax bullets. Due to great improvements in projectiles available for the .38 Special, my once vote of no confidence in the .38 has now become positive, and I find myself shooting such things as the Model 10 and 15 with much greater confidence in their stopping ability than I had in the past, and actually rarely breaking out the magnums at all. But -- I used to shoot them a lot, and never had a split forcing cone. It has happened, I know.

[Outpost75]

And the lifetime free-repair policy...

The lifetime free repair applies ONLY as long as it can be done using factory parts as available. The Model 19 went through various engineering changes over its years of production and factory parts for guns made before the mid-1980s may be problematic. I know several people who returned 19s to the S&W factory for repair and their guns were returned indicating that required obsolete parts were no longer available.

[Tatume]

if one breaks, buy another or buy one of the new ones with the shrouded barrel.


And the lifetime free-repair policy.


The lifetime free repair applies ONLY as long as it can be done using factory parts as available. The Model 19 went through various engineering changes over its years of production and factory parts for guns made before the mid-1980s may be problematic. I know several people who returned 19s to the S&W factory for repair and their guns were returned indicating that required obsolete parts were no longer available.

I don't expect S&W to run out of parts for new, current production guns anytime soon.

[Outpost75]

I don't expect S&W to run out of parts for new, current production guns anytime soon.

Once a model goes out of production or undergoes a major engineering change, you can depend upon customer service repair parts being available for about ten years. After that all bets are off.

[dogdoc]

And the lifetime free-repair policy.

The Model 19 was deliberately made as light and small as it was so it would be comfortable for a uniformed police officer to carry all day. In most cases it would also fit existing Model 15 holsters as well. Life is a compromise, and this is just another example.

Agree 100 percent. I have k,l,and n frame 357 magnums as well as Ruger security six s. To me, nothing feels as good as that k frame magnum as far as balance and action. I think I will load some midrange magnums tonight and see if I can crack the forcing cone shooting it later this week. I am not holding my breath!https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190819/fb69fffe582c4b2ec44bf6fbbfc9d7d4.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190819/fb69fffe582c4b2ec44bf6fbbfc9d7d4.jpg


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[M-Tecs]

Any S&W purchased before February 1, 1989 is no longer covered under warranty.

https://www.smith-wesson.com/customer-service/warranty

Smith & Wesson’s Lifetime Service Policy begins after the warranty period has expired. Smith & Wesson will repair, without charge, for the lifetime of the original owner, any Smith & Wesson handgun purchased on or after February 1, 1989, and any M&P15 series rifle, that is found to have a defect in material or workmanship. Eligibility for this Lifetime Service Policy requires returning the Product Registration Card within 30 days of purchase.

[M-Tecs]

I have personally seen 3 or 4 Model 19's that had throat cracks. Two belonged to LE friends that shot a lot of department issue Mag. ammo. The other one or two were at a gun show and it possible it was the same one. I have a couple of 66's. They are my favorite revolvers but they are paper punchers and they live a very pampered life.

The question that I have is did the 66 have the same issues of throat cracks?

The web is indicating it is more of an issue with the 19's.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/s-w-model-66-and-cracking-forcing-cones.554994/

https://www.smithandwessonforums.com/forum/s-w-revolvers-1945-present/1121-model-66-forcing-cone-durability.html

[Petrol & Powder]

...........

The question that I have is did the 66 have the same issues of throat cracks?


The answer is YES, the stainless steel models 65 & 66 had the same forcing cone issues as the carbon steel models 13 & 19.

The stainless steel used in the barrels of those models is believed to be a bit more resistant to gas cutting and that's likely true. However, that tougher steel alone is not enough to prevent the problem. I've seen cracked forcing cones on both blued and stainless K-frames. I cannot say that the stainless guns cracked after the same number of rounds but the issue persisted even with the introduction of stainless steel. The problem was addressed in the L-frames, both blued and stainless models, with a thicker cross section at the forcing cone and other design changes. The K-frame was an outstanding design but it just cannot handle large round counts of magnum rounds. Shorter (lighter) bullets only aggravate the situation. The design is not at all weak - it just wasn't strong enough when pushed to magnum levels.

A 1/2" drive craftsmen ratchet will likely last a lifetime but if you start putting a 6' piece of pipe on it and applying all of your strength to it- you may find that it doesn't last as long. That's not a design flaw, it's just pushing it beyond what it was originally intended to do.

[dogdoc]

I have personally seen 3 or 4 Model 19's that had throat cracks. Two belonged to LE friends that shot a lot of department issue Mag. ammo. The other one or two were at a gun show and it possible it was the same one. I have a couple of 66's. They are my favorite revolvers but they are paper punchers and they live a very pampered life.

The question that I have is did the 66 have the same issues of throat cracks?

The web is indicating it is more of an issue with the 19's.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/s-w-model-66-and-cracking-forcing-cones.554994/

https://www.smithandwessonforums.com/forum/s-w-revolvers-1945-present/1121-model-66-forcing-cone-durability.html

Yes some cracked but for that 3 or 4 You have seen, I have seen countless examples that were not cracked. I think I own 5 or 6. I do think when they changed from cup to psi, they toned down pressures in the 357 magnum. Just look at some old loading manuals. Of course even then(and I probably loaded some of those in the early 1980s for my 4 inch 66) those loads were not blowing up guns but they may have contributed to the problems. I think lower pressures are why they can get away with j frame and other smaller frame 357 mags. That is just speculation of course. Look how thin a forcing cone is on a j frame. Again, this issue is blown out of proportion on the internet in my opinion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Petrol & Powder]

.............I do think when they changed from cup to psi, they toned down pressures in the 357 magnum. Just look at some old loading manuals. ......

/\ THIS IS NOT ACCURATE /\

The method to test the pressure was changed, the standard was not changed.

If you have car that has a maximum top speed of 153 Kilometers per hour and then you change the speedometer to one that measures in miles per hour and it shows the car has a top speed of 95 MPH; you haven't changed anything !

The .357 magnum was not downloaded when the method of measuring pressures changed from CUP to PSI.

[M-Tecs]

I don't know how accurate this info is but it does reflect the claims in the gun rags in the mid 90's.

https://rugerforum.net/reloading/103272-saami-pressure-vs-manuals.html

It's confusing ... prior to 1995, all SAAMI pressure ratings were stated in CUP, which stands for Copper Units of Pressure. At the time, a crude method was used to determine pressure by using a pure copper pellet in a pressure barrel. The pellet was measured before and after firing a cartridge and was "crushed" a certain amount in the process (thus the name "Crusher Method") and the amount it was crushed determined the pressure. At the time, 357 Magnums had a maximum SAAMI pressure rating of 46,000 CUP.

Beginning in 1995, SAAMI approved a new and much more accurate way of measuring chamber pressure using a piezo transducer connected to electronic equipment. This method produces a very accurate measurement and is rated in pounds per square inch (psi). Under this new method, 43,500 psi was the same as the old 46,000 CUP.

For many years, S&W had been having problems with their K-frame 357 Mag revolvers (Mod 19 and 66) and their N-frame 44 Mag revolvers (Mod 29 and 629) where the current SAAMI pressures would shorten the life of the guns and in some cases, cause catastrophic failures. So ... S&W petitioned SAAMI to lower pressure standards for both cartridges. As a result, SAAMI lowered 357 Mag pressure by about 20% to 35,000 psi and 44 Mags were dropped about 10% (from 40,000 psi to 36,000 psi). SAAMI still has the old standards on the books but by 1996, nearly all ammo manufacturers went to the new 35,000 psi standard as did nearly all newly published reloading manuals.

When you see pressure rated in CUP, it is old data that has not been tested with modern methods. All new test data is rated in psi. If you look through a newer reloading manual, some of the less popular loads are still rated in CUP but each time a manual is updated, more and more of the loads have been retested and are now rated in psi.

Case in point: If you look at an old Speer #11 manual published in 1987, the max load for a 357 Mag with 158gr bullets was 17.8gr of W-296 @ 1326 fps. In Speer's current #14 manual (published in 2008), that same load has been reduced to 14.7gr of W-296 @ 1185 fps. So ... a 20% reduction in pressure made about 11% difference in velocity.

BTW, your referenced 42,900 CUP load would be about 40,500 psi ... way too hot by today's standards.

[dogdoc]

/\ THIS IS NOT ACCURATE /\

The method to test the pressure was changed, the standard was not changed.

If you have car that has a maximum top speed of 153 Kilometers per hour and then you change the speedometer to one that measures in miles per hour and it shows the car has a top speed of 95 MPH; you haven't changed anything !

The .357 magnum was not downloaded when the method of measuring pressures changed from CUP to PSI.
Unless my car will now only 85 and then I have changed something (like decreased horsepower).
I understand the method was changed but the new psi level of 35000 psi could be lower than a load that was originally measured in cup. The load books support this as well in that . If you measure some of those early 1970s loads in psi, they would be higher than the current level of 35000 psi. Reference Handloader magazine number 302 page 37 ,an article by Brian Pearce on the 357 for further explanation if needed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dogdoc]

We are all hopeless gun and reloading junkies arguing minutia most would not understand but it is fun[emoji3]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Petrol & Powder]

I don't know how to make this any simpler: PSI and CUP are not interchangeable.

[Petrol & Powder]

From SAAMI:

For many years gun chamber pressure units had been commonly referred to as “pounds per square inch”, which was not technically correct. The older method of pressure measurement involves a piston through the side of the chamber compressing a lead or copper cylinder in which the measurement of the degree of compression is indicative of the maximum relative pressure generated. With the advent of the electronic transducer, it became necessary to indicate by some means the method and equipment used to determine the pressure values given. This is important, since the pressure values determined by one method cannot be mathematically converted to values for another, despite claims to the contrary. Likewise, the limiting pressure values for the different systems are not interchangeable.

SAAMI created the designations of “Lead Units of Pressure” (abbreviated LUP) and “Copper Units of Pressure” (abbreviated CUP) to clearly indicate the system used in determining pressure results and/or limits. These designations apply only to values with the particular crushers, test gages and methods as outlined in SAAMI technical procedures. The terms LUP and CUP represented a change in name only. The pressure testing equipment, techniques and the numbers themselves are essentially the same as those associated with pressure units expressed as so many “pounds per square inch” prior to the advent of the piezoelectric transducer method. The term “psi” (pounds per square inch) is now reserved for electronic (piezoelectric) methods of measuring pressure, which is the predominant system in use today.

[dogdoc]

I don't know how to make this any simpler: PSI and CUP are not interchangeable.

What I am saying and m tech is saying is much of the current load data is loaded to a lower level than the 1970s and 1980s. Less powder as indicated in m tecs example. Less powder equals less pressure all other things the same. Nobody is arguing the two measurement(psi and cup) are the same or convertible . Regardless of measure system used, many loads are lower pressure than than they used to be because the load data has been reduced.I can’t be more clear than that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Petrol & Powder]

Is there any proof that SAAMI lowered the actual standards for the 357 magnum in the 1970's, 1980's, ???

There seems to be this nostalgic view that .357 magnum was once much more powerful "back in the day". Almost all of the proof offered to support that view comes from people posting on forums such as this one.

While there may be some truth that loads were reduced to fall in line with the improved piezoelectric transducer method, I know of no reduction in the actual maximum allowable pressure set by SAAMI.

The current published SAAMI limits for 357 magnum which were published in 2015 show a maximum limit of 45,000 CUP and a 35,000 PSI.

If someone has SAAMI published limits for from prior dates that are higher, I would welcome the opportunity to review that.

[Larry Gibson]

SAAMI did not "lower" the MAP level for any cartridge as is commonly thought. SAAMI established MAP levels for many factory produced cartridges. The method for determining the MAP level is based on several criteria of which, if one is interested, you can find the reasons on SAAMI's web site. SAAMI is a "volunteer" membership organization which does restrict it's membership to larger ammunition manufacturers who can afford to belong. What occurred was, regarding the lowering of reload data, was since SAAMI was the only organization to monitor such cartridge pressures it became, through default, the premier legal authority on such. As such SAAMI established standards became the "standard" that was/is used in legal proceedings both civil and criminal.

Older manuals which had data that was actually tested and not plagiarized used various methods of their own for determining the max load or, as often mistaken, the max psi for cartridges. When it became necessary because of potential, past or probable litigations the manual publishers, who are also members of SAAMI, decided to adhere to SAAMI standard MAP as the max psi for any of their loads. [Note; all max loads in the manuals are not at max SAAMI MAP levels as there are other considerations, as often explained in the manuals, that indicate a "max load".] Thus when using SAAMI MAP psi standards it was found many of the older manual "max Loads" were over the SAAMI MAP. That is not to say the older loads were "dangerous" just that they were over the SAAMI established MAP. Being members of SAAMI the manual publishers then made decision, based on legal concerns, to adhere SAAMI standards.

Some manuals still list some loads for cartridges that exceed the SAAMI standards, mostly for older cartridges such as the 44-40, 45 Colt, 45-70 and some others, particularly +P cartridges. They understand in modern firearms those cartridges can be loaded and safely used to higher pressures than SAAMI established.

As to the use of Magnum 357 loads in M19s it was well understood by those of us "back in the day" when the M19s were extremely popular that most practice, plinking, etc. shooting was to be done with 38 SPL target, standard or +P level loads. The 357 Magnum loads were to be used occasional for "duty" or SD carry. That common or "institutional" knowledge was lost, especially on those who insisted on shooting a lot of jacketed magnum level loads in the M19s. Also, as mentioned, when it became common practice for PDs to qualify and practice with duty level 357 magnum ammo the problems with the K framed M19 became more apparent. The Colt Pythons held up so the heavier framed L frame S&W and the Ruger Security series were introduced. They were designed to hold up to constant magnum level loads which the M19 was not.

I seldom shoot magnums in my own M19 (don't remember the last time I did). I "carry" the Winchester 38 SPL +P 158 LSWCHP (FBI load) in it or my standard practice load with a 358477 or TL358-158-SWC over 3.5 gr Bullseye for practice or general shooting. I shoot the magnum loads out of my Ruger Security Six or Contender.

[dogdoc]

Bottom line many loads in the manuals have lower powder charge weights with all other parameters kept the same than in previous years in the 357 magnum. This fact leads me to believe those loads have lower pressure than earlier loads with more powder regardless of measurement method. Hence my original observation that some 357 loads have been toned down. My loads for 66s and 19s are usually 25000 to 30000 psi so I am not pounding them too hard.

What I don’t know is whether a load that is 45000 cup with a copper crusher could be higher than 35000 psi if that same load is measured with piezo technology? Since the two methods are not linear with respect to each and not convertible , I suspect that may be case



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Petrol & Powder]

Thank You Larry

I think it would be fair to say that at one time there was some data out there, even some published in manuals, that was over SAAMI limits. However, SAAMI did not lower their maximum pressures for the 357 magnum.
Just because there was once data published in manuals that was over SAAMI standards doesn't mean that data reflected existing SAAMI standards.

[Larry Gibson]

Thank You Larry

I think it would be fair to say that at one time there was some data out there, even some published in manuals, that was over SAAMI limits. However, SAAMI did not lower their maximum pressures for the 357 magnum.
Just because there was once data published in manuals that was over SAAMI standards doesn't mean that data reflected existing SAAMI standards.

That is correct.

[Larry Gibson]

"My loads for 66s and 19s are usually 25000 to 30000 psi so I am not pounding them too hard."

That is the range I have found most 357 Magnum factory loads (made in the last 30 years) to run at.

"What I don’t know is whether a load that is 45000 cup with a copper crusher could be higher than 35000 psi if that same load is measured with piezo technology?"

I have tested loads listed at 45,000 CUP and they are, almost always have a higher psi than 35,000 psi. The old "classic" load of 14.5 gr (Hercules or Alliant) 2400 under the 358156 is a good example. That was listed, in years past, as being a max 45,000 CUP load. It runs over 35,000 psi (usually 37 - 38,000) in my Contender test barrel. Using 14 gr 2400 it runs 34 - 35,000 psi.

[Outpost75]

You will know how hot your loads are when:

1) your gun loosens up, developing more than 0.002" of end shake,
2) it goes out of time and fails to carry up in DA, or
3) the forcing cone cracks at 6:00.

If you enjoy the gun, want it to last and don't want to put as much $$ in gunsmith time and repair parts to keep it going, as you probably paid for the gun 20 years ago, you might re-read the thread, to consider the advice and benefit of experience given.

246986

[dogdoc]

"What I don’t know is whether a load that is 45000 cup with a copper crusher could be higher than 35000 psi if that same load is measured with piezo technology?"

I have tested loads listed at 45,000 CUP and they are, almost always have a higher psi than 35,000 psi. The old "classic" load of 14.5 gr (Hercules or Alliant) 2400 under the 358156 is a good example. That was listed, in years past, as being a max 45,000 CUP load. It runs over 35,000 psi (usually 37 - 38,000) in my Contender test barrel. Using 14 gr 2400 it runs 34 - 35,000 psi.[/QUOTE]

Larry, you made my point that others cannot seem to understand. Loads that tested out at 45000 cup almost always have a higher psi than 35000 psi. 35000 psi is or is fast becoming the new standard per saami for the 357 magnum. I doubt any new data is made with cup methods but rather with newer psi equipment and limited to 35000 psi . Obviously, the newer load data has been reduced to conform to the new 35000 psi standard so the max pressure levels have been lowered with the newer psi method. You can bet ammo manufacturers are not going to load to levels greater than 35000 psi like the older 45000 cup loads(because it would be greater than 35000psi).I am not the only one that gets this. Brian Pearce of Handloader magazine who likely has more experience with load development and the industry than any of us by a long shot states this in my previous reference. He is a machine when it comes to generating data and he routinely has it pressure tested.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Larry Gibson]

dogdoc

That is correct but let us remember there is no direct across the CUP/psi test spectrum correlation between the two methods. We can't say...this much CUP equals that much psi. There is too much variation based on too many variables. Looking at SAAMI MAPs for both CUP and psi (transducer) for example the 9mm CUP MAP is 33,000 while the psi MAP is 35,000. The 38 SPL has 17,000 MAPs listed for both methods. With rifle cartridges, particularly the bottle necks, the difference almost always has the psi MAP higher than the CUP MAP.

[Char-Gar]

Back in the very early 60's I loaded full snort loads in my Smith and Wesson Highway Patrolman and Colt New Frontier. The most popular load, which was also listed in the Lyman Handbook was the Thompson 158 GC SWC over 15.5 grains of 2400. The hollow point version of the same bullet took 16 grains of the same powder.

I shot several hundred rounds of these loads in my pistols and figured out these loads were hotter than the hinges of hell and back off to 13.5 grains of the same powder. Nothing I ever it with the lower loads ever knew the difference between that and the hotter loads.

[Larry Gibson]

Know what you mean Char-Gar, my magnum 357 load with the 358156 is 14 gr 2400 which is just under the SAAMI MAP of 35,000 psi. I use it in my Ruger and Contender, not in my M19. The +P 38 SPL loads suffice nicely in my 2 1/2" M19.

[Texas by God]

We got my dad a m66 2-1/2" years ago. We loaded it with 158gr .357s and each took a turn. "That's kicks stupid bad", said Pop and he was right. I loaded him a supply of 158 Hornady swaged hp @800 fps and that's all he shoots in it since then. If I inherit it, it'll never see hot loads.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Dale53]

Char-Gar;
I well remember those 16.0 grs. Of 2400. That load seemed to be the “Standard” for serious “business” use. Early on, I pretty much decided that a “medium” load in my .357’s made more sense.

This thread is an excellent learning tool with special mention of the input of yourself, Larry Gibson, and last, but not least, Outpost75.

People, listen to these guys!

Dale53

[Char-Gar]

Char-Gar;
I well remember those 16.0 grs. Of 2400. That load seemed to be the “Standard” for serious “business” use. Early on, I pretty much decided that a “medium” load in my .357’s made more sense.

This thread is an excellent learning tool with special mention of the input of yourself, Larry Gibson, and last, but not least, Outpost75.

People, listen to these guys!

Dale53

I am not in the same class as Larry and Outpost75. They are true science guys with great extensive knowledge. I am just an old shooter who learned what he knows, by pissing on the electric fence.

[Silvercreek Farmer]

Good reading. Keep it coming!

[Dale53]

I am not in the same class as Larry and Outpost75. They are true science guys with great extensive knowledge. I am just an old shooter who learned what he knows, by pissing on the electric fence.

Welcome to the club!
Dale53

[Petrol & Powder]

I prefer to call it Empirical Knowledge. It's the same thing as learning by pissing on the electric fence ......but it sounds better. :-o

[Dale53]

:bigsmyl2::bigsmyl2::bigsmyl2:

Dale53

[Patrick L]

I personally stick with the original 158 gr "standard" .357 loads. A k frame will take a lot of those without undue wear. Certainly more than I care to shoot in such a light gun.

For a lot of .357 shooting I use the 27-2. Just more mass to soak up the recoil. I truly worry about myself falling apart more than the guns!

[dogdoc]

I personally stick with the original 158 gr "standard" .357 loads. A k frame will take a lot of those without undue wear. Certainly more than I care to shoot in such a light gun.

For a lot of .357 shooting I use the 27-2. Just more mass to soak up the recoil. I truly worry about myself falling apart more than the guns!

Agree 100%.

I try to shoot mostly 158 grain cast loads between 1000 and 1100 FPS. A little more than 38 spl. Plus p bit way under max loads. I do occasionally shoot some max loads but not a whole lot. My 66 that I have owned since the early 1980s is still going strong after many thousands of rounds. They are not nearly as delicate as the internet banter would have you think. There is a great article by Brian Pearce in Handloader magazine number 248 August 2007 on this very subject. He shot 5000 full power loads through a 19 before it needed a little tune up. I think if you google that handloader issue , you can get pdf to that article(not sure), for free

Dogdoc


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Texas by God]

My cousin showed me a m19 this past weekend. 6" barrel, 3 T's, beautiful!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Petrol & Powder]

I don't believe anyone has characterized the magnum K-frames as "delicate". They are not weak.
However, the K-frame was pushed a bit beyond its design limitations with the 357 magnum chambering.

Going back to my previous analogy:
"A 1/2" drive craftsmen ratchet will likely last a lifetime but if you start putting a 6' piece of pipe on it and applying all of your strength to it- ....you may find that it doesn't last as long. That's not a design flaw, it's just pushing it beyond what it was originally intended to do. "

The K-frame was never meant to be a magnum revolver and the fact that S&W was able to get it to work with a magnum chambering is testament to both the engineering skills of S&W and the strength of the K-frame platform to start with.
Like the 1/2" drive ratchet, you can probably get away with exceeding its design limits on occasion but if you do it everyday, you're going to break something.
Outpost's observations of K-frames failing during acceptance tests is all the evidence we need.

A S&W magnum K-frame will shoot a LOT of 38 Special +P rounds without a hiccup. They are not "delicate". The design was just never meant to be a full time magnum revolver. Like the Craftsman 1/2" drive ratchet, it will give yeoman like service for a lifetime but if you start pushing it beyond what it was designed to do, its lifespan is going to be shorter. It's not delicate, it just wasn't designed to handle those loads everyday.

[Patrick L]

I'm no ballistician, but as I recall, making the K frame shoot .357 158s at 1250-1300 was not what pushed it too far. Wasn't it the 125s and 110s at 1450 or more that was the straw that broke the camel's back, as they say?

[alamogunr]

I'm no ballistician either but I do wish someone could explain to me how 125 grain bullets @ 1450 fps are harder on a revolver than 158 grain bullets @ 1300. I'm not exactly questioning the statement but if accurate, I don't understand it.

[tazman]

As I understand it, it isn't the ballistics that caused the problem. It was two things that came with the lighter bullet.
First one was a larger charge of powder that provided an increased volume of gas that heats up the forcing cone a bit more.
Second is the lighter bullet is somewhat shorter. Because of the distance between the cylinder face and the rifling(caused by the forcing cone taper), the 125 grain bullet can tip slightly before entering the rifling because it is not fully supported on both ends for a time. This causes increased stress on the parts of the barrel that are the weakest.
The 158 grain bullets are enough longer that they don't have the same issue of getting misaligned leaving the cylinder.

If this is incorrect, somebody please post and correct me.

[Wayne Dobbs]

As I understand it, it isn't the ballistics that caused the problem. It was two things that came with the lighter bullet.
First one was a larger charge of powder that provided an increased volume of gas that heats up the forcing cone a bit more.
Second is the lighter bullet is somewhat shorter. Because of the distance between the cylinder face and the rifling(caused by the forcing cone taper), the 125 grain bullet can tip slightly before entering the rifling because it is not fully supported on both ends for a time. This causes increased stress on the parts of the barrel that are the weakest.
The 158 grain bullets are enough longer that they don't have the same issue of getting misaligned leaving the cylinder.

If this is incorrect, somebody please post and correct me.

Mostly correct, tazman. The lighter bullets hit the forcing cone at a higher velocity and had a larger mass of powder ALSO striking the cone area acting like a jackhammer and sandblaster in a one-two punch. Caused forcing cone erosion, cracking and attendant frame stretching/endshake. The 158 grain magnum loads were actually easier than the later, lighter bullet ammo. As an enthusiastic young copper in the late 70s, I shot a nice 19-3 into a mess this way. Corrected the endshake and traded it away. Wished I hadn't done that!

[tazman]

The "how fast can I make this go" syndrome seems to be an affliction of the young and applies to more than just firearms. I know that I certainly had it.
I was fortunate not to destroy anything in the process.

[Patrick L]

Yes, that was pretty much how I understood it to work too. Most of my information came from the writings of Mas Ayoob, who did some pretty good analytical writings on the various Smith revolvers. He writes fro a LE perspective, and a lot of what he addressed was longevity as a duty gun. He got deep into the evolving policies and practices, such as training with the ammo you carry on duty, not "practice with .38s and carry .357s." Apparently this coincided with the introduction of the lighter, faster loads that were better manstoppers, ca. early 70s. K frame .357s started to really take a beating then. I don't know this for a fact, but I seem to recall the stainless M66 suffered more than the chrome moly M19. I could be wrong though.

I think as originally conceived in the 50s, the K .357 were adequately strong. Mine certainly has been. Easily 20,000+ .38s in the 30 years I've had it, maybe 1500(?) .357s certainly not excessive.

[dogdoc]

I must make a confession . It is hard , but today I shot some full magnums through BOTH a model 19 and a 66. After reading this thread, I feel dirty, BUT it was fun! Both forcing cones survived to fight another load. Sometimes the devil makes me do it.[emoji3]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TXTad]

Bad Tad, bad Tad! Resurrecting old threads...


The K-frame .357s were never designed to last with a steady diet of full-charge .357 Magnum loads. Back in the day the Model 19 came out the usual practice was for police to use standard pressure .38 Special for practice and qualification, but the Model 19 could stand moderate duty use of .357 ammunition. The gun was not intended to exceed a ratio of 6:1 of .38 Special to magnums, and that being only when the gun would be touched by a factory-trained armorer on an annual basis to make adjustments necessary to keep the gun in proper time and adjustment.

I believe this. ^^^^^



By the 1980s police training and doctrine had evolved to require officers to qualify with the same ammo they carried on the street. This resulted in greater wear and tear and shorter service life of the guns. The Model 19 was no exception and recommended practice was not to exceed a 50-50 ratio of standard pressure .38 Special to +P service loads. Standard pressure ammunition was still used for practice, but duty ammo used for actual qualification. Use of .357 ammunition was still recommended not to exceed the 6:1 ratio of .38 Special (combined of all types) to .357s.

It is normal for a K-frame .357 to develop end-shake after about 1000-1500 rounds of magnum ammunition. When end shake reaches about 0.002" the crane arbor would be stretched and adjusted to remove the end shake. This can only be done twice before cylinder gap opens to the service maximum of 0.009". At that point either the barrel must be set back (common gunsmith fix) or a (+) cylinder fitted (usual factory fix) to correct the condition. Usually by this time the cylinder will not carry up correctly in DA fire, and a wider hand is fitted to correct the DCU (doesn't carry up) condition. If the locking notches in the cylinder are also peened, the cylinder stop will be replaced with an oversized one.

Later Model 19s had a small flat machined on the barrel extension at the 6:00 position to clear the gas ring on the cylinder. The cylinder gas ring was moved from the yoke onto the cylinder of later guns to mitigate cylinder binding with use of the Winchester X38SPD all-lead hollowpoint +P .38 Special ammunition (FBI Load). "Hubbed cylinder" guns are not recommended for frequent use with full-charge .357 ammunition. This is because if shot frequently with full-charge .357s the barrel extension will crack through the thin section where it had less heat capacity. Older Model 19s having the gas ring on the yoke, rather than on the cylinder, do not have this problem, but after about 5000 rounds of full-charge magnum ammunition will require both a long cylinder and oversized lockwork parts to stay in specs. Once a gun reaches this point, if it again goes out of time or develops further end-shake, it already has all the oversized parts in it. Factory practice is not to attempt further repair of an OFG (open front gage the factory term noted on the repair-reject tag) and return the gun because no repair parts are available.

Department guns tagged OFG and returned are scrapped.

In extensive testing by US Customs and Border Patrol at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, GA, it was determined that the K-frame .357s would not pass a 5000 round endurance test of full-charge .357 without malfunctions or requiring replacement parts that required maintenance above the user level.

[...bad attachments deleted...]

The Winchester .38 Spl. +P+ 110-grain Q4070 Treasury load was developed to improve handgun duty performance, but its higher chamber pressure of up to 23,500 psi caused excessive wear & tear on the guns, especially the forcing cone cracking issue. Repeated failures of K-frame .357s in CBP service led to development of the L-frame.


Is 23,500 psi a typo? I suppose not, since you are talking about a .38 Spl +P+ load.

It is a little terrifying that only 3.5K over .38 Spl +P would cause problems in a 35,000 psi gun.

Is it the light bullet more than the pressure?



If you want a revolver which will handle a steady diet of full-charge in a volume of 5000+ rounds of .357s or +P+ LE .38 Special loads, without malfunctions or requiring parts replacement, buy an S&W Model 20, 27, 28, or modern L-frame, Ruger Six series 160- prefix or later (Mil-Q-9858A), GP100 or Colt Python.

I have an Outdoorsman, a 686, several GP-100s and Blackhawks, and a (new) Python, so I have plenty of guns for full power .357 loads. What I'm hoping for is to find a .357 Magnum load that is above any .38 Special load but below any full-power .357 Magnum load that I can shoot foreverish in my M19s and M66s.

Does such a thing exist?

[Larry Gibson]

Do you mean as to a "full-power .357 Magnum loads" one that equals todays factory internal ballistics, one that equals the internal ballistics of today's maximum loads as per SAAMI MAP or one that equals yesteryears original 357 magnum load?

Also, for what bullet?

[TXTad]

Do you mean as to a "full-power .357 Magnum loads" one that equals todays factory internal ballistics, one that equals the internal ballistics of today's maximum loads as per SAAMI MAP or one that equals yesteryears original 357 magnum load?

Also, for what bullet?

By today's standards.

More specifically, if .38 Spl +P is 19 or 20K, and .357 is 35K, I'm thinking about something like a 158 gr lead bullet of any flavor at 25 to 28K psi. I would guess this would be an 1,100 to 1,200 fps load...?

[murf205]

Let me begin by saying, if you heard it from me, it's probably wrong. I have a theory about cracked forcing cones in revolvers and the model 19 in particular. I believe shooting jacketed bullets after the barrel's leaded up causes them to crack. I've removed strips of lead, 1/8" wide and 3/4" long from revolvers, after shooting jacketed bullets from a previously leaded bore. I don't know what I was thinking, when I thought shooting jacketed bullets was ok to clean the fouled barrel, it's not something I'd do again. Those strips of lead had to cause the working pressure to increase a lot...

Before I reached a "more experienced age", I have done the same thing. After a cast range session, I would put a cylinder full of 240 Gr Speer H P's down range. Heaven only knows what the pressure was on that first poor Model 29. I am a long way from as knowledgeable as an expert but this group of people here has taught me more that I ever thought possible. My byline says that none of us are as smart as all of us and here is where that point was driven home. My Mod 29-2 thanks all of you!

[Larry Gibson]

By today's standards.

More specifically, if .38 Spl +P is 19 or 20K, and .357 is 35K, I'm thinking about something like a 158 gr lead bullet of any flavor at 25 to 28K psi. I would guess this would be an 1,100 to 1,200 fps load...?

Regards todays standards, I 've measured the psi of numerous factory 357 rounds (Winchester, Remington, Federal, S&W) from 110 JHP to 158 Lubaloy. Haven't found any that approach 35,000 psi. All have ranged from 23 - 30,000 psi with most in the 25 - 28,000 psi range..... Probably why the velocities of factory rounds seem low (because they are) out of 4" revolvers.

In the 357 Magnum 9.5 gr Blue Dot under a 358156 will run 28,500 psi +/-. Under a 358477 6.5 gr Unique runs 28,500 +/- psi also and 7.5 Herco will run 27,000 +/- spi. A 358156 seated long in 38 SPL cases over 11.5 gr 2400 will get you 28,700 psi +/-. In 357 cases 12 gr 2400 under thsame bullet seated to the standard front groove will run close to the same.

[TXTad]

Regards todays standards, I 've measured the psi of numerous factory 357 rounds (Winchester, Remington, Federal, S&W) from 110 JHP to 158 Lubaloy. Haven't found any that approach 35,000 psi. All have ranged from 23 - 30,000 psi with most in the 25 - 28,000 psi range..... Probably why the velocities of factory rounds seem low (because they are) out of 4" revolvers.

In the 357 Magnum 9.5 gr Blue Dot under a 358156 will run 28,500 psi +/-. Under a 358477 6.5 gr Unique runs 28,500 +/- psi also and 7.5 Herco will run 27,000 +/- spi. A 358156 seated long in 38 SPL cases over 11.5 gr 2400 will get you 28,700 psi +/-. In 357 cases 12 gr 2400 under thsame bullet seated to the standard front groove will run close to the same.

These are very helpful data.

Does anyone care to guess what the lifespan of a M19 with 158gr loads kept at these levels?

[engineer401]

I never shoot the hot loads and the Model 19 I ha before the divorce was the best shooter I had. I was able to find a nickel plated one from 1979 that shoots as well. I got lucky. The Model 19 fits me better than any other revolver.

[rintinglen]

In the 357 Magnum 9.5 gr Blue Dot under a 358156 will run 28,500 psi +/-. Under a 358477 6.5 gr Unique runs 28,500 +/- psi also and 7.5 Herco will run 27,000 +/- spi. A 358156 seated long in 38 SPL cases over 11.5 gr 2400 will get you 28,700 psi +/-. In 357 cases 12 gr 2400 under the same bullet seated to the standard front groove will run close to the same.

That Unique load is a very accurate load with that bullet. In my model 66 4 inch, it runs right at 1000 FPS and seems to split the difference between the 38 +P and the real 357's. Don't tell Elmer but it usually will out shoot a similar load with the 358-429.

[dogrunner]

Haven't read the whole thread but enough to grasp the gist of it's direction. Firstly let me state that I carried a M/19....no dash.....from 1966 till we transitioned to auto's in the early 80's.....Personally I had no issue at all with mine other than shimming it to relieve the endplay that developed after much, much use. True, we carried the 158 HP jacketed stuff and formally practiced for qual's with wad cutters and later w/a bullet design that would accomodate speed loaders, but in all those years and all that shooting I saw but one cracked bbl and that was on a somewhat aged M/10.

I am very very sure that my gun has had no less than a hundred thousand rounds thru it inclusive of my own handloads using Keith's 170 hard cast. Those tho were loaded to give just about 1150 using 2400 and standard primers. Very accurate and that flat meplat did succeed in dropping one felon....not by me, but my partner who'd talked me out of a box of the stuff.

And yeah,if I was starting out today and had to pack a revolver it'd most like be an L frame in support of the comment that the L is what the k should have been. Still this is absolutely no criticism of that old 19 as it is till operable today but lives it's old age in my safe mostly.. Still shoots as accurately as I can and I do use it for the 218 revolver qual's.

Got that gun, K390xxx, from a pawn shop with a 15 for a trade. Immediately sent it to the factory for a refinish and a name engraving to stop myself from trading it.........and even with the poor house wages of that time considered it was money well spent. Oh yeah, had to go the pawn shop pickup as for some reason 19's were impossible to find locally then!

[RJM52]

Had a 19-3 purchased in 1970 and sold in 1980...it was my first centerfire handgun.

Most of the bullets down the tube were home cast 357156 GC at 1200 fps... After 10k rounds it was brought back to the factory to be tightened up and was nickel plated. Put another 10k through the gun before selling it.

Of the 20k rounds through the gun exactly 6 were .38 Specials. I'm not sure but don't think there were any factory .357s through it. If there was it wouldn't be more than a box or so.

I'll have to look at my notes again, but there wan't a lot of jacketed bullets shot. There was some of the Speer 146s and Sierra JHC but that is about all...

Have a Model 66-2 3" and a 65-3 3" at this point but they don't get shot or carried all that much...great size guns though...

Bob