I don't know for sure. I don't know why it would not be safe, but one never knows considering that at that time, +p was outside the parameters the engineers had to abide by.On another board a member asked if he could fire +P ammunition in his 1940 vintage Colt Oficer's Model. When Colt introduced the .357 in 1953 and then the Python in 1956 they used the Official Police frame and cylinder. did they use a different heat treatment?
Notoriously, Model 19s would shoot loose in as few as 50-100 full house magnum loads.
I bought a Model 19 new in 1982. I handload and within a couple years I had put around 10,000 rounds through it. Everything I loaded was a full house round, lots of 110 grain JHP's in front of as much 2400 as I dared load. Elmer Keith would have been proud.It may be "notorious", in some circles, but not in mine. I've owned a model 19, known lots of people who have, have seen and shot quite a few others, and this is the very first time I ever heard anyone claim a 19 would shoot loose in as few as 50-100 rnds.
I have a friend who did shoot a model 66 lose. It only took him 4,000 rnds, and S&W repaired the gun just fine.
I don't know what alternate reality would have a model 19 shoot loose in 50-100rnds of FACTORY full house magnum ammo, but I don't think it's this reality.
Handloads, on the other hand, can be anything. Including serious overloads on the gun. If you do that, all bets are off, and you cannot blame the gun for being overstressed. That's ALL on the guy doing the loading and shooting it. Try hard enough, you can break anything....
For those old enough to remember muscle cars (or anything standard, really) if you redline the engine and dump the clutch every time you shift, you WILL find a very short service life of several parts. That's not the fault of the designer, or the people that built it. Its the fault of the driver. No one else.
Elmer would have been more proud of you loaded wadcutters.I bought a Model 19 new in 1982. I handload and within a couple years I had put around 10,000 rounds through it. Everything I loaded was a full house round, lots of 110 grain JHP's in front of as much 2400 as I dared load. Elmer Keith would have been proud.
Mine never got loose in all that. It lost the nickel on the top strap where the cylinder meets the barrel. That's about it. Lost it in a burglary in 1988 so no idea how it is today.
Didn’t get to the end of it before Diamondback shot loose. The same thing happens to Pythons if a lot of magnum loads are run in them. The M19 S&W is in this same bracket.
I shot lots of those too. Generally 158 grain again with a good dose of 2400 behind it. But for indoor ranges I loved those 110 grain bullets. Huge fireball each time I pulled the trigger. Normally cleared the range out so I had it all to myself.Elmer would have been more proud of you loaded wadcutters.
Originally posted by tangolima
Agree with weblymkv, except on the cause of excessive endshake. The yoke doesn't get battered that bad, but the engaging surfaces between the rear of the cylinder and the frame. To me it is the weak point of revolver design. It takes up a significant part, if not all, of the recoil impact, and yet the surface area is small.
The standard method for correcting endshake is indeed to stretch the yoke tube or the gas ring, or to add shims (bearings) there. It is good for small amount of endshake. It will bring unintended consequences if the endshake is excessive. Pushing the cylinder to the back opens up cylinder gap and lessens head clearance. Either one is only tolerable to a point.I probably should have been a little more specific, the yoke being battered is not a cause of excessive endshake but the yoke is a factor in endshake in that stretching the yoke is one way to correct it. The other, more common method is adding endshake bearings.