How Many of Us Have Shot a K-Frame to Pieces?

R

Richard

New member
How many of us actually shot a Smith and Wesson K-Frame to pieces with 357 Magnum loads? I for one have never done it. How about you? I don't want "I have heard about it replies." Thanks in advance and regards, Richard:D
 
I've shot one or two out of time- carry up problems.This happens pretty fast with Magnum loads. The one K-Frame that I shot loose was a 1958 vintage K-38 that saw many thousands of rounds. A lot of them were "Old Handbook" loads that were considerably hotter than the current run of +P. That revolver never did develop failure to carry up but there was enough rotational play and end shake to consider it significantly worn.
 
Had mine since 1969 and have put many rounds (from .38spec wadcutter through Keith Magnums) and have had nary a problem. Quantrill
 
I've seen a few high-mileage ones with split forcing cones and a few more with timing and/or endshake problems serious enough to need correction. Never had it happen to one of my own yet, but I can rotate my shooting among several of them.

I reckon it can happen, but given how many are out there versus how few busted ones I've seen, it's not something I work myself into hysterics about.
 
No "K"s, but I DID shoot an N-frame..

with heavy (300 grain) .44 loads until it got loose, and the trigger stud eventually broke off from the frame. A trip back to S&W made the old gun tight as new now, and she's going to get treated a little better in her second life.

I have a Redhawk for monster-killers now, anyhow.
 
Im glad to see this thread. I have an old 586 that is in good shape. I am going to be in the market for a few guns soon. :) I am thinking of getting a little Sc 357 to carry in the summer and if that goes well it may become my all the time carry. I am also interested in the 44 mag trail boss from S&W. I like the unfluted cylinder and the 3 inch barrel. Would make a great sidearm while hunting or putting up stands etc. It would shoot some 44 spl. but it would see it's share of magnum loads too so I am glad to see things going well for smith here. It's so easy to find storys about the declining quality of S&W and how they just need the lighter loads and such. Maybe its just brand envy or something?
 
I find that K frames hold up substantially better that the errornet commandos would have you believe. I usually use about a 50/50 mix of 158gr LSWCHP+P 38s and 158gr JSP 357 mags. Every now and then I will use a box of 125 or 110 gr 357 mags but the 158s are my usual.

I've always considered the L frames to be a marketing gimmick by S&W to sell more guns. As a magnum, the K frame was in production approximately 25 years before the intro of the L frame. If there was a real problem it would have been noted and dealt with before then. Additionally, the K frame magnum has been in production almost 25 years after the L frames introduction. If there was a real problem the K frame magnum would have gone away along time ago.

There are too many kids and and wanabees on the internet that are afraid to use their guns. If its not K frame mags prematurely wearing out, its Glocks KBing, etc. I wish these people would get a nother hobby and stop half the nonsense we read on these forums.

Please don't take offense if you have actually had a problem with your gun I'm not directing this to you. I'm directing this to all the cryers worried about hypothetical problems that rarely if ever happen.
 
As a magnum, the K frame was in production approximately 25 years before the intro of the L frame. If there was a real problem it would have been noted and dealt with before then.
Click to expand...
There's two major errors in your theory. One, the problem with the K-frames was the hot 125-grain SJHPs--these weren't around for most of the 25 years of the Model 19//66's existence. Hence, no problem. Second (which compounds the first), LE became smart and begin practicing/qualifying with the issued carry rounds instead of target wadcutters. The combination of the two factors--shooting a round for which is was not designed to handle and shooting it a lot lead to problems with the .357 Magnum K-frames for the heavy users.

There's nothing wrong with 19/66 (and there have been some gradual improvements in them over the past 25 years as well), but they were not designed to handle the hot 125-grain SJHPs because they were not even in existence when the Model 19/66 was developed.
 
There's two major errors in your theory. One, the problem with the K-frames was the hot 125-grain SJHPs--these weren't around for most of the 25 years of the Model 19//66's existence. Hence, no problem. Second (which compounds the first), LE became smart and begin practicing/qualifying with the issued carry rounds instead of target wadcutters. The combination of the two factors--shooting a round for which is was not designed to handle and shooting it a lot lead to problems with the .357 Magnum K-frames for the heavy users.
Click to expand...

I don't think my theory is that far off base. First, the K frame magnum is still in production 25 years after the intro of the L frame and 125 gr magnums have been around a lot longer than that. Second, most cops don't shoot enough to wear out any gun regardless of the round used or the length of service. I think some guns have problems just like any other piece of equipment you buy.

In reality, any gun or any other mechanical device will eventually wear out if you use it. I just get sick of people crying the blues worrying about K frames wearing with a few boxes of magnums no matter what the bullet weight. I've seen S&W 19s abused by people shooting reloads that I was afraid to shoot in their gun and would never have used in my own gun. I know some of those guns are still running fine (many of the rest were traded in for semi autos during the 80s). But I do know that a Kframe will stand up to alot of factory magnum rounds. Additionally, S&W rebuilds these at a very resonable rate.
 
FALshootist,

I've always considered the L frames to be a marketing gimmick by S&W to sell more guns.
Click to expand...

I always considered it to be a slightly beefier medium frame revolver without the weak spot at the six o'clock area of the forcing cone. ;)
 
Tamara -

Have you heard any rumours of S&W discontinuing the Model 66? I've seen it posted as a rumour on another board (from what is usually a pretty level-headed posted).
 
The 2 1/2 inch, 7 shot, 357, L frame is a cool gun. However, once you get above that barrel length, the weight of a full under lug L frame is so similar to a tapered barrel N frame you are better off with a comparable length N frame.

In 44 you're definately better off with a 3 inch 624 (6 shot) than the 3 inch 696 (5 shot) and probably why the 696 is no longer in production.

The L frame is a great gun in a vacuum. In reality its not as light and fast as the K and won't take as much punishment as an N.

JC, S&W has been trimming its line for some time. I hate to see the K frame magnum go (the 38s will probably go too). but with magnum Js and the L preceived by some as a better gun who knows?
 
I saw that post on Gunboards, too, about the K-frame .357mags being discontinued. I sure hope it's wrong.

Anyway, after over 10,000 rounds of 158gr "old load data" magnum reloads through a 3" M65, I never had a single problem with it. Timing was perfect, and I wish I never traded it away.
 
Don't see why they would; the 617 and 65LS are still pretty strong sellers on the same frame, and the 64 is still probably getting a fair amount of the rent-a-cop market. As long as you have those stainless K's around, there's no reason not to keep the 66 going.


FWIW, the problems with the K-magnums seem to be caused by lots and lots of light bullet magnum loads. These things hit the forcing cone hard; I've heard (but not verified) speeds of over 1000fps at the forcing cone. Given their muzzle velocities out of even a 2.5" gun, this is not hard to believe.

Still and all, it's a rarer phenomenon than the doomsayers would have you believe. If you can afford enough 110/125gr magnum loads to shoot it loose/crack the cone, you can afford to repair/replace the gun. ;)
 
:) Me, me, me, I have! It was a beautifully customized Model 19 with a 2 1/2" barrel. (My favorite little carry piece.) Like the lady said; 'Split the forcing cone at about 5:00.' Nowadays, I carry a Model 686. No problems so far. ;)

Oh, yeah, Smith gave me a new, 'L frame' at no cost. Made me, 'eat' the custom work - though! The only good thing that came out of this tragedy is that I got to meet S&W's master gunsmith, Olimpio Vitorino. 'Vito' has been working on me and my friends' guns ever since. :cool:
 
...oh, and:

In 44 you're definately better off with a 3 inch 624 (6 shot) than the 3 inch 696 (5 shot) and probably why the 696 is no longer in production.
Click to expand...

The 624 hasn't graced the catalog for some 17 years, either. :(

Thank goodness I got mine! :D

But the .44 L-frame I carry is the 5-shot 2-inch 296, which is considerably lighter and smaller than my 3-inch 624. ;)
 
A former manufacturer of high speed ammunition claimed that Smith produced a number of defective 2.5" barrels and shelved them upon learning that the forcing cones would crack. He said that a later management team then took them out of storage and installed them on guns. Shortly thereafter, the cracks started to appear with the blaime going to his high velocity jacketed hollow points. He further claimed that S&W told him that if he blaimed their barrels, they would blaim his loads causing something of a stalemate.

I don't know if there is any truth at all to the story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top