How Many of Us Have Shot a K-Frame to Pieces?
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
"No "K"s, but I DID shoot an N-frame.."
Ditto
My K-Frames are doing fine (although I pretty much baby them) but I did shoot a Model 29, 4" until it "failed to carry up". I sent it to Jack Weigand and it is now a masterpiece. Super accurate. But, I have never shot another magnum load in it. I have a good .44 Special load using 2400 and a 240 grain cast bullet that will do anything I need to do with that gun.
Ditto
My K-Frames are doing fine (although I pretty much baby them) but I did shoot a Model 29, 4" until it "failed to carry up". I sent it to Jack Weigand and it is now a masterpiece. Super accurate. But, I have never shot another magnum load in it. I have a good .44 Special load using 2400 and a 240 grain cast bullet that will do anything I need to do with that gun.
A couple of points...
from somebody who has been "in the loop" on law enforcement firearms issues for about 25 years-
1. The K-frames started having problems because departments started requiring that officers qualify with the same ammo that they carried- and it was often 125 grain magnums, generating 1400 fps from 4" tubes. Smith got tired of servicing the K frames and decided to offer something a little sturdier- the L frame. If it was a marketing ploy directed at law enforcement, it was a poor one. Law enforcement agencies were switching to autos en masse within five years.
2. The early L's had lots of problems. The 1981 academy class just after mine had 18 Jackson County Sheriff recruits, who were issued 18 586's. 12 were sent back becase they would lock up (due to a gas ring expansion problem) when fired fast, with magnum loads. I kept my 4" N-frame .357, and a lot of others hung onto their old 13's/19's, or Ruger Sercurity/Service/Speed Sixes.
3. Glock's DO KaBoom. I've got an old friend with an interesting scar on his right wrist from a 10mm letting go, and I know of two others personally that resulted on no injuriy. NCIC has sent out bulletins, issued by individual departments, on a lot more.
4. All the major ammo companies have produced light bullet .357 ammo for years, that would result in cracked forcing cones if enough of it were shot through M&P-framed S&W's. None of them has decided to "do anything about" that ammunition, and you can still buy all of it you want today. One of the biggest selling points of the L's & GP's was the fact that the heavier frame allowed a heavier barrel root, with a thicker forcing cone.
from somebody who has been "in the loop" on law enforcement firearms issues for about 25 years-
1. The K-frames started having problems because departments started requiring that officers qualify with the same ammo that they carried- and it was often 125 grain magnums, generating 1400 fps from 4" tubes. Smith got tired of servicing the K frames and decided to offer something a little sturdier- the L frame. If it was a marketing ploy directed at law enforcement, it was a poor one. Law enforcement agencies were switching to autos en masse within five years.
2. The early L's had lots of problems. The 1981 academy class just after mine had 18 Jackson County Sheriff recruits, who were issued 18 586's. 12 were sent back becase they would lock up (due to a gas ring expansion problem) when fired fast, with magnum loads. I kept my 4" N-frame .357, and a lot of others hung onto their old 13's/19's, or Ruger Sercurity/Service/Speed Sixes.
3. Glock's DO KaBoom. I've got an old friend with an interesting scar on his right wrist from a 10mm letting go, and I know of two others personally that resulted on no injuriy. NCIC has sent out bulletins, issued by individual departments, on a lot more.
4. All the major ammo companies have produced light bullet .357 ammo for years, that would result in cracked forcing cones if enough of it were shot through M&P-framed S&W's. None of them has decided to "do anything about" that ammunition, and you can still buy all of it you want today. One of the biggest selling points of the L's & GP's was the fact that the heavier frame allowed a heavier barrel root, with a thicker forcing cone.
hankrearden2000
New member
In 1984-1985 I "shot out" a S&W Model 586, which was developed to counter the wear & tear of 125 gr. magnum loads on K-Frames. This was a six-inch gun and I shot 125 gr. Remington, Federal, or equivalent handloads almost exclusively. Timing was off and focing cone eroded when I traded it for a brand new 4 inch 586, which I traded off before I could ruin it.
M 13 S&W
I carried it for several years in the Border Patrol, both as a belt gun and as an off duty gun.
The top strap has stretched. The cylinder has excessive end play and the cylinder - barrel gap is ... ample. It still times right, but it is pretty much retired to hanging on the wall.
I could stretch the yoke axis enough to tighten up the endplay, but then I'd have to have the barrel remounted to adjust the cylinder gap. Perhaps I should, it is a grand old gun with some history.
I carried it for several years in the Border Patrol, both as a belt gun and as an off duty gun.
The top strap has stretched. The cylinder has excessive end play and the cylinder - barrel gap is ... ample. It still times right, but it is pretty much retired to hanging on the wall.
I could stretch the yoke axis enough to tighten up the endplay, but then I'd have to have the barrel remounted to adjust the cylinder gap. Perhaps I should, it is a grand old gun with some history.
I have a M19-4 S&W with over 35K rounds through it. 99.9% has been HARD fast DA shooting. At least 7-8K of them have been magnums, and at least 2000 of those have been 110's and 125's that are simply off the charts hot when compared to factory produced magnums. It has about .002" of endshake, a little cylinder play but not much and is smoother than greased glass. It will need a trip to the doctor soon, endshake gets worse much faster once it appears. I would guess that 5K-10K or so more rounds will have the endshake bad enough to be a problem. Too bad the piece of junk will only take 40K+ rounds of pounding DA fire and some really hot loads before it needs work. I'll fix it, and pray that I am fortunate enough to do it again.
I have shot N-frames to shreds in less than 5K rounds of the same type of shooting with the same mix of hot and light loads. I have shot L-frames loose in 15K rounds with a similar mix of loadings.
The K-frame is my platform of choice. I have a small pile of them, some get pounded, some are just enjoyed and kept. The ONLY reason I'll buy a revolver other than a K-frame is for larger bore calibers, and I have learned what I can and can't do with them.
I have shot the snot out of just about every type and model of revolver, most were mine but some were shooting friends. The K-frame is the only gun I have found that will hold up to massive amounts of hard fast DA shooting other than the Ruger GP series. They hold up as well or better than any revolver ever made but leave some to be desired when compared to the K-frames IMO.
I have shot N-frames to shreds in less than 5K rounds of the same type of shooting with the same mix of hot and light loads. I have shot L-frames loose in 15K rounds with a similar mix of loadings.
The K-frame is my platform of choice. I have a small pile of them, some get pounded, some are just enjoyed and kept. The ONLY reason I'll buy a revolver other than a K-frame is for larger bore calibers, and I have learned what I can and can't do with them.
I have shot the snot out of just about every type and model of revolver, most were mine but some were shooting friends. The K-frame is the only gun I have found that will hold up to massive amounts of hard fast DA shooting other than the Ruger GP series. They hold up as well or better than any revolver ever made but leave some to be desired when compared to the K-frames IMO.
FALshootist
New member
HSMITH, between the rumor that S&W is discontinuing the K frame magnums and your, post I'm seriously considering dumping my 65 and 66. 
Hell, a magnum thats only in production approximately 55 years and only been arround 25 or so after the intro of the L frame. And now you're saying they are only good for 45K rounds, well hell I guess all those internet commandos were right and the K frame magnum is too weak for serious use. 
Yeah, that will be a cold day. I don't have as many magnum rounds as you in my guns but they are holding up just fine. Glad to hear yours are too. Actually, all joking aside, I believe there are a lot of k frame magnums around that have held up just fine. They called them the "Combat magnum" and that wasn't a bad name considering how many were used. Me. I've yet to find a revolver thats faster to draw, point, and shoot accurately than the K frame magnum, and thats whats been getting the job done for almost 55 years. A hard record to beat.
Tamara, You got me on the 624, 17 years damn, sometimes I really am out of touch.
Hell, a magnum thats only in production approximately 55 years and only been arround 25 or so after the intro of the L frame. And now you're saying they are only good for 45K rounds, well hell I guess all those internet commandos were right and the K frame magnum is too weak for serious use. Yeah, that will be a cold day. I don't have as many magnum rounds as you in my guns but they are holding up just fine. Glad to hear yours are too. Actually, all joking aside, I believe there are a lot of k frame magnums around that have held up just fine. They called them the "Combat magnum" and that wasn't a bad name considering how many were used. Me. I've yet to find a revolver thats faster to draw, point, and shoot accurately than the K frame magnum, and thats whats been getting the job done for almost 55 years. A hard record to beat.
Tamara, You got me on the 624, 17 years damn, sometimes I really am out of touch.
Not only that...
But if you read his posting, he says the N-frame doesn't hold up as well as the K-frame, too. Looks like S&W oopsed on the L and N frames, they just don't have what it takes like the K-frame. We're going at this all wrong, we should be shooting ultra-hot .357's in the J-frames, they'd last virtually forever at that rate.
But if you read his posting, he says the N-frame doesn't hold up as well as the K-frame, too. Looks like S&W oopsed on the L and N frames, they just don't have what it takes like the K-frame. We're going at this all wrong, we should be shooting ultra-hot .357's in the J-frames, they'd last virtually forever at that rate.
fallingblock
New member
My Model 13 shot loose in just under 500 rounds....
of Sierra ammo.
It was a new revolver, produced in 1981.
Both end shake and timing problems.
Probably just one of the 'lemons' S&W occasionally produce.
All of my J frames have been great out of the box.
of Sierra ammo.
It was a new revolver, produced in 1981.
Both end shake and timing problems.
Probably just one of the 'lemons' S&W occasionally produce.
All of my J frames have been great out of the box.
For clarification: Timing was lost on the L frame in less than 15K rounds of hard DA shooting, endshake was not bad at all but cylinder rotational play was near the point it would start spitting. The N-frames were spitting BAD in 5K rounds with no appreciable endshake. Stength encompasses many things, not just burst resistance. Weak is also a term that can be interpreted several ways. The added mass of the larger cylinders is a detriment when revolvers are used the way I shoot them.
I am just relating what has happened to me with guns I have shot a lot. Range plinkers won't ever see the timing problems I have had, but if you shoot hard and fast it will happen. I have only ever had one L-frame of my own, but have several N-frames that have been damaged. With the way I shoot the K-frame is the most durable. Been there and done that.
I have NEVER stretched a frame, bulged a barrel, or physically harmed a gun, not ANY gun. The strength of ANY steel S&W revolver of the post war era is such that if you stretch a frame or such you were WAAAAAYYYY overboard on the loads. That isn't what I was talking about and should have been clear from my post.
I am just relating what has happened to me with guns I have shot a lot. Range plinkers won't ever see the timing problems I have had, but if you shoot hard and fast it will happen. I have only ever had one L-frame of my own, but have several N-frames that have been damaged. With the way I shoot the K-frame is the most durable. Been there and done that.
I have NEVER stretched a frame, bulged a barrel, or physically harmed a gun, not ANY gun. The strength of ANY steel S&W revolver of the post war era is such that if you stretch a frame or such you were WAAAAAYYYY overboard on the loads. That isn't what I was talking about and should have been clear from my post.
I've a 2 & 1/2" 19 that needs end shake cured, and the bbl. set back a thread to put the bbl/cyl gap back to proper specs. I got it about 71 and shot the heck out of it for ten years using Super-Vel and other 125 gr., then eventually retired it. Now I want to tighten it up and have it to shoot again, mostly with 38's but a few 125 357's now and then. I've let to many guns go that needed only a trip to the shop. No more. That 19 is MY main gun I've shot til it's part of me.
I have a 1974 production Model 19, with the four-inch barrel...after about 14K rounds thru it, with 2K or 2500 of them being factory Magnums or equivalent handloads, it went back to Springfield for a retiming and headspace/BC gap correction...after about 10 or 12K MORE firings, with FEWER "Maggies", it needs to be "rebuilt" again...in contrast, I have an early 586 "no dash" that has about 35K rounds thru it, with about ten percent being factory Magnums or equivalent handloads, and it's just now getting some "wear" on it...still "carries up" fine, very little endshake, very little rotational play when "locked up"...but Boy Howdy, does it need a reblue!!!...think S&W would cover THAT under the "Lifetime Warranty???"...naahhh, didn't think so....mikey357
I have not done it myself, but I have held quite a few in the past year that had been shot loose, all 66-0s or 66-1s (I was looking for a P&R 66). The worst example had severe looseness in the hand (so it had a lot of rotational play), a good .013-.014 of end play (on top of the b/c gap), and worst of all very noticeable lateral play of the crane and cylinder when closed due to the hole in the recoil shield for the cylinder pin being worn into an egg shape. That last was presumably not due to firing, but rather being opened and closed a few zillion times, but it would have been an accuracy-wrecker.
Never ran across one with a split forcing cone, but I'm sure they're out there.
Yes, you can shoot one of these things loose...
Never ran across one with a split forcing cone, but I'm sure they're out there.
Yes, you can shoot one of these things loose...
I hesitate to bring this up as I'm sure HSmith will say it can't be so.
My old department issued S&W Model 66s, both the 2.5" and 4" versions. About 1978 we started training exclusively with 357 Magnum ammo for liability reasons. In the early 1980s, when I became the departments firearms instructor, we started noticing problems with the 66s. End shake, timing, at least one cracked forcing cone (there may have been more) and one (1) streatched frame. When our armorer called Smith about the stretched frame they didn't believe him. We sent it back to them and they replaced the whole gun, with no comment. I am willing to conceed that one was a fluke (lemmon) like the one we got straight from the factory that had the barrel screwed in so far out of alignment the ejector rod would not lock up.
By the mid-1980s Smith was recommending replacing the 66s with 686s, but by then the auto craze had hit the country's LE community and revolvers became a thing of the past soon there after.
In my experience a steady diet of magnums will beat up a K-Frame. Others seem to disagree.
Dave
My old department issued S&W Model 66s, both the 2.5" and 4" versions. About 1978 we started training exclusively with 357 Magnum ammo for liability reasons. In the early 1980s, when I became the departments firearms instructor, we started noticing problems with the 66s. End shake, timing, at least one cracked forcing cone (there may have been more) and one (1) streatched frame. When our armorer called Smith about the stretched frame they didn't believe him. We sent it back to them and they replaced the whole gun, with no comment. I am willing to conceed that one was a fluke (lemmon) like the one we got straight from the factory that had the barrel screwed in so far out of alignment the ejector rod would not lock up.
By the mid-1980s Smith was recommending replacing the 66s with 686s, but by then the auto craze had hit the country's LE community and revolvers became a thing of the past soon there after.
In my experience a steady diet of magnums will beat up a K-Frame. Others seem to disagree.
Dave
Dave, your experience is appreciated. I believe it to be possible and don't think you are stretching the truth or anything else. Another poster has mentioned the 66 and 66-1, about the right time frame for the period you mention, had problems. My experience with Smith stainless steel guns is short, and won't get any longer. I don't like stainless, and have tried to get over it to no avail. I just don't like stainless guns and have sold off every single one I had. I have not shot one more than a couple thousand rounds, and as such had not one single issue with them. In the past there was lots of rumor and complaining about stainless guns being soft and/or galling. I don't think this is the case with recent guns or current guns, but do you think it could have been the case with the older guns when you were seeing the trouble? I would also like to know if you have ever seen similar problems in the blued K-frames?
HSMITH,
When I joined the department in the early 1970s we had to buy our own guns and the practice then was to qualify with 38s (no training, just anual qualification).
It was after the mid to late 1970s that vicarious liability raised its ugly head and the department started 1) issuing guns 2) training in addition to qualifying 3) using only magnum ammo. For all of the above reasons I don't have the body of experience with blued K-Frames I do with the stainless 66. I have known a few individuals who have worn out (timing, end-shake, etc.) Model 19s but I can't say what or how much they shot and their stories or second or third hand.
Like you, I do not have a warm feeling in my hart for stainless S&W revolvers, and since that's about all Smith makes anymore I'm not much in the market for their new guns. With the idiot lock on the side that may not be such a bad thing. Next I hear they are going to all shrouded barrels. Smith keeps getting further and further away from where they started. Oh well!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!
Dave
When I joined the department in the early 1970s we had to buy our own guns and the practice then was to qualify with 38s (no training, just anual qualification).
It was after the mid to late 1970s that vicarious liability raised its ugly head and the department started 1) issuing guns 2) training in addition to qualifying 3) using only magnum ammo. For all of the above reasons I don't have the body of experience with blued K-Frames I do with the stainless 66. I have known a few individuals who have worn out (timing, end-shake, etc.) Model 19s but I can't say what or how much they shot and their stories or second or third hand.
Like you, I do not have a warm feeling in my hart for stainless S&W revolvers, and since that's about all Smith makes anymore I'm not much in the market for their new guns. With the idiot lock on the side that may not be such a bad thing. Next I hear they are going to all shrouded barrels. Smith keeps getting further and further away from where they started. Oh well!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!
Dave