Is the Model 27 the closest thing that S&W has now to the Model 19 Combat Magnum?
- Thread starter C0untZer0
- Start date
Unfortunately S&W really doesn't have anything like the Model 19 anymore. They stopped making K-frame 357 mags years ago. The Model 27 is an N frame and quite a bit larger than the K-frame model 19. The 686 is an L-frame which is in-between size between K-frame and N-frame, so in that respect the 686 is closer in size than the 27 to the 19. However the 686 is only offered in stainless steel (Model 19 was blued or nickle) and the 686 has a full underlug barrel which adds to the weight so it definitely will balance differently than a 19. I personally own all three and I find I shoot the L-frames and K-frames better than the N-frames, but others will disagree. The good news is that there are plenty of used Model 19s (or Model 66 if you prefer stainless) on the used gun market. They were well made and you should be able to find one in good shape either as a shooter or a collector piece. Good luck!
The Model 15 is also fairly close to the Model 19 with the exception that it is chambered for .38 Special rather than .357 Magnum. The M19 "Combat Magnum" was actually based on the M15 "Combat Masterpiece" and changes included .357 Magnum chambering, heavy barrel, and half-underlug. The balance and handling characteristics of the M15 are very similar to than of the M19. S&W no longer makes any .357 Magnum K-Frames; the M19 was discontinued in 1999 and the last K-Frame Magnum, the M66, was discontinued in 2005.
Hagar the Republican
New member
I am really glad I have the .357 K frames I own now. It's one of the finest handguns ever made and I'll never figure out why S&W dropped them. I'd still love to have a 3" M13. The only K frames out now are the 64, 67, 14, and 10, all in 38 Spl. (Except for the .22s of course.)
As stated above the closest thing to a M19 today is the L frame 686. However, I can fine nothing wrong with the 686. For defensive purposes the 2.5" and 3" barreled guns are extremely well balanced, and aim as naturally as pointing your finger.
The The N frame 27 is a heavy gun, however, I'd still like to have one as a fun gun. I have carried a 3" 24 (.44 Spl.) and for some insane reason a 6.5" 25 (.45 Colt), but the K frames are terrific and you forget they are there. You'll never forget you're lugging a 27 around!
As stated above the closest thing to a M19 today is the L frame 686. However, I can fine nothing wrong with the 686. For defensive purposes the 2.5" and 3" barreled guns are extremely well balanced, and aim as naturally as pointing your finger.
The The N frame 27 is a heavy gun, however, I'd still like to have one as a fun gun. I have carried a 3" 24 (.44 Spl.) and for some insane reason a 6.5" 25 (.45 Colt), but the K frames are terrific and you forget they are there. You'll never forget you're lugging a 27 around!
They dropped them because too many dumb people kept trying to turn them into .357 MAXIMUM guns. Too many people were brainwashed into believing that you HAVE to use 100-125 gr. flamethrower loads in the .357 caliber to make it a viable round. You don't. Many people still believe this nonsense. They are beautiful guns. With a sensible load they are an excellent choice. Creating a huge fireball does not make the gun more powerful. It just abuses the steel it's crafted from.
The reason that the K-Frames were discontinued actually has a few factors feeding into it. First, the K-Frame is unique among S&W revolvers in that it requires the outside of the forcing cone to have a flat spot ground onto it at the six o' clock position in order to clear the crane thus causing a thin spot in the forcing cone. While this thin spot is not problematic in other cartrdiges for which the K-Frame was chambered such as .22 Long Rifle, .32 S&W Long, .32-20, or .38 Special, it was prone to crack when full-power .357 Magnum ammo with bullets lighter than 140gr is used.
This is because the lighter bullets are also shorter and as such they have not fully gripped the rifling yet by the time the bullet has left the case. This, in turn, allows more burning powder to flow around the bullet and into the forcing cone. Lighter bullets also require less pressure to begin moving out of the case, so more powder burns in the barrel and chambers than a comparable loading with a heavier bullet. Some call this a design flaw in the K-Frame, but I don't quite think that's fair because factory .357 Magnum ammo with lightweight bullets did not exist when the Combat Magnum was introduced in the 1950's (110-125gr .357 Magnum loadings are a product of the 1970's). While K-Frames don't seem to have much trouble with .38 Special ammo or .357 Magnum ammo with heavier bullets, the lightweight magnums became very popular as a self-defense loading and ill-informed shooters wound up shooting lots of them in K-Frames and experiencing the resulting problems.
The other reason that contributed to the K-Frame Magnum's demise was revolvers falling out of favor for police use. The K-Frame had been a long time favorite for cops because it was big and heavy enough to be easy to shoot, but it was still small and light enough that it wasn't overly burdensome to carry all day long. With the police market out of the equation, however, the lion's share of revolver sales by the time the K-Frame Magnums were discontinued were to either people who carried concealed and prefered J-Frames for their compactness or outdoorsmen who preferred L and N-Frames for their ruggedness and recoil-dampening weight.
Basically, the demise of the K-Frame Magnum was a combination of a dwindling market and people who insisted upon using ammunition that the gun was never designed for. From a business perspective, the decision makes sense as S&W was probably selling just enough K-Frame Magnums to keep their warranty depatment busy and thus making very little, if any, money on the line. From what I've heard and read, a K-Frame Magnum that is sent to S&W with a cracked forcing cone will be replaced with an L-Frame or other comparable gun of the customer's choosing as S&W no longer makes K-Frame Magnum barrels. On a personal note, however, I am disappointed in the discontinuation of the K-Frame Magnum as I am one of the minority of people who find them to be the ideal CCW (L-Frame never balanced as well in my hand as K-Frames do). One of my main carry guns is a M66-2 with a 2 1/2" barrel loaded with Remington 158gr JHP and, unless the gun is irrepairably damaged, I have no intention of ever selling it.
This is because the lighter bullets are also shorter and as such they have not fully gripped the rifling yet by the time the bullet has left the case. This, in turn, allows more burning powder to flow around the bullet and into the forcing cone. Lighter bullets also require less pressure to begin moving out of the case, so more powder burns in the barrel and chambers than a comparable loading with a heavier bullet. Some call this a design flaw in the K-Frame, but I don't quite think that's fair because factory .357 Magnum ammo with lightweight bullets did not exist when the Combat Magnum was introduced in the 1950's (110-125gr .357 Magnum loadings are a product of the 1970's). While K-Frames don't seem to have much trouble with .38 Special ammo or .357 Magnum ammo with heavier bullets, the lightweight magnums became very popular as a self-defense loading and ill-informed shooters wound up shooting lots of them in K-Frames and experiencing the resulting problems.
The other reason that contributed to the K-Frame Magnum's demise was revolvers falling out of favor for police use. The K-Frame had been a long time favorite for cops because it was big and heavy enough to be easy to shoot, but it was still small and light enough that it wasn't overly burdensome to carry all day long. With the police market out of the equation, however, the lion's share of revolver sales by the time the K-Frame Magnums were discontinued were to either people who carried concealed and prefered J-Frames for their compactness or outdoorsmen who preferred L and N-Frames for their ruggedness and recoil-dampening weight.
Basically, the demise of the K-Frame Magnum was a combination of a dwindling market and people who insisted upon using ammunition that the gun was never designed for. From a business perspective, the decision makes sense as S&W was probably selling just enough K-Frame Magnums to keep their warranty depatment busy and thus making very little, if any, money on the line. From what I've heard and read, a K-Frame Magnum that is sent to S&W with a cracked forcing cone will be replaced with an L-Frame or other comparable gun of the customer's choosing as S&W no longer makes K-Frame Magnum barrels. On a personal note, however, I am disappointed in the discontinuation of the K-Frame Magnum as I am one of the minority of people who find them to be the ideal CCW (L-Frame never balanced as well in my hand as K-Frames do). One of my main carry guns is a M66-2 with a 2 1/2" barrel loaded with Remington 158gr JHP and, unless the gun is irrepairably damaged, I have no intention of ever selling it.
seeker_two
New member
S&W did have a couple of "faux-K" frames listed....actually L-frame, 7-shot revolvers with some styling changes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_619_%26_620
Can't get the S&W site to work....so I don't know if they're still being manufactured....too bad....the fixed-sight 620 in 2.5" would have made a nice CCW piece.....
Revised: Nope...no 619 or 620 listed....
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_757769_-1_757767_757751_image#http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smith-wesson.com%2Fwebapp%2Fwcs%2Fstores%2Fservlet%2FCategoryOnlyResultsDisplayView%3FpageSize%3D64%26pageView%3Dimage%26catalogId%3D750051%26top_category%3D757751%26parent_category_rn%3D757767%26beginIndex%3D0%26categoryId%3D757769%26categoryId%3D757769%26langId%3D-1%26storeId%3D750001%26filterResults%3D%26useFilter%3D%26identifier%3D1324950816376
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_Model_619_%26_620
Can't get the S&W site to work....so I don't know if they're still being manufactured....too bad....the fixed-sight 620 in 2.5" would have made a nice CCW piece.....
Revised: Nope...no 619 or 620 listed....
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_757769_-1_757767_757751_image#http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smith-wesson.com%2Fwebapp%2Fwcs%2Fstores%2Fservlet%2FCategoryOnlyResultsDisplayView%3FpageSize%3D64%26pageView%3Dimage%26catalogId%3D750051%26top_category%3D757751%26parent_category_rn%3D757767%26beginIndex%3D0%26categoryId%3D757769%26categoryId%3D757769%26langId%3D-1%26storeId%3D750001%26filterResults%3D%26useFilter%3D%26identifier%3D1324950816376
Last edited:
I had a 6" model 19 back in the 80s. Fine revolver. Eventually I decided I was done with the .357 round, and sold or traded it (I no longer recall which). I even gave away (to a good friend) all my brass. I kept the dies (I aways keep the dies, 
).
A couple years later at a show, I run across a 6" model 28, NIB. Now, my Dad had a 6" M28 when I was a kid, and that was the "cannon" in the house. SO, that model 28 went home with me. And I got to discover what a diamond in the rough (and not too rough) these guns really are. That gun has the target hammer and target trigger, which was not the factory standard for the M28, but makes the gun a joy to shoot even more than the regular ones.
Equal in all respects to the model 27, save sights and finish, but costing a significant amount less, the M28 is the best value of the old N frame guns. I even prefer the satin blue to the high luster blue of the top of the line guns.
The model 28 handles the hottest safe .357 Magnum loads, including the equivalent of the original factory magnum ammo. It handles loads that are too hot for K frames, or anything smaller.
The model 19 was just what Bill Jordan envisioned when he wanted a duty revolver that was easier to carry all day than the big Smiths, yet would handle occassional use of .357 Mag ammo. And this worked pretty well for a couple of decades. A quick check of a 1974 Gun Digest says that a 4" Model 19 has a weight of 35oz. A 6" Model 27 weighs 44oz. And the 19 was $150, the 27 was $175 msrp. I can remember about that time the model 28 in a local shop (new) was $140. And the Colt Trooper MkIII was $188!
However, with the introduction of the hot 125gr "manstoppers", and a number of people feeding their 19s lots of hot ammo, problems began showing up in the 19s.
S&W's "replacement" for the K frame .357 was the L frame, 586 & 686 guns. A slightly larger frame & cylinder than the K frame, but smaller and lighter than the N frame.
This was a fine thing, and would have resulted in a revolver much more durable (meaning longevity with hot magnum loads), and yet just slightly heavier than the K frame M19. However, S&W didn't stop there. They paired the L frame with a heavy, full underlug barrel.
What this did was to produce a gun slightly smaller than the M27/28 N frames, but weighing virtually as much. And the full underlug gives the 586/686 series a very muzzle heavy feel. Some people like it, some don't. I've heard it claimed that a muzzle heavy gun is faster to get back on target, but I can say if that's true or not, everyone shoots a bit differently. I do know that they don't balance in my hand the way I am used to from all my other revolvers, and I don't really like that much.
Its getting to be a moot point these days, as the .357 market has mostly swung to the opposite ends. People either want a big heavy rugged gun (to last and damp recoil) or they want an ultra light pocket size carry gun, to be carried a lot, and shot only a little.
With the police having gone to semiautos, demand for a duty size (medium size) .357 isn't nearly what it was.
).A couple years later at a show, I run across a 6" model 28, NIB. Now, my Dad had a 6" M28 when I was a kid, and that was the "cannon" in the house. SO, that model 28 went home with me. And I got to discover what a diamond in the rough (and not too rough) these guns really are. That gun has the target hammer and target trigger, which was not the factory standard for the M28, but makes the gun a joy to shoot even more than the regular ones.
Equal in all respects to the model 27, save sights and finish, but costing a significant amount less, the M28 is the best value of the old N frame guns. I even prefer the satin blue to the high luster blue of the top of the line guns.
The model 28 handles the hottest safe .357 Magnum loads, including the equivalent of the original factory magnum ammo. It handles loads that are too hot for K frames, or anything smaller.
The model 19 was just what Bill Jordan envisioned when he wanted a duty revolver that was easier to carry all day than the big Smiths, yet would handle occassional use of .357 Mag ammo. And this worked pretty well for a couple of decades. A quick check of a 1974 Gun Digest says that a 4" Model 19 has a weight of 35oz. A 6" Model 27 weighs 44oz. And the 19 was $150, the 27 was $175 msrp. I can remember about that time the model 28 in a local shop (new) was $140. And the Colt Trooper MkIII was $188!
However, with the introduction of the hot 125gr "manstoppers", and a number of people feeding their 19s lots of hot ammo, problems began showing up in the 19s.
S&W's "replacement" for the K frame .357 was the L frame, 586 & 686 guns. A slightly larger frame & cylinder than the K frame, but smaller and lighter than the N frame.
This was a fine thing, and would have resulted in a revolver much more durable (meaning longevity with hot magnum loads), and yet just slightly heavier than the K frame M19. However, S&W didn't stop there. They paired the L frame with a heavy, full underlug barrel.
What this did was to produce a gun slightly smaller than the M27/28 N frames, but weighing virtually as much. And the full underlug gives the 586/686 series a very muzzle heavy feel. Some people like it, some don't. I've heard it claimed that a muzzle heavy gun is faster to get back on target, but I can say if that's true or not, everyone shoots a bit differently. I do know that they don't balance in my hand the way I am used to from all my other revolvers, and I don't really like that much.
Its getting to be a moot point these days, as the .357 market has mostly swung to the opposite ends. People either want a big heavy rugged gun (to last and damp recoil) or they want an ultra light pocket size carry gun, to be carried a lot, and shot only a little.
With the police having gone to semiautos, demand for a duty size (medium size) .357 isn't nearly what it was.
Hagar the Republican
New member
Wow, thank you Webleymkv!
I guess I need to get some 158-gr ammo, and save my 125-gr stuff for my Ruger SA and Marlin lever gun. What a wealth of information!
I guess I need to get some 158-gr ammo, and save my 125-gr stuff for my Ruger SA and Marlin lever gun. What a wealth of information!
"That gun has the target hammer and target trigger, which was not the factory standard for the M28, but makes the gun a joy to shoot even more than the regular ones."
I agree with everything you said 44Amp except for the Target trigger part. I don't like a wide serrated trigger for double action work. The target trigger was designed for single action target matches and for that it is great but for fast double action shooting (ie defensive work) I think a mirror smooth, rounded, relatively narrow trigger is best...those wide triggers do look sweet though!
I agree with everything you said 44Amp except for the Target trigger part. I don't like a wide serrated trigger for double action work. The target trigger was designed for single action target matches and for that it is great but for fast double action shooting (ie defensive work) I think a mirror smooth, rounded, relatively narrow trigger is best...those wide triggers do look sweet though!
"N" frame, 4" barrel, Model 28 (-2)
"K" frame, 4" barrel, Model 19 (-4)
Both from 1978.
I don't know if they'll help, but the pictures might give you an idea of the size difference.
Sorry, I don't have a "L" frame, they've never interested me at all, but it would fall between the two.
"K" frame, 4" barrel, Model 19 (-4)
Both from 1978.
I don't know if they'll help, but the pictures might give you an idea of the size difference.
Sorry, I don't have a "L" frame, they've never interested me at all, but it would fall between the two.
Rapid DA fire is one thing I don't do much of with my "target" 28. Slow DA, the trigger just seems to "roll" back and the gun shoots. And I'm using the pad of my trigger finger to do this.
I agree that for fast DA, a narrow smooth trigger and using the first joint of the trigger finger is probably better.
I do have (currently) 3 other 6" M28s stock, except for grips. Guess I'll have to practice some with them.
Duke City Six
New member
One little point
While the magnum K-frames do have the flat spot at the six o'clock position on the forcing cone, the 38 special K-frames do not.
While the magnum K-frames do have the flat spot at the six o'clock position on the forcing cone, the 38 special K-frames do not.
Doug Bowser
New member
Why try to buy a new Model 19, I would rather have one from the mid-70's anyway. I have 2 mid 70's S&W revolvers and they are better machined and finished than the Brand New versions. Keep looking at gun shows and shops until you find a nice one.
excelerater
Moderator
N frames are the strongest 357s ?
Its a 44MAG frame with a smaller bore,correct ?
I picked one up last week at the gun store for the first time and was blown away by its sheer mass compared to a Combat Mag or a 686.....686 is heavier than a 19/66 but a 28 makes them all look tiny,ruger included - just look at the pic above,that 28 is bigger everywhere ,its like a 19 on steriods
Its a 44MAG frame with a smaller bore,correct ?
I picked one up last week at the gun store for the first time and was blown away by its sheer mass compared to a Combat Mag or a 686.....686 is heavier than a 19/66 but a 28 makes them all look tiny,ruger included - just look at the pic above,that 28 is bigger everywhere ,its like a 19 on steriods
To be more precise, the 44 magnum is a .357 with a bigger barrel, since the .357 came first. Of course, the .44 special was already around when Keith, or so he claimed, invented both the .357 and the .44 magnum. Probably he should get more credit for the .44 magnum.
Personally, I like the heavier barrels, but a full lugged, 6" barrel is a bit much. In the N-frame, I think the 4-inch barrel balances the best (for me) with the heavy .44 magnum or .45 Colt barrel but for the lighter, tapered barrels, the 6-inch or 6 1/2-inch barrels feel better. I've never held one with a longer barrel than that. I also think the same feel holds true for the K-frame but of course, the L-frames were all underlugged, for some reason. Ruger offered just about all possible variations in the GP-100 at one time, really offering a better choice. But that was then.
I have also read somewhere that fast shooting with an N-frame was harder on the gun because of the heavier cylinder, presumably even more so in a .38 or .357 chambering, but I have no idea if it's true or not.
Personally, I like the heavier barrels, but a full lugged, 6" barrel is a bit much. In the N-frame, I think the 4-inch barrel balances the best (for me) with the heavy .44 magnum or .45 Colt barrel but for the lighter, tapered barrels, the 6-inch or 6 1/2-inch barrels feel better. I've never held one with a longer barrel than that. I also think the same feel holds true for the K-frame but of course, the L-frames were all underlugged, for some reason. Ruger offered just about all possible variations in the GP-100 at one time, really offering a better choice. But that was then.
I have also read somewhere that fast shooting with an N-frame was harder on the gun because of the heavier cylinder, presumably even more so in a .38 or .357 chambering, but I have no idea if it's true or not.
excelerater said:
No, not really. I'm sure a SW expert will be around shortly to correct me if the dates are off. While the N-frame is used in the .44 magnum revolver (the one Dirty Harry made famous), it is actually an old frame design, first produced in 1908 as the .44 Special Hand Ejector. The N-frame has had a few design changes over the years, notably when it became the Model 1917, chambered in .45 ACP.
The .357 magnum cartridge was introduced in 1934 with a revolver that SW called the Registered Magnum. We now call that pistol the Model 27. Also an N-frame design, some of us consider the old Registered Magnum the most beautiful pistol that SW ever slid out the door.
The .44 Magnum cartridge was introduced in 1956 and Sturm Ruger actually beat SW in getting a revolver to market. Ruger got a single action Blackhawk to market several months before SW introduced their Model 29, which is a N-frame chambered in .44 magnum. It's still an iconic revolver.
But, the N-frame saw the .357 cartridge several decades before the .44 magnum was introduced, and the N-frame was first chambered in .44 Special.
Great history lesson as to the k-frame magnums and how/why the the lighter bullets aren't recommended for high round counts.
But it does beg the question...
If this is/was a large contributing factor to the demise of the k-frame magnums, and it's so well known as to almost become an industry standard answer/story anytime a k-frame magnum comes up...
Then why is it that S&W continues to keep rolling out the j-frame .357 Magnums? Is it as simple as the fact that a high-round count of light-bullet ammo would destroy these guns -- but nobody has the will to put a high round count through them because of their punishing nature?
I love a k-frame and shoot them a lot, mine being Model 10 & 17, and I've put some rounds through my friend's 19 and it's an absolute sweetheart, but it's got some punch in .357 Magnum that I don't have to experience when shooting my 6-inch 686.
The 3-inch Model 60 that I had for a short while? (j-frame) That little firecracker let you know it was alive with .38 Special and it wasn't really enjoyable with .357 Magnum. And for sure, it was much more pleasant to shoot than any of the airweights or ultralights -- but still no fun whatsoever.
I'd like to try one of the lesser-seen 5-inch Model 60s, to see if that extra two inches (with full underlug) eats up any .357 Magnum punch. It's just a funny looking revolver -- looks big & mean in pictures, but it's dinky in all dimensions. Like a cartoon Magnum.
But it does beg the question...
If this is/was a large contributing factor to the demise of the k-frame magnums, and it's so well known as to almost become an industry standard answer/story anytime a k-frame magnum comes up...
Then why is it that S&W continues to keep rolling out the j-frame .357 Magnums? Is it as simple as the fact that a high-round count of light-bullet ammo would destroy these guns -- but nobody has the will to put a high round count through them because of their punishing nature?
I love a k-frame and shoot them a lot, mine being Model 10 & 17, and I've put some rounds through my friend's 19 and it's an absolute sweetheart, but it's got some punch in .357 Magnum that I don't have to experience when shooting my 6-inch 686.
The 3-inch Model 60 that I had for a short while? (j-frame) That little firecracker let you know it was alive with .38 Special and it wasn't really enjoyable with .357 Magnum. And for sure, it was much more pleasant to shoot than any of the airweights or ultralights -- but still no fun whatsoever.
I'd like to try one of the lesser-seen 5-inch Model 60s, to see if that extra two inches (with full underlug) eats up any .357 Magnum punch. It's just a funny looking revolver -- looks big & mean in pictures, but it's dinky in all dimensions. Like a cartoon Magnum.
I once looked long and hard at one of those Model 60s with a five-inch barrel but it was well beyond my means. Unfortunately, I don't think they're still listed by S&W, though someone may still have a new one. I thought it would make the perfect "trail gun."
But as far as a fun and pleasant shooting revolver, I'd suggest that a .22 is just about perfect for that.
But as far as a fun and pleasant shooting revolver, I'd suggest that a .22 is just about perfect for that.