Recycled bullet
New member
It's not the 125 Grain bullets that are eating barrel face.
It's the 22 Grains of hodgdon h110 that's eating the barrel face.
It's the 22 Grains of hodgdon h110 that's eating the barrel face.
K Frame & Warm 357
- Thread starter 1972RedNeck
- Start date
- Status
The 110gr factory loads were actually a lower velocity than the 125’s which were the hot rod of the day.
From a 1985 Gun Digest;
110 1295fps 410ME
125 1450fps 583ME
158 1235fps 535ME, all from a 4” vented barrel. Those 110’s were cream puffs compared to the 125’s. My uncle, used to be issued the 110’s and a whole lot of 38spl 148 wadcutters for practice. His carry gun was a 4”66 but was issued a Border Patrol Security Six. He told me the Ruger was too heavy, drug his pants down.
From a 1985 Gun Digest;
110 1295fps 410ME
125 1450fps 583ME
158 1235fps 535ME, all from a 4” vented barrel. Those 110’s were cream puffs compared to the 125’s. My uncle, used to be issued the 110’s and a whole lot of 38spl 148 wadcutters for practice. His carry gun was a 4”66 but was issued a Border Patrol Security Six. He told me the Ruger was too heavy, drug his pants down.
The link 44 AMP posted showed a cracked forcing cone on a gun that had shot no 357 Magnum ammo. And the link I posted in post #2 stated broken forcing cones in 38 Special revolvers.
It's never just one thing (22 gr H110, or only 125 Remington ammo). And it's never just one gun design (S&W K frame 357 Mag).
It's never just one thing (22 gr H110, or only 125 Remington ammo). And it's never just one gun design (S&W K frame 357 Mag).
Mike Irwin
Staff
"It's never just one thing (22 gr H110, or only 125 Remington ammo). And it's never just one gun design (S&W K frame 357 Mag). "
This. In spades.
Oh, and the reason for the full underlug on the L frame guns?
To deal with complaints that the K frame was too light, and thus kicking too hard, when being fired with full power .357 Mag. ammo.
This. In spades.
Oh, and the reason for the full underlug on the L frame guns?
To deal with complaints that the K frame was too light, and thus kicking too hard, when being fired with full power .357 Mag. ammo.
Recycled bullet
New member
110 and 125 Grain bullets use five to seven grains more of h110 or W 296 as compared to 155-170 grain bullets. In small handguns like 357 Magnum this is a lot.
Recycled bullet
New member
I have a shot out barrel on my Ruger SP101. I used at least 8 lb of 2400 with 110 grain bullets at 17.5 G per cartridge and at least 8-12 more pounds of h110/w-296 at 20-22 grains each. It looks like an acetylene torch and a sandblaster just ate it up. I shot that gun thousands of times.
wild cat mccane
New member
Stated differently to answer the question, I haven't read the new introduced K frames have had any problems. Has anyone else?
1972RedNeck
New member
My 4" M65 weighs about 34 oz, my 4" M619 weighs about 38 oz, and my 5" M627 weighs about 44 oz.
I realize barrel lengths aren't the same, but it doesn't seem like my L frame is anywhere close in weight to my N frame...
Check the specs for the original (full underlug) barrel L frames and you'll see they are the same listed weight as the same barrel length N frame.
I have weighted 4" and 6" examples of both, and with wood grips they are the same or vary about an ounce, due to different densities of the wood in each.
Other, newer non-full underlug barrel L frames are slightly lighter than N frames, but slightly heavier than K frames of equal barrel lengths.
1972RedNeck
New member
Hmm, I didn't realize my 619 was that much of a one off. The normal L frames are heavy according to specs.
What's the point of a heavy L frame when you can get an extra round in a similar package (N frame)?
Recycled bullet
New member
I never heard a satisfactory explanation for why the 357 magnum N frame guns have the shortest cylinders of them all.
Rounds that fit the cylinder and fire correctly in my J and L frame will inhibit cylinder rotation in N frame, they poke out the end of the cylinder. Why?
Rounds that fit the cylinder and fire correctly in my J and L frame will inhibit cylinder rotation in N frame, they poke out the end of the cylinder. Why?
The OP never specified what type of bullet he's using. If he's using a some kind of expanding bullet like a JSP or JHP and trying to get expansion, then the increased velocity from a heavy load of H110 would be helpful in that aim.
Also, the more I think about this I'm not so sure that the 16.5 gr load of H110 that the OP quoted is as hot as some of us seem to think it is. Hodgdon's website lists 16.7 gr of H110 with a 158 gr Hornady XTP bullet, Winchester magnum primer, and Winchester case at a velocity of 1591 fps. That seems to be screaming fast until you notice that they were using a 10" test barrel. While I know that .357 Magnum revolvers with 10" or longer barrels certainly exist, they aren't common nor are they what most ammo makers list their .357 Magnum velocities from (4-6" barrels are more common). When tested from 10" T/C Encore barrel, both of the Federal 158 gr .357 Magnum loadings used by BBTI achieved velocities over 1600 fps.
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html
Considering that I've personally chronographed Federal 158 gr JSP at over 1300 fps from my 4" Model 28, I'm beginning to think that the 16.5 gr of H110 that the OP specified might be a fairly close approximation of a normal factory loading.
Yes and no. You're correct that loadings with 158 gr bullets (and others with reasonably heavy bullets like Winchester's 145 gr Silvertip) weren't problems by and large. It was not, however, just the Remington 125 gr loading but all of the high velocity (1400+ fps) 125 gr loadings that were problematic. Also, there were a few very high velocity loadings with even lighter 110 gr bullets which could be just as problematic, if not more so. I once got ahold of an old box of Super-Vel .357 Magnum 110 gr JSP which I shot in my 5" S&W Model 27. I wasn't able to chronograph these as I was at an indoor range, but the report was on par with that of my .44 Magnum, primers were very flat, and extraction was sticky. I had no desire to shoot any more of those in my N-Frames, much less a K-Frame.
The new K-frame .357 Magnums (I'm not 100% sure about other calibers) use the newer two-piece barrel which eliminates the need for the infamous 6 o'clock flat spot on the forcing cone. S&W does not, to my knowledge, advise against any particular bullet weights or loadings nor have I heard of any problems with the new K-Frame Magnums.
Another thing to bear in mind is that, with the exception of the 586 Classic, all the new L-Frames have round butts which shaves off a little more weight as opposed to a square butt. For example, a 6" 686, which has a round butt, is listed on S&W's website at 45.3 oz. A 6 1/2" M27 Classic, which has a square butt, is listed at 46.6 oz but a 6" 586 Classic, which also has a square butt, is listed at 47 oz. Now, the wood grips on the M27 and 586 might account for some of the extra weight over the 686, but a 6" 629 which also has rubber grips only weighs one ounce more than the 686 at 46.3 oz (the 629 has a heavy, half-lug barrel as opposed to the tapered, half-lug barrel of the M27 Classic).
When introduced in the early 80's, you didn't get the extra round as K, L, and N-Frames were all six-shot revolvers back then. While I don't personally see the appeal of a six-shot L-Frame over a six-shot N-Frame when both weigh the same, I suspect it was to chase the look and more muzzle-heavy feel of the Colt Python as a S&W L-Frame is similar in size to a Colt I-Frame.
It wasn't so much that S&W intentionally gave the N-Frame short cylinders as that they gave J, K, and L-Frames elongated ones. Remember, the N-Frames were the first guns made in .357 Magnum and were given the same length cylinder as the .38/44 Heavy Duty and Outdoorsman (later models 20 and 23) which were chambered for a high-pressure variant of .38 Special. The .357 Magnum case wasn't made longer due to necessity of design, but rather to prevent it from being chambered in .38 Special revolvers. The SAAMI max OAL for .357 Magnum is 1.59" while .38 Special is 1.55", a difference of only 4 hundredths of an inch. When ammo is kept within the 1.59" OAL, the "short" N-Frame cylinder is still plenty long enough.
The practice of S&W giving Magnums longer cylinders started in the 1950's with the introduction of both the Combat Magnum (later Model 19) and .44 Magnum (later Model 29). These guns were given longer cylinders than their .38 and .44 Special counterparts for the same reason that they were given heavy barrels instead of tapered ones: to add weight and dampen recoil. S&W continued this practice with the later L and J-Frame Magnums but never changed the N-Frames (I guess they figure that N-Frames are already plenty heavy enough even with "short" cylinders).
Last edited:
OPs load is stiff load for K frame no matter how you slice it. You won’t blow it up but will put undue beating on it. What is your “go to load for? “ The whole concept of the model 19 was to give cops a practical weight magnum revolver. There is always a trade off. In this case the cop carries his gun daily, he fires it very little. Most PDs did their practice with 38specials. So the durability was traded for weight.
I have a few S&W revolvers and don’t use magnum loads in any of them. Why pound the piss out of a precision firearm for no reason. I have old 3screw Rugers that I use for heavy loads to hunt. I shot deer with Ruger SBH and heavy magnum load, also have shot deer with S&W 29 with cast 240 at 825fps and deer had one thing in common they were just as dead.
I have 19s, 28s and 27s don’t shoot magnum loads or jacketed bullets in any of them. If there is no practical reason why pay extra to beat up your piece.
I have a few S&W revolvers and don’t use magnum loads in any of them. Why pound the piss out of a precision firearm for no reason. I have old 3screw Rugers that I use for heavy loads to hunt. I shot deer with Ruger SBH and heavy magnum load, also have shot deer with S&W 29 with cast 240 at 825fps and deer had one thing in common they were just as dead.
I have 19s, 28s and 27s don’t shoot magnum loads or jacketed bullets in any of them. If there is no practical reason why pay extra to beat up your piece.
4 hundredths of an inch.
You are of course correct. The source I was drawing data from listed them as 1.590" and 1.550" and I mixed up the denomination between the actual difference in length and the unnecessary zeros I was omitting. I have a near compulsive need to eliminate trailing zeros because I routinely deal with medical laboratory results and dosage calculations where unnecessary trailing zeros are potentially dangerous.
Could you please explain how this happens, because according to the information in the Standard Catalog of S&W it doesn't seem possible.
To start with, the N frame .357 cylinders are not the shortest ones S&W made.
The .357 J frame guns have cylinders 1.59" long.
N frame 357 cylinders (and also L frame .357 cylinders) are 1.62"
A round that fits in a J frame's 1.59" cylinder and doesn't poke out, and fits in an L frame 1.62" cylinder and doesn't poke out is NOT going to poke out of an N frame 1.62" cylinder.
Heres another tidbit, the original (pinned barrel and recessed cylinder) K frame .357s (models 19 & 66 etc) had longer cylinders at 1.67".
However, when S&W dropped the recessed cylinder the length was shortened to ...1.62"
For comparison, the cylinder length of a Model 10 is 1.56" and the listed length for the 38-44 (pre model 20) is 1.57"
The original production Registered Magnums have 1.62" cylinders and that has been the general standard length for N and L frame .357s ever since.
Recycled bullet
New member
I wish I could measure the cylinder on the gun I shot.
Recycled bullet
New member
Sorry guys I am incorrect with my earlier posts. I think I'm confusing Black hawk cylinder length vs Smith and Wesson cylinders length as concerns shooting 358429 in 357 brass.
- Status