K Frame & Warm 357

[44 AMP]

Cylinder length isn't the main factor in strength and durability of a revolver. Size (Diameter) and thickness of the steel at its thinnest point is more important.
Same for the frame generally speaking.

Take a side by side look at the cylinder of a 6 shot .357 N frame and K frame guns. There is a significant difference in their sizes. Compare the thickness of the steel between the chambers, and between the chambers and the outside edge of the cylinder, and also between then chambers and the locking bolt notches.

Now consider any other mechanism subject to pressure and operating stresses, made of the same materials and to essentially the same design. The lighter mechanism normally has a shorter service life than a heavier built one.

I've had several N and K frame .357s over the years, love them all but in different ways, as they are DIFFERENT guns. They were designed with different ideas in mind, and each does its intended job very well.

Don't care for the L frame, the muzzle heavy balance turns me off.
I WON'T have a .357 J frame, I don't care for the recoil.

If you want to run heavy loads in .357, use an N frame and accept the weight as part of the deal. There's no free lunch.

IF lesser loads are adequate for your use, a lighter gun can also be adequate.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"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."

I've often heard that said, but I have always strongly doubted that at least as the primary reason for it being so.

Why?

A couple of reasons.

1. That really wasn't much on the radar for companies back then. We, as a nation, had not yet entered the "I'm going to sue you because you didn't have a warning label on your toaster specifically saying I couldn't use it in the bathtub WHILE I was taking a bath."

2. Companies were, at the time, routinely bringing out high-pressure/high velocity loadings of old cartridges and were more than content enough to simply put a warning label on the box saying "Hey,don't be a dumbass and use this high pressure ammo for the Winchester 1892 in either your Colt Peacemaker or your Winchester 1873."

3. Smith & Wesson, when it rolled out the .38 Heavy Duty, didn't take any great pains to make sure that no one would chamber those new, hot rounds in a Model of 1899 or Model of 1902 (both of which could be damaged by shooting the new ammo). And they really didn't care if someone dropped those rounds into an even older Colt in .38 Long Colt (yes, the .38 HD round would fit and fire). They let the ammo manufacturer revert to the "Hey, don't be a dumbass, this ammo box says .38-44, so only use it in the S&W .38 built on the .44 frame."

Finally,

4. Given the velocities that Phil Sharpe and Elmer Keith were trying to achieve in their quest to create the .357 Magnum, they were having trouble doing so because of the length of the case and the powders available at the time. When S&W finally signed onto the project and Winchester took over final development of the cartridge, they found that lengthening the case was the only way to achieve the desired velocity without the potential for pressure spikes that would either damage the case, the gun, or both.

Yes, then longer case made it impossible to chamber in S&W .38 revolvers. But it would still chamber in many older Colt revolvers. So, it was a "safety factor" that wasn't really, much of a safety factor. And the companies simply revered back to point 2 above.

 

[Pumpkin]

Just curious,
Any record or story of an old Colt getting destroyed by having a 357 mistakenly shot out of it?

 

[Mike Irwin]

That I know of specifically?

No.

But, I do know of Winchester 1873s and early Colt Peacemakers that were damaged/destroyed when the user fired ammunition loaded for the Winchester 1892 through them.

 

[74A95]

"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."

From Elmer Keith's 1955 book SIXGUNS.

"They designed the case one-tenth inch longer than the .38 Special, to, they said, prevent it's use in .38 Special guns, but over-looked the old swing out cylinder .38 Long Colt army gun that will accept and fire .357 magnum ammunition."

 

[Mike Irwin]

""They designed the case one-tenth inch longer than the .38 Special, to, they said, prevent it's use in .38 Special guns, but over-looked the old swing out cylinder .38 Long Colt army gun that will accept and fire .357 magnum ammunition.""

Exactly. But who cares about Colts, right?

I really think the "it was done for safety" was something that developed later when companies did become a lot more cognizant about potential problems (and lawyers started roaming the land in huge packs).

People looked at the longer case and sort of put A & B together, trying to come up with C as it would make sense to them.

 

[Drm50]

If I’m not mistaken I think the longest cylinder for 357 was a Ruger Bisley. I know a guy that deer hunts with one using a cast bullet meant for .358 Winchester. I think in 180gr range. I know they poked out cylinder on a standard Ruger 357 BH.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by 44 AMP
Quote:
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?
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.

All the talk of cylinder length got me curious, so I broke out the calipers and measured the cylinders of all the S&W revolvers I currently own. Just to be clear, I measured along the outside edge of the cylinder from the rear face to the front in order to get the closest measurement of the actual length of the chamber, so the ratchet and gas rings were not included in these measurements. What I got, in order from shortest to longest are as follows:

36 no-dash: 1.5335
10-5: 1.5645
442-1: 1.592
28-2: 1.625
27-2: 1.625
Pre-27: 1.625
13-4: 1.624
629-6: 1.703

We need to bear in mind, however, that not all of these revolvers are of the same vintage and that the N-Frame .357's all have recessed chambers while the others do not. I measured the depth of the chamber counterbores and got the following results:

28-2: 0.054
Pre-27: 0.0545
27-2: 0.055

I don't have any examples of the same model made both before and after the elimination of the recessed chamber, but if we assume that doing so would shorten the cylinder by approximately the same length as the depth of the counterbore, then a later N-Frame .357 should have a cylinder length of approximately 1.57-1.571. Conversely, a K-Frame .357 with recessed chambers should have a cylinder length of 1.678-1.679. Of course, .38 Special J and K-Frames never had recessed cylinders to begin with nor did .357 J-Frames as those weren't introduced until after the chamber counterbore was eliminated.

Unfortunately, I don't own any L-Frame revolvers in any caliber to measure nor do I own any .357 J-Frames. I assume, however, based on the numbers quoted from the SCSW that both .38 Special and .357 Magnum J-Frames built on the newer "magnum J-Frame" as my 442-1 is both have the same length cylinder.

I think it is worth mentioning that the difference in length between a recessed and non-recessed cylinder needs to be kept in mind especially when comparing J and L-Frames to K and N-Frames. The reason I say this is that, while L-Frames with recessed cylinders are certainly out there, there's probably a lot fewer of them since that feature was eliminated just a few years after the L-Frames introduction in 1980 and J-Frame .357's never had recessed cylinders to begin with while S&W made decades worth of K and N-Frame .357's with recessed cylinders.

This leads me to a few question regarding 44 AMP's post that I quoted, is the 1.62" quoted for an L-Frame cylinder the length of one with or without recessed chambers? I can infer, by comparing the numbers quoted to the measurements I took of my own guns, that the the N-Frame number is for a recessed cylinder (makes sense since there's probably a lot more recessed N-Frames out there than non-recessed ones) and the difference between recessed and non-recessed K-Frames was specified.

Also, did S&W shorten the cylinders of N-Frame .357's like they did with the K-Frames or did they simply eliminate the counterbore and set the cylinder that much further forward in the frame window? Finally, did the .38/44's have recessed chambers? Likewise, when the counterbore was eliminated on L-Frame cylinders, were they also shortened like the K-Frames or simply set further forward in the frame window?

Finally, I know that the conventional wisdom is that S&W only counterbored chambers on Magnum and rimfire revolvers, but I don't know if that specifically applies to the .38/44's and/or the later Models 20 and 23. If we assume that the .38/44's did not have recessed chambers like the .357 N-Frames, then depth of the counterbore at approximately 0.055 would account for the difference in length between the two.

 

[Mike Irwin]

" but I don't know if that specifically applies to the .38/44's and/or the later Models 20 and 23. If we assume that the .38/44's did not have recessed chambers like the .357 N-Frames, then depth of the counterbore at approximately 0.055 would account for the difference in length between the two."

As far as I know no, the HDs were never recessed.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Mike Irwin
"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."

I've often heard that said, but I have always strongly doubted that at least as the primary reason for it being so.

Why?

A couple of reasons.

1. That really wasn't much on the radar for companies back then. We, as a nation, had not yet entered the "I'm going to sue you because you didn't have a warning label on your toaster specifically saying I couldn't use it in the bathtub WHILE I was taking a bath."

2. Companies were, at the time, routinely bringing out high-pressure/high velocity loadings of old cartridges and were more than content enough to simply put a warning label on the box saying "Hey,don't be a dumbass and use this high pressure ammo for the Winchester 1892 in either your Colt Peacemaker or your Winchester 1873."

3. Smith & Wesson, when it rolled out the .38 Heavy Duty, didn't take any great pains to make sure that no one would chamber those new, hot rounds in a Model of 1899 or Model of 1902 (both of which could be damaged by shooting the new ammo). And they really didn't care if someone dropped those rounds into an even older Colt in .38 Long Colt (yes, the .38 HD round would fit and fire). They let the ammo manufacturer revert to the "Hey, don't be a dumbass, this ammo box says .38-44, so only use it in the S&W .38 built on the .44 frame."

Finally,

4. Given the velocities that Phil Sharpe and Elmer Keith were trying to achieve in their quest to create the .357 Magnum, they were having trouble doing so because of the length of the case and the powders available at the time. When S&W finally signed onto the project and Winchester took over final development of the cartridge, they found that lengthening the case was the only way to achieve the desired velocity without the potential for pressure spikes that would either damage the case, the gun, or both.

Yes, then longer case made it impossible to chamber in S&W .38 revolvers. But it would still chamber in many older Colt revolvers. So, it was a "safety factor" that wasn't really, much of a safety factor. And the companies simply revered back to point 2 above.

If S&W increased the case length in order to increase powder capacity rather than to prevent chambering in .38 Special revolvers, then I don't think it was based on anything that Elmer Keith was doing (I can't say about Phil Sharpe). I say this because Keith never bothered to develop a .357 Magnum load after it was introduced like he did with .44 Magnum due to the fact that, if crimped in the crimp groove, his preferred bullet (the Lyman #358429) was too long for the N-Frame cylinder when loaded in .357 Magnum cases.

Even my Lyman 49th Edition loading manual states "In order to maintain a maximum overall cartridge length of 1.590", it is sometimes necessary to crimp cast bullets on the forward edge of the first driving band." Also, while the .357 Magnum case is 0.135" longer at 1.29" vs .38 Special's 1.155, it's maximum OAL is only 0.04" longer at 1.59" vs 1.55 for .38 Special. This means that, to maintain their maximum OAL, the same bullet would have to be seated nearly a tenth of an inch deeper into a .357 Magnum case than a .38 Special case and nearly negating the extra length of the .357 case.

Maintaining the maximum OAL is very important with an N-Frame .357 because, according to the SCSW, the cylinder length is only 0.03" longer at 1.62" than the .357's max OAL of 1.59". By comparison, the SCSW lists the cylinder length of a .38/44 at 1.57" but, if we assume that they didn't have counterbored cylinders, that would leave the case rim, which is nominally .058", on a .38 Special, sticking out the back of the cylinder. If we deduct .058" from the .38's OAL of 1.155", that leaves us with 1.057" of cartridge actually sitting in the chamber. Subtract the 1.057" from the 1.57" length of a .38/44 cylinder and you've got over half and inch of "wiggle room" for loading long-nosed bullets like Keith's 358429. As a matter of fact, if you loaded a .38 Special cartridge to the maximum length that would still fit in a .38/44 cylinder, you'd have an OAL of 1.668" which is longer, and thus gives more case capacity with the same bullet, than either the 1.59" max OAL of the .357 Magnum cartridge or the 1.62" length of a N-Frame .357 cylinder.

Honestly, it's really impossible to know exactly why the .357 Magnum case was lengthened because Keith, Sharpe, and everyone else involved in its development are all long dead. That being said, based on the measurements I stated above, I find increased powder capacity to be highly unlikely as the primary reason.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"If S&W increased the case length in order to increase powder capacity rather than to prevent chambering in .38 Special revolvers, then I don't think it was based on anything that Elmer Keith was doing (I can't say about Phil Sharpe). I say this because Keith never bothered to develop a .357 Magnum load after it was introduced like he did with .44 Magnum due to the fact that, if crimped in the crimp groove, his preferred bullet (the Lyman #358429) was too long for the N-Frame cylinder when loaded in .357 Magnum cases."

Winchester did the development of what would become the .357 Magnum cartridge, not Smith & Wesson.

But, Winchester knew of what both Elmer Keith AND Phil Sharpe were doing with heavy loaded .38 Special rounds. Why? Because Phil Sharpe knew of what Keith was doing, and Sharp worked with both Smith & Wesson and, later, Winchester, to bring the concept of the .357 Magnum to final development.

Sharpe and Keith had both been hotrodding the .38 Special for years before. Their work, again through Sharpe's association with Smith & Wesson during his time at American Rifleman/NRA, had also been a starting point for the .38-44 Heavy Duty cartridge.


"I find increased powder capacity to be highly unlikely as the primary reason."

I never said that Winchester increased the case length to get more powder capacity. I said they did it to decrease the potential for unexpected pressure excursions. That extra 1/8th inch allowed them to achieve the target ballistics without being on the ragged edge of a big problem.

Making a case longer to drop pressure while maintaining desired ballistics was well known. The British did it with several cartridges developed around the same time -- primarily rifle cartridges that were intended for use in either Asia or Africa.

What Winchester had, which Keith didn't have, and which Sharpe likely didn't have, was access to the kind of calibrated pressure testing equipment needed to put the finishing touches on both the .38-44 HD and .357 Magnum cartridges. Keith's idea of pressure testing generally was keep uploading until something bulges or bursts.

It was that knowledge of the pressures being developed while attempting to get the ballistics that Sharpe and Keith new were possible that led Winchester to lengthen the case.

 

[Drm50]

357 magnum revolvers are the only thing I ever seen with cylinder blown from overloads.
Two being S&W m19s and a Hawes Western Marshall SA.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by 44 AMP
Cylinder length isn't the main factor in strength and durability of a revolver. Size (Diameter) and thickness of the steel at its thinnest point is more important.
Same for the frame generally speaking.

Take a side by side look at the cylinder of a 6 shot .357 N frame and K frame guns. There is a significant difference in their sizes. Compare the thickness of the steel between the chambers, and between the chambers and the outside edge of the cylinder, and also between then chambers and the locking bolt notches.

Now consider any other mechanism subject to pressure and operating stresses, made of the same materials and to essentially the same design. The lighter mechanism normally has a shorter service life than a heavier built one.

Yes, they are certainly different guns, but maybe not as different as you might think. I was surprised when I first learned that many of the internal parts like hammers, triggers, and cylinder stops are the same part number for K, L, and N-Frame revolvers. The only reason that I'd think these parts might last longer on an N-Frame than a K-Frame is simply because the extra weight of the N-Frame soaks up more recoil and thus puts the parts under less stress than the smaller, lighter K-Frame.

Also, not all wear and tear is produced by the same things and, in some ways, the K-Frame is actually more durable than the N-Frame. For example, timing issues are more often caused by lots and lots of hard, fast double action shooting than they are by shooting more powerful ammunition. If both were shot with .38 Special target wadcutters, I'd actually expect timing issues to appear sooner in an N-Frame than a K-Frame because it causes more wear and tear on the hand, cylinder stop, and cylinder stop notches to get the big, heavy N-Frame cylinder moving and stopping than it does with the smaller, lighter K-Frame cylinder. Likewise, while I won't say that an N-Frame would necessarily develop endshake sooner than a K-Frame, once it's there it would probably progress faster in the N-Frame because you've got a bigger, heavier cylinder slamming back and forth with each shot.

You are certainly correct, however, in that the N-Frame is the best suited to handle certain types of ammunition due to their large, thick cylinders with correspondingly thick cylinder walls and thick forcing cones. As I've mentioned previously, I've shot ammunition in my N-Frames that I wouldn't let in the same room with my K-Frames. That being said, K-Frames aren't nearly as weak as some seem to think they are and, as long as you avoid lightweight bullets and perform basic cleaning and maintenance, they're more than adequately strong for normal factory .357 Magnum ammunition or equivalent handloads. Honestly, I really don't feel the need to shoot nuclear-level handloads or boutique ammo like Buffalo Bore or Underwood through my .357 Magnums because if I want more that what a normal .357 Magnum will deliver, I'll step up to my .44 Magnum

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Mike Irwin
"If S&W increased the case length in order to increase powder capacity rather than to prevent chambering in .38 Special revolvers, then I don't think it was based on anything that Elmer Keith was doing (I can't say about Phil Sharpe). I say this because Keith never bothered to develop a .357 Magnum load after it was introduced like he did with .44 Magnum due to the fact that, if crimped in the crimp groove, his preferred bullet (the Lyman #358429) was too long for the N-Frame cylinder when loaded in .357 Magnum cases."

Winchester did the development of what would become the .357 Magnum cartridge, not Smith & Wesson.

Yes, Winchester developed the ammunition, but they certainly must have had some input from S&W since that was who was making the only gun initially available chambered for it. Surely Winchester needed input from S&W for issues like how much pressure the Registered Magnums could safely handle and the physical dimension of the cartridge when developing the ammunition. With the exception of a gun/cartridge combo where one maker is producing both, it seems obvious to me that the development of a new cartridge would be a joint venture between both the ammunition company and the gun company.

Originally posted by Mike Irwin
But, Winchester knew of what both Elmer Keith AND Phil Sharpe were doing with heavy loaded .38 Special rounds. Why? Because Phil Sharpe knew of what Keith was doing, and Sharp worked with both Smith & Wesson and, later, Winchester, to bring the concept of the .357 Magnum to final development.

Sharpe and Keith had both been hotrodding the .38 Special for years before. Their work, again through Sharpe's association with Smith & Wesson during his time at American Rifleman/NRA, had also been a starting point for the .38-44 Heavy Duty cartridge.

I understand that, but it is also my understanding that, subsequent to the introduction of the .38/44 cartridge, it was determined that, with then-modern heat-treating, that the N-Frame could handle higher pressures and thus even more powerful ammunition thus leading to the development of the .357 Magnum.

Originally posted by Mike Irwin
"I find increased powder capacity to be highly unlikely as the primary reason."

I never said that Winchester increased the case length to get more powder capacity. I said they did it to decrease the potential for unexpected pressure excursions. That extra 1/8th inch allowed them to achieve the target ballistics without being on the ragged edge of a big problem.

Making a case longer to drop pressure while maintaining desired ballistics was well known. The British did it with several cartridges developed around the same time -- primarily rifle cartridges that were intended for use in either Asia or Africa.

Okay, rather than "increased powder capacity" we'll call it "increased case capacity." Yes, if you load the same charge of the same powder and seat identical bullets in to the crimp groove in both a .38 Special case and a .357 Magnum case, the .357 Magnum case will have lower pressure due to the larger internal volume of the case. However, the difference in OAL between a .357 Magnum loaded cartridge and a .38 Special loaded cartridge is much smaller than the difference in the case lengths. Because, with identical bullets, more of the bullet must be seated inside the case of a .357 Magnum than a .38 Special, a .357 Magnum doesn't have nearly as much more case capacity than the .38 Special as the case length would suggest. If you went solely by the case length, then a .357 Magnum would have approximately 0.014 cubic inches more internal volume than a .38 Special case, but because the OAL of a loaded cartridge is only 0.04" longer for a .357 Magnum than a .38 Special, your actual increase in internal volume is only approximately 0.004 cubic inches more. Put another way, the deeper seating depth required to maintain the .357's max OAL negates 71% of the increase in case capacity achieved by lengthening the case. If the only reason to lengthen the case was to increase the case capacity, Winchester could have accomplished it by simply seating the bullets to a longer OAL or by S&W lengthening the cylinder, as they later did with N-Frames in .44 Magnum and .41 Magnum, to accommodate a longer OAL for the .357 Magnum cartridge, but neither of those were done.

If we look at your example of African big game cartridges, probably the most well known is the .450 Nitro Express 3 1/4" cartridge (often known simply as .450 Nitro Express) and the .450 Nitro Express 3 1/2" Cartridge (aka .450 No. 2 Nitro Express). While the .450 No. 2 NE did have a case 1/4" longer, it was also bottlenecked as opposed to the tapered .450 NE and had an OAL 0.33" longer. So, in a case where we know that the goal of lengthening the case was to increase case capacity and thereby decrease pressure, no only was the case lengthened, but it was also bottlenecked and the OAL was lengthened.

Originally posted by Mike Irwin
What Winchester had, which Keith didn't have, and which Sharpe likely didn't have, was access to the kind of calibrated pressure testing equipment needed to put the finishing touches on both the .38-44 HD and .357 Magnum cartridges. Keith's idea of pressure testing generally was keep uploading until something bulges or bursts.

It was that knowledge of the pressures being developed while attempting to get the ballistics that Sharpe and Keith new were possible that led Winchester to lengthen the case.

I understand that Winchester (and S&W) had access to pressure testing equipment that Keith and Sharpe didn't. What I don't understand is why they'd lengthen the case by 0.135" to get an OAL only 0.04" longer. If another 0.04" is all they needed to keep pressures safe, they why not lengthen the case by just 0.04" and seat the bullets the same way they did in the .38/44? Doing that would probably give even lower pressure as you wouldn't have an additional .095" of case to cause friction that the bullet has to overcome when the cartridge is fired. This is why I doubt that increasing case capacity was the primary reason for lengthening the case: so much of the extra length is taken up by the deeper seating of the bullet that "the juice isn't worth the squeeze."

 

[Pumpkin]

Is there a good reason for pushing a handload to the point of catastrophe or the mechanical problems that could lead to the failure of the gun or worse?
I can see a race engine being pushed to its limits in competition to possibly give a winning result but what small ballistic advantage is gained from loading a cartridge to the edge. Do we really get measurable benefit?

 

[74A95]

Is there a good reason for pushing a handload to the point of catastrophe or the mechanical problems that could lead to the failure of the gun or worse?
I can see a race engine being pushed to its limits in competition to possibly give a winning result but what small ballistic advantage is gained from loading a cartridge to the edge. Do we really get measurable benefit?

Given that modern ammo is not pushed to the edge, it's not an issue. Keep in mind that for most cartridges, there is a considerable safety margin built into the SAAMI specs. For example, the .357 Magnum SAAMI MAP is 35,000 psi. The SAAMI proof load for this cartridge is 50,500 psi. Guns have to take the Proof pressure, and who know how much more than they will really take before failure.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Pumpkin
Is there a good reason for pushing a handload to the point of catastrophe or the mechanical problems that could lead to the failure of the gun or worse?
I can see a race engine being pushed to its limits in competition to possibly give a winning result but what small ballistic advantage is gained from loading a cartridge to the edge. Do we really get measurable benefit?

Of course pushing a handload to the point of catastrophic failure is foolish, but I don't really see anyone advocating doing that. The load data that the OP mentioned is within current published data from multiple sources so, as long as he does his due diligence in working up to the load as one should with any new load or firearm, I see no reason to think that it is unsafe or "pushing to the point of catastrophe."

As I said earlier, I really don't think the quoted 16.5 gr H110 with 158 gr bullet is as hot as some seem to think. My Lyman manual lists 17 gr under a 158 gr Hornady XTP with a CCI Magnum primer at 1309 fps from a 4" barrel. I have personally chronographed Federal factory 158 gr .357 Magnum at very similar velocity from a 4" revolver, so I see the OP's load as being in line with normal factory .357 Magnum ammunition.

 

[Pumpkin]

Comments like a load being okay in a N Frame but clearly not in a K Frame don't seem to describe a safe load, if not for the shooter but the accelerated wear on the particular gun.
Again, does a couple of hundred FPS give any real world advantage?

 

[74A95]

Comments like a load being okay in a N Frame but clearly not in a K Frame don't seem to describe a safe load, if not for the shooter but the accelerated wear on the particular gun.

It's okay and safe to shoot it in a K-frame. Accelerated wear is an owner's choice. It might never be noticed over the gun's lifetime.

Again, does a couple of hundred FPS give any real world advantage?

Hell yes!!! That's why there are MAGNUMS.

 

[JohnKSa]

Guns have to take the Proof pressure...

SAAMI recommends it and provides the specs for proof cartridges, but proof testing is strictly voluntary in the U.S. There's no guarantee that a new U.S. made firearm has been proof tested.