S&W history help needed

G

GodblessAmerica

New member
I decided that I want another revolver, a 2.5" or 4" S&W Model 19 or second choice a Model 66 in the same length. Have been looking for more than a month locally with no luck (except for a barrel shakin' 4" 66 with the stamp of the San Diego police dep't on it) so I'm seriously considering buying one from gunbroker etc. I went to the local store again today to ask about their part in a transaction like that, and was talking with one of the owners. He feels that Smith and Wesson made the models 586 and 686 with improved features to address weaknesses in the 19 and 66. Is this a correct interpretation of L frame evolution? I hear all the time here how well the 19s and 66s hold up to extended use, so I don't quite understand his comment. Any truth to this statement? Like my model 27, this next one will be a keeper for extended range use/occasional carry. What do you think? Thanks
G
 
Due to the design of the K-frame the forcing cone has a milled flat to allow room for the crane to close. This section can erode faster than the rest of the forcing cone when lightweight high pressure loads are used. The L-frame was beefed up in this area of the frame so the forcing cone wouldn't have to be milled thus adding strength.
 
Maybe. The M13 developed from the M10. The M15 was the standard production adjustable sight and built to target standards Military & Police revolver. Great features and durability. The LEO line liked the M10 38 Heavy barrel and the M13 that was based on it. Bill Jordan and others wanted a 357 Magnum that had adjustable sights and improved tolerances, blued and fitted with Jordans own design grips but, they wanted it to fit in the M10 K frame holsters. S&W worked with the M15 K frame to create the M19 357 Magnum. These really were a great revolver. My 4" M15 is a tack driver. My 6" M19 is a tack driver with bling in nickel. It has plenty of power for the size. The problem is that FAST and HOT 125 gr loadings can erode the forcing cone. The bottom is flat cut to allow the crane/cylinder to clear. That is the only pimple on the K frame 357 Magnums I am aware of. Solution? Use heavier weight bullets and clean well. The M66 is the M19 in stainless steel. I prefer the M19 in nickel. I certainly like my M15 though. If you want the strongest and more durable S&W 357 Magnum, search for either the M27 or M28. M27 has a deep glossy finish and the M28 has a matte finish. Both were also similarly finished in nickel. All are fine revolvers.
 
The 586 and 686 are heavier guns. For carry, the 19 is a much better piece. I have a 686, and it is a fine gun. It is noticeably heavier and significantly bulkier than my Model 66's. The only way to answer the question for yourself is to buy at least one of each.

Most folks who offer advice on K-frame durability are regurgitating internet/gun rag speculation. I am old enough to remember when S&W introduced the L-frame guns, and they were built in direct response to Colt's Python. S&W did not have anything to directly compete with the snake. The full underlug and basic size are shameless copies of the Colt gun. To justify the additional weight, some of the gun writers made up tales of K-frame guns shooting loose. I am here to tell you that any gun will shoot loose given enough rounds and time. (Pythons lose timing rather readily.) Try to find a place where you can heft and preferably shoot both guns.

Clemson
 
just to clarify

the 19/66 is on the K frame
the 586/686 is on the L frame, a little bigger. The 581/681 were the fixed sight versions of the same animal, now discontinued.
the 27/28 are on the N frame, bigger yet and are the original frame size for the first .357 magnums that came out in 1935. The Model 27 is more refined/deeper blue/checkered topstrap/etc. The model 28 is the same gun with a more functional finsh, called the highway patrolman. Both are great platforms for a .357 but are bulkier than the K or L frames.

For longer term durability I'd go with an L or N framed gun, and if carryability were an issue, I'd opt for the L frame.
The L frames have been available in 2 1/2", 4", 6", and 8 3/8" versions over the years.
The N framed guns are only 4" and 6". Not aware of a 2 1/2" or 8 3/8" 27 or 28 though.
just my .02
 
The 1970's saw the beginning of the hot lightweight .357mag loads with Lee Juras creations. The Combat Magnum (M19) didn't have any problems untill they were fed steady diets of those types of loads. The problem was forcing cones prone to crack in the milled out area (and yes I have seen several cracked and broke ones). None of the Colts, Rugers, or Dan Wessons showed this problem. S&W then beefed up the front of the K-frame to match the strength of their competition and named it the L-frame in 1980. The full lug was added because some target shooters preferred the heavier muzzle feel at that time (Colt started it and Dan Wesson was also using it).

The M19/66 was designed around the 158 grain load. It can handle a lifetime of those loads. Most are generally shot with .38sp loads which are a walk in the park for them. The 110 and 125 full power loads can damage them with extensive use. If there wasn't a potential problem there would have been no need for S&W to modify the frame. S&W could have just as easily added a full lugged barrel to the K-frame (like they did the M14-5, M16-4, and M17-6) to copy the Colt and saved a ton of money.

BTW.... there was a 3 1/2" and a 8 3/8" M27.
 
you're right

the original "registered magnums" could be ordered with those bbls.

Crap, now there's another revolver I want/can't live without! Thanks a lot :mad: :D
 
New Smiths

I thought that the new 619 and 620 as well as the 520 were suppose to be the modern replacement for these revolvers.
 
I've heard of the forcing cone breakage but never seen one. I have a couple of K frame .357s and both are ex cop guns and have fired thousands of magnum rounds without any sign of trouble. The K is smaller than the N or L and in theory will not be as sturdy but I've never broken one.
 
A local gun dealer/parts guy just bought a bucket of police trade in/parts guns. There were a bunch of 19's some 13's and 10's. Out of about 10 19's I looked at, four had cracks in the forcing cones. It was a single crack running parralel to the barrel and dissapeared into the threaded area of the frame. I have shot all manner of S&W handguns for 30 years. I have never before seen a cracked forcing cone or heard of it happening to someone I knew. But, I had heard it on the internet often enough. Granted, these guns were parted out because they were deemed unrepairable/unservicable by that dept, but it was amazing to see that many at one time. Interestingly, I didn't see any 13's cracked. I suppose the 19's went to the "shooters" in the dept who used the heck out of them and the 13's were shot alot more with .38's. It was interesting to actually see it for myself, so I now know, it can indeed happen.

On the other side of the coin, sitting here beside me is a 3" 65 that I carry as an off duty gun the vast majority of the time. I have no doubt it will stay together for a very long time. I do however carry and shoot mostly 158 GR Semiwadcutters. Its what the .357 was originally designed around and has worked for many years. I also know it will penetrate deep enough if the need arises.
 
I'd like to find a 2.5" Model 19 in decent shape too.
Problem for me is that I live in Kalifornia.

All the hoopala about K-Frame .357's is much overblown. I've owned a few in my time and never had a moment's worry that they couldn't hold up. The few examples of guns "shot loose" or potentially having barrel problems were guns that were fed almost nothing but Magnum loads, even at the range (usually by testosterone-fueled kadets thinking they were Dirty Harry). Typically most people shoot .38 specials for target work and maybe 25-50 rounds of Magnum loads at the end of the session. Over the lifetime of the gun, it might see one or two thousand rounds of Magnums. Older police guns, depending on the department, may have seen many more, depending on qualification standards.

For the fellow who saw the "scrapped" guns from a PD, it would've been interesting to check the serial numbers. I suspect that those 10 guns probably were made years apart, as were the 4 with cracked forcing cones. Likely these were accumulated as "spare parts" guns and finally sold off during a house-cleaning by the PD.
 
Last edited:
I have recently purchased a 686 6" barrel and a model 66 2.5" barrel. I bought the 686 first because I wanted it mostly for target shooting and maybe some hunting. I like the 686 a lot. I just bought the 66 because to me it is a classic and I can use it for concealed carry (more likely a glove box gun) and I want to shoot it a lot: that's why I bought it over a J-frame plus I like the looks of it over a J-frame gun. I think the gun is a blast to shoot. I bought it new last Tuesday and have fired over 100 rounds thru it. Mostly 145g .38spl +p's. I have fired twenty something magnums thru it 145g. With the magnums the recoil isn't too bad with the Uncle Mike's combat grips. I think the 66 is a sweet gun that I would highly recommend. There is a real good article on this gun in Guns and Ammo January 2004 written by Paython Miller who owns one. Payton says in the opinion of many it was and is the premier snubbie of all time (unless you're a diehard fan of the short barreled Colt Python). He also says in any barrel configuration, it's got to be considered an American classic. But that 2.5" version is something special.
 
Another Question!
Thanks for all the replies and information. I found a different 4" Model 66 to consider, but have a concern about it. The milled area of the forcing cone looks great, but on the top inside of the frame directly above the forcing cone (inside of topstrap I think) there is a very distinct line straight across the frame. The rest of the gun is very clean but this area is blackened and looks like it is etched. Is this a result of the flame coming back from the forcing cone, eroding the frame? I haven't seen one like this before. Thanks again.
G
 
The line across the top strap is called "flame cutting," and it is common. In fact, it will occur in virtually all guns that see substantial range time. It is self-limiting and is not to be worried about except that it shows that this gun has seen a fair number of rounds. If it is otherwise OK, don't reject it for flame cutting. Check for fore and aft movement of the cylinder (called "end shake") and for the mating line where the yoke joins the frame when the cylinder is locked up. Movement should not be excessive, and the mating line should be very even and tight.

Clemson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top