S&W L-Frames - are they really that weak?

J

Jon_the_Cynic

Inactive
Can S&W L-Frames really not withstand a steady diet of FACTORY (not extra-hot handloads) .357 magnums without losing their timing or having some other problem? I keep reading that Rugers are stronger, but have never heard of someone messing up their S&W K or larger frame with .357's. I did read the opinion of someone who believed S&W's being weak was common internet folklore like Glocks being flawless in every way.

Has anyone actually messed up their S&W with normal-spec .357 magnums?

Edit: Also posted on The High Road
 
Last edited:
the reason the "L" frame exists is because the "K" frame doesn't react very well to a steady diet of magnum loads. the Ruger GP-100 may be stronger but either one should handle magnum loads without any problems
 
That's what I thought the purpose of L was. That makes sense too, because it'd be pretty pathetic if it STILL didn't do the only thing it was designed for.
 
Are you sure you don't mean the smaller J frame? The L is larger then the K and would be a rough equivilant to the Ruger GP line up.
 
No, my inquiry is regarding the strength of the L-frame, the 581/586/681/686 line. I know they were designed to not wear down or lose timing with a steady diet of .357 magnums like K-frames apparently did, yet be more carryable than N-frames such as the 27 and 28. I've heard from numerous sources that J-frames are carry-lots-shoot-little pistols, unless you practice with .38 special, but I wouldn't want any magnum weighing less than 2 lbs to begin with.

I ask because I'm currently locked in the 686 vs. GP-100 mental debate, and I've interpreted the words of some to mean that Rugers will never wear out no matter how much .357 magnum you put through them, but S&W L frames, and even N frames, despite being designed not to, will lose their timing after enough standard-spec magnums.
 
N frames primarily go out of time when folks shoot them very fast due to the weight of that big cylinder swinging around..

While I have no doubts of the Ruger being very strong, I would never use the word "unlimited" to describe any handgun.

It's relative. How much shooting are you planning to do? If it's a competition gun, regular maintaince is a part of any high performance tool. If it's self defense, the costs of smithing once in a blue moon for any required upkeep (if at all) would be minimal compared to my safety and peace of mind. If it's just a casual plinker, the odds of you shooting out either the Ruger or the S&W are slim at best.

I've never looked at any firearm as a "maintainence" free tool. Springs, parts, etc., of all machines can and will fail. Some more then others.

Get the one that makes you comfortable.
 
Your question is predicated upon your having read/heard a certain datum - - -

Can S&W L-Frames really not withstand a steady diet of FACTORY (not extra-hot handloads) .357 magnums without losing their timing or having some other problem?
Click to expand...
May one ask where you got this? S&W supposedly introduced the L frame because K frame .357s had trouble with a steady diet of full magnum loads. The L frame is generally considered to be about as strong as the Colt Python and Mark III Trooper, without being as heavy to carry as the S&W N-frames.
I keep reading that Rugers are stronger, but have never heard of someone messing up their S&W K or larger frame with .357's.
Click to expand...
No question about it: Rugers are indeed strong revolvers, possibly the "strongest" service type revolvers, from the standpoint of longevity in shooting heavy loads. The early Ruger DA .357s, the Security Six series, were probably about the equal of the S&W L frame in strength. The later GP series were probably the equal of the N frame, with sturdier lockwork.

The S&W K frame magnum, the Model 19 Combat Magnum, was introduced back in the day when a lot of people, cops especially, qualified with .38 Spl loads and carried magnums on duty. A model 19 lasted indefinitely with this kind of practice. When agencies had cops start qualifying with magnum loads, it made sense that this steady diet would loosen up the K frames quicker, develop end shake, and the like.

Another factor was issuance of the 125 gr JHP .357 loads. It appeared that the lighter framed mags, models 19, 13, 66, 65 - - suffered flame cutting with these loads. S&W saw an excuse to introduce a near-duplicate of the justly famed Colt Python, complete with the full length underbarrel lug. Heavier revolver - -More comfortable to shoot - -more inertia to slow down the acceleration during recoil - -and, best of all, S&W could sell the L frame for less money than Colt's could sell the Big Snake, and so regain some of that market share.

Personally, I'd hate to pay for the amount of FACTORY ammo it would take to ruin my Model 19. Let's see - - Speer Gold Dot JHP 158 mags sell locally for about $13 for 20 rounds, or $65/100. Find a deal on them by the case, and you still pay at least $500 per thousand. How long it takes to loosen up a K frame? I'd think it would take at least $1,000 to shoot loose a K-frame with factory loads. I can't afford it - perhaps you can. And, it only makes sense that an L frame would last longer than the M19.

And then there's the wear and tear on my hands. About 50 rounds per range session is all the full magnum loads I enjoy. I shoot mainly because I like to. Happily, I choose to carry a .45. My magnum revolvers are mainly for fun, though I do qualify with them, just for fun.

No, sir - - There a lot of things I worry about in life, but wearing out a magnum shooting factory loads is not one of them. :D

Best,
Johnny
 
I plan on casual target-shooting at first, and maybe getting into IDPA later.

Thanks for the wisdom, everyone; it seems I misinterpreted Ruger overengineering as S&W underengineering.
 
You will not have any trouble with L ftame or N frame .357 Magnum Smith&Wessons as long as you fire factory ammunition or reasonable hand loads,
 
Last edited:
It's not the flame cutting, just certain full powered loads that will affect the K-frame. If you swing the cylinder open on a K-frame you will see that the bottom of the forcing cone is milled flat that allows the yoke to close. The hot loads in the 110 and 125 grain class causes forcing cone erosion. Since this area is smaller than the rest of the forcing cone it sometimes crack and/or breaks as the erosion gets worst. The L-frame was strengthened (made larger) in this area and has a full diameter forcing cone that holds up to these specific loads.
Stay with the 145 grain and heavier .357mag loads and the K-frame will last a long time.
 
Although I personally prefer GP100s to L Frames (and N Frames to GP100s), L Frames are substantial revolvers. With a diet of FACTORY .357 magnums, I doubt if many L Frames would suffer mechanical problems in a reasonable "shooting lifetime".
 
L Frame longevity

Over the past 15 years I have casually shot IPSC (USPSA) with an old Model 586 in an effort to stay revolver aware.

I have never shot anything other than a 175 p.f. load, primarily 135 grain lead bullets and 125 grain lead bullets. The usual powders were / are 296 and HS7 (depending on which one is available at the time).

I guess that my gun has had 25,000 rounds through it and with the exception of a bit of flame cutting on the top strap, it is generally in good condition (given its use). I have replaced the mainspring with a Wolff and fitted a few cylinder shims. If you want a gun that can take a pounding and keep on keepin' on - get an L frame.
 
While I like the looks and triggers of S&W revolvers, every N, L, and K frame I've ever had (28-29-25-19-686) has gone out of time inside 2000 rounds. None of the J-frames I've had (36-642-940) has, though I've not shot them as much. Usually starts with one or more chambers not quite carrying up in slow-cock. So did the Python I had in the late 70's, though I was able to come up with a homemade fix for the Python. But it had weaknesses in other areas, due to the single-ended lockup. I finally went to Ruger. I'm obsessed with the cylinder locking up when it's supposed to, well before the hammer is at max cock. I never had any frame problems with the S&Ws, just timing. I think the problem is not so much the hand, but the star of the extractor. I even went so far as to do what Nonte suggested in his gunsmithing book, removing the hand and peening it to increase the length, but I must have not done it right, as I got no improvement, just a battered looking hand.
I wish someone would tell me things have changed, as I keep eying the (can't remember the model - the 3" barreled K-frame) at the gun show every month. I'd love to get it, but if it got into a timing problem, I'd be kicking myself.
 
At last count I had two 657's, one 686, three 66's, one 342, one 15, one 17, and one K-22, and NONE of them have ever gone out of time. I put a lot of rounds downrange out of my guns.

I have no doubt that the Rugers are good guns, but they are not necessarily stronger than S&W -- only bigger. The Rugers have cast frames and use mass to hold the gun together. The S&W's have forged frames, and they are a more refined design in my estimation. I guess that's the reason that we have different guns available from different companies -- so we can chose to buy one or the other :D

Clemson
 
I bought an L frame way back in the late eighties and have put thousands of rounds through it. When it was new, the cylinder locked up very tight like a bank vault. I mostly shoot double action with it, not single action. Its still as tight as the day I bought it, many, many years and thousands of full powered rounds ago.
My best friend bought one of the first L frames when they came out and he shot over maximum blackhawk loads through it for years. Sometimes you could close the cylinder and roll it after a few years, but it was still marginally in time. (this guy handloaded .45 acp loads up to .44 mag velocities.)
If you are an old timer, you might recall the days when a new Colt or Smith would loosen up in the first 100 rounds you fired through it.
Rugers are stout guns, but I have seen one or two GP 100s that went out of time. I personally think the problem was that they were loose to start with when they left the factory. The tighter a revolver is, in terms of action and cylinder lock up, when new, the longer it takes it to go out of time.
I have an old police trade in K frame that has been rebuilt and its a pretty nice gun. The cool thing about wheelguns is that they can literally be rebuilt over and over so long as the frame, barrell and cylinder are okay.
Try rebiulding an auto pistol with an investment cast aluminum frame or a stamped sheet steel slide three times......
 
I don't recall seeing any threads decrying the alleged fragility of L-frames. Should be fine as long as you don't load anything ridiculous. This frame size came about as a remedy for durability (well-founded or not) issues of K-frame .357s.
 
Every informed gun owner knows L frame S&W's are junk. Being the nice guy that i am, i'll take them off your hands and make sure they are locked safely away so they can't blow up and injury your hand.

You can ship them postage paid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top