S&W M19 strongest years of manufacture

E

Elerius

New member
On my list is a Model 19, and I had hoped to get a 70's era version that doesnt have a transfer bar. I've always heard that cracking can occur with lighter 357 mag ammo. Smith and Wesson has made claims that modern metallurgy has solved strength related problems and others in guns.

So the questions: will firing 158grn magnums, either loaded on the cold side or not, prevent cracking? Maybe more relevantly, would M19's made closer to the end of production with "modern metallurgy" be less likely to suffer cracks? What would be the best years of production for one?
 
I have one. PM me, I'll email you pics. I'm willing to part with it. Amazing gun.

Here's a video of me shooting it.


Mine is a Model 19-3. It was always said to practice with .38 and carry .357.

Really old school mentality I disagree with but made sense for what you're saying and what was true back then for these guns.
 
I had a M19-6 that developed the crack in the forcing cone at the 6:00 position. I was using 125 grain JHP bullets at the time. I also know another gentleman who purchased a M19 and it also had the crack in the forcing cone at the 6:00 position. Both guns were replaced by S&W with new model guns. The 6:00 position on the forcing is very thin because of the flat that is milled into it. Take a look at one when you have a chance. The M686 does not have that thin section because the frame in larger.
Cary
 
"The 6:00 position on the forcing is very thin because of the flat that is milled into it."

That flat has to be there because the K frame requires it. But the K frame was designed (in 1899) for the .38 Special standard load, and was never intended for .357 Magnum. But Bill Jordan had enough clout to get S&W to make a K frame in that caliber in spite of the misgivings of their own engineers. He felt that the Combat Magnum (later called the Model 19) would be a perfect duty revolver, and he was right. But of course no one could foresee the hot .357 loads in use today.

Because of that basic frame limitation, S&W chose to drop the K frame and adopt the L frame, which is large enough to allow that forcing cone area to be beefed up.

Jim
 
S&W K frames ( whether its a model 66 or 19 ) ....in my opinion, are best cared for if you shoot the traditional 158gr bullet thru them.

I don't see a reason to shoot the 125gr bullets.../ but if you want to, then shoot them in an L frame ( model 686 ) or N frame ( model 27's or 28's )....

I have a number of model 19's and 66's ....with many thousands of rounds thru them, with the 158gr bullets, and no forcing cone issues on any of my guns.
 
Best advice is if you buy a model 19 stay with 158 gr 357 magnums. I used to have two one a 19-2 and one 19-4. Both had no problems with 158 grain rounds.
Good luck,
 
You can also safely use the 135 grain "short barrel" loads.

If you want a very powerful non-Magnum load that's still near Magnum in power the Buffalo Bore .38 Special +P, 158 grain, lead, semi-wadcutter hollow point is HOT and a totally effective round.
It's basically a modern version of the old 38-44 hot load only loaded with a more effective bullet and is at low end Magnum power.
This load is far beyond todays other +P loads.

Buffalo Bore loads these with very soft lead with gas checks to allow driving the bullet at those velocities without leading the gun up or melting the bullet.
These are also perfectly safe for the "K" frame and the gun will last forever with these loads.
 
It seems that no one except laytonj1 actually read the OP's post. He said nothing about the forcing cone but, instead, asked about a non-existant transfer bar.
To the OP: NO M19's have a transfer bar but they all have a hammer block. I'm probably wrong but, I'm pretty sure S&W has never made a hand ejector with a transfer bar. Metallurgy has not changed enough to make any difference as to the strength of the weapon. Unless your in some truly bad butt cold (think South Pole in winter) I don't believe it will contribute to anything cracking.
 
The part about the transfer bar was just an extra comment, but now I'm thinking maybe I have the wrong term. Everything I've ever learned about guns was from scratch, reading everything from books or forums over the years and I never had anyone to ask so I might still be mistaken in some things. What I was referring to was the desire to have a hammer mounted firing pin instead of a frame pin. I've thought of the transfer bar as the link between the flat hammer and the internal pin. Am I wrong on the term? If so, when, if ever, did Smith switch to a frame mounted firing pin? That's the model that I don't want. It sounds from your comments thought that I'll be free from forcing cone cracks as long as I stick with 158grn, which is what I would be using in any case.
 
AFAIK, NO S&W ever had a transfer bar. The early hand ejectors had no hammer block, the belief being that the rebound lever would be sufficient to prevent accidental firing if the hammer was struck. When that proved incorrect, S&W adopted two different kinds of hammer block, neither of which was positive, both depending on a spring to activate it. The current type is positive; if it is not working properly the gun can't be fired.

As to the frame mounted vs hammer mounted firing pin, I have both and don't see any difference except that if it should break, the frame mounted is a lot easier to replace.

Jim
 
All M19s have hammer mounted firing pins. S&W uses a hammer block system. That means there is a block between the hammer and the frame when the gun is at rest. This prevents the firing pin from touching the primer. When the hammer moves to the rear, the block lowers out of the way allowing the primer to be struck when the trigger is pulled.

The comments about cracking forcing cones generally applies to hot loads with 125gr bullets. There is some controversy about that but I believe there is a problem with light weight bullets and magnum loads. You'll be fine with the 158s.
 
Just for fun, here's a pic of my Model 19-4 with recent Springfield factory reblue wearing Boone Trading Co. "bonded ivory" grips...
 
I just wish SW reintroduce the M19/66s back into the market. Would love to get my hands on a 2.5 inch version of either. It was the first gun I ever officially qualified with and carried on duty.
 
What is the turn-around time and associated costs with a "recent Springfield factory reblue" if you don't mind sharing?
 
What is the turn-around time and associated costs with a "recent Springfield factory reblue" if you don't mind sharing?
Click to expand...

Well... ahem... They're swamped but they freely admit that they're way behind.

After contacting them for the particulars, I sent them the gun at the very end of February. They sent a written estimate in mid-May...

$342 included a couple of minor repairs and labor (the base price on the reblue itself was $220).

I actually received the gun back via FedEx at the very end of Sept... So that's 7 months.
 
Last edited:
So the questions: will firing 158grn magnums, either loaded on the cold side or not, prevent cracking? Maybe more relevantly, would M19's made closer to the end of production with "modern metallurgy" be less likely to suffer cracks? What would be the best years of production for one?

Supposedly, using 158 grain bullets exclusively greatly alleviates the incidents of cracking the forcing cone.

Second question; on the contrary, I would much prefer an earlier production Model 19, one with pinned barrel and recessed chambers. Theoretically, the recessed case heads protect against "blowing a case head out." I don't believe there were many advances in metallurgy from the early 19s until the end of their production. Mine is a dash-3, and I have owned earlier and later guns, all "P&R."
 
I have only owned a few revolvers, the only S&W being a Model 60, so in not as familiar with the dash system as I'd like. I know the pinned barrels are supposed to be of higher quality (although it might not be necessary.) The recessed chamber seems to be the other big thing. Is blowing out case heads a problem people have had? Which dash model was the last to have recessed chambers?
 
James K,
But of course no one could foresee the hot .357 loads in use today.
Click to expand...
Are the .357 loads of today any hotter (loaded to higher pressure), than in 1955, when the M19 was introduced? Serious question, I have not been a follower/fan of the .357 until recently. Were there no forcing-cone cracks back in 1955?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top