Smith & Wesson model 19 stories

If you check a K-38, you will see that the forcing cone is cut away at the bottom the same way as the Model 19, and for the same reason, to provide clearance for the crane. That portion of the forcing cone is obviously weaker than the rest, and weaker than the forcing cones on the N and L frames, which don't need that cutout because they have greater frame height to play with.

There was no problem with guns in .38 Special, but some of the hot loads in .357 put more stress on the forcing cones and some did crack. AFAIK, there was never any idea that the Model 19 was designed for any particular "mix" of .38 and .357, but the general understanding from day one of the Combat Magnum was that it was designed as a moderate weight .357 for daily carry, and not intended for extensive shooting with full power .357 loads. Gunsmiths and dealers consistently told buyers that if they planned to shoot thousands of rounds of full house .357 to buy a Model 27 or 28.

Jim
 
I cracked the forcing cone on the first one I owned (1980). I was loading 125 grain Sierra JHCs with Unique .4 grain under the max charge in the Sierra manual. Probably on the seventh or eighth box of them, I couldn't open the cylinder because the forcing cone cracked.

I sent it to S&W after opening it up with a rubber mallet, paid for a new barrel to be installed, and have never loaded full-tilt .357 Mag loads with anything as fast-burning as Unique since.
 
"The K frame 357 was designed to be used 10 % 357, 90% 38 as was the practice in training for police at that time."

Smith & Wesson didn't design to that set point when they designed the Model 19.

They actually designed the gun based on Bill Jordan's recommendations for a .357 that could actually be carried for a full day without the fatigue caused by an N frame or a New Service hanging off your hip. The primary consideration was the lightest gun that could take a diet of .357 Magnum cartridges.

The 10%-90% is actually probably wildly skewed... towards the .357. Many police officers never fired .357 Magnum ammo out of their Model 19s at all. That was their carry ammo, and in many police forces it wasn't expended on training.

Anyone who knows me knows that the Model 19 is, by far, my favorite handgun. I'd get rid of everything else before I got rid of my 19s.
 
Ejector rod unscrewing

My 19-5, which I bought used a year ago, has a 6" barrel. The ejector rod came unscrewed. I could not open the crane. My gunsmith opened it (smack!) with a mallet and screwed up the mechanism that unlocks the cylinder.
She's on the way back to S&W right now. I just found out this is a common problem with Smith's.
Did they ever get this problem fixed????
 
Yes, S&W reversed the thread direction of all extractor rods in later models. The 19-5 was made well after the fix, though. Someone probably took it apart and didn't get it reassembled properly. You don't fix a backed-out rod with a whack of a mallet.

Jerry Kunhausen's shop manual has good information in it.

http://www.gunbooks.com/sw.html
 
Last edited:
I agree. That guy isn't a gunsmith. I bought a locked up 586 really cheap because the owner couldn't open it. Once I figured out what the problem was I just held the ejector rod and pulled the hammer back enough to release the bolt and turned the cylinder and tightened the rod up so it would open normally. Then I unscrewed the rod and put a little lock tight on it and that solved that problem.S&W later changed to left hand threads.
 
The "gunsmith" that opens my stuck S&W with a mallet will get the second strike to his head, if my foot in his butt doesn't get there first.

I've owned a number of S&Ws over the years, and personally, have never had the ejector rod unscrew on any of them, BUT, I know it can. If any of them ever do, then it will be time for the Loctite (I like the product called "Guntite").

here's a model 19 story....

I had a 6" model 19 for many years, I cannot now remember the "dash number). It had the ramp front sight (Baughman?) A friend of mine had the same gun (6") but with the blade style front sight.

After several years, I got interested in other things, and decided I was done with the .357 Magnum. Wound up trading it for something, I now no longer remember what...

I even gave all my brass to my buddy. I kept the dies (I ALWAYS keep the dies, I mean, after all, you never know, right?;))

So about a year later, I find a 6" Model 28-2 in the box, unfired. My Dad had a 6" 28, and so, I got bit by the .357 bug again. Bigger and heavier than the 19, you bet, but it was what Dad had, and that meant something special to me.

OK, a couple more years down the road, and my buddy drops by with his model 19, and a Marlin .357 carbine, and a box of ammo I had loaded for the carbine some time back. 125gr JHP on top of a case full of 2400. (don't recall exactly what it was, but it was a published load in the rifle section of one of the books).

I had gotten a Chrony, and he wanted to see what they were doing. We fired that ammo through 4 guns, his Model 19, my model 28, my Desert Eagle .357, and his Marlin carbine.

First up was the 19. He shot, and somehow, "doubled" the revolver! Two shots! Of course, only the last one registered on the Chrony, and it read 1620fps!

At that point, we decided to stop shooting that ammo in the Model 19! Four loaded rounds fell out of the cylinder normally, but the two fired cases required a rod and a small hammer to tap them out of the cylinder. Primers were flattened and cratered a bit.

Same ammo in the model 28, six rounds normal function, a tiny bit of resistance felt pushing on the ejector rod, then they popped free like normal.
Avg velocity, 1670fps!

Fired a magazine full through the Desert Eagle (an early one with polygonal rifling). Function was flawless. Vel: 1720fps!!

From the Marlin carbine, flawless function, MV 2200fps!!!:D

The model 19 is a great gun, it just doesn't have the same potential as bigger, stronger guns. On the other hand, the 19 is a bit more than half a pound lighter than an N frame. TO shoot top end .357 loads, I use the heavier guns. If I had to wear one all day, (and I don't) and only shoot it sometimes, I'd definitely choose the lighter one.
 
S&W revolvers

At one time or another I've owned about every large bore revolver worth talking
about. I own several S&Ws from Is to Ns. They are the Cadillac of double action
revolvers. I do not believe in firing hot loads in them. The hinge out cylinder is
not nearly as strong as a single action like a Ruger. If you must fire barn burners
Get a SA. Got 29, 25, 19 that I've owned for 40 some years, all have shot many
thousands of rds, kept cleaned & oiled, no problems.
 
Post #7 says it, for me.

I have also read (from Ayoob, I think) that shooters didn't like to use full magnum loads, either.

Back in my college years and afterward, when Colt and Smith & Wesson revolvers rode on the hips of most police officers in the country, many officers who visited the nearby gun store would express their preference for the K-frame D/A trigger over that of the Colt. I wanted a Combat Magnum or Combat Masterpiece in a big way, but at the time, there weren't any to be had. Word was that DoD orders were the reason. The Air Force was using the Combat Masterpiece.

The issues with magnum loads in the K-frame led to the introduction of the L-frame. I did not like the Python style full length under lug, I had the impression that the gun was too large for my taste.

But--I never actually handled an L-frame revolver. I did not realize that the frame dimensions are extremely close to those of the Colt Officer's Model and Python, etc. until I read that in one of Ayoob's books.

Then a neighbor brought by a nice old 586 with a four inch barrel. I really liked it. It did not seem that large. Heck, the Army used Colts of the same size in Cuba and the Philippines.

Within days, I happened to come across a 686+ with a five inch barrel and a tapered under lug. The balance was great, and I bought it.

But it does not appeal to me like that four inch Combat Magnum in the store fifty years ago. And I shoot .38 Special ammunition anyway.

I would not hesitate to use magnum loads in the 686 if I felt the need, but I would be very reluctant to do so in a K-frame.
 
First..a confession... I'm a snubbiephile in general and a Combat Magnum Snubbiephile in particular. I just can't get enough of them. I've got a nice selection of them.

2 1/2 inch M-19 and M-66s are my favorite.

Now about the K frame and problems. Yes the forcing cone can't take alot of 125gr magnum loads.

This is because of the impact velocity on the cone stresses it (it's kind of thin.) 158gr slugs or loaded down 110 and 125s are fine, but not magnums (in the long run.)

That is WHY the S&W 686 was made. And yes, I have a 686-2 2 1/2 snubbie to!

But I can say firing full magnums out of the snubbies is NOT fun. +p .38s, 'midrange .357s', and regular .38s are wonderful, but not magnums.

I consider the K frame .357, as Bill Jordan visualized it, a shoot .38s and carry magnums gun. And yes, if you slick up the action but keep the stock springs, the S&W K frame has a DA pull you will just love.

But I use Buffalo Bore 158gr LSWHPs in my snubbie magnums. 1050 fps from that 2 1/2 inch barrel and that is plenty!

So ease up on the magnum loads in a K frame S&W. Not as durable as the Ruger Security Six, nor S&W 686, nor Ruger GP-100.

But I still love 'em and I still pack 'em!

Deaf
 
M-19s

Most people who do a lot of shooting use cast bullets. I can see the 110gr mags
would put a lot on forcing cone. I've only seen this twice. I did it once to a 38
Colt Diamond Back, shooting hot +p loads with 110jhp. At time I was young &
dumb and didn't realize it was my loads. I also saw a Hi-Standard 357, snub
that belonged to a guy that only shot the hottest factory he could buy. Cone on this gun was literally gone, like burnt off. The only S&W with cone problems was
Govt. issue m-15 that had thousands of rds. of military hard ball run through it.
You could probably cut your finger on what was left.
 
When I got my first model 66 Smith, after a few hundred rounds the ejector rod unscrewed a bit and I couldn't close/open the cylinder (can't remember which). Took it to a smith that was working in the back of a local gun shop. He fixed it in 5 minutes for free. Sounds like that "smith" mentioned above needs another career track.
 
My 19-5, which I bought used a year ago, has a 6" barrel. The ejector rod came unscrewed. I could not open the crane. My gunsmith opened it (smack!) with a mallet and screwed up the mechanism that unlocks the cylinder.
She's on the way back to S&W right now. I just found out this is a common problem with Smith's.
Did they ever get this problem fixed????
Click to expand...

Yes.

With the older guns the extractor rod could unscrew slightly as the cylinder turned, binding up the latch at the front of the extractor rod. A quick twist of the rod, usually only a quarter turn or so, would snug it back down and free of the cylinder.

With modern guns, like a 19-5, with left hand threads on the extractor rod, the problem is usually not anything getting unscrewed. It is a cleaning issue. The problem is usually a build up of powder residue under the extractor star.

I burn a lot of Unique, and Unique tends to leave unburnt and burnt powder grains behind. Some of this can work its way under the extractor star. When enough residue builds up under the extractor star, it winds up standing .005 or .010 or so proud of the rear of the cylinder. The cylinder can still close, and the gun can function fine. But once enough residue builds up under the extractor star, when you push the thumb piece forward, the spring loaded rod that extends through the extractor rod does not push forward quite far enough to disengage the spring loaded pin up front. The one that is mounted under the barrel. The result is the spring pin hangs up the extractor rod and prevents it from swinging out to the left.

When you clean your Smiths, always push the extractor star out and inspect under it for built up residue. A couple of quick swipes with a bronze brush and some Hoppes #9 will remove the offending residue and prevent the cylinder from locking up.

Ask me how I discovered this. Funny thing is I was in a gun shop a couple of days ago and a clerk was explaining this to a fellow who was about to buy a new Smith. I just smiled.

Any gunsmith who does not know this about Smith and Wesson revolvers is not much of a gunsmith. When I have had the problem I have usually been able to wiggle things just enough to free up the cylinder. Then I give it a good cleaning under the extractor star.
 
I proffer that some of the best guns ever produced were under Bangor Punta, at least for the first 15 years, 1965-1980. Beautiful quality all through the 1960's and 1970's...
Click to expand...

I have to agree. I have heard the Bangor Punta guns slammed for years. I bought this Model 19-3 brand, spanky new in 1975. I have always been very pleased with it and couldn't understand the dissatisfaction with Bangor Punta.

model19-301_zps8ac05206.jpg



One day, many years later, I took it completely apart, just for the heck of it. I couldn't believe how beautiful the machining of the frame was, almost as if it had been jeweled. The CNC equipment of the time left behind a beautiful finish. Whatever burrs had been there had been completely cleaned away, either by hand or in a tumbler. The result was exquisite machine work.

nicemachining.jpg




Compare it to the finish of an old M&P from the days of hand operated pattern following milling equipment. This is the time that is usually touted as when the best guns were made.

tool_marks_K-38-1.jpg


Now, don't get me wrong. Most of that ugly machining on the older gun really does not matter. It is mostly clearance area, and nothing is bearing against it. Except for at the bottom where the rebound slide moves back and forth. You can even see the slide has polished the area slightly over the years. But it really does highlight how beautiful the machining was on that 1975 era gun. I have a 17-3 from the same year, and it is just as fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top