The superiority of the K frame magnum!

I like the K-frame revolvers in any caliber, even .22. (Remember the K-22? Arguably the best .22 target revolver ever made.)

The K guns in .357 were never intended for a steady diet of full power 357; they were intended as a smaller, lighter duty gun that could be fired with moderate quantities of .357. But as .357 loads, especially handloads, became hotter and hotter, the rear of the barrels began to show cracks. The barrel tenon of the K frame guns has a half-moon shape cut out, never a problem with .38 Special or reasonable pressure .357 loads, but a problem with super hot loads.

Rumors abound. I know of no K frame revolvers that blew up, no frames that broke or fell apart, no lethal explosions. No "hundreds of thousands of cylinders are deadly bombs" (as one anti-S&W writer claimed). Simply the usual tendency to believe that if x grains of powder is good, x+ grains just must be better.

Jim
 
Howdy

I love my Model 19-3 that I bought brand-spanky new way back in 1975 when I was still in my twenties. It was the first centerfire revolver I ever bought and I still have the box and all the goodies.

Model_19-2_zpsdc8c8de7.jpg


model19-302_zps9caebca8.jpg





My second 357 Mag was this Model 65 I picked up used about 15 years ago.

model%2065-3%2003_zpsc7oa5ri6.jpg





And just a few years ago I found this nice Model 13-2.

model%2013-2%2001_zpsslse63t5.jpg





But let's be clear about something. The L frame was not developed to be 'stronger' than a K frame 357 Magnum. At least not in the sense that the cylinder could handle more powerful loads. The L frame was developed so the clearance cut at the bottom of the forcing cone on a K frame revolver could be eliminated. Going back to at least 1905, K frame revolvers have always had a clearance cut on the bottom of the forcing cone to clear the gas ring on the cylinder. This had the effect of making the forcing cone weaker at the six O'clock position. This was never a problem with 38 Special ammunition, but when 357 Magnum ammo started moving through the forcing cone, it could be a problem, particularly with light, high velocity bullets.

Exactly as was outlined in the article referred to.

Here is a photo of the forcing cone on my Model 13-2. Notice the 'flat' or clearance cut.

Clearance%20Cut%20Model%2013-2%20SN6D03706%201979_zpsgxfbk0zg.jpg





Here is the forcing cone on the only L frame revolver I own, a 686-6. Notice there is no 'flat' on the bottom of the forcing cone. The forcing cone is full thickness for it's entire diameter.

Model%20686%20Forcing%20Cone_zpsrxgirnc2.jpg






Personally, I prefer to fire 357 Mag ammo through an N frame, such as the Model 28. It too has no clearance cut on the bottom of the forcing cone. I prefer the way the heavy N frame soaks up recoil. I would post a photo, but this board only allows six photos per post.

I love my 19-3, particularly since it was my first centerfire revolver, but I usually only fire 38 Specials out of it.
 
The Models 15/67 are my favorite but I'm also partial to the Models
19/66.

BUT in defense of the L-frame in at least one configuration, the
686s plus with 2.5 or 3-inch barrels are marginally heavier and
larger than a 6-shot Model 66 with 2.5 inch barrel.

According to the S&W site, a 686 plus (yes an extra round) with
2.5 inch barrel is 34.1 ounces. The current Model 66 with 2 3/4-
inch barrel is 33.5 ounces.
 
I do value my two "K" frames S&Ws..M19 &M17 both six inch .(P&R,TT,TH,)...bought in the mid 70s...asper recommendations...shot 38s....for fun...carried 357 for business...still have them...still look new....still tight....but I did get a 686 when they first came out (no dash)...just to give my M19 a deserved rest...

was not long before I added the M29...6inch...same P&R, TT,TH,

the shop I frequented, was having an event, had a S&W rep giving minor tune ups for free....he matched the M19&M17 to have the same trigger break....
 
Last edited:
Ooops, my bad. I said the cut in the .357 K frame barrel is "half moon shaped." It is a straight cut. In any case, it weakens the barrel tenon at that point, a problem corrected in the L frame, as Driftwood's pictures show very well.

Jim
 
I think the K frames are best of the lot. The 19 the best of the Ks. The right size, the right weight, .357 mag., easy to shoot. Very accurate. It's a shame S&W doesn't build them anymore. If the did they would not be the same, they don't have the quality the older guns have. The 14,15 and 17 ain't bad either.
 
I was glad to see a few people stand up to all this K-frame partisanship. (smile)

I personally prefer the N-frame and, if I have to have a lighter revolver the L-frame, but I don't want to get into an argument about it.

To all those who love K-frame Magnums, more power to ya.

Dave
 
Unfortunately I don't have any K frame magnums, I've been an N frame guy since the 80's. Just got my first K frame, a model 14-3 a few years ago. Fell in love, what a beautiful balanced easy to handle pistol. And man is it accurate. Since then I've added a model 67 and a model 15, simply the easiest shooting guns I have. Still on the lookout for a nice 4" Model 19 that's affordable but around here they're not up for sale very often and pricey when they are. But, I'm patient, I'll eventually find one.
 
I personally prefer the N-frame and, if I have to have a lighter revolver the L-frame, but I don't want to get into an argument about it.
Click to expand...

There's no argument, the L frame isn't significantly lighter than the N frame guns. The same weight, or within an ounce or two, with the same barrel lengths.

The L frame is smaller, but the full barrel underlug means the total weight is the same as a (non underlugged) N frame. But, the balance is much different in the hand.
 
The L-frame has considerably less bulk, particularly in the cylinder, than the N-frame. I can conceal an L-frame when an N-frame leaves a noticeable bulge.

Dave
 
The frame/cylinder and the grips are the bulkiest parts and the most difficult to conceal.

My point is, that people who go to the L frame over the N frame, and think they are saving weight, aren't.

And, for what its worth, all that "extra weight" of the N frame over the K? It's approximately 6 (six) ounces +/-, with equal barrel lengths.

Slight weight variations occur due to differing densities of wood grips, and if you are comparing a bull barrel model to a standard one.

Old time officers I've spoken with nearly always say they never noticed the difference in weight between N and K frame when worn on their service belt.

On the other hand, they weren't carrying a radio, baton, pepper spray, taser, and two or three other things I don't even recognize as part of the regular walking out kit. Gun, a couple of dump pouches (speedloaders if your dept was "progressive") and a handcuff case was the usual gear.

I can see where, today, loaded like pack mules, officers could find 6oz to make a noticeable difference. For civilian carry, I don't think it matters as much...

otherwise, my thoughts are still what they were 10 years ago, when this thread was started...:rolleyes:
 
My L-Frame has a tapered lug and a five inch barrel.

I like the gun. I do not like a full-length lug, on a Smith or on a Python.

I had no idea that the 586/686 fame size is just about the same as that of the Colt Official Police until I read that in a book by Mas Ayoob.
 
I had no idea that the 586/686 fame size is just about the same as that of the Colt Official Police until I read that in a book by Mas Ayoob.
Click to expand...

here's another one, something I learned by accident,

Colt snub noses, the Detective Special, and the later Agent (alloy frame Det Special), use the SAME SPEEDLOADER as K frame S&Ws.
 
Bill Jordan described the M-19/Combat Magnum as "the answer to a peace officer's dream" and I can see how carrying it on one's belt for 8-12 hours day would be more comfortable.
 
K frames are attractive, well balanced and great to shoot. At the same time a steady diet of full power 357 rounds will prematurely wear them out. They were the weapon of choice when the LEOs who were armed with them followed the "Practice with 38s, Carry 357s" mentality.
Click to expand...


To those who believe the K frames are delicate, I can only say that I have not found that to be the case. I do agree that there were problems with the early full house 125-grain loads but today's 125-grain loads are not up at those early pressure levels.

That said, the guns are not delicate by any stretch and will consume may thousands of magnum loads that are much more powerful than 38 special without any undue wear.

Advances in metallurgy have made it absolutely possible to produce K frame magnums of yesterday's dimensions but with more strength and durability.
Click to expand...


I think there's a couple of important things to consider. One is the pressure levels of magnum loads when the K frame acquired a reputation for wearing out, whether it be real, perceived, or due to 125gr loads only. How much difference is there in pressure loads then compared to now? I don't know. Two is advances in metallurgy and how much that has helped newer revolvers. That I don't know, either.

The above said, can the older K frames take a steady diet of today's full power .357 loads? Can newer K frames with more advanced metallurgy take a steady diet of today's .357 loads?

Let's leave 125gr loads out of the above questions, unless someone wants to mention them specifically. This way it is known that one's opinion doesn't necessarily apply when using heavier, thus more standard, bullet weights.

I'm starting to ich for a nice K frame.
 
Let's see, now. I have K, L and N frames and .357 in all three sizes. I rarely fire full house magnums and even then I relegate them to the N frames. My most fired round out of these revolvers is the wadcutter target load, which I reload by the thousands. Next is a good service level swc that occasionally sees use. For the M19 & 65 I have a reduced magnum load comprised of a home cast swc over 12.5 grains of 2400. This gives between 1150 fps and 1200 fps depending on barrel length. It's great in the K frames.

I consider the Python to be closer to the K frame in strength than to the L frame; it has seen wadcutters exclusively. My 686 (no dash) has taken a good number of deer with one shot each. While it is wonderfully accurate with wadcutters, which it mostly fires, it has digested a good many magnums; which accounts for the deer.

But those old N frames are kings. I like them for their ability to accurately fire a diet of magnums without a burp. I have always had a particular fondness for the M28 and have owned several; the one I kept is a gem.
 
Love the K frame Magnum, I have shot tens of thousands of .38 rounds through them when shooting police competition ( not being wealthy in the early days i shot my duty pistol) and carried performance .38 specials, never felt undergunned.
Occasionally I would require officers carrying a revolver full of magnums to shoot a course of fire with magnums, invariably they would carry performance .38's afterward.
 
If I were going to fire .357 Magnum rounds out of a handgun, I'd want that handgun to be a Model 27.

Many wheel gun aficionados have opined that the Model 27 is the best .357 Magnum ever manufactured...not to be interpreted as a slight to Python guys.

For self-defense, I'd much rather carry a Sig P239 .40 S&W with 180 grain ammo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top