The superiority of the K frame magnum!
- Thread starter lawboy
- Start date
Ibmikey,
I'm sure you came across an FBI office with the 110 grain +P+ loads
but I do believe the "official" load was the 158 grain SCWHP.
However, I do remember reading that Treasury was the one
that ordered the 110 grain +P+ as its "official" load.
I put "official" in quotes because I'm sure federal agents passed
around ammo or obtained stuff from a different department.
Like all humans, they fell to the "grass is greener" in the other
yard syndrome.
I'm sure you came across an FBI office with the 110 grain +P+ loads
but I do believe the "official" load was the 158 grain SCWHP.
However, I do remember reading that Treasury was the one
that ordered the 110 grain +P+ as its "official" load.
I put "official" in quotes because I'm sure federal agents passed
around ammo or obtained stuff from a different department.
Like all humans, they fell to the "grass is greener" in the other
yard syndrome.
It is easy today to forget that the K-frame Magnum (Model 19 or Combat Magnum) did not have an easy birth. S&W engineers blew a lot of K frames and stretched others in trying to make the idea (Bill Jordan's) work. The larger barrel tenon was necessary but would only work if part of it was cut away to allow room for the crane. Then, of course, the cylinder had to be made from a special alloy and it and the frame specially heat treated to stand the extra pressures of the .357 round. According to what I have heard, a lot of midnight oil was burned, and a lot of guns wrecked, before they got everything working.
Then the change to super high velocity with light bullets, introduced yet another factor. Early on, warnings were issued that K-frame Magnums should not be fed a steady diet of full house loads, a warning more and more often ignored by people who routinely ignore all safety warnings. Rather than simply issue another warning or print a note in the instruction manual, S&W decided to modify the gun to take an unlimited number of full-house loads The result was the L frame, a compromise in size and weight between the K-frame and the N-frame.
Jim
Then the change to super high velocity with light bullets, introduced yet another factor. Early on, warnings were issued that K-frame Magnums should not be fed a steady diet of full house loads, a warning more and more often ignored by people who routinely ignore all safety warnings. Rather than simply issue another warning or print a note in the instruction manual, S&W decided to modify the gun to take an unlimited number of full-house loads The result was the L frame, a compromise in size and weight between the K-frame and the N-frame.
Jim
ShootistPRS
New member
When a manufacturer states that one should not feed a steady diet of the round that the pistol is chambered in it should not be classified as a gun for that caliber. there are 9mms and 357 made that the manufacturer says not to use full power loads frequently. Maybe I'm just strange but if a gun is marked "357 Magnum" I would think that it should be able to handle a steady diet of the SAAMI maximum load. The same goes for the 9mm, which is nothing more powerful than a 38 +P in velocity/weight.
I guess owning Ruger revolvers has spoiled me. I use only one load and it is close to the original SAAMI maximum pressure load. Now you can only find loads like it in the "Ruger/Contender" section of loading manuals but it is the same pressure that S&W used when they introduced the cartridge. I think it's deplorable that S&W markets 357 Magnums and then tells you to use 38 +P loads so as not to hurt the gun.
I guess owning Ruger revolvers has spoiled me. I use only one load and it is close to the original SAAMI maximum pressure load. Now you can only find loads like it in the "Ruger/Contender" section of loading manuals but it is the same pressure that S&W used when they introduced the cartridge. I think it's deplorable that S&W markets 357 Magnums and then tells you to use 38 +P loads so as not to hurt the gun.
Lawboy, you hit the nail right on the head. The .357 Magnum mid-sized K frames are the best all around revolvers produced, by anyone. I've been lucky enough to amass a small assortment of them, 2 1//2", 3", and 4" barrels.
Everyone of them is more accurate than I'll ever be, with any ammo, everything from mild target around through HOT 158Gr. Magnum loads. With the improvements in bullet design and powders I now carry some hot 38 special rounds, but it's nice to know I can SAFELY shoot full power Magnum rounds if I chose to do so.
As for the venerated L frames. I've owned two over the years. model 586 4" and a 3" 686. Both are great shooting revolvers, but both weigh much more than the K frames, to the point I don't like carrying one unless it's in a full sized duty belt and holster set-up. On the other hand the L frames are much easier on my old hand when shooting Magnum ammo. I do trust them to work each and every time the trigger is pulled, to the point that my 3" 686 is one of my home ready guns.
Everyone of them is more accurate than I'll ever be, with any ammo, everything from mild target around through HOT 158Gr. Magnum loads. With the improvements in bullet design and powders I now carry some hot 38 special rounds, but it's nice to know I can SAFELY shoot full power Magnum rounds if I chose to do so.
As for the venerated L frames. I've owned two over the years. model 586 4" and a 3" 686. Both are great shooting revolvers, but both weigh much more than the K frames, to the point I don't like carrying one unless it's in a full sized duty belt and holster set-up. On the other hand the L frames are much easier on my old hand when shooting Magnum ammo. I do trust them to work each and every time the trigger is pulled, to the point that my 3" 686 is one of my home ready guns.
ammo.crafter
New member
"K"
Let's not leave out my model 14!
Let's not leave out my model 14!
I have owned a number of K frame Magnums over the years, 13, 19, 66... of various bbl lengths, and foolishly let them go. My 1986 Taurus 66 6", a well made copy of the 19, is my pride and joy... deadly accurate with 148 .38 wadcutters. This past week, an old friend sold me a model 19-3, 2.5" Combat Mag, vintage 1970 according to the #, in amazing shape. He owned it about 15 years, never shot it, bought it at a gun show from an old salty SW collector. The gun had been fired, but I doubt more than a cylinder or two and the bore / chambers cleaned up prettier than Taylor Swift on a hot July afternoon! Bluing immaculate, everything locks up TIGHT, grips are pristine, even has a Tyler T-grip adapter on it, but it appears to have never been carried. Made my week, getting a minty vintage 1970 S&W .357 revolver, just like the FBI and other Agencys carried at the time. Perhaps it WAS (?), if only the gun could talk! Polished Blue steel and finished wood. 6 rounds. Magnum power. Pinned barrel, recessed chambers. NO LOCK! I felt it was worth $550 all day long. Basically designed by Bill Jordan as the perfect Peace Officer's sidearm (in four inch configuration), Bill being a retired Border Patrol Officer, and a gunwriter I grew up reading and idolizing. The snubby Magnum K frame is well balanced, handy, especially if one belt / holster carrys in a car or sits around allot. Not going to be a safe queen, no way... this is going in my CCW rotation, and most likely will become my primary off duty weapon. Yup, K frames are awesome!
Last edited:
Well, the snake guns look better. The Python has smoother lockwork. The Rugers are stronger. A Dan Wesson is more accurate. Obviously the K frame Smith is superior.
All that being said, the K frame 357 was a great Police platform in it's day. And unlike other 357 revolvers essentially the same size, it's still readily available today.
All that being said, the K frame 357 was a great Police platform in it's day. And unlike other 357 revolvers essentially the same size, it's still readily available today.
"K Frame Police revolver"...IIRC was a brainchild of border patrolman, ex-Marine and gun writer Bill Jordan...he preferred a lighter weight wheel gun than the M27 and expected it to be shot with 38s for practice and heavier 357s for duty. Not a steady diet of the latter.
S&W obliged with the M19...The Ruger Security Six 357 is just as compact and light but can stand up to more full power 357 loads. I am not a M19 expert but do own Ruger Six revolvers....I think the Smith will probably always have a better trigger, smoother action.
I don't like shooting full power 357 loads in any light weight 357s. The round, IMO, is caustic. Too much blast and recoil... Enough shooting of any gun without hearing protection will destroy your hearing but the 357 is the worst in this department.
S&W obliged with the M19...The Ruger Security Six 357 is just as compact and light but can stand up to more full power 357 loads. I am not a M19 expert but do own Ruger Six revolvers....I think the Smith will probably always have a better trigger, smoother action.
I don't like shooting full power 357 loads in any light weight 357s. The round, IMO, is caustic. Too much blast and recoil... Enough shooting of any gun without hearing protection will destroy your hearing but the 357 is the worst in this department.