Will regular use of .357 Remington Golden Sabers wear out a S&W M66 K-frame?

P

psh

Inactive
Thanks for everyone's help on my earlier question about the manufacturing date of a S&W model 66-3. I have one more followup question for you kind folks.

Will the regular use of a "reduced velocity" .357 magnum round like the Remington 125 gr Golden Saber cause the same sort of wear and tear on the K-frames as the full house magnums?

I know that regular use of full house magnums can cause early cracking of the forcing cones of the K-frames, which is why some people advocate practicing with .38 but carrying .357. On the other hand, I'd like to practice with the same ammo that I'm carrying, and I also prefer to carry .357 rather than .38+P. (This would be for a M66 with a 2-1/2 inch barrel.)

Is there still a significant wear-and-tear problem with the regular use of reduced velocity rounds like the .357 Golden Saber? How many rounds of the milder .357 could I safely put through a S&W M66 each month without feeling like I was abusing it?

(And to be honest, I really didn't like the kick of the full house .357 magnum loads through the M66 whereas I found the Golden Sabers to be surprisingly manageable.)

Thanks again!
 
Hi psh,
I have a 2 1/2" 66 as well and am currently loading it with 129 grain .38+P Federal Hydra-Shoks. I am anxious to try the Remington Golden Sabers to see what the recoil and muzzle blast is like. From everything I have ever heard using these medium velocity rounds should be a lot easier on your gun than full house .357's even the 110 grain variants. I don't know how much you intend to practice but it could get pretty pricey if you stick to only using Golden Sabers. If that is an issue you might want to practice with .38's for things like trigger control and some of the more fundamental shooting skills. Then finish up your session with a box of Golden Sabers for familiarity with how they shoot. Regards, Mike
 
The biggest issue with the K frames and 357mags is with the smaller bullets. the 125s in particular beat them up. If you go to a bigger bullet it shouldn't be a problem.
 
MikeJ,

You make a good point about the expense.

If I practice mostly with 100-200 rounds of .38 plus maybe another 20-40 rounds of .357 Golden Sabers per month, I hope that won't be too much for the K-frame!
 
If you search around a bit I think you will find a lot of respected members feel the 357 has been watered down quite a bit from the years we heard so much about cracked forcing cones. Add to that the fact that the load you inquire about is basically a watered down version of the watered down modern load and I think you see where I'm going ;)

To add to MikeJ's excellent point. Say your paying $20 per 50 of these rounds and just for the sake of arguement that the gun only last 7000 rounds before it needs a rebuild due to using these "hot" rounds. You've just spent $2,800 worth of ammo to need a $100 rebuild on a $350 gun. Kind of puts things in perspective huh:cool:
 
Yes, you will wear out a model 66 using the 125 grain reduced loads. But you will probably be nearly 200 years old when that happens!:D Enjoy your model 66 while you can, the ammo you have selected should not harm the gun. The 110 and 125 grain full power loads will definitely erode the forcing cone. My 19-3 is a testament to that fact.
 
Jar- That doesn't make sense. Heavier bullets will cause more recoil (Newton's Third Law of equal and opposite reation requires that a heavier bullet will recoil harder) so the lighter bullets will cause less wear and tear on a handgun, not more.

For 35 years I have been hearing of K frame Magnums "shooting loose," falling apart, now splitting forcing cones. I have yet to actually see any of this happen. My K frame Magnums are doing just fine and I never shoot anything but full-power Magnum loads in them. When I want to shoot .38 Specials I have a drawer full of guns specifically chambered for this caliber.

Call me kooky, but I use the words stamped on the barrel as a guide. When it says ".357 Magnum," I feel pretty safe in using any factory-loaded .357 Magnum ammo. Also note that factory ammunition is much less potent now than in years past due to liability concerns. Bill Jordan and Skeeter Skelton wrote of extensive shooting with M19s back when the .357 was still loaded to full potential by the ammo makers and they made no mention of their guns coming unglued. My favorite .357 load is a 125 JHP at a measured 1,725 FPS. This is much warmer than anything from the major ammo makers today, and my K frames seem to do just fine with it.
 
Heavier bullets will cause more recoil
Click to expand...
I think you meant, "heavier bullets will cause more recoil, all other things constant," which is of course not the case.

A 148gr target load in .38 has a heavier bullet than a 55gr .223 round, but the .223 has more recoil. Even in the same caliber, heavier bullets are generally launched at lower velocities, so there's no necessary correlation between bullet mass and recoil.
 
Remington has a "Medium Velocity" .357 that is 125gr. and is loaded about the same as a Golden Saber round. I would practice with those if you planned on carrying Golden Sabers. I carry Golden Sabers myself, mostly because full power magnums are just way too loud to be practical.

Now I'm sure I'll hear someone say, "I'd rather be deaf than dead", well let me tell you when you're hesitating and flinching from the noise of every shot, and you've got the blood dripping out your ears, you're alot less likely to hit what you're aiming at.
 
Nyetter- I thought we were comapring .357 Magnum rounds. What's a .223 rifle got to do with anything?

Recoil will be a function of projectile mass and velocity. However, the mass (bullet weight) has a more pronounced effect on felt recoil than will velocity. The 148 grain .38 Special target loads you mentioned kick harder than do high velocity loads (1,200 FPS)with 110 grain bullets. Now, if we were to increase the velocity on the 110 to a much, much higher level, say 2,000 FPS, then they would likely kick more than the heavier bullet at the lower speed. But it takes a lot more velocity to compensate for greater bullet weight.
 
Forcing cone is the area just ahead of the cylinder (simply put the start of the barrell you see poking out of the frame). If you have your K-frame handy youll notice that at the 6 o'clock position it's slightly flatned instead of round thus thinner than the rest of the cone. Larger frame guns like the L and N frames have a thicker cone all the way around so people worry less about them breaking.

Just put 100 rounds of warm 125's through my gun this afternoon without concern. Personally to me it's kinda like the Glock KB thing. I'm sure with that many guns out there (both Glock and S/W K's) it's happened to somebody somewhere, but way overblown IMHO. I got too many more likely things to happen to worry about either:cool:
 
SaxonPig,

Bill Jordan and Skeeter Skelton wrote of extensive shooting with M19s back when the .357 was still loaded to full potential by the ammo makers and they made no mention of their guns coming unglued.
Click to expand...

Mssrs. Jordan & Skelton also did almost all their .357 Magnum shooting with heavy, unjacketed bullets moving at 1200-1300 fps. Your favorite hyper-velocity 125gr jacketed magnum bullet isn't going too much slower than that when it slams into the forcing cone... I think that's what's caused the occasional split forcing cone I've seen on K-frames. That being said, it takes a lot of shooting to do that...

When it says ".357 Magnum," I feel pretty safe in using any factory-loaded .357 Magnum ammo.
Click to expand...

Thank heavens! That means that this Georgia Arms .44 Magnum wasn't really causing my 629's cylinder to spin backwards... ;) ;) ;)
 
I'll one up you on Skeeter Skelton--his preferred weapon was the Model 27 which is a totally beast than a 19 or 66 (and he preferred his own reloads--with a gas-checked cast lead bullet.

I read a highly technical evaluation on the problem of the hot 125-grain JHPs and the K-frames (and promptly forgot most of it). Like Tamara said, the problem has to do with both the velocity when the bullet hit forcing cone and also the heat of the gasses propelling the bullet.

In limited doses (practice with .38s and carry .357s) there was no problem with the K-frames, but when LE woke up and realized you need to practice like you play, they started eating up K-frames. The best indication (and acknowledgement) that there really was a problem with the hot 125s and the K-frames are the L-frames (581/6 and 681/6).
 
Please measure the barrel thickness on a K frame .357. OK, now measure the barrel thinkness on an L frame. Now an N frame.

Surprise!

The frames are bigger on the L and N, but not the barrels. They all have the same outside diameter and wall thinkness. How did going to a larger frame solve the problem of split forcing cones?

Yes, I am well aware of Skelton's fondness for the M27. But he also shot the K frame magnum and wrote of his experiences with it.
 
SaxonPig,

Please measure the barrel thickness on a K frame .357. OK, now measure the barrel thinkness on an L frame. Now an N frame.

Surprise!
Click to expand...

Okay, done.

Now, measure the forcing cone thickness at the 6 o'clock position on the same three guns.

'Nother surprise? ;)
 
When someone is convinced of his position, and leaving him there will coause no major worldwide catastrophy, I usually simply say "Okay, sounds good".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top