Revolver Forcing Cone: Explanation and Avoiding a Crack, Ft. S&W .357 Magnum K-frames & Colt Python

Carrying on with another explanation of revolver mechanics this video briefly explains the function of a forcing cone in a revolver before venturing into changes Smith & Wesson has made to the forcing cone of their revolvers over the years as a way to achieve a more compact cylinder in the Model 10, how that created some issues particularly in certain production years of the Model 19 and Model 66, and how revolvers with a larger cylinder like the 2020 Colt Python and the S&W 686 (L-frame) offer greater robustness at the expense of slightly larger size and weight.
Importantly, some guidance is offered on which varieties of .357 Magnum ammunition are more likely to cause a crack of the forcing cone, and which particular revolvers you might want to avoid Magnums in and stick to .38 Special or .38 Special +p.
If you like this kind of technical discussion check out some of my other revolver videos, and consider subscribing. Thanks.

[@AdamSmith-de9nx]

Great video. Just picked up a 19-4 and couldn’t find a straight answer but you cleared everything up for me. You have great knowledge. Keep it up man

[@ColterBrog]

Thanks. They’re great revolvers. True American classics. I know you’re going to appreciate not only shooting it, but also the time period and craftsmanship it represents.

[@pfcparts7728]

I’ll say this about the use of magnums in these old k-frames. I have personally had an old second hand model 66-3, and the guy who sold it to me said he has fired at least two thousand rounds through using 130 grain magnums in the 80s. There was some forcing cone erosion and top strap cutting, but it is all very minor. I came into possession of it in the 2010s. In that time I have put at least three thousand 158 grain magnums and at least two thousand .38 specials through it. No issues with it except for some cylinder end shake, which I fixed two times in the 14 years I came into possession of it. If you were to use MODERN magnums through it, at >158 grain bullet weights, you shouldn’t experience any cracks or accelerated FC erosion. I think this was because in ‘91, SAAMI downgraded the .357’s magnum max pressure rating from roughly 45,000 psi to 35,000 psi, or roughly 5 tons per square inch less pressure. This means that the amount of force and strain from modern ammo is lessened quite a bit. Therefore, while I do not necessarily recommend everyone with these old guns to run ten thousand rounds of magnums through these, I personally don’t think that using .357 magnums in the >158 grain plus range will damage it too much, again using modern ammunition. I’ll also say in regards to the case of police getting cracked FCs in the 70s and 80s, we don’t know if those guns have had timing issues that led to barrel and cylinder misalignment issues, or if those guns have been properly cleaned at the FC of leading accumulation, when I clean my model 66, I tend to pay particular attention to the FC throat with a lead removing tool. If you clean the throat of leading, and if you pay attention to check the barrel/cylinder alignment whenever cylinder/yoke end shake issues crop up, I think it is safe to use modern manufactured, >158 grain magnums.

[@ColterBrog]

I think that’s a well-reasoned summary that is generally applicable, although I would exercise a bit more caution in regards to those few years that have exceptionally thin forcing cones.

[@josephstabile9154]

What often gets overlooked in these discussions is that ammo preferences have changed over the decades since the M19, and to a lesser extent, the M66 were designed. When the M19 was conceptualized, lead bullets, i.e., without copper jackets, and of 150 gr. weight range were almost the only loads commercially available, and cast bullets were the reloading choice. Since then, jacketed bullets, and especially 125 gr. and lighter, jacketed bullets at high velocities have become preferred by consumers. This may be the major cause of M19/M66 forcing cone problems, that is to say, consumers are often operating today outside of the design parameters for these models. My K frame .357's have digested many thousands of .357 loads using medium hard cast 145-168 gr. lead bullets without problem. Forcing cone cracking really was not an issue in the era of cast bullets. I can't help thinking of the situation of the introduction of steel shot that really wasn't compatible with lead shot chokes, and in some cases with lead shot barrel steels. The analogy here being that the older shotguns were properly designed around the use of lead shot, and not the newer, harder shot.

[@ColterBrog]

I think that’s an excellent point. Good insight.

[@SuperEzekiel2517]

Good video. As a revolver enthusiast and hobbyist myself, I appreciate the technical and engineering aspects of your vids. Thank you and plz continue to make more.

[@ColterBrog]

Thank you, and I certainly will. I have several irons in the fire right now ranging from a collaboration effort with another KZbinr on the Colt Python, to a fictional crime thriller short film that’s going to be pretty heavy on technical aspects. I have some more gunsmithing stuff in the works, and even some tinkering around with hand tools. There should be a pretty wide variety over the next few months- a little bit of something for everyone.

[@Zona-dw9rp]

The K frame was designed for the .38 Special. The L frame was designed for the .357 magnum.

[@ColterBrog]

Yup. Lot of cartridge with a lot of energy in what is a fairly petite frame.

[@OldManMontgomery]

Forcing cones are the small tapered portion at the entry end of the barrel. It acts much as a funnel for the bullet. Revolvers are designed so that the chamber in the cylinder locks up exactly in line with the barrel. Being a mechanical device, the tolerances allow a certain degree of inexactitude in the line up. The funnel shape takes up for that tolerance. Since the bullet engages the rifling while the bullet is still leaving the cylinder and the powder is still evolving propellent gases, there will be a pressure 'spike' in the pressure curve of the cartridge. This is considered in specifying a powder charge in conjunction with bullet weight and powder type. With a S&W revolver, the lockup on the cylinder is complete when the trigger is tripped. The 'hand' is tight against the 'pawl' formation at the rear of the extractor pushing against the cylinder stop. The demonstration of movement with the trigger released shows a minute amount of movement; but a bit more than when in full lockup. I have to laugh at the illogical statement of "... these revolvers were not intended to shoot .357 Magnum ammo all the time..." There are three models 19 in my inventory right now. I had and carried on duty a model 19 before the 580-680 series revolvers were rumored. AT NO TIME was that proclaimed by S&W or the agencies for which I worked. I have no idea from where that idea sprang. As noted in other replies, the cracks in the forcing cone were not reported until the high velocity 125 grain bullet load was introduced. I have personally shot a bunch of .357 Magnum ammunition (of 158 grain weight) without incident or hiccup. Bottom line is do not use the magic super-fast light bullet loads.

[@ColterBrog]

Exactly. A tapered bullet swager essentially.

[@Andrew-td6hi]

Whew! Just bought a used 686 intending to shoot majority of 357s. This is very informative and somewhat of relief to know not stuck with the wrong revolver for my intended use. Excellent video. Ty

[@ColterBrog]

Thanks. The 686 is a very robust revolver. I love my Python for using magnum loads, but really have more time and experience with S&W. The 686 is an iconic revolver and I’m sure you’ll enjoy it for many years.

[@alanshaw6161]

Extremely informative video. I only own 686-1 ,2 ,3 because of the issues you’re discussing. Great Job and Thanks for making this video.

[@ColterBrog]

Those early variants of the 686 are some of the nicest revolvers S&W has ever made in my opinion. They predate the internal lock, but have all the benefits of the robust L-frame 686 design.

[@marcallen7233]

Good information. I purchased a S&W 686 plus rather than the S&W 66 because I wanted to shoot 357 magnum mostly and the 686 has a bigger frame, cylinder and forcing cone.

[@ColterBrog]

And that’s exactly the right choice. The 686 is a fantastic robust revolver that can digest .357 consistently. It very much depends on application.

[@roypoulos1378]

Excellent video. Very informative. Very much appreciated explanation. Thank you.

[@ColterBrog]

Thanks!

[@jameskringlee8974]

From; "The Smith & Wesson L-Frame Story" "Taking all this into account, it’s likely that the mechanism of injury for the cracked K-Frame barrels was a combination of the following: -A weakened barrel extension, caused by the aggressive milling of a flat at the 6 O’Clock position (which was required for the models with yoke-mounted gas rings, but unnecessary-yet still continued-for later 19-4 / 66-1 models with cylinder-mounted gas rings), and; -An increased use of high-pressure, .357 Magnum and .38 Special +P+ ammunition which placed more stress on the forcing cone than standard pressure .38 Special ammunition, and; -An increased use of .357 Magnum ammunition loaded with lightweight (110 and 125 grain) projectiles, which exposed the forcing cone to greater amounts of high pressure / temperature blow-by gases, which caused accelerated wear on the forcing cone, and; -Selected brands or lots of ammunition that were more prone to cause cracking, by virtue of their internal ballistics."

[@jameskringlee8974]

A former Smith & Wesson employee from the period puts an even finer point on the lightweight bullet issue, by pointing out that some brands were more problematic than others: The biggest contributor to the K-Frame model 19/66 barrel splitting issue was the Winchester 125gr JHP .357 ammo. I split barrels with this ammo in as little as 11 shots on a new gun. It had very high and erratic pressures caused by the bullet sealant. Pull forces to move the bullet out of the case were up to 385 pounds! Pressures would be crazy with that high a bullet pull force. Spilt barrels would happen quickly with this ammo.

[@ColterBrog]

That pretty much sums it up. I think something important to note that is neglected here is that thinning one part of the forcing cone could actually be worse than if they had simply thinned the entire forcing cone concentrically. It introduces a weakness that makes the area a likely spot for a crack to form. Think of how the locking lugs of an AR15 adjacent to the extractor are more likely to crack due to the “missing lug” for the extractor claw. I think this is reflected in the design of the new K frame model 19 with the sleeved barrel design.

[@keving52002]

Great video ,this is why on Smith & Wesson model 66, you should use 158gr or higher .357 loads. They have lower pressures and less velocity then the smaller grain bullets. This is less pressure on the forcing cone.

[@ColterBrog]

Definitely seems like that’s the worst culprit for causing damage. The low mass projectiles accelerate quickly and hit the forcing cone at too high of a velocity. Really makes me rethink my preferences in .357 Magnum loads.

[@OldManMontgomery]

Not just the Model 66, but on any K frame revolver chambered for .357 Magnum. As I recall, that would be Model 19s and Model 13s. But that was when barrels were pinned. As far as I know, the problem was never mentioned on N frame arms.

[@ColterBrog]

@@OldManMontgomery But then it further complicates from there because the new model 19s have an inner barrel sleeve which while relatively thinner than the thickest part of the old design, apparently allows for the load to be spread evenly instead of affecting a thinner weak point. The claim is that the new model 19 K-frame revolvers have solved the forcing cone cracking problems.

[@OldManMontgomery]

@@ColterBrog Ah. I should have stated this beforehand. Current S&W revolvers are cheap copies of S&W revolvers. I admit I am fairly cognizant of S&W revolvers with pinned barrels and such, but pretty well disgusted with the current crop and ignore them.

[@NorthwoodsShooter]

@@OldManMontgomeryI agree, the modern S&W revolvers are essentially clones of what they once were. I’ve owned them, and quickly sold them after putting a healthy amount of rounds down range. These days, I save up a little bit more and buy the older pre-mim/pre-lock versions.

[@VS-ff4ez]

Great video!

[@ColterBrog]

Thanks!

[@grantray4789]

Good explanation.

[@ColterBrog]

Thanks.

[@masterzi6452]

Thank you so much, Very good and informative information, I’m about to purchase a Dan Wesson model 15-2V, and I need to inspect the revolver before purchase, I will definitely pay attention to that forcing cone. I’m still in a learning process.

[@ColterBrog]

This issue doesn’t affect Dan Wesson as far as I know. Of course, all forcing cones take a beating because of what their purpose is but a well designed one should have a very long service life. Always a good idea to pay close attention when inspecting a used revolver to be sure there is no damage, though.

[@AZTrigger]

Good video and has been a topic in the revolver community for a long time. This should not keep people from buying these pre-lock 66 and 65 models. These are still my two favorite revolvers and S&W does not make this kind of quality revolver anymore. I agree - just shoot 158 grain ammo and you should have no concerns. FWIW I know people who have shot many thousands of rounds, including 125 grain through these with no problems but i prefer 158 grain anyway so it is a moot point to me. Most people would never shoot that much volume of ammo anyway, especially at today's ammo prices, so if you have a chance to buy a good conditioned 65 or 66 I say do it - I did and they are still my favorites.

[@ColterBrog]

Certainly. I love my 66. I hope this video doesn’t discourage anyone from buying one. They’re wonderful revolvers. The intent here is to maximize the longevity of these beautiful examples of American manufacturing and the golden age of the fighting revolver.

[@Gieszkanne]

What I have read in some comments is that the cracking problem only appeared with the hot 125gr loads not 158gr. Someone even claimed that it didnt appear with 110gr loads only with 125gr. He even had a strange explanation for it but I forgot it. What someone told me first hand from experience with his mod 19 is that the frame lengthen over the years with 357 so the cylinder gap became bigger and the cylinder developed front to back play.

[@ColterBrog]

There is a variety of information, most of it focusing on 125gr being the worst offender, particularly some of the old school Winchester stuff if my memory is right. I don’t think the new model 19 with the sleeved barrel is likely to have these issues, so what information exists now is likely all we will ever have. There’s little interest in destructive testing classic out-of-production revolvers which are quickly gaining collector interest.

[@Gieszkanne]

@@ColterBrog Yes the new 19/66 is a true 357 magnum now. They have a full forcing cone and the cylinder lock directly at the crane make them even tougher. But I think that still many classic owners will shoot their old models.

[@greybone777]

Have been around these for 45 years. Never seen this problem. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. The biggest problem is shooting 110 and 125 gr.high velocity loads where the bullet doesn't seal the forcing cone before the blast comes. In the 70s, super vel loads exceeding 1700 fps with 110 gr bullets were very hard on these guns. I have run a lot of cast lead bullets at magnum velocities in these guns without any issues. There has been as much written about this as the 223,556 conundrum. I have a completely thrashed model 19-4 that I'm going to use to prove this out.

[@ColterBrog]

The thing is some revolvers never have an issue- so a sample of one doesn’t tell us much. Particularly if it’s “completely thrashed” it’s probably not going to be an issue since it would have failed at some point by now. Also important to note not all 19-4 production is affected.

[@erikwolfarng]

I have a 65-2 that I just inherited from my mother. It's pinned and recessed but it also has the "shaved" forcing cone you pointed out. I haven't shot any 357 out of it (God knows I want to) but I do have plenty of 38 Special on hand to train with. Great video.

[@ColterBrog]

If you do shoot magnums just stick to the heavier ones like 158 grain. They don’t have the abrupt acceleration to really do a hard strike on the forcing cone like a hot 125 grain. I think it’s mainly just a matter of mindset. These are .38 Special revolvers capable of occasionally firing some .357 Magnum, ideally in the heavier bullet weights. That’s a different mindset from something like a 686 which is definitely a .357 Magnum revolver, but can shoot .38 Special if you want cheaper plinking and less recoil. It’s about the intent of the design.

[@upStomp]

I've shot plenty of 158 grain out of my 65-2. I've also never seen a cracked forcing cone - just online speculation and rumors. Not saying it never happened, just that it might not have been a common occurrence. As others have stated, just stick with 158's and 38 Specials and you should be fine.

[@craigroberts6439]

I have a model 65-3 with the thinner forcing cone. I don’t use a thing beyond 38 special + P. Thank you for a well done, informative video.

[@ColterBrog]

Thanks. Those 65s are nice compact revolvers.

[@MrJmendel]

Well done

[@ColterBrog]

Thank you.

[@greybone777]

Shooting 38s in a 357 sounds good on paper. The problem is that you will build up carbon in your cylinder holes, and when you go to put a 357 cartridge in ,it won't chamber. Do it constantly, and it will erode the cylinder holes permanently. The 38 round also has to jump a tenth of an inch to hit the chamber end of the cylinder holes that align the bullet. Reduced 357 handloading is the best answer. 👌

[@ColterBrog]

I agree that reduced power .357 is preferred, but with good cleaning practices (and pieces of lead removing wipe) I have had good results shooting .38 Special in .357 Magnum cylinders. It might be important to note that I primarily use light loads with fully plated projectiles, though.

[@Peter-der-gute-vegane-Hirte]

The problem with my s&w 13 is that it only shoots accurately with .357, with .38 the group is larger.

[@ColterBrog]

That probably in large part has to do with the large amount of freebore associated with using a shorter cartridge. A solution would be loading .357 casings with heavy projectiles and a lighter charge as a target load. Plated wadcutters would likely be an excellent choice for this since they’re comparatively soft.

[@big_ewizzytv]

I acquired a S&W 686 no dash 4 inch in very good condition without the M stamp. The forcing cone on the Smith L-Frame’s and N-Frame’s are stronger than the K-Frame’s 💯💯💯💯💯

[@ColterBrog]

Absolutely. The 686 is a very robust revolver. I think it should be mentioned that the newer K-frames with the two-piece barrel are seemingly much stronger than the older revolvers. I think it comes down to the fact reducing the overall circumference is stronger than thinning just one portion. The load distributes more evenly rather than continuously straining one weak spot,

[@boostimalaka1]

I have a 686 no dash in pristine condition. The No M Stamp makes it more desirable to a S&W collector. They are still under warranty if you send in for the recall.

[@kylebergeron9406]

Great info, what about the brand new model 19 classic that came out in the last few years did SW do anything to beef up the gun or are they made the same as the older K frames with no improvement?

[@ColterBrog]

I actually haven’t handled one of those yet. I was under the impression it was actually an L frame and just “19” in styling, but the S&W website says it is still a K frame. Interesting. I’ll have to make a point to see one in person and make an assessment. I don’t have a good answer for that right now. I think I got the idea it was improved from a gunblue490 video. He’s a great KZbinr who has probably forgotten more about S&W revolvers than I’ve ever known. He has a video on the new model 19 which I found very thorough that might have some answers for you.

[@michaelcrowley1172]

Have a 66-8,stainless cousin to the 19,full rolled forcing cone,no shaved bottom, redesigned crane/cylinder locking setup, 100s of 357 rounds through it, NO PROBLEMO.

[@ColterBrog]

@@michaelcrowley1172 Looking at the 66-8, and it seems they went with a two-piece barrel like the old Dan Wesson revolvers had. Similar in concept, at least. It definitely doesn’t appear to be as thick as the forcing cone of a 686 L-frame, but I’m not sure that matters. A thinner forcing cone but of consistent diameter is going to distribute the load placed on it by swaging the bullet evenly throughout its circumference. The issue with the shaved forcing cones, by my assessment, doesn’t come down to the actual lack of thickness in the shaved area but that a weaker spot has been created that has a tendency to flex and fatigue an exceptional amount compared to the thicker portions of the remainder of the cone. This reminds me of how Armalite was able to strengthen the AR15 bolt lugs by rebating the lug opposite the extractor. Instead of the lock adjacent to the extractor taking an exceptional load because of the “missing lug” for the extractor, all remaining lugs could take the force evenly.

[@richardkluesek4301]

As an afterthought after reading all the comments and recollecting long ago past experience with agency owned S&W Model 10s with heavy barrels, there were never any issues with forcing cone failures. Small parts attrition were remedied by turning back the questionable revolver for exchange with the quartermaster. The range safety officer enlisted rookies for gun cleaning which included using Lewis Lead remover tools to clean and polish the forcing cones and the chamber mouths of the cylinders. I should do that on what I have now to reduce the pressures on those parts. Good shooting everyone.

[@ColterBrog]

Certainly. The model 10 is as robust as any other revolver. They’re a masterpiece. The 19 is just a 10 “overbored” to .357 Magnum. The design is fine- it was just asked to do something it was never designed for in handling full house .357 Magnum loads.

[@richardkluesek4301]

@@ColterBrog My colleagues also had various K frame guns including10s 13s 15s 19s in addition to 27s and 28s. Bill Jordan of the Border patrol is credited with lobbying Smith & Wesson to create the 19 as N frames were so large and heavy. The NYPD Stakeout Squad led by Jim Cirillo in the 1970s are credited with a lot of successful actions using pencil barrel Model 10s as well as some unofficial unauthorized guns available at the time.

[@gogart3]

Good, Thx

[@ColterBrog]

Thank you.

[@WalterDavidRiffmon]

Great information presented very well. The numeric dashes accross various models indicate different dates. What year did S&W address the excessive removal of the forcing cone? I have a model 13-2 made in 1978.

[@ColterBrog]

Let me look at it again tomorrow, because they didn’t actually change designation for design number during these changes. For how important it was, S&W didn’t see it that way.

[@WalterDavidRiffmon]

@@ColterBrog Thanks. Looking forward to learning what you find and think. I've shot a few 357 magnums through it with no evident ill affects. No 125 grain went through it under my ownership. It's very difficult for me to determine if my forcing cone has that slight amount of additional material removed or not. I do not have another vintage revolver to comer it to.

[@WalterDavidRiffmon]

meant...compare it to.

[@ColterBrog]

@@WalterDavidRiffmon Unfortunately to the best of my ability to research this, a 1978 is going to be ambiguous. S&W relocated the gas ring in 1977, but continued to thin the forcing cone for an unspecified amount of time as they updated their processes. I don’t think the exact date of the return to the less-thin forcing cone is known, and in all likelihood it varies by specific models and they almost certainly used whatever parts were already in stock.

[@WalterDavidRiffmon]

@@ColterBrog Thanks for looking into that. I took a close-up of my forcing cone and then shot a couple of photos of the two guns' forcing cones on your video and I think my barrel is not the thinner version. You're right though, it is difficult see and know for certain. It is surprising the lack of attention to detail during those years to improve the situation but economy rules when it comes to using left over parts vs scrapping the barrels.

[@stevecue]

I've talk to S&W warranty mechanics and they said occasional 357 in the 66 is ok, but constant is discouraged. They also said if the forcing cone cracks, the gun is dead forever. I had an issue with my 66-1 2.5" blowing 357 primers into the firing pin hole locking up the cylinder. Smith fixed that free of charge.

[@ColterBrog]

I have heard of people swapping barrels, but completely understand their position. It’s really not possible to determine if the frame was compromised, and it’s certainly possible if not probable. I’d be leery of doing so.

[@scottpulver8692]

Got a 19-6...seems to love magnums. I think the later models have better metallurgy. Mine was made in '92.

[@ColterBrog]

And certainly some revolvers, especially if you use heavier weight magnums, can have very long lives shooting them. Fact remains that these incomplete/cut barrel extension revolvers do have an inherent weakness built into the forcing cone design. If you’re able to avoid magnums and sometimes just shoot .38 Special instead you will extend the life of the handgun. How much will you extend it? Hard to say, as it varies depending on each specific revolver and which types of ammunition are used. If you’re steadily shooting magnums, then yours isn’t one of the unfortunate few that fails in the first box, and the revolvers prone to that failure were probably repaired by S&W decades ago. You kind of have to make your own call on this depending on the level of risk acceptable to you. I do occasionally shoot magnums in mine because I’m willing to accept that risk, but I don’t typically shoot them with magnums.

[@CM-bj8hr]

My 19-6 has a full size cone made 2021.

[@lylesmith5079]

Do you think that the 140 grain bullets are hard on k frame forcing cones ?

[@ColterBrog]

It’s hard to say to what extent. The thing is revolvers are a mechanical device and they don’t last forever. A forcing cone is a piece of metal being repeatedly struck by another piece of metal… essentially they’re in a constant state of being damaged and the discussion revolves around whether they finally succumb at 1,000 rounds or 100,000 rounds, or if something like frame stretch does them in before the forcing cone fails. That’s probably not a very helpful answer, so alternatively I could say it’s not going to be as damaging as a high velocity 125 grain, but isn’t going to be as kind to it as a 158 grain LRN target load… it falls somewhere in between, but exactly where it falls between them is an unknown.

[@lylesmith5079]

Thank you

[@glenh3825]

I have a 66-1 and was advice by S&W not to use 38spl +P, just to use 38spl and if I want to try .357mag to see how the recoil and performance differ to do as you said 158grain JHP

[@ColterBrog]

66-1 should have the gas ring on the cylinder, though, right? I was under the impression only the 66 no-dash had the yoke-mounted gas ring. The advice from them seems like it might be a little bit on the conservative side, but better to be cautious and avoid damage.

[@glenh3825]

@@ColterBrog you're right was just passing on info I had received in the last month. New to the revolver family and want to respect and take proper care of what I consider an old gem that I inherited.

[@ColterBrog]

@@glenh3825 They’re beautiful pieces of American workmanship and I’m sure you’ll cherish it. With proper care and attention these revolvers should still be around for generations to come.

[@Ben_not_10]

Ok I have a question then. What about +p 38 special in the non magnum guns. I know smith has on their website that any 38 post 57 is capable of firing plus p, but will that damage them in the same way as firing 357 out of 19/66s

[@ColterBrog]

That’s an interesting question. With the overall lower velocity compared to a .357 Magnum, I personally would trust the S&W claim. Certainly the risk always goes up of a forcing cone crack, frame stretch, etc. with higher velocities, but what we’re talking about is whether it is within reason for what should be expected for a service life. Higher velocity gives more wear, as always (and not unique to revolvers), but in something like a J-frame I wouldn’t expect some unreasonable amount of extra wear from using +p. The older K frame revolvers are somewhat unique in stuffing too much cartridge into too little of a frame, and then being further compounded by the additional thinning from the gas ring variation that existed for a few years. They can experience end-of-service-life failure, sometimes, at what most people would consider an absurdly low round count due to inherent structural flaws in the older revolvers’ design, and additional weakness unintentionally introduced by design alterations, combined with certain high-acceleration ammunition types which impact the forcing cone much more violently than typical. That’s wordy but I hope it addresses your concerns.

[@Ben_not_10]

@@ColterBrog it’s mainly I’ve been wanting to get a 4” k frame to carry. Local dealer has a beautiful 67 no dash for sale and a couple of model 19s (dash 3s and dash 4s). I like to just buy one type of ammo and that’s the ammo I shoot and carry. It can be expensive but experience of others has taught me it’s not wise to have a lot of experience with practice ammo and little experience with carry ammo when in a bad situation. So to me if I can get a k frame in 38 that can handle a steady diet of 38 +p I don’t really see the point of a k frame 357 if it can’t handle a steady diet of magnum ammo. I know you can fire plus ps in a 19 but in my case (and most of the time I’m looking online) the model 10-5s, 15s are often cheaper than the model 19. In the case of my local shop the model 19s are all $895 and above in price. Whereas the 67 is $700 and the model 15 they have as $500. For the money I would save getting either the 15 or the 67 I can get more ammo. Hence the reason I asked about +p ammo in the standard post 57 38 revolvers.

[@ColterBrog]

@@Ben_not_10Well, I guess I have a difficult time offering much guidance since it’s going to depend on your budget and doctrine/philosophy. For protection I almost exclusively carry autos in 9mm. If budget is a concern, that has quite a few high value options in the

[@giulioespositi9052]

My "S&W" mod. 66-4, it is a 1978 manufacture: practically in brand-new conditions, I did notice: the trigger&hammer, they are the same Inox steel like the whole gun, instead the actual one: it has a 'carbon-steel' looking, is it possible that also the internal-mechanism: is also the same.?....also I do ask: what it means the -'4' number?... Thank You for the very interesting informations., about for that splendid revolver!

[@ColterBrog]

So I’m a little confused by this. A 66-4 should be from the mid-1990s. A 1978 would be a 66-1. Is it possible the stamping of the model number is just not clear? In any case, the “dash” number (such as -4) indicates what S&W considers to be a design change. The first version of a model will not have a dash. These are typically referred to as a “no dash” when describing a specific revolver. So a 66-4 would be the 5th design of the 66, the 4th change to the original design. The “Inox” hammer/trigger of a 66-2, like the one in the video, are actually hard chrome plated for wear and corrosion resistance. The base steel is carbon steel. Some revolvers display case hardening or a blackened appearance. To the best of my knowledge all are carbon steel, though. This is primarily a cosmetic difference based on style choices of the time. I hope this answers your questions.

[@giulioespositi9052]

@@ColterBrog EXACTLY! I read wrongly!!! I wrote you my correction, it is a "66-1"!....would ask you rhe meaning of "1" 'change', exscuse my bad-english". I read about the possibility (using many shot/.357Mag.)of a "crack" at the barrel !?...my "66" it is a 4"/barrel, I use mostly .38 Sp.l-158gn, and only few times .357Mag.-125gn....is it dangerous???....

[@ColterBrog]

@@giulioespositi9052 The 66-1 was a design change that returned the gas ring from the yoke back to the cylinder. The -1 change was implemented in 1977. Your 66-1 will not have the yoke mounted gas ring that caused Smith & Wesson to additionally thin the forcing cone. HOWEVER, S&W either continued to use existing inventory of barrels that had already been thinned, or didn’t realize they needed to stop thinning the forcing cone so much. It’s unclear to me which is the case, but the important thing to know is that early production of 66-1 can have thin forcing cones, and it is unclear exactly when the issue was corrected. Individual revolvers have to be assessed. A 1978 revolver *might* still have a thin forcing cone- but I cannot say for certain. Shooting 158 grain .38 Special is no problem at all- the revolver is plenty strong for that. The 125 grain .357 Magnum could potentially cause damage and should be avoided in these revolvers. If you desire to shoot .357 Magnum it is preferable to use a heavier bullet weight such as 158 grain.

[@ganddjohnson2645]

What do you think about a 65-3 manufactured in 1984?

[@ColterBrog]

Nice revolvers. That should be outside the range of those affected by the yoke mounted gas ring thinning the forcing cone, but like other older S&W revolvers I would avoid high velocity 125 grain .357 Magnum, and stick to just sparingly using the heavier magnums with most shooting for amusement being with .38 Special.

[@jmkhenka]

the new 66-8 (and perhaps versions before it) has a full forcing cone, so I guess S&W fixed it on latest generation of K-frames. They thinned the crane.. So if the FC is full circular, 357 should not be a issue any more?

[@ColterBrog]

That would be my assessment. The newer ones are also using a sleeved barrel. There is certainly some engineering that goes into this that I’m not entirely qualified to explain, but I can relate the way I understand the concept. Essentially having a “stronger” cone with a weak spot is worse than having the entire cone be the “weak spot”. The entire circumference is that able to flex under load rather than concentrating all the movement to the one weak area and causing excess stress to that specific spot. Essentially it makes the whole thing stronger by making the rest a bit weaker.

[@EveryoneIsStupidButMe]

Does the 65-2 have the thinner forcing cone?

[@ColterBrog]

That’s going to depend on when it was made. The 65-2 has a really long production history if my quick look into it is correct. Too varied to give a definite answer.

[@ColterBrog]

That’s going to depend on when it was made. The 65-2 has a really long production history if my quick look into it is correct. Too varied to give a definite answer.

[@TheAlf61]

I’d rather shoot a mild 357 158 grain bullet load in this gun, than a hot 110 grain +P 38 special treasury load. It would be good to explain what the different bullet weights jump from the cylinder into the forcong cone do to it.

[@ColterBrog]

That is true. It really comes down to the rapid acceleration of the light weight bullets impacting the forcing cone at high velocity, and velocity being squared in determining kinetic energy. The light weight, fast projectiles hit the forcing cone hard compared to a heavier projectile that gains velocity slowly. Internal ballistics is an interesting science.

[@h.r.puffnstuff8705]

I’ve been looking into this problem as well. They keep describing the force cone issue as flame jet heating. 125 grain has long been the king of 357 rounds. So it’s popularity probably factors into the fail statistics more so. I’ve heard it both ways 158g va 125g being the cone problem rounds. Thinking in the fundamental physics department. 158g is going to have a greater dwell time upon primer ignition. More powder will be burned. More time as O2 plays into the burn equation. The increased dwell time (ignition to muzzle exit) will increase temperatures and gas expansion pressure. I see that as heavy for caliber will likely be a bigger factor than lighter grain. Me I keep the magnum use minimal in a K frame. Just enough to stay current with a self defense load of choice. When I plink it’s 38 standard pressure. IMO it’s a solid choice in more robust 357 designs as well.

[@ColterBrog]

I think characterizing it as flame cutting or a heat issue is incorrect. The issue is the kinetic energy imparted to the forcing cone. Since kinetic energy is affected exponentially by velocity (1/2*mass*velocity^2) a lighter bullet which accelerates more quickly can deliver more energy to the forcing cone than a heavier bullet which takes time to accelerate. The heavier bullet contacts the forcing cone at a lower velocity, imparting less energy, and swages smoothly into the rifling. The high velocity lighter projectile impacts the forcing cone more abruptly and violently and is at greater risk of causing a crack.

[@h.r.puffnstuff8705]

@@ColterBrog ahhh..I believe your on to something there. Harmonic stress. That would make more sense. I’ve seen the explanation given that heat related erosion is causation but that didn’t begin to explain other variables present. This level of thinking goes above my pay grade but I can grasp some fundamentals. The failure cracks I’ve seen were not radial but fore/aft. That would support Kinetic energy cause or = harmonic oscillation. MV would factor into this correct?

[@ColterBrog]

@@h.r.puffnstuff8705 I am not a physicist, but I think you’re getting a little more complicated than it actually is with the harmonic oscillation. It is definitely not heat related erosion, since in the past some revolvers failed at very low round counts. It’s quite simply a piece of metal being struck with enough energy that it cracks at a weak point. I’ll elaborate further. Your bullet, when sitting in the chamber at rest has mass, so it has inertia. The more mass it has, the more inertia it has. The more inertia it has, the more it resists movement. It is more difficult to get a heavier bullet to move than it is a lighter bullet. The lighter bullet has less resistance to movement, and as a result will have greater acceleration. The lighter bullet of course has a higher muzzle velocity (within the confines of what pressure the revolver can tolerate) than the heavier bullet. The barrel length is the same, though, so this gives us a sort of proof that the lighter bullet had greater acceleration. It has to if it will be at a higher velocity than the heavy bullet in the same distance available. So it has less resistance to being moved, and at the end of the barrel is moving faster, which logically means it impacted the forcing cone at a higher velocity than the heavy bullet. Now, I don’t have the educational background to tell you exactly how much faster it is moving, but since we already discussed velocity affects kinetic energy exponentially (1/2*mass*velocity^2) it stands to reason that a lighter bullet could very easily have more kinetic energy at the time it impacts the forcing cone. Something that I don’t see mentioned elsewhere that might be relevant is that *momentum* is *not* an exponential formula the way kinetic energy is. Momentum is only Mass*Velocity. So the lighter bullet has relatively less tendency to remain in motion relative to its kinetic energy compared to the heavier bullet. (This explains why your slower, heavier projectiles tend to penetrate well.) Taking that bit of information it would mean the forcing cone swaging the lighter bullet slows it down more than it would the heavy bullet. So where did that extra energy we had go? Into the forcing cone- where else could it go? Since the bullet is being squeezed down a tube, essentially, it is going to be pushing outward equally in all directions. The way S&W thinned out the forcing cone, though, means that the bottom of that tube is weaker than the rest and would receive greater deformation. (We see things crack and fail at thinner/weaker spots on metal all the time, right?) If the energy imparted is high enough, abrupt enough, and the thinned area weak enough, you end up with the longitudinal crack that is common in a forcing cone failure. Less inertia, more acceleration, more velocity, more kinetic energy, less momentum, more transfer of energy, and the perfect storm of a weak spot where that energy is being transferred. Obviously I didn’t do all the math and there are some aspects involving powder burn rates used with different bullet types that probably also come into play (lighter bullets often use a faster burning propellant), but I think these are the general concepts which are relevant and explain what has been seen.

[@h.r.puffnstuff8705]

@@ColterBrog I believe what this maybe what is manifesting as fc crack. K.E. = 1/2 m v2. Which is a player in thermodynamic science. Throw in the cylinder has just bounced off the aft frame and could be striking the forcing cone while the FC is oscillating. There’s a lot of things in play here and they all need to be taken into account.

[@johnwagner6028]

I have a 66-3 and my forcing cone is cracked. I contacted S&W and was told I shouldn't have been shooting 357 out of it. I asked why was it labeled as a 357 then. Never got a good answer.

[@ColterBrog]

Interesting that they’d just say that outright. I wonder if they have this documented on their website that the forcing cones are prone to cracking with .357 Magnum? I’ll have to take a look.

[@johnwagner6028]

@@ColterBrog I have never seen that it is documented. Had I known this could happen I would have bought a 686 instead.

[@smartmeis]

i have a model 13 and its fine. honestly i wouldnt worry about it, just dont shoot 125gn magnum loads

[@ColterBrog]

I don’t disagree but I also don’t agree. Most revolvers that have survived this long are probably structurally sound, but it’s a chance. The old classics are steadily increasing in value and desirability because of the nostalgia. They represent the golden age of the American revolver and even though it is well within living memory, they are an important part of our firearms heritage. There are plenty of modern day revolvers readily available to dump magnum loads through for amusement. There’s just not much reason to potentially damage older revolvers, particularly if they’re in good condition. It’s going to depend on circumstances. You’re right, but you’re right with a little asterisk of caution.

[@michaelschaffer9165]

A small flashlight would be an excellent pointer.

[@ColterBrog]

That’s a good idea. I’ll have to see if a Stylus Pro will work, or maybe find an alternative. Thanks for the input.

[@michaelschaffer9165]

I have a Model 65-8. I don't know when it was manufactured. How strong is this forcing cone?

[@ColterBrog]

A model 65-8 is quite late production. I’m having trouble finding exact year range, but the mid-to-late 2000s seems to be where that falls. (Smith & Wesson has a serial number lookup available if you want more specific information.) It will not have thinning of the forcing cone from the yoke-mounted gas ring as that style had been abandoned for many years by the time the 65-8 came about. That said, it is a K-frame revolver like the Model 66 shown in the video. It is not at the exceptionally high risk of cracks that those with the yoke-mounted gas ring are, but is still not intended to digest a steady diet of magnum loads. They shouldn’t be used as a matter of routine.

[@richardkluesek4301]

@@ColterBrog I have a 66-8 bought in 2017 and the forcing cone is unshaved. It uses a 2 piece barrel, an inner sleeve with an outer shroud. From pictures I have seen on guns for sale it "looks like" the 65-8 also has the same barrel system with a regular hollow ejection rod locking at the tip. The ejector rod on my 66-8 is a thin solid piece like a Colt and the forward lockup is on the crane rather than the tip of a hollow ejector rod as traditionally used by Smith & Wesson. In my 'guestimation,' this was engineered to eliminate the high mounted gas ring requiring the weakening forcing cone flat cut at 6 o'clock which you eloquently explained. In comparison I also have a 65-6, a64-7 and 64-4 all made from the 1980s to 2000s, and these all feature the shaved forcing cone. In any S&W K frame I prefer standard velocity heavy bullets, especially the 64s. I consider only my 66-8 as truly magnum capable but would only do so sparingly. And even in my 65 would only fire magnums or +P,38s if that were all there were on hand and a shot had to be taken. Thanks for your knowledgeable presentation, invaluable both to novices and old hands alike.

[@ColterBrog]

@@richardkluesek4301 Thank you for your input. That’s very interesting. There are so many variations on S&W and I am definitely far from an expert- and with my newest sample of a S&W revolver being from 1987 the newer stuff definitely is a bit removed from what I’m most familiar with. It seems like S&W has done some really good things in recent years in regards to strengthening the legacy designs. I just wish they would get rid of that lock.

[@ColterBrog]

@@richardkluesek4301 Thank you for your input. That’s very interesting. There are so many variations on S&W and I am definitely far from an expert- and with my newest sample of a S&W revolver being from 1987 the newer stuff definitely is a bit removed from what I’m most familiar with. It seems like S&W has done some really good things in recent years in regards to strengthening the legacy designs. I just wish they would get rid of that lock.

[@richardkluesek4301]

@@ColterBrog You are more distinguished than what you humbly credit yourself for. I had exposure to S&W K frame wheelguns from an organization that I belonged to long ago prior to the 2000 s which used these and had a dozen on hand for members to train with, in addition to my own guns and those of my colleagues. The 2 piece barrel is questioned by some but I have no opinion except to use the sidearm as is. There are gunsmiths who sell and install plugs to fill 'hillary's hole' after removing that detestable lock, one of them I patronized was Speciality Precision, owned by JD, in Arizona. Keep your gunpowder dry and bayonet sharp.

[@DD-uq8qg]

You probably should have mentioned a couple of important points - the magnums of today are MUCH weaker than magnums of 20 years ago. Please research and you will find out. Second point - since you are talking about history - talk how S&W solved the problem by developing model 686. Great video.

[@ColterBrog]

I wouldn’t say that’s inherently true. It might apply to common big box store .357 Magnum but there are still companies producing real powerhouse .357 Magnum loads and plenty of hand loaders who like to eke out every bit of velocity. A generalization can be made, but it’s a generalization with some significant exceptions. Did I not mention the 686? I thought I did when referencing the Python as having the same full-circumference design. I’ll have to go back and look since it’s been a while. Definitely, though, the 686 is a very robust revolver that completely solves the weakness issues of thinned forcing cones. Even the newer K frames with the two piece barrel, though, are said to be much more forgiving than their more aged counterparts.

[@mikepurdy3952]

Where is the RUGER...?

[@ColterBrog]

Never have owned one. They’re tough revolvers, but I generally have found their triggers disappointing. Some of their newer offerings are interesting to me, though, since it appears they are trying to improve on that aspect.

[@jacksutherland846]

It doesn't make sense to be saying to only shoot .357s every now and then, because it's metal that can either take it or not. Its not organic living tissue that can recover from bruising or fatigue. Does that make sense?

[@ColterBrog]

Not really. Your forcing cone is basically… think of it is a rubber tube. Rubber is elastic, but so is steel. Every time a bullet impacts the forcing cone it stretches the forcing cone. Steel is elastic, though, so it returns to its shape. The forcing cones being discussed on these K-frames are thinner at one spot, so the thinner portion stretches more than the rest. So if you slice off part of that rubber tube, and you push a ball bearing slightly bigger than the tube down through it and out the other end. It can do that. Probably quite a few times. Eventually it stretches and returns too many times, becomes fatigued, and it splits at that thinner portion because it inevitably stretched more in that spot. You’re thinking of the forcing cone and barrel as some immovable object probably because you’re thinking of steel being very sturdy. Steel stretches. When a train drives over a steel bridge, the bridge has deflection. The springs in a vehicle’s suspension undergo elastic deformation with every bump in the road. They eventually wear out, and/or develop stress fractures. So while the steel is not “living tissue” it is an elastic material.

[@jacksutherland846]

@@ColterBrog I'm aware of all of the properties that pertain to materials. What I meant was that if the design is inferior, then the material will not survive. So saying not to use something too often in that context is silly. Would you fly on a jet that's not recommended for flying in too much humidity because the turbine blades just might start stretching and cracking? I wouldn't go anywhere near the thing! And to my argument, that discussion will never happen. When a material is chosen for a specific purpose, it shouldn't be scaled by arbitrary frequency when shortcomings arise. In this case we have a design oversight that should have caused a recall because of the potential danger, mechanical failure, and loss of investment that ensued. It can either take it, or not.

[@ColterBrog]

@@jacksutherland846I don’t think I understand the point you’re trying to make. A concentric forcing cone is ideal because it distributes the elastic deformation more evenly. On older non-sleeved 19s and 66s, they all have a shaved forcing cone, as do the old Model 10s which are .38 Special only. This is an inherent weakness of the way S&W built them. They fatigue sooner when paired with high velocity projectiles which strike the weaker forcing cone with a lot of energy. All impacts create some amount of fatigue because they all cause elastic deformation. It comes down to design intent. The K frames were envisioned as mostly shooting .38 Special in training, with relatively limited duty use of .357 Magnum. They are a .38 Special design, with allowances for accommodating limited use of .357 Magnum. It causes additional fatigue and risk of failure. An e fine can run at red line, but it doesn’t mean you should just under-shift and drive down the road bouncing off the rev limiter and expect no additional wear of chance of failure.

[@jacksutherland846]

@@ColterBrog In a nutshell, they hastily stamped .357 magnum on the guns only to see them fail, and suggesting limiting the use of the prescribed caliber ammunition is not a good solution to this issue IMHO. It just seems ridiculous to me. That's all I'm saying. The model 29 .44 magnum had similar problems. They have all been corrected by now with thicker barrels, and longer funneling or whatever else. All of the other caliber forcing cones haven't seen these problems. What should be advised is to become aware of these models in question, and avoid them because they are fundamentally flawed and there's no getting around it, unless one is happy to arbitrarily limit the use of the ammunition it was intended for.

[@ColterBrog]

@@jacksutherland846Okay. That’s a way to look at it, I guess. I mostly shoot .38 Special 158gr wadcutter in a bunny fart load. I’ll happily buy these well made but under-designed revolvers any day. They’re fantastic pieces of craftsmanship that function great in their originally intended role of mostly firing .38 Special. I think you’re associating some malice with this on the part of S&W that doesn’t really exist. Law Enforcement wanted a compact and light revolver that mostly would be used with .38 Special in training and would occasionally see some .357 Magnum use. That’s what was delivered.

[@cImIcak]

Maybe better do not shoot 38 special in 357 revolver bec 38 is shorter and transfer more energie on the forcing crone front. the 357 is longer have more power,but the energie transfer goes into the forcing crone?

[@ColterBrog]

That would be more of a concern with a high velocity .38 Special, like a +P. The fairly conventional 158 grain loads, particularly of lead or plated projectiles, will be quite gentle to it.

[@Gieszkanne]

The cracks are from the high pressure from the loads with lighter bullets. 38 special have a much lower pressure than 357 mag.

[@Big44mag]

I think the internet way way way overstates the problem. The vast majority do not crack

[@jonzylka9474]

Sounds like you need a Ruger! 😏

[@ColterBrog]

The Rugers are definitely very strong revolvers. Nothing wrong with a Ruger. That said, this issue of thinned forcing cones causing a weakness and potential for cracking has been eliminated by S&Ws newer barrel system. A new Model 19 Classic is going to be plenty strong to use .357 Magnum high velocity loads on a routine basis due to the engineering and design improvements.

[@shotgunslinger7386]

on my 66-2 i will ONLY use 158 grain 357 magnum ammo and ill only shoot the ammo in single action

[@ColterBrog]

Why single action? Concerns over timing?

[@shotgunslinger7386]

not really i just wanna make sure that it puts the least amount of force as possible in the cone but 38spl no problem DA/ SA all day im just very finicky about my revolver i want her to last as long as possible @@ColterBrog

[@rustynail246]

After watching your video, I am disappointed that the S & W model 66-2 I've just bought is only a .38 special and not a .357 magnum. I am surprise that S & W haven't gotten sued for false advertising.

[@ColterBrog]

It’s just a matter of context and the available information. I do not blame S&W for this issue… it was a period of rapid advancement. Everyone was trying new stuff, and they all experimented and sometimes they pushed too far. These revolvers do safely fire .357 Magnum. They accept it, and barring other issues they can do it easily without any catastrophic failure. Designs got better. The old ones can do it in a more reserved fashion, the newer ones digest a magnum diet easily. Enjoy it for the craftsmanship and classic Americana. Shoot it, but just understand the time it was made for.

[@rustynail246]

@@ColterBrog I am no gun expert, I compare my 66-2 2 1/2" to my 64-4 4", other than the barrel length and the extra metal around the 66-2's shell ejector bar, all the other components look the same with same size on every component. So, what makes the 66-2 a .357 magnum and the 66-6 is not? Is it a scam that S & W came up with? What would happen if I shot .356 magnum with the 64-6?

[@ColterBrog]

@@rustynail246The 64 should not accept a .357 Magnum cartridge. The chambers aren’t bored out far enough for the longer case length. A lot of what this comes down to is performance trade offs. Do you build a revolver that will last forever, but is incredibly heavy and clunky to the point nobody wants it? Or, do you build something lighter with less material that is convenient to carry, but will wear out faster if used with high velocity ammunition consistently? It’s not a scam. It’s a design choice. We’re not at the point, decades later, where that design choice which made sense at the time is becoming an issue. Guns don’t last forever. None of them do.

[@rustynail246]

@@ColterBrog Thanks for the info. Now I have two more questions maybe you can help me out. What would be the next heavy .357 magnum load after 158, if I am going to shoot .357 magnum, I want to make sure it's safe for my gun. Also, why is the front sight on the older revolvers are a tall blade? Most people don't know how to align it with the rear sight, especially the ones with just a groove for rear sights. A lot of people just line up the top of the blade front sight to the top of the rear sight like the semi-auto, and that's wrong because they would be shooting low. Some said just file the front blade sight down, and that would be wrong too, because the manufacturers would have done that in the factory. So, how do we do it? (I just estimate, most of the time the middle of the blade ends up lined up with the top of the rear sight). Adjusting the rear sight to line up with the top of the blade front is wrong too because you would run out of adjustment in the rear sight.

[@ColterBrog]

@@rustynail246I’m not sure exactly what all is offered above 158 grain. Probably varies by manufacturer. I’ve had 180 grain before. Kind of odd stuff, though. Personally I’d just stick to 158 since it is so common. The issues you’ve describing with the sights I haven’t noticed. I shoot my revolvers just like I would shoot any other handgun and haven’t had a problem.

[@oregonpatriot1570]

The Colt is built like a tank, but priced like a high end sports car. The Ruger GP100 (.357 mag) is also built like a tank, but priced like an average used car.

[@ColterBrog]

That is all true. They are both robust and the Colt is definitely more expensive.. The Colt feels like a sports car, though, with that price. Every function of it is just smooth and slick. The feeling of handling it is “high performance”. The Ruger is good and definitely a value, but just more clunky and less refined in handling aspects. Aesthetically the Colt has a beautiful high polish that shines brilliantly while the Ruger has a more utilitarian brushed finish. The cylinder lockup on the Colt where everything times so well that the cylinder actually binds up on the bolt at the final movement of the trigger is rock solid. You really won’t find a revolver with a tighter lockup at the moment of firing than the Colt Python. I imagine this contributes to the legendary accuracy. The Colt is a beautiful and accurate revolver to handle and take to the range. The Ruger is a workhorse that will take a licking and keep on ticking and feels perfectly at home in the boat, the blind, or the rucksack. They both fill a niche.

[@user-rd8vp6nq8b]

You don't shoot heavy 357 load through it that's why they make an L frame

[@ColterBrog]

That sums it up nicely. Be gentle with them. They’re well made, but in their soul they’re a .38 Special that was forced into being a magnum. They can do it, but it’s not their routine job.

[@gila-clifffirewood5796]

I don't understand why anyone would choose a Smith and Wesson revolver over a Ruger.

[@robertchute1984]

The trigger pull is why. The new Ruger GP 100 Match Champion solved that issue and now you are just co dependant on the Smith and Wesson if you buy it over the Ruger Match Champion .

[@ColterBrog]

As Robert has mentioned, the trigger pull would be the main reason and to a lesser extent the overall fit and finish. Ruger revolvers are tough as nails, but routinely have a rougher finish and just more attention paid to economy. Not inherently a bad thing as it keeps quality revolvers at a reasonable price point, but S&W generally looks nicer. The S&W design tends to be more compact. Lighter and less bulky for similar revolvers to Ruger. I’ll also clarify that these issues with the forcing cone are not particularly relevant on the newer revolvers with the two-piece barrel. Both companies make good revolvers… I prefer the new Colt Python over both, though, because of how smooth it is. It’s an enjoyable revolver to handle and shoot.

[@ColterBrog]

@robertchute1984 That has piqued my interest. I’ll have to look into the Match Champion.

[@ohlordy2042]

K frame revolvers are just about extinct. Less than 1 in 15 revolvers made today by Smith&Wesson are K frames, and most of those are 22 rimfires. They're historic relics.....and need to be treated as such.

[@ColterBrog]

And that’s pretty much the reality of it. They represent an iconic time in American gun making and deserve to be preserved. The thing is the K-frame is a fantastic option for a medium/large .38 Special revolver- but nobody wants a full size revolver in .38 Special. Everyone at least wants the ability to use .357 Magnum. The K-frame just isn’t robust enough for that role in the long run. It’s a good frame size, and it served well enough for decades being forced into a role it was never intended for, but in the modern day the L-frame is a better choice.

[@ohlordy2042]

@@ColterBrog Like you, I love the classic old firearms for what they represent. Their elegance, their craftsmanship and their nostalgia. They're collectors pieces for history buffs. But the very fact that they're historical relics is because their capabilities and cost have been bettered by more modern, more capable designs. Nobody chooses a Model 19 in this day and age as their primary defence firearm. So to feed high pressure, modern standard ammo through them as though they were, would be nothing short of stupidity. That's not what they're for.

[@richardkluesek4301]

There are still enough used K frames in existence that are serviceable with .38 standard velocity heavy bullet loadings. As well as superior options for edc and defense. Therefore demand is specialized to cognoscenti like those viewing Mr. Borg's video and exchanging comments. I'll cherish my S&W K frame treasures but beat on the Glocks and Rugers.

[@ColterBrog]

@@richardkluesek4301 Don’t count out the new Colt offerings, either. I’ve been very impressed with it. They definitely had some quality control issues early on, but overall I really like the new Python. It’s a very enjoyable revolver.

[@richardkluesek4301]

@@ColterBrog I had blue steel Colts, a Python and a couple of Troopers, and Detective Specials. The Colts are fine guns and I favored the small frames. Where i am now stainless revolvers are easier to maintain so I disposed of all the old blues for replacement shiny Smiths and Rugers. Except for a Magnum Carry. The King Cobra in 2 or 3 inch is very tempting. And Kimber's K6s is interesting.

[@blackhorse7090]

You sir need education

[@ColterBrog]

Educate me, then.