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.
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.
Thank you, and I certainly will. I have several irons in the fire right now ranging from a collaboration effort with another TH-camr 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I got a swollen case and flattened primer in my m&p 340. The case had to be tapped out of the cylinder and the case was pushed into the frame preventing it from opening. I see no damage and shot 27 357 magnum rounds afterwards with no issues. I'm only shooting premium federal and Hornady. Anything i should look out for? Surely this was an ammunition issue and not a firearm issue wouldn't you think?
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."
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.
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.
My model 66-3 came with the issue of an even thinner forcing cone when compared to my model 15-3 from ‘69. To be fair that thing has had many 158 grain magnums shot thru it, but it was never self defense type stuff, but mostly handloads and target loads at that. Generally the barrel would crack from the inside of the barrel leading to a split showing on the outside face of the FC. That’s because the inside of the barrel is where the leades of the rifling begin, which sits right on top of where the barrel is shaved flat, though FC erosion is a fair indicator of the barrel’s life. I would stick to lower pressure and lower velocity rounds regardless, such as 158 grain .357s, since those generally use less powder and produce lower chamber pressures. A 125 grain is nice, but is recommended that you stick to medium velocity handloads for those. General tip: 158 gr .357 are “hot” when loaded to mid to high 1200 fps range. Low to mid is considered 900-1000 fps and 1000-1100s respectively. For a 125 grain hot loads are ~1300-1400 fps, light/moderate load would be 1000-1100 fps and 1100-1200 fps
A good pistol smith explained that the cause of of cracked forcing cones in the model 19 was from the chambers not lining up properly with the barrel and slow timing. I have new from the factory 19s that were out of time. The pistol smith has a personal 19 with a record of over 600,000 rounds of magnums shot through it. From a ransom rest it would shoot one and a half groups at 25 yards. I think that all of this scare talk is bs.
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. 👌
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
That’s how I do it, except with the new model Python. It’s MIM, mass produced… and overbuilt to handle the full house magnums. I tend to keep the wear and tear of that off the classics.
I'd bet you would have to get the forcing cone extremely hot to crack it. I think the heat from rapidly firing shorter 125gr. rounds repeatedly, cylinder after cylinder, is what damaged any forcing cones. I haven't seen one that has cracked. But, I have not seen very many K frames either.
I follow what you’re thinking, but I disagree. For one, most of these issues arose when these revolvers had been recently in production. General attitudes and practices of the time period, as far as I’ve seen, didn’t really emphasize dumping cylinder after cylinder of full house magnum loads. It just wasn’t the way they thought. Obviously, I wasn’t there, but this is based on first hand accounts, observations of the training philosophies those people still hold and practice, and film documentation of training practices of the relevant time period. Second, getting a revolver sufficiently hot to compromise the metal is a difficult task with something that is a repeater loaded manually. Six rounds until a reload is required, and that reloading process opens the barrel through for airflow. Add in the fact I don’t know that I’ve ever seen someone carry more than about four speedloaders, even in later years when they were really trying to remain relevant compared to automatics… I think it’s unlikely anyone would have been able to “rapidly” fire more than about 30 rounds. That’s not that much especially given the circumstances already mentioned. Third, the issue of cracking metal would seem to be alleviated by the steel becoming slightly softer with heat within a reasonable extent. Of course, that’s really just conjecture on my part. But hotter steel is typically softer and more prone to deformation rather than fracturing. Heat could/would exacerbate throat erosion, which might increase the risk of failure over a long period of time, but there are reports of some revolvers failing at the forcing cone in as few as a couple hundred rounds of particularly hot (yet still factory loaded) 125 grain magnums. It is an issue that was observed at the time, and there is a reasonable mechanical explanation for why it is real and not just a fluke. I tend to believe that it is a shortcoming of the design and manufacturing practices, that is exacerbated by “luck of the draw” of a particular revolver and also ammunition related conditions that expose that flaw. That is my opinion based on what information I have seen.
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.
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.
The model 19 was designed for the .357 mag 158-gr bullet. it is my understanding the 158-gr bullet is long enough that the bullet contacts the forcing cone before the base of the bullet clears the case. This way the bullet is forced down the barrel while the base is still inside the case. This prevents the gases from rushing past the bullet which then causes wear on the forcing cone. Lighter bullets are shorter which means the bullet hasn't contacted the forcing cone as the base of the bullet leaves the case which allows the high pressure gases to rush past the bullet and cause erosion of the forcing cone which can cause wear of the forcing cone, and weakening the top strap. When shooting the M19 use the 158-gr magnum loads.
I don’t think I completely agree with this theory, but I cannot disprove it, either. I tend to think of it as the lighter bullet moving more abruptly and imparting more kinetic energy to the cone, not a gas cutting issue. However, it might be that both are in play here. That’s a very interesting perspective, and I hope in the future we all can understand more of exactly what’s going on inside these machines. Thanks for the information, new perspective, and contribution to the discussion.
@@ColterBrog Additionally, I noticed the cylinder on my S&W 586 is slightly longer than on my blued Python. The 586 was manufactured in the 1980s and the blued Python most likely last year. I ordered the Python right after Colt announced it at this hears Shot Show. Does it make a difference in performance or was the shorter cylinder on the Python designed to save money over the production life of the revolver? The difference in cylinder length changes the distance between the bullet and the forcing cone. My explanation above works if the bullet contacts the forcing cone while the base of the bullet is still in the case. However if the cylinder is longer then there would be a gap between the time the bullet contacts the forcing cone and the base clears the case those rapidly expanding hot gases may pay more of role in wear. What are your thoughts?
@@texassportsman5880I would think it’s largely just an aesthetic choice. As soon as pressure starts rising that case is going to balloon out to the chamber walls and allow gas around the bullet. They’ll both be venting regardless of length. Cylinder length, as far as I visualize what’s happening, wouldn’t seem to matter.
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 💯💯💯💯💯
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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
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.
@@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.
@@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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The current production Python is made to shoot all variety of magnum loads. While the vintage Pythons are likely to show wear and issues because all the parts are custom fitted. The M586/686 was designed to as a shooter and to correct the flaws of the M19. The current production Python and 586/686 are made to shoot magnum loads. The Ruger GP100 is also overbuilt to handle all variety of magnum loads. I have decided to not buy a M19 DOM 1960s and stay with my 586 and Pythons for all variety of magnum loads.
I agree completely. I like to be gentle with the classics because they are more interesting as a piece of history and a slice of the American story. American manufacturing, engineering design, and craftsmanship is on full display in the classics and they are beautiful. For just putting high powered magnums down range… newer options are better. They can handle it, and they have excellent feel and handling for the user.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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?
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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 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.
@@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.
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.
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
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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?
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 TH-camr 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.
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.
@@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.
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!
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.
@@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???....
@@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.
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.
19-3 predates the changes to the gas ring that necessitated extra thinning of the forcing cone. Of course, all the old type K-frames have relatively weak forcing cones compared to modern revolvers, but 158gr .357Mag at a factory velocity of 1250-1300fps shouldn’t cause any unreasonable amount of extra wear. Of course, a revolver is a mechanical device and it eventually will wear out. More energy imparted on the forcing cone uses up more of its life. If you shoot that magnum load exclusively, it will wear out faster than if you shot a modest .38 Special load, whether the limiting factor is the forcing cone or eventually frame stretch. So the answer is “yes”, but with the understanding that doesn’t mean it will never wear out, or that higher energy loads don’t use up more of its available “life”. I hope that isn’t too vague or noncommittal and answers your question.
@@ColterBrog so the 357 i have should be fine I've maybe 12 rounds of 357 out of it it's a 6inch and it was made in 1970 i just wanted to know if it wasn't worth risking with that 158 grain 357mag republic ammo i have to just stick to like 900fps and under 38spl has i have a 28-2 highway patrolman with a 6inch barrel and a no dash 586 4inch and a ruger security six in 4 inch and a new python in 4 inch for 357mag instead of the 19-3 i have the 15-3 for 38 and off topic you might know i have a 29-6 in 6inch is 240 grain 1300fps maybe a little lower 1275 or something 44mags safe in that I'm not sure if it has the endurance package or not btw thanks for the reply
@@yugisslifer8359I guess the best way to answer this is telling you what I do, since three of the revolvers in this video belong to me. The 66 I shot .357 Magnum from, including 125 grain, when it was my only .357 Magnum and I also wasn’t fully aware of the forcing cone weakness of the older K-frames. Now, I mostly only shoot .38 Special from it. Typically 158 grain plated wadcutters I load myself. I would shoot 158 grain Magnums from it, though, if I felt the need. My 19, the 4” blued one, is in exceptional condition (separate video on it specifically), and I don’t shoot it. There’s just no reason for me to when I have a well-worn Model 66 that shoots perfectly fine if I want to shoot a S&W. I use the used one and keep the nice one nice, if that makes sense. Preserving it for posterity. The new Python, I’ll shoot anything through it. It has a thick concentric forcing cone, a bulkier cylinder to accommodate that full forcing cone profile, a thicker top strap to reduce frame stretching, the advantage of decades of advancement in metallurgy, and it isn’t a collectible as it is currently being manufactured. It’s also, in my opinion, easier to strip down for cleaning if I do shoot it a lot and it becomes fouled. If you have newer revolvers designed from the ground up to be .357 Magnums (686, Python, etc.) I would shoot Magnums through those. At the end of the day the 19/66 are K-frame “Model 10” type revolvers that were adapted to be Magnums after the fact when that frame was always intended to be .38 Special. It’s just the nature of what they are.
@@ColterBrog ok thank's i think ill manly stick to 38s in the 19 and shoot 357 in my 586 python and highway patrolman ill still probably shoot 357 in it rarely but i might not shoot it much at all its pretty close to 90% or better idk if it even has a cylinder ring on it
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.
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.
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?
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
@@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 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 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.
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?
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.
I should, but unfortunately other priorities tend to take priority as this is just something I do on the side. All my videos are filmed on my rapidly aging iPhone 12.
It your claims are true I just compared my S&W model 640 j frame in 357 mag. The forcing cone has less than 50 % of the steel of the forcing cone of my model 19-3s . I bought the 640 new and there were no warnings against shooting any 357 mag cartridge. So your claims and the causes are bogus in my opinion. I have been shooting model 19s for more than 50 years. No problems of any kind. You do have to keep the forcing cone clean and make sure that your gun is in time. Considering the weight , balance and power it’s the best revolver ever !
I love the model 19, but this issue with certain production years in particular has been documented for decades. I don’t particularly care if you want to think it is bogus. You’re also not grasping that something being rated for a cartridge means it will safely fire it… but ignoring that, of course, more powerful cartridges cause additional wear and tear. Things wear out faster if you use them hard. Do you honestly believe your revolver would last just as long shooting .357 Magnum as it would .38 wadcutters? That there would be no additional wear? Furthermore, mentioning less steel on your 640 shows you do not understand the concepts involved here at all. Your 640, if it’s as it appears to me, has a concentric forcing cone. It is equally thin all around, which allows it to expand and contract evenly. A shaved forcing cone creates a point of additional stress because the thicker parts are more rigid and cause the thinned area to experience greater deformation. A chain is strong if there is no “weak link”. If you intentionally remove part of one of the links, it will always be the one that breaks. Shaving a forcing cone creates that weak link. If it didn’t matter you’d see forcing cone cracks happen randomly at any spot of the circumference. That’s not what happens, though. They tend to fail at the thin portion. The newer model 19 has a sleeved barrel, with a thinner but concentric forcing cone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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?
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
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
Idiots who fire 125 grain magnums from a K frame constantly are the culprits for cone cracks. Almost all LEO in the past have stated that 158 grain magnums were for carry and 38’s were for practice. However, the percentage of cracks were so few and documented rarely that it is not a big issue. Seriously, find me a Model 19 with a cracked cone and I will find you a unicorn.
Yup. I think it’s a misunderstanding of what the revolver was intended for and what ammunition was commonplace during that time. Additionally, the ones particularly prone to failure probably already did fail decades ago and aren’t around anymore. In general, I agree. Pretty rare but also easy to avoid with a bit of understanding of the common loadings the revolvers were mainly intended to be used with at that time.
@@ColterBrog From speaking to so many LEO, including my uncle who carried a Model 19 as a cop for 30 years, cops preferred 158 grain because they were easier to make followup shots. They rarely ever shot 125 grains or loaded them for duty. The ones who did were easily outed as rookie cops. These revolvers went through hell and S&W designed them so screws could be interchangeable as well as parts such as the extractor rod be easily bent back into shape. I prefer them over the new classic ones but may have to get a newer one because the newer ones are just built like tanks. Also, damn accurate.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
![[Part 1] ทารกน้อยถูกทิ้ง👶 หญิงชราเก็บขวดขายเลี้ยงดูเขาจนโต #โลกการละคร](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nPTDvFCExks/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
I think that’s an excellent point. Good insight.
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.
Thank you, and I certainly will. I have several irons in the fire right now ranging from a collaboration effort with another TH-camr 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
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
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.
Excellent video. Very informative. Very much appreciated explanation. Thank you.
Thanks!
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.
Exactly. A tapered bullet swager essentially.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I got a swollen case and flattened primer in my m&p 340. The case had to be tapped out of the cylinder and the case was pushed into the frame preventing it from opening. I see no damage and shot 27 357 magnum rounds afterwards with no issues. I'm only shooting premium federal and Hornady. Anything i should look out for? Surely this was an ammunition issue and not a firearm issue wouldn't you think?
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."
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.
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.
My model 66-3 came with the issue of an even thinner forcing cone when compared to my model 15-3 from ‘69.
To be fair that thing has had many 158 grain magnums shot thru it, but it was never self defense type stuff, but mostly handloads and target loads at that.
Generally the barrel would crack from the inside of the barrel leading to a split showing on the outside face of the FC. That’s because the inside of the barrel is where the leades of the rifling begin, which sits right on top of where the barrel is shaved flat, though FC erosion is a fair indicator of the barrel’s life.
I would stick to lower pressure and lower velocity rounds regardless, such as 158 grain .357s, since those generally use less powder and produce lower chamber pressures. A 125 grain is nice, but is recommended that you stick to medium velocity handloads for those.
General tip: 158 gr .357 are “hot” when loaded to mid to high 1200 fps range. Low to mid is considered 900-1000 fps and 1000-1100s respectively.
For a 125 grain hot loads are ~1300-1400 fps, light/moderate load would be 1000-1100 fps and 1100-1200 fps
This is great information. Thank you.
Shot thousands of full power 357s in a few old K frames and never had a problem .. even shot plenty of 110-125 grain hot rods
Just depends on the revolver and varies more depending on the timeframe.
A good pistol smith explained that the cause of of cracked forcing cones in the model 19 was from the chambers not lining up properly with the barrel and slow timing. I have new from the factory 19s that were out of time. The pistol smith has a personal 19 with a record of over 600,000 rounds of magnums shot through it. From a ransom rest it would shoot one and a half groups at 25 yards. I think that all of this scare talk is bs.
@ 600000 rounds 🤣
yeah ok bud 👌🏻
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.
Thanks. Those 65s are nice compact revolvers.
The Model 65-3 in 3” is a fantastic revolver.
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. 👌
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
I LOVE my pre-mim/pre-lock S&W revolvers, but when I want to shoot full power loads I reach for the Ruger GP-100.
That’s how I do it, except with the new model Python. It’s MIM, mass produced… and overbuilt to handle the full house magnums. I tend to keep the wear and tear of that off the classics.
I'd bet you would have to get the forcing cone extremely hot to crack it. I think the heat from rapidly firing shorter 125gr. rounds repeatedly, cylinder after cylinder, is what damaged any forcing cones. I haven't seen one that has cracked. But, I have not seen very many K frames either.
I follow what you’re thinking, but I disagree.
For one, most of these issues arose when these revolvers had been recently in production. General attitudes and practices of the time period, as far as I’ve seen, didn’t really emphasize dumping cylinder after cylinder of full house magnum loads. It just wasn’t the way they thought. Obviously, I wasn’t there, but this is based on first hand accounts, observations of the training philosophies those people still hold and practice, and film documentation of training practices of the relevant time period.
Second, getting a revolver sufficiently hot to compromise the metal is a difficult task with something that is a repeater loaded manually. Six rounds until a reload is required, and that reloading process opens the barrel through for airflow. Add in the fact I don’t know that I’ve ever seen someone carry more than about four speedloaders, even in later years when they were really trying to remain relevant compared to automatics… I think it’s unlikely anyone would have been able to “rapidly” fire more than about 30 rounds. That’s not that much especially given the circumstances already mentioned.
Third, the issue of cracking metal would seem to be alleviated by the steel becoming slightly softer with heat within a reasonable extent. Of course, that’s really just conjecture on my part. But hotter steel is typically softer and more prone to deformation rather than fracturing. Heat could/would exacerbate throat erosion, which might increase the risk of failure over a long period of time, but there are reports of some revolvers failing at the forcing cone in as few as a couple hundred rounds of particularly hot (yet still factory loaded) 125 grain magnums.
It is an issue that was observed at the time, and there is a reasonable mechanical explanation for why it is real and not just a fluke. I tend to believe that it is a shortcoming of the design and manufacturing practices, that is exacerbated by “luck of the draw” of a particular revolver and also ammunition related conditions that expose that flaw. That is my opinion based on what information I have seen.
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.
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.
The model 19 was designed for the .357 mag 158-gr bullet. it is my understanding the 158-gr bullet is long enough that the bullet contacts the forcing cone before the base of the bullet clears the case. This way the bullet is forced down the barrel while the base is still inside the case. This prevents the gases from rushing past the bullet which then causes wear on the forcing cone.
Lighter bullets are shorter which means the bullet hasn't contacted the forcing cone as the base of the bullet leaves the case which allows the high pressure gases to rush past the bullet and cause erosion of the forcing cone which can cause wear of the forcing cone, and weakening the top strap.
When shooting the M19 use the 158-gr magnum loads.
I don’t think I completely agree with this theory, but I cannot disprove it, either.
I tend to think of it as the lighter bullet moving more abruptly and imparting more kinetic energy to the cone, not a gas cutting issue.
However, it might be that both are in play here. That’s a very interesting perspective, and I hope in the future we all can understand more of exactly what’s going on inside these machines.
Thanks for the information, new perspective, and contribution to the discussion.
@@ColterBrog Additionally, I noticed the cylinder on my S&W 586 is slightly longer than on my blued Python.
The 586 was manufactured in the 1980s and the blued Python most likely last year. I ordered the Python right after Colt announced it at this hears Shot Show.
Does it make a difference in performance or was the shorter cylinder on the Python designed to save money over the production life of the revolver?
The difference in cylinder length changes the distance between the bullet and the forcing cone. My explanation above works if the bullet contacts the forcing cone while the base of the bullet is still in the case. However if the cylinder is longer then there would be a gap between the time the bullet contacts the forcing cone and the base clears the case those rapidly expanding hot gases may pay more of role in wear.
What are your thoughts?
@@texassportsman5880I would think it’s largely just an aesthetic choice. As soon as pressure starts rising that case is going to balloon out to the chamber walls and allow gas around the bullet. They’ll both be venting regardless of length.
Cylinder length, as far as I visualize what’s happening, wouldn’t seem to matter.
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 💯💯💯💯💯
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you think that the 140 grain bullets are hard on k frame forcing cones ?
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.
Thank you
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?
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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
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.
@@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.
@@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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@ColterBrog I have never seen that it is documented. Had I known this could happen I would have bought a 686 instead.
Great video!
Thanks!
The current production Python is made to shoot all variety of magnum loads. While the vintage Pythons are likely to show wear and issues because all the parts are custom fitted.
The M586/686 was designed to as a shooter and to correct the flaws of the M19.
The current production Python and 586/686 are made to shoot magnum loads. The Ruger GP100 is also overbuilt to handle all variety of magnum loads.
I have decided to not buy a M19 DOM 1960s and stay with my 586 and Pythons for all variety of magnum loads.
I agree completely. I like to be gentle with the classics because they are more interesting as a piece of history and a slice of the American story. American manufacturing, engineering design, and craftsmanship is on full display in the classics and they are beautiful.
For just putting high powered magnums down range… newer options are better. They can handle it, and they have excellent feel and handling for the user.
The problem with my s&w 13 is that it only shoots accurately with .357, with .38 the group is larger.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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?
@@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.
@@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.
Got a 19-6...seems to love magnums. I think the later models have better metallurgy. Mine was made in '92.
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.
My 19-6 has a full size cone made 2021.
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.
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.
@@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.
meant...compare it to.
@@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.
@@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.
What do you think about a 65-3 manufactured in 1984?
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.
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
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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?
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 TH-camr 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.
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.
@@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.
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!
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.
@@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???....
@@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.
Well done
Thank you.
i have a model 13 and its fine. honestly i wouldnt worry about it, just dont shoot 125gn magnum loads
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.
Good explanation.
Thanks.
I have a 19-3 6inch is 158 grain 357mag 1300fps be safe
19-3 predates the changes to the gas ring that necessitated extra thinning of the forcing cone. Of course, all the old type K-frames have relatively weak forcing cones compared to modern revolvers, but 158gr .357Mag at a factory velocity of 1250-1300fps shouldn’t cause any unreasonable amount of extra wear.
Of course, a revolver is a mechanical device and it eventually will wear out. More energy imparted on the forcing cone uses up more of its life. If you shoot that magnum load exclusively, it will wear out faster than if you shot a modest .38 Special load, whether the limiting factor is the forcing cone or eventually frame stretch.
So the answer is “yes”, but with the understanding that doesn’t mean it will never wear out, or that higher energy loads don’t use up more of its available “life”.
I hope that isn’t too vague or noncommittal and answers your question.
@@ColterBrog so the 357 i have should be fine I've maybe 12 rounds of 357 out of it it's a 6inch and it was made in 1970 i just wanted to know if it wasn't worth risking with that 158 grain 357mag republic ammo i have to just stick to like 900fps and under 38spl has i have a 28-2 highway patrolman with a 6inch barrel and a no dash 586 4inch and a ruger security six in 4 inch and a new python in 4 inch for 357mag instead of the 19-3 i have the 15-3 for 38 and off topic you might know i have a 29-6 in 6inch is 240 grain 1300fps maybe a little lower 1275 or something 44mags safe in that I'm not sure if it has the endurance package or not btw thanks for the reply
@@yugisslifer8359I guess the best way to answer this is telling you what I do, since three of the revolvers in this video belong to me.
The 66 I shot .357 Magnum from, including 125 grain, when it was my only .357 Magnum and I also wasn’t fully aware of the forcing cone weakness of the older K-frames. Now, I mostly only shoot .38 Special from it. Typically 158 grain plated wadcutters I load myself. I would shoot 158 grain Magnums from it, though, if I felt the need.
My 19, the 4” blued one, is in exceptional condition (separate video on it specifically), and I don’t shoot it. There’s just no reason for me to when I have a well-worn Model 66 that shoots perfectly fine if I want to shoot a S&W. I use the used one and keep the nice one nice, if that makes sense. Preserving it for posterity.
The new Python, I’ll shoot anything through it. It has a thick concentric forcing cone, a bulkier cylinder to accommodate that full forcing cone profile, a thicker top strap to reduce frame stretching, the advantage of decades of advancement in metallurgy, and it isn’t a collectible as it is currently being manufactured. It’s also, in my opinion, easier to strip down for cleaning if I do shoot it a lot and it becomes fouled.
If you have newer revolvers designed from the ground up to be .357 Magnums (686, Python, etc.) I would shoot Magnums through those. At the end of the day the 19/66 are K-frame “Model 10” type revolvers that were adapted to be Magnums after the fact when that frame was always intended to be .38 Special. It’s just the nature of what they are.
@@ColterBrog ok thank's i think ill manly stick to 38s in the 19 and shoot 357 in my 586 python and highway patrolman ill still probably shoot 357 in it rarely but i might not shoot it much at all its pretty close to 90% or better idk if it even has a cylinder ring on it
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.
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.
Good, Thx
Thank you.
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?
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
I have a Model 65-8. I don't know when it was manufactured. How strong is this forcing cone?
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.
@@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.
@@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 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 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.
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?
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.
The cracks are from the high pressure from the loads with lighter bullets. 38 special have a much lower pressure than 357 mag.
I think the internet way way way overstates the problem. The vast majority do not crack
Great video but please invest in a good microphone.
I should, but unfortunately other priorities tend to take priority as this is just something I do on the side. All my videos are filmed on my rapidly aging iPhone 12.
It your claims are true I just compared my S&W model 640 j frame in 357 mag. The forcing cone has less than 50 % of the steel of the forcing cone of my model 19-3s . I bought the 640 new and there were no warnings against shooting any 357 mag cartridge. So your claims and the causes are bogus in my opinion. I have been shooting model 19s for more than 50 years. No problems of any kind. You do have to keep the forcing cone clean and make sure that your gun is in time. Considering the weight , balance and power it’s the best revolver ever !
I love the model 19, but this issue with certain production years in particular has been documented for decades. I don’t particularly care if you want to think it is bogus.
You’re also not grasping that something being rated for a cartridge means it will safely fire it… but ignoring that, of course, more powerful cartridges cause additional wear and tear. Things wear out faster if you use them hard. Do you honestly believe your revolver would last just as long shooting .357 Magnum as it would .38 wadcutters? That there would be no additional wear?
Furthermore, mentioning less steel on your 640 shows you do not understand the concepts involved here at all. Your 640, if it’s as it appears to me, has a concentric forcing cone. It is equally thin all around, which allows it to expand and contract evenly. A shaved forcing cone creates a point of additional stress because the thicker parts are more rigid and cause the thinned area to experience greater deformation.
A chain is strong if there is no “weak link”. If you intentionally remove part of one of the links, it will always be the one that breaks. Shaving a forcing cone creates that weak link.
If it didn’t matter you’d see forcing cone cracks happen randomly at any spot of the circumference. That’s not what happens, though. They tend to fail at the thin portion.
The newer model 19 has a sleeved barrel, with a thinner but concentric forcing cone.
A small flashlight would be an excellent pointer.
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.
The K frame was designed for the .38 Special. The L frame was designed for the .357 magnum.
Yup. Lot of cartridge with a lot of energy in what is a fairly petite frame.
Sounds like you need a Ruger! 😏
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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?
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
on my 66-2 i will ONLY use 158 grain 357 magnum ammo and ill only shoot the ammo in single action
Why single action? Concerns over timing?
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
Idiots who fire 125 grain magnums from a K frame constantly are the culprits for cone cracks. Almost all LEO in the past have stated that 158 grain magnums were for carry and 38’s were for practice. However, the percentage of cracks were so few and documented rarely that it is not a big issue. Seriously, find me a Model 19 with a cracked cone and I will find you a unicorn.
Yup. I think it’s a misunderstanding of what the revolver was intended for and what ammunition was commonplace during that time.
Additionally, the ones particularly prone to failure probably already did fail decades ago and aren’t around anymore.
In general, I agree. Pretty rare but also easy to avoid with a bit of understanding of the common loadings the revolvers were mainly intended to be used with at that time.
@@ColterBrog From speaking to so many LEO, including my uncle who carried a Model 19 as a cop for 30 years, cops preferred 158 grain because they were easier to make followup shots. They rarely ever shot 125 grains or loaded them for duty. The ones who did were easily outed as rookie cops. These revolvers went through hell and S&W designed them so screws could be interchangeable as well as parts such as the extractor rod be easily bent back into shape. I prefer them over the new classic ones but may have to get a newer one because the newer ones are just built like tanks. Also, damn accurate.
Where is the RUGER...?
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.
You don't shoot heavy 357 load through it that's why they make an L frame
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.
I don't understand why anyone would choose a Smith and Wesson revolver over a Ruger.
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 .
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.
@robertchute1984 That has piqued my interest. I’ll have to look into the Match Champion.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.