K frame 38 vs 357 cylinder metallurgy?

[Alk8944]

A lot of folks “claim” to have been the reason for the Model 19 but the stimulus can easily be attributed to Evaluators Unlimited.

Kevin

There are not " a lot" of people claiming responsibility for the Model 10/Combat Magnum, only one! This was William Jordan of the Border Patrol who encouraged Col D.B. Wesson, then President of S&W, to produce a K-Frame .357 Magnum that would be principally intended to shoot .38 Special, but would be strong enough that a moderate amount of .357 Magnum ammunition could be fired by Law Enforcement Officers of all types for duty use without fear of failure of the guns due to the more than double the pressure of .38 Special ammunition as loaded at that time.(prior to +P loads) Direct responsibility for the Combat Magnum revolver was solely in the hands of Col. Wesson. Jordan merely made a strong request/suggestion.

 

[steelslaver]

I have used a hardness tester on both frames and cylinders and found no difference. BUT there is a lot more to steel than hardness. A piece of steel can be in a pearlite. martensite or bainite state and register the same hardness, yet have a different yield strengths

 

[StrawHat]

There are not " a lot" of people claiming responsibility for the Model 10/Combat Magnum, only one! This was William Jordan of the Border Patrol who encouraged Col D.B. Wesson, then President of S&W, to produce a K-Frame .357 Magnum that would be principally intended to shoot .38 Special, but would be strong enough that a moderate amount of .357 Magnum ammunition could be fired by Law Enforcement Officers of all types for duty use without fear of failure of the guns due to the more than double the pressure of .38 Special ammunition as loaded at that time.(prior to +P loads) Direct responsibility for the Combat Magnum revolver was solely in the hands of Col. Wesson. Jordan merely made a strong request/suggestion.

Bill Jordan spoke to Carl Hellstrom, president of S&W.

Kevin

 

[Model29-26.5]

I had read or heard in videos about the model 19 becoming available “due to advancements in Metallergy” and heat treating I think but I guess not.
The only real difference, then, is a slightly longer cylinder and a shrouded cylinder rod. They could’ve made a 357 magnum in a K frame years before. I wonder why they didn’t until a lot later if there was no difference?

 

[sjmjax]

I suspect it was demand.
Police departments were a major market. Political decisions and public relations probably prevented adoption of magnum caliber weapons for standard issue.

Departments like Highway Patrol agencies could go with large frame revolvers.

 

[chief38]

While I do own a bunch of K frame .357 magnum revolvers, I rarely shoot them from those guns. When I do, I only shoot l 158 grain bullets. I doubt my K frames have seen more than a dozen magnums out of them in all the years I have owned them. My woods walking gun is a 3" M65 and I load it with Buffalo Bore 180 grain hard cast 357 magnums. While not easy on the hands, it is what I feel to be the best round for black bear in .357 magnum I know of. I've shot very few of them through that gun (maybe 6) and have chronographed them as well. They are moving out at over 1,300 fps and at 180 grains pack a lot of energy! I know the K frame is not an ideal "bear gun" however it is a pleasure to carry in the woods all day and I always have it on me. Much better than a .44 magnum left in the cabin.

When I get the urge to shoot magnums I use an L or N frame and those can handle any 357 magnum loads on the market. IMHO, .38 special revolvers , even if chambered for the magnums are really just .38 specials designed for shooting a few magnums if necessary, not for everyday pounding.

 

[jaguargolf]

One thought on reboring .38 cylinders to .357 magnum:

Would you let your granddaughter shoot it?

 

[JohnHL]

One thought on reboring .38 cylinders to .357 magnum:

Would you let your granddaughter shoot it?

I would if I did it.

John

 

[Model29-26.5]

I’m thinking when they talked about advancements in metallurgy, maybe they meant overall on all models?
So maybe the 1935 Registered Magnum steel was not the same as the 1955 357 Magnum? Overall the steel was stronger, so they figured a K frame 357 would be ok?

 

[stansdds]

I’m thinking when they talked about advancements in metallurgy, maybe they meant overall on all models?
So maybe the 1935 Registered Magnum steel was not the same as the 1955 357 Magnum? Overall the steel was stronger, so they figured a K frame 357 would be ok?

I expect you are correct. Metallurgy and heat treatment processes advanced quite a bit during World War II.

 

[mtgianni]

That is good to know.
Finally!

I heard that Elmer blew up a bunch of guns During experimentation… and all kinds of stories like that. I know his intervention was primarily the 27 but I figure he would’ve had something to do with the 19, too?

Elmer claimed to have blown up one gun, a 45 revolver.

 

[OlongJohnson]

My question is why ream a 38 cylinder, when K frame 357 cylinders are easy to come by and trimming the barrel shank and adjusting the forcing cone is easy and it doesn't cost that much more for the tools and cylinder than it does a 357 reamer.

And when you're done, you'll actually have a smooth, in-spec forcing cone and cylinder gap, instead of the ugly garbage that S&W ships.

 

[TonyR]

I wonder why you don’t just buy a 357 model and call it a day.

 

[Jim Watson]

My thoughts are the cylinders were made longer to accept the 158 grain bullets when seated in the 357 magnum case. There are several bullets of that weight that need to be seated deeper to fit in the cylinder.

But no factory loads that I have ever heard of.

SAAMI .38 Special maximum OAL is 1.55".
.357 Magnum maximum OAL is 1. 59".
A silly millimeter longer in a .135" longer case, the bullet is seated deeper.
Cylinder length of .357/M27 is 1.62"

Elmer said the 358429 SWC was too long for Magnum cases and would have to be crimped over the front band instead of in the groove.
Lyman 49 mentions that in general and the OAL is given as 1.553" in Magnum, 1.537" in Special which says that is what they did.

 

[WR Moore]

I have to admit it doesn't make any sense from a production standpoint to have separate material and heat treat specs for items that appear to be identical. That's only introducing complications/expense in the production process and inventory control. And, as they now say" it's setting yourself up for failure".

That said, one point about Alk8944's post regarding heat treat: both of the guys who attended the armorers school did so AFTER S&W started stamping model numbers in frames. When 38+P ammo first came out S&W stated that (limited?) use was safe if the gun had a model number. So I'd personally be hesitant to rechamber an older gun for both reducing the value and possible safety concerns.

 

[Model29-26.5]

I think maybe overall metallurgy was better which is why they could do a K frame cylinder anyway.
I don’t think they hear treated the 19’s any differently..
But as pointed out by S&WChad on a post here a few days ago, the frames of Magnum K frames are slightly different from non magnum K frames in design.

 

[Muley Gil]

I think maybe overall metallurgy was better which is why they could do a K frame cylinder anyway.
I don’t think they hear treated the 19’s any differently..
But as pointed out by S&WChad on a post here a few days ago, the frames of Magnum K frames are slightly different from non magnum K frames in design.

Dr. Roy Jinks, who used to be in charge of handgun production at S&W, told me that the factory heat treated Magnum revolvers.

 

[crasig]

I own an antique S&W .38 spl. Recently, had the opportunity to buy a mint used snub nose S&W .357 Clone & jumped on it.
I like the option of shooting it with .357 or .38 spl. Reasonably sure metallurgy quality was well tested before manufacture of the line. I came to really like the little rascal.

 

[Model29-26.5]

Dr. Roy Jinks, who used to be in charge of handgun production at S&W, told me that the factory heat treated Magnum revolvers.

Aha! Ok. That clears that up.
The cylinders or the frames or both?

 

[Law-dog]

Aha! Ok. That clears that up.
The cylinders or the frames or both?

I have likewise read that the cylinders were heat treated on the early 357 models. When the model 66 was placed on the market, there were issues with stainless in which it would "chip" when dropped on cement, it also applied to the Ruger Stainless guns, Security Six and Speed Six. Police agencies also complained of galling when the guns got hot during firing.


About that time, many of us were advised to carry carbon steel and either Nickel them or NP3 and others. Smith and Wesson also turned out a number of nickel model 19s at that time, I have one and considered it preferable for police carry at the time.

In those days we carried and fired full power ammo. The worry was fixed quickly but the issue of cylinder strength was a worry non the less. Many officers went back to the model 27 and 28 for that reason and then along came the 41 which was too much of a good thing to last.

There was a serial number range listed and we did not want to buy one of the first that was not heat treated. I do not recall if they did both stainless and carbon, but that was around the time that forcing cones were being cracked so, we were cautious not to buy an early model K frame.

Here is a pretty good discussion on the forum about that issue. It has some comments from Dan Wesson and Jeff Cooper and others who were aware of the problems in the early guns. And one of the reasons some K frames received different heat treatment, IIRC.

Thread 'Early problems with S&W stainless steel'

Dec 18, 2011

I have heard that there are some issues with the stainless steel used in early S&W revolvers. My understanding is that this was limited mostly to the model 60s produced during the 1960s. But some people have indicated the problem also occurred in some of the K Frame revolvers.

The problems I have heard described include galling and a type of steel that swelled.

Does anyone have any information on this, and what guns were affected?

• aterry33
• Replies: 14
• Forum: S&W Revolvers: 1961 to 1980