Bring It Back!

[Stephanie B]

The Model 12. (https://revolverguy.com/the-sw-model-12-an-airweight-classic/)

S&W discontinued it just before shall-issue became a thing. If they could bring it back, rated for +P, that would be fantastic. (DAO, please, with no IL.)

[Bergeron]

Yes, please! I'd like multiple options in barrel lengths, as long as the wishing well is open.

[Jim Watson]

They have beefed up the K frame, it should improve the durability of the Airweight.

[WobblyPossum]

A +P rated Model 12 with the lock-up improvements seen on the 66-8 would probably be the revolver version of a Glock 19. Preferably DAO with good sights. I just wonder if the market is there. Most of the people carrying revolvers these days are carrying J Frames or Ruger LCRs or they’re carrying big bore revolvers for animal defense while hunting.

[OlongJohnson]

Most of us agree. (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?27058-S-amp-W-315-NightGuard)

I've speculated in the past, and will again here: With only one run of scandium K frames ever made of something like 576 pieces and never again, while scandium L and N frames continue in production, it's a reasonable hypothesis that something happened to the tooling, and they can't actually build any more without renewed capital investment. Just some blue sky wondering that doesn't involve shaking my old man fist at a cloud.

I can't find where I posted it, but I've previously thought the formula should be:


Scandium frame
.38 Special +P - don't need people wasting them with 125-gr Magnums.
Blackened stainless cylinder. I can find no evidence that there's ever been a Ti K frame cylinder made by S&W. However, the cylinder should be short because Special only. That will save a few grams.
Barrel should start at 2.75 or 3 inches or whatever is necessary for a full length ejector rod.
A snubby barrel would also be good, either at launch or later.
Leave out the lock and call it a "314 Pro" or "M&P 314" the way they do with J frames.
A version with fixed sights would be OK, calling it a "312 Pro" or "M&P 312," as long as they also do an adjustable sight version.
Factory bobbed hammer available. S&W is stupid anyway for not just tooling this as a MIM part that could be dropped into any MIM-hammer K frame. They'd sell at least dozens of them to members of this forum.


However, the existence of the 856 Defender makes me think that if S&W just retooled the J frame to fit a six-shot cylinder and released the no-lock M&P 340 with six shots, that would probably be perfect. If it turns out something did happen to the K frame scandium tooling and they would have to start over anyway, this would definitely be the way to go. Make a three-inch barrel version every few years, and I'll get one eventually.

[Zeke38]

S&W needs Lipsey's--Talo to make a test run of 500 units to see how they sell. Something more like the Taurus 856 UL would be my "want-to".

[jtcarm]

Most of us agree. (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?27058-S-amp-W-315-NightGuard)

I've speculated in the past, and will again here: With only one run of scandium K frames ever made of something like 576 pieces and never again, while scandium L and N frames continue in production, it's a reasonable hypothesis that something happened to the tooling, and they can't actually build any more without renewed capital investment. Just some blue sky wondering that doesn't involve shaking my old man fist at a cloud.

I can't find where I posted it, but I've previously thought the formula should be:


Scandium frame
.38 Special +P - don't need people wasting them with 125-gr Magnums.
Blackened stainless cylinder. I can find no evidence that there's ever been a Ti K frame cylinder made by S&W. However, the cylinder should be short because Special only. That will save a few grams.
Barrel should start at 2.75 or 3 inches or whatever is necessary for a full length ejector rod.
A snubby barrel would also be good, either at launch or later.
Leave out the lock and call it a "314 Pro" or "M&P 314" the way they do with J frames.
A version with fixed sights would be OK, calling it a "312 Pro" or "M&P 312," as long as they also do an adjustable sight version.
Factory bobbed hammer available. S&W is stupid anyway for not just tooling this as a MIM part that could be dropped into any MIM-hammer K frame. They'd sell at least dozens of them to members of this forum.


However, the existence of the 856 Defender makes me think that if S&W just retooled the J frame to fit a six-shot cylinder and released the no-lock M&P 340 with six shots, that would probably be perfect. If it turns out something did happen to the K frame scandium tooling and they would have to start over anyway, this would definitely be the way to go. Make a three-inch barrel version every few years, and I'll get one eventually.

Yep, this.

Build it with a shrouded hammer and no frickin lock.

[03RN]

I'd rather have a steel frame, tapered barrel, night sight up front, round butt, 3" barrel

Between recoil mitigation and longevity I'd just rather have steel.

[Wheeler]

S&W will build a run of just about any configuration rotary gat you’d like as long as you meet the minimum cost requirements. It was $50k around six years ago. It has probably gone up since they have to pay for their upcoming move. :)

[Lex Luthier]

I'd rather have a steel frame, tapered barrel, night sight up front, round butt, 3" barrel

Between recoil mitigation and longevity I'd just rather have steel.

I could see a Classic model 10 round butt frame with an updated 38-44HD tapered barrel shroud and a pinned front sight.
They would sell many thousands with a good ad campaign.

I could also see all of the effort S & W has put into it's MIM alloy J-frames making for a really good durable analogue to the old model 12.

Sign me up for both!

[RevolverRob]

An Airweight 12 would be good.

But better would be a 6-shot .327 Scandium J, with a 3" barrel.

But better than both of those would be an LCR that is the same (3" .327 that is).

[42Willys]

Bringing back a model 12 would be awesome.

I do have to hand it to Taurus for committing to a total changeover from 5 shots to 6 and dropping the 85 and going all in on the 856 with 2 and 3 inch barrels. All those options, including defender models with NS, make a great menu.

I wish S&W would commit to some new carry revolvers with that level of gusto.

[OlongJohnson]

S&W will build a run of just about any configuration rotary gat you’d like as long as you meet the minimum cost requirements. It was $50k around six years ago. It has probably gone up since they have to pay for their upcoming move. :)

That would only be a few hundred guns, if we're talking scandium K frames. Calling Jason Cloessner!

[03RN]

This made me weigh some guns. My 4" m64 with the standard tapered barrel that I round butted and wearing vz grips weigh 31.8oz. My wife's 2" M15-3 was 33.3 oz with vz grips. Unloaded for both

What weight are we shooting for?

Eta, 2" m10-5 is 29.6 with service stocks and t grip adapter
Custom 3" m10-7 is 31 with ahrends
M66-8 is 33.7 with ahrends

[OlongJohnson]

315 Night Guard with a 2.5-inch barrel and steel cylinder was 24 oz.

386 NG was only half an ounce heavier, but it was somewhat bulkier due to the L frame dimensions.

Kinda wonder, if the weight is really that close, whether one wouldn't just go ahead an carry the 386. Does point toward a six-shot rework of the J frame.

https://www.handgunsmag.com/editorial/featured_handguns_hg_ownthenight_200901/138385

Taurus web site (https://www.taurususa.com/revolvers/see-all-revolvers?view=category&id=61) shows the 3-in 856 alloy frame at 17.36 oz and the steel version at 23.52 oz, so maybe a scandium K frame would actually be pointless.

We should all make it our mission to Enable the Enabler(R) and get Stephanie B to join the Defender club.

[paherne]

I'd rather have a steel frame, tapered barrel, night sight up front, round butt, 3" barrel

Between recoil mitigation and longevity I'd just rather have steel.

Buy an MR88 if you want recoil mitigation and longevity. For carry a lot and shoot sometimes, a scandium .38 K frame with stainless cylinder with a replaceable front sight blade would be the schizznit. Make an 8 shot in .327 Fed Mag and now we're talking.

[Wheeler]

That would only be a few hundred guns, if we're talking scandium K frames. Calling Jason Cloessner!

If we were really looking for a 12-5 I think the newer aluminum frames would serve just fine. The 43c, 351c, 317, and 351pd all have aluminum frames and seem to hold up just fine. My 2" 12-3 weighs in at 20 ounces unloaded wearing a stylish set of Uncle Mikes. If I could get that in a +P rating and a 3" barrel with a wider notch and a flat front sight I'd be all over it, even if it did weigh 24-25 ounces.

[serialsolver]

I know I sound like a colt salesman but the new cobra is 24oz unloaded, is stainless steel, +p rated, easy change front sight and has no lock.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jandbj]

As much as I like this idea, I also recognize that a new scandium model 12ish thing would cost about the same amount I have into 3 3” Taurus 856’s... and it’d still need a trigger job and and have questionable QC... especially with their planned move to TN.

But if they were to bring back the 432 centennial in .32 H&R, then I’d probably melt my debit card with the quick draw.

We’re a fickle bunch.

[Wheeler]

As much as I like this idea, I also recognize that a new scandium model 12ish thing would cost about the same amount I have into 3 3” Taurus 856’s... and it’d still need a trigger job and and have questionable QC... especially with their planned move to TN.

But if they were to bring back the 432 centennial in .32 H&R, then I’d probably melt my debit card with the quick draw.

We’re a fickle bunch.

I have a 332 and count myself lucky to have been able to buy it when it became available. I got rid of my 642 after getting the 332. It does get sporty with the 100 grain loads but is relatively mild with the 85 grain JHPs.

[42Willys]

But if they were to bring back the 432 centennial in .32 H&R, then I’d probably melt my debit card with the quick draw.

We’re a fickle bunch.

That was hilarious!

[03RN]

I know I sound like a colt salesman but the new cobra is 24oz unloaded, is stainless steel, +p rated, easy change front sight and has no lock.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A colt night cobra with a 3" barrel:cool:

[03RN]

Buy an MR88 if you want recoil mitigation and longevity. For carry a lot and shoot sometimes, a scandium .38 K frame with stainless cylinder with a replaceable front sight blade would be the schizznit. Make an 8 shot in .327 Fed Mag and now we're talking.

I tend to shoot my carry guns the most and the mr88 is a bit cost prohibiting for me.

[BarryinIN]

Not that it helps, but the Model 12 is what I name on all the "S&W Wantlist" forum threads I've seen.

I have two M12s- a 2" and a 4", both round butt. A lightweight K frame sure sounded like a neat gun, and they really do meet (or exceed) expectations.
There is a saying they "Carry like a J, but shoot like a K", and I couldn't say it better.

My most used J-frame is the 442 Airweight Centennial. I think they weigh around 14.5 ounces, but the 2" M12 is only 3.5 ounces more. That 3.5 oz gets somewhat better sights, a better grip, another round of ammo, and probably best of all- a K-frame action.

It seems like a lot people panic over their aluminum frame and act like they are a grenade with the pin barely in. I don't see or hear anywhere near the concern over Airweight J-frames or any other aluminum alloy framed revolver. I can only assume the problems with the early and comparatively rare Air Force guns with aluminum alloy cylinders are the root of this.

As I said, I have mine, but I'd love to have a new one. Scandium would be nice, but regular Airweight aluminum is also fine. Give it a pinned front sight we can swap out, and maybe a 3" barrel, and I'd be thrilled.

[RevolverRob]

For me it comes down to two issues:

Weight for a belt gun should be between 20 and 25 ounces. Or if less than 20-ounces the barrel length needs to be 2.5" at least. Otherwise you aren't able to shoot the hotter loads that actually penetrate and expand from a 2" barrel. So you'll need some extra length to get the easier to shoot loads to work.

For me there is a sweet spot for gun weight for a belt carried gun - 16-25 ounces is it. A 6-shot gun with a 3" barrel that weighs 25 ounces is perfect. I've only found one such gun, the taper barreled 3" Colt Detective Special. Which is easily the perfect balance of shootable and concealable, in my experience and weighs in perfectly at 25 ounces with 6-rounds of Gold Dot Short Barrel in it.

[OlongJohnson]

It seems like a lot people panic over their aluminum frame and act like they are a grenade with the pin barely in. I don't see or hear anywhere near the concern over Airweight J-frames or any other aluminum alloy framed revolver. I can only assume the problems with the early and comparatively rare Air Force guns with aluminum alloy cylinders are the root of this.

Do a web search on "model 12 frame crack" and you'll see what all the fuss is about. It's not the cylinders. The frames crack through the barrel threads below the forcing cone.

Scandium is the answer.

I'm mixed on the Ti cylinders. Weight reduction is nice, but then you get a big risk factor for durability. Wrong ammo will flame cut it, and you don't want to scrape it, so leading could be a real issue, too.

[Duelist]

As much as I like this idea, I also recognize that a new scandium model 12ish thing would cost about the same amount I have into 3 3” Taurus 856’s... and it’d still need a trigger job and and have questionable QC... especially with their planned move to TN.

But if they were to bring back the 432 centennial in .32 H&R, then I’d probably melt my debit card with the quick draw.

We’re a fickle bunch.

I've only read the announcement once, but IIRC, the announcement didn't include moving any revolver manufacturing at this time.

[jandbj]

I've only read the announcement once, but IIRC, the announcement didn't include moving any revolver manufacturing at this time.

I stand corrected. Just reread it myself and see that revolver assembly will remain in MA.

And I still really, really want a 432!

[Outpost75]

If we were really looking for a 12-5 I think the newer aluminum frames would serve just fine. The 43c, 351c, 317, and 351pd all have aluminum frames and seem to hold up just fine. My 2" 12-3 weighs in at 20 ounces unloaded wearing a stylish set of Uncle Mikes. If I could get that in a +P rating and a 3" barrel with a wider notch and a flat front sight I'd be all over it, even if it did weigh 24-25 ounces.

Agree, but I am not convinced of the durability of Scandium frames with plus-P as I've witnessed several cracked frames. My several 1970s production Model 12 revolvers have stood up to high volume use with standard pressure .38 Special. I do not believe that plus P is needed. Instead standardize on full. charge wadcutter and call it good.

[Dave T]

Do a web search on "model 12 frame crack" and you'll see what all the fuss is about. It's not the cylinders. The frames crack through the barrel threads below the forcing cone.

Scandium is the answer.

Then again...Here is a scandium frame that hasn't held up quite as well as S&W's advertising would have you believe:

78054

As illistrated this was a 325 PD, 4". When contacted S&W said, since I wasn't the original owner, they might or might not fix it...and if they did it was gonna cost.

Scandium may not be all it's cracked up to be after all.

Dave

[Outpost75]

Then again...Here is a scandium frame that hasn't held up quite as well as S&W's advertising would have you believe:

78054

As illistrated this was a 325 PD, 4". When contacted S&W said, since I wasn't the original owner, they might or might not fix it...and if they did it was gonna cost.

Scandium may not be all it's cracked up to be after all.

Dave

That one isn't as bad as others I've seen. A 340PD firing. .38 PlusP blew off chunk over barrel threads and hit rangemaster during annual quals. Also seen a .44 Night Guarx KaBoom with factory loads. When I get back to desktop I'll post photos.

[Wheeler]

Do a web search on "model 12 frame crack" and you'll see what all the fuss is about. It's not the cylinders. The frames crack through the barrel threads below the forcing cone.

Scandium is the answer.

I'm mixed on the Ti cylinders. Weight reduction is nice, but then you get a big risk factor for durability. Wrong ammo will flame cut it, and you don't want to scrape it, so leading could be a real issue, too.

I ran a 4” 12-2 through 20 IDPA matches, (roughly two seasons,) using a +P equivalent load with no issues. Before that I would occasionally shoot a 12-2 2” with the same load. Neither showed any sign of frame stress. I had more concerns of the steel clockwork wearing out the aluminum frame due to the relatively high volume of use than I did if the frame cracking. I’m advocating the use of the newer aluminum frames using modern metallurgy, not the use of aluminum from 50-60 years ago nor the use of an ultralight, ultra expensive metal in the quest for a super light gun. Revolvers need a certain amount of weight and mass to function properly during the recoil process. They don’t have springs and reciprocating parts to mitigate recoil and it’s affects on the frame.

I do realize my two anecdotes do not data make. YMMV.

[Duces Tecum]

A +P rated Model 12 with the lock-up improvements seen on the 66-8 would probably be the revolver version of a Glock 19. Preferably DAO with good sights. I just wonder if the market is there. Most of the people carrying revolvers these days are carrying J Frames or Ruger LCRs or they’re carrying big bore revolvers for animal defense while hunting.

Senior citizens for whom the pistol's manual of arms has become problematic?

[OlongJohnson]

In a bunch of the discussion I found over on the blue forum, S&W claimed responsibility for the crack when people returned frames to them. Said the barrel was over tightened at installation. Which would be classic S&W crappy process control, I guess. That's logical, as the ramp angle of the threads generates hoop stress in the outer pair (the frame) of the mating threads when it's tightened.

There are also many anecdotes of the opposite problem, when people have their TRR8/M&P R8 barrels loosen, sometimes repeatedly. Sure would be nice if S&W would just sell the tool for those nuts and publish a torque spec.

[Outpost75]

S&W Scandium 340PD .357 FAILURE

78058

During qual 5 rds of 38 +P 135 gr HP Gold Dot SB. Chunk that came off hit the instructor running the course (no injury). Low round count, just carried a lot in an ankle rig. It continued to run after the chunk came off (round 2 or 3 of 5) as the shooter did not notice it.
Likely cause is stress corrosion cracking initiated by notch sensitivity. Failure crack probably originated from a tool mark left over from broaching the cylinder recess in the frame. S&W would be well advised to increase the filet radius as well as improving surface finish in the filet and/or shot peening. Looking at the brown stain adjacent fracture looks familiar, this appears to have been working a while and picked this time to let go.

Cop armorer friend in SoCal had to send 2 or 3 standard aluminum J frames (642/442) back to S&W that cracked the frame at 6 O’Clock below the forcing cone. S&W said that happens sometimes from hoop stress transferred through the aluminum when the machine screws on the barrel or when they thread the frame for the barrel. They replaced the entire gun each time.

78059

The so-called S&W "lifetime warranty" has limitations. Same retired LE armorer bought himself a retirement-gift all steel 640 and the “hammer stud” broke off flush with the frame with a few hundred rounds on board. From the gitgo dry firing it did not feel quite right, but was still working as the side plate kind of holds the stud (pin) in place...When he popped off the side plate he saw the internal parts slightly shifted...well that’s not normal. My take is that the manufacturing side of the house needed to put more production across its MIM line to more quickly realize return on investment for the bean counters upstairs. So they decided to go with that process for such a simple part. A Swiss screw machine can produce parts of that shape from wrought material quicker and cheaper. Those components can also be heat treated as required whereas MIM components not so much.

For a number of reasons I won’t get into S&W needed to replace the frame (they can’t repair aluminum frames so those are replaced when this happens) they sent him a bill for $145 even though they said it had nothing to do with anything he had done. I had to get the local S&W LE rep involved and even he could not explain why this fell outside the normal “lifetime” warranty. Somehow he eventually made the bill go away. Those without a badge or retired credential probably won't be as lucky.

78060

A broken hammer stud is becoming more common with the shift to MIM. Especially on the N frames. Machinist buddy fixes a lot of them because guys don’t want to wait 30-60 days for S&W “service”. As for screwing on barrels, they sure torque'em on tight. Forcing cone constriction has been a problem with the late production guns I’ve inspected. It's usually $100 gunsmith fix to set back and refit, but shouldn’t be necessary if they fitted correctly just cut a UNF-Class 2A thread, not a 3A, then just screw it in correctly and pin it, Like they did in the old days. One of many reasons I prefer the older revolvers. That stud as now manufactured is now a MIM part press fit into a slightly raised collar instead of being screwed into the frame. The repair is to drill it out and then tap thread the frame and install a new stud the old fashioned way.

Reinforces my gut instinct that "an old gun that works is worth more than a new gun that doesn't."

Some other Scandium failures:

780617806278063

[WobblyPossum]

Senior citizens for whom the pistol's manual of arms has become problematic?

If hand strength or arthritis issues are substantial enough that someone can’t use a semi auto, would you recommend an airweight revolver over a steel framed one for them?

[Outpost75]

If hand strength or arthritis issues are substantial enough that someone can’t use a semi auto, would you recommend an airweight revolver over a steel framed one for them?

A standard-sized K-frame Airweight Model 12 is just about ideal in that application.

[Duces Tecum]

If hand strength or arthritis issues are substantial enough that someone can’t use a semi auto, would you recommend an airweight revolver over a steel framed one for them?

I would recommend a revolver over a pistol.

I would have them understand that in practice sessions the recoil of an airweight revolver can be mitigated by their choice of ammunition.

I would recommend a light weight revolver that can be carried more comfortably by an older person over a steel framed one that is more likely to be left home, on the shelf next to the evening pills.


Cordially,
Duces

[03RN]

Wow, I've always wanted a nightguard but now I don't know.

[WobblyPossum]

A standard-sized K-frame Airweight Model 12 is just about ideal in that application.


I would recommend a revolver over a pistol.

I would have them understand that in practice sessions the recoil of an airweight revolver can be mitigated by their choice of ammunition.

I would recommend a light weight revolver that can be carried more comfortably by an older person over a steel framed one that is more likely to be left home, on the shelf next to the evening pills.


Cordially,
Duces

From the perspective of people who would regularly carry a lighter weight airweight gun that wouldn’t regularly carry a similarly configured steel frame gun, I can understand that. I was looking at it from the thought process of weak hands/arthritis would make actually training with the gun a miserable experience and 99% of gun owners would have just that one carry gun instead of an airweight for carry and a steel framed gun to train with. If you’re only going to have the one, the steel framed one would probably get shot more in practice.

[JAH 3rd]

These photos got me wondering about carrying my 340PD. Might have to use another J-frame for carry. Possibly will have to break out a decades old S&W model 49. Sent it off to Mahovsky's Metalife for plating years ago. It originally came in blue, but has a nice stainless steel look to it now.

[paherne]

I've shot the piss out of my 340 M&P with 38+P. If it breaks, I'll make them fix it.

[Dave T]

If it breaks, I'll make them fix it.

I tried that with my cracked 325 PD. They told me, in so many words, to go perform an unnatural act. I don't buy new S&W firearms anymore.

YMMV,
Dave

[Outpost75]

I've shot the piss out of my 340 M&P with 38+P. If it breaks, I'll make them fix it.

Unless you have a badge or retired credential they won't fix it. Current production S&Ws are expensive disposables.

[Dave T]

Unless you have a badge or retired credential they won't fix it. Current production S&Ws are expensive disposables.

Outpost,

When I talked to S&W Customer Service on the phone about my cracked 325 PD, they were unimpressed with my retired LEO status. Buying the gun used was the kiss of death.

Dave

[Stephanie B]

When I talked to S&W Customer Service on the phone about my cracked 325 PD, they were unimpressed with my retired LEO status. Buying the gun used was the kiss of death.

So.... you shoulda bought a used Taurus?

[Dave T]

So.... you shoulda bought a used Taurus?

ROTFLMAO!

Dave

[BarryinIN]

Do a web search on "model 12 frame crack" and you'll see what all the fuss is about. It's not the cylinders. The frames crack through the barrel threads below the forcing cone.

I didn't say that right.
It seems like when the Model 12 gets mentioned at ranges or gunshops, somebody will say "That's the Air Force one that can't handle regular ammo without cracking or breaking, isn't it?". When pressed, they've never actually seen one, but are simply stating what "everybody knows" is true. Sometimes the story is "Its that special Air Marshalls gun". This has caused me to disregard maybe the majority of cracking statements, after feeling them out a little. They decided long ago that an Airweight K is as durable as a Model T with a blower, and that's that.

Oh, I have read the cracked frame threads. And I've seen plenty of pictures of them cracked right where you say. I've seen at least one myself.

So I know the frames have cracked. I'm just not sure how it happened.

I've seen some where people had found them cracked there without ever firing a round of +P, and a couple of times where they had not fired a round of anything- they came that way new.

This has made me suspect the factory might have been the source of most, if not all, the cracked ones. At least one person has told me they would check every new one that came into their store, and would find a " factory cracked" one now and then. If there is even some truth to that, it is Interesting at the least.

Adding to my suspicions of the factory cracking frames at barrel installation are the accounts of (attempted) barrel removal from Model 12s. I have never heard of a successful one. Every attempt at rebarrelng I've heard of resulted in a cracked frame at removal.

Something is/was not right there.

Edit:
It just hit me... As much as I hate to say it, this gun might be the case for the two-piece barrel. Maybe the 12 is the gun that needs it. Perhaps the two-piece barrel installation is the way to ensure the barrel gets on without wrecking frames.
Hey, if that's what gets them back, I might can accept it.

[Wheeler]

I didn't say that right.
It seems like when the Model 12 gets mentioned at ranges or gunshops, somebody will say "That's the Air Force one that can't handle regular ammo without cracking or breaking, isn't it?". When pressed, they've never actually seen one, but are simply stating what "everybody knows" is true. Sometimes the story is "Its that special Air Marshalls gun". This has caused me to disregard maybe the majority of cracking statements, after feeling them out a little. They decided long ago that an Airweight K is as durable as a Model T with a blower, and that's that.

Oh, I have read the cracked frame threads. And I've seen plenty of pictures of them cracked right where you say. I've seen at least one myself.

So I know the frames have cracked. I'm just not sure how it happened.

I've seen some where people had found them cracked there without ever firing a round of +P, and a couple of times where they had not fired a round of anything- they came that way new.

This has made me suspect the factory might have been the source of most, if not all, the cracked ones. At least one person has told me they would check every new one that came into their store, and would find a " factory cracked" one now and then. If there is even some truth to that, it is Interesting at the least.

Adding to my suspicions of the factory cracking frames at barrel installation are the accounts of (attempted) barrel removal from Model 12s. I have never heard of a successful one. Every attempt at rebarrelng I've heard of resulted in a cracked frame at removal.

Something is/was not right there.

Edit:
It just hit me... As much as I hate to say it, this gun might be the case for the two-piece barrel. Maybe the 12 is the gun that needs it. Perhaps the two-piece barrel installation is the way to ensure the barrel gets on without wrecking frames.
Hey, if that's what gets them back, I might can accept it.

There was a thread over on the bookface where a guy built a 3” M12 using a 12-4, a 3” M10 barrel, and a boatload of croil and torque. His frame didn’t crack and as far as I know, the pistol has held up fine. I’m fairly confident that the cracked frames are due to over torquing at the factory weakening the frame.

The M13, not to be confused either the S&W Model 13, Aircrewman predates the Model 12. It also supports my belief that a revolver needs a certain amount of weight and mass to manage recoil properly without beating the gun up.

[RevolverRob]

For anyone who has limited hand strength/dexterity the correct answer is a Ruger LCR in .327 Magnum.

Let's enumerate the reasons why:

1) Better trigger than any stock J or K frame and many tuned guns too.
2) Vastly superior sights to any stock J or fixed sight K. With a pinned interchangeable front sight with some big orange or green dots available.
3) Superior grip design out of the gate for recoil and general control.
4) If it breaks Ruger will fix it
5) J-frame sized, K-frame capacity

That doesn't get us into other bits of things. Like that the .327 and .32 H&R Mag loadings have better terminal performance from 2" barrels compared to .38 Special +P. And if you load wadcutters the 85-grain .32 S&W Long target wadcutter is ridiculously accurate while feeling like a .22 when shooting it.

The real con of the LCR is it is ever so slightly larger than a J-Frame in the critical dimensions for pocket carry and it's a couple of ounces heavier than an Airweight J. And obviously then quite a bit heavier than a Scandium J. But since Scandium Js should absolutely, positively, not be given to people with weak grips, that's a moot point IMO.

[OlongJohnson]

Maybe the 12 is the gun that needs it. Perhaps the two-piece barrel installation is the way to ensure the barrel gets on without wrecking frames.
Hey, if that's what gets them back, I might can accept it.

If only that worked. S&W still cracks frames by overtorquing two-piece barrels, and even tells customers that's why their frame cracked after 50-100 rounds of .38 Special standard pressure.