Optimal Uses for Each Revolver Frame. And, what is Purpose of N-Frame Revolvers?

[powell556]

I've been spending a lot of time researching revolvers lately and trying to make sense of the different frame sizes. I'm writing this post from the perspective purely of a practical standpoint. I'm ignoring aesthetics because that's subjective.

I don't understand the exact role of N-Frame. At first, I thought it was a thicker/bigger frame to shoot .44 magnums out of. But, I'm seeing a lot of pictures people on PF post of .357 magnum N-Frames as well as some shorter barrel 2.75" N-frame revolvers.

My research has given me the impression that K-frames are a bit on the weak side (forcing cone and overall weight) to shoot a lot of .357 mags, but the L-frames are just fine for a high-round .357 mag purposes. If that's the case, why go up in size to N-frame? Or did I research wrong, and even L-frame 686 aren't really great for high round count magnum use?

It seems like N-frames are quite a big larger than L-frame, so the shorter barrel versions are confusing to me. Wouldn't a shorter-barrel K or L frame make more sense from a perspective of concealment or carrying AIWB?

From an engineering optimization standpoint, this is what I currently believe to be true, based purely on reading old threads and doing outside research, but not handling or shooting many different revolvers. Please correct my ignorance. Please don't get mad at me if I get any of this wrong. It's based on zero experience and simply collecting information from various threads here and on other websites combined with a little bit of my experience concealing and carrying semi-autos of different sizes.

A) J-Frames are great for pocket carry but are least fun to shoot. And while some may be able to shoot magnums, it's really unfun. There's no real reason to have a long-barreled J-Frame because it would be disproportionate to the grip and wouldn't make sense if you couldn't pocket carry anymore. J-Frames should be DAO with no external hammer so the hammer can't bind on clothing for a pocket draw. Please correct me if there's even a single non-aesthetic reason to have an external hammer on a j-frame.

B) K-Frames seem to be the best all around size as long as you don't need to shoot anything hotter than .357 magnum, and even then, you shouldn't shoot too much out of it. However, occasional 357 mag use is okay, which makes the K-Frame great for someone who wants to run a lot of .38 through it at the range but occasionally run 357 as an outdoor anti-bear or hunting round. K-Frames could be useful in snubbie, standard 4", or extended 6" depending on needs. The snubbie seems like it could be good for AIWB, but if you're carrying in any other position, it would seem like 4" is optimal since it won't make it much harder to carry. 6" is best for hunting (where 6" may be legal minimum length) or outdoor distance target shooting. I can see a use for all 3 barrel lengths on a K-frame

C) L-frames seem a bit bigger than K-frame and would probably be optimal if you were running 357 magnums regularly through them for whatever reason. Or possibly if you're a larger person and the extra size doesn't matter. For the average person (who probably doesn't need or want to shoot a lot of 357 magnums), it doesn't seem like L-Frame would actually be better than K-Frame given the larger size and increased weight. Perhaps the average person does want to shoot a lot of 357 magnum. And if that were the case, I'd reverse my opinion on K and L-Frame.

D) N-frames are even larger than L-Frames. I believe they were primarily developed for .44mag use because that round couldn't be put into an L-frame. As far as a snubbie N-Frame, perhaps .44mag is better against bears than .357 mag, and the person doesn't want to carry a full size 4"+ barrel revolver into the woods? But other than that, I struggle to see the functional desire for an N-frame in a snubbie size. It would seem like N-frames would be optimized for 4" and above barrels in calibers that start with a "4"

I'm also unsure about external hammers. I see a lot of smaller guns that have external hammers, and it seems odd. I've read that it's extremely rare for a DA revolver to be cocked for SA use. The main benefit of the external hammer to me, as someone who prefers AIWB, would be as a "SCD-type role" that I can my thumb on when re-holstering. But if you're not carrying it AIWB (which anything greater than 3" barrel is probably too long for AIWB, maybe 4" might work on some people?), and you're not cocking it for SA shots, then it seems like a liability. Unless it's there for aesthetics. I like the idea of being able to cock the hammer into SA mode for really long distance shots, but most of the "revolver people" I talk to say they almost never cock the hammer.

I'm genuinely trying to learn more about revolvers and apologize in advance if I come across and making broad sweeping generalizations. That's not my intent, especially because I have almost no real world experience with revolvers. I've spent dozens of hours reading old threads and looking at pictures of guns and trying to figure out what task each gun is optimized for. And it's starting to make sense to me, but the N-frame has me confused. Also, I want to know if my ideas about the other frame sizes are correct or if I am missing something.

I'm open to the possibility that the answer is "just because" which is to say that people are free to do what they want and buy guns that don't "make sense" but that they enjoy.

[revchuck38]

Short version: N frames were originally designed (1905?) for .44 Special/Russian, and were also chambered in .45 Colt, .45 ACP, .455 Webley, and some others. Later on, they were also chambered in .38 Special and were the original vehicle for the .357 Magnum in the mid-30s.

K frames were originally chambered in .38 Special in 1899 and then in the 50s in .357 Magnum. The idea was to practice with .38s and then load with .357s for "business". That idea worked poorly in the real world. LEOs then started practicing with full power Magnum ammo and the revolvers started shooting loose and the forcing cone issue raised its head. That lead to the development of the L frames in the 80s, which paired the K frame's grip with a heavier frame and barrel.

[Duelist]

OF the four frame sizes referenced, K and N came first. The earliest dates I’ve seen for the K were the late 1890s. They were developed for Military and Police use, hence the moniker M&P, and saw lots and lots of use for those purposes throughout the 20th century in calibers from .22 through .357 Magnum (starting in the 1950s). Then as now, civilian shooters found a myriad of uses for them as well. This is the original home of the .38 S&W Special.

The N frame was developed as a large caliber, large frame revolver. .44 Special, .45 Colt, and during WWI .45 ACP with half-moon clips. When folks wanted a heavy framed .38 to take hotter loads in .38 Special, the N frame got the nod, and those loads got the moniker .38/44, indicating that they were reserved for only heavy frame use. Remember, the K frame cylinders weren’t heat treated back then. In 1935, the .357 Magnum was born, and the N frame was its natural original home, with the Registered Magnum revolvers.

K frames proved to work fine with magnums, but not to take lots of heavy hot service loads without prematurely shooting loose, or cracking the forcing cone. Hence, the L frame was developed with the same grip size as the K, but with beefed up frame and forcing cone to deal with a life lived as a true .357.

J frames are beefed up I frames, which aren’t made anymore, and are intended primarily as concealment pieces, though lots of “kit guns” with longer barrels and adjustable sights were made in light calibers for small game hunting, fishing, hiking, and outdoors plinking.

So, here you are today with a variety of frame sizes and uses. Pick your guns for what makes sense to you, what you like, and what you want to use them for. History is interesting, but doesn’t have to dictate what you like or buy.

I have one J in .38 Special and 2” barrel, three Ks - .22 in 4”, .38 Special in 4”, and .357 Magnum with 3”, and one N in .357 Magnum with a 6” barrel. And I like them all. My oldest is a 1930 specimen, newest 2003.

[That Guy]

I'm not exactly a revolver guru either. (I own an amazing collection of two revolvers. I am hampered in my firearm acquisitions by local laws, or I would have more, but as things are those two are it for now.) But here are my thoughts on the matter:

My research has given me the impression that K-frames are a bit on the weak side (forcing cone and overall weight) to shoot a lot of .357 mags

That seems to be the common consensus, but some people seem to disagree. The forcing cone issue came to light with the use of lighter bullet, faster speed .357's and some folks claim a K-frame can digest a diet of older style 158gr magnums just fine. As my next revolver is probably going to be a K-frame .357, I'm kind of curious about that as well - but I don't think the internets will ever come to an agreement over the matter.

There's no real reason to have a long-barreled J-Frame because it would be disproportionate to the grip and wouldn't make sense if you couldn't pocket carry anymore. J-Frames should be DAO with no external hammer so the hammer can't bind on clothing for a pocket draw. Please correct me if there's even a single non-aesthetic reason to have an external hammer on a j-frame.

A J-frame with a longer barrel and an external hammer would probably conceal in a belt holster even better than a K-frame? And kit guns are a thing.

I'm also unsure about external hammers. I see a lot of smaller guns that have external hammers, and it seems odd. I've read that it's extremely rare for a DA revolver to be cocked for SA use. The main benefit of the external hammer to me, as someone who prefers AIWB, would be as a "SCD-type role" that I can my thumb on when re-holstering. But if you're not carrying it AIWB (which anything greater than 3" barrel is probably too long for AIWB, maybe 4" might work on some people?), and you're not cocking it for SA shots, then it seems like a liability. Unless it's there for aesthetics. I like the idea of being able to cock the hammer into SA mode for really long distance shots, but most of the "revolver people" I talk to say they almost never cock the hammer.

A lot of people seem to think revolvers should not have hammer spurs. I on the other hand (with my vast knowledge of the topic ) generally speaking prefer having a hammer spur on a revolver. Of course if I were to pocket carry one, that would be a different matter, but that is not my application for revolvers. Uses for the hammer spur that I can think of are:

1) Placing ones thumb behind the hammer spur during reholstering.
2) Cocking into single action for a long range shot may be rare, but I still prefer having the capability. (I'm actually fairly seriously thinking of putting a red dot on my Mountain Gun and really giving that sweet, sweet single action trigger some work at longer ranges. I've shot it at the rifle range before, but my eyes somewhat limit my ability to use the iron sights to their fullest.)
3) After loading a revolver, pulling the hammer back juuust slightly (maybe 2mm?) allows the cylinder to spin freely. This enables one to check that there are no high primers or anything else impeding cylinder movement. If I were to carry a revolver as a defensive weapon, I would do this check with all my carry ammunition.
4) If pulling the double action trigger becomes difficult or impossible, whether due to injury or debris, a primer backing out, etc., the hammer spur enables one to thumb-cock the hammer in order to keep firing the gun in an emergency. (Any time you you have to force a revolver to do something, something is wrong and the gun should be considered non-functional until it gets checked out. But in an emergency you do what you must.)

The downsides of a hammer spur, as I understand them, are:

1) Snagging hazard when pocket carrying.
2) An inexperienced user might cock the hammer in a scary situation, and then they have a really light and short trigger pull and no ability to safely decock the gun. This seems to be generally speaking the main objection for the existence of hammer spurs.

While I do understand those points, I humbly suggest that for me, they are not applicable. For others, as the saying goes, their mileage may vary.

[Stephanie B]

Duelist covered the basic history of the frame sizes.

3" J-frames make for good kit guns: Guns that aren't heavy and carry easily on a belt or in a tackle box, but will do what you need to do and have enough mass to be able to shoot comfortably.

If you are going to shoot a lot of full-charge .357s, you'll appreciate an N-frame. A six-inch Model 27 is an excellent hunting gun. It will whack down non-dangerous game; it also will be easy enough on the hands to practice with. (If you're going to do much hunting larger critters, you might look hard at a Model 57 [.41 Magnum].)

K-frames give you six honest shots with either .38 or .357. Up until the new iteration of the Model 19/66, as others have explained, they are best with .38s.

For a carry gun that is a little more recoil-friendly, an L-frame is a good choice. If it wasn't for those execrable self-littering bottom-feeders, you'd see them everywhere (or GP-100s).

[Rex G]

Previous replies have covered it well, mostly. One thing I did not remember seeing mentioned, however, is the simple factor of hand size. J-Frames are a best fit for some few small-handed folks, independent of the concealment factor, and some large-handed folks are best-fit by N-Frames.

I have long palms, but medium-length fingers, and relatively short thumbs. The big grip nestles nicely into my hand, but I cannot reach the trigger of an N-Frame, for a proper DA pull, while keeping the rear of the frame in an ergonomically-favorable position, unless I use very thin grip panels, which means the resulting surface area concentrates recoil in one small spot. If I use wider grip panels, especially a wrap-around style, I have to use what some trainers term an “h-grip” hold, which channels recoil into the base joint of the thumb. Either way, and I tried both, the cumulative effect of recoil is being very unkind to the shooting hand’s thumb, hand, and wrist. It took five to six years for me to finally realize that Magnums, and N-Frames, were not a good equation for my hands/fingers/thumbs. Actually, I backed away from .44 Mag after one year, but kept pounding myself with .41 Magnum, for about another five years.

Life would be much, much better, today, had I had been a more-observant student of ergonomics in the mid-Eighties. Things done to one’s body, in one’s twenties, will manifest themselves in one’s fifties.

[okie john]

I grew up on S&W revolvers. People have covered the origin of the frame sizes. My notes as follows.

A) J-Frames are great for pocket carry but are least fun to shoot. And while some may be able to shoot magnums, it's really unfun. There's no real reason to have a long-barreled J-Frame because it would be disproportionate to the grip and wouldn't make sense if you couldn't pocket carry anymore. J-Frames should be DAO with no external hammer so the hammer can't bind on clothing for a pocket draw. Please correct me if there's even a single non-aesthetic reason to have an external hammer on a j-frame.

I agree with shooting magnums in a J-frame. I learned to shoot a handgun with my father’s S&W Kit Gun, the precursor to the Model 34. It was essentially a J-frame in 22 LR with a 4” barrel and adjustable sights. These guns are ideal for people with small hands, and can be very accurate. I head-shot a LOT of birds and other small game with that old revolver back in the day. Smith also made the Model 35, which is a Model 34 with a six-inch barrel. I’ve always thought they were among the most elegant revolvers ever made, but the trigger reach is so short that I can’t shoot one well. Same problem with the Model 60 in 38 Special, which was once made with a 3" full-underlug barrel and adjustable sights and shot like a rifle despite the short barrel. The 38 Special J-frame with a 3" heavy barrel is of an acquired taste, but once you acquire it, it's hard to go back. I much prefer a six-inch K-frame in 22 LR. So for reasons to have an external hammer on a J-frame, I’d cite precision and teaching new shooters. You should also check out the Model 38, which has a shrouded hammer and offers the best of both worlds.

B) K-Frames seem to be the best all around size as long as you don't need to shoot anything hotter than .357 magnum, and even then, you shouldn't shoot too much out of it. However, occasional 357 mag use is okay, which makes the K-Frame great for someone who wants to run a lot of .38 through it at the range but occasionally run 357 as an outdoor anti-bear or hunting round. K-Frames could be useful in snubbie, standard 4", or extended 6" depending on needs. The snubbie seems like it could be good for AIWB, but if you're carrying in any other position, it would seem like 4" is optimal since it won't make it much harder to carry. 6" is best for hunting (where 6" may be legal minimum length) or outdoor distance target shooting. I can see a use for all 3 barrel lengths on a K-frame

Fair enough. There are also some 8 3/8” K-frames floating around, and they’re extremely accurate.

C) L-frames seem a bit bigger than K-frame and would probably be optimal if you were running 357 magnums regularly through them for whatever reason. Or possibly if you're a larger person and the extra size doesn't matter. For the average person (who probably doesn't need or want to shoot a lot of 357 magnums), it doesn't seem like L-Frame would actually be better than K-Frame given the larger size and increased weight. Perhaps the average person does want to shoot a lot of 357 magnum. And if that were the case, I'd reverse my opinion on K and L-Frame.

Not everyone would agree with this, but I do.

D) N-frames are even larger than L-Frames. I believe they were primarily developed for .44mag use because that round couldn't be put into an L-frame. As far as a snubbie N-Frame, perhaps .44mag is better against bears than .357 mag, and the person doesn't want to carry a full size 4"+ barrel revolver into the woods? But other than that, I struggle to see the functional desire for an N-frame in a snubbie size. It would seem like N-frames would be optimized for 4" and above barrels in calibers that start with a "4"

Agree with most of this, though many would not. Also, the N-frame was the original home of the 44 Magnum, but is not the best platform for it today. I prefer to keep N-frame loads to a 250-grain bullet at about 1,000 fps. Anything hotter is better in a Ruger Bisley, though many disagree.

I'm also unsure about external hammers. I see a lot of smaller guns that have external hammers, and it seems odd. I've read that it's extremely rare for a DA revolver to be cocked for SA use. The main benefit of the external hammer to me, as someone who prefers AIWB, would be as a "SCD-type role" that I can my thumb on when re-holstering. But if you're not carrying it AIWB (which anything greater than 3" barrel is probably too long for AIWB, maybe 4" might work on some people?), and you're not cocking it for SA shots, then it seems like a liability. Unless it's there for aesthetics. I like the idea of being able to cock the hammer into SA mode for really long distance shots, but most of the "revolver people" I talk to say they almost never cock the hammer.

You’re overlooking Mexican carry, which is similar to AIWB. I prefer a six-inch revolver in Mexican carry over a four-inch gun. It just hangs better that way.

I'm genuinely trying to learn more about revolvers and apologize in advance if I come across and making broad sweeping generalizations. That's not my intent, especially because I have almost no real world experience with revolvers. I've spent dozens of hours reading old threads and looking at pictures of guns and trying to figure out what task each gun is optimized for. And it's starting to make sense to me, but the N-frame has me confused. Also, I want to know if my ideas about the other frame sizes are correct or if I am missing something.

I'm open to the possibility that the answer is "just because" which is to say that people are free to do what they want and buy guns that don't "make sense" but that they enjoy.

You've got it roughly figured out. From there, it's mostly opinion.

If you want to go deeper, get a copy of Sixguns by Elmer Keith. Most of the best writing about revolvers is in print, not online.


Okie John

[Duelist]

Previous replies have covered it well, mostly. One thing I did not remember seeing mentioned, however, is the simple factor of hand size. J-Frames are a best fit for some few small-handed folks, independent of the concealment factor, and some large-handed folks are best-fit by N-Frames.

I have long palms, but medium-length fingers, and relatively short thumbs. The big grip nestles nicely into my hand, but I cannot reach the trigger of an N-Frame, for a proper DA pull, while keeping the rear of the frame in an ergonomically-favorable position, unless I use very thin grip panels, which means the resulting surface area concentrates recoil in one small spot. If I use wider grip panels, especially a wrap-around style, I have to use what some trainers term an “h-grip” hold, which channels recoil into the base joint of the thumb. Either way, and I tried both, the cumulative effect of recoil is being very unkind to the shooting hand’s thumb, hand, and wrist. It took five to six years for me to finally realize that Magnums, and N-Frames, were not a good equation for my hands/fingers/thumbs. Actually, I backed away from .44 Mag after one year, but kept pounding myself with .41 Magnum, for about another five years.

Life would be better, today, had I had been a more-observant student of ergonomics in the mid-Eighties. Things done in one’s twenties will manifest themselves in one’s fifties.

QFT.

I have large hands. J-frames are usually workable because I can adapt down pretty easily, and depending on caliber and mindset and concealment needs can be pretty good. Grips and caliber and load make a huge difference in whether I want to actually shoot a J.

N-frames can be nice, or completely unworkable, depending on grips, caliber, and load. .44 magnum is not my friend: I fired 3 full-power .44 Magnums from a coke-bottle target gripped 29 one day, unloaded the rest of the cylinder, and have never fired another .44 since. If the grips had suited me better, I might have fired a few more. This is why my N-frame is a .357, and why it wears a rosewood Hogue grip with finger grooves that suit me. .38 loads that are tolerable to shoot a lot of and practice with through an Airweight J are like a .22 through an N frame. +P hot .38s are fun to shoot, where they are fine in a K and torture in an Airweight J. Mid-range .357s are still fun; full-power heavy bullet .357s are a different kind of fun, and only in small quantities. They get quickly not fun if the grips are not right.

K-frames can fit me the best of any gun ever, or can feel small and squirmy, or can feel a little too big, depending on grip choice. The Herretts I have on my .22 are a little bit big at the bottom of the grip, but fit well everywhere else and the gun is just a .22, so fit is more a problem for ensuring perfect trigger manipulation and accuracy than a recoil control issue. Magnas and a T-grip work well for me with any square butt K. The 3” round butt heavy barrel .357 is fine with the round butt Hogue Bantams it has right now for shooting any .38 and for mild to medium hot Magnums; I have never fired full power loads through it, nor do I intend to do so. It came with the thin, frame matching factory wood grips. Those were okay with some .38s, but awkward to control with hotter loads, and impossible with even mild .357.

Frame size is not the only thing to think about.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A) J-Frames are great for pocket carry but are least fun to shoot. And while some may be able to shoot magnums, it's really unfun. There's no real reason to have a long-barreled J-Frame because it would be disproportionate to the grip and wouldn't make sense if you couldn't pocket carry anymore. J-Frames should be DAO with no external hammer so the hammer can't bind on clothing for a pocket draw. Please correct me if there's even a single non-aesthetic reason to have an external hammer on a j-frame.

About J frames - they come in different flavors, materials and weight as mentioned. The pocket guns are for deep concealment and we have discussed reasonable rounds for 'stopping' power that are shootable in Js, such as the wadcutters, lower recoil 38 SPL, the 22 LR and 22 mag varieties (start the flame war on those but respectable folks carry a light weight J frame in these), and the 32s (such as the 32 HR mag and 327 mag - or even the 32 SW Longs if really recoil shy). For those the hammerless versions make lots of sense.

Then there are folks who might want to carry a revolver belt gun and, guess what, their hands just don't like the Ks, Ls, etc. The 3 inch Model 60s, 63s, 632s (not in production) are just fine belt guns. A model 60 with a good 38 SPL round is not to be sneezed as an EDC or outdoors gun. Let's start the 5 is enough war but if you go this way with small hands, it's a good gun. I fouind that a SW Model 19 isn't that comfy to carry and my little hands don't like it. I don't mind carrying my 632 in 327 mag (but it's really only do and from a match where I shoot it). My EDC is a 9mm Glock. Having a hammer is nice - granted you don't make that many long shots - I practice those DA but one never knows. Semis have some models with hammers - why is that .

AIWB is a nonstarter for me and my world doesn't revolve (pun) around it. Thus, hand size and carry ease for some folks. Shot two Js this weekend - fun and one can do it reasonably well at standard IDPA distances. Training with Js is a good idea - that's why I took Claude's class. I would take more training if it was convenient - personal concerns keep me close to home nowadays.

[powell556]

Thanks for the interesting replies so far. I keep learning more and more about revolvers everyday!

It sounds as though there's a lot of history and path dependency as for why certain guns exist (if one frame size came out years or decades after another, then S&W was forced to compromise on the frame sizes that existed at the time, but then once the different frame comes out, there's momentum in people wanting/buying the legacy "compromise"

Here's my follow up question. I imagine this will be really subjective, and people will disagree others' opinions. What combinations are suboptimal by today's standards, given the frames that exist?

For example, does it make sense to have a 6" L-Frame when 6" N-Frames exist? Given combinations of frame size, barrel length, and caliber, which combinations make the least sense in 2019, and which combinations are really the sweet spot for each frame (barrel length and caliber)?

It sounds like personal preference on hand-size could impact a person's decisions. So in that respect, maybe every single caliber in every single barrel length is needed in every single frame size, in case that frame size fits the person's hand well (as long as that frame size can support the caliber).

But maybe ignoring hand-size, which combinations make the least sense, and which combinations really excel in a given frame size?