Double action revolver discussion and general shenanigans

[okie john]

Okie John:

A couple of thoughts. I suspect you are aware of most of this, but it is worth repeating for newer revolver devotees. Inspector Bill Jordan of the U.S. Border Patrol was instrumental in getting Smith and Wesson ("S&W") to adopt the Combat Magnum, later named the Model 19. Prior to this the only 357 Magnum chambered guns made by S&W were built on the original "N" frame. Jordan opined that the new "K" frame Combat Magnums were to be primarily shot with 38 Special ammunition and carried with 357 magnum ammo. That worked back in the 50s and 60s for a couple of reasons. First, training with lower powered ammo and carrying higher powered ammo was acceptable. Second, the advent of 125 grain jacketed hollow point 357 magnum was still in the future. So, these guns didn't get beat up too badly. Once the 70s arrived, there was a move to train and carry the same power level ammo is what started causing all of the problems with split forcing cones on S&W "K" frame size revolvers. Add to that the invention of and extensive use of 125 grain Magnum ammo and S&W K frames started to get beaten up pretty quickly. I would also note that the industry acceptable pressure levels of 357 Magnum ammunition were decreased sometime in the 70s/80s. I do not recall the specifics, but some of the original 357 magnum ammo was significantly more powerful than what is available commercially today. While the power levels of today's ammo are lower, my understanding was that the 125-grain magnum ammo was particularly bad because the powder gases actually began cutting through the top straps of revolvers.

Within the F.B.I. when I was working, revolvers were typically carried primarily with 38 Special ammunition. While I never carried a revolver chambered in 357 Magnum (I only carried 38 Special revolvers), my understanding was that agents could carry magnum ammo for reloads. There is some discussion about agents being allowed to carry their revolvers loaded with magnum, as opposed to 38 Special ammunition. Some say it required approval of your supervisor/Principal Firearms Instructor/Special Agent in Charge. Take your pick. My understanding (and I am willing to be educated by those more knowledgeable than myself) was that the vast majority of agents carried 38 Special ammunition. In S&W K frame revolvers, loaded and fired primarily with 38 Special ammunition, they tended to hold up pretty well. One of my retired coworkers who went through New Agent Training ("NAT") with an issued S&W Model 13 told me that for most of his NAT training, he fired wadcutter ammunition. He fired some service ammunition (38 Special +P 158 grain lead semiwadcutter ammo) during his NAT training but not a lot. In fact, my retired agent friend was in one of the last, if not the very last, revolver trained class. This would have been in 1989 or so.

During my time in the Bureau 38 Special, 38 Special +P and 38 Special +P+ was very common. What was uncommon was 357 magnum ammo. Some of it was around but not in anywhere the amounts that the various 38 Special loads were. I can also tell you that our Gun Vault at the FBI Academy in Quantico Virginia stocked a significant inventory of S&W revolver parts including replacement barrels for "J" and "K" and presumably "L" frame guns. I presume but cannot prove that the Gun Vault kept replacement barrels in stock because they were probably replaced from time to time. As a note, once an agent's weapon was approved and put on the agent's inventory list the Bureau provided all Maintenance for that weapon. I broke my personally owned Glock 21 and at various times the Bureau replaced the slide, barrel and receiver of that gun.

As to 357 Magnum ammo, all I ever saw was Winchester 145 grain SilverTip hollow point ammo. Until a recent post by EDW, I was unaware that the Bureau used anything other than 145 grain Silver Tip magnum ammo. My understanding was that the Silver Tip Magnum ammo was very effective but not as destructive on K frame guns. Our own Wayne Dobbs was a task force officer on a Bureau task force during a chunk of his career and probably has insights into revolver ammo used by the Bureau in this time frame.

I am also aware of a test done by the Border Patrol where they tested a Smith and Wesson Model 65 (three-inch barrel, stainless K frame), a Ruger Stainless Security Six with a four-inch barrel and a Ruger Stainless Speed Six with a 2.75 inch barrel. The test protocol was to fire 10,000 rounds of full power 158 grain jacketed hollow point 357 Magnum ammo. Both the Security Six and Speed Six fired all 10,000 rounds without any ill effects and were deemed to be serviceable enough to have the test guns issued to in-service personnel if I recall correctly. The S&W was only able to fire between 2,500 and 3,000 rounds before the test was suspended. It was my understanding that the Border Patrol later adopted the Ruger Security Six series of revolvers. One of my mentors fired a documented 3,000 rounds of Federal 158 grain jacketed hollow point ammo in, I believe, a S&W Model 66 (stainless 4-inch equivalent to a Model 19) and it began to malfunction. My mentor sent the gun to S&W who advised that the receiver was stretched so far out of specification that it could not be repaired and replaced his gun.

What does all of this mean? For me, S&W revolvers other than N frames are guns to be shot only with 38 Special ammo. In fact, I am cautious about shooting lots of magnum ammo in my N frame. Parts are getting harder to source for these older guns and I don't want to risk a problem when I have better options (at least in terms of repairs). I have little or no real-world experience with "L" frame guns, but I have been advised that they are not the panacea everyone thinks they are in terms of long-term use of magnum ammunition. If some wants to supply me with an L frame and a pile of magnum ammo, I'd be happy to test the hypothesis and report my results. I have no experience with the new K frame guns with the internal lock and I cannot speak to their longevity. If I need to run magnum ammo, I use either Ruger Security Six series or later GP-100 revolvers. On a personal note, I still believe that the 357 offers a significant increase in performance. While many prefer to use 38 Special ammo, I still carry either 125 grain or 145 grain magnum ammo in my GP-100.

Hope that helps.

Thank you, sir. Always best to hear it from someone who saw it happen.

Absolutely agree, preferably in view of the Rockies with a pot of cowboy coffee brewing.

I can be on the road in 45 minutes.


Okie John

[Bruce Cartwright]

Thank you, sir. Always best to hear it from someone who saw it happen.



I can be on the road in 45 minutes.


Okie John

Okie John:

Well, I have access to a private range near Bigfork Montana that is located at the base of the Rockies in the Flathead Valley. Maybe we should do a range day/get together. I am also aware of a possible revolver match possibly being planned for the Boise area that is within driving distance. Thoughts?

Bruce

[okie john]

Okie John:

Well, I have access to a private range near Bigfork Montana that is located at the base of the Rockies in the Flathead Valley. Maybe we should do a range day/get together. I am also aware of a possible revolver match possibly being planned for the Boise area that is within driving distance. Thoughts?

Bruce

I can see the Pacific from my back yard so that's kind of a haul, but let's keep the flame alive. @Totem Polar could probably be roped in as well.


Okie John

[jh9]

I have little or no real-world experience with "L" frame guns, but I have been advised that they are not the panacea everyone thinks they are in terms of long-term use of magnum ammunition. If some wants to supply me with an L frame and a pile of magnum ammo, I'd be happy to test the hypothesis and report my results.

The issues I'm mostly aware of for the (earlier) L-frames was mostly timing. I'm not aware of an L-frame cylinder stop notch getting blown out or a similar forcing cone failure like with the Ks. I think by the 1980s S&W was using the floating hand setup that was (by reputation) especially problematic in that regard. By the time they fixed it, the LE world had moved on to automatics almost entirely.

I've got about 20k on the clock across 3 of my Ls. Which isn't a lot for this place, but I think is a reasonable sample. All but ~3k of that on two of them. I was shooting more IDPA than anything else for awhile. In my range log I made a note that I fit a new hand in my primary at around 5k with an unknowable amount of dry firing. Most of that was double action shooting at a brisk pace. I think the splits discussion has been had here a couple times re: pushing them under .2 sec. I don't think the .45 N-frames were spared the same problem but I never shot ESR or USPSA REV before it stopped being the 625 division / started allowing 8-minor. So I think that's less a K/L/N issue and more just an inevitability of how IDPA/USPSA encourages you to run the gun.

For reference the 2 guns with most of that shooting were made in 1995 and 2000, so pretty much the last iterations of the design (CNC/MIM/etc) before they added the lock. The other is a 1987 or 1988 gun that needed a trip to the PC to get sorted out. In the early 00s when I sent it in they were still using replacement forged parts on the older guns so the new trigger they added ditched the floating hand if it was in there to begin with.

[SwampDweller]

Okie John:
On a personal note, I still believe that the 357 offers a significant increase in performance. While many prefer to use 38 Special ammo, I still carry either 125 grain or 145 grain magnum ammo in my GP-100.

Out of curiosity, what has led you to this conclusion? I agree based on what I've seen against game (as well as larger auto pistol calibers on animals vs 9mm). I believe DB has described before how the .357 Magnum had a reputation and track record on the street that far outperformed it's results in gel testing back in the days of Fackler. IIRC he said .357 was a solid performer in gel testing, but that it didn't quite match up with the spectacular track record in the real world. I like the 125gr loads as well, though I've gone to 158gr Remington SJHP due to underpenetration concerns. I suppose a load like the Speer Gold Dot 125gr bonded load would take care of that. Which 125gr loads do you like for carry?

Thank you for all of the information. It's fascinating.

[SwampDweller]

The issues I'm mostly aware of for the (earlier) L-frames was mostly timing. I'm not aware of an L-frame cylinder stop notch getting blown out or a similar forcing cone failure like with the Ks. I think by the 1980s S&W was using the floating hand setup that was (by reputation) especially problematic in that regard. By the time they fixed it, the LE world had moved on to automatics almost entirely.

I've got about 20k on the clock across 3 of my Ls. Which isn't a lot for this place, but I think is a reasonable sample. All but ~3k of that on two of them. I was shooting more IDPA than anything else for awhile. In my range log I made a note that I fit a new hand in my primary at around 5k with an unknowable amount of dry firing. Most of that was double action shooting at a brisk pace. I think the splits discussion has been had here a couple times re: pushing them under .2 sec. I don't think the .45 N-frames were spared the same problem but I never shot ESR or USPSA REV before it stopped being the 625 division / started allowing 8-minor. So I think that's less a K/L/N issue and more just an inevitability of how IDPA/USPSA encourages you to run the gun.

For reference the 2 guns with most of that shooting were made in 1995 and 2000, so pretty much the last iterations of the design (CNC/MIM/etc) before they added the lock. The other is a 1987 or 1988 gun that needed a trip to the PC to get sorted out. In the early 00s when I sent it in they were still using replacement forged parts on the older guns so the new trigger they added ditched the floating hand if it was in there to begin with.

My newly-acquired 625 Mountain Gun in .45 Colt was made sometime in the late 90s-to-early '00s, with the MIM parts/etc but before the lock. Do you think, if it broke, that the factory could still work on it even though they don't make that model anymore since it uses (I assume) the current lockwork?

[jh9]

My newly-acquired 625 Mountain Gun in .45 Colt was made sometime in the late 90s-to-early '00s, with the MIM parts/etc but before the lock. Do you think, if it broke, that the factory could still work on it even though they don't make that model anymore since it uses (I assume) the current lockwork?

I think they will. Haven't asked them myself, though.

AFAIK the difference between the original MIM hammers for the post-1997 frames (when they started with the frame mounted firing pin instead of a hammer nose) and the current hammers is just the cutout for the lock. The cutout will be visible in the pre-lock, post-1997 frame since the frame's contour around the hammer is different. But AFAIK the parts work. I think I've seen one of two of those guns with the post-lock hammers installed.

I believe the other parts are (at least dimensionally) the same as they were in 1997. Post-2002 they should differ only in the frame (w/ lock) and hammer. (Actually I think they started phasing in the MIM trigger, rebound, cylinder stop and bolts prior to 1997, but that's when they cut over to the new frame and standardized on the current MIM parts. I've also pulled forged parts out of post-1997 guns. I have a non-hammer-nose hammer with pinned stirrup and sear that came out of a 686-5 so there was some overlap. So far the only one I've ever seen, but they were apparently there. Probably for the post-1997 PC guns while they were still using forged parts, but it seems some of them made their way into regular production.)

[Bruce Cartwright]

Out of curiosity, what has led you to this conclusion? I agree based on what I've seen against game (as well as larger auto pistol calibers on animals vs 9mm). I believe DB has described before how the .357 Magnum had a reputation and track record on the street that far outperformed it's results in gel testing back in the days of Fackler. IIRC he said .357 was a solid performer in gel testing, but that it didn't quite match up with the spectacular track record in the real world. I like the 125gr loads as well, though I've gone to 158gr Remington SJHP due to underpenetration concerns. I suppose a load like the Speer Gold Dot 125gr bonded load would take care of that. Which 125gr loads do you like for carry?

Thank you for all of the information. It's fascinating.

Swamp Dweller:

My reasoning relied on the following, in no particular order. 1. Real-world observation of results and anecdotal reports from folks I trust. I lived through the revolver era in police work and was a gun guy way back then and had an interest in the subject. Folks who were shot with 125 grain 357 magnum ammo tended to stay shot and stop doing felonious things that caused them to get shot in the first place. 2. I also factored into the equation the need/desire to fire as few rounds during a deadly force scenario as possible. The combination of a 357 revolver with 125 grain magnum ammo worked pretty well in that scenario. Much like a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with 00 Buck or slugs, it tends to shut off felons decisively with few rounds. 3. While I do not discount gelatin testing, it is a means of comparison of ballistic performance of various cartridges. I believe you have to factor in real-world results as well. The 357/125 grain combination, while not passing FBI protocol in all the tests, had a real-world track record that comprised hundreds of shootings over the years. I am sure there were some (but not very many) failures over the years. Nothing man-made is infallible. I found it hard to argue with success. 4. I trusted the round and made sure I could handle the recoil and was competent at delivering that power level on target. 5. If I am going to carry a gun capable of discharging magnum cartridges, it didn't make sense to load it with less powerful rounds. It would sort of be like carrying a 17 shot semiauto pistol but only filling the magazine with ten rounds.

In terms of carry ammo, when I carry a revolver, I tend to use either Federal 125 grain jacketed hollow point ammo or Winchester 145 grain Silver Tip Hollow Point ammo. I have enough of both on hand that I haven't felt the need to buy newer ammo.

I did a serial post here on Pistol Forums about my experience of carrying a revolver daily for six months that was called "Wheelgun Challenge". Here is a link to the post I did that talked about magnum ballistics: "https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?43231-Wheelgun-Challenge-V!"

Hopefully that clarifies things a bit. If I missed the point, let me know and I will try to get your question answered.

Bruce

[Bruce Cartwright]

The issues I'm mostly aware of for the (earlier) L-frames was mostly timing. I'm not aware of an L-frame cylinder stop notch getting blown out or a similar forcing cone failure like with the Ks. I think by the 1980s S&W was using the floating hand setup that was (by reputation) especially problematic in that regard. By the time they fixed it, the LE world had moved on to automatics almost entirely.

I've got about 20k on the clock across 3 of my Ls. Which isn't a lot for this place, but I think is a reasonable sample. All but ~3k of that on two of them. I was shooting more IDPA than anything else for awhile. In my range log I made a note that I fit a new hand in my primary at around 5k with an unknowable amount of dry firing. Most of that was double action shooting at a brisk pace. I think the splits discussion has been had here a couple times re: pushing them under .2 sec. I don't think the .45 N-frames were spared the same problem but I never shot ESR or USPSA REV before it stopped being the 625 division / started allowing 8-minor. So I think that's less a K/L/N issue and more just an inevitability of how IDPA/USPSA encourages you to run the gun.

For reference the 2 guns with most of that shooting were made in 1995 and 2000, so pretty much the last iterations of the design (CNC/MIM/etc) before they added the lock. The other is a 1987 or 1988 gun that needed a trip to the PC to get sorted out. In the early 00s when I sent it in they were still using replacement forged parts on the older guns so the new trigger they added ditched the floating hand if it was in there to begin with.

JH9:

Thanks for posting about your experiences. One of the reasons I still post about stuff like this is to document it for folks who follow us.

Bruce

[SwampDweller]

Swamp Dweller:

My reasoning relied on the following, in no particular order. 1. Real-world observation of results and anecdotal reports from folks I trust. I lived through the revolver era in police work and was a gun guy way back then and had an interest in the subject. Folks who were shot with 125 grain 357 magnum ammo tended to stay shot and stop doing felonious things that caused them to get shot in the first place. 2. I also factored into the equation the need/desire to fire as few rounds during a deadly force scenario as possible. The combination of a 357 revolver with 125 grain magnum ammo worked pretty well in that scenario. Much like a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with 00 Buck or slugs, it tends to shut off felons decisively with few rounds. 3. While I do not discount gelatin testing, it is a means of comparison of ballistic performance of various cartridges. I believe you have to factor in real-world results as well. The 357/125 grain combination, while not passing FBI protocol in all the tests, had a real-world track record that comprised hundreds of shootings over the years. I am sure there were some (but not very many) failures over the years. Nothing man-made is infallible. I found it hard to argue with success. 4. I trusted the round and made sure I could handle the recoil and was competent at delivering that power level on target. 5. If I am going to carry a gun capable of discharging magnum cartridges, it didn't make sense to load it with less powerful rounds. It would sort of be like carrying a 17 shot semiauto pistol but only filling the magazine with ten rounds.

In terms of carry ammo, when I carry a revolver, I tend to use either Federal 125 grain jacketed hollow point ammo or Winchester 145 grain Silver Tip Hollow Point ammo. I have enough of both on hand that I haven't felt the need to buy newer ammo.

I did a serial post here on Pistol Forums about my experience of carrying a revolver daily for six months that was called "Wheelgun Challenge". Here is a link to the post I did that talked about magnum ballistics: "https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?43231-Wheelgun-Challenge-V!"

Hopefully that clarifies things a bit. If I missed the point, let me know and I will try to get your question answered.

Bruce

Yes, you hit the point on the head. Thank you.

Do you think a 3” barrel is still enough to get the performance that .357 Magnum has a reputation for? Or does it start at 4”?