Nightcrawler
Member
From a lot of the discussion I've read on here, the S&W K-Frame .357 Magnums aren't strong enough to hold up to a steady diet of .357 Magnum ammo. I mean, from what I've gathered, if you shoot .357 Magnum ammunition every time you practice (perhaps even "lite" magnum stuff like most companies make, instead of "hot" magnum stuff like Buffalo Bore makes) you'll knock the revolver out of time long before it should
So Colt introduced the Python to make a stronger .357, making it on a slightly larger frame (but smaller than S&W's original "strong" .357, the M27 family). Ruger upgraded from the Security Six line to the GP100 to make a stronger .357. Dan Wessons, though only slightly larger than K-Frames in size, were apparently stronger all along due to having forged frames.
Eventually, I've gathered, S&W introduced the L-Frame to lay to rest concerns with K-Frame S&Ws being "weak".
But that was then.
While S&Ws still probably aren't as "strong" as Rugers, they can more than hold their own. They now have a 7-Shot L-Frame .357 and an EIGHT shot N-Frame .357.
So, from looking at it, you might be tempted to think that, amongst .357s:
-J-Frame = 5 Shots
-K-Frame = 6 Shots
-L-Frame = 7 Shots
-N-Frame = 8 Shots
Fair enough, right? Larger frame, more rounds!
But, what does that have to do with strength? Or, have improvements in metallurgy made it possible to drill more holes in the cylinder without compromising the ability to handle a steady diet of warm to hot magnum loads?
Is an 8-shot 627 as durable as a 6-shot 27? Is a 7-shot 686P as durable as a six shot version? Will a five shot J-Frame or a six shot K-Frame stand the same diets of .357 Ammo that a 7-shot L-Frame will?
I mean, S&Ws aren't really fragile, are they?
Because, while I've more or less decided that if I buy a new .357, it'll be a GP100, I don't want to make a decision well before the fact, either, and who knows? I might find a good deal on a 686 or a 686P. In the latter case, that extra hole in the cylinder might be awfully tempting.
Hmm...I guess .45 Colt has spoiled me, as did the .41 Magnum I had for a time. 175 grains at 1250 feet per second (which would probably be considered pretty hot in a .357 load) were fun to shoot in .41, as are 200 grainers at 1100 feet per second in .45 Colt.
There aren't .357 Magnum rounds available that are made cheap for practice, but are loaded hotter than a lot of the watered-down plinking stuff you see, are there? (I mean, 158 grains at 1250 feet per second really isnt' all that hot for a .357....doesn't mean they're not good rounds, I'm just wondering how much oomph I can get for my buck with a .357 magnum.)
So Colt introduced the Python to make a stronger .357, making it on a slightly larger frame (but smaller than S&W's original "strong" .357, the M27 family). Ruger upgraded from the Security Six line to the GP100 to make a stronger .357. Dan Wessons, though only slightly larger than K-Frames in size, were apparently stronger all along due to having forged frames.
Eventually, I've gathered, S&W introduced the L-Frame to lay to rest concerns with K-Frame S&Ws being "weak".
But that was then.
While S&Ws still probably aren't as "strong" as Rugers, they can more than hold their own. They now have a 7-Shot L-Frame .357 and an EIGHT shot N-Frame .357.
So, from looking at it, you might be tempted to think that, amongst .357s:
-J-Frame = 5 Shots
-K-Frame = 6 Shots
-L-Frame = 7 Shots
-N-Frame = 8 Shots
Fair enough, right? Larger frame, more rounds!
But, what does that have to do with strength? Or, have improvements in metallurgy made it possible to drill more holes in the cylinder without compromising the ability to handle a steady diet of warm to hot magnum loads?
Is an 8-shot 627 as durable as a 6-shot 27? Is a 7-shot 686P as durable as a six shot version? Will a five shot J-Frame or a six shot K-Frame stand the same diets of .357 Ammo that a 7-shot L-Frame will?
I mean, S&Ws aren't really fragile, are they?
Because, while I've more or less decided that if I buy a new .357, it'll be a GP100, I don't want to make a decision well before the fact, either, and who knows? I might find a good deal on a 686 or a 686P. In the latter case, that extra hole in the cylinder might be awfully tempting.
Hmm...I guess .45 Colt has spoiled me, as did the .41 Magnum I had for a time. 175 grains at 1250 feet per second (which would probably be considered pretty hot in a .357 load) were fun to shoot in .41, as are 200 grainers at 1100 feet per second in .45 Colt.
There aren't .357 Magnum rounds available that are made cheap for practice, but are loaded hotter than a lot of the watered-down plinking stuff you see, are there? (I mean, 158 grains at 1250 feet per second really isnt' all that hot for a .357....doesn't mean they're not good rounds, I'm just wondering how much oomph I can get for my buck with a .357 magnum.)