The K Frame

[Bellevance]

Very nice, steelhead. What's she wearing? Ebony?

 

[michael_aos]

 

[steelhead]

Silver grey laminate made by Badger grips.

 

[k-frame]

Model 67 circa 1985, original walnut grips replaced with Hogues (and wow, does it feel better now...). And it shoots great! I'll post a pic in a few days.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Oh, yeah...forgot to show the credentials at the door.

M65, 3"HB, lightly customized with bead blasting and orange front sight insert.

M13, 3"HB, bone stock, with lots of honest wear. Smooth as buttah.

M10, 3" HB, bone stock.

Guess my favorite barrel length in a K-frame...

 

[TheBigL]

i love my model 10-5 2" snubbie with pearl handle grips, its one of the best shooting pistols ive ever owned or shot.

 

[colubrid]

Oh mY !.. That is is sweet marcos.

I have my M13 coming this week. It was modded with a bobbed hammer and trigger job. Will post when it gets here.

 

[colubrid]

BTW

Does anyone have an extra pair of K-frame pachmayers they want to sell? I want to dress mine in the same way Marcos has his above.

 

[XavierBreath]

M&P Model of 1899

 

[lawboy]

I posted higher up but I cannot help but revisit this topic as I am a true K Frame addict. The K Frame is the hightest evolution of the fighting handgun in my studied opinion. Some will argue the point, citing the N Frame moonclip guns, or the L Frame holster guns, or the J frame hideout guns. But in each case, these guns are not optimum fighting weapons.

The N Frame guns are large and heavy and do not make good concealment weapons. They are slower from the holster and slower down from recoil and they are too inefficient in the size/weight/power matrix when chambered in 45ACP, 10mm or 357.

The L Frame guns are better than the N Frames, but still too big and heavy for comfortable concealed carry, have a noticeably higher bore axis and thus more muzzle flip than the K Frames. They are excellent holster guns and good fighting guns but they are not great fighting guns all around due to the limitations as concealed carry guns.

The J Frames are purpose-built hideout guns and they excel at this function. But they are built more for carry and concealment than for actual gun fighting. I am not saying that they cannot be fight stoppers or very effective in a gunfight. I am saying that they are, by design, optimized more for being available than for being useful in a fight.

Finally, some will argue that the new ultralight guns in the L and N and J frames are th ultimate fighting guns. Again, these guns are optimized for carry and not for actual gunfighting. They sometimes have issues with bullet pull, all have severe recoil management and second shot management challenges.

The K Frames have balanced weight, size, ergonomics and dynamic handling qualities in a way no other revolvers did before or have done since and they remain THE BEST fighting revolvers ever made. Period.

Flame away! hehe.

 

[ugaarguy]

Lawboy no flames here. You've eloquently explained why I love the K Frame, and I've no doubt many others here agree.

Marko thanks for posting those beautiful pics of the highly sought after 3" K Frames.

Xavier, thank you for posting that example of the original revolver that developed into this K Frame family of guns.

 

[fiVe]

Alright! Another club thread and such great pics, too!!

 

[Heywood Case]

Sounds like your barrel/cylinder gap is too narrow.

I recall hearing about gas rings expanding in hot guns and binding up the wheel on the earlier 65 models...that's why S&W moved the gas ring from yoke to cylinder in the -2 engineering change.

Thanks Marko. It's a 65-3, but in any event I'll have a smith take a look at it.

John

 

[AStone]

Uga, this is great. I'm happy to see the club concept catching on.
I think it's a good evolution at THR to help us organize information more efficiently.

I own L (686) and J (642). I don't own a K-frame (at least yet... ), but have just read the posts in your new club with interest. Lawboy's post was very informative. (Thanks for that essay.)

I think I'll just hang out for a while and read.

One question that I may have missed in my quick read: are there K's in .357?

Nem

642 Club (member)
686 Club (member)
336 Club (founder)

 

[Croyance]

Another fan here. My second revolver (first being a Taurus with a gritty trigger) was a K-frame. That is when I learned to appreciate revolvers. After my experience with my first revolver, it was a long line of semi-autos (which I really liked, to be honest).

 

[g5reality]

K vs L Brothers in Arms

In the May 2007 issue of Combat Handguns Magazine Todd Lofgren compares a Model 686+ 2.5" and a Model 19 3". In the first paragraph he says, "I would have liked to compare another K-frame gun, but alas, S&W recently discontinued all K-frame magnums in favor of it's more robust but slightly heftier L-frame guns."

He starts Paragraph 2 with..."In the Mid 1980s S&W began offering a beefed-up frame size called the Model 686 designed to better hold up to a steady diet of .357 Magnum ammo over the K-framed guns."

The performance test shows Two guns with nearly identical Velocity and accuracy shooting both .38 Special and .357 Magnum rounds.

He finishes with..."if you're a wheel gunner at heart looking for that perfect carry piece, this 7-shot 686 Plus snubby from Smith & Wesson might be your ticket.

I will be looking for a K frame to shoot and look forward to joining the K-frame club soon.

Your Brother in Arms

G5

 

[ugaarguy]

One question if I may, that I may have missed in my quick read: are there K's in .357?

Yep Nem, the M13, M19, M65, and M66 are all 357 Mag K-Frames.

Here's a bit more detail. From the M&P (available in 38 S&W Special, and 32 S&W) came the K-38, K-32, and K-22 Target Masterpiece revolvers. Their defining features are their 6" or 8 & 3/8" ribbed heavy bbls with Patridge front sight & micro click adjustable rear. At the request of the FBI, LAPD, and many others in the law enforcement community S&W modified the Target Masterpiece into the Combat Masterpice in .38 Spc & .22 LR. The Combat guns are known by their shoter bbls (4" being most common) with Baughman ramp front sights for easier drawing from a holster.

After 1957 S&W switched from names to model numbers. The M&P became the M10. The K-38 Target & Combat Masterpieces became the M14 & M15 respectively; though there are examples of custom order 14 s and 15s that have the opposite attributes. The K-22s became the 17 and 18 until some time in the 80s when both variants were sold as the 17. The stainless version is the 617.

The M&P went magnum as the M13 AKA "M&P Magnum". The Combat Masterpiece got it's 357 brother in the form of the M19 "Combat Magnum". The M64 is the stainless M&P, the M67 the stainless Combat Masterpice, the M65 the stainless M&P Magnum, and the M66 the stainless Combat Magnum.

Distinguished by their new-found heft, the L Frame 586 and 686 are also known as the "Distinguished Combat Magnum" and "Distinguished Combat Magnum Stainless" respectively. The 581 and 681 are the "Distinguished Service Magnums".

So there's a bit of the evolution of some the more common K Frames, and even the L frame offspring they sired.

 

[ugaarguy]

G5, as you note, the K Magnums can have problems with a steady and frequent diet of full house Magnum ammo. From my reading the lighter loads like the 125 gr. cause the most problems with top strap flame cutting and cracked forcing cones from frequent use. Also, from reading, I understand that the K Magnums also do better with the heavy bullet weights like 158 gr if they do recieve a steady diet of full house magnum ammo.

Most of my practice with my M66 is with 158 gr .38 Specials focusing on sight picture & trigger control. I'll also run a cylinder or two of 158gr SJHP 357 Mags thru it from time to time to maintain proficiency with the full house loads. I find this combination works well for me.

 

[AStone]

The K-22s became the 17 and 18 until some time in the 80s when both variants were sold as the 17. The stainless version is the 617.

Ahhh, so that's the connection between K-22 & 617.
I think Jad explained it to me recently, but it didn't sink in ... until now.

OK, lemme see if I got this right.

K-22 was a K frame, but is 617 an L? It looks like an L,
but I'm not sure what it's official designation is.
(K and L are lumped together on SW site.)

Honestly, my next revolver purchase will most likely be a 617.

K's are beautiful, but may have to wait.

Such an interesting evolution between K & L.

 

[ugaarguy]

K-22 was a K frame, but is 617 an L? It looks like an L,
but I'm not sure what it's official designation is.

Nem I'll have to check. I think the 617 is a K Frame.

Such an interesting evolution between K & L.

Much like your Marlin 336, your S&W 686 is the current evolution of a design that can be traced back over one hundred years. And that is quite interesting.

 

[AStone]

In an epiphony, of sorts ...

... while looking at Michael's posted (#27) images,
I suddenly saw the Model 64 3" (.38 +P)
as an "intermediate" revolver between
my 642 snub and my 686 .357 mag.

Da'um. This club is going to cost me money.

But the good thing is, it's only money.

Good revolvers are worth more than money.

 

[308win]

Somethings just look right proportionally. To me an older K frame with 4" barrel is the epitomy of looks right. As many K frames as there are out there what are the chances of S&W making a run of barrels in various lengths and calibers for pinned models?

 

[Checkman]

Finally getting a Model 14

Smith has made K frames with full barrel lugs in the past and present.

Last night I was at a local gunshop and found a beautiful Model 14 with 6" barrel and original factory target stocks (also known as the K38 Target Masterpiece). They wanted $400.00. I've put it on layaway. Guess I've been inspired.

Serial number gives it a date of birth of 1968.

For those who would argue that's too much I can tell you that guns go for higher prices in Southwestern Idaho. Folks buy guns here at a fantastic rate and don't have any qualms about the prices. Oh well.The important thing is I will finally have a Model 14 in my safe in a few months.

 

[Marko Kloos]

You simply cannot get revolvers of that quality anymore, and if S&W started making them again like they used to, they'd cost $1200 a piece.

So, no, $400 is not too much for a M14 in good shape, especially not considering that you'd have to spend two more bills just to get a stainless lock-equipped S&W with a two-piece barrel and less elaborate fit and finishing.

 

[JoeHatley]

The N Frame guns are large and heavy and do not make good concealment weapons.

There are exceptions...



Joe