smith wesson classic line

watched a fun review by hickock45 on the new model 19 versus an older one.

Hickock45 was very passionate in his hate of the safety lock, its a genuine pain to have, however in a side by side comparison, the safety lock necessitated a change in the frame around the hammer.

The change reduced the nice curve of the frame, and put more metal in it. It hides most of the hammer now below the spur. With that change, and the change eliminating the flat cut on the forcing cone, does this mean a true increase in strength/durability has happened to the basic frame of the K series?

I wouldn't think it adds strength to anywhere that matters. Added strength in my mind happens around the top strap, crane, crane housing, and barrel threads.

+1 The flaw, if you can call it that of the K Frame 357's has always been the top strap and the cut away on the bottom of the forcing cone. The frame and side plate were not notable as points of failure. The Lock adds nothing except sales in Maryland and Massachusetts.

I agree with the above posters. It has no real bearing on the strength of the gun.

Attachment 325253
Click to enlarge.

Here's a photo: Bottom to top, older Model 10, older Model 15, newer Mod. 67 with lock hole. Yes, the frame does ride up a bit higher on the hammer, but in no way restricts access to the hammer spur. As for strength...how would one know unless they tested the guns to destruction? A difference, but not a difference of significance.

DG

The increased metal on the bottom of the barrel certainly helps, as one of the biggest issues with original k-frame .357s was that the barrel would crack with enough use of light high velocity bullets. The increased metal in the frame around the hammer is not a point of failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thom_44

watched a fun review by hickock45 on the new model 19 versus an older one.

Hickock45 was very passionate in his hate of the safety lock, its a genuine pain to have, however in a side by side comparison, the safety lock necessitated a change in the frame around the hammer.

The change reduced the nice curve of the frame, and put more metal in it. It hides most of the hammer now below the spur. With that change, and the change eliminating the flat cut on the forcing cone, does this mean a true increase in strength/durability has happened to the basic frame of the K series?

---

They have been completely redesigned with new tech and modern metallurgy. As far as the lock is concerned--many people hate them saying it degraded the trigger pull. I've never handled one with a lock. Here is a really good vid of a former S&W armorer going over the new Mod19
https://youtu.be/4h9l2ipiKf4?si=zgigqNcWVqG1WPZG&t=795

Well, the removal of the flat on the underside of the barrel might make the chances of cracking a forcing cone a little smaller. But the K-Frame is still not designed for a steady diet of magnum ammo. The barrel shank is just TOO SMALL, and the frame and it's top strap are just not beefy enough, likely resulting in more than the normal amount of frame stretch with heavy ammo.

Now, with that said, assuming you load appropriate ammo, you can more than likely enjoy a lot of magnum ammo through one. I have an old Model 65 that has shot it's share of magnum ammo. But none of what I have put through it was light weight bullets. It's always been 158gr - 190gr. One of the new ones would probably fare about the same if shot with similar ammo. But there is a reason we saw the rise of the L-Frame. K-frames just loosen up over time with the magnum ammo.

Well Im not interested in, or a proponent of light bullets at high velocities in any firearm.

Im more interested in wadcutters, although I do have to admit an interest in some of the hornady and alliant loads for high speed wadcutters.

The new 357 K frames have a redesigned yoke for more clearance of the barrel shank-which allowed S&W to use an L frame barrel shank in a K frame. The forcing cone was the weak point in magnum K frames before and now that's no longer an issue.
The recontouring of the frame around the hammer when the lock was added in the early 2000's is no factor in the strength equation and the frame material and heat treat is the same stuff that's been done on 19's for decades.

Bottom line, the larger barrel shank is a big improvement for endurance life of the new Model 19.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JRD

The new 357 K frames have a redesigned yoke for more clearance of the barrel shank-which allowed S&W to use an L frame barrel shank in a K frame. The forcing cone was the weak point in magnum K frames before and now that's no longer an issue.
The recontouring of the frame around the hammer when the lock was added in the early 2000's is no factor in the strength equation and the frame material and heat treat is the same stuff that's been done on 19's for decades.

Bottom line, the larger barrel shank is a big improvement for endurance life of the new Model 19.

---

Good to know. They'll still probably have issues with frame stretch with a healthy diet of magnums. I don't see how they'd get around that. But as long as the cylinder gaps don't exceed .010" they'll still be serviceable. Most people are not going to strictly shoot magnum loads though. In my experience, I probably shoot 100rds of 38spl for every single Magnum load I shoot. Just makes more sense to practice without beating up the gun. I wouldn't mind having one of the Classic 27s though.

The lock is stupid and ugly, but easy to permanently deactivate by removing the little nub on the inside of the flag that catches the hammer when it is locked. Did that to my 637-2 and never had a problem, in fact the only time I remember it has a lock is when these threads come up. Love that little pocket rocket, one of a very few guns I have fired so much that it needed the springs replaced. The others are my Glock 19 and a really old Marlin 995 .22.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve urquell

They have been completely redesigned with new tech and modern metallurgy. As far as the lock is concerned--many people hate them saying it degraded the trigger pull. I've never handled one with a lock. Here is a really good vid of a former S&W armorer going over the new Mod19
https://youtu.be/4h9l2ipiKf4?si=zgigqNcWVqG1WPZG&t=795

---

I recently purchased a M27 Classic 4" barrel. I do not own a old model, but I have friends that do and have compared them side by side. My classic has a MUCH heavier double action pull. Now this was compared before I even shot the gun, so it may not be a fair assessment. It has lightened some as I have shot it (about 200 rounds so far), but it is still not even close. The single action pull is very crisp and light. Not quite as good as the older one, but darn close. The finish of the classic is very well done, and the overall fit is very well put together. The blueing is not as deep as the old model, but I find it attractive for todays standards.

As far as the things I dont like besides the double action pull... The black out front sight drives me nuts, but thats purely personal preference. I also hate the grip on the 4" version. It is very small and I find it hard to make a double action pull with the proper part of my finger without adjusting my grip (which decreases my recoil management with .357.) I have very average size hands so I feel it is a fair assessment to make and is not biased.

Am I the only one to see the irony in S&W using the term "Classic" for a line of revolvers incorporating the widely reviled lock?

If Nikon could reissue a 35mm film, all-manual Rangefinder camera built by hand to exact original specs, it seems to me S&W could've done an authentic reissue of their beloved, blue steel classic revolvers (sans lock!) for us hard-nosed originalists, yet kept the extant new models (with lock) for those less fortunate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pdgoutdoors

I recently purchased a M27 Classic 4" barrel. I do not own a old model, but I have friends that do and have compared them side by side. My classic has a MUCH heavier double action pull. Now this was compared before I even shot the gun, so it may not be a fair assessment. It has lightened some as I have shot it (about 200 rounds so far), but it is still not even close. The single action pull is very crisp and light. Not quite as good as the older one, but darn close. The finish of the classic is very well done, and the overall fit is very well put together. The blueing is not as deep as the old model, but I find it attractive for todays standards.

As far as the things I dont like besides the double action pull... The black out front sight drives me nuts, but thats purely personal preference. I also hate the grip on the 4" version. It is very small and I find it hard to make a double action pull with the proper part of my finger without adjusting my grip (which decreases my recoil management with .357.) I have very average size hands so I feel it is a fair assessment to make and is not biased.

---

Thanks for the detailed review. Still sounds like a great gun in spite of the lock, I love those N-frame Smiths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6string

Am I the only one to see the irony in S&W using the term "Classic" for a line of revolvers incorporating the widely reviled lock?

If Nikon could reissue a 35mm film, all-manual Rangefinder camera built by hand to exact original specs, it seems to me S&W could've done an authentic reissue of their beloved, blue steel classic revolvers (sans lock!) for us hard-nosed originalists, yet kept the extant new models (with lock) for those less fortunate.

---

Ahh, such is the pain of mass production.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6string

Am I the only one to see the irony in S&W using the term "Classic" for a line of revolvers incorporating the widely reviled lock?

If Nikon could reissue a 35mm film, all-manual Rangefinder camera built by hand to exact original specs, it seems to me S&W could've done an authentic reissue of their beloved, blue steel classic revolvers (sans lock!) for us hard-nosed originalists, yet kept the extant new models (with lock) for those less fortunate.

---

"Classic" in S&W case means fake, and it's the same advertising trick perpetrated by HD motorcycles after 1984_
this does not necessarily mean bad functioning or inferior quality, but it is just an advertising lie_

I agree about the “Classic” label that S&W tries to push. Just leave it at a dash number and call it good.

with all the nice originals available + at reasonable prices, why would anyone even consider the reissues ?

Smith and Wesson is the only company that incorporates a lock on their new revolvers. They are not going to sell any to me.