The Awesome L-frames
- Thread starter Petrol & Powder
- Start date
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
The S&W L-frame and the Colt I-frame (Army Special, Official Police, Officers Model variants, 1st Generation Trooper, and Python) are fairly close in size. The Python and 357 Magnum Trooper have similar relative pressure-containment strength to that of the S&W L-frames and Ruger Security/Speed Six as well as their GP-100, but the Colt lockwork is not as robust as that of the other models, specifically the pawl/advancing hand that acts upon the cylinder to advance the chambers during firing. IMO, the S&W L-frames and the Ruger D/A revolvers doomed the Python series for these reasons. The Colts were dominant during a time when every town had at least one gunsmith that could do the maintenance on the intricate Colt lockworks that was required every 1500 rounds if D/A shooting was their primary usage mode. Most police departments had armorers or 'smiths so trained as well. Those conditions evaporated, beginning in the 1960s. Colt evaporated along that same time line.
It took S&W 45 years to finally get the 357 Magnum revolver "right"--the N-frames were robust, but oversized frames and 38 Special-length cylinders were handicaps in some users' minds. The K-frame S&W 357s were easily-carried, but full-time use of some 357 loads broke things or caused premature wear. S&W learned by looking around and listening, and in 1980 birthed the L-frames.
It took S&W 45 years to finally get the 357 Magnum revolver "right"--the N-frames were robust, but oversized frames and 38 Special-length cylinders were handicaps in some users' minds. The K-frame S&W 357s were easily-carried, but full-time use of some 357 loads broke things or caused premature wear. S&W learned by looking around and listening, and in 1980 birthed the L-frames.
Mowgli Terry
Active Member
There was much in the press in the day about M19/66 failures shooting 125gr. 357 Magnum cartridges. The L frame driving force was to give a service firearm that would stand up to extended use of magnum rounds. I recall that there was a certain so whatness about Ruger double actions at the time. Ruger's acceptance has dramatically changed. Used as originally intended there was no problem with 19's so far as I know.
Added: Smith M&P Hand Ejectors-K frames of the day were chambered for 32-20 WCF; Size wise, this worked out great for full length 357 Magnum rounds. I had friends that shot Colt's extensively. These guys knew to handle and care for the guns. Right, we had two gunsmiths in town that did great work. That's then this is now.
Added: Smith M&P Hand Ejectors-K frames of the day were chambered for 32-20 WCF; Size wise, this worked out great for full length 357 Magnum rounds. I had friends that shot Colt's extensively. These guys knew to handle and care for the guns. Right, we had two gunsmiths in town that did great work. That's then this is now.
Last edited:
Winelover
North Central Arkansas
Just resize your photos for this site. I have to do it all the time.
I stopped counting rounds though my 70's era (purchased new at $369) Python at 6K..........those were mostly 158 JSP with maximum loads of Blue dot, from old Speer's Manual. After replacing the barrel, due to forcing cone erosion, I switched to cast, exclusively. Never shot cast, before. Only other thing replaced was the hammer spring due to light primer strikes. Can't convince me on fragile lock work.......and I always fired it in DA. That's why I come to prefer DA over SA.
BTW, Python went back to Colt, after a few hundred rounds, when the original barrel was no longer lining up with the sights. Guess it missed the thread lock application, from the factory.
I stopped counting rounds though my 70's era (purchased new at $369) Python at 6K..........those were mostly 158 JSP with maximum loads of Blue dot, from old Speer's Manual. After replacing the barrel, due to forcing cone erosion, I switched to cast, exclusively. Never shot cast, before. Only other thing replaced was the hammer spring due to light primer strikes. Can't convince me on fragile lock work.......and I always fired it in DA. That's why I come to prefer DA over SA.
BTW, Python went back to Colt, after a few hundred rounds, when the original barrel was no longer lining up with the sights. Guess it missed the thread lock application, from the factory.
Last edited:
Mowgli Terry
Active Member
To compete with the Smith 357 Magnum Colt offed a large frame double action New Service and Single Action in 357. In print, Colt guns get overshadowed by the Smith&Wesson. guns. I remember Numrich Arms selling Colt New Service barrels and cylinders in 357 for a DIY project using 1917's as a base. I don't think either Colt gun was picked up after the war. Later, the single action was reintroduced.
The Colt Trooper came in 1953 with the Python in 1955. Not to be out done the Highway Patrolman/Model 28 was introduced in 1954. The Model 19/Combat Magnum came along in 1957. Looks like the competition for the 357 market was pretty keen in those days. It was smooth sailing for the Model 19 ending with widespread police use with 125gr. Magnum rounds. Then comes the L frame in 1980.
The Colt Trooper came in 1953 with the Python in 1955. Not to be out done the Highway Patrolman/Model 28 was introduced in 1954. The Model 19/Combat Magnum came along in 1957. Looks like the competition for the 357 market was pretty keen in those days. It was smooth sailing for the Model 19 ending with widespread police use with 125gr. Magnum rounds. Then comes the L frame in 1980.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
I strongly suspect the Colt had little to no influence over the L-frame development. S&W was addressing the shortcomings of the magnum K-frames when they designed the L-frame. A lot of the L-frame utilizes K-frame components and S&W only added metal where they needed. I would say the L-frame is more of an enlarged K-frame than a reduced N-frame.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
I think history is important here.
When the .357 Magnum cartridge was developed, S&W chambered their N-frame for it. Originally as the Registered Magnum and later as the Models 27 & 28. That was wise in terms of strength but less than ideal is terms of a carry gun. If you ever open a model 27 and look at those relatively small chambers (S&W calls them “charge holes”) you will see there is a LOT of extra metal in that huge cylinder. And that huge cylinder required an equally huge frame to contain it.
When the magnum K-frames were introduced and the conventional wisdom was the gun would be predominantly shot with 38 Special rounds but could occasionally fire .357 magnum rounds, the concept worked.
The Ruger DA Six’s (Security-Six, Service-Six and Speed-Six) were designed from the ground up as .357 magnum revolvers. The DA Six series guns were the size of a S&W K-frame with the strength of a magnum revolver; and the Rugers cost less. That was 1972 and S&W dominated the market, but they now had a real competitor. Ruger never knocked S&W off the top of that hill, but S&W now had to fight to hold onto market share.
Around the same time, training was evolving to require the use of duty ammunition which meant more magnum rounds were being fired AND there was a trend towards lighter (meaning shorter) bullets. Those factors combined to accelerate wear on magnum K-frames. Cracked forcing cones, stretched frames, battered rachets and excessive end-shake are real things and I’ve seen them. The magnum K-frames are excellent guns, they just were never intended to be used that way.
S&W knew they had to address the issues of the magnum K-frames and in 1980, they introduced the L-frames.
Colt was alive in the 1970’s and 1980’s but I wouldn’t say they were a real threat to S&W in the LE market. Yes, there were some die-hard Colt agencies out there, but S&W consistently won more LE contracts. Individual officers and deputies purchased Colts, but agencies tended to purchase S&W or Rugers. It was mostly an issue of cost.
When the .357 Magnum cartridge was developed, S&W chambered their N-frame for it. Originally as the Registered Magnum and later as the Models 27 & 28. That was wise in terms of strength but less than ideal is terms of a carry gun. If you ever open a model 27 and look at those relatively small chambers (S&W calls them “charge holes”) you will see there is a LOT of extra metal in that huge cylinder. And that huge cylinder required an equally huge frame to contain it.
When the magnum K-frames were introduced and the conventional wisdom was the gun would be predominantly shot with 38 Special rounds but could occasionally fire .357 magnum rounds, the concept worked.
The Ruger DA Six’s (Security-Six, Service-Six and Speed-Six) were designed from the ground up as .357 magnum revolvers. The DA Six series guns were the size of a S&W K-frame with the strength of a magnum revolver; and the Rugers cost less. That was 1972 and S&W dominated the market, but they now had a real competitor. Ruger never knocked S&W off the top of that hill, but S&W now had to fight to hold onto market share.
Around the same time, training was evolving to require the use of duty ammunition which meant more magnum rounds were being fired AND there was a trend towards lighter (meaning shorter) bullets. Those factors combined to accelerate wear on magnum K-frames. Cracked forcing cones, stretched frames, battered rachets and excessive end-shake are real things and I’ve seen them. The magnum K-frames are excellent guns, they just were never intended to be used that way.
S&W knew they had to address the issues of the magnum K-frames and in 1980, they introduced the L-frames.
Colt was alive in the 1970’s and 1980’s but I wouldn’t say they were a real threat to S&W in the LE market. Yes, there were some die-hard Colt agencies out there, but S&W consistently won more LE contracts. Individual officers and deputies purchased Colts, but agencies tended to purchase S&W or Rugers. It was mostly an issue of cost.
Mowgli Terry
Active Member
I like N fame Smith's. One thing basic about the gun is that originally came on the market in 1905 as a 44 Special. That accounts for the short, thick cylinder. Smith appears to be using whatever they had. The K and N frame remained standard for the larger guns in the Smith line until the introduction of the L frame. Both Colt and Smith were using what they had. Smith carried the day for several reasons listed in P&P's previous post. I feel I can shoot anything in my L frame. For the my ancient Model 29-no dash it's a diet of 44 Specials. I am partial to N frames but think the guns are over stressed for 44 Magnum. The L frame is just right for 357,
Personal Opinion: Based on what I have seen over the years I have come to several conclusions. Most of the problems with Colt's had to do with abuse. Handled correctly the guns would gives years of service. Also, Python's got a bad rep from high cost of factory repairs in the day. Most what I saw was sprung cranes and guns slightly out of time. I feel til today that much of this had to do with abuse.
Personal Opinion: Based on what I have seen over the years I have come to several conclusions. Most of the problems with Colt's had to do with abuse. Handled correctly the guns would gives years of service. Also, Python's got a bad rep from high cost of factory repairs in the day. Most what I saw was sprung cranes and guns slightly out of time. I feel til today that much of this had to do with abuse.
Glaciers
Alaska Land of the Midnight Sun
The Smith 19 is a favorite of mine, as others here. They are just elegant beautiful firearms as all “K” frames are. Colts are fine looking weapons but just always out of my price range. Don’t like the Smith 27 & 28’s because of the physical size. If I’m going to have a N frame it’s going to be in 44 or 45 caliber.
Love the “K” frames and at the same time the Ruger Security series. Beauty and the beast. The “L” frames are a good compromise, and I’m keeping my eye out for a 586 in 6” because they feel right and they fit the elegant department in spades.
Love the “K” frames and at the same time the Ruger Security series. Beauty and the beast. The “L” frames are a good compromise, and I’m keeping my eye out for a 586 in 6” because they feel right and they fit the elegant department in spades.
Last edited:
Mowgli Terry
Active Member
I shoot my 586 6" weekly at our informal match as a 38 Special. For that. the gun is unbeatable. I rarely shoot it as a 357. When we have our next carry gun match I'll carry my 28-2. I like screwing with the guys shooting automatics. This morning I ran a few rounds through my 1953 vintage Combat Master piece. To me it's nothing more than a 4" K-38. Those are neat guns. Shooting single action Ruger's in 44 Magnum wore me out with heavy loads. Shooting the Smith was like shooting a .22.
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
Terry stated my point more clearly than I did--and more correctly. ABUSE has a great deal to do with Colt V-spring lockwork "delicacy". I have several of these jewels in my safe currently, and I don't abuse ANY of my revolvers. I have a 1920-made Army Special x 5" in 32/20 WCF, and I have put well over 3,000 handloads through it since acquisition. About half of that shooting was done D/A, and the lockup and indexing remain snug and sound.
A lot of my beliefs and biases come from my part-time rangemaster time at a medium-large public police agency in California. That agency's troops mostly carried their own sideiron, maintained and cared for by their owners. Most deputies did a good job of upkeep, having put down healthy amounts of cash for the arm and its accessories. A few folks are less-than-exemplary in this regard, and it is these owners that come to mind in the context of Colt V-spring revolvers. Remington 870 shotguns are deputy-proof, and amazingly so. Ford Crown Vics and Chevy Impalas were almost deputy-proof; the Chevs tended to overheat if idled with the A/C on for more than 10 minutes once temps exceeded 110* outside. S&W and Ruger D/A revolvers are almost deputy-proof; Colt V-spring revolvers are most definitely NOT. Now in the Age of Autoloaders--most pistol makes are deputy-proof, but most magazines are definitely not. Feed lips are the Achilles heel of most detachable magazine makes and the systems they support.
A lot of my beliefs and biases come from my part-time rangemaster time at a medium-large public police agency in California. That agency's troops mostly carried their own sideiron, maintained and cared for by their owners. Most deputies did a good job of upkeep, having put down healthy amounts of cash for the arm and its accessories. A few folks are less-than-exemplary in this regard, and it is these owners that come to mind in the context of Colt V-spring revolvers. Remington 870 shotguns are deputy-proof, and amazingly so. Ford Crown Vics and Chevy Impalas were almost deputy-proof; the Chevs tended to overheat if idled with the A/C on for more than 10 minutes once temps exceeded 110* outside. S&W and Ruger D/A revolvers are almost deputy-proof; Colt V-spring revolvers are most definitely NOT. Now in the Age of Autoloaders--most pistol makes are deputy-proof, but most magazines are definitely not. Feed lips are the Achilles heel of most detachable magazine makes and the systems they support.
Last edited:
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
Colt's first mid-sized .357 was the "Three-Fifty-Seven" introduced in 1953 and only made for three years. It used the Officer's Model Match hand fitted action and barrel with a new metallurgy cylinder and frame. Finish was a fine brushed blue. The main issue was that it was the lightest .357 made at the time and shooters complained of the recoil with full power 1950's ammunition.
When the finely finished "Python" was introduced in 1955, new production of "Three-Fifty-Seven's" was stopped. The service mid-weights were re-named "Trooper" to complete with S&W's. The Trooper got the Official Police finish and action assembly, but kept the improved metal cylinder and frame. Barrels were specified to configure with the Official Police and not the Python/Officers Model Match dimensions. By the mid-1960's, when revolver bullseye target shooting was waning, all barrels were made to Official Police specifications.
IMHO, the Colt action was not "delicate" but would not stand much dirt or lint or dried oil. They need to be clean and lightly oiled. Smiths you could flush once a month with Hoppe's #9 and be good. Ruger's you could spray with WD-40 every quarter and call it good.
When the finely finished "Python" was introduced in 1955, new production of "Three-Fifty-Seven's" was stopped. The service mid-weights were re-named "Trooper" to complete with S&W's. The Trooper got the Official Police finish and action assembly, but kept the improved metal cylinder and frame. Barrels were specified to configure with the Official Police and not the Python/Officers Model Match dimensions. By the mid-1960's, when revolver bullseye target shooting was waning, all barrels were made to Official Police specifications.
IMHO, the Colt action was not "delicate" but would not stand much dirt or lint or dried oil. They need to be clean and lightly oiled. Smiths you could flush once a month with Hoppe's #9 and be good. Ruger's you could spray with WD-40 every quarter and call it good.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
I don't think it is fair to call the Colt actions fragile but I do think the S&W lockwork is more robust than the Colt and the Ruger even more so.
I completely agree with Rick & Al, the S&W actions will tolerate far more abuse and neglect than the Colts. When abused, they will ALL fail but the Colts will likely fail sooner when abused.
I completely agree with Rick & Al, the S&W actions will tolerate far more abuse and neglect than the Colts. When abused, they will ALL fail but the Colts will likely fail sooner when abused.
Mowgli Terry
Active Member
Recoil of a light gun in 357: Recoil complaints be it Colt or S & W. kinda reminds me of an early event in life. We were doing work installing a preciptator in a distillery. The duct work was full of fly ash. The job superintendent complained to the company rep. Rep replied what did you expect to find in there ice cream? Same, Same. Older guns were too heavy and the new ones kicked. Nobody was happy.
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
Colt and Ruger have never tried to put too much cartridge into too little platform/frame; S&W is notorious for doing so. Now they have J-frame revolvers being chambered in 357 Magnum, having apparently learned little-to-nothing from the K-frame 357 Magnum experience. SAAMI contributed to this heresy by (c. 1990) down-grading all of the then-existing Magnum revolver caliber pressure gradients to a 36K PSI rating from the former CUP standards, which were crusher-based and likely less accurate. With the now-neutered Magnum revolver calibers we can chamber J-frames in 357 Magnum and Winchester M-1873 repros in 44 Magnum. Heresy prevails and abounds. It just ain't natcherul.
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
I don't know how many folks have ever shot W-W 158 grain .357 Lubaloy ammo made in the 1950's. It was a full pressure load of 30 carbine WWC820 powder that probably got close to 1450 f/s from a 6 inch barrel. Fairly accurate for the first cylinder full, then you had to break out the Lewis Lead Remover.
Snakeoil
Well-Known Member
Just noticed this thread. I own a 586 with a 6 inch barrel that was my steel challenge and bowling pin gun. I truly love that gun above all the other handguns I own and that includes a stainless Python. I did an action job on the 586 and I don't think there is a smoother action out there. I also own an N frame 25-2 which is .45ACP. Another bowling pin gun and between the two of them I wore out more Dillon loader parts than I care to remember. I made custom grips for the 586 using a pair of S&W magnum grips. Remember when every junk box in every gun shop had OEM S&W wood grips that were take-offs for a couple bucks a pair. I should have bought more. The magnums make a great basis for a custom pair of grips.
I love my Smiths. Also have a J-frame Mod 60 as a carry gun in .38 spl and a K in .22 with a 6 inch barrel. That .22 K has had so many rounds thru it that I wore out the single action sear face. Trigger pull went to something I could not measure. But a quick hit with a stone and back in action.
All my Smiths are blue except the Mod 60. I wish my Python was blue, but I inherited it so did not get to pick it out. I'm a firm believer that guns should be blue.
regards,
Rob
I love my Smiths. Also have a J-frame Mod 60 as a carry gun in .38 spl and a K in .22 with a 6 inch barrel. That .22 K has had so many rounds thru it that I wore out the single action sear face. Trigger pull went to something I could not measure. But a quick hit with a stone and back in action.
All my Smiths are blue except the Mod 60. I wish my Python was blue, but I inherited it so did not get to pick it out. I'm a firm believer that guns should be blue.
regards,
Rob
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
I let my 6" 586 get away not too long ago, and I regretted that move almost immediately--but a friend REALLY needed it, and there are a number of other 357s in the safe to play with. Greed is kinda unbecoming.
I still have the 4" 686, and a couple 586/686 x 6" look-alikes that shoot WONDERFULLY--a 617 in 22 LR, and a 16-4 in 32 H&R Magnum. And, there's the 6.5" pre-27 as well. Plenty of toys, IOW.
I still have the 4" 686, and a couple 586/686 x 6" look-alikes that shoot WONDERFULLY--a 617 in 22 LR, and a 16-4 in 32 H&R Magnum. And, there's the 6.5" pre-27 as well. Plenty of toys, IOW.