What are the pro's con's between these two frames? I see both K's and L's in 38S/357. I think that L's are the heavier frames but ??. My anticipated use is informal target shooting in 38S. Is there any real world accuracy difference between a gun chambered only for 38S or a 357/38 shooting 38S? My considered guns are S&W 4" 10, 66, 686. Thanks for any advice.
S&W Question- K vs L Frames
- Thread starter hiredgun
- Start date
4” revolvers are 12.6 prohibited so as long as you’re licensed you’ll be fine.There is a theoretical advantage to K-frames shooting .38 since the bullet has less “jump” to the barrel but you’d have to be a very good shooter to notice the difference. L-frames have not just heavier frames, of course, but the full underlug barrel, which helps absorb recoil, but there’s not much recoil anyway in a .38. A 4” Model 10 will also have smaller fixed sights which can make accurate shooting more difficult, too.
But I’d say it comes down to which one you prefer—an equivalently configured K or L-frame will likely shoot about the same for you.
But I’d say it comes down to which one you prefer—an equivalently configured K or L-frame will likely shoot about the same for you.
The two main differences (if all you're going to shoot is .38 special) would be balance and potentially round count (cylinder size). Personally, I'm not a fan of the full underlug.
FYI...I have a 66 and I absolutely love it, it's the perfect revolver IMO.
FYI...I have a 66 and I absolutely love it, it's the perfect revolver IMO.
Last edited:
hatman1793
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
The difference is the amount of travel the bullet must jump between the cylinder & the force cone. "L" vs "K" length.
The "L" frame being a larger & longer cylinder means a bit longer, unrifled jump from the cylinder to the force cone.
Is the extra length significant between "L" vs "K" frame revolvers? Does the extra jump length hinder accuracy?
Target shooting is all about accuracy. You be the judge.....
The "L" frame being a larger & longer cylinder means a bit longer, unrifled jump from the cylinder to the force cone.
Is the extra length significant between "L" vs "K" frame revolvers? Does the extra jump length hinder accuracy?
Target shooting is all about accuracy. You be the judge.....
I have a couple l frames, 586 and a686, I shoot a 4 in 19k frame or a early k frame 6in I just got , all the time.
The 568 is a 8 in I got on trade , nice gun, I find it way too heavy, but I have old joints.
I find that old 6 inch 14 target gun is about the same weight as the 4 in 19 and that will punch one holers off a bag, and off hand about a 1"( sometimes )
But I don't think the gun is the main thing, it is the trigger finger.
The 568 is a 8 in I got on trade , nice gun, I find it way too heavy, but I have old joints.
I find that old 6 inch 14 target gun is about the same weight as the 4 in 19 and that will punch one holers off a bag, and off hand about a 1"( sometimes )
But I don't think the gun is the main thing, it is the trigger finger.
coldestcanuck
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- lower mainland bc
I shoot PPC. There are lots (most?) of the Grand Master shooters using L frames with 38 wadcutters that are more accurate than most of us ever will be. These guys really strive for perfection. Never heard of any concerns with the additional tenth of an inch jump to the forcing cone.
If you are into action shooting the L frame has a wider cylinder arc which makes for slightly easier and faster reloads.. Just my experience. If there is an ounce of difference in accuracy between the two I have not noticed it. Off a bench my Model 10 K frame 5" will shoot with either my 686 No Dash 105.17"MM and my Ruger GP-100 4.2". Just my experiences others may have found a difference.
Take Care
Bob
Take Care
Bob
The early K-frames were designed for .38 and had shorter cylinders (and there was at least one model with only enough room for .38 Special if you loaded wadcutters flush to the case mouth!) which meant less jump to the forcing cone. But metallurgy that long ago meant trouble with a longer cylinder with a .357 Magnum round back when that was a new load; it wasn't unknown for a K-frame .357 to violently disassemble itself. That led to the beefier L-frame which was actually designed from the start around the .357 cartridge. But today's Model 66 is a K-frame .357 made (at least theoretically!) out of better steel, and the Canadian market gets 4-and-a-fraction-inch barrels. Nice sleek little revolver with some real punch! But the extra weight of an L-frame 686 should give more recoil absorbtion and accuracy on the range.
If I was shooting 357m, I would not be shooting a k frame. L frame or a ruger is what that is for.
Any good gun will shoot better than most shooters can hold.
But I shoot light loads, don't need very much powder to kill paper.
Any good gun will shoot better than most shooters can hold.
But I shoot light loads, don't need very much powder to kill paper.
The latest versions of the K Frame .357s, Models 19 and 66, have eliminated the main failure point of the old versions. The older barrels could crack at the flat spot on the bottom at the forcing cone, which would often split the frame in the same place.
L Frames use a slightly larger frame and cylinder to eliminate the need for this flat spot. The new K Frames do the same thing by using a different yoke and extractor rod design. There is probably not a great deal of difference in durability between the two.
Practically speaking, .357 revolvers can shoot very accurately with .38 Special, despite the hypothetical disadvantage of the longer chamber. I would pick whatever gun suits you.
L Frames use a slightly larger frame and cylinder to eliminate the need for this flat spot. The new K Frames do the same thing by using a different yoke and extractor rod design. There is probably not a great deal of difference in durability between the two.
Practically speaking, .357 revolvers can shoot very accurately with .38 Special, despite the hypothetical disadvantage of the longer chamber. I would pick whatever gun suits you.
Wait, you can do this? I thought if I used 357 cases and loaded them below 357 powder limits but inside 38 spc limits I could cause something like a lean mixture in an engine (bad analogy but I'm trying). Is this true because I would love to load 357 with light 38 load data?
Cheers
Moe
Max,
Long time ago I heard a phenomenon dubbed "detonation", when a longer brass was loaded with less powder, hence a longer "powder spread" in the shell and ignition of more powder at once instead of a progressive ignition.
It resulted in a top strap blown.
Smokeless powder burns it does not detonate or explode. There are numerous threads on this subject across the net. From my readings no lab has been able to reproduce the "detonation" you speak of. Lots of folks have double charged cases, blown their guns up and suggest " detonation" took place.
Very small charges of smokeless powder contains only so much energy no matter how it ignites.
Take Care
Bob
Those are double charges and/or a bullet seated too deeply in the case. More detail on this can be found here on page 8 of the PDF:
https://americanhandgunner.com/1982issues/HJF82.pdf
The worst that is likely to happen from too little powder is a bullet stuck in the barrel, which you then have to drive out with a rod. Making .38-equivalent loads in .357 cases will likely require a bit more powder than with .38 cases for equivalent performance.
Exactly!
