Birth of the Combat Magnum
Smith & Wesson’s K-frame series is, without question, the most prolific series of revolvers ever produced. If my count is correct, Smith offers, at least 14 models based on the K-frame. Calibers includes .22 LR, .38 Special, .357 Magnum. However, the Queen of the K-frames is, and will always be the Model 19 Combat Magnum.
The Model 19 Combat Magnum is the result of legendary U.S. Border Patrol shooter, Bill Jordan, convincing Smith & Wesson to chamber a K frame in .357 Magnum. Up until this time, Magnum had been reserved for the larger N-frame Smiths. The first Model 19 came off the production line in November of 1955, 65 years ago. The new pistol featured an improved K frame that was stronger and had a three-screw side plate. It also featured a fully shrouded ejection rod, a heavy barrel profile, a Baughman ramped front sight, and a fully micrometer adjustable rear sight. The new Combat Magnum was initially offered with a 4” barrel. In 1963, a 6” model was introduced, and, in 1966, a 2½” barrel, round butt model was introduced.
During the sixties and seventies, the Model 19s were works of art with pinned barrels, recessed cylinders, and the walnut “magna” stocks were hand-fitted to each frame. They were available in both a deep blue and a polished nickel finish. Options were limited to a target trigger, red ramp front sight, and a white outline rear sight blade. In 1966, Smith introduced a Stainless Combat Magnum, the Model 66. The Model 66 quickly became the preferred service pistol for law enforcement agencies across the country. Due to its rust-resistant qualities, the Model 66 was even used by SEAL Team 6.
As time progressed, Smith & Wesson looked for ways to reduce the manufacturing cost of the Model 19 and 66. Soon the pinned barrel and recessed cylinder were dropped while a number of improvements increased the service life. As the law enforcement community transitioned to semi-auto pistols, the demand for the Combat Magnum waned. Smith & Wesson discontinued the production of the Model 19 in 1999 and the Model 66 in 2005.
The Model 19 Classic
The loss of the Model 19 was mourned by many Smith & Wesson fans. Fortunately, in 2018, Smith & Wesson reintroduced the Model 19 in their Classic line. Let me start by saying, the new Classic model, while looking to the original 19, is a different pistol from yesteryear. The Classic Model is finished in a nice blue that is close to the original guns. It features a 4” barrel, with checkered stocks that are very similar to the original Magna stocks.
However, there are differences. The most obvious difference is the arched profile of the frame, at the hammer. This is the result of an engineering change to move from a hammer mounted to a frame mounted pin. The second significant difference is that the diameter of the barrel is thicker than the older guns. This is due to the new Classic model having a sleeved barrel. Even though this is a 4” pistol with square butt stocks, the frame has a round butt contour. The new model also has an un-serrated back strap. Smith has also installed a ball/detent crane lock, and of course, the new 19 has the obligatory key lock. The trigger on our test pistol was surprisingly smooth and the single action broke cleanly at 4 lbs. 9 oz. The front sight is a pinned ramp with a retro red ramp insert. The rear sight is the classic micrometer adjustable blade but lacks a white outline rear sight.
Design and production of new firearms is always a trade-off. New materials and manufacturing processes allow for more efficient production, both in labor and cost. However, with this comes the loss of hand polishing and fitting. Given these parameters, the Smith did a very good job on the Model 19 Classic. While purest will focus on the changes, I found myself appreciating how much that Smith actually got right.
Range Time
On the range, the Classic 19 handled and shot as well as my older Model 19. The balance of 4” K-frame is close to perfect. We shot a combination of full magnum loads as well as lighter .38 Special loads during two different range trips. The two stoutest Magnum loads were Speer’s Gold Dot 125 gr. GDHP and Agulia’s 158 gr. JSP. The Gold Dot averaged 1,372 fps while the Agulia load averaged 1,178 fps. Make no mistake, the recoil is very stout! These loads are not for the faint of heart. History has shown that the K frame does not hold up well under a steady diet of magnum loads. It was this issue that motivated Smith to introduce the L frame series.
For most applications, I would recommend a good .38 Special +P load. Speer’s .38 +P 125 grain Gold Dot was very controllable at a mild 888 fps. It was also more enjoyable for the shooter and much kinder on the pistol. Range work always brings out things that are not readily noticeable from a cursory examination. The first item that all the shooters noticed is how short the rear sight blade is, necessitating a shallow the rear sight notch. It is significantly shorter than the rear sight on my 1975 vintage Model 19. We also noticed that the new stocks are slimmer than the originals. The thinner stocks, combined with the tapered profile, caused the pistol, with stout loads, to ride up in the hand. This was not a serious issue with the .38 Special +P loads. Those who want to carry the Model 19 concealed should consider the VZ Grips VZ 320 boot stocks. They provide a reduced profile but still allow for a full grip on the pistol.
| Load | Average Velocity | Accuracy |
| Speer Gold Dot .38 Special +P 125 gr. GDHP | 888 fps | 2.75” |
| Speer Gold Dot .357 Magnum 125 gr. GDHP | 1,337 fps | 3.9” |
| Aguila .357 Magnum 158 gr. JSP | 1,178 fps | 4.25” |
| Velocity 10 ft/Accuracy 20 yards |
Wrap Up
The Classic 19 is a great addition to the Smith & Wesson line. It joins other medium frame revolvers on the market, such as the Kimber K6, and the Colt King Cobra. It is also a sleek, good looking pistol with great lines and a very nice finish. The Model 19 is great for those just learning to shoot a revolver, as well as for a daily carry, personal defense pistol. Daily carry requires a good holster. I used the Galco Combat Master with a Galco gun belt and replaced the factory stocks with VZ 320 boot stocks.
Smith has expanded their Classic line of revolvers to include thirteen models. I think shooters would jump at either a 2 ½” Model 19 or even a new stainless Model 66. The fact that many manufacturers are resurrecting old wheelgun modes indicates that round guns are far from dead. I look forward to seeing what Smith does in the future. In the meantime, give the Model 19 Classic a look. Overall, I am impressed with the it and think you will be as well.
Specifications:
SKU: 12040
Model: Model 19 Classic
Caliber: 357 Magnum, 38 S&W SPECIAL +P
Capacity: 6
Barrel Length: 4.25″ / 10.8 cm
Overall Length: 9.9″
Front Sight: Red Ramp
Rear Sight: Black Blade Adjustable
Action: Single/Double Action
Grip: Custom Wood
Weight: 37.2 oz. / 1,054.6g
Cylinder Material: Carbon Steel
Barrel Material: Stainless Steel
Frame Material: Carbon Steel
MSRP: $843.00
The author refers to the new Model 19, like the old model, not being able to sustain much use of full power 357 Mag loads. I thought that aspect was improved with a thicker forcing cone. The Classic also looks bigger in overall size so why would it be more delicate?, if so, it is a waste of money. The old 19 is still more elegant, the new model must be taken for what it is, an unfaithful copy and a different revolver. I t will be liked by many but most new owners will not know what is to shoot the original for comparison. I bought one in 1980 and it had a 3.5 ounces trigger. No longer have it, traded it in to buy a Model 29 in 1990. No matter, I own a Model 586 in bought in 1992 that still have along with the 29 and a 657.
Ha Ha try and get one
“and of course, the new 19 has the obligatory key lock” and that is the first thing going in the trash bin before I even shoot it!
That little hole above the cylinder release is my main turn off with S&W revolvers. I refuse to purchase one of their revolvers with that Clinton lock in the side! I cannot understand why S&W continues to drill that hole in the left side of their revolvers…
I prefer the new Colt King Cobra instead.
I have carried countless S&W revolvers over the years. Model 15’s, 13’s, 19’s, 586’s, 27’s, 28’s and 29’s. The little K frames are just about perfect for Law Enforcement use. I find them to carry better all day and be more nimble and quicker to get into action from a holster than the larger frame Smith’s. I find the Smith N frames for duty weapons to be over sized, to heavy and harder to conceal when in plain clothes. The L frame 586’s make great guns for duty and walking around the woods and I use my 4″ 586 for just that. But the K frames are just a little easier to carry all day long, in and out of vehicles and in plain clothes. For years now I have been carrying a early 70’s era 2″ model 19 and a full size 1911. I like that combo and haven’t found anything better. I have shot a model 66 with the new shrouded barrel and the lock. I found it to be gritty and not even close to the smooth function of the older guns. Accuracy was substandard compared to my older Smith’s as well. I qualify with my 2″ model 19 at 50 yards and have much tighter groups than that 66 at 25 yards. There is just no comparison between the quality of the old guns and these newer ones.
Most new gun owners will think this Classic is the best looking 357 magnum revolver. They don’t know anything about “pinned and recessed” target hammer, target trigger, target grips (3Ts). We are all showing our age here when complaining about the Hillary Hole, MIM parts, shrouded barrels. Most people aren’t collectors and don’t have the knowledge about particular guns and their history and gun manufacturing. They walk into a gun shop and buy whatever they think looks great and makes them happy. Let the new gun owners have their space in time. There is nothing wrong with the new classic model 19. You put a bullet in it and it goes bang. That’s what new gun owners want. Us old farts know different and were spoiled with the original models of the S&W. These new “Classic” models were made for new gun owners.
Not sure why the author keeps referring to the target stocks on both his original M19 and the new Classic M19 as “magnas”. They are obviously target stocks on both guns.
In 1974 my first duty weapon was the S&W M-15. I still remember opening that blue cardboard box and removing the brown waxed paper the weapon was wrapped in. I was in awe. It was a beautiful gun. We were later issued the stainless M-66 and were happy to move up to the vaunted .357 magnum. We would qualify with ,38 spl., but carried the revolver loaded with .357 ammo. At some point the county prosecutor mandated that we had to qualify with what we carried in the gun. After a couple years of qualifying with the .357s the M-66s started to shake loose. They were all out of timing and the forcing cones were showing serious wear. They were traded in on the Sig Sauer 225 in .45 cal. Nice gun, but I will always remember the beauty of blued steel and walnut stocks.
Correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe Hillary had anything to do with mandating a key lock be put on Smith & Wesson hand guns.
The Author of the article conveniently forgot to mention that despite the M19 having a double heat treatment it would shoot loose after only about 2,000 full power .357 magnum loads. Police Armorers recommended the gun only be shot with .38 special loads. Also the new gun has a barrel with burned in rifling (edm machine) and has MIM internal cast parts. Notice how heavy the trigger pull was compared to the originals that often were set at only 3 lbs.
I love the model 19 but I hate the built-in gun lock. It violates the first rule of reliability-keep it simple stupid. If dirt gets in there, who knows if the gun will fire. Revolvers aren’t meant to have safeties. Their twelve-pound trigger weight is all the safety it needs. If the lock is intended to keep children from firing the gun, this may lead to irresponsible leaving the locked gun out. Older kids may find a way to unlock the gun and anyone could steal the gun and unlock it later. The only reliable gun safety is between the shooter’s ears. The Glock is the perfect example of this principle in semi-auto. Yep, the model 19 is a beautiful piece but I won’t buy a revolver with a built-in lock.
The new S&W has two simple, but fatal, flaws. 1) The so-called “Hillary Hole”, I thought I could live with it when I bought my M-27 Classic….every time I look at the left side of the revolver, that freakin’ lock gets a little uglier, it’s become a deal breaker. 2) The re-design of the frame in order to better accommodate the stupid lock makes the gun look cheap and unattractive, it has ruined the lines of an otherwise beautiful revolver. I’ll spend the extra money to buy an older, truly Classic model from now on. For several decades now S&W has had the attitude that they will build whatever they want and if the consumer doesn’t like it, TOUGH SHIT, I’m no longer willing to live with that attitude, too many good, older guns out there to settle for less.
@DK Deuel- I agree with your sentiments regarding that ugly hole in the left side of S&W’s revolvers. The ‘normal’ ones are so much more elegant and attractive. Further, I’ve noticed that on S&W’s webpage, they always depict the revolvers showing the right (non-hole) side of the weapon.
If they are so dang proud of that hole in the side of their revolvers, then why don’t they display that side of the weapon?
EXACTLY – you never see that angle in any of their marketing, promo or catalog photos. If they lose that damn internal-lock, I’ll consider them again, but not until. PERIOD. I’ll just be content with the half dozen pre-locks I have.
Still have my Model 19 6″ bought new in 1977, purchased to accompany my .30-06 on hunting trips The one modification made to it was rounding the grip to allow for a more comfortable grip. I initially used S&W grips for a .38 Air Weight snub-nose but they were a little small for good control. Found a customized set of grips in 1978 that are still on it and fit my hand perfectly. I never cared for the way the magnum grips spread my fingers at the base of the grip and I wear a size 10.5 surgical glove! Glad to see S&W had the same idea!
Seems ludicrous to resurrect a revolver that was dropped for a stronger design (L frame) due to inability to sustain a steady diet of 357 magnum loads. Why not bring back the Model 28?
First pistol I bought in 1965 when I started on the police department. I carried it until I bought a 686 when it came out. I still have it and enjoyed many pistol qualifications over the years. It never failed me from the 50 yd line and forward. Truly, the Model 19, 686, and all of the other Smith & Wessons during that time were exceptionally well made and great pistols. Regrettably, I now have to carry a semi-auto, and although I do well, I truly miss my Smith & Wesson revolvers.
Don’t NEED no OVER PENETRATING highly OVERRATED .357 Magnum… Carried my S&W Model 15 Combat Masterpiece (.38 SPL) for OVER 40 years with NO PROBLEMS engaging targets or otherwise! IF I had a Model 19 I’d carry either .38 SPL Meat Mashers like I do now or way loaded down .357 with the same bullets. Have shot the .357 full loads and I am NOT Impressed with the OVER the TOP Recoil!
To each his own. The .357 Magnum cartridge is the single most versatile round ever developed in my, and many other’s, opinion. This cartridge can be used in any situation where a handgun could come into play.
There are countless instances where .38 Special simply cannot get the job done and one needs a round with far more penetration.
I also heard that the 125gr 357 Magnum is the best weight for accuracy and ballistics.
The Model 10 was our issue revolver when I became a cop. But when I started shooting PPC in 1974, it was instantly obvious that, trying to do it on the cheap, a Model 10 simply wasn’t going to work. So in 1975, my first Model 19 arrived with all the target goodie options. Eventually I ponied up the cash for a bull barreled PPC revolver to shoot the 1500 matches, but for a few years that Model 19 was the only arrow in my PPC quiver.
The arrival of the 1500 custom relegated it to the Distinguished matches and just plain having fun at the range. Then I got a snubby Model 19 to shoot the snubby matches. And when the “duty gun” classes arrived, because some departments issued 4″ Model 19’s, a 4″ Model 19 joined the fray. And then, because this is grumbly bear country and I can’t handle the recoil of an N frame in .44 Magnum, a Model 66 came along.
They’re all still with me all these decades later, still flawless, still accurate, still the same superb double action trigger pull. In my mind, the best revolver ever manufactured up until current date – you rarely ever saw a Colt on the firing line in the hands of any shooter, even just Master class, or higher. If Colts had ever proved to be either more accurate or possessing a better double action trigger pull, it would have been those revolvers dominating PPC, not Smiths.
So I’m good for Model 19s for this life. The new revolvers sound tempting, but there’s that Hillary Hole that S&W persists in forcing on us. I’m sure a lot of industry analysis, marketing discussions, etc went on before they decided to persist with that “feature”. Maybe their decision is the right one, maybe the insurers who provide them their acts and omissions insurance made it hard to, I don’t know.
But there is nothing ‘obligatory’ about the Lawyer Lock – particularly in law. Why the author – a writer – would decide to use the word ‘obligatory’ is a question. Inadvertent? Poor choice of words? Deliberate?
At any rate, you don’t have to be one of the “purists” he mentioned to have an aversion to buying products that include a “you WILL bend the knee” feature. Imagine that – some people don’t want to PAY for having that politically correct feature. It takes some work, you might pay a bit more, but with a little effort there are Model 19s out there for sale from before the Hillary Hole was introduced.
I will also say this: Kimber’s revolvers are EXTREMELY close to S&W K-frames when it comes to double action trigger pull out of the box. In fact, with the shrouded hammer and slimmed down profile, their 3″ revolver is probably superior to a comparable S&W from any era for carry. And their 4″ DASA with exposed trigger is a very comparable choice for anyone interested in the current 4″ Model 19 for target shooting or home defense at that barrel length. Including the full length barrel underlug.
I’ve shot Kimber’s revolvers at a range day when we partnered with them for a veterans’ benefit event. They are worth a look and comparison no matter what the reason.
But when you despise the Hillary Hole… that makes it a lot easier to consider a Kimber instead.
The question is: will enough wannabe revolver buyers want a new Model 19 and not care about the Hillary Hole to make it an ongoing success? Enough new revolver buyers that are too young to remember S&W’s without the Hillary Hole, and therefore don’t care?
I guess we’ll see.
“Hilary Hole”. I’ll have to remember that for a detestable orifice, including the stupid locks.
Bought a S&W model 19 as a on Duty revolver in 1970. At $117 at the time they were a deal. Still have a 4” and a 21/2” in my collection. Always favored the bright blued over the nickel plated.
I also bought my model 19 in 1970, I paid $125 and carried it for seven years as. Deputy Sherrif.
It has the sweetest trigger of any gun I own. I will never let it go until I die A classic shooter.
I got my 19 357 2” barrel red insert white outline target trigger and hammer 1.5 lb pull needless to say it was custom back in 1986 for $400 and I still have it only shot about 50 times I will be getting another
Did I mention the gold leaf 🙂
Nice revolver and well written article, but until S&W gets rid of the wart on the side, the so called safety, I’ll pass. MIM parts I can deal with, I’m a gunsmith by trade and know how to smooth the trigger up so that MIM parts are unnoticeable. And I have a pair of older Model 19s that are great.
I started out in law enforcement back in the 70’s with a six inch Model 66. Back then we were required to qualify at 50 yards and this weapon never failed me. Ended up giving it to a rookie in the early 80’s who couldn’t afford to buy his own while at the academy. I do miss that gun. I don’t think I will buy one of the new models however. Modern is NOT always better.
While some may object to the MIM (Metal Injection Molding) parts, there is nothing wrong with them from a functional standpoint. I’m a retired engineer and 35 years ago I worked with a materials engineer on the development of steel MIM parts for aerospace and defense applications. We found them to be satisfactory and just as strong and durable as parts machined from steel bar stock. MIM is a mature production process and an excellent way to produce complex metal parts at lower cost.
No Smith with Hillary Hole for me. I’ve got a 642 and a 686+ already. I cannot further condone the use of such folly.
S&W’s revolver line has been cheapened up so much they are only a shadow
the their product 25 years ago. Almost every part is metal injection molded.
Hand fitting is non-existent. Drop in the parts and send it out the door.
The keyhole is not “obligatory” because they still make some popular models (e.g. the 642 J-frame) in a version that does not have one. For a pricey classic like this you’d think they would leave it off to suit purists, but they must be catering to affluent buyers in certain nanny states that require such things. That’s all I can think of–?
S&W made some great revolvers decades ago, but the model 19 while having a great fit would crack forcing cones. Hope this area was strengthened in the new model? Although there new revolvers with the Hillary are not for me having a new 686 lock fail right out of the box! Until this lock is removed I would not bet my life on a S&W with the lock!
I carried the M19 for two different departments in the mid 1980’s. My first one we carried it with the old FBI load of Winchester 158 gr. LSWHP. Second department we used .357 that were 125gr. JHP. I felt well armed with either.
No go; not with MIM parts. Never/ever!
S&W, please stop putting junk parts in your otherwise nice guns.
Makes the older mint ones a bargain at $800-$1000.
The Lawyer Lock aperture AKA the Hillary Hole that can prevent a shooter from getting a round off makes this gun worthless as a defensive weapon. It is a beautiful paperweight, though.
Great shooter i carried one as a officer and i still have it , it feels natural in your hand i love the k frame 19.
MIM parts and Hillary hole, I’ll pass !!
Only pre mim.pre Hillary hole smiths for me. Im not angry with s&w because its not controlled by the cretins who caused the degradation of arguably the finest revolvers ever devised.just sad.
Id love a pair of early 80s model 681s the l frame was goldilocks for 357 magnums and 140grain jhps the all purpose bullet. Wood grips look great but the hogue monogrip made this gun become part of your hand. Perfect swords
Great revolvers!
But as long as S&W insist on putting a frame saftey on them, they’ve lost my business.
“… obligatory key lock.”
I could have saved myself a few minutes of pointless reading if this sad fact had been revealed earlier.
I will not buy a firearm with this useless and dangerous defect.
Fortunately most other firearm manufacturers have wisely chosen to delete this exercise in stupidity. I’m getting a Ruger or a Colt.
Exactly why the first thing I did was skim the pictures looking for a shot of the cylinder release. If the Hillary hole shows, my wallet stays closed.
There are a few current or recent production models here and there that have no lock (I believe a 686 is among them). So I’m always hopeful that discussion of a new S-W model might delete the lock, but 99 times out of 100 I am disappointed.
Awesome looking revolver, I have the new Colt King Cobra that I like and an old Model 15 Smith. I’ll be checking out the best deal on the new 19 for sure! I’m a revolver nut! 😂
I own one of the new Colt 3 inch fixed sight revolvers it is a stainless steel copy of the old 3 in California Colt Python revolver and the last one I saw on one of my firearms auction catalogs went for $14,000.00 I paid a great deal less for my new Colt 3 inch fixed sight revolver and I was as happy as a little boy on Christmas morning.
Beautiful pistol better than a colt python 357 but not as nice as the colt diamond back 38+p which I used as my service weapon , colt python had wheel alignment problems and the new ones have the same problem showing up.
Last night I primed 400 38 special cases with my last win smalls. These are ammo for my wife’s snub battery. She hates autos.
They’ll be topped with 95grain scallop jhps from Remington with enough hp38 to hit 1000fps out of 2inch barrels. God help the goblin that stops one.
And if I run out of 9mm ill stash my cleaned glocks and use my mid 80s model 15 Smith with 158 lswchp fbi loads. I began handgunning with revolvers. Id love to try a diamond back someday.i bet id like it.
Has that stupid lawyer lock which means these are hot garbage
You can remove the silly lock, and replace it with a lock delete so there is no hole for junk to go in. I did that to my 686. You could also just grind down the cam on the lock arm. I didn’t grind down the cam because if my 686 needs warranty work, I can always put the lock parts back in before sending it to S&W.
If you remove or modify the lock, then you are risking being demonized by an anti-gun DA if you ever find yourself in court after a defensive shooting. The DA will tell the jury that you are a careless gun owner and not to be believed in your self-defensive testimony. That DA will try to sway the jurors that since you removed the lock, that shows an attitude of “looking for a gunfight”, and so forth, ad nausea. It will all sound plausible to a gun ignorant jury. Massad Ayoob (who has been an expert witness in many self-defensive shooting trials) recommends not removing the lock for this very reason.
Try to get a gunsmith to remove the lock and they will decline because of “liability” concerns. There may be a gunsmith out there who doesn’t care about the liability, but I haven’t found him, yet.
The only Smith I will own with a lock would be a .22 caliber, because I would never carry it for self-defense. It’s failure due to the lock would not get me killed.