I've discussed my poor old 1942 38 Special Victory Model that was in a pawn shop with a bulged barrel and I bagged it for $60. Got a 5" barrel off ebay for $5 with a serial from around 1938-39 so it's very close to the gun.

I swapped the tubes myself using a bench vise and despite the dire warnings I managed to successfully change the barrel. Then in the face of more hand wringing and howls of protest I fired 500 rounds of Remington +Ps through it to see if anything would happen. I was not surprised when nothing did.

Then I ran 600 rounds of my own +P+ ammo through the gun. This is a 125 JHP at a clocked 1150 FPS from the 5" barrel. Again, no effect was noted.

recently I found an older reloading manual with a recipe to duplicate the 38/44 load with 2400. So I womped some of those up and fired them in the M&P today. Those have a little kick to them and I actually had to use the ejector to remove the empties from the chambers (everything else simply fell out when the barrel was tipped upwards). But otherwise nothing was noted. Other members have reported shooting factory 38/44s in K frames without problems and I believe them.

Fixed sights always seem to shoot left for me but it did group good enough for duty use, IMO.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

NO WAY! It had to have just simply disintegrated. Are you sure? Maybe you have a concussion.

Seriously tho, got a picture of your creation?

Saxon, I agree, they are more rugged than a lot think. My standard load is from an "old" Lyman cast bullet handbook and 4.9 gr. 231 with a 158 gr. cast RNFP. Chrono's 906, which should be under +P specs. It was noted in the manual as the most accurate load with that bullet, and it is. I have fired some factory 357's that had less recoil.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

Hmmm. First 500 rounds of std +p, then 600 rounds of hand-loaded
+p. That alone should have been at least 2 hours, probably 3 hours.
And then some 38/44 rounds, and you noticed nothing after all of this?

I'm not surprised, given all the banging on your hands and arm, and
the noise.

I forget who it was, but someone, a year or two ago, posted a
picture of a 10" reg mag, or maybe it was even longer.

Hmmmm.

Mike Priwer

SP, when you go to the zoo, you don't grab the tiger's tail and give it a yank, do you?

__________________
You're shy a few manners.

Mike, I did not shoot all that ammo in one day. I spread it over about 6 months or so.

I have posted photos the gun several times. Here it is posing with the +P and some of the +P+ I ran through it.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

Yars ago, I had a prewar Colt Police Positive Special in .38 special. I had some stout .38 special handloads that I had loaded for a M19. IIRC, they were the top 2400/158 gr SWC load in the old Lyman manual.

I shot these in the little Colt. They stung a mite, but there was no ill effects to the revolver.

I believe that Colt even advertised, back in the '30s, that .38/44 loads were safe in the PPS.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

SP

I see - this is the first I had heard of this gun and the barrel replace-
ment, so I thought that was all very recent.

By the way, when was the gun refinished ? I was expecting it to be
a sand-blast blue, what some call Parkerized .

It would appear you confirmed your point about the guns being
strong enough for +p ammo.

Regards, Mike Priwer

nice job...........good for you on having the "pelotas" to go forward with the project

Thanks for the pictures. I figured you had maybe posted 'em before, I was too lazy to search 'em out. Good looking piece!

I know these old ones are stouter than a lot give them credit for.

"...howls of protest..." from who? What could happen?

I 'spect SP refers to the dire warnings on most every "Is it OK to shoot +P in my . . . . . . . ?" thread that comes along.

__________________
Georgia On My Mind

SP;

What many of us either believed or strongly suspected, you have confirmed. I imagine the low cost of the initial gun purchase and barrel replacement was enough of an incentive to champion forward with your testing?

Cheers;
Lefty

I will go ahead and be the first one with the howling. I hope there aren’t a bunch of sheep out there that are going to read this and try to duplicate your efforts. You are taking a fine old gun and slowly beating it to death. Your gun may be able to “take it” but you are playing with fire and risking personal injury. These are the kinds of actions that result in so many worn out guns on the used market and why used guns have such a buyer beware status.

I see no risk at all of personal injury. A K frame will not blow up with +P or even 38/44 ammo. Certainly wear is accelerated somewhat but this is a natural effect of use.

As for beating a fine gun to death, this piece hardly qualifies as a fine gun. Very worn and tired with countless rounds through it before I got it and it was already damaged (bulged barrel) and refinished long ago (with the US Property- or maybe it was US Navy- stamp buffed off) so not much at stake with this gun.

But as I figured all this shooting has done nothing significant to it.

I am not encouraging anyone to do anything. I am merely reporting my experience and observation. I took just about the worst case scenario (pre-model, old and loose from wear) and put it to the test. It passed with flying colors.

I dismiss the notion that +P is a hot load (125@925? Give me a break!) and is unsafe in a quality made gun. I am not ready to make the same pronouncement regarding 38/44 but so far my research (a very limited amount of shooting and reading of others' experiences) doesn't indicate any serious, immediate problems in either a K or even a J frame S&W.

I feel like I have made my point with this gun (even if some folks still won't believe) and will now retire it from further testing. From now on it's just a plinker.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

Dr. Pig-

Is there really no cylinder endshake? How loose do you mean this gun was when you began? Did it get looser?

How is recoil with one of these if you fire .38-44 ammo, if you have any?

I've posted before that S&W told me in the 1960's that the M-10 wouldn't blow up with .38-44 ammo (Plus P was then yet to come), but that continued firing with it would shake the gun loose. They definitely recommended that I get a Heavy Duty or Outdoorsman or a .357 if I needed that much power very often. This advice came at just about the very year that their .38-44 guns were being discontinued.

Frankly, except that they were made in an era when craftsmanship was better, I see no reason to buy a .38-44. They're as big and heavy as a M-27/28, and those add Magnum capability.

Thanks,

T-Star

Oh my God the horror of it all.....

Nice looking rig SP and you dealt a blow to 2 of the "oh my God no" stories that we have all read here countless times.

+p and a bench vice barrel change in one thread. Slow down big fella, what's next, you're probably gonna refinish the thing.....

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

I seriously doubt that the average guy is going to put 1100 rounds of +P or +P+ ammo in a vintage shooter such as a Victory M&P. I do believe however, that this testing by SP resolves any concern one might have about shooting +P ammo in one, occasionally, which is more likely the case.

Cheers;
Lefty

Given the thread's title, I was expecting something along the lines of those T-shirts you see for sale to the tourists in the Caribbean about the beatings continuing until morale improves.

Well, we all have our fun with guns in one way or another. I guess you have made your point, but I am not sure where it leaves you... ? It isn't going to change a thing. The modern world is what it is and in this era of lawyers and lawsuits, the manufacturers will keep right on doing what they decide is best.

I think its great we still have the freedom to buy what we want and tear it up as we think best. I don't think it is so great we should be able to bring suit against a manufacturer in the process, but that's what happens. (Not suggesting you would do this, SP, and of course that whole topic is another subject.)

I have to agree with the notion that what we get in ammunition these days does seem pretty watered down. A 44 Magnum certainly isn't a 240 at 1180, in my book anyway, but time marches on. There are some good things though. In my opinion, the quality of factory ammunition seems pretty good today. I am having a terrible time making handloads that outshoot the best of it.

Nice one, really like that standard barrel...err pencil barrel...err skinny barrel....err...nevermind. Shoots pretty well nontheless.

__________________
Sure you did

Since SP apparently did not take measurements of clylinder gap, etc. before and after (at least he did not reveal them to us), all he really knows is that the gun did not blow up. No information about frame stretch, etc. is available. The absence of a kaboom does not mean nothing negative happened to the gun.

I didn't mean to get out my extra tall soap box to stand on. As for calling it a fine old gun... This is purely my feelings in firearms, so… Anything that has survived that long and is still at least a good shooter is a fine piece to own. I’m no gunsmith at all and changing a barrel out is something I have only done to an AR15. I don’t even cry over a gun that has been refinished. I get the collector value issue going away but it doesn’t have to be collector grade to me to be a fine firearm. I may be guilty of using wrong terminology. Example: I have a Winchester 1892 that has been rechambered to .357 from .32-20. I know from a collector grade standpoint it has been devalued to shooter grade status. To me the bluing is clean, the wood has a nice grain, the action is smooth, and the octagon barrel with half tube looks stunning. I think of it as a fine old gun that is not rated as a truck gun to be beat to death. So it won’t be seeing any hot magnums it is can take it or not. With so many collector grade guns going for unreal price tags it becomes hard for one to go into a collector status. Happening across even a beat up gun that is one in a ten thousand lot run is still a nice find for a new collector. Finding a good shooting, original grips, still tight, not beat to death model 19 made my day some time ago. No, its not a registered magnum or a Singer made 1911 but it started my collecting S&W’s. That Winchester may be smirked at by a collector with an original model but for me it is still a gem to have found and now own. So I am sorry if I said it wrong but I don’t like seeing people wearing out guns with ammo that was never made for them. That being said, I won’t shoot .38-44’s from my Official Police much less the Police Positive Specials… One day these things will be gone and I see no reason to hasten that day.

SAXON PIG,
Nice gun! Glad you tested it, it eases my mind a lot.
I don't know how many times some one has asked about blowing up a gun with +p ammo. The advice to use it sparingly still holds true, with the added knowledge that the gun isn't likely to show the effects immediately. I think that was the biggest worry, and, thanks to you,
we all have a better idea of what our equipment can handle.
Thanks for sharing,TACC1.

Good job, Saxon Pig. You've been the voice of reason in the whole "can I shoot .38 +P in my Model 28" discourse.

Thanks for taking the time and expense to post this.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

I thought Contract Model M&Ps came with smooth grips not checkered.

Stocks are not original.

As a matter of fact I did check the BC gap, check for endshake, and measure the frame and cylinder before testing commenced. Everything was unchanged when I was done. The shooting I did apparently had zero effect on this gun.

I do not actually believe I did anything abusive to this gun. I think I used it as intended. Maybe 5,000 rounds of 38/44 would not be great for longevity, but the issue was with the +P which I thought, and now firmly believe, is a very mild load that poses zero threat of excessive wear or damage to a K frame S&W.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

Oh, as for the Colt using 38/44, these are very stout guns. The 357s and Pythons were built on the same frame. The one I shot yesterday is from 1950...




And it seemed to shoot the 38/44s pretty well.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

The whole plus pee question really surprised me when I started doing the inter-web forum thing about eight years ago.

I have been shooting S&W j and k frame revolvers for right at 45 years. Right at 50 years now, come to think of it.

I was astounded when I discovered on the interwebs that a steel-frame S&W revolver wasn't expected to handle unlimited numbers of 158 grain rounds at 1000 fps, and 1200 fps for the magnum guns like the Models 19 and 66.

Prior to that, of course, my shooting education came from print media and people like Elmer Keith and Skeeter Skelton. I believe either of these gentlemen, along with thousands of old farts like me, would laugh in the face of anyone who told them they were risking possible bodily harm and certain ruination of their Models 10 or 15 by shooting copious amounts of 158 grain/1000fps loads in these revolvers.

__________________
Georgia On My Mind

AMEN BROTHER!

Cheers;
Lefty

Sp,

A fine job right there.

Good for you!


Su Amigo,
Dave

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Would it be possible for you to reveal the numbers? Osprey told us the before and after measurements (and the changes that took place) when he did his +P test of 1,000 rounds. I'm sure some of us would be interested in knowing them for an older gun like this...

SP,

Your point was well made. Would you mind sharing the old 38/44 load using 2400? Thank you.

Keith

I'll have to get back to you on the info requested in the two previous posts.

Requires digging out references.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

I bought a couple of security company M15s. These are later manufacture guns with, what looks like, a very low rnd count. I have been loading some upper end .38 spl cast bullet loads. I am impressed with the apparent ease with which they seem to handle these loads.

__________________
dd884
JMHO-YMMV

I enjoy watching you have fun, SP!

Yes! But how well does it shoot the 148g HBWC & 2.8 grains of Bullseye?!!

I have always been amazed at the amount of punishment that the old M & P revolvers could take shooting .38 +P ammo. These revolvers are stronger than they were advertised for. I have one that I tend to baby a bit just because I really like the old timer so I keep the loads around the midrange power lever for a .38. But I know if I wanted to crank them up a little bit I can.

__________________
Vaya con Dios

I have to agree that the old M&Ps are sturdy. I shot a 1904 vintage M&P with 30 rounds of various +P 158 grain ammunition last summer while chronographing. I didn't take any "before and after"measurements though and more's the pity. It appeared to shrug off use with the +P ammunition and "seemed tight" before the test and "seemed tight" afterward, however the old eyes aren't calibrated very closely.

Hi bmcgilvray,

I'd be careful shooting +P in the cylinders of Smith revolvers made before the heat treating commenced in the 1920s. Its not worth risking a kaboom with a vintage M&P without a heat treated cylinder, IMHO.

My policy is anything made before 1930 doesn't get shot (or owned, for that matter) as steel tempering was imprecise before then and I want to shoot my guns.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

And, once upon a time (way before lawyers realized they could make money working for gun companies), S&W even put in print that it was OK to shoot .38 Super Police (aka: .38/44) ammo in their K frame revolvers....

From the 1950 S&W All Models Circular. You'll notice down toward the bottom they clearly state all the suitable types of ammo for the .38 Combat Masterpiece.



Mark

__________________
S&W Forum Member #721

Not so fast, there! Super Police meant the 200 grain bullet in the standard Special.

However, even Colt's small frame .38 was "listed" for .38-44 ammo in the 1930's. They didn't say that it should be shot a lot, just that was useable.

T-Star

Didn't we figure out here awhile back that 1919 is the probable date when heat-treating began on M&P's?

I think (not sure) that the only S&W cylinders heat-treated prior to the M&P's were the M-1917's, by demand of the government. I believe that Colt was several years ahead of S&W in this regard.

T-Star

Nothing I can find on the .38 Super Police lists anything near the .38/44 pressures. They all list right around 750 FPS with a 200 grain bullet. That is nothing to compare.

This is a previous posting on these matters...
Calling all 38/44 HS reloaders, I need your help!

Ad for the pre-war M&P. Check out the last sentence at the bottom of the page.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

If that was an eye chart all I can see is the big E at the top.

Huh,

Printed in the U.S.A.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Basically it says that "you can shoot the 38/44 S&W Special cartridge without getting the teriffic recoil that is experenced with the light arms of this type."

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

I was asked about the BCG and endshake on the revolver. Checking my notes the gun had had a BCG of .004" and endshake of .001" before shooting the 1,100+ rounds of +P, +P+ and 38/44s. According to my feeler gauge 10 minutes ago these measurements have not changed.

On the matter of duplicating the 38/44 load, from the Speer #8 published in 1970 a 158 grain lead bullet with 10 grains of 2400 produces 1044 FPS and 11 grains of 2400 makes 1155 FPS. If I recall correctly I went with 11 grains and chronographed 1125 from a 5" barrel so these velocities appear to be real world and not pressure barrel fantasy. I think factory 38/44s ran around 1125-1140 so these are close to duplicating that load. There were no warnings in the book about not using these loads in any particular gun. However, the #9 manual published in 1974 does not include these loads.

I recall having another manual with loads specifically identified as duplicating the 38/44 but I didn't immediately see it on the shelf and I didn't go searching for it. I may be wrong I think they had a warning to limit the use of these loads in the K frame revolvers. I don't recall if there was a specific number of rounds noted.

Note that Speer used Magnum primers. I generally find them unnecessary and use standard primers as I believe the velocity loss is smaller than the drop in chamber pressure by using standard primers.

I hope this answers everyone's questions.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

I am re-reading Elmer Keith's Sixguns book (1961 edition) for about the 5th or 6th time. I found it interesting that in the section describing the J Framed Chiefs Specials, he claims that due to their 5 shot cylinders having the bolt cuts between the chambers and the fact that hardly any of the rear of the barrel protrudes from the frame, it is OK to shoot those guns with the .38/44 loads. He does mention that recoil will be high of course. That seems to imply that the K frame guns are more at risk for damage with heavy loads, i.e. bulging of the cylinder and belling or cracking of the forcing cone. I still wouldn't shoot .38/44 pressure loads in a J frame, regardless of what ol' Elmer had to say.