So other than the longer .357 cylinder, what were the differences in the Heavy Duty/Outdoorsman and the .357 magnums?

__________________
Aaron Terry

As far as I know the cylinders are the same length. A number of the old HDs and Outdoorsmen had the chambers bored out to take 357 cartridges.

Dave

__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)

I agree with Dave's info. It is my understanding that the case length was set to insure that the .357 loads would not fit into weaker 38 spl. guns such as the older M&Ps and weaker guns made by other gun makers in .38 spcl.

__________________
Revolver luvin' Mountaineer

So basically, there is no real difference between the 38/44 and the 357 other than the chambers are not bored to take 357s?

__________________
Aaron Terry

.38special and .357magnum have the same bore. It's the length that's different.

Same lead. Even the primers are the same. But you really want to use small magnum primers on .357mag

I shoot .38special wad cutters in my .357mag all the time or bulk .38special because it's usually a good bit cheaper.

Also, .357mag uses different powder if I'm not mistaken.

I personally would never by a .38special revolver unless it was a smoking hot deal. Not all are +p rated and all .357mag revolvers can shoot all .38special ammo from wad cutters to +P to +P+.

__________________
SW Sigma 40VE, 22a, M&P 15-22

Not all .357 mag loads use mag primers. Only loads that use slow burning powder need mag caps.

The old HD's were nearly as powerful if not equal to todays .357 loads as it has been watered down.

__________________
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

.38-44 HV: The Original Magnum - revolver round - page 2 | Guns Magazine Here is an article by Chuck Taylor that talks about the difference. Sounds like the .38/44 loads were getting hot so they lengthend the case for safety reasons. Keep folks from loading up a hot round in an old M&P

Yeah, for our wad cutters we don't use the small magnum primers. We save those for good stuff.

__________________
SW Sigma 40VE, 22a, M&P 15-22

I recall reading somewhere that the prototype .357s were built on Outodoormans with special heat treatment. The hottest .38/44 ammunition was probably at current .357 Magnum levels, so who knows if this was necessary; the story about making the .357s longer to not allow loading into an M & P (or even scarier, an 1889-1903 Colt DA .38 service revolver) makes sense.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

True, but I think S&W aficionados sometimes forget that Colt did make a large frame (the New Service and Shooting Master) and a medium frame (the Official Police) that were approved by Colt to shoot the 38/44. In addition, the New Service and Shooting Master were offered in 357 Magnum once that round came out. Colt introduced a medium frame 357 36 years before S&W came out with the L-Frame. Colt's 41 frame (later called the I-Frame) was the basis of the "Colt 357" in 1954, which was later renamed the "Trooper 357." A year later the Python was introduced, which was a Trooper 357 with an underlugged bull barrel and a higher level of fit and finish. The Python was in effect Colt's "Registered Magnum" from a quality standpoint.

Here's a Colt Shooting Master 357, which is roughly the same size as the N-Frame S&W 357:

The 357 Magnum had a checkered top strap.

I am a little late on this, but from the 1937 catalog: .38/44 Outdoorsman with a 6 1/2-inch barrel (only cataloged option, but some "McGivern" models have a 5-inch barrel) weighed 41 3/4 ounces, .38/44 S&W Special with a 158 grain bullet had a muzzle velocity of 1125 fps, barrel had no rib (post-war model had one that is grooved) and top strap is plain, cost was $45.00

".357" Magnum with a 6 1/2-inch barrrel (length was optional between 3 1/2 inches and 8 3/4-inches) weighed 45 ounces, top strap was finely checked as was the barrel rib, charge holes in cylinder have recessed head space, hammer with concentric grooves to improve function, Magnum ammunition with a 158 grain bullet had a muzzle velocity of 1515 fps (probably in a barrel of 8 3/4 inches in length), cost was $60.00 and a wait of six weeks or more, but worth the wait.

Bill

I would imagine that the .357 has a different heat treatment.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

My 38/44 Super Police has more than 1/8 left in the cylinder when loaded...Does this mean if a .357 WILL fit into the cylinder, that it can handle the pressure of the Magnum load?
I am just curious, I have not yet purchased .357 to test this theory, but if a .357 is only 1/8 inch longer than current .38 loads....I think I have the room for it. Everything else about this gun seems modified...I wonder if it was modified to accommodate a .357 load.

Does anyone know how accurate the muzzle velocity figures are for the .38 and .357 listed loads of the 1930's?

__________________
Richard Gillespie
FBINA 102

Not the greatest photos, but here are some photos for comparison:

6.5" Registered "357 Magnum"






6.5" 38/44 "Outdoorsman"

__________________
Richard
Engraved S&W fan

Need to compare the Shiny ones too

Believe it or not they had chronographs back then. Crude by our standards (based on a ballistic pendulum) but they were able to measure the velocity of their ammo.

Dave

__________________
RSVN '69-'71
PCSD (Ret)

Oh, those are lovely.

I have read up alot on the .38-44 since I used to own one. The old .357's that first came out could easily smoke the current loads (I blame J-frame .357's) at 158 grains moving at 1,500 fps. But as far as the guns there really isn't a great deal of difference between the two.

__________________
Vaya con Dios

As far as I understand, the .357 came about because people were loading .38hv in small frame .38 Spc, and for liability reasons, S&W decided to add the length so they would be unable to chamber in a standard .38. I understand that the .357 was developed in an Outdoorsman, and the loads were essentially to mimic or edge slightly the existing .38-44HV load, however from what I have read (being born in 1981, I for some reason have no firsthand experience with original .38-44 loads) there was not as huge a difference between the .38-44 and the .357 as there was between the .38S and the .357.
In addition, some of the older .38 Spc revolvers had long for caliber cylinders, and could chamber the .357 with no modification. Even today there are a number of "Hillbilly Magnums", where people will bore out a .38Spc to take the .357 length cartridge. Not a good idea, if you particularly attached to your hands.

Sage advice from my grandfathers and my father, and any other oldtimer that was at the range when i was a kid : " If it aint stamped on the barrel dont put it in there"

The model 27 is heavier, than a 19 or 66, (K frames), yet the K frames have a longer clyinder than the 27. Anyone want to tackle that?
Personaly I think it was partialy a marketing idea. Now I dont know about the heat treating idea, but I really think reaming out a HD clyinder to .357 would be safe as it had been sucessfully done many times they tell me. Now days, it would be dumb though, from a collector/money standpoint.

Senecap,
When S&W decided that they needed a round and handgun that would pentrate bad guys with bullet proof vests and armored vehicles, they looked at the 38 SPL which had basically been loaded with the same amount of smokeless powder as blackpowder. The heavy loads they used from Elmer Keith apparently blew up K frame M&P guns so they looked at the 3d model .44 and figured that if you bored that big cylinder with .38 holes as opposed to .44, you had a lot of steel to take the increased pressure. They added the barrel shroud like the .44 and the 38/44 Heavy Duty was born. The 38-44 ammo was listed at 1150FPS which is probably close to todays factory 357. This ammo was for only the large frame guns. I was fortunate to pick up 3 full boxes of 38-44 ammo at Tulsa this weekend.
Hope this helps,
Bill

__________________
38-44heavyduty.com

One reason the Model 19 and other K frame magnums have a longer cylinder is for strength. Notice how much less of the rear of the barrel is unsupported on the Magnums than on the non-Magnums designed after the original .357. I think S&W's engineers may have been (correctly) concerned about strength in this area when they designed the Combat Magnum. Also, notice that the other Magnums developed by S&W, the .41 and .44, also have less of the rear of the barrel exposed/longer cylinder, even though they are N frame guns.

The S&W counterbored chamber cylinders are actually all longer than the non-counterbored cylinders on the rear of the cylinder, too. The difference is minor, the thickness of the cartridge rims. If you have sequential dash numbers of the same model of S&W, where the second gun doesn't have a recessed chamber cylinder, measure both. The newer one will be shorter. 'The shorter' part is the rear of the cylinder.

Thanks. That sounds reasonable.

Steve brought this transitional Outdoorsman to me at Tulsa a couple years ago. It had been converted to .38-44 "Magnum" probably in the 40's !

Jerry

__________________
.38/44 Outdoorsman Accumulator

Sorry I'm a little confused by your description, but what do you mean by "converted to .38-44 magnum"? Are you saying it was modified to take the .357, as the Heavy Duty and Outdoorsman were designed from the get go for the .38-44 High Velocity round, they were simply stamped, though, as .38 S&W Special Ctg. Or is there some modified magnum .38-44 round I haven't run across yet?

senecaap:

You missed a quote on the "Magnum". The .38-44 cylinder will not chamber a .357Magnum round unless it is reamed a bit longer. A couple of my own guns were modified by previous owners to accept the .357 cartridge. .38-44 brass and .38 Special brass are identical length and differ only in the head stamp. It is just an example of one of your "Hillbilly Magnums" !

Jerry

__________________
.38/44 Outdoorsman Accumulator

S&W has always made it clear that a special chrome-nickel (their phrasing) steel was used in .357's, and they also had additional heat treatment.

I am rather concerned that this thread may lead some to bore out a .38-44 and regret it. Moreover, they'd ruin a collector's gun. Just buy a .357 or sell the .38-44 to a collector and get one.

Of all places, I'd have thought that this board would be full of members who'd know better than to re-chamber a .38.

Modern 158 grain .357 JHP ammo often beats 1,200 FPS in a four-inch revolver barrel. I'm almost sure that those 1510 and 1550 FPS loads were obtained in pressure barrels of a bit over eight inches. That probably also applied to 1450 FPS postwar ammo.

Recent .357 ammo is loaded lighter because of K-frame Magnums, not J-frames, which are Johnny-come-latelys in .357.

T-Star

FWIW: You can hand load a 38 special to such a respectable performance level that I wouldn't bother with trying to cram .357 magnum rounds into those 38 chambers.

Also, Elmer Keith published loading data using 2400 as a propellant, and some of those 38 spl loads are near .357 performance. Of course, it's wise to only use a revolver built strong enough to handle hot hand loads.

My understanding is that "in the early days" when 357 magnum revolvers were hard to come by, that there were quite a few 38/44 revolver cylinders that were reamed out to load the 357 magnum cartridge. Some of them were stamped as such on the barrels by their reamers, while others were just reamed with no mark as to the modification. I purchased a Transitional Heavy Duty that had been reamed and stamped "357" on the side of the barrel. However, I do not plan to shoot anything but 38 Specials out of the gun and I would recommend the same to others who own reamed 38/44's. And I cannot see why anyone would incur the cost to ream a 38/44 in this current market, where 357 revolvers of all varieties are plentiful, easy to find and relatively reasonably priced.

In my younger years (not that I am old), I got a thrill out of shooting powerful/punishing loads. However, the older I get, I find that I rarely shoot anything but 38's out of my 357's. I find myself shooting for pleasure and accuracy, not to show myself or others how much punishment that I can handle. Then again, maybe I never was the macho dude that I thought that I was...

__________________
Richard
Engraved S&W fan

Amen, Brother Richard. At 63 and a shooter since single digits, I still touch off a big honker from time to time (such as a Reeder 510 or a 50AE Bowen built for me) but a 44 Special in one of my 44mags or 38 Specials in a 357 is much more my current taste. At my age, it is been there, done that, don't remember. Dave

__________________
Time Wounds All Heels

I too, own a post war nickled 38/44 that was reamed out for .357 mag loads. It was so marked with an electric pencile but is in a way that you don't reallly notice it or maybe the nickle was placed over it. It is a renickled gun. I shoot standard 158 gr .38s in it. I love the heavy feel of this old shooter and it shoots to POA. Great guns and I have managed to find a few of these old shooters.

Unfortunately this article is no longer available on the internet. Does anyone have this as a pdf-document?

Thank you.

__________________
Regards from Germany
Stephan

Not a PDF, but here's a link:

.38-44 HV: The Original Magnum. - Free Online Library

Has been reamed to accept .357 magnum ammo prior to my purchasing it. Actually, many years ago, as it was the thing to do. I paid handsomely for it as it is all numbers matching, but about $400 less than if it had been un-modified. The reason I bought it was because it HAD been modified.


To my knowledge there is no different heat treatment between these & the RM's The only ones that got different treatment were the 44 & 41 mags. I got no problem shootin' magnum's outta this one. I wouldn't do it out of a modified m15. The hiilbillies don't realize the m19 has a beefier crane on it.

Thank you!!!

__________________
Regards from Germany
Stephan

The cylinders on the post war 38/44’s are plenty hard enough (Rockwell Tested), and thick enough to ream to .357 Magnum. Post War 38/44’s reamed to .357 are stronger than Pre War Registered Magnums. Which have relatively softer steel.

Emory

I feel T-Star's concern is possibly misplaced. All of the .38/44s I own or have seen that were converted were post-war transitional models. My gut feeling is that the conversions took place in the 1940s or early 50s !
Does anyone own a post 1950 .38/44 that has been converted to .357Magnum?
I would certainly doubt members of this Forum would consider doing it now. The guns are simply worth too much "as is" and recent .357 models are relatively "cheap" (inexpensive)!

Jerry

__________________
.38/44 Outdoorsman Accumulator

In the last two or three years I have been doing a lot on the .38-44's especially in the Outdoorsman and have dug up every piece of data that I could on them. One of the best articles was the October 2006 article on the .38-44 in Handloader magazine by Brian Pearce. Brian wrote this of the comparison between the .357 and the .38-44's.
"The magnum did feature countersunk chambers, which was a part of the factory high-grade custom package, with no expense being spared. Technically speaking, however, countersunk chambers did not add strength and did any of the magnum's custom features. Likewise the frames of both guns were equally strong. The point being, the strength of the .357 Magnum revolvers and the .38-44 handguns were effectively identical."

I have been working for the last year or so on different loads for my Outdoorsman and I can tell you this gun has taken everything I have thrown at it. My favorite two loads are the 170 grain cast #358429 bullet and 12.5 grains of 2400 in .38 Special +P brass. I ran this load through my chronograph at over 1,200 fps and the other load is a #358156 HP again with 12.5 grains of 2400 at around 1,250 fps. According to the October 2006 article these loads aren't even close to the max for these guns but they are both very accurate even out to 65 yards one handed on shooting sticks. I had thought about buying another .357 Magnum long barrel but this gun meets all my needs.

Here is some more reading on the .38-44.

http://www.guns.com/38-44-outdoorsma...nners-433.html

__________________
Vaya con Dios

I picked up an Outdoorsman some years ago that shipped in 1954 and which had been later converted to .357. I only found this out a couple of years ago when I tried a sample .357 round in all my 38/44's - just to check.

Jerry

j38:

Thank you for the information on your 1954!

Jerry

__________________
.38/44 Outdoorsman Accumulator

OT; Today if i was just getting into revolvers like i did in 1975 I would of skipped over the 357mag and purchased the S&W N frame in 41mag. If i knew then what i know now. Being a 44mag guys for most of my handgun life I just shot my newly purchased S&W M58 in 41mag and its a dream to shoot. Its hotter than my hottest 357mag reload yet handles better than my 44mag. I say this because back in my early days i had no one to tell me about the 41mag. Everyone pushed the 44mag because of dirty harry.

Thanks for the link, Dave! It was a fascinating read. I am becoming more and more enamoured with the Outdoorsman and its capabilities. I have a 6 1/2" 1956ish Heavy Duty, and I'm thinking it needs a companion piece. Of course, I should probably go with a 1932 model as well, to go along with my 5" Heavy Duty from that time.....this place is going to break me yet!

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

I'm glad this one got resurrected. These 38/44 OD's are great guns. As this thread is packed with great info and links to great articles, I thought it could use a copy of the Outdoorsman brochure, so here you go:









... And a couple of photos of my latest OD - recently re-connected with a vintage box.





Thanks for letting me share.

__________________
Richard
Engraved S&W fan