I read where some .38-44's were rechambered to .357... Is that a safe practice ???? I have a .38-44 that had been nicely re-blued, (not factory, unfortunately) that letters to 1954... It is still in its original chambering.... I don't plan on changing that, but wonder how safe the practice is.... I see where Buffalo Bore offers a loading of 158 grain hard cast Keith bullet at 1250 fps.... certainly .357 territory.... Can .357 load data for .357 be used safely for a .38-44 of 1954 vintage .???

Max or near max load data for the 357 Remington Magnum cannot be safely used in 38 Special cases.

It is possible to achieve impressive performance with the 38 Special, but simply substituting 357 data is not the way to do it.

Thanks, makes sense about the .38 special cases.... What about the practice of rechambering one of these to .357.. ??? is that safe... ??

Functionally it should be fine. Monetarily it hurts the value for many collectors. I wouldn't be afraid to shoot 357 MAG loads in a big beefy N frame.

I have an HD that has been rechambered to .357, and I have fired .357 in it with no mishaps. Likewise I have never heard or read anything about damage resulting from that, and it is likely that there is a large number of similarly modified N frames around. There is a considerable safety factor designed into revolvers, plus there is a lot more metal thickness around the chambers of an N-frame vs. a K frame, and K-frame revolvers could fire the old .38-44 loads without blowing up. I'd say that a converted .38 N-frame would be safe using .357 ammunition. Regarding damage to value, that is probably true for an otherwise high condition N-frame. For one in average non-collectible condition, it really makes no difference. In fact it might even boost it a little for some buyers.

It's been done...a lot. Apparently without problems. At least nobody seems to heard of any. It will greatly reduce value to a purist and I would not do it or recommend it.

I'm surprised a smith would do it due to liability concerns.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

A gunsmith is not really needed, anyone with a chambering reamer can do it. Back when most of those N-frame conversions were made, probably in the 40s and 50s, gunsmiths didn't worry about liability. A different time.

My HD conversion is a little odd. There are no visible shoulders in the chambers, but it is not a straight through boring either. It seems like the chambers slightly taper to the end, as the chamber diameters at the front of the cylinder are all about .357. But I have never made a chamber casting to see the actual profile.

If it were mine, I would limit my use to .38 Spl. +P. It was originally designed for that.

I would not use .357 Mag. brass unless a professional gunsmith could verify that the lengthened chambers conform to SAAMI standard dimensions. If the "Bubba" chambers are a bit tight in the front, where they have been reamed, this can cause great spikes in chamber pressure. If you are shooting .357 ammo and have these pressure spikes because of tight case mouth dimensions, bad things can happen.

If a professional gunsmith can give a good report on the chambers, I would feel comfortable using .357 Mag. brass, but I would limit my loads to equivalent .38 Spl. +P. The gun was made to take that level of pressure.

That's what I would do, but it is your revolver and your decision to make.

Curl

If you like, go to this thread and read my post #7.

.357 Magnum Modified 38/44 Heavy Duty's?

You can see that Phil Sharpe used laboratory pressure tested loads in his 38-44 Outdoorsman while doing developmental work for the 357 Magnum.

I read that someone on this forum has a HD that was reamed to 357 Remington Magnum by S&W.

Not able to locate the post.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

I’ve shot a fair amount of both the Buffalo Bore and the Underwood equivalent ammo Both are a handful in K frames but easy to handle in either of my 38/44’s. So, why take the chance of damaging a classic revolver when either of the above loads should do about everything you may need.

__________________
Always Stay Strong!

I'm not sure of the safety aspect but I do know the collector value, which is probably still high even refinished ... will be flushed down the toilet .
Consult some of the experts around here on this but my gut instinct is don't rechamber it .

I have seen reloading data for 38/44 loads , do some searching , find this info and load for it .

Need/want a 357 ...buy a factory chambered one .
Gary

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

From an early 1960s Lyman reloading manual (.38 Special, High Velocity)

148 grain HB wadcutter: 7.7 Unique, 1285 ft/sec; 13.5 2400, 1380 ft/sec

150 grain Thompson HP Gas Check: 6.4 Unique, 1154 ft/sec; 13.5 2400, 1227 ft/sec

155 grain Keith hollow point and hollow base: 12.0 2400, 1230 ft/sec

158 grain Thompson cast plain base: 11.8 2400, 1210 ft/sec

Bullet 357446, 160 grain: 12 2400, no MV provided

Bullet 358439 (HP), 155 grain: 12 2400, no MV provided
--------------------------
I have another Lyman manual from the late 1960s which provides no data for .38 Special HV loads

Some may remember that back at that time, jacketed bullets were uncommon for revolver cartridges, so the absence of reloading data for them is not surprising. It's likely you will experience bore leading at such high velocities unless you use gas check lead bullets.

Someone was advocating the use of .38+P in the 38-44. I would submit that the original 38-44 ammunition was significantly hotter than today’s +P offering.

With the exception of the B.B. and Underwood offerings.

__________________
Always Stay Strong!

Agreed. I was referring to Federal, Remington, Winchester, etc.

There is widespread confusion on that point. For the most part, today's .38 Special +P loads are just not that much hotter than standard .38 Special loads, and are certainly not up to the ballistics of the old .38-44 (with a couple of exceptions like the Buffalo Bore and Underwood +P loads which duplicate it). Another thing is that it is not unusual to see something to the effect that S&W N-frame .38 revolvers were designed for use with .38 Special Super Police ammunition, which is hilarious. There is no comparison between the Super Police and .38-44 loads, except dimensionally.

Months back, I bought my first 38-44 HD. Like many others, shipped to Wolf and Klar in the 30's. Went through a hassle getting it as the owner went on vacation the day I sent my $$$. I forgot to ask the all important question about a re chamber and really sweated it out until the gun came 2 weeks later. It turned out to be OK. This revolver is really nice and 100% matching. I am mostly a collector and would have sent it back if chambered out to 357 along with my tears on the box. My buddy took it out and put some 148 gr. wadcutters through it at 25 yards and it is super accurate. Big Larry

Is that the 200 grain RN cartridge?

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

IIRC the S&W .357s had different heat treating for added safety.

Yes, a low velocity .38 Special load with a 200 grain lead bullet. There was also a .38 S&W version, very similar to the pre-war British .380 Mark I.

My understanding is that at some point in time, all frames, cylinders, barrels, etc. received the same heat treatment. May not have been the case pre WWll.

My own less than perfect understanding. The "heat treated" cylinders appearing around Great War end, to be distinguished from such as the K Series Combat Magnum utilized special alloy steel.

Someone above mentioning 'hearing' of a Factory 38/44 rechamber. Noting 'never say never', I'd be highly skeptical of such an occurrence. Bad publicity more than anything else! Marketing their "Mag" handguns with something of 'aura'. No conceivable desire to "introduce" with inference of "endorse" such procedure! Were there any known "big time" gun figures of the early postwar era discussing such conversions? Perhaps some well known gunsmiths promoting such work. INteresting to know who!
Best & Keep Safe!
John
Just my take!

I copied this from another thread. It is interesting and also helpful to this thread.

“...These facts come from a letter written by D.B. Wesson, Vice President of Smith & Wesson, on March 1, 1934----a letter to an inquisitive customer.

Cutting to the chase, the customer is concerned about the quality of the steel-----and if it's been (heat) treated. "As a matter of fact, even in our larger calibers the steel as it comes from the mill shows a tensile strength in the neighborhood of of 80,000 lbs., which does not make the additional strength gained by treating a necessity-----------." (He just told us it's not necessary to strengthen the steel they use for any of their guns.) He continues: "-------but we do very much prefer the greatly increased factor of safety that is obtained with the 130,000 lbs. elastic limit that the treating gives..."

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

To clear up some confusion, just check this link to find my post showing Phil Sharpe's original 38-44 load data.
Scroll to post #7:

.357 Magnum Modified 38/44 Heavy Duty's?

He even has laboratory pressure test data!

Jim

...so other than the length of the chamber and the external polishing...what is the difference between a .38-44 Heavy Duty, an Outdoorsman and Model 27 or pre-27?

The length of the cylinders are all the same...did they not come the same pile of blank N-frame cylinders before they were assigned to the frame/model they were going to be assembled into.....

A difference which is not different makes no difference.....

Bob

On turning 38s into 357s, that was common in SW Missouri in the 70s among small-town police. You could get the chambers lengthened on a M10 for $15, qualify with 38s, then put 357s in for business work. It was really, really rare that police ever shot anyone in those small towns in those days, so I expect the cops that practiced this were comforted by having a more powerful cartridge.

I never heard of a problem from this practice.

I have not seen a .38 Special K-frame with its chambers lengthened for .357, but am not surprised that it has been done.

I think it would hurt the value for either K or N frames if they were lengthened and stamped but not sure if it would if the bbl still said 38.

__________________
Front sight and squeeze

Despite what I've previously posted above concerning Phil Sharpe and his seeming success in load development in the 38-44, the conversion of a model 10 sounds scary.
I belonged to a club where one of the members blew up his model 65 (or 67?). He had run out of 357 brass so he loaded up 38 special brass with the 357 load.
Carelessly, he forgot he'd done this and eventually one of these rounds found its way into his K frame 38 Special.
"Kaboom!"
It was in a match.
He was darn lucky he didn't hurt one of the other members, besides not hurting himself.

Jim