Bought my wife’s 36 new in ‘86ish... it’s marked “ Mod. 36” only.

Does this indicate it is a “no dash” model? Barrel is not pinned, cylinder not recessed. (Were any .38 specials only recessed?)

The answer to your first question is, “Yes”

I’m sure that someone will be along to answer your second question.

In any event, for a 1986 vintage Model 36, a non-pinned barrel and non-recessed cylinder would be the correct configuration for this vintage.

No model or "pre model" 36 was ever recessed. Pinned, yes, but 38 specials were never recessed. 22lr, 22mag, 357 mag 41mag and 44 mag only had recesses. Once upon a time the all had a barrel pin

I believe no-dashes were made both pinned and unpinned. You'd think that would be a significant change!

I have often wondered why they recessed the larger magnums and the .22's.........and not the stuff in between.

Just why did they recess the .22's?

Of course this is not my area of expertise and just questions based on casual observations.

Go all the way back to the invention of the .22 cartridge, back in the 1860s. The cartridges were black powder, low velocity, low pressure and I believe the cases were primarily made of copper, thus soft and thin. Due to the low pressure, there was not a problem with the cartridges. For S&W, along came the M frame .22 hand ejector. At the same time, smokeless powder was being introduced. Any cartridges loaded with smokeless powder were intentionally loaded to not exceed the pressure of a black powder round. Then came the .22 HFT, all the same issues. All of these guns to date did not have recessed chambers.

Don't know who it was, but someone came along and introduced "hi-speed" .22 ammo. It went a lot faster, but achieved that speed by vastly increasing the pressure of the cartridge. With no support around the thin case rim, cases started rupturing and rims started splitting. To solve this "problem", .22 cylinder chambers went to being recessed in order to provide support to the edges of the case rims, and prevent them from splitting.

That is why the earlier .22/32 HFTs had non-recessed chambers and the "newer" ones were recessed. To my knowledge, all .22s have had recessed chambers since. They simply support the case rim.

This is what I have heard and read many times in the past. If this is total baloney, I would welcome a better story. For now, this is my story and I'm sticking to it.

__________________
SWCA 3297 SWHF 583

Well now you've got me wondering why the .38special didn't have this issue when transitioning from black powder to smokeless...........and maybe they did when trying to push them closer to .357magnum pressures thus the need for .357magnum recessed chambers? (At least with older style cases anyways as newer examples aren't recessed?)

Thanks, as it is all very interesting. It's not something I typically deal in with regards to the M1917 and Victory examples I tend to accumulate.

With this theory in mind are there "somewhat" commonly found older varieties of .357Magnum and .44Magnum ammo that are simply not recommended for non-recessed chamber revolvers due to their lack of support around the rims?

As the others have said, "Yes."

Many sellers in today's market place use the term "no dash" to infer the revolver they're selling is somehow superior or preferred to one with a dash/number. That's sure not the case with Model 36s.

In 1950 S&W gave us the .38 Chiefs Special.

In 1957 the company assigned Model numbers to all its revolvers, and the steel Chiefs became the Model 36, which came with either 2" or 3" lightweight barrels.

Now, to interrupt myself, I'll say that Chiefs underwent many of the same "engineering changes" other models experienced during the first few decades. For some reason S&W chose not to identify every change in its Chiefs with a dash/number.

In 1967 S&W added the Model 36-1 to designate a 3" Heavy Barrel Chiefs Special, and the company concurrently made both the lightweight barrel lengths.

In 1975 S&W discontinued the 3" lightweight barrel. The Heavy Barrel Model 36-1 became the standard 3" Chiefs Special, and the Model 36 was available only with a 2" lightweight barrel.

Pinned barrels ceased in late 1981 to early 1982.

In 1988 the Model 36-2 replaced the Model 36, and the Model 36-3 replaced the Model 36-1.

Through the next decade the succession went something like this:

- 2" Chiefs were 36-2, then 36-4, then 36-7, and then 36-9.

- 3" Heavy Barrel Chiefs were 36-3, then 36-5, 36-6 (stand alone Target Model), and then 36-8.

In 2001 S&W released the Model 36-10 with an Internal Lock. It has been offered in 2" and 3" barrel lengths.

Hope this helps.

__________________
Wrangler of stray Chiefs
Bob

Since you asked, here is "Part 2 - Recessed Cylinders - Center Fire".

For the most part, by 1902 with the advent of the Model 1902 (which came to be named the M&P) .38 Spl. ammo was loaded with smokeless powder. With brass cases and a thicker web, pressure was well maintained within the case. When "someone" decided that law enforcement needed a more powerful load capable of penetrating steel automobile doors, S&W came out with the N frame 38/44 along with a faster and higher pressure load, also dubbed .38/44. Although the pressure limit was considerably increased, everything still worked pretty well.

Then along came fella's like Elmer Kieth and Phillip Sharpe who began experimenting with even more powerful rounds. At this time, many of the cartridge cases were made in what were called "balloon head" cartridges. See picture below. As folks started amping up the oomph in their reloads, the weak (thinner) areas of the balloon head case started separating. This lead to the development of the solid head case as we know it today.

But with many, many balloon head cases in the hands of reloaders and factories, what was to be done to provide support to keep these cases from rupturing? Again, the engineering change was rather simple. Recess the cylinder charge holes to provide the extra support to the case head. Thus the early .357 magnums were produced with recessed cylinders.

Today, since the old balloon head cases are rarely even seen, it is less of a concern. So it is no longer really necessary to recess the cylinder holes on magnum revolvers.

Pretty much the same can be said for the .44 Special progressing to the .44 Magnum.

As I stated earlier in regards to the .22 cartridge, this is what I have read in the past. True or not, it does make some sense.

Attached Images

BalloonHeadCaseCompare.jpg (60.4 KB, 16 views)

__________________
SWCA 3297 SWHF 583

Thanks ks,

I figured the old ammo/case types probably factored into it. I guess the lawyers at S&W finally gave up on worrying about someone firing the hotter loads using the weaker balloonhead cases.