great-grandfather's top-break .38. please help!
- Thread starter noel b.
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
I believe you have a .38 Double Action Third Model, which was manufactured from 1884 to 1895, so this qualifies as an antique (pre-1899). These were in the serial number range 119,001 to 322,700. Unfortunately, yours appears to have been re-nickeled. Among other things, the trigger, hammer, and release latch would not originally have contained a nickel finish, but would have been case-coloured or blued. I think the trigger guard may have been blued originally as well, but cannot recall for sure.
Last edited:
Yes - blued trigger guard. That particular revolver would have shipped from the S&W factory around 1888 and if in good mechanical condition, it will handle any currently available standard 38 S&W ammunition. I shoot my 38 DAs regularly and they are low recoil and great fun at the range.
i thank you both immensely! this is all great info! it's cool to learn about this piece. yes, it's unfortunate that it has been refinished. everything appears very tight and in working order! can't wait to locate some .38 s&w (difficult to find where i am) and hit the range!
tlay
US Veteran
One thing you want to check is how dry and crudded up the works are. Is crudded a word? Take the side plate off with a screwdriver that is tight in the screw. If it is dirty and dry you can use any good gunscruber cleaner. Spray it out and then use some gun oil on the moving parts. Don't use a lot. It is best to remove the grips before cleaning. But be careful! They are easy to break. Especially when putting them back on. Just snug the screw up when tightening.
I know we have been through this many times, but for the OP, here is some real world data. I have collected and tested lots of vintage ammo in everything from 22rf, 32rf, 32cf, 38 S&W, and various 44 and 45 calibers to get a better idea of the differences between black powder and smokeless. I have not found a single round manufactured today that is as fast as original black powder loads from the major ammo makers. This correlates to both felt recoil and velocities, plus in some cases, penetration. I do know that companies like Buffalo Bore and others load hot stuff in some calibers, but the chrono is your friend, especially when you are dealing with short barrel vintage handguns.
Any vintage gun can break with any ammo and not many people shoot them every day, but if in good condition, they can be fun for an occasional range outing. Lastly, I have been asking for anyone who has come across a failed vintage S&W revolver barrel, frame, of cylinder in these old calibers, but cannot find an example to date.
38 S&W 146RN……..Black Powder………Factory………….…740fps………..Vintage Remington UMC
38 S&W 145RN……..Black Powder………Factory…..…….….685fps……….Vintage Winchester
38 S&W 145RN……..Factory…………….…Current Mfg……..537fps….…..Remington
38 S&W 145RN….….Factory…………..….Current Mfg……..599fps……….PPU
38 S&W 145RN……..Factory………..…….Current Mfg…...…615fps………Winchester
Any vintage gun can break with any ammo and not many people shoot them every day, but if in good condition, they can be fun for an occasional range outing. Lastly, I have been asking for anyone who has come across a failed vintage S&W revolver barrel, frame, of cylinder in these old calibers, but cannot find an example to date.
38 S&W 146RN……..Black Powder………Factory………….…740fps………..Vintage Remington UMC
38 S&W 145RN……..Black Powder………Factory…..…….….685fps……….Vintage Winchester
38 S&W 145RN……..Factory…………….…Current Mfg……..537fps….…..Remington
38 S&W 145RN….….Factory…………..….Current Mfg……..599fps……….PPU
38 S&W 145RN……..Factory………..…….Current Mfg…...…615fps………Winchester
Last edited:
Hey, glowe, I even 'liked' your post!
Probably there aren't many that have failed from using smokeless powder, so I do agree with you about this! However, what I have noticed to be the difference when shooting blackpowder vs. smokeless powder is that the discharge of a smokeless round is more pronounced but the total elapsed time is less, vs a black powder round, which has a more elongated total elapsed time but the abruptness is much less distinct. I guess what I would equate this to is, say you have a car from the 1960's or before (later cars have much more frail bumpers, so don't try this at home, boys and girls, with one of them). But, say you have an early car, and another early car, and you want to push one of them, that is not running, at 25 mph. If you ram into one of them at 25 mph, you almost immediately get at 25 mph, but you might cause damage doing so (or, maybe not). This is the metaphor for a smokeless round. Or, you can gently tap that car at 5 mph, and accelerate to 25 mph, and get to 25 mpg, but not as abruptly. This is the metaphor for the black powder round. That's just the way I see it, but, then again, I don't always see things correctly, and some have said I am rather eccentric.
. . . and one thing we do not want to shoot is an eccentric bullet!!
The only piece of equipment I wish I had available to me is a pressure testing devise. In literature, I find that most pressure testing done in both long and short barrel guns shows peak pressures at about 1 " into the barrel regardless of the type of powder used. It is also documented that similar velocities will result in similar peak pressures for same weight projectile in both BP and smokeless.
I can certainly agree that the feel of smokeless powder recoil is different than BP, but that does not necessarily mean a difference in peak pressures. I shoot muzzle-loading guns regularly and find that shooting my 44" Pennsylvania 50 caliber feels a lot different than shooting my 30-06 with similar weight projectiles. On the other hand, I cannot come up with a 30-06 load that will give me 1400 fps, so it is an apples and oranges comparison. Also, without a chronograph, we really do not know what a given BP round versus a smokeless round velocity difference is??
Bottom line for me is a fact that every vintage S&W picked up and handled today, that has seen lots of use, has been shot with smokeless powder for the last 100 years, apparently with no ill effects.
From an engineering perspective, the pressure (P) vs. length (L) (travel-down-barrel) curve will have more area under the curve for smokeless than for black powder for the same peak pressure.
Therefore, since the integral (area) of the P vs. L curve is equal to the kinetic energy of the projectile, for the same peak pressure you will get more recoil from a smokeless round than a BP one, assuming equal weights of projectile (and ignoring gas-related recoil).
The black powder burns more quickly, but what makes the smokeless load seem to be "sharper" in recoil is that you are feeling the net effect of the powder burning due to the resulting behavior of the bullet (KE or velocity), and the weight of the rifle (Newton's Third Law).
(It's hard to explain this fully without some diagrams and equations. I cover it more thoroughly in my engineering classes.)
References: "Interior Ballistics of Guns", Vol 66, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, pub. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1979
"Technology and the West - The Ballistics Revolution" p 145 -180, pub. University of Chicago Press, 1997
Therefore, since the integral (area) of the P vs. L curve is equal to the kinetic energy of the projectile, for the same peak pressure you will get more recoil from a smokeless round than a BP one, assuming equal weights of projectile (and ignoring gas-related recoil).
The black powder burns more quickly, but what makes the smokeless load seem to be "sharper" in recoil is that you are feeling the net effect of the powder burning due to the resulting behavior of the bullet (KE or velocity), and the weight of the rifle (Newton's Third Law).
(It's hard to explain this fully without some diagrams and equations. I cover it more thoroughly in my engineering classes.)
References: "Interior Ballistics of Guns", Vol 66, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, pub. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1979
"Technology and the West - The Ballistics Revolution" p 145 -180, pub. University of Chicago Press, 1997
Skeetr57
Member
No formula that I have ever seen for recoil of a gun includes any consideration of pressure. The formula does take into consideration velocity, and mass of the projectile and the mass of the propellant, as well as a factor for the velocity of the escaping gasses. Black powder will have more recoil than smokeless in a given gun simply because the mass of the propellent will be less with smokeless powder. Apparently this was well known to the ammunition companies in the past, because old Shooters Bibles included tables from Winchester that listed older ammo recoil, and when the same cartridge was loaded with both black and smokeless, the BP version always had greater recoil. I have had personal experience of this when I owned a Colt New Service revolver in .44-40 Winchester caliber. I loaded ammo with smokeless powder to the advertised velocity, and found that the revolver grouped well but shot low. I had a box of ammo loaded with black powder, and the gun magically shot to the sights.
I have been firing a Winchester 1894 in .32-40, and I am fairly certain I feel more recoil when I fire the smokeless rounds, as compared to the black powder rounds. The loads are identical with regards to the bullet, cartridge, etc. The only difference is the powder.
What is the measured velocity of each cartridge? If the same, I guess the question then becomes does it make any difference as to what the felt recoil was?
When I load smokeless powder in antiqued revolvers, I load until I get about 550 - 600 fps. It is actuall slower than original BP loads in any caliber, but the holes look the same as 1000 fps on paper. There is no need to load to original BP velocities, since the only thins I do is shoot at targets. I am very sure the perssures of these loads are less than BP, so I have absolutely no concerns taking these old guns to the range.
I shoot lots of BP in muzzle loaders, 577 Sniders, 45-70 Sharps, etc., but hate the cleanup of revolvers. The residue gets into everything and am tired of taking apart revolvers and cleaning out the BP fouling after every trip to the range. Also tired of BP fouling ending my range time after a few cylinders full. Those are the biggest reasons for me shooting smokeless in revolvers.
"No formula that I have ever seen for recoil of a gun includes any consideration of pressure."
Such formulas do account for pressure, but indirectly. The area under the pressure-length curve in the bore determines the kinetic energy of the projectile. For a given bullet weight that is easily converted to velocity (KE = 1/2 MV**2).
For completeness, if you specify a particular bore size, which determines the area in the pressure term (P=F/A), you can integrate the force-length curve and arrive at velocity directly from the calculation.
However, for most purposes the interior ballistics are not known (and are not easily determined).
The measurement of the bullet velocity in flight (easily done) gives the needed value of V for calculating recoil, but that velocity results from the specific interior ballistics of the gun, powder, bore, and bullet combination.
Such formulas do account for pressure, but indirectly. The area under the pressure-length curve in the bore determines the kinetic energy of the projectile. For a given bullet weight that is easily converted to velocity (KE = 1/2 MV**2).
For completeness, if you specify a particular bore size, which determines the area in the pressure term (P=F/A), you can integrate the force-length curve and arrive at velocity directly from the calculation.
However, for most purposes the interior ballistics are not known (and are not easily determined).
The measurement of the bullet velocity in flight (easily done) gives the needed value of V for calculating recoil, but that velocity results from the specific interior ballistics of the gun, powder, bore, and bullet combination.
