I have come into a little beauty: .38 DA top break, model 2, issue 2, nickle plated, SN 64XXX.

Being a black powder revolver, I'm not sure what to use for ammo. I have seen some posts in my limited lurking on this site recommending Remington 146gr lead rn (R38SW). Are there any other opinions???

Thanks

People more knowledgeable than I on these old guns will have more info for you, but I'm not sure I would shoot it with factory smokeless cartridges. If you reload, you could either shoot it with black or make up a very light smokeless load that would probably be all right.

If the gun is REALLY nice I wouldn't shoot it at all.

You might get lots of differing opinions on this subject. .38S&W ammunition is readily available and I have shot it in my antique DAs. I have recently purchased some Remington, 146 grain lead and got 537 fps average on the chronograph, which is a very mild load. I also load my own with both BP and smokeless and my BP loads are about 650 fps, while my smokeless loads are up to 700 fps. I use the faster reloads in my post 1898 revolvers.

For my antiques, I load a 125 grain bullet with smokeless powder at about 500 fps and have every confidence that I am not harming my top-breaks. Easy on the gun and adequate accuracy for plinking - 2" spread at 50 feet is possible.

My chrono results with factory Winchester .38 S&W 146 grain ammo are about the same, my velocities are in the range of 600 f/s, which is a very light load. I've fired many hundreds of that load and other light smokeless reloads with 125 grain bullets in two S&W .38DAs and one old H&R with no problems whatsoever. Nothing really wrong with using BP reloads, but they will gunk up your revolver in a hurry and are best avoided unless you enjoy smoke and grime.
-------------------
Returning - I checked my chrono records (from 2008) and the Winchester 146 grain factory loads mentioned went 605 f/s in my 6" .38DA. My normal reload using a 125 grain .358 lead truncated cone bullet shows an average in the high 600s, say 670-680 f/s. At my last local gun show two weeks ago, no shortage of .38 S&W factory ammo - I saw 6 boxes (all Winchester), and there may well have been more I didn't see, as I wasn't specifically looking for it. Asking price was $30/box, but I wasn't buying.

Thanks all - you have boosted my confidence level. Once I get clean check from my gs, I will give it a try.

I have a center break with a 1885 Pat number on it and when I traded for it I was told it's black powder. So your saying the 125 G .38 DA will work fine? I want to use this gun as a carry gun because it's so kool and I like retro syuff. I'll see if I can add a picture so let me know. Tom

Tom, if your revolver had that much original nickel, I would advise you not to carry it, but looks like a very nice re-nickel, so go for it. The sideplate joint should look practically invisible on a factory gun and I believe the trigger and guard should be case hardened.

Are you sure that you have a .38? It looks like a .32 cylinder length, but hard to tell. If it is a .32, it was probably made after 1898. Factory ammo should be fine in this S&W.

Sure looks like a .38 2rd Model to me, which has the release on the frame. The .32 1st Model has the release on the barrel. The 2nd Model is from 1887-1890, so I'd be hesitant to shoot modern ammo with it. Definitely a refinish, but a very nice one. If this is your carry piece you can use a J-frame .38 speed loader. You might have to file down the little nubbins which hold the cartridge rim, but it will work.

__________________
Peter #2091

You are right, by the angle of the picture, the cylinder looked too short for a .38, but I did not notice the frame latch.

.38 S&W factory ammunition chronographs about 100 fps lower than BP. .32 and .38 ammo has always been loaded with the older top break models in mind and are very light loads. I have shot both and the recoil on the BP rounds is noticeably higher than smokeless loads.

Thanks for the info. It is a short .38 as I can slip a 38 special bullet in it with ease but of course it's way too long So should I stick with BP loads if I can find them. I have several nice carry type weapons but this thing is so new and retro that I love it but never fired it. I also have a lemmon squeezer 1880 date release on barrell not frame in original just ok condition and also is a .38 but I want rid of it. It is a nice refinish and they didn't do the trigger guard correctly but other wise an excellent job.

Lately I've been enjoying this 38 DA. Fresh from the range. We have put 200 rounds down range and it just keeps getting better. The bore is much brighter and the rifling looks much better. A little use is knocking the rust out of it.



Only problem is the 38 S&W Ammo isn't on every shelf. When you do find it in stock, it's not exactly cheap.



Typically it's around $32 a box.

Well I stopped in an old gun store last week that has been in the same spot for a good 30 years. Basically just stopped in to look around. Found they had maybe 20 or 30 top breaks of various manufacture on display. Out of that lot, less than 5 or 6 were still functional. There rest were "non-shooters". Broken in some fashion or another. Parts guns if you will on sale for between $50 and $75

Well we asked if they had any 38 S&W Ammo? Sure enough and they pulled this off the shelf. The white plastic box in the middle. On sale for $19.00.







Check out that muzzle velocity:



390 Meters / Second or around 1,200 Feet / Second. That's a hot little round AND you'll note it's a full metal jacket. Those Fins must like their 38's

Question is: Are we going to have a broken weapon as well??

Wow - that is some fast ammo! I would hesitate shooting that in an N Frame, let alone a top break. I hope you bought that for show and not go in your little 38.

Wow, 1200 fps?!
Do you have any way of sending that stuff across a chronograph to confirm what the label says?

That box originally had 9mm Parabellum in it. Someone repacked it with British .380 military ammo which is the same as the 38 S&W.

Edited to add: I believe that is the 178 grain load so I wouldn't shoot it in my old top break.

I shoot a light 146 gr load in both my Victory and 4th Model hammerless. No problems but I rarely shoot the topbreak.

Would 80 grain .38 SW be a little too hot for the old top breaks?

__________________
Cliff

It is not the weight of the bullet, but the powder load that determines if it is too hot or not. Factory .38 S&W are loaded with 146 grain bullets and are safe to shoot in a good condition top-break.

If reloading an 80 grain bullet, make sure to use published data and do not make stuff up, since too much powder can lead to high pressures even with a light bullet. I have not seen loads for 80 grain bullets in .38 S&W, but if velocities are below 700 fps, you should be good to go.

Excellent observation

That packaging was definitely in question. Closer examination of the torn off label does in fact reveal a ghost image of 9mm. Thank you

Further examination of these ammunition examples reveal these facts as well:

The Winchester ammunition (in the white box on the left ) is nickel plated. The $15.50 price is box dated 1998 and was included with the weapon when I purchased it last fall.

The case diameter on this older Winchester ammunition measures right at .383". It will NOT fit into a 38 Special cylinder

The currently available Remington .38 S&W ammunition (green and yellow box on the left) measures .380 and will fit a 38 special cylinder without a problem.

The full metal jacket examples measure about .381

So the question remains:

I am a brand new member but have been a gunsmith for 40 plus years. I hope I don't step on any toes here, but in my humble opinion, the Top-break Smiths should only be fired with black powder loads. Smokeless propellants have a very different burning rate and peak-pressure point than black powder or pyrodex type substitutes. Also, the metallurgy back then was not quite up to todays standards. Those old alloys, unlike cheese, do not get stronger with age. They are beautiful old revolvers and probably the finest ever produced. it would be a shame, in my opinion, to risk damaging such a classic piece of history. Respectfully, Bill

__________________
Billy 2 Beers.

Bill,

Welcome to the Forum. I am afraid that we will always have this debate, whether it is with antique revolvers, shotguns, or rifles.

You should be in a good position, with your 40 years of gunsmithing, to comment on actual guns observed that have been damaged by smokeless powder. How many have you seen that can be described with these problems and just not normal wear?

There is information out there where tests were conducted on BP and smokeless powders in shotguns, where the pressures were measured at several points over the length of the barrel. Results were that BP and Clays loads posted identical pressure curves at every measurement point along the barrel, and I am confident that this data can be reproduced in other weapons. Problem is that few will do it, or publish the results.

I think I can speak for most collectors out there that no one shoots their collector pieces often. Most people love to see these engineering marvels from the 1800's do the job they used to, but realize that it is not a good idea to shoot a box of ammo every time they go to the range, mostly because there are no spare parts available.

Anyway, I am a firm believer that if one loads with the proper smokeless powders that chronograph at 100 to 200 fps lower than original BP loads, you will do less damage to the gun and will generate lower pressures. American ammunition manufacturers have done this for years with the old cartridges and I am still waiting to see a photo or description of a gun ruined by prudent and proper use of smokeless powders.

I am not from Missouri, but I wish someone would "Show Me".

I agree with glowe. I've shot factory loads and mild reloads in both my .32 and .38 top breaks, but sparingly. Lately I've been using Trailboss in my reloads and they are very mild. BTW, for those of you in need of 38 S&W, check your local Bass Pro store. I saw over a dozen boxes at the Harrisburg, Pa store this past week. They had it last year around this time too, but sold out after a month or so. They also have 32 S&W and 32 S&W long in stock. All were Remington's and all were around $32 per box.
John

"Smokeless propellants have a very different burning rate and peak-pressure point than black powder or pyrodex type substitutes."

Everybody says this, but I have yet to see the slightest bit of proof of that statement for any revolver cartridge. Will someone show me a pressure curve comparison? Until then, I don't believe it, and no one should.

"Smokeless propellants have a very different burning rate and peak-pressure point than black powder or pyrodex type substitutes."

I guess I would like to see data that supports this statement as well.

First, If you read my post, I hope you understood that I was merely stating my opinion as a gunsmith with 40+ years experience. I didn't mean to bring into question the "facts" that some of you hold so dear. My sincere apologies gentlemen. Second, with all due respect, just because I don't "see" something, doesn't mean I am willing to admit it doesn't exist. But that's just me. I have only my personal experience to guide me, as do each of you. We each must decide, based on our knowledge, what risks we are willing to take. I don't work at H.P. White laboratory, but perhaps someone out there does, and would be willing to explain the difference between the burning rates of a low order explosive, like black powder, and a modern progressive burning "smokeless" propellant. I am sure that individual could put it in far more understandable terms than I. Again, I apologize. Sincerely, Bill

__________________
Billy 2 Beers.

Bill, great observations in your original post and there is no need for an apology. Disagreements are not a bad thing and often shed light on controversial topics that help others down the road.

I have collected and restored Damascus barreled shotguns for years and have done a terrific amount of research on the topic of strength and durability. It was not until Sherman Bell wrote a series of articles on BP vs. smokeless and the testing of Damascus barrels in the Double Gun Journal that pure research came to light on these topics. For the first time, facts and findings became available for those who wanted to know the answers to many age-old firearms questions. Too bad the information is not more widely available.

Old tales, a friend of a friend of a friend's first line accounts, and opinions without facts, do not hold up for me. I am in the camp of Bell's article title "Finding Out for Myself".

That center headstamp shows it to be British 380 Mk II (38/200) That is 178 grain FMJ bullet at 650 fps.

If it's not an Enfield or a Webley very likely you will stretch the latchwork shooting that in it.

I will add a small bit of evidence to the BP-Smokeless pressure discussion. The only black powder revolver pressure information I have ever seen is found in the Lyman black powder handbook, and most of that information is not particularly useful in that round ball loads constitute the majority of the data.

What Lyman did was to convert some C&B replicas to pressure guns by modifying a cylinder chamber to take a LUP pressure measurement assembly. In only one case was there a test that would be at least somewhat representative of a cartridge revolver, and that involved a .36 caliber C&B shooting a 150 grain cast conical bullet with G-O FFFg powder. In that situation, a 12 grain load produced 7200 LUP at a MV of 560 ft/sec, and a 15 grain load produced 8500 LUP at a MV of 668 ft/sec.

Well and good, but LUP is not directly translatable to peak chamber pressure. It is generally conceded, but without substantiation, that a LUP value is somewhat less than peak psi, i.e., 8500 LUP indicates a peak chamber pressure in excess of 8500 psi. Just how much more is unknown. I also read somewhere, but I do not remember where, that the Italian proof house proof tests replica black powder revolvers with loads producing in excess of 11,000 psi. I have no idea how they measure such pressures. Keep in mind that LUP and CUP measurements date from the 19th century, before electronics, and do not actually measure peak pressure, as a modern piezo pressure gauge does.

So there you have it, insofar as I can find any information. By analogy a typical .38 S&W black powder cartridge load (based purely on MV), is capable of producing peak pressures likely in excess of 8000 psi. I have no idea, and have never seen any information, of what the LUP is of either a factory BP or Smokeless cartridge would be. Even if that were known, it wouldn't help in determining if the supposed "peak pressure point" differences between BP and smokeless cartridges were, if any, or what the actual peak pressure is. Another issue that seems to be unknown or unstated is just how high is the chamber pressure is that a black powder revolver will safely withstand?

My whole point in this discussion is that it seems that no one has any hard data about what the chamber pressure characteristic differences are between black powder and smokeless powder cartridges at comparable muzzle velocities, at what level do pressures present a hazard when fired in a black powder revolver, and if milder factory smokeless loads are in any way unsafe.

It would indeed be great if someone having a test barrel equipped with a piezo pressure gauge would actually run some comparative tests that would produce P-T curves that would define exactly what the differences in pressure characteristics are, if any. If anyone knows about such data, presenting it here would also be great. Otherwise, no one should present their own unfounded pronouncements about the danger of smokeless powder loads in black powder revolvers as being fact, without stating they are based upon nothing more than their own opinions.

In the meantime, I'll take the unquestioned fact that Remington, Winchester, and any other current manufacturer of smokeless versions of the old BP revolver cartridges do not publish warnings against using those loads in older revolvers. Those guys do have pressure barrels and ballisticians that know their stuff, and bear the legal liability for someone's old revolver blowing up. If they are not concerned, then neither should we be.

Despite all this, if someone feels that they must use black power loads in their old BP revolvers for whatever belief they have, that's their choice.

Regarding Damascus barreled shotguns, I'm not sure they are comparable to revolvers. I am sure that after smokeless powder shotshells appeared, a lot, if not most, of their owners used smokeless loads in their guns exclusively for years without a thought, with no catastrophic consequences for the most part. The big problem with Damascus barrels is that with age, corrosion can occur between the different strands of metals that make up the barrels, creating what are essentially splits (or weak areas) in them. At the present time, I wouldn't shoot a Damascus-barreled gun at all, not even with BP loads or the lightest smokeless loads. I don't feel that lucky.

PS - At one time I knew a fellow who lost three fingers on his left hand from firing smokeless loads in a Damascus-barreled double gun. I don't know the circumstances of the blowout, as it occurred sometime in the 1940s. I have understood that Damascus barrel blowouts, when they happen, are most likely to occur in the area right over the handguard where pressures are high (and where your hand is).

Mr. DWalt, again, I did not make a " pronouncement", and I did not claim it was a "fact". Those are your words. I merely said it was my opinion. I'm sorry if I ruffled your feathers. You are, of course free to disagree. I will simply give you a quote from the Speer #14(2007) reloading manual: "Almost all hinged-frame revolvers produced prior to WWII should be considered un-suitable for shooting modern ammo." Now, these gentleman have the most modern equipment available and manufacture more ammo in a day than most men could shoot in a lifetime ( ok, one or two of you might be an exception! :-) so I figure they probably know what they are talking about. I think a prudent man might want to pay attention to their advice. just my opinion. Modesty prevents me from detailing the ballistic research my father and I carried out (with the gracious assistance of CCI) back in the early 1960s, including being the first to photograph primer flashes. Alas, that was then, and this is now. But it does my old heart good to know that the shooters of today are as stubborn and opinionated as ever! LOL! Sincerely, Bill

__________________
Billy 2 Beers.

And here are a few more quotes, and the source, in case you are interested: Hodgdon 26th Edition," Smokeless powder differs considerably in its burning characteristics from common black powder.", "Black powder burns essentially at the same rate out in the open (unconfined) as when in a gun", "The burning rate of smokeless powder increases with increased pressure." Now, i don't wish to belabor the point, but I stand by my "opinion" as to the differences in the burning rates and pressure peaks between black powder and modern progressive smokeless. But please, don't take my word for it. I'm sure a friendly call to H.P. White Laboratory would be enlightening. And now my friends, I am weary of this discussion of Copper units of pressure, Lead units of Pressure, PSI, etc. It's a gorgeous clear night here in Southern California, so I think I will pour 3 fingers of Wild Turkey, light up an Arturo Fuente cigar, and grope the mother of my children. Sincerely, Bill

__________________
Billy 2 Beers.

Hmmm - I wonder why an ammunition company would not want anyone to shoot their ammo in old revolvers?? I also wonder if there is any data available from the "sources" or just lawyers? It is common knowledge that BP and smokeless powders have a different burn rate in open air, but that has nothing to do with primer ignited sealed loads. As far as the use of the term progressive powders, there is a huge difference in burn rates over the 100 plus powders available on the market.

I have used the data from Sherman Bell's aticle in Double Gun Journal, Summer 2002, to generate graphs that show pressures and demonsrtate burn rates of BP and various smokeless powder loads. This is the only published in-depth research that I have found, but very interesting conclusions can be drawn from his results. Bell reloaded 12 ga. ammunition, using standard load data available. All loads performed at around 1200 fps and smokeless was compared to FFF Black Powder. One impression is that measured pressures at a constant velocity are lower that I would have originally guessed.

I am still waiting to find pictures and first hand experiences of destroyed top-breaks or shredded Damascus barrels. I have not found one substantiated account, but am still looking.

Attached Images

	1 14 oz Hunting Loads.jpg (29.5 KB, 33 views)
	1 18 oz Duck Loads.jpg (25.2 KB, 28 views)
	Target Loads.jpg (25.6 KB, 30 views)

Nowadays........is that a word?.....the tecknowlagie........wait.........aw gee just read the box.....

Attached Images

	2013-04-13 11.11.44.jpg (90.0 KB, 40 views)
	2013-04-13 11.11.57.jpg (114.3 KB, 45 views)

One word sums up the reasoning behind those statements - LIABILITY!

That round in the middle looks very familliar- I bought a case lot of it about 20 years ago. Mine is headstamped "380 Z", has a 173 grain copper plated bullet, and was advertised as Mil Surp from Belgium if I remember correctly. Wouldn't want it in the same time zone as a top break! Shot fine in my Victory, though. Never chronographed it, but I'd guess it's in the 700-800 FPS range. I still have a few packages of it laying around, so maybe I'll chrono it just for grins.

By the bye- I've found that an excelent light .38 S&W load can be made using 4.0 grains of Unique and a 95 grain cast bullet intended for a 9x18mm Makarov (Lee mould). Runs about 1040 FPS out of a 5" K-Frame. Pleasant shooting, very accurate, but hits pretty low using fixed sights at anything beyond 15 yards or so.

PeteT.

Pete,I see your Da is inscribed on the barrel,indicating that it is a standard arm designed for modern ammunition,No doubt post 1899,what is date of mfg.?

Probably not my DA... I haven't posted a photo yet since I haven't brought it home from the shop yet! Hopefully this will change sometime early next week....

PeteT.