Which .38S&W are safe to shoot??

I've got some 38S&Ws and would like one or two more.

My Smith's are: A Perfected, a 38/32 Terrier, a 38/200 without the Victory numbering, and a 33-1.

I've got a Colt Police Positive and an H&R Defender.

I'm wondering which of the Smith 38SWs are safe to shoot with modern commercial ammo?

I know the older black powder revolvers aren't for shooting, but I wonder what won't blow apart or shake themselves into pieces?

I'll be looking for a BSR with US property marks, and maybe an Enfield. but I'd like something in Smith that's a bit earlier than WWII to take to the range once in a while.

Any suggestions?

Regulation Police

I have several 38S&Ws and shoot all of them with modern commercial ammo. A couple RPs, a Terrier, a 4th Model DA, and an Enfield MK2*

The only ones I would hesitate on are the older top breaks is they aren't in good mechanical condition. Some guys don't shoot them because parts are hard to come by if something breaks.

You're not going to find any commercial ammo loaded to above original .38 S&W (or .32 S&W or .32 S&W Long) specs. If the gun's in safe mechanical condition, it'll be safe to fire.

There are two schools of thought on shooting old revolvers.

1. .38 S&W is not loaded any hotter than it ever was and is safe in any gun in sound mechanical condition. I shot a Single Action Second Model .38 as a CAS Pocket Pistol. There were a lot of top breaks of all brands there. But they don't get shot a lot.

2. Smokeless powder has a different "pressure curve" and is hard on black powder era guns. Fresh ammo should be limited to topbreaks "rated" for smokeless, which are the post-1907/1909 models.

All of the revolvers you've listed are good to go with modern 38 S&W ammo. FWTW Remington UMC 38 S&W is often found at the Bass Pro shop in my area but I reload. I use Trail Boss or light loads of Bullseye for my older 32 and 38 SA, DA and Safety Hammerless guns.

John

Modern .38 S&W cartridge factory SAAMI-standard smokeless powder loadings basically duplicate the original black powder ballistics of the late 19th century and are safe to shoot in the old top-break revolvers of any make, assuming that the revolver is in sound condition. Some may be aware that U. S. ammunition factories began loading the old revolver-caliber cartridges using smokeless powder by the mid-1890s. And that many, if not most, of the old top-break revolvers made during the BP era have probably fired nothing but smokeless powder ammunition after that time.

For those having later solid-frame .38 S&W revolvers (such as the S&W British Victories), .38 S&W ammunition can easily and safely be handloaded to duplicate or exceed factory .38 Special performance in them. But of course, such enhanced loads must not be used in the older top-break revolvers. My standard British Victory .38 S&W load fires 146 grain lead bullets at an average MV of 880 ft/sec.

My father in law and I shot his top break .38 S&W revolvers on a camping trip with factory smokeless loadings by Remington without any problems. One was a blued model .38 D.A., the other was a nickel Lemon Squeezer with pearl stocks carried by his mother when she ran the old Cliff House in San Francisco back in the 30's. As mentioned modern companies loaded .38 S&W knowing it would be used in older firearms to relative equal pressures they were capable of handling. They don't call it Thirty-Eight Short and Weak for nothing. As an aside my father in law claimed to have used the blued model against a perp to good effect but said that it required all five shots to get the job done.
I had so little interest and faith in the cartridge that when they came into my possession I traded them for a Model 25 125th Anniversary, no regrets.

Smokeless or Black Powder? Again???

Doesn't take long on this forum to revisit this subject. over and over it seems.

If you are familiar with Elmer Keith? You know him. He was the Pioneer for the creation of the Magnum rounds for the .38 and .44 caliber. working closely with Smith & Wesson for Specifically the creation of the .357 and .44 Mag?

This is from his book written in 1936!!!

I remember an old boy chum of mine obtained an old nickel plated, break top revolver for the .38 S&W cartridge, it was an Iver Johnson or H&R make and with it an old box of U.M.C. ammo.(Obviously smokeless). We repaired to an old lime kiln near Helena, Montana to do a bit of shooting.
I picked out a rock about the size of my hat and started shooting at it at a range of about twenty yards. My first shot went over the rock, the second went to low, the third shot hit the rock but the top strap blew off the gun and went whizzing back through my hat, parting my hair and giving me a nasty scalp wound. The top chamber was blown out and the barrel slowly flopped over until it pointed at my feet. I looked at the gun, felt my head and chucked that piece of pot metal down into the gulch as far as I could.


This story always stuck with me about shooting old "Black Powder" topbreaks with smokeless powder.
38 Smith and Wessons were specifically designed for their cartridge. Other black powder era guns were not designed like the Smiths. The bores were different. They got away with it using black powder. Smokeless would not allow the shooter the courtesy to blow off their homework. Instead the gun would blow up.
Black powder era (Antiques) did not follow standards like modern guns. Over 50 years
(1876) before SAAMI standards were introduced (1926). Totally Different time. A different era in fact.

So do your homework and measure the groove and land diameter before you pull the trigger and make sure the bullet matches the bore. “Very basic firearm procedure” that is often not followed!!
Also put a good layer of soft lubricant on the bullet. Like Lithium.
Many of the topbreaks and Many many other antiques have bores that are "NOT STANDARD". This was an ERA of “ NO STANDARDS” in the industry!
Many bores were undersized.
BLACK POWDER OK......SMOKELESS BAD.

Murph

I have shot the Perfected Model numerous times with modern Reminting loads and others. They are mild loads suitable for a revolver in good condition. I stay away from Buffalo Bore as they seem too hot for the old top breaks..

BMur said:

. . . BLACK POWDER OK......SMOKELESS BAD.

Click to expand...

Prove it! I have owned tons of 38 Top-breaks over the last 40 years, shot them all with manufactured SMOKELESS ammunition and the worst things that have happened were various broken springs. Not one failure, not one "frame stretch", not one malfunction.

I have done years of research on ballistics of early handgun calibers BP and smokeless ammunition and found that with almost no exceptions original BP loads were hotter than modern factory smokeless. To do the research, I have had to go through lots of collector boxes full of BP revolver ammo. Let's face it, revolver barrels are all short, and at the most, you only have about 6" to achieve enough internal pressure to propel the bullet at measured speed. The location of peak pressures is not all that important with 32 S&W, 38 S&W, 44 American, 44 Russian, 44-40, and any other less popular S&W calibers. It is guaranteed that peak pressures of either loading will take place in less than 2" ahead of the forcing cone in the thickened section of the barrel.

In mine and other's testing original BP loads, without exception, leave the barrel with higher velocities than modern smokeless, and in my simple mind, that requires higher pressures to make that possible. Peak pressures can and do appear at the same location in the barrel and are mostly lower than BP. Let's see your research.

Can you blow up a gun - absolutely and a ton of them were broken when smokeless powder was first introduced. Reloading habits were hard to break and the number of hand loaders out there probably filled their cases, just as they did with BP. Probably only did it once!

As for the original question, any 38 S&W from 38 SA on can be shot with current factory loadings, without issues. Being able to determine the condition of the gun you buy is the key in successful purchases of top-break revolvers. It is not that difficult to tell an abused/modified/butchered gun, but it is also important to know where and how to look for cracks, loose mechanism and few gunsmiths will be able to do that. Things like cracked forcing cones, budged barrels, loose lock-up all add up to a no-sale in my book.

The only word of caution when buying smokeless in a few of these old calibers, is that some specialty manufacturers like to hot-rod their ammunition for whatever reason. Look for Remington, Winchester, Federal, and some European ammunition manufacturers like PPU & Fiocchi for 38 S&W.

glowe said:

...In mine and other's testing original BP loads, without exception, leave the barrel with higher velocities than modern smokeless...

Click to expand...

I have a fondness for those old Owlhead revolvers, but I restrict my use of smokeless load to third models, as Iver Johnson themselves recommended. However, black powder is no slouch.

Lyman 358071, 145 grain round nose, .030 card wad, on top of 12 grains of GOEX FFFg, chronographs at 742 fps and is quite accurate in an 1894 vintage Iver-Johnson Safety Hammerless. It'll knock down "Pepper Poppers" without trouble at 15-20 yards while the flame and smoke bewilder the RO. I haven't fired over a hundred rounds at a time so can't say when fouling becomes a problem. But again the Iver Johnson has a gas ring and the geometry to deal as effectively engineers who grew up on black powder knew to make it.



I can not help but wonder how many of the old break tops succumbed to a .38 S&W Super Police load intended for a Police Positive or Regulation Police?

Certainly no one ever loaded .380 Mk IIz aka .38-200 into an H&R?

Regarding revolver blowups, some may remember the 9mm Federal cartridge from the 1980s. Federal teamed up with Charter Arms to produce a 9mm rimmed cartridge for a Charter Arms revolver, i.e., a cartridge with 9x19 ballistics (MV was about 1200 ft/sec), but rimmed for use in a Charter Arms 9mm revolver. Unfortunately, the 9mm Federal cartridge not only looked like the .38 S&W cartridge but also was dimensionally nearly identical to it, to the extent that it would chamber in any revolver originally chambered for the .38 S&W, including the old top break revolvers. After a number of incidents in which some old top breaks blew up when firing the 9mm Federal ammo, Federal dropped that caliber in a hurry. Presumably, Charter Arms also dropped their 9mm revolver. It seemed incredible to me that Federal (or Charter Arms) didn't foresee the possibility of these antique revolver blowups happening. I remember that about three years ago at the local gun show, someone had five boxes of 9mm Federal ammo on his table. He was asking $100 each. That is the only time I ever saw any 9mm Federal ammo.

"Certainly no one ever loaded .380 Mk IIz aka .38-200 into an H&R?"
Actually I have, but in the newer H&R Defender top break revolver (mine is from 1964). I have also fired it in a S&W 4th Model DA from 1896. Nothing bad happened. The British MkI and MkII .380 military ammo is pretty much ballistically identical to the civilian .38 S&W load. Remember that the British Webley and Enfield .380 military revolvers used during WWII were also top breaks and weren't the strongest around. I have read that it wasn't unusual for British troops to fire captured 9mm German ammo in those top break revolvers by crudely forming a rim on the 9x19 rimless case using a punch and hammer. Apparently the British were somewhat stingy in issuing the .380 Revolver ammo.

“PROVE IT”

See photo.
Smith and Wesson Antique 38 cal Double Action Model 2 on left.
Harrington & Richardson “ Pre- 1898” Antique 38 cal on right!
“ Both chambered the original “ Black powder 38 S&W round!
You don’t even need a caliber to see it? If you open your eyes???? If you mic the bores?

Results; S&W: .361 Groove diameter
H&R: .352 Groove diameter

Question; What happens when I shove an oversized bullet through an undersized bore using “ Smokeless powder”???

Would there be a spike in pressure???????

Answer ::: YES!!!! ( NO Brainer)

I’ll stand behind the protective transparency shield just like the myth busters while “ You Prove it”!!! You pull the trigger!

No worries though. I’ll get it all on video!

Murph

British Military Small Arms Ammo

.380 inch Ball

.380 inch Ball - British Military Small Arms Ammo

178 grain jacketed bullet at 600 fps. Chamber pressure 8 tsi

The units were generally stated in British long tons per square inch, or tsi. Pressures indicated by this method run 10 to 20% below those indicated by radial crushers.

According to SAAMI the .38 S&W and its 146 grain bullet at 680 develop
a mean pressure of 13,400 CUP or 5.9tsi

I believe the British service cartridge is a bit more energetic at 176 ft/lbs than the .38 S&W at 152.

"Question; What happens when I shove an oversized bullet through an undersized bore using “ Smokeless powder”???Would there be a spike in pressure??????? Answer ::: YES!!!! ( NO Brainer)"

Not nearly as much as you might think assuming soft lead bullets were used. It takes very little pressure to swage down a lead bullet of a larger diameter to pass through a smaller diameter bore (or chamber throat), if the bore size isn't that much smaller. And a 0.01" diameter difference is insignificant. Hatcher's Notebook discusses the topic of firing larger bullets through smaller bores, including firing .45 ACP rounds in a M1903 .30-'06 rifle (it can be done). During WWI, the Germans converted many M1888 Commission rifles having 0.318" bores to fire the later 0.323" S-bullet 8x57 ammunition by simply opening up the chamber neck slightly to allow room for case neck expansion, but not enlarging the bore. It worked fine and no M1888 rifles blew up. I once had a M1888 rifle that had been converted that way and fired quite a bit of WWII 8x57 German military ammo through it without incident. I also once fired some .32 Winchester Special ammunition (.321" bullet) in a .303 Enfield, but I would not recommend doing that as I experienced a case failure due to the undersized .32 case.

Act of lunacy

I think the OP actually wants to know “ What is Safe “ to discharge in their firearm. In my opinion the Houdini act of stuffing a 45Acp through a 303 Rifle bore is beyond ridiculous. It’s the actions of someone who deserves what they get!

My brother and I use to ride our Schwinn bikes to the Great Highway as kids. Visit old Fort Funston. Battery Davis.
It was a shore battery to protect the coast from invasion.
The below photo is an Authentic WWII 45 ACP that I found in the sand at that fort! next to a 30-06 round. I’ll stand behind the screen while someone else try’s to stuff this military bullet through a 303 rifle bore!

Murph

What in the world does that have to do with this converstation???? The OP is asking about other S&W 38s, not 303s and 30-06s, and not H&R. Stick with the topic.

BTW are you inferring that a BP 38 S&W will do much better pushing a .361" bullet through a H&R than smokeless?

The OP's decision

I think the Op has enough information and "Sensationalism" at this point to make a well thought out decision. I'm checking out of this thread. It's starting to remind me of soap operas. I can't stand soap operas. Pure BS and way to dramatic for my taste.

Best of luck OP.

Murph