Why the Heavy Duty?

Plain Old Dave · #1 02-19-2010, 07:43 PM

Not pot-stirring, just an honest question... Why are there so many people that like these things? It's MUCH bigger than a .38 Special needs to be and cost a good bit more than an M&P when new. In 20+ years of collecting, I have seen ONE for sale in East TN. Conversely, you almost trip over 1930s era .32-20s hereabouts. You could have a rifle and pistol to take the same round, and as the old timers say, "Et 32-20'll shewt rat thru a man, son." Until the advent of the .357, the .32-20 was king of handguns in Appalachia. It's not that I don't like N frames, I think a Triple Lock or Wolf and Klaar is one of the most stylish revolvers from the c.1900- c.1940 era. It just seems to me that a .38 don't throw enough lead for what the HD was marketed for. Why get a .38 when you could get a .44 Special, .45LC, or .45ACP M1917? Makes no sense, but I am open to enlightenment.

Art Doc · #2 02-19-2010, 08:02 PM

I, myself, have opined in the past that the HD is excessively heavy for the caliber and really doesn't fit any particular niche. But just because it doesn't do anything particularly well doesn't mean we can't appreciate it and desire one.

The HD's days as a viable service weapon were over when the Combat Magnum was introduced. Now we simply admire it as a relic of a bygone day.

We don't have them because we need them... we have them because we want them.

I have two shooter grade HDs. One post-war that shows much wear and was carried by a Texas cop and the other a pre-war that has been poorly nickel plated and was carried by an Arkansas cop. Got them both cheap due to condition and I enjoy shooting them.

1Aspenhill · #3 02-19-2010, 08:53 PM

Well, Smith and Wesson built the gun on the N frame because the M&P could not take the pressure of the 38-44 S&W Special or 38 HiSpeed round leaving the barrel at 1150FPS. This was developed because it could penetrate cars, bullet proof vests of the day and bad guys. The .44s, .45s, 32-20s of the day could not and S&W was losing business to Colt's .38 Super. Just think, this high speed .38 spawned an offspring a few years later-the .357Magnum. And the pre war HDs were built every bit as nice as a RM! The HD feels great in your hand, and in shooting. The HD leads the way in 1930-1940 sales for all the N frames. After the war, there were 8000+ transition HDs made with most of those being 4 inch guns. Sales continued well until in 1954 the Highway Patrolman and in 1956, the Combat Magnum came along and were cheap enough for people to say, why not by a .357 that also shoots .38 Spl? Anyway, they are great guns and I love them!
Hope this helps,
Bill

Jimmymac46 · #4 02-19-2010, 09:11 PM

A long retired U.S. Senator from Texas once responded when asked by a reporter in a personal interview, 'How many guns do you have?' His answer (again-not an exact quote), 'I have more than I need, but not as many as I want'.

That, plus the uniqueness and the build quality, are probably the primary reasons IMO.

DCWilson · #5 02-19-2010, 09:17 PM

I have six .38/44s now -- three HDs, three ODs -- and another OD waiting to be picked up at my FFL. The appeal of these guns to me lies in their massiveness, their overengineering for the level of power they handle in a .38 Special cartridge.

For a given cartridge, there are probably always going to be three classes of people: those who like it in the platform that it best fits, those who like it when it is force-fit into the next smaller frame, and those who like the ease of shooting it in the next larger frame. The appeal of the HDs and ODs is the same as the appeal of the K-22 revolvers; those rounds can be handled easily and accurately in I-frame and J-frame revolvers. Why then are the K-frame .22s still so popular? Again I suggest it is because of the sense of confidence and reliability imparted by the larger-than-needed frame for the round in question.

For some people, the proper platform for a particular cartridge may just be a matter of hand size. Guys with big hands can shoot smaller guns, but not always with comfort. A small caliber in a big frame may be the preferred or even necessary combination for a good experience plinking. If S&W ever put out a .22 LR N-frame (and how many rounds could you get in that cylinder -- 11?), they would sell some.

Dave T · #6 02-19-2010, 10:40 PM

Bill tried to explain this but some of you seem to be missing the point. Don't think of the HD or the Outdoorsman as a 38 Special but as a 38/44. They are not the same thing. As Bill said the standard velocity of the 38/44 was 1150 fps with a 158g bullet. I can't find any currently made +P loading that comes closer than 900 fps. The only way to really understand why these guns were so popular would be to carefully develop a handload using a chronograph to check the velocity. When you are driving a 158g slug at the old performance level you won't think of it as a "38 Special" anymore.

Dave

Plain Old Dave · #7 02-19-2010, 10:50 PM

Well, they just didn't sell in Appalachia. People Around Here would get a .32-20 and shoot the HV "rifle only" loads in them. That, or the dirt-cheap BP stuff. You could get BP .32-20 long after BP .38 Spl's went out. And .32-20s were always cheaper at the feed store than .38 Specials. You'd never see anything in .38 Spl's but the standard old 158gr at the co-op or whatever hardware store you bought stuff at. If somebody got a HD, they'd see it shoot and go "paf!" next to the "rifle only" .32-20s from the co-op bucking and thundering out of Police Positives and 1905s and so would think the .32-20 shot harder. That 38-44 I saw up in Jonesborough stayed there for several years; the shop had a hard time selling it because it was "only a .38". More I think about, more I think it's reigonal. That and I cut my teeth on Elmer Keith's work...

1Aspenhill · #8 02-19-2010, 10:59 PM

POD-remember, Elmer loved the 38/44 as he was pushing the 160gr Keith style bullet at 1150 plus and he thought it shot better than the
.357.
Bill

GLL · #9 02-19-2010, 11:08 PM

If you had ever shot a 165 gr. 1150fps 38/44 round there would be no need to ask the question ! In a 6.5" Outdoorsman it is pushing modern .357Magnum factory load performance !

Jerry

jmark1651 · #10 02-19-2010, 11:14 PM

Great responses! i guess to me the fact that they are a part of history, and also not common, makes them interesting and collectable. I hardly ever see one in my area. I still vividly remember an officer or two,before my time, that proudly wore one on his daily tour of duty.

Gerald D · #11 02-19-2010, 11:38 PM

Interesting discussion, I agree that the 38/44 load was certainly much more than just another .38 Special.

policerevolvercollector · #12 02-19-2010, 11:53 PM

The HDs were a significant development in the history of police sidearms. I have three post war versions right now ( Kalispell Montana PD-1946,Arkansas State Police- 1950,and Colorado Highway Patrol-1953). There is just something about them......

moosedog · #13 02-19-2010, 11:59 PM

Most of the ones i've owned I bought from places that thought it was a model 10. Only one I payed a premium on was my pre war Outdoorsman which belonged to a gun writer at one time.
I like the Heavy Dutys because I enjoy shooting, and find the 38/44 load to be fast enough to take small game and varmits with without all the muzzle blast of a 357 mag. Hardly any recoil and they fit my hand nicely.
I use the Wondersite on my five screw fixed site N frames and get great results with that setup.

ElToro · #14 02-20-2010, 12:04 AM

ive had an off again on again love affair with the big N frame. part of it for me is the hunt and finding them in shops for sale. HD's- i have had (2) 5 inchers one blue and one nickel. sold one and gave the blue to my dad. the 4 incher i also sold but i still wish i had that one back. it was SO well balanced in my hand. i would go back and forth about boring it out to 44 or 45, so i just sold it. finally came across an outdoorsman a few yeras ago shot it a bit and after i located a nice 6 inch pre 28, i finally traded it off to my shooting mentor for a .22 target rifle. i have 1st dibs if he ever sells it. i have seen others OD's priced too high recently 1200+ and NOT anywhere close to NIB. i would like to get a nice 6.5 inch pre 27 or reg or non reg mag some day.

Muley Gil · #15 02-20-2010, 12:14 AM

I believe it was Skeeter Skelton that wrote that the .38/44 was an important step towards the .357, and later helped foster the .44 Magnum as well. However, as the .357 became popular, the .38/44 cartridge became hard to get and often, "a poor harness cop" wound up carrying a 40 oz. revolver, loaded with the standard 158 gr. RNL round.

DCWilson · #16 02-20-2010, 12:40 AM

Let me take another run at my "massive .38 Special" statement.

Yes, the original .38-44 load was hot -- almost as hot as the later .357 Magnum. I don't doubt that for the first five years of the HD model's life it stood alone as a punchy gun that had the additional capacity to shoot the lighter .38 special loads that were standard fare for the K-frame M&P.

When the .357 was introduced, that cartridge and the extra velocity .38-44 cartridge continued as almost equally powerful revolver rounds through the 1930s. My sense is that after WW2, the hotter .38-44 special and super police loads faded from the scene as the heavy-hitting market migrated to the .357 Magnum. At some point diminishing availability or appeal of the .38-44 ammo meant that HD and OD revolvers were left with standard .38 Special ammunition as their primary feed, except that handloaders who could produce the more powerful loads continued to do so.

At that point, and regardless of their design origins, the HD and OD became in a commercial sense heavy-frame .38 Specials, which is the cartridge designation that was always pressed into their barrels, and which is how I talked about them in my earlier post. I still think that is a fair characterization of their later lives -- though obviously their early lives were far different.

hsguy · #17 02-20-2010, 01:27 AM

Very interesting thread. I don't own a HD but have a couple of Outdoorsman. I shoot then with very light target loads and thoroughly enjoy them. Extremely accurate and little recoil due to the heavy frame.

I also have a couple of 32-20's and that too is one of my favorite calibers. 32-20's are hard to find in my area, especially in decent shape. As the original poster alluded to most of the 32-20's seemed to be well used working guns and not dresser drawer guns.

j38 · #18 02-20-2010, 01:41 AM

... then there's the matter of aesthetics. How can someone not like the lines of this 4" HD? ... let alone the balance of it in your hand when shooting...

Try one - you'll like it!

Jerry

P&R Fan · #19 02-20-2010, 01:53 AM

I own a 5" Heavy Duty from about '52 and an Outdoorsman transitional . All I can say is , you need to spend some time shooting one of these, especially the HD in my opinion. It won't do anything my Plain-Jane M10 won't do, but as we like to say, "there's just somethin about 'em". Sir, they just don't make them like that anymore. It's really hard to explain, but I'll never sell mine and I think I've got a lot of company in that regard.

tbury · #20 02-20-2010, 08:55 AM

The reason for the HD as stated above is because the .357 mag did not exist yet. The reason for buying/owning one is probably why we buy any S&W. Quality of design, engineering and manufacturing are what attracts me to S&W. I only own a 38/44 Outdoorsman but it is the last gun I would ever sell. The fit and function of my 1951 vintage Outdoorsman is an example of handgun manufacturing at its peak in my opinion. Sure the Model 27 and pre-27s are beautiful, powerful handguns, but my Outdoorsman can cover the bottom of that power range and is every bit as accurate.

Dave T · #21 02-20-2010, 11:56 AM

For those of you who don't reload but want to try the original 38/44 performance, the closest thing I can find is Buffalo Bore's Heavy 38 Special +P load with a 158g GC-SWCHP. From a 4" barrel they claim 1162 fps. Past experience tells me they come very close to their claimed velocities. This gas checked bullet won't lead the barrel and should be a dandy for experiencing the original 38/44 performance in your Heavy Duty or Outdoorsman.

Dave

dacoontz · #22 02-20-2010, 12:30 PM

I posted these pics in an earlier thread. I know other calibers would be capable of this as well but not as easily on my shoulder as with the HD.

Daniel #2322

maglvr · #23 02-20-2010, 01:38 PM

The 38/44 is a pre-lock N frame, that's all the reasons I need

I will admit to owning a couple K frames(that I never use), but in all honesty, they mean very little to me, and anything smaller than a K frame I have no use for whatsoever.
Give me a N frame and i'm happy

Lenshappy · #24 02-20-2010, 01:59 PM

The Arms Room: Sunday Smith #8: .38/44 Heavy Duty, 1936

Ron H. · #25 02-20-2010, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plain Old Dave

Not pot-stirring, just an honest question... Why are there so many people that like these things? It's MUCH bigger than a .38 Special needs to be and cost a good bit more than an M&P when new. In 20+ years of collecting, I have seen ONE for sale in East TN. Conversely, you almost trip over 1930s era .32-20s hereabouts. You could have a rifle and pistol to take the same round, and as the old timers say, "Et 32-20'll shewt rat thru a man, son." Until the advent of the .357, the .32-20 was king of handguns in Appalachia. It's not that I don't like N frames, I think a Triple Lock or Wolf and Klaar is one of the most stylish revolvers from the c.1900- c.1940 era. It just seems to me that a .38 don't throw enough lead for what the HD was marketed for. Why get a .38 when you could get a .44 Special, .45LC, or .45ACP M1917? Makes no sense, but I am open to enlightenment.

Sir, I'd bet the police market is why the .38-44 endured so long. Many departments mandated .38 special, effectively taking .44s and .45s out of the running. Also, for a long time the .357 Magnum was too expensive for cops on meager salaries or departments with slim budgets. That changed in the mid-'50s with the advent of S&W's Highway Patrolman and Model 19; from then on, the .38-44's days were numbered.

JMHO, FWIW.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

Plain Old Dave · #26 02-20-2010, 02:22 PM

The blogger from the last post is a regular at gun shows back home. Seen her at just about every one I have been to in the last 10 years or so...

strangelittleman · #27 02-21-2010, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plain Old Dave

Well, they just didn't sell in Appalachia. People Around Here would get a .32-20 and shoot the HV "rifle only" loads in them. That, or the dirt-cheap BP stuff. You could get BP .32-20 long after BP .38 Spl's went out. And .32-20s were always cheaper at the feed store than .38 Specials. You'd never see anything in .38 Spl's but the standard old 158gr at the co-op or whatever hardware store you bought stuff at. If somebody got a HD, they'd see it shoot and go "paf!" next to the "rifle only" .32-20s from the co-op bucking and thundering out of Police Positives and 1905s and so would think the .32-20 shot harder. That 38-44 I saw up in Jonesborough stayed there for several years; the shop had a hard time selling it because it was "only a .38". More I think about, more I think it's reigonal. That and I cut my teeth on Elmer Keith's work...

It's interesting that you talk of the .32-20 being so popular in the Apps. My grandfather was the Chief Deputy Sheriff of Haywood Co. NC.( A county that borders Tenn.) from the 1930's -1950's, or thereabouts, and his duty weapon was a S&W M1905 4" nickel plated .32-20. He died in 1985.
My father now has the revolver. I hope he passes it down to my older brother( he's a Tribal Police Sgt. on the Res.) since he's got grandfather's badge and several pics of grand-dad on duty...I know he'd be thrilled to put it in the shadow board!

TomcatPC · #28 02-21-2010, 10:14 PM

Hello

I'm not certain that I am qualified to even post on this topic, seeing as I am relatively new to the world of S&W. Having said that...I have to admit that I have had a yearning for a .38-44 Heavy Duty for a while now. Why?...I guess I just like the way they look to start with. As far as I know, in my short time looking I have had only one "confirmed sighting" of a .38-44 Heavy Duty in real life LOL. Needless to say that at $800+ (U.S.) there was no way I could afford to even think of owning that revolver. Cash is tight for me right now, so I have to be realistic LOL. I have never held or fired a .38-44 Heavy Duty (yet), but from what I have seen, I really hope that I do get that chance.

On the other hand, since I have been checking out this forum, I kind of hope to find a M&P in .32-20 as well...LOL. I think finding a decent pre-WWII M&P in .38" Special come before me looking for a .38-44 Heavy Duty or a M&P in.32-20, and before finding those three, a U.S. .38" Special Victory Model is next in the "line up" LOL. One thing at a time LOL.
Thanks
Mark

semperfi71 · #29 02-21-2010, 10:44 PM

For some inexplicable reason to me the 4 inch Heavy Duty seems to handle better than a 4 inch M28 with the same grips.

With a 158 grain bullet at 1100 to 1150 fps a Heavy Duty will do anything a .357 Magnum will do.

I like my N-Frame .357s [I like almost ALL S & W revolvers] but the advantage of fixed sights is that they will not ever change point-of-aim unless really beat upon. Hence a Heavy Duty, properly loaded makes a great outdoors carry gun.

Dave T · #30 02-22-2010, 12:17 PM

I suspect the Model 520, made for the NYS Police, initially appealed to them and later to civilians because it filled the same role a 4" HD fulfilled in the 1930s & 1940s. It's a shame Smith didn't keep the 520 in production longer.

Dave

992B · #31 02-22-2010, 12:28 PM

Dave,
I have an old early post war H-D that I had brought back to life by Nelson Ford in Phoenix, AZ. One of the nice things about the H_D is I don't have to worry about what .38 loads I use in it. I just grab a box off the shelf and have at it. It never even burps!!!!

ImprovedModel56Fan · #32 02-22-2010, 06:38 PM

DCWilson probably said most of it when he referred to hand size and frame preferences. I also remember that several years ago someone here (?) was ridiculing someone who had modified a HD to resemble a 3.5" M27, and I defended him on the grounds that it was actually a very practical choice if it fit his hand, considering what was available in .38 Spl. However, I am posting mainly to elaborate on the Appalachian option:

YouTube - ROBERT JOHNSON ; 32 20 Blues [6/41] .

strangelittleman · #33 02-22-2010, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave T

I suspect the Model 520, made for the NYS Police, initially appealed to them and later to civilians because it filled the same role a 4" HD fulfilled in the 1930s & 1940s. It's a shame Smith didn't keep the 520 in production longer.

Dave

I agree completely! It is a shame the N-framed 520 didn't stay in production longer. It's also a shame I can't find a good 4" .38-44 HD...both of those are on my short list of grail pistols, along with a 3.5" M27.
Perhaps S&W will bring back the HD in their Classics line up...I know it's not the same but it'd be better than nothing.

230grfmj · #34 02-24-2010, 12:14 PM

All the positive things that have been said on this thread so far and just looking at them is a joy all in itself.

This 4” pre war 38-44 Heavy Duty shipped on March 22nd, 1940 to Marshall Field Co. in Chicago, and letters exactly as you see it including the humpback hammer.

sigp220.45 · #35 02-24-2010, 01:33 PM

What a great thread - HDs, .32/20s, and blues music!

I don't have much to add about HDs, never having owned or even shot one, but the regional aspects of the popularity of the .32/20 is fascinating.

When I worked in Twin Falls, Idaho, one of my best friends was a TFPD detective who began his career many years earlier in Blaine County, Idaho. That area is now a ski resort (Sun Valley) with Bruce and Demi and Arnold and Clint and Tom Hanks living there, but back in his day it was a wild and wooly old west town.

He had to buy his own gun and the chief told him don't even bother with anything but a Smith .32/20. Everybody on the PD and SO carried them, so thats what he got. He loaded it up with the rifle loads and sallied forth to fight crime.

He's now about ready to retire at the age of 60, and has to carry a Glock .40 like everybody else in the world, but I suspect when he gets to carry what he wants again that M&P will go back in his waistband.

DCWilson · #36 02-24-2010, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 230grfmj

All the positive things that have been said on this thread so far and just looking at them is a joy all in itself.

This 4” pre war 38-44 Heavy Duty shipped on March 22nd, 1940 to Marshall Field Co. in Chicago, and letters exactly as you see it including the humpback hammer.

Tom, that makes my heart beat faster. If by any chance you ever lose your senses and decide to part with that one, please remember my interest in giving it a good home.

Just perfect.

David

Plain Old Dave · #37 02-24-2010, 11:36 PM

It's been an interesting thread, but I still don't see the appeal in such a big .38. I keep seeing all that metal and thinking how much more useful these would be if they were .44 Specials or (IMHO the perfect pistol caliber) .45 Colt. If I were to happen into one right, it would be hard to resist tooling over to Louisville and have Hamilton Bowen make it into a useful handgun.

Differnt strokes, though, I reckon.

S&W38 · #38 03-05-2010, 04:15 PM

What kind of cast bullet handload is most likely to "shoot to the sights" in a "shooter grade" Heavy Duty? Please feel to give both general rules and specific details of specific loads.
Any parallels with a similar question for fixed-sight K-frame revolvers or other frame sizes?

1Aspenhill · #39 03-05-2010, 06:50 PM

Plain Old DAve,
The HD was developed because the .44 and .45 could not do what the 38-44 S&W SPL or .38 Hi Speed could-penetrate.
Bill

BOGEYB · #40 03-05-2010, 10:05 PM

Dave,

Just like a '57 Chevy, the Golden Gate Bridge and Kathleen Turner in a tight sweater; they just look good!

Mike

senecaap · #41 03-12-2010, 04:59 PM

You have to think of the HD and OD in terms of the Weatherby Vs Nitro Express discussion. If you were you a velocity/light bullet fan, you picked up a Heavy Duty for your sidearm, if not you probably went for a Triple lock .44 with a heavier bullet and moderate velocity. I think the HD is one of the best fighting revolvers ever made, it just seems point naturally and balances out perfect for me, especially the 4" ones like Tom posted above. To me (probably only to me) the Outdoorsman is more pleasing to the eye than the Reg. Mags. If you are doing extended shooting I prefer the N frame .38; it's a man sized gun and cartridge with little recoil (unless you run across some old HV rounds HOT). Dave is correct in his assessment of Appalachia's affinity for the 32-20, my grandfather purchased one (a Smith of course) before he went to work in the Little River Logging Camps in the Smokies, and later carried it when he worked on the trolleys in Knoxville (his was nickle, with Pearl Grips, "for Friday and Saturday night duty").

GLL · #42 03-12-2010, 06:50 PM

Here is a Post-War transitional Outdoorsman that someone cut down to HD size. Steve "dumped" this baby on me in Tulsa and I have really enjoyed it A LOT ! I feels even better in my small hand than the 4" HDs.

Jerry

Onomea · #43 03-12-2010, 08:22 PM

Most of you fellas have seen this one, but I'll put her up again:

1954 HD shipped to Pueblo, CO, PD. Pretty beat up when I got her. I had her converted to 45 Colt by Hamilton Bowen, engraved by Dan Love, and the carved elephant ivory grips are by Paul Persinger.

(At times I wish she were pre-war, but then think again, 'cause Bill would aprobably shot me if I'd a done that!

)

I have a 1933 or '34 38/44 Outdoorsman in very nice shape, but would like to add a prewar, 4" HD to my collection, too, one of these days.

That's a good tip on the Buffalo Bore ammo for my Outdoorsman. Thanks!

GLL · #44 03-13-2010, 12:34 AM

Onomea:

NICE, but mine is not all scratched up like yours !

I have always loved the engraving style on that gun as well as the beautiful Persinger ivory "cow" grips !
The gold bands are very classy !

Jerry

Pisgah · #45 03-13-2010, 12:54 AM

Personally, I load .38/44-equivalent loads for field use in my Model 28-2, which would be a direct descendant of the Heavy Duty concept. I find the combination just about an ideal mating of power, comfort, and accuracy -- a very useful combination. Nothing wrong with the full-house .357, mind you, but it has a level of power I very rarely have a need for, and recoil and blast that can get tiresome.

Texas1941 · #46 03-13-2010, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1Aspenhill

Plain Old DAve,
The HD was developed because the .44 and .45 could not do what the 38-44 S&W SPL or .38 Hi Speed could-penetrate.
Bill

I've never owned any 38/44, but I do have a little experience shooting them and some experience with some of the post war Remington Hi Speed .38 Spl ammunition.

In April or May, 1972, I joined two Texas Highway Patrol officers, two Harris County sheriffs deputies, two municipal policemen, and a wrecker driver in an effort to shoot to pieces a junk early 50's Buick. We had at least one of the common police type hand guns of the day, a few oddballs, and an M-1 carbine. All the ammunition was factory.

The three "big bores", 44 Spl (246 gr RN), 45 ACP (230 gr WW ball), and 45 Colt (255 gr RNFP), consistently failed to make it through any of the doors and into the passenger compartment. Occasionally they would penetrate the door (either whole or in pieces), but would be recovered laying on the floorboard, dashboard, or seat. I don't think they would have had enough energy to do much damage to any occupant. However, all three of these did penetrate the front windscreen, out to about a 45 degree angle, with enough energy to go through the front seat.

The 38 Super (5" Colt), 38 Spl Hi Speed (158 gr LRN from a 6" K-38), 357 mag (158 gr SWC from a 4" Highway Patrolman), 41 mag (215 SWC from a m-58), all defeated the doors and the front glass, probably with enough energy to do some damage to persons inside.

The standard 38 spl, from the K-38, never made it all the way through the door and would defeat the front glass only if the bullet struck at close to a 90 degree angle.

The performance of the 38 Super and the 38 spl Hi Speed showed me why those two were favored by many police of the 30s over the standard 38 spl. The cars of the 30s and 40s must have been more or less as tough as that old Buick. Based on what I saw back then, I have to conclude that cartridges such as the 44 Spl, 45 ACP, and 45 Colt, that performed so well against individuals, did not do as well against automobiles.

Take it for what it's worth, if anything.

Charles

Norton 750 · #47 03-13-2010, 07:00 AM

You have to handload to really enjoy the 38/44 if you are looking for pure performance. But having said that, try some regular 38 special loads in it. That will change your perception about fast, smooth double action shooting. Anyone that does not believe the 38/44 can be shot full auto, see me after class.

1Aspenhill · #48 03-13-2010, 10:07 AM

Arlo,
I will let you know the minute I know of a pre war 4" that is available! I love your gun though!
Bill

Art Doc · #49 03-13-2010, 10:23 AM

Guys, the 520 never was actually "in production" as it was strictly a special order item and all were made in a single run.

Absolutely the HD is heavy for the caliber. Back in the day before the ACLU, Jesse Jackson and the news media was looking over every cop's shoulder the heavy pistol with a shrouded ejector rod was popular with cops because it could be used to smack suspects into line without being damaged.

Now the HD is a piece of history. Collectible and fun to shoot. It could still get the job done for personal protection if needed but there are better choices, today.

I have two HDs. A late edition (shipped 1960) from Texas and a barely pre-war (1940) from Arkansas (actually, it's not from Arkansas, it's still here). Both are 4" models which figures because I really prefer the 5" version but all I find are 4" guns for sale.

DCWilson · #50 03-13-2010, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GLL

Here is a Post-War transitional Outdoorsman that someone cut down to HD size. Steve "dumped" this baby on me in Tulsa and I have really enjoyed it A LOT ! I feels even better in my small hand than the 4" HDs.

Jerry

I bet the company could have sold a lot of those, but it probably would have taken a Lew Horton-style contract to goad them into production. Nice revolver!