I read a lot about heat treated cylinders, etc. and am wondering when this change was made on Hand Ejectors?

Also, since both heat treated and non-heat treated revolvers were made to shoot the same cartridge, does it make any difference in the durability of these vintage S&Ws? Is there a premium paid for the latter?

I understand heat treatment was started in the 20's. The heat treat allowed the use of more powerful cartridges. There are many levels of heat treatment, so don't get the idea you can use magnum loaded ammo in a late 20's or 30's revolver. The magnum level of heat treat wasn't consistently used until into the 50's for most all guns.

There doesn't seem to be any pricing difference in the heat treat vs non heat treat, just the difference between models.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

I checked on this, and it seems that the M&P got heat treated from about 1919-1920. The M-1917 .45's were all heat-treated by govt. order. Don't know about other models, but 1920 seems a good guess.

I think the idea was to make the cylinders safer with smokeless ammo. The ammo wasn't being loaded any hotter until the .38-44 came along in 1930.
Webley thickened the cylinder of their MK IV .455 also, to get a greater safety margin. This created the MK V, short lived. The MK VI carried on with the stronger cylinder, and I think some earlier guns were retrofitted with the new cylinders during WW I.

I think Colt was the first to use heat-treated cylinders. Manufacturers were getting used to smokeless ammo pressures.

Yes. According to SCSW, "heat treated cylinders began at approximately serial number 316648." This was with reference to the .38 M&P Model of 1905 and corresponds to approximately 1920.
I hope this helps.
Jack

__________________
Jack
SWCA #2475, SWHF #318

So would it be safe to shoot some limited amounts of +P 38 special rounds through a revolver made in this time frame? Reports say that standard pressure 38 special made back before 1972 is loaded the same as +P nowadays.
Howard

You can, I wouldn't. It makes no sense to push a 90 something year old gun. The gun has survived that long, so I would leave it be. Plenty of newer models to do that to.

__________________
Dick

Does anybody know whether the .455 Mk II was heat treated?

Since all Mark II 455s were made before 1920, they were probably not heat treated.

"Since all Mark II 455s were made before 1920, they were probably not heat treated."

The 1920 date for heat treating refers to S&W revolvers, not Webley & Scott.

The MK IV was introduced in 1899.

Webley Revolver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

I don't know about being first, but I do know that one of the factors that allowed Colt to factory warranty the Single Action Army for Smokeless powder in 1900 was that they had begun heat treating the cylinders.

I think the question asked by Cpt Curl refers to a S&W Mark II not a Webley??

"I think the question asked by Cpt Curl refers to a S&W Mark II not a Webley??"

On reflection, I'm betting you are correct, glowe.

In that case, we had a thread on this about a year or so ago. The Forum members have deduced that the S&W MK II .455 was NOT heat treated. Info in that thread brought to light the fact that the US Government had mandated heat treating for the 1917s. Most of us were unaware of that until that thread.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

Nope, the major problem is not the cylinder. You would be likely to split the forcing cone in the barrel.

__________________
S&WCA 1729

As to the N-frame .44 Special, we encountered this question in our quest for data from the .44 Special Associates. Unfortunately that quest was not [and is not, to date] satisfied by locating for possible republication a copy of their elusive book of loads and other info. But a forum member did post some articles of note.

The John W. Zlatich article, enticingly entitled .44 Dynamite, from the Feb. '53 American Rifleman states at page 35 that Smith & Wessons numbered below 16,500 must be restricted to a diet not to exceed 15,000 pounds. It also states that Colt SAAs below 160,000 should not be used with hot handloads at all, and that those between 160,000 and 340,000 should not exceed 15,000. I can offer no verification of these numbers from personal experience or from other sources.

Going a bit further than the original question,Mr. Zlatich wrote that the loads he listed were safe in a modern Bisley, Frontier and New Service Colt and in a Smith & Wesson M1926 military revolver. He mentions no pressure testing methods, but notes that no load developing more than 20,000 pounds per square inch has been knowingly listed. YET, to that point:

Referencing the title, .44 Dynamite, one huge [DO NOT TRY THIS] load from P. B. Sharpe, startlingly, is of a 242 gr Hensley #35 Sharpe hollow point with 20 gr #2400 powder, for 1194 fps, at 19,700 pounds of pressure, which would surely get one's attention, and maybe that of the local bomb squad. [In my own view, these old loads, intended for semi-balloon cases, are out of bounds.]

The good news is that no one today would expose any ancient to near modern revolver to possibly [let alone impossibly, in case of a loading error] excessive pressures when we have modern .44 Magnums and the like as worthy shooting alternatives. But, as the original poster inquired, it is indeed interesting to read of what our forebears in the field were encountering, and of the guns that they used and admired.

Regards,

Dyson

As follow up to my post preceding, I note a nearby helpful thread regarding a Triple-Lock lettered to 1917 with SN 14,9xx. Does anyone have a lettered N-frame right around SN 16,500, to estimate the shipping date for heat treating cylinders [understanding it might take several letters to achieve a truly reliable date]?

Thanks

That's correct. I didn't make myself clear in the original post. I saw the comment that all the 1917's were heat treated (which I did not know), and I immediately wondered if the S&W .455 Mk II was also heat treated. They are very close cousins, after all.

The reason behind my curiosity is displayed at this thread:
S&W .455 Mk. II Hand Ejector 2nd Model #69234

Many thanks for the answers.

One of the points brought up in the earlier thread was the practice of converting the .455 S&Ws to .45 Colt and .45 ACP and whether or not that was safe, considering the heat treatment issues.

While a number of .455 Webleys have been converted to .45 ACP with full and half moons, the .45 ACP is more powerful (and developes more pressure) than the .455. The general thought these days is that ammo should be loaded down for the topbreaks.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

Can someone direct me to that thread, please?

32/20 and 38 M&P cylinders were ordered heat treated beginning in 1919.
I would not count on any 44 Spec cyl being heat treated below 18,000.
20,000 would be a better safety margin.

I do not believe any 455 cyl's were heat treated.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

I don't think it is a problem. All the S&W 455's had the looonnng chamber for the 455 MkI. This, in effect, creates quite a loose expansion chamber, probably allowing some gas to go by the ACP bullet.
Below is a pic of a 45 ACP round inserted fully into an unaltered 455 chamber. Back it out far enough for a moon clip, and you have quite a long free throat area.

Attached Images

IMG_4704.jpg (51.1 KB, 38 views)

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

"Can someone direct me to that thread, please?"

Found it. Post # 20 by Texas Star talks about the 1917 heat treatment.

.455

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

Duh, I was in that thread!
I still DO NOT believe 1917 cyl's were heat treated.
See post #17 in that thread.
I just don't believe they took the time to develop heretofore unused heat treating when they were pushing so hard for production.

The cryptic remark in McHenry & Roper is "Heat treated with No. 1". M&H is often confusing and misleading. I just don't trust data in it unless verified elsewhere. Start reading Chap XVII on page 104, and you will easily get the impression that the K frame PRECEDED the I frame, and that the 32 S&W Long was invented for the 32 HE of 1903!

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

O.K. my M&P .38, was shipped from Smith in June of 1919.Serial#2996xx, most likely does not have a heat treated cylinder. Am I allright shooting standard velocity ammo, and mild reloads? Gun is 92 years old, and got it from my father. I do not want to damage it. Thanks in advance! Bob

You should be alright shooting Standard factory Loadings of .38 Special or ( lighter ) Mid Range Wadcutter Loadings also.

The Standard .38 Special Bullet for the last 110 years or so has been 158 Grain Round Nose Lead Bullet...Semi Wadcutters of close weight would be fine also of course...and with either, FPS will vary with Barrel Length and fit of the Chambers and Cylinder Gap.

I would stay with Soft Lead, and steer clear of any FMJ or Jacketed or semi-jacketed or +Ps regardless of weight.

I think one of the things to remember is that loads in "standard" ranges are what your revolver will probably shoot best with. If you stick with the traditional 158 gn or 148gn cast loads you revolver is much more likely to shoot to point of aim. The most common jacketed bullet available at the box stores around here is the 130gn FMJ load that duplicates the old military load. I've NEVER seen a revolver that shot its best with that load.

Lee - wouldn't it be reasonable that the later M1917s were heat treated? They made these until after WWII and by the 1930s, heat treating was totally accepted practice.

Sorry, to clarify:
I was talking about WW I U.S. 1917's NOT being heat treated.
I would assume Commercial 1917's were heat treated with all other N frame guns, the possible exception being leftover cylinders from WW I used well into the 20's and even on the 1946 Brazil contract.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

"Duh, I was in that thread!"

Waal, I didn't want to bring that up and make you feel bad!

Losing your memory ain't all that bad. At least, you can hide yore own Easter eggs!

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!