I was wondering if the K-38 Masterpiece was produced with different barrel thicknesses. I thought I once read that there was a heavy barrel variant and a recent picture made me wonder about that again.

Of the two pictures below, the second one looks like the barrel is much heavier than the first one. I don't know if that's just the angle of the photo or if there is an actual production difference between the two guns.

Info would be appreciated.

The first one has a huge (rear) barrel gap so it is likely a Model 14-2 from the mid 1970's.

The second one has a tighter (rear) cylinder gap. I would guess that one is a 14 or pre - 14 with a custom bull barrel.

__________________
S&WHF #946
S&WCA #3824

Those are both K-38 Masterpieces with the heavy barrel. The original post-war version had a tapered barrel similar to the 4" .38 Combat Masterpiece but in 6".

Both versions were produced at the same time but by the early 1950s the light barrel version was dropped. Extra muzzle weight is good for target shooting, up to a point.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

First pic, top view shows tapered rib/barrel on 1949 K-38 (left) and heavy barrel 1950 K-38 (right). Second pic shows (left to right) Model 14-1, 1961, K-38 heavy barrel, 1950, and K-38 tapered rib/barrel, 1949. Notice the taper of the barrel shoulder where it meets the frame.

Additional information from "History of Smith & Wesson" by Roy G. Jinks, Revised Tenth Anniversary Edition, page 177: "...In 1949, the factory began experimenting with the width of the barrel rib on the K-32 and K-38 to further increase the gun's weight. The first heavy-barrel K-38 was completed on February 4, 1949, and the K-32 followed shortly after. This heavy-weight barrel brought the K-32 and K-38 up the 38 1/2 ounces loaded, balancing them to the weight of the K-22."
"By April 10, 1950, the heavy barrels were in full production, and from January 1950 to September 1953 the catalog carried both variations; but by September 1953 only the wider-rib or heavy-barrel K-32 and K-38 were available. This change began at serial number K75,000 but the lightweight and heavy barrels are numbered together up to the K160,000 range."

Attached Images

	K38-Narrow Rib-Heavy Barrel.jpg (123.7 KB, 66 views)
	K38-M14.jpg (252.3 KB, 49 views)

__________________
SWCA 3297 SWHF 583

The reason for all this is a segment of the lunatic fringe target shooters (REAL target shooters) fussed and fumed about the weight and balance discrepancies between the K-22, K-32, and K-38. The differences, of course, were beyond noteworthy----a matter of maybe two ounces---maybe two and a half. The exact particulars of all this may be found in Jinks' book, known as "History"----"The History of Smith & Wesson" to be more precise.

So-------S&W proceeded to mess with barrels and ribs, and made everything the same---loaded.

Now one has to wonder what happened when the first shot was fired, because, quite obviously, the three guns are no longer properly balanced---nor do they weigh the same--------and the more shots fired, the worse it gets!!!

Ralph Tremaine

As an aside, the 1st Model K-22 (the Outdoorsman), and the 1st Model K-32 (of the same era---pre-war) were followed by the 2nd Model of both (the post-war narrow rib guns)---and then the 3rd Models (the wide rib guns). Alas, there was no 1st Model K-38 (There really was, but nobody had enough sense to call it that----until later on---when nobody cared anymore.) Accordingly, the 1st Model K-38 is the post-war narrow rib. I tell you all this, just in case you're a collector---and want to move on to lunatic fringe collector's status where the rest of us are.

And just in case you might be wondering why you never heard of a K-32 1st Model, it's because there were only 94(?) of them made. That's either because of impending WWII---or because nobody cared (until now---when everybody wants one)------pick one.

And as another aside, I'm not so sure the guns pictured up above are both heavy barrels. I reckon if the pictures were taken showing the muzzle of each, or taken with the barrels side by side, the difference would JUMP right out at you! The rib width difference damn well would JUMP right out at you!

I once took one each of all these to the butcher shop, where they have a scale that weighs in FRACTIONS of ounces----took 'em loaded. That loaded business was frowned upon, so I have nothing further to report. Some folks just ain't got no soul!!!

Actually I didn't take them loaded, but only because I'd forgotten about that part of all this lunacy---and because I already knew some folks ain't got no soul!!!

There are pics and info in this thread about the K-38 Masterpiece.....

Informal Pictorial Essay - K-38 Masterpiece (and Model 14) variations

__________________
.............SmithNut

I do not see a large barrel gap. The top picture has a light background and a perfect angle for showing the gap, while the lower one is too dark and at an angle so one cannot see the gap. Pulled a couple of K38s and put a light background behind them to see the exact same gap on two of mine.

The "barrel" is the same on both guns, it is the rib that adds the weight. to make each caliber 38.5 ounces. It is thought that the change was made at the request from target shooters.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

The barrels are not the same. One's skinny----the other one's fat.

Ralph Tremaine

Had to look and you are right. Looks like the narrow rib barrel is a standard tapered barrel with a swell at the frame, while the wide rib barrel is straight and without the swell at the frame.

Attached Images

	IMG_20240122_161113.jpg (71.7 KB, 126 views)
	IMG_20240122_161152.jpg (52.9 KB, 126 views)
	IMG_20240122_161157.jpg (53.2 KB, 126 views)

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

Both are K-38s----

Attached Images

	IMG_3296.jpg (72.0 KB, 119 views)
	IMG_3300.jpg (95.6 KB, 118 views)
	IMG_3295.jpg (56.3 KB, 117 views)

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Well, I'm not always right--------but I'm never in doubt!

I had one each of all of these (.22's/.32's/38's)---all of these meaning all three early guns, and all three later guns---now long gone, having decided it'd be best to leave behind a pile of money rather than a pile of guns----figured the gun's would be better off too.

You've heard of "one stop shopping", mine was one call selling. The one call was to David Carroll----didn't last very long----"Come get this stuff, and dump it!" He did, and he did. It took the better part of three years, and the last check arrived Spring of last year---and he did his usual first class job of work.

All that's left is a copy of the letters on all of them-----and letters don't help with the nit-picky details, but my memory still works---most of the time. I cheated on the K-38 details, 'cause I knew/remembered it was the lightest of the bunch. Anybody could figure that out in short order---simply by recalling it had the biggest holes in it. Being the lightest, it needed the most weight added---and the only things they messed with to add weight were barrels and ribs. It's a matter of personal preference, of course, but I preferred the early guns---when it came to "feel"-----and preferred the pre-war versions to the post-war, for that matter. They not only felt better, they look better too! The only thing better about the post-war guns is the sights. Actually, the sights per se are not better---the sight picture is better. The best sight S&W ever made was the so-called "two-screw" version----infinitely adjustable, and wouldn't shoot loose----first S&W sight that wouldn't. The succeeding "Micrometer" sight (still in use today) won't shoot loose either, but it's not infinitely adjustable---plenty good for paper targets, but not for showing off by driving nails, or snuffing out candles. And if you want to show off, stick to snuffing out candles---they're easy. You have to hit nails dead square, or they'll just bend. Hittin' 'em is no problem, but that dead square business is another matter altogether!!

Fun and games with guns!

Ralph Tremaine

Ralph has it absolutely right!

The K38 evolved to have a bulkier barrel to bring it's weight and balance in line with the K22 and K32 for serious Bullseye shooters.
We can debate on the value of this today. But, Colt and S&W competed fiercely to gain the upper hand amongst target shooters. The prestige absolutely trickled down throughout the private market, consequently having promotional value beyond what mere advertising could buy.

As for the question concerning the importance of this as far as the weight of ammuntion is concerned, keep this in mind:
Revolver shooting competitors spent more time dry firing than anything else. So, maybe (?) that factor isn't so big a deal? If you know the game, in particular the "5 shots in 10 seconds" and "5 shots in 20 seconds" for the rapid and timed fire stages respectively, you know how important manipulation of the hammer is, along with follow through and recovery. If you wait until you get to the range to account for this, you won't learn it there! Those little "dry fire" practice targets that S&W enclosed in the box with a new K-38 were there for a reason!

I hope that one day there is a renaissance of classic revolver bullseye shooting. Both the CMP and the NRA today offer revolver specific matches, often as side events at the bigger matches.
It's a great game and could give all of you fine folks that love these blued steel beauties a whole new way to appreciate their refined elegance.

Y'all have a nice day!

Jim

The weight of the ammunition issue is just me poking fun at the long gone loonies who fussed about the weight issue of the guns in the first place. What are we talking about anyway----2-2 1/2 ounces? That said, if you could ever stand there and watch the top shooters, it wouldn't take you long to figure out how they came to be the best of the best----TOTAL FOCUS---TOTAL CONCENTRATION!! They're standing right next to one on either side, and they don't even know they're there. They don't hear the other guns going off. Now clearly they do know and they do hear, but it doesn't phase them! They're in their own little world-----all alone---focused! The good news is when they're not on the firing line, they're just plain folks.

The best example of this focus and concentration is in the 50 yard slow fire----a full minute for each shot. You damn well better post a perfect score, because you're not likely to do it in timed and rapid fire----5 rounds in 20 seconds at 25 yards, and 5 rounds in 10 seconds respectively---and all of this was almost exclusively with double action revolvers fired single action. It got a bunch easier when the GOOD auto-loaders came along---easier, but no advantage because all your competitors had them too! And while the good ones were plenty good, the custom gunsmiths made them better. All it takes is cubic cash!

The cubic cash situation came along first with the zero throat revolvers---cylinders cut back to the length of a wadcutter, with somebodies custom barrel set back in the frame to meet them. If you didn't have one of those, you might just as well stay home. Nobody stayed home---they all had the zero throats.

I did a little throat length test awhile back---used a Ruger Old Army (cap and ball---black powder. First round was powder/wad/ball. That seats way DEEP in the chamber---maximum throat length---4" group at 25 yards (seated/two hand hold/rest). Next round was the same, plus a load of corn meal under the ball---which is now seated flush with the end of the chamber---minimum throat length-----a wee bit less than an inch----one ragged hole. Three additional rounds with in-between corn meal spacers made for almost linear group sizes. Some throat's bad, more's worse, and too much is A LOT worse!! There's more to all this than standing on your hind legs, and pulling a trigger.

Ralph Tremaine