RE: Ejecting shell-casings

I have two questions relating to S&W .38 mechanisms that I hope someone can help me with:

1) If a 1920s S&W revolver, as discussed in my other thread, was fired, would the shell-casings remain with the weapon or be ejected? i.e would shell-casings have to be taken out manually?

2)Did S&W or anyone else produce a .38 weapon that would automatically eject the shell-casing?

Thanks for your help.

I have two questions relating to S&W .38 mechanisms that I hope someone can help me with:

1) If a 1920s S&W revolver, as discussed in my other thread, was fired, would the shell-casings remain with the weapon or be ejected? i.e would shell-casings have to be taken out manually?

2)Did S&W or anyone else produce a .38 weapon that would automatically eject the shell-casing?

Thanks for your help.

I'm not sure I understand your question.
Are you asking if the cases are ejected with each shot or automatically ejected when the gun is opened? The latter is how a top-break works.
I have seen an old design where the gasses from the shot blew the previous empty out of the cylinder. It was not a successful design. Too complicated, prone to jamming and other malfunctions.
If you want individual ejection with each shot, why not just get an auto and have self loading too?

NE,

I think you need to have someone with firearms experience give you some direct, one-on-one training if you are asking questions like that about a revolver. You need an elementary understanding of the basic concept if you are going to own one.

Chris

I didn't see your other thread, but it depends on the model. S&W topbreak guns in .38 were common in the 1920's, but they had also been making the M&P model since 1899, with the front cylinder lock added in 1902. That had a swingout cylinder, and you extract the fired cartridges by pushing back on the extractor rod. This is by far the most common system today, for all revolver makers. It is also the stronger design.

Are you a writer trying to determine what to say about this gun in a novel?

Keep in mind that topbreak guns, like the older S&W's and the Webleys do not auto eject the fired cases unless you smartly lower the barrel- cylinder assembly all the way. If you fired only a couple of shots and want to reload, just open the gun partially and pick out the fired cases.

Because either type gun was readily available in the 1920's, I'd choose the gun based on the character and the circumstances. What aura do you want the character with this gun to have?

Keep in mind that the topbreak ones also came in a hammerless version, with an internal hammer and a grip safety.

Did you watch the TV series, "The Lost World"? Remember that hammerless gun carried by Rachel Blakely as Marguerite? I think a real Marguerite would have chosen it because the hammer couldn't catch on anything if she fired the gun through a coat or a ladies hand muff.
In the two-part movie that opened the series, she did in fact kill a would-be assassin in London with the gun hidden in her muff.

But by the time she was on the expedition to the Amazonian jungle, I think she should have switched to the more powerful .38 Special swingout cylinder model. The topbreak guns use a shorter .38 cartridge of less power.

I think this answers your question, which I understood perfectly, being a writer, myself.


T-Star
P.S. Okay, I just found your other thread. You need to show us a photo, or tell us at least if the cylinder swings out to the left. Either type of gun might have been in TN in that day.
You are simply not giving enough information.

NE: John Moses Browning designed and produced a semi-automatic pistol in the early 1900's that fired his .38 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) round. This round was equivalent to the older .38 Colt and .38 S&W rounds. The cartridge was "uprated" in the 20's to .38 "Super", an equivalent to a hot .38 Special, and is still produced today. Colt also produced the Model 1903 in .380 (actually a 9mm short). I am not aware of any revolvers, however, that ejected the cases upon firing. S&W top-breaks and Hand Ejectors allow you to extract all the fired cases at once.

Hope this helps.

MikeyL
SWCA #21010

Mikey has a point. It simply did not occur to me that someone would think that a revolver ejected cartridge cases one by one as they are fired.

How baffling! You would benefit by getting a basic book discussing firearms designs through the years. I suggest Geoffrey Boothroyd's, "The Handgun", from Crown Publishing. It can often be found on the net. Amazon.com sometimes has copies. It is out of print, but I have seen nothing else quite as good for the subject. It does end in the 1960's, but is virtually required reading for a beginner who needs to assimilate basic knowledge.

T-Star

Thanks for the replies. They are very interesting and useful.

To answer some of the points raised. I'm not writing a book (not fiction anyway) but doing historical research on a homicide in 1927 where the gun evidence was crucial in the conviction. The only information I have is that given in my two queries. One aspect I couldn't understand was how shell-casings would be found at the scene unless they were automatically ejected, yet the alleged weapon was a revolver which I am sure would not do that.

If the shell-casing evidence is reliable, where casings were found on the ground at the scene, what weapon would most likely be used? Or, if the gun evidence is reliable and the weapon was a S&W .38, under what circumstances would someone fire less than 6 shots then manually eject the cartridges and leave them at the scene?

I'm not looking to buy a weapon: my time in the military taught me that the safest thing to be when I am firing a weapon is the target

Sounds like someone reloaded and didn't pick up the brass. Otherwise, it may have been someone writing the original report that didn't realize there were different .38 cartridges out there.

One possibility is the Smith and Wesson 35 caliber semi automatic pistol. The cartridge's head stamp would be quite small and easily mistaken for the much more common 38 S&W. The weapon's description as a revolver may not be reliable if it was based on a misidentified cartridge case found at the scene.

As to why someone would eject the empties after fewer than 6 shots, most revolvers chambered for 38 S&W only had a five round capacity.

This is an interesting subject and I hope you keep us up to date on what you learn.

Doug

The fact that the casings were found at the scene of a shooting is no mystery. If you carry a firearm and shoot it for any number of reasons you would want to reload it. Otherwise you would be carrying an empty weapon. Even if only one or two rounds were fired it is prudent to replace the fired rounds. If you become in a second engagement would you want 5 shots in your gun or 6?

Even if you are carrying an automatic with a 15 round magazine and fire one round you will want to replace the magazine with a full one. In modern day shooting lingo this is called a "tactical reload" as opposed to an "emergency reload" where your firearm is completely empty.

NE...

For moment, I too, thought that maybe the gun might be an early
semi-auto. However, in checking possible serial numbers for these early S&W semi-auto guns, the serial numbers only go to #8350. In one of your earlier threads you mentioned a higher 6 digit serial number.

So, you're back to your first thoughts that it was a revolver, making it either a hand-ejector or a top-break.

Thanks for the interesting responses and theories.

I didn't consider that the revolver might only carry 5 rounds, but I think it must have held six given the shot sequence of Gun 1,1,2,1,1,1,1 (although the last shot is in question), and 6 bullet holes were found, although 1 could have gone through the body into the wall (at what range, if any, would that be possible?).

At that point, the holder of Gun 1 (the S&W .38 - the other weapon was a .32) could have reloaded requiring him to take out the shell-casings - the tactical reload makes sense. So my question then is, would the casings have been hot or would there be some other reason the shooter wouldn't put the casings in his pocket? (I haven't discounted the idea there was a hole in the pocket). I just find it unlikely that someone would leave casings at the scene of a shooting when they were not under physical duress.

The serial number in the other thread is the one given in the transcript, but thanks for eliminating the other weapon.

The story surrounding the weapon evidence is fascinating, primarily, I think, because this was a case where the casings were attributed to the weapon by examing "plunger" marks using a magnifying glass while refusing to accept that analyzing rifling and lands were more accurate and available tests. Which brings me to another question: would someone be able to distinguish a S&W .38 from any other weapon, including other S&W .38s just by visually inspecting the "plunger" marks? The original test firings were conducted using the alleged weapon used in the crime, two S&W .38s, and two .38 "Spain" guns, whatever they were, but none of those shell-casings were produced at trial to check against the testimony.

I know it is a long shot - pardon the pun - but I thought if I could find the actual weapon then I could have test firings conducted.

Thanks again, you are helping me a great deal in understanding all this.

Unless we are talking about a cold blooded killer, most folks that shoot at a human being are under duress.

In the 1920s, there was less chance of physical evidence being used to convict of a crime. Below is a link to an article about comparision microscopes, which is the tool needed to connect suspect bullets and cartridge cases to ones that have been fired in a crime.

"...while refusing to accept that analyzing rifling and lands were more accurate and available tests."

From what I've read in your other posts, I've seen nothing to indicate that anyone refused this type of test. You must remember that there were few crime labs capable of MAKING these tests in the '20s. Back then, the special agents of the FBI had just recently been allowed to carry firearms. There were no super crime labs as we know them today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_Microscope

Unless an intact bullet can be recovered, it can not be compared to one fired from a suspect revolver. The bullets that were loaded in .38 special cartridges were made from soft lead and easily deformed.

Another poster suggested that you read up on firearms. There are many criminal justice textbooks that discuss recovery of physical evidence and the markings made by firearms. Perhaps reading one or more of these would help you ask better questions on this Forum.

And yes, some firearms do leave markings that only apply to certain models. The FBI lab in DC has an extensive collection of firearms for comparision. Using traits like the rate of twist and whether or not the twist is right handed or left handed can narrow down the suspect firearms.

Muley, thanks for the reply. I would like to clarify a couple of points and ask your advice.

First, the person convicted was considered to be a cold-hearted killer, but as I don't think that was correct, I was careful to say he wasn't under "physical" duress. This crime happened in the middle of the night and he would have had plenty of time to reload away from the crime scene.

You're right that I haven't supplied material to say the tests were not refused. I chose not to burden this forum with the complete text of the transcript or appeals transcripts where this issue was raised and further testing denied. I hoped you would take my word for it.

The bullets weren't compared. The cartridges were, but I don't know how efficacious those tests were, hence my inquiry. But, because there was an expert prepared to testify about the use of rifling and lands as superior forms of analysis, I assume that those tests were available. The testimony of the expert in question suggests he carried out those tests in the US Army but I cannot find references to say that these were formal scientific tests, but I also haven't seen any reference that categorically states those tests were not available. If you have that reference, please post it for me to use.

I have read quite extensively on the forensics of firearms, but none that I found explicitly go back before the 1930s. I don't want to assume that those statistics and results would apply to weapons manafuctured in the 1920s unless an authoritative source tells me they are. It appears from reading the various threads on this forum and the replies I have recived already that I can explore this issue fully and authoritatively with my questions on this board. If you have a secondary or primary reference that would answer my questions, please give me that so I can study further.

I'm not sure what better questions I should be asking, and would greatly appreciate your suggestions. My frame of reference doesn't include 1920s firearms, so I am asking very basic questions prompted by issues raised in the texts I am reading, mostly trial transcripts. Therefore, I understand most of the issues involved, but not the technical aspects of S&W weapons or shell-casings.

I appreciate you taking the time to consider my queries and for sharpening my thinking on this subject.

Do you know the headstamps on the casings? That would tell us a lot.

Correction: FBI agents couldn't carry firearms until mid-1934 but I agree that they weren't effective at forensics until the 1930s.

Hatcher, Goddard, FitzGerald, et al were doing pretty sophisticated forensic ballistics in the 1920s, e.g. in the Sacco Vanzetti case.

Hatcher, Goddard, FitzGerald, et al? What is the reference for them? I've looked at the Sacco-Vanzetti case as part of my research but not the forensic evidence. Thanks for the lead on that.

I do not have the headstamps and they are not in the record. What difference would knowing them make?

http://cgi.ebay.com/HANDGUN-TARGET-EXHIBITION-SHOOTING-...yZ7304QQcmdZViewItem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Goddard_%28Ballistics%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Hatcher

Headstamps would tell us the specific cartridge/caliber, manufacturer, and perhaps date.

NE,

Here's a photo of three ".38 bullets"



Left - .38 S&W (not the same as a .38 special)

Middle - .38 U.S. Service Cartridge, headstamp: FA 5 13 (Frankford Arsenal May 1913

Right - .38 Special (REM-UMC headstamp, no date)


And another photo of two .38 S&W cartridges. You can see the firing pin indentation on the one on the right.




Hope this helps!

So my question then is, would the casings have been hot or would there be some other reason the shooter wouldn't put the casings in his pocket?

Click to expand...

At that time (1920's) he might not have been aware of the value the fired cases could have for evidence. Or might not have cared for any number of reasons.