1st Model M&P

[BMur]

I’m not really knowledgeable on the M&P Models. I do know that the early model was introduced as a Black powder revolver in 1899 and has a thin forcing cone. See photo 1 of my early 1st model circa 1900.
At some point the forcing cone was beefed up for smokeless use.
My question is when did that happen? Was it after 1907 when Smith & Wesson guaranteed their revolvers for smokeless use?
Photo 2 is a later barrel.

I have shot my Model 1 several times with light loads of bullseye. 2.5 grains with a 148 grain Wadcutter and have had no issues. Shoots great.

I have a 1906 ( by factory letter as shipped) as well. I’d like to shoot it just want to know if I can shoot standard 38 Special through it or stick with the light stuff?

Murph

 

[rct269]

.38 Specials will be fine----especially today's mouse loads.

Yesterday's loads left at 950fps (from an 8 3/8" barrel).

Today's loads leave at 755fps (from a 4" barrel).

I'll leave the comparative math to you.

Ralph Tremaine

Edited to add: Both of these are standard 158 grain round nose bullet loads.

 

[DWalt]

I have read that the earlier M&P barrels did not have forcing cones, but I do not know when their use began. One from 1906 should be capable of safely firing any factory loaded .38 Special ammunition available today, including +P. But personally I would use only lead bullet loads.

 

[4K2022]

Page 493
SECTION 3:
Appendix C - Change Dates and Markings

This book holds many answers to questions, I haven’t asked myself (yet).

 

[JP@AK]

BMur

I think you are the victim of a common misunderstanding. You may be thinking that the barrel extension is a forcing cone. It isn't.

Your first photo shows a barrel without one and the barrel in the second photo has one. The forcing cone is the non-rifled area from the rearmost edge of the barrel extension, tapered to move the bullet into the barrel where it will engage the rifling.

The portion of the barrel that extends into the frame is the barrel extension. It may or may not have a forcing cone, depending on when it was made, and noted in Roy's book cited by 4K2022.

 

[BMur]

Light loads

I think I’ll just stick to light loads.

Murph

 

[James K]

I recently purchased an 1899 in .38 special and posted about it earlier. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with a serial # 9296 I believe the birth year is 1902 and pre-dates the original M&P thus being their first production model chambered for .38 special.
I can tell you it had no issues firing standard Norma 158gr range ammo. Recoil was less than some of my other S&W .38 specials and was a joy to shoot. If your early M&P is marked for .38 special, I would not think you'd have any issues.

 

[BMur]

Year of manufacture

I recently purchased an 1899 in .38 special and posted about it earlier. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with a serial # 9296 I believe the birth year is 1902 and pre-dates the original M&P thus being their first production model chambered for .38 special.
I can tell you it had no issues firing standard Norma 158gr range ammo. Recoil was less than some of my other S&W .38 specials and was a joy to shoot. If your early M&P is marked for .38 special, I would not think you'd have any issues.

James K,

I think yours is earlier than 1902. Roy Jinks lists in his book the U.S. Army purchased 1000 revolvers serial number 13,001-14,000 in 1901,
So yours being in the 9000 serial number range would likely be about late 1900.

U.S.N. Purchase was serial numbers 5000-6000 in June of 1900.

I have two that are in the low 6000 and mid 7000 range so circa 1900 is my guess.

Murph

 

[glowe]

That barrel has had a heavy cutting. Nothing to worry about from a shooting perspective, but I am guessing the accuracy may be suffer since the opening diameter of the forcing cone may exceed what is normal. It was probably cut to keep the bullet intact as it entered the barrel and eliminate lead spitting. I assume the gun may have some play in the cylinder lock-up and occasionally was not in perfect alignment with the barrel.

 

[mikepriwer]

James K

The .38 K-frames are all in the same serial number series, starting with 1 in 1899, and going to 999999 about 1941. The Model of 1899 is the first model, going from serial number 1 to serial number 20975, and it does not have front locking point for the extractor rod. The early Model of 1902 runs from serial number 20976 to 33803, according to Roy Jinks book. This model has an extractor lug under the barrel, which captures the forward end of the extractor rod, providing its locking point. This barrel, like the 1899 barrel, has a straight taper from the muzzle all the way back to the frame face, where the barrel enters the frame. The 1st engineering change to the model of 1902 starts with serial number 33804, and is a thickening of the barrel where it meets the frame face. The extra metal shows up as a shoulder on the barrel.

The easiest way to identify these two early model is by the presence, or lack of, the extractor lug under the barrel. If it is present, the gun is a model of 1902, or later. If it is not present, the gun is a model of 1899.

Mike Priwer

 

[Muley Gil]

I recently purchased an 1899 in .38 special and posted about it earlier. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with a serial # 9296 I believe the birth year is 1902 and pre-dates the original M&P thus being their first production model chambered for .38 special.
I can tell you it had no issues firing standard Norma 158gr range ammo. Recoil was less than some of my other S&W .38 specials and was a joy to shoot. If your early M&P is marked for .38 special, I would not think you'd have any issues.

The Model of 1899 was the first M&P revolver.

As Mike Priwer pointed out, the barrels with the shank are heavier and thicker.

 

[BMur]

Reloading data

I’m looking at it from a documented standpoint of change regarding historically documented loading data for the 38 Special. It’s documented fact that the load increased over the many years of later gun manufacture.
There is a dramatic difference in loading chart recommendations from say 1900 as compared to 1945 when loads were greatly increased along with bullet speed and pressure curves.

My early guns manufactured in approximately 1900 were in no way designed for these so called standard loads that can achieve 1200 FPS +. Didn’t exist in 1900.

Even a 1941 add posted by Glowe shows a FULL LOAD seen in attached photo. NO WAY that’s a full load today. Not even 6 years later in an Idea manual that lists 920 FPS FROM 3.5 grains of bullseye and 158 grain RN as STANDARD. That’s a huge step up from 1900 loading data. The simple truth is the 1900 gun can’t handle that increase.

If you have an open mind you can clearly see the increase in thickness at the forcing cone or barrel extension to handle this increase in performance. THE STANDARD FOR 38 Special in 1900 was not the STANDARD IN 1940 or 1970 or 2023.

In my opinion the only STANDARD comes from the 1900 loading data chart. In 1900 Black powder is still listed as the primary load with low psi Semi-Smokeless as an option.

Bullseye shows up in 1902 with a standard load of 3 grains only. Right about the same time that barrel locking lug shows up.

Gee, isn’t that a coincidence.

Murph

 

[glowe]

If you measure the barrel diameter along the length of the barrel from the start of the swell at the breech to muzzle, you will find that the barrel thickness is the same for the 1899, 1902, and 1905. Difference is that the 1899 and the early 1902 revolvers had a 0.50" threaded hole in the frame. Starting with the 1902, 1st Change, the size of the hole increased to about .530" to .540" and the barrel swell at the rear was added. This resulted in the forcing cone wall thickness increasing by about 0.01"+.

I know of no loading special limitations on early 38 Military revolvers. I know of no publications or factory instructions that state the 1899 should not be shot with "standard" 38 Special pressures??? The SAAMI not exceed pressure of 17,000psi remains the standard for all K frame 38 Special revolvers. Having said that, I do not shoot max psi ammunition out of my 1899s, mainly because I do not know what atrocities have occurred to these 125 year-old revolvers. Same thing on the other end of the spectrum, since I feel no need to shoot anything that exceeds 17,000psi in today's 38 Specials. BTW, 158g bullet & 870fps is a heavy load that would easily produce pressures over 15,000psi, maybe close to 17,000psi.

 

[DWalt]

Note that back in the 1930s when the .38-44 cartridge, which produces a peak chamber pressure in the 25Kpsi range, was introduced, there were never any gun or ammunition manufacturers warnings provided that they were unsafe to use in early (pre-heat treat) revolvers. Only a notification to expect excessive recoil in lighter-weight .38 Special guns. I believe that Colt was first to officially pronounce that .38-44 ammunition was OK to use in their E-frame guns (such as the Official Police)

 

[James K]

Note that back in the 1930s when the .38-44 cartridge, which produces a peak chamber pressure in the 25Kpsi range, was introduced, there were never any gun or ammunition manufacturers warnings provided that they were unsafe to use in early (pre-heat treat) revolvers. Only a notification to expect excessive recoil in lighter-weight .38 Special guns. I believe that Colt was first to officially pronounce that .38-44 ammunition was OK to use in their E-frame guns (such as the Official Police)

As I mentioned above, I was expecting much more recoil in my 1899 than realized. I'd have a hard time imagining the gun not handling those standard loads. It felt very comfortable and able.

 

[Muley Gil]

Note that back in the 1930s when the .38-44 cartridge, which produces a peak chamber pressure in the 25Kpsi range, was introduced, there were never any gun or ammunition manufacturers warnings provided that they were unsafe to use in early (pre-heat treat) revolvers. Only a notification to expect excessive recoil in lighter-weight .38 Special guns. I believe that Colt was first to officially pronounce that .38-44 ammunition was OK to use in their E-frame guns (such as the Official Police)

Colt also said that their D frame revolvers (Police Positive Special, Detective Special) was safe with the .38/44 loads.