.38 ACP .38 super

[Coldshooter]

Did S&W ever build any prototypes for these cartridges? Was the Model 39 even a candidate for these? All I have ever seen were on a 1911 type frame.

 

[SG-688]

FWIW I recall a couple of gunzine articles about re-chambering 39's to .38 Super -- but firing only with 90 gr. JHP loaded short to 9 mm OAL.

 

[BUFF]

Dick Metcalf wrote in SHOOTING TIMES magazine about him shooting .38 Super ammunition in a Model 52-2 with no problems.

Many people here have problems with what Dick Metcalf wrote on and did with many things...

 

[SG-688]

..... All I have ever seen were on a 1911 type frame.

As far as non-1911's go, the Browning/Sig 220 has been chambered in .38 Super, and then there are CZ clones in Super.

 

[AKAOV1MAN]

I have been packing (and modifying) weapons for a looong time. One of the last things I would do would be to try to get a 39 or 59 series shoot a .38 Super. That series was designed around the 9mm, and made as compact and light as possible for their time. The original 39 was designed to compete for the US military contract back in the fifties, but the Army decided the few million 1911A1s in stock would have to do for a while longer. .38 Super stresses were simply not contemplated at that time.
A later model all steel gun might work OK-but why? If you want a .38 Super, just get one.

 

[Rock185]

Quite a few years ago, Maj. George Nonte wrote up converting a S&W Model 39 to .38 Super. He just reamed the chamber to .38 Super case length, IIRC. But, as SG indicated, he could only use light and/or deeply seated bullets. The magazine length, front to rear, didn't change, so cartridge overall length could not exceed 9MM length. With equal pressures, and cartridge overall lengths, ballistics would not be any better than 9MM. I don't recall if he mentioned it, but he likely experienced case head swelling/bulging in the case head area, since the 9MM case is larger in that area. I sectioned several different brands of .38 Super cases years ago, when I was shooting and testing the Super quite a bit. I found that Super brass was noticeably thinner in the case head area than 9MM brass. With ballistics equal to the 9MM ammo I was also loading, the case bulging with, the Super brass concerned me. Winchester was the thinest at the time. Just because the case head says .38 Super, it does not make the same weight bullets,seated to the same overall length at same pressure go any faster at all than 9MM. Same as the 9X21MM or .356TSW( 21.5MM case length) cannot achieve better ballistics than 9MM with the same weight bullet, if overall cartridge length and pressure are the same. I think I still have that old Nonte article around here somewhere.

ps, BUFF, glad you mentioned that old article, about .38 Super in a 52-2. I met an old gentleman at a range in Phoenix years ago shooting .38 Super in his 52 with no problem at all. I mentioned this a time or two in forums, but I think some folks didn't believe me, thought I was a BSer,etc. Sure like to find that Shooting Times article you mentioned...