.38 special +p?

[FLASHnumber17]

Hey Flash here,
I have this old snubby that's been shooting Remington .38 special 130 grain. I've been seeing a lot of +p ammo in .38 special, but I don't know the difference? Can I safely fire +p in this old victory?

 

[murphydog]

If it was bored out to accept .38 Special (from .38 S & W), I would recommend against +P use.

PS: Does it have a very light trigger pull? The small screw in the front strap that puts tension on the mainspring (right where the pointy part of the left stock panel is aimed in your photo) should usually be snug. This will allow reliable primer ignition.

 

[blujax01]

A 70 year old Victory with a replacement/cut down barrel?

I wouldn't do it.

 

[Nevada Ed]

The victory model was one of the first designs and
"Standard" 38 special was the load for the day. It
did not have the improved steels back then and it
was not beefed up in areas for the higher pressure loads.

It may shoot a few +P without any damage but why take
a chance on a great revolver that has survived this long.

If you have to try a +P, see if you can find some of the
Federal "Nyclad 125gr" for the gun, they were made for J frames.
Otherwise a 148gr wc at around 775fps is the best standard
load for maximum energy in the J frame with that short barrel
with almost 200 ft/lbs energy.

Good shooting.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

38 S&W = 14,500 PSI
38 Special = 17,000 PSI
38 Special +P = 18,500 PSI

Do you think you should shoot .38 Special +P ammo through a revolver designed for a lot less pressure @14,500 PSI.

 

[shawn mccarver]

The victory model was one of the first designs and "Standard" 38 special was the load for the day. It
did not have the improved steels back then and it
was not beefed up in areas for the higher pressure loads.

I am reasonably certain the the steel heat treat was started in about 1920, many years before WWII, which is when "Victory" model production began. There are many threads on this. In addition, the 2 inch M&Ps were certified for 38/44 when they were first introduced. The 38/44 is MUCH hotter than the +P of today.

If this revolver was originally chambered in 38 Special (as opposed to 38 S&W), and only the barrel was shortened, then I do not believe there is any appreciable difference in the heat treatment and strength of the cylinder between WWII, when the "Victory" model started, and 1957, the arbitrary year S&W picked to say that +P is ok in steel revolvers. That said, given the modifications to this revolver, I probably would not shoot it at all. I would have no problem with a Victory model in 38 Special which had not been modified.

In addition, read Post 2 in this thread:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-hand-ejectors-1896-1961/329458-1957-metalurgy-change-question.html

 

[kaaskop49]

Interesting that no one has mentioned that the front cylinder locking lug, which is located on the underside of the barrel, is missing.

Don't know how/if this relates to the strength of the gun or its 'shoot-ability.' That lug was put there for a reason.

 

[Nevada Ed]

1. ...... ammo for the 38/44 N frame ..........
2. Note: next thread stated this info was for a K frame........

Both these frames are much stronger than the first J frames made.

3. Victory models were made BEFORE the +P ammo was produced.

but if someone wants to try +P ammo, that is their choice.
I know what S&W would say..........

Good eye Kaaskop49.

 

[bonjorno2]

I wouldn't want to be behind that with a +p load.

 

[shawn mccarver]

1. ...... ammo for the 38/44 N frame ..........
2. Note: next thread stated this info was for a K frame........

Both these frames are much stronger than the first J frames made.

3. Victory models were made BEFORE the +P ammo was produced.

but if someone wants to try +P ammo, that is their choice.
I know what S&W would say..........

Good eye Kaaskop49.

And, 38/44 ammo was made long before the Victory model and before the first M&P snubs, which were certified as ok to use 38/44 ammo.

And, 38/44 ammo of that day makes current +P look like a light target load. If 158 grains at 1125 fps will only accelerate wear, then 158 grains at 950, if that (current +P for same grain weight) will definitely not be a big deal.

As to J frames, the cylinder is always the first thing to go, and the J frame cylinder is stronger than the K because of the offset locking notches, which are, in the J frame, set into the thicker part of the cylinder between the charge holes, instead of directly over the thinnest part of the charge hole as in the K frame. This is why the 7 shot 686 cylinder is stronger than the 6 shot 686 cylinder.

I agree with you that I am not going to take a fine old collector's item and run a bunch of 38/44 ammo through it just because I can, but it isn't because I fear some sort of catastrophic failure. It is because I respect the collector value of the fine old collector's item. Remember, they were not collector's items when introduced. They were designed for hard use. Heat treating of cylinders started way before the Victory models, and Victory models had all the features and heat treatment of the pre-war models. There is just no safety issue here. Accelerated wear issue, yes. Safety issue, no.

If you did not like the reference I put in my previous post, then try Post 1 in this thread:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-hand-ejectors-1896-1961/244550-38-special-p-k-frame-revolvers.html

 

[chief38]

I would practice with either Factory or Factory velocity (hand loads) wadcutters and use standard pressure (non +p) 158 grain LSWC ammo for SD if you have no stronger revolver to use for the task.

 

[shawn mccarver]

Interesting that no one has mentioned that the front cylinder locking lug, which is located on the underside of the barrel, is missing.

Don't know how/if this relates to the strength of the gun or its 'shoot-ability.' That lug was put there for a reason.

I noticed it, but Colt's of the period never had the front locking feature, and the little Police Positive/Detective Special revolvers were ok with 38/44, according to Colt, so I didn't think much about it.

Just for the record, I would prefer an M&P without the modifications for serious work with +Ps or 38/44s. But, only to save unnecessary wear and tear, not because I think it is going to come apart.

Good work noticing the lack of the front locking lug.

 

[FLASHnumber17]

If it was bored out to accept .38 Special (from .38 S & W), I would recommend against +P use.

PS: Does it have a very light trigger pull? The small screw in the front strap that puts tension on the mainspring (right where the pointy part of the left stock panel is aimed in your photo) should usually be snug. This will allow reliable primer ignition.

It is actually a DA only. So it's not really a light trigger pull. But it's not "out of this world" difficult to squeeze the trigger and fire.

 

[-db-]

You need to tighten that strain screw regardless. You have practically no tension whatsoever on the spring, which is not how the revolver was designed to function.

 

[shawn mccarver]

You need to tighten that strain screw regardless. You have practically no tension whatsoever on the spring.

I agree with this. That screw is designed to be screwed all the way down.

 

[FLASHnumber17]

I will tighten that IMMEDIATELY! lol thanks for the info! I had no idea that was so important

 

[FLASHnumber17]

HECK YEAH! The tigger is really light now. Before I tightened the screw it would go about half way, reach a small little stop, then it would take a bit more force to fully pull the trigger to fire. Now it's all one nice constant pull to set off the hammer. I guess it was a SA and DA after all? Hmm funny how a little tweak can fix so much. Thanks guys!

 

[jtcarm]

No +P, unless you're looking to get on You-boob.

 

[kaaskop49]

Hey Shawn,

...and everybody, here's a ? for all: Anyone place any credence in the theory that the Colts did not require a front locking lug since the cylinder rotated to the right, 'into' the frame, as opposed to the Smith cylinder rotating to the left, 'outside' the frame? That the lug added some measure of strength...

If I recall, some of the original Smith hand ejectors (whatever they're called) did not have that barrel lug.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

...and everybody, here's a ? for all: Anyone place any credence in the theory that the Colts did not require a front locking lug since the cylinder rotated to the right, 'into' the frame, as opposed to the Smith cylinder rotating to the left, 'outside' the frame? That the lug added some measure of strength...

If I recall, some of the original Smith hand ejectors (whatever they're called) did not have that barrel lug.

Not only did the Colt hand help hold the cylinder closed, but the rear (only) locking pin was MUCH larger than on the S&W.

However, the recollection in your last sentence is correct.

I wouldn't worry much about +P in that revolver. Most injuries resulting from cartridge/revolver mismatches are only to the hand, as long as you wear safety glasses, and that's with a catastrophic failure, which doesn't sound all that likely.

But I wouldn't do it. The gun is hardly original now. Why not put a ball lock in the crane like some of gunsmiths do? Shouldn't cost much.