K frame and +P rounds

[stiab]

"S&W Forum member Stiab disagrees with these findings."

Mostly what you and I disagree about is that you can make a literal reading and believe the velocities published by the factory ammo makers in the early to mid 1970's, and probably earlier. In the ammo section a month or so ago there was an intersting tread in which several older LEO's chimmed in agreeing that the factory ammo claims of that day were pure bull, and it was widely know.

And the numbers I sited in the post above (that you replied to) were for the 110 grain bullet, not the 125 you discussed earlier.

 

[bmcgilvray]

Perhaps the factory velocities were a bit optimistic but then in the 1970s they went overboard, using some sort of "4-inch vented test barrel" fixture to test ammunition. This skewed velocities in an excessively unfavorable manner.

I began chronographing .38 Special ammunition in the late 1970s and have noticed that the velocities slid to some extent in more recent years. My findings are not derived scientifically but I have been using some of the same revolvers as a control over the past 30 years.

Perhaps Smith & Wesson was optimistically representing the capabilities of their K-Frame revolvers in this pre-war advertising but the claim that the K-Frame .38 Special revolvers could be used with the potent .38-44 ammunition may be found in the text. Modern +P apparently isn't as "warm" as the old .38-44 stuff was.

This ad was first posted here by Forum member CXM as far as I know.

 

[Art Doc]

Both Colt and S&W advertised that their medium frame revolvers could shoot 38/44 ammo. This is probably not a good idea in the long run but then again a member here (wish I could recall who) posted that between 1958-1960 he fired 2,000 rounds of factory 38/44 through his 1958 Model 10 duty weapon without incident. Also note that Elmer Keith wrote of shooting 38/44s in an alloy Chiefs Special in 1955 without harm to the gun. I would not do that but he did and got away with it.

Stiab- Yes, the advertised velocities back in the 1970s and earlier were optimistic and sometimes blatantly inflated. But not as much as some would think. I have shot the older ammo (as have others) and the actual velocities were 1) not all THAT much lower than claimed and 2) much higher than the current 730 FPS for standard 158 loads.

Bottom line: I am convinced that +P is hype. It is actually a very mild load. It poses ZERO threat of damage to a quality made gun built since gun steel has been properly tempered (I use 1930 as my date). All the concern expressed over +P is ridiculous and irrational.

 

[bmcgilvray]

Here's a pre-war Colt ad, claiming the same thing about their small framed .38 Special models.

I have a couple of Colt Police Positive Specials and a Detective Special and I'd hate to have to fire very many .38-44 type loads through them. It would have to be unpleasant.

 

[stiab]

Both Colt and S&W advertised that their medium frame revolvers could shoot 38/44 ammo.

Apparently they saw the light and soon quit making that claim. You will not find it in these post war (1950) advertisements.

Edited to add: In retrospect I believe "saw the light" was a poor choice of words, since I don't know if S&W was correct when they included the 38-44 reference or when they deleted it. I should have said at some point in time they changed their mind and no longer advertised the K frame as suitable for the 38-44.

 

[semperfi71]

A good and informative thread as I am currently working on my K-Frame .38 Special loads and Colt Official Police .38 Special loads.

As to the ad from Colt posted by bmcgilvray, I have seen several internet posted pictures of Colt Police Positive Specials in .38 Special which had cracked forcing cones, same as some M19s as reported here. Looking at the PPS one can see a forcing cone that is actually thinner its entire circumference over a M19 with its bottom shaved portion. I bought a Colt Police Positive [precursor to the PPS] in .38 S&W [note not "Special"] for that reason. I wanted the handgun type but I wanted it in a caliber that probably would not have a cracked forcing cone.

I think later that Colt did indeed warn not to use any +P in any of the PPS, Detective, and Diamondback revolvers [and their other small alloy .38 specials].

I have a tendency to agree with SaxonPig on most of what he speaks. In the past the loading manuals, ammo companies, and handgun makers all alluding to hotter loads being okay. Either lawyers or more modern testing equipment led to the latest loads appearing to be watered down. I tend to be careful with my loading anyhow and will load my K-Frame .38s with 158 grain lead bullets to about 900 fps, my K-Frame .357s with 158 grain lead bullets to about 1150/1200 fps , and my Colt Official Police [they are the size of S&W L-Frames] with 158 grain lead bullets to about 1,000 fps . These loads are potent enough for "self-defense" and backwoods hiking and at the range I will shoot lead wadcutter loads.

As to the K-Frame .357 magnums. There is data on this forum that proves the forcing cones have been cracked by full magnum loads, mostly in the 110 to 125 grain persuasion, but I think one person reported it happening with 158 jacketed as well. And, there has been reporters here, such as SaxonPig, that prove otherwise with their guns.

Such is why I will load lead only 158 grain bullets in my K-Frame .357 magnums to the above mentioned velocities, AND I will stay away from H-110, W-296, 2400, and AA9, as the "magnum" powders [especially the ball types] have also been reported as having to contributed to excessive throat erosion and forcing cone cracking.

I too have noticed the +P loads seemed to be rather lukewarm as to velocities. There used to be +P+ loads as well wasn't there? But I don't think they are being manufactured any more by the larger companies.

 

[bmcgilvray]

"Made throughout from drop forgings with chrome-nickel steel, heat treated cylinders ..."

Thanks for posting that ad Stiab. That's the first time I've ever seen Smith & Wesson allude to the type of steel in their revolvers.

 

[Rob1109]

Mod. 10-4 4"

Sort of. If there's a Model no. on the frame, they're okay for Plus P. But later ones prob. have improved steels and heat treatment. Some J-frames are marked as Rated for Plus P, but no K-frames, I think.

Keep in mind that heavy use of Plus P will increase wear, esp. cylinder endhake. Some deny this, but I've seen some loose guns, and the USAF cited this as a reason why they wanted 9mm autos, prior to adoption of the Beretta M-9.

T-Star

I immediately checked the mod. # on the inside yoke and found 10-4. No longer afraid to use +p (if necessary). Best to all!

 

[Gary7]

Apparently they saw the light and soon quit making that claim. You will not find it in these post war (1950) advertisements.

Edited to add: In retrospect I believe "saw the light" was a poor choice of words, since I don't know if S&W was correct when they included the 38-44 reference or when they deleted it. I should have said at some point in time they changed their mind and no longer advertised the K frame as suitable for the 38-44.

The ".38 S&W Special Super Police" listed in those ads is the hot 38-44. Note the ammunition listed in this early N-Frame 38-44 ad:

 

[Tam 3]

I put 5 rounds of factory .38-.44 through a Mod. 60 in 1979. No damage but it was certainly brisk.

Regards,

Tam 3

 

[stiab]

The ".38 S&W Special Super Police" listed in those ads is the hot 38-44.

I respectfully disagree. The same catalog in which the gun ads appear show ammo specs for the .38 Special Super Police as being a 200 grain bullet at 745 fps (see below). Recent tests posted in the ammo section prove in reality it was not that fast.

It only makes sense that the nomenclature in the gun ad would agree with the nomenclature in the ammo ad from the same year and same catalog.

 

[Gary7]

I respectfully disagree. The same catalog in which the gun ads appear show ammo specs for the .38 Special Super Police as being a 200 grain bullet at 745 fps (see below). Recent tests posted in the ammo section prove in reality it was not that fast.

It only makes sense that the nomenclature in the gun ad would agree with the nomenclature in the ammo ad from the same year and same catalog.

Interesting. I was just going by that old 38/44 ad where it lists the two cartridges as 38 Special and 38 Special Super Police.

 

[Tam 3]

I think that S&W used "Super Police" very early in the 38/44 ads. The ammo producers used the same phrase for a very different load. They used it for a longer period of time as well.

Regards,

Tam 3

 

[Gary7]

I think that S&W used "Super Police" very early in the 38/44 ads. The ammo producers used the same phrase for a very different load. They used it for a longer period of time as well.

Too bad the ammo makers didn't think to use the "+P" term back then for the hot 38 loads. Did the hot loads for the 38/44 have a 38/44 head stamp, or were they just marked "38 Special" like a regular 38?

 

[stiab]

Note the ammunition listed in this early N-Frame 38-44 ad:

That's a great old ad, thanks for posting it. This thread has several very interesting ones!

 

[bmcgilvray]

The ".38 S&W Special Super Police" listed in those ads is the hot 38-44. Note the ammunition listed in this early N-Frame 38-44 ad:

Another reference to chrome nickel steel in the manufacture of the cylinder.

 

[Tam 3]

Some were marked 38/44. Don't know about all.

Regards,

Tam 3

 

[SaberOne]

I collect Super Vel ammo. I shoot the 38spcl 110 gr JHP stuff from time to time. Just to remind me how great this ammo was. It snaps the wrist more than any other 38 spcl load I have compared it to. Plus P aint very plus compared to the Super Vel. Sure would love to try a little 38/44 stuff

Super Vel... man those were the days' back in 1974 and beyond. Dang, every time I log on to this site, someone makes me feel older than dirt.~~

 

[ddixie884]

Did the 38/44 headstamped brass have large pistol primers?

 

[tocohillsguy]

So are these the cat's meow --- good as gold --- highly valuable --- to be cherished like a fine wine....?