Pre-war Smiths weak?

Allen207

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
12
Reaction score
2
Location
Western NM
First let me say, I did try and search and found no results for pre war or pre-war. Sorry.

I own an old 6.5 inch .455 2nd model hand ejector that has been shaved for moon clips. It is amazingly accurate (at least with 230 gr ball ammo).

I was looking at Buffalo Bore's new .45 auto rim offering that is pushing a 255 gr hard cast bullet at 1000 fps (plus or minus). It would make a nice field carry round, but it is only safe in post-war revolvers.

What changed during the war? Were there metallurgical enhancements of the later guns?
 
Register to hide this ad
Up until around 1920 (or thereabouts) the cylinders were not tempered. Up to around 1930 (this is my opinion) the tempering of steel was much less precise than today and frankly, I am wary of shooting guns made before this date. Indeed, I have sold all of my pre-1930 revolvers because I shoot my guns and I was not comfortable shooting these oldies.

Others will argue, but I would not use that load in your gun.
 
I wasn't planning on using the round, I was just curious what had changed. Thanks for the info.
 
I have a .455/Second that was converted to .45 Colt. I shoot only cowboy loads in it. I wouldn't try to shoot anything hotter than standard ball ammo in any WWI era revolver that chambers .45 ACP.

In general I shoot only wadcutter match ammo or similar downpressure loads in any revolver from the 1930s or before.

In terms of the .38 Special, the S&W recommendation is to refrain from shooting +P ammo in any gun that is not model-numbered. That would leave out all revolvers before 1957/58. But since the model numbered K-frame .38s are the same gun as the ones manufactured in the preceding 10 years, you can probably extend the corporate-approved safe zone to the late 1940s.
 
Last edited:
Without doing some reading, my recollection is that the heat treating of the cylinders began after December 1921 at around sn 16,600.

I agree with the others and I would not fire anything other than relatively light loads in that converted revolver.

Bob
 
There was an old shooter...Elmer Keith.... (bow your heads) who often shot what we'd call nearly magnum loadings in his ratty old Triple Locks. Many of us question his sanity, but he sure shot a lot of them, and well.
 
There was an old shooter...Elmer Keith.... (bow your heads) who often shot what we'd call nearly magnum loadings in his ratty old Triple Locks. Many of us question his sanity, but he sure shot a lot of them, and well.

Didn't Elmer also blow up a bunch of guns? : )

rob
 
I read in his book; "Hell, I Was There"! One he blew up, he attributed to high primers detonating on the recoil shield during a shot.

Apparently Elmer was a better shooter than a reloader. If you read his stuff, he had no problem pushing the envelope on everything to find where the limits were and sometimes were not. If a high primer detonated on the recoil shield, I can only imagine what the recoil was on the round he fired. Musta been stout. I think I now know the purpose of that big hat. LOL

I'd keep my loads reasonable and to factory specs.
 
Elmer is said to have loaded .44 special ballon head cases with a compressed load of 2400 (the exact weight escapes me) under his 240 (246?) grain semi-wadcutter hard cast bullet. He was then put out when his Triplelocks' forcing cones split.
 
The only gun I have read about that Elmer blew up was a Colt SAA chambered in .45 Colt. He was using a .45-70 bullet sized down, ahead of a case full of black powder.

He then went to the .44 Special cartridge as the revolvers that chambered it had thicker cylinder walls.
 
As I recall, all the model 1917 Armys had heat-treated cylinders, at least to the standards of the time. I don't know about the .455s, but I wouldn't recommend higher pressure loads in either.
 
Back
Top