This was what I had heard as well, and also the same regarding 625 and 629 cylinders. However, I have no source for this info.
Strength of Mod 19 vs Mod 10
- Thread starter RacingSnake
- Start date
I think he means boring out the charge holes so they'll accept the longer Magnum case.
On a similar note, a friend has a Victory model which was originally chambered in .38 S&W (so marked on the barrel) but the charge holes were bored out to chamber .38 Special. I've shot it and it's OK, but accuracy is not the best. I advised him against using lead boolits in it.
Texas Star
US Veteran
per guns as in true .357 examples.
Last edited:
Shooting .357 bullets in that .360 bore would be like throwing a hot dog down a hallway. Lead boolits won't obturate and will allow gas around them and melt the lead onto the barrel. Jacketed bullets of .357 cal wouldn't obturate either, so I don't see how they'd raise pressures more than lead.
I agree it's an unwise conversion.
Good info. The question is whether they used those new steels and treatments solely on the M19 or on all the revolvers.
Texas Star
US Veteran
My computer has been malfunctioning and a long post made was just eliminated, for no known reason.
In it, I noted that Chic Gaylord, the holster maker, said in his book about 1960 that an S&W rep advised him about the time that the Heavy Barrel M-10 was introduced that it was made of a new and stronger steel. But he DID NOT say that it allowed .357 pressures. But the company did say that use of Plus P ammo is allowed in guns wih model numbers, dating from 1957.
I strongly doubt that S&W will ever reveal if some .38 guns are made to .357 strength. It'd hurt sales of .357's and cause some to convert .38's to .357 chambers, with possibly diastrous results in older guns.
In it, I noted that Chic Gaylord, the holster maker, said in his book about 1960 that an S&W rep advised him about the time that the Heavy Barrel M-10 was introduced that it was made of a new and stronger steel. But he DID NOT say that it allowed .357 pressures. But the company did say that use of Plus P ammo is allowed in guns wih model numbers, dating from 1957.
I strongly doubt that S&W will ever reveal if some .38 guns are made to .357 strength. It'd hurt sales of .357's and cause some to convert .38's to .357 chambers, with possibly diastrous results in older guns.
Last edited:
More good info, TS. I agree with your last paragraph, too.
ParadiseRoad
Member
...the alloy of the steel is everything. Most old hands probably ducked and ran when Ruger said they where casting their frames rather than forging them. But the high Manganese steel alloy they use is so tough...it produces the toughest frames in the industry even in investment cast form.
I compared my 13-2 to a 15-3 and a 14-2 and the frames are all the same dimensions. I couldn't find any differences.
ParadiseRoad, I wonder how tough a GP-100 forged out of S&W steel would be. You think it'd be as tough as Ruger's cast ones?
ParadiseRoad, I wonder how tough a GP-100 forged out of S&W steel would be. You think it'd be as tough as Ruger's cast ones?
All very interesting, but I think the crux of the matter is MOD 10 VS MOD 13. Are they indeed the "same gun" except for the chamber or are there differences not seen by the naked eye? Different steel alloys? Different HT? Slightly longer cylinder and shorter forcing cone for .357? My impression was always that the MOD 13 was simply a later model MOD 10 chambered .357 Mag. Maybe at some point the alloy and HT changes were across the board, making the MOD 13 doable.
ParadiseRoad
Member
...I'm not sure what alloy S&W uses on their newest revolvers...but I'm sure it would take more rounds to fatigue one to failure than most of us could afford. Ruger's alloy is pretty much legendary for its toughness...I don't know that you could ever fatigue a Ruger to failure.
Engine49guy
Member
Gwalchmai when you dig out your Model 13 remove the grips and look for the number "3" stamped on the frame.
Not sure if it is there but guessing it might be.
Not sure if it is there but guessing it might be.
DWalt
Member
I don't know any more than the next guy about whether S&W's heat treatment in the 19 differs from the 10. Logic and manufacturing economics would dictate using the same heat treatment and alloys for both. One possible way to tell (if S&W won't reveal the truth) is simply to perform a Rockwell hardness test. Metal yield strength correlates very well with hardness, and I'd expect to see a significant difference in Rockwell hardness between the two if alloys and heat treatment are different. But be aware that hardness testing does leave a small pimple from the diamond penetrator in the metal surface. Does anyone here have a Rockwell hardness tester to test my theory?
Also, my guess is that, at least for more modern revolvers, there is enough of a design safety margin in one chambered for the .38 Special that it could safely handle .357 chamber pressures. At least for awhile.
Also, my guess is that, at least for more modern revolvers, there is enough of a design safety margin in one chambered for the .38 Special that it could safely handle .357 chamber pressures. At least for awhile.
Engine49guy
Member
Yes I agree but I do not own one,
Im leaning towards believing they did not heat treat .38 frames the same as the .357 frames because S&W is a company that exists for profit and that meens speed of production and cost savings,
Wouldnt make sense to take the extra time to treat every gun if they can safely skip the process reducing production time.
Im betting Doc 44 knows for sure.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,005
- Reaction score
- 7,076
Actually, they did, called the Model 10-6, and if memory serves, they were made for the New York State Police, and they were the forerunner of the Model 13.
My 10-6 and 13-2, both .357s, have identical-length cylinders. My 1949 M&P, M10-5, M64 and M64-3, all .38s, have identical-length cylinders. The .357 cylinders are longer, even figuring in the counterbored chambers, and their barrel shanks are shorter.
Larry
Larry
Engine49guy
Member
Now measure a Model 12 cylinder and a Model 19-5 cylinder you will be surprised.
DWalt
Member
"Wouldnt make sense to take the extra time to treat every gun if they can safely skip the process reducing production time."
The steel in every gun is heat-treated anyway. However, the actual heat treatment procedures and conditions will differ somewhat depending upon the alloy used and the degree of hardening desired. There is probably very little difference, if any, in heat treatment procedures used for all parts, i.e., IF there are indeed any differences in heat treatment between a frame for a .38 Special and one for a .357, it wouldn't be very much. The purpose of heat treating is simply to increase metal hardness through chemical and physical changes in the metal caused by heating and cooling. Heat treatment is normally done after machining operations are completed, as it is much more difficult to machine hardened steel. Hardening increases yield strength, which is another way of saying it makes it tougher and stronger. The tradeoff is that the harder metal gets, the more brittle it becomes, and that can cause problems. That's why there are so many steel alloys, to produce parts which, after heat treating, will have the proper balance of toughness and hardness to fit the application.
The steel in every gun is heat-treated anyway. However, the actual heat treatment procedures and conditions will differ somewhat depending upon the alloy used and the degree of hardening desired. There is probably very little difference, if any, in heat treatment procedures used for all parts, i.e., IF there are indeed any differences in heat treatment between a frame for a .38 Special and one for a .357, it wouldn't be very much. The purpose of heat treating is simply to increase metal hardness through chemical and physical changes in the metal caused by heating and cooling. Heat treatment is normally done after machining operations are completed, as it is much more difficult to machine hardened steel. Hardening increases yield strength, which is another way of saying it makes it tougher and stronger. The tradeoff is that the harder metal gets, the more brittle it becomes, and that can cause problems. That's why there are so many steel alloys, to produce parts which, after heat treating, will have the proper balance of toughness and hardness to fit the application.
davidrepeterson
Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2012
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 0
I have one of the 10-6's in 357, a 13-1 and a 15-3 with a 19-2 cylinder and a 8" slab barrel. Over the last 25 years or so, the 10-6 has had about 1000+ factory rounds though it(by me, bought it used). I carried the 13 for many years and put a lot of hot loads through it 7-8000+. However the 15 has taken the blunt of my handload madness experiments, 15,000+ . I believe I maxed around 1700/800 @ muzzle.
I just measured the 3 frames and they all have roughly the same measurements with a slight variance at the top strap cylinder opening. 1.811(10-6), 1.815(13-1) and 1.821(15-3). The 13-1 also has a bit of flame cutting at the top strap and around the forcing cone of the barrel. The slab barrel also shows wear around the edges of the forcing cone. I refitted the slab barrel twice the last time maybe 10 years ago. neither barrel shows any visual splitting. All 3 are safe queens now, the 13 is disassembled.
Based on magazine articles I read many years ago, I was always under the assumption that only the cylinders were different in metalurgy and heat treatment.
I just measured the 3 frames and they all have roughly the same measurements with a slight variance at the top strap cylinder opening. 1.811(10-6), 1.815(13-1) and 1.821(15-3). The 13-1 also has a bit of flame cutting at the top strap and around the forcing cone of the barrel. The slab barrel also shows wear around the edges of the forcing cone. I refitted the slab barrel twice the last time maybe 10 years ago. neither barrel shows any visual splitting. All 3 are safe queens now, the 13 is disassembled.
Based on magazine articles I read many years ago, I was always under the assumption that only the cylinders were different in metalurgy and heat treatment.
DWalt
Member
On another forum, I ran across a comment I found interesting. A statement was made that back when the .357 Magnum first appeared, it was not unusual for cops to take their Colt .38 Police Positive Special revolvers down to the friendly corner gunsmith to get their cylinder chambers reamed out to accept .357 Mag. I had not heard of this being done before. Does anyone else know about such a practice? If this was done with Colts, maybe it was done with S&W M&Ps also. I understand that Colt's started revolver heat treatment very early, around the turn of the 20th century, while S&W waited until somewhat later.
Similar threads
