The abuse continues...

[wheelgun610]

And, once upon a time (way before lawyers realized they could make money working for gun companies), S&W even put in print that it was OK to shoot .38 Super Police (aka: .38/44) ammo in their K frame revolvers....

From the 1950 S&W All Models Circular. You'll notice down toward the bottom they clearly state all the suitable types of ammo for the .38 Combat Masterpiece.

Mark

 

[Texas Star]

Not so fast, there! Super Police meant the 200 grain bullet in the standard Special.

However, even Colt's small frame .38 was "listed" for .38-44 ammo in the 1930's. They didn't say that it should be shot a lot, just that was useable.

T-Star

 

[Texas Star]

Hi bmcgilvray,

I'd be careful shooting +P in the cylinders of Smith revolvers made before the heat treating commenced in the 1920s. Its not worth risking a kaboom with a vintage M&P without a heat treated cylinder, IMHO.

Didn't we figure out here awhile back that 1919 is the probable date when heat-treating began on M&P's?

I think (not sure) that the only S&W cylinders heat-treated prior to the M&P's were the M-1917's, by demand of the government. I believe that Colt was several years ahead of S&W in this regard.

T-Star

 

[Maximumbob54]

Nothing I can find on the .38 Super Police lists anything near the .38/44 pressures. They all list right around 750 FPS with a 200 grain bullet. That is nothing to compare.

This is a previous posting on these matters...
http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/87467-calling-all-38-44-hs-reloaders-i-need-your-help.html

 

[Art Doc]

Ad for the pre-war M&P. Check out the last sentence at the bottom of the page.

 

[Maximumbob54]

If that was an eye chart all I can see is the big E at the top.

 

[keith44spl]

Huh,

Printed in the U.S.A.

 

[JSR III]

Basically it says that "you can shoot the 38/44 S&W Special cartridge without getting the teriffic recoil that is experenced with the light arms of this type."

 

[Art Doc]

I was asked about the BCG and endshake on the revolver. Checking my notes the gun had had a BCG of .004" and endshake of .001" before shooting the 1,100+ rounds of +P, +P+ and 38/44s. According to my feeler gauge 10 minutes ago these measurements have not changed.

On the matter of duplicating the 38/44 load, from the Speer #8 published in 1970 a 158 grain lead bullet with 10 grains of 2400 produces 1044 FPS and 11 grains of 2400 makes 1155 FPS. If I recall correctly I went with 11 grains and chronographed 1125 from a 5" barrel so these velocities appear to be real world and not pressure barrel fantasy. I think factory 38/44s ran around 1125-1140 so these are close to duplicating that load. There were no warnings in the book about not using these loads in any particular gun. However, the #9 manual published in 1974 does not include these loads.

I recall having another manual with loads specifically identified as duplicating the 38/44 but I didn't immediately see it on the shelf and I didn't go searching for it. I may be wrong I think they had a warning to limit the use of these loads in the K frame revolvers. I don't recall if there was a specific number of rounds noted.

Note that Speer used Magnum primers. I generally find them unnecessary and use standard primers as I believe the velocity loss is smaller than the drop in chamber pressure by using standard primers.

I hope this answers everyone's questions.

 

[Walter Rego]

I am re-reading Elmer Keith's Sixguns book (1961 edition) for about the 5th or 6th time. I found it interesting that in the section describing the J Framed Chiefs Specials, he claims that due to their 5 shot cylinders having the bolt cuts between the chambers and the fact that hardly any of the rear of the barrel protrudes from the frame, it is OK to shoot those guns with the .38/44 loads. He does mention that recoil will be high of course. That seems to imply that the K frame guns are more at risk for damage with heavy loads, i.e. bulging of the cylinder and belling or cracking of the forcing cone. I still wouldn't shoot .38/44 pressure loads in a J frame, regardless of what ol' Elmer had to say.

 

[stiab]

Ad for the pre-war M&P. Check out the last sentence at the bottom of the page.

At some point in time S&W decided the 38/44 reference was no longer appropriate in their M&P ads, and it was not included in this one from 1950. As previous posters have pointed out, the .38 Special Super Police was not the 38/44 load, but a 200 grain bullet advertised at about 745 fps. Recent tests of original ammo posted in the ammo section of this forum indicate those old numbers were overstated (very common), and these actually run in the 625 to 650 fps range.

 

[smith17]

Interestingly (or not), my Speer #7 doesn't even list a 158 grain projectile.
Ed

 

[Art Doc]

S- I wonder if the decision to not advertise the K frames as OK with 38/44 ammo could have had more to do with marketing the HDs than actual concerns for the Ks? I mean, if they say to go ahead and shoot 38/44s in your M&P how do they talk you into buying the HD?

 

[stiab]

S- I wonder if the decision to not advertise the K frames as OK with 38/44 ammo could have had more to do with marketing the HDs than actual concerns for the Ks? I mean, if they say to go ahead and shoot 38/44s in your M&P how do they talk you into buying the HD?

Anything is possible, but it seems unlikely that the businessmen at S&W would want to 'hang their hats' on the dinosaur N frame .38 Specials, when the real future financial success of their company was more dependent on N frame .357 Magnums and K frame .38 Specials. Later on it would also include K frame .357's, of course.

Don't get me wrong, I wish they had made zillions of HD's so we could all own one now, but directing their advertising and manufacturing resources to HD's instead of .357 Magnums and K frame .38's would not seem to have been in the best interests of their company.

 

[Art Doc]

The fact that the HDs were not selling well makes me suspect they were not happy when the ad agency touted the M&P as capable of using 38/44 ammo and directed them to change that text.

But who knows?

 

[jshaf00]

Saxon, having been a machinist you have gotten my curious mind working, ok i have read about not useing +p ammo in the older guns due to heat treatment of the cylinders, so i am wondering has any one had an old M&P cylinder hardness tested vs a more modern cylinder say a model 10-8?? and if the hardness of the more modern cylinder can be determined ... can a newer cylinder be substituted for the guy that wants to run +p or can the older cylinder be reheat treated and refinished?? also is the barrel a concern ?? i just wonder if it would be prudent to have the gun hardness checked if early heat treat can be an issue so that one does not have to guess if it was heat treated or not?

 

[Art Doc]

I do not know of any such testing. The only references I have heard about S&W tempering of cylinders is that it started about 1918 or so and that the Combat Magnum (M19) had a "special" tempering of the cylinder for the higher pressures of the 357.

My personal policy is that any revolver made before 1930 gets only light target loads as I do not trust the quality of tempering before that date. That's why I sold all of my pre-1930 S&Ws, I want to shoot my guns without concern.