The abuse continues...

[stiab]

Dr. Pig-

Is there really no cylinder endshake? How loose do you mean this gun was when you began? Did it get looser?

Since SP apparently did not take measurements of clylinder gap, etc. before and after (at least he did not reveal them to us), all he really knows is that the gun did not blow up. No information about frame stretch, etc. is available. The absence of a kaboom does not mean nothing negative happened to the gun.

 

[Maximumbob54]

I didn't mean to get out my extra tall soap box to stand on. As for calling it a fine old gun... This is purely my feelings in firearms, so… Anything that has survived that long and is still at least a good shooter is a fine piece to own. I'm no gunsmith at all and changing a barrel out is something I have only done to an AR15. I don't even cry over a gun that has been refinished. I get the collector value issue going away but it doesn't have to be collector grade to me to be a fine firearm. I may be guilty of using wrong terminology. Example: I have a Winchester 1892 that has been rechambered to .357 from .32-20. I know from a collector grade standpoint it has been devalued to shooter grade status. To me the bluing is clean, the wood has a nice grain, the action is smooth, and the octagon barrel with half tube looks stunning. I think of it as a fine old gun that is not rated as a truck gun to be beat to death. So it won't be seeing any hot magnums it is can take it or not. With so many collector grade guns going for unreal price tags it becomes hard for one to go into a collector status. Happening across even a beat up gun that is one in a ten thousand lot run is still a nice find for a new collector. Finding a good shooting, original grips, still tight, not beat to death model 19 made my day some time ago. No, its not a registered magnum or a Singer made 1911 but it started my collecting S&W's. That Winchester may be smirked at by a collector with an original model but for me it is still a gem to have found and now own. So I am sorry if I said it wrong but I don't like seeing people wearing out guns with ammo that was never made for them. That being said, I won't shoot .38-44's from my Official Police much less the Police Positive Specials… One day these things will be gone and I see no reason to hasten that day.

 

[TACC1]

YOU NEVER KNOW UNTIL YOU TRY....

SAXON PIG,
Nice gun! Glad you tested it, it eases my mind a lot.
I don't know how many times some one has asked about blowing up a gun with +p ammo. The advice to use it sparingly still holds true, with the added knowledge that the gun isn't likely to show the effects immediately. I think that was the biggest worry, and, thanks to you,
we all have a better idea of what our equipment can handle.
Thanks for sharing,TACC1.

 

[sigp220.45]

Good job, Saxon Pig. You've been the voice of reason in the whole "can I shoot .38 +P in my Model 28" discourse.

Thanks for taking the time and expense to post this.

 

[specops65]

I thought Contract Model M&Ps came with smooth grips not checkered.

 

[Art Doc]

Stocks are not original.

As a matter of fact I did check the BC gap, check for endshake, and measure the frame and cylinder before testing commenced. Everything was unchanged when I was done. The shooting I did apparently had zero effect on this gun.

I do not actually believe I did anything abusive to this gun. I think I used it as intended. Maybe 5,000 rounds of 38/44 would not be great for longevity, but the issue was with the +P which I thought, and now firmly believe, is a very mild load that poses zero threat of excessive wear or damage to a K frame S&W.

 

[Art Doc]

Oh, as for the Colt using 38/44, these are very stout guns. The 357s and Pythons were built on the same frame. The one I shot yesterday is from 1950...

And it seemed to shoot the 38/44s pretty well.

 

[redlevel]

The whole plus pee question really surprised me when I started doing the inter-web forum thing about eight years ago.

I have been shooting S&W j and k frame revolvers for right at 45 years. Right at 50 years now, come to think of it.

I was astounded when I discovered on the interwebs that a steel-frame S&W revolver wasn't expected to handle unlimited numbers of 158 grain rounds at 1000 fps, and 1200 fps for the magnum guns like the Models 19 and 66.

Prior to that, of course, my shooting education came from print media and people like Elmer Keith and Skeeter Skelton. I believe either of these gentlemen, along with thousands of old farts like me, would laugh in the face of anyone who told them they were risking possible bodily harm and certain ruination of their Models 10 or 15 by shooting copious amounts of 158 grain/1000fps loads in these revolvers.

 

[Bell Charter Oak Holsters]

The whole plus pee question really surprised me when I started doing the inter-web forum thing about eight years ago.

I have been shooting S&W j and k frame revolvers for right at 45 years. Right at 50 years now, come to think of it.

I was astounded when I discovered on the interwebs that a steel-frame S&W revolver wasn't expected to handle unlimited numbers of 158 grain rounds at 1000 fps, and 1200 fps for the magnum guns like the Models 19 and 66.

Prior to that, of course, my shooting education came from print media and people like Elmer Keith and Skeeter Skelton. I believe either of these gentlemen, along with thousands of old farts like me, would laugh in the face of anyone who told them they were risking possible bodily harm and certain ruination of their Models 10 or 15 by shooting copious amounts of 158 grain/1000fps loads in these revolvers.

AMEN BROTHER!

Cheers;
Lefty

 

[keith44spl]

Sp,

A fine job right there.

Good for you!


Su Amigo,
Dave

 

[stiab]

As a matter of fact I did check the BC gap, check for endshake, and measure the frame and cylinder before testing commenced

Would it be possible for you to reveal the numbers? Osprey told us the before and after measurements (and the changes that took place) when he did his +P test of 1,000 rounds. I'm sure some of us would be interested in knowing them for an older gun like this...

 

[keithpip]

38/44 Load

SP,

Your point was well made. Would you mind sharing the old 38/44 load using 2400? Thank you.

Keith

 

[Art Doc]

I'll have to get back to you on the info requested in the two previous posts.

Requires digging out references.

 

[ddixie884]

I bought a couple of security company M15s. These are later manufacture guns with, what looks like, a very low rnd count. I have been loading some upper end .38 spl cast bullet loads. I am impressed with the apparent ease with which they seem to handle these loads.

 

[Onomea]

I enjoy watching you have fun, SP!

 

[nedlate]

Yes! But how well does it shoot the 148g HBWC & 2.8 grains of Bullseye?!!

 

[David LaPell]

I have always been amazed at the amount of punishment that the old M & P revolvers could take shooting .38 +P ammo. These revolvers are stronger than they were advertised for. I have one that I tend to baby a bit just because I really like the old timer so I keep the loads around the midrange power lever for a .38. But I know if I wanted to crank them up a little bit I can.

 

[bmcgilvray]

I have to agree that the old M&Ps are sturdy. I shot a 1904 vintage M&P with 30 rounds of various +P 158 grain ammunition last summer while chronographing. I didn't take any "before and after"measurements though and more's the pity. It appeared to shrug off use with the +P ammunition and "seemed tight" before the test and "seemed tight" afterward, however the old eyes aren't calibrated very closely.

 

[tom turner]

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.

 

[Art Doc]

My policy is anything made before 1930 doesn't get shot (or owned, for that matter) as steel tempering was imprecise before then and I want to shoot my guns.