The story of the .38/44 revolvers...

[robertrwalsh]

Good piece of writing. My dad carried one as an MP during WWII. I own two, one pre, one post, plus an Outdoorsman. I REALLY like them.

 

[Alk8944]

I would argue with OP on only one point, and that was warnings about use of .38-44 ammunition in K-Frame revolvers. McHenry and Roper, discussing the 2" M&P introduced in 1935, indicated the ".38 Special Hi-Speed, aka .38-44 load, was acceptable in the 2" M&P. They did warn that recoil would be 'objectionable' though. Various catalogs of the 1940s to 1970s such as Stoeger also showed the "Hi-Speed" ammunition to be an acceptable alternative. I believe that same information printed inside the S&W box lids also showed this!

 

[DWalt]

At one point, Colt advertised that the Police Positive Special was also safe with .38/44 ammo.

I did find a reference to that effect. Colt did state that “.38-44” level high velocity loads were safe to use in their New Service, Official Police, and Police Positive Special revolvers (presumably including the Detective Special). It appears that the early Remington factory loads were only briefly called “.38-44”. Later the nomenclature changed to the Remington .38 Special “Hi-Speed.” Winchester called them the .38 Special “Super Speed” while Western called them the .38 Special “Super-X.” Peters called them simply “High Velocity.” There were also later metal piercing high velocity .38 Special loads available from Remington, Winchester, and Western. Principally for the purpose of penetrating automobile bodies.

 

[Piwo]

I think the concept and ballistics of the 38/44 are just as useful and valid today as in the 30s. Yes, I know that the 357 beats it in every measure, but hear me out. Full house loads of 2400 and swc bullets made a lot of sense during the early days of the magnum. There was nothing else in factory form to compete with it. If you wanted the horsepower, it made sense to load it to the hinges. In the days of 41mag, 44 mag and Ruger 45 colt straplifters being predominant, the 357 is not the hot stuff it once was. If I really need the power, I'm going big bore. If I have to put up with caving in my eardrums and ruining my hearing in an emergency, I might as well be using the biggest gun/caliber I can control. The full house 357 is harder on guns of any frame size and doesn't deliver the goods as well as even an attenuated loading in the big bores.

Where the 357 fits in for me and makes most sense in my usage is with 38/44 level loads. A 357 swc loaded to 1050 to 1150 fps will do anything I can reasonably expect with the 35 bore. Actually, a 38 spl. with a hard cast swc at 850 to 950 works well for my field use and has for the last 45 years. The 357 loaded to 1150(158 cast swc) will punch through anything in Ohio that I would normally shoot close up...and prolly farther than I can hit nowadays. These loads tend to be very accurate, are mild mannered, easy on the ears and easy on the K frames. Case life is excellent.

Because I don't want to risk a hot loaded 38/44 load to ending up in an aluminum frame gun or old gun, I load that level in 357 cases. I supply these loads to my brothers for their 357s. These are kept when a heavier load may be needed and for use in a levergun. But they really shine in my model 581. It has the perfect weight and balance to handle these loads slow or rapid fire, single or double action. It is my modern version of a 38/44 in concept and was my most carried field gun for a number of years.

If the ammo factories loaded the 38/44 in a swc and swc hollowpoint, I would probably carry my model 67 or model 10 for 90% of all my revolver usage. Standard pressure swc for shooting and all around use, 38/44 for business. And never look back.

 

[DWalt]

The factory HV ammunition is (or was) called .38-44 for awhile and only by Remington. The revolver was called a .38/44 by S&W. Either HD or Outdoorsman.

 

[Mauser 17]

John,

What a great read, and yes your correct, HD’s and Outdoorsman have proven to be irresistible!

If my memory serves me correctly, the HD was the first to wear Magna grips as well. Truly a working man’s gun!

Thank you for being of service,

Matthew

 

[Muley Gil]

John,

What a great read, and yes your correct, HD’s and Outdoorsman have proven to be irresistible!

If my memory serves me correctly, the HD was the first to wear Magna grips as well. Truly a working man’s gun!

Thank you for being of service,

Matthew

I believe that honor goes to the .357 Magnum aka the Registered Magnum in 1935.

 

[DWalt]

If the ammo factories loaded the 38/44 in a swc and swc hollowpoint, I would probably carry my model 67 or model 10 for 90% of all my revolver usage. Standard pressure swc for shooting and all around use, 38/44 for business. And never look back.

No trick to load your own .38 HV ammunition using whatever bullet and powder charge you think best. The older Lyman reloading manuals recommended using around 12 grains of Hercules 2400 for .38 HV duplication loads. A few of the boutique ammo loaders do offer .38 HV loads if you are willing to pay their prices.

 

[Treeman]

I used to have a full page ad from an old magazine in which S&W said that the K frames could use 38-44 /Hi Velocity loadings. If you think about it, even in a less sue happy culture it would never have been wise to sell 38 specials loaded to dangerous levels for any standard gun. We can be confident that the Hi- speed loadings were always under proof pressures. Some speculate that 38/44s neared 30kcup....and some of the old handbook loads probably did but the factory loadings have been replicated at 25kcup in tested loads so that was probably where the old factory stuff went to.....under proof. Not a grenade in any sound 38 special though it might batter the gun with continued use.

 

[oneeyedpete]

Here's my Outdoorsman and Pre-27, both sporting Coke grips:

 

[1blindref]

I fell in love with the S&W 38-44 Heavy Duty about 20 years ago and have been collecting them ever since. I learned so much from Bill Patteson - 1Aspenhill and miss his expertise and posts on everything 38-44. I am fortunate to be the current caretaker of a few of the guns from his collection.

Here are some in my collection. These are Pre and Post War Transition standard barrel length 38-44 HD's offered. 4", 5", and 6.5".

This one shipped to the PA State Police July 11, 1934.

This one went to the Tonawanda P.D, June 4, 1930. It's believed to be the first run of nickel HD's.

Here are a couple of my favorite Pre War nickel HD's

Sandusky Ohio PD. June 4, 1940

Beloit Wisconsin PD. December 28, 1939

 

[Kal.38]

I used to have a full page ad from an old magazine in which S&W said that the K frames could use 38-44 /Hi Velocity loadings. If you think about it, even in a less sue happy culture it would never have been wise to sell 38 specials loaded to dangerous levels for any standard gun. We can be confident that the Hi- speed loadings were always under proof pressures. Some speculate that 38/44s neared 30kcup....and some of the old handbook loads probably did but the factory loadings have been replicated at 25kcup in tested loads so that was probably where the old factory stuff went to.....under proof. Not a grenade in any sound 38 special though it might batter the gun with continued use.

I know it's not first hand, but my grandfather was a NY state trooper from 1950 till 78. He told me they fired plenty of 38 Hi-Speed out of K frames and most guys carried these loads on patrol.
I've personally fired some of pop's 38 Hi-Speed out of my M10-8. It just felt right. A little more than +p, but less than 357.
I found some good information on a other forum regarding these exact loadings.

Per SAAMI-Z299.3-2022-Centerfire-Pistol-
Revolver-Approved-12-13-2022, page 168
the acceptable proof load for 38 Special+P (as the plain 38 Special proof was
discontinued after +P was developed) is
between 27k and 29.5k psi.
SAAMI's discussion of proof load
methodology is from p.163 to the end.

 

[DWalt]

I would be surprised if the HV .38 Special loadings weren’t fairly big sellers back in the 1930s-50s. After all, who wouldn’t prefer .38 Special ammunition with more power?

 

[paplinker]

I would be surprised if the HV .38 Special loadings weren’t fairly big sellers back in the 1930s-50s. After all, who wouldn’t prefer .38 Special ammunition with more power?

 

[decuerno]

I bought my first handgun in 1969 from the Palm Center Oshman’s in Houston after reading the cover-story about it on in the 1969 Gun Digest. <edit> I still have the ‘69 Gun Digest with a pic of it on the cover.)

It is a .38/44 Llama “Martial” Model XII, blued, with 4” bbl. Nickel (?) hammer and trigger. I paid $69 for it (coincidentally in ‘69).

It is a good, solid revolver, crisp trigger, and still in excellent condition despite decades of abuse I gave it when I first got into handloading as a young man. Not a S&W… but still a nostalgic part of my collection.

<edit> Just to clarify: The Llama didn’t claim to be a model “.38/44” ..but the literature with it did state .38/44 ammo was suitable for it. Whenever I handloaded for it I used the heaviest loads the contemporary Sierra reloading data published for P+ and the gun has never loosened up in any way.
Since I grew out of my young-and-restless days I shot ordinary .39 spcl and occasional +P in it and it has held up very well.

 

[DWalt]

My very first “new” revolver purchase was a NIB Llama .38 Special sometime in the 1967-68 period. I think I paid around $60 at that time. Close resemblance to a Model 10, well made, and I was happy with it, except for its chrome plated hammer and trigger. It was my “house gun” for around 10 years before I traded it off. It wasn’t fired very much, less than 500 rounds. Wife probably shot it more than I did. No HV loads were ever fired in it.

 

[Muley Gil]

When I went to the po-leese academy back in '79, another officer from my department tried to qualify with his Llama .357. After several attempts with numerous misfires, he borrowed a .38 Colt Diamondback.

He later sold the Llama & carried a Colt Gov't Model in .45 ACP.

 

[DWalt]

On a tangential subject, take a look at posting #31, specifically the picture of the Tonawanda PD nickeled .38/44 HD sitting atop the Roy Jinks letter. Beneath the gun, in the letter there is a passage stating “The .38/44 was designed to fire the .38 Special Super pol(ice)…”. I have seen that same statement made on other .38/44 factory letters, so it was not a mistaken one-off. But in fact, it is not correct. The .38 Special “Super Police” load was not the .38-44 HV load by a long shot. Rather, it was simply a version of the standard .38 Special cartridge having a 200 grain lead RN bullet at a modest MV usually stated as being in the 700-750 ft/sec range from a 4” barreled revolver. Firing tests indicated that the MV from a 4” barrel revolver is actually about 100 ft/sec lower, and from a 2” barrel, the MV drops into the low-500 ft/sec range. The .38 Special Super Police is known to have been factory loaded from at least 1930, possibly earlier, into the mid-1980s when it was discontinued. It had a poor performance record in police service, especially when used in short barrel revolvers, and it is surprising that it lasted so long. But what is more surprising is that Roy Jinks stated that the .38/44 revolver was designed to fire the .38 Special Super Police rather than the .38 Special HV loadings it was actually designed for. Just a simple oversight or am I missing something?

 

[decuerno]

On a tangential subject, take a look at posting #31, specifically the picture of the Tonawanda PD nickeled .38/44 HD sitting atop the Roy Jinks letter. Beneath the gun, in the letter there is a passage stating “The .38/44 was designed to fire the .38 Special Super pol(ice)…”. I have seen that same statement made on other .38/44 factory letters, so that statement was not a mistaken one-off. But in fact, it is not correct. The .38 Special “Super Police” load was not the .38-44 HV load by a long shot. Rather, it was simply a version of the standard .38 Special cartridge having a 200 grain lead RN bullet at a modest MV usually stated as being in the 700-750 ft/sec range from a 4” barreled revolver. Firing tests indicates that the MV from a 4” barrel is actually about 100 ft/sec lower, and from a 2” barrel, the MV drops into the low-500 ft/sec range. The .38 Special Super Police is known to have been factory loaded from at least 1930, possibly earlier, into the mid-1980s when it was discontinued. It had a very poor performance record in police service, especially when used in short barrel revolvers, and it is surprising that it lasted so long. But what is more surprising is that Roy Jinks stated that the .38/44 revolver was designed to fire the .38 Special Super Police rather than the .38 Special HV loadings it was actually designed for. Just a simple mistake or am I missing something?

Good Catch!
It may be that Mr. Jinks suffered an unfortunate segue’..?
The .38 spcl was developed out of the .38 Colt (short and long) by simple lengthening and a powder/projectile change…and why a .357 magnum and .38 Spcl can fire .38 short and long Colt cartridges.
The British had a similar situation with their Webley revolvers chambered for the .38 Webley/S&W …but with a different approach … simply “upgrading” the bullet weight for police-work.
It is Not the same O.D. (.38 S&W is greater) as the .38 Colt and subsequent variants. In other words, the 200-gr .38 Super Police was a subsequent development of the .38 Webley/.38 S&W ….not the .38 Colt or Spcl’s. It should not be capable of being chambered in a .properly-sized 38 Spcl chamber.

(Check my work, as I also am getting old and forgetful)

 

[DWalt]

There was indeed also an American .38 S&W version of the 200 grain lead bullet Super Police cartridge. I don’t know its ballistic performance, but likely it was very close, if not identical, to the British .380 Mk I military cartridge.