Using +P Ammo in model 36

[ArchAngelCD]

Funny thing - the Smith and Wesson web site next to the Model 36 says the exact same thing the barrel on my M36 says:

".38 S&W Special +P"

Etched in steel. That's good enough for me.

In August 1996 S&W released the M36-9 which was built on the J magnum frame and 1.6" cylinder, not the slightly smaller J frame. That's when they added the +P designation to the barrel.

BTW, the M36 was discontinued I think in 2006 in favor of the M36 Classic. There is no regular production M36 being made by S&W, only the M36 Classic. I think they did the same with the Model 10 last year too.

 

[redlevel]

I am of the "Why bother?" mind. At the range I can justify employing my M36 I see no advantage in +P ammo. It's a great little pistol but not easy to master, even with standard ammo.

At 12 feet, which is what I consider close to maximum self-defense range with a 36, I see a tremendous advantage in a 158 grain soft lead bullet with a huge hp cavity at 1000fps over a 125 grain hp at 850 fps, which might or might not expand. In my experience, with just a little practice and familiarization, the 36/60/37, etc. snubbies aren't that hard to shoot well at those ranges. I might be all wet, but I think the Buffalo Bore ammo has changed the .38 special snub nose into a very viable self defense handgun. I don't think my Model 60 with the BB 158 grain +p ammo is nearly as hard to control as my Model 19s are with "full-house" .357 ammo.

 

[mtime7]

I am in the why bother catagory, you make the head or neck shot and they are likely to drop right there, heart they will be alive a short time, any where else and it could take a little while.. I am not sure that in most cases its gonna matter much weather its a +P or not.. But I could be wrong, but I was always in the shot placement camp

 

[Fla_Sun]

This post saved me some money. I was going to retire my 60-2 NY-1 for a J frame that could handle +P. Think I'll just keep it now.

 

[mkk41]

I've fired hundreds of .38 +Ps in my old Models 37 Airweight and 3in 36-1 without a catastrophic cylinder failure , or even any measurable frame stretching or gap increase.

I've seen threads on other sites where people asked if .38 +Ps were safe to use in K , L and N-frame .357 magnums, and were told NO!

 

[38-44HD45]

I wonder when that was, because here is an old add for a K frame that doesn't even recommend using the 38-44 ammo. To eliminate any confusion, the "Super Police" load mentioned in the ad is the old and slow 200 grain bullet, not the 38-44 load.

I'll have to get over on our private forum and rip a copy of the ad. Be back later.

 

[David Sinko]

The K Frame in that ad is an old M&P .38 Special and NOT a .357 Magnum. Given the older steel and the fact that the cylinder stop notches are directly over the chambers, heavy .38/44 loads are not advised in this revolver and they just might destroy it. In fact, .38/44 type handloads are way too much for my Model 64, which is an updated version of the M&P with better steel. But the modern J Frame is very tough and as previously stated can handle the .38/44 and also the heaviest .38 Special loads.

Dave Sinko

 

[kennyb]

for whatever it's worth...S&W has stated many times...+p is fine in any model marked model...which is 1957 and newer...

 

[Erich]

Let's see if this old K-frame ad attaches properly.

 

[stiab]

The K Frame in that ad is an old M&P .38 Special and NOT a .357 Magnum.

Yes, it was clear from the post and ad that it was not a .357 Magnum.

the older steel and the fact that the cylinder stop notches are directly over the chambers, heavy .38/44 loads are not advised in this revolver and they just might destroy it.

That statement seems to conflict with the ad Erich posted, which shows the 38-44 OK for a K frame older than the one in the ad I posted.

I love these old ads and continue to learn a lot from them. I have saved the ones Erich posted, and also look forward to seeing the ones with 38-44 listed OK for the J frames.

 

[stiab]

Well it's been a while, so I'm going to step out on a limb and say it is doubtful that anyone can post an ad showing that S&W OK'ed .38-44 ammo in J frames, as previously posted. If I have read the 'book' correctly, J frames were not introduced until 1950, and that is the exact date of the K frame ad I posted above which did not list .38-44 as being OK in that bigger frame.

Let me know if I'm wrong, always looking for more S&W ads, thanks!

 

[photoman]

Let's see if this old K-frame ad attaches properly.

A 158 gr bullet at 1100+ fps is going right nice.

 

[38-44HD45]

Let's see if this old K-frame ad attaches properly.

Okay, stiab, and all others, if you can see this, here is one Erich posted as to K-frames, which, by all the accounts of those of us who matter, are not quite as strong as Js. I keep +P+ loads in my Ks. Erich found the ad for which I was looking, and if Chuck is listening here, he might be able to post some more for us. Yes, not only were 38-44s recommended for Ks, but also for Js, and for Colt Ds, whom many view as less strong than either Smith Ks or Js. The Nervous Nellie hand-wringing as to modern "+P" in ANY steel J or K Smith, or D-Colt, really needs to come to an end. It is internet nonsense. Like the "bobbing a hammer causes misfires" myth, it is just that, a myth, and it is growing tiresome. Flame if you want, but I'll shoot +P ammo, and even hotter, in steel Js, Ks, and Colt Ds, and if I blow up my gun or myself, Erich and all my other friends and family are hereby instructed to post here on every sub-forum that I was horribly, horribly, fatally wrong. I expect to live to the age of 99, and be shot by a jealous husband.

 

[stiab]

Erich found the ad for which I was looking

I thought you were looking for the ad where S&W OK'ed .38-44 use in a J frame, not a K frame? You had earlier stated S&W approved their use in J frames, then went to look for an ad, so that's what I assumed.

Don't get me wrong, I shoot lots of +P in my old J frames, and some +P+, and even .38 Super in my .357 mags. But I was wanting to see the documentation behind your comment "Smith recommended the OLD steel J-frames for .38-44 HD loads."

 

[Erich]

The ".38-44 though J-frames" info that I have comes from Saint Elmer - I don't recall whether I've seen an ad saying that such was okey-doke. That said, my personal experience (as I mentioned above) has me shooting almost exclusively +P rounds through my steel-framed Js.

 

[stiab]

The ".38-44 though J-frames" info that I have comes from Saint Elmer

Erich, I know your references were to the testing Elmer Keith did, and not anything directly from S&W. It seems strange to me that S&W would approve of .38-44 in J frames since by the time they were introduced (1950) the .38-44 was a already a dinosaur, because of the .357 Magnum. The quote above I was referring to was made by 38-44HD45, and I was just hoping to see an old ad or something from the factory to confirm what he said. Guess I'm out of luck in that regard.

 

[Erich]

Who knows what might still be posted?! You know, ammo makers appear to have continued producing ".38-44" ammo well into the '60s. A friend (who might be on this forum) sent me a fresh box of Peters' loading of this ammo from (IIRC) '69.

 

[stiab]

Could be, maybe something will show up. I have a bunch of old ads and introductory info saved, including now the one you just posted. In another thread on a similar subject, somebody smarter than me posted an idea that sounded very reasonable. This is not a direct quote, but it went something like this: 'The reason S&W quit advertising that .38-44 was OK in the K frames probably had to do with marketing. They had rather sell someone a new .357 magnum than have them produce near magnum performance in their existing .38 Specials'. That seemed to make sense to me.

 

[Maximumbob54]

I’m on the side of the fence that thinks a 158 grain bullet at standard pressure is good enough for me. What I would like to see info on is what specifically changed to make the J get the marking for +P. What internally is different than the non +P marked guns? Are they heat treated differently? Did they upgrade the blend of the steel? So if someone says old guns no but new guns yes, then what is the justification?

 

[38-44HD45]

Hey, Amigos, let me say only a few more words, with no guarantees, no special promises, the utmost reservations, and with absolute promises that if you do not follow the letter and law of the latest edition of every handloading manual extant, you will definitely blow off all your bodily appendages, please listen to this: Handloading is not a hobby for those who do not get it. We have benefited for many years from the experimentation of our ancestors who have been kind enough to blow up a few guns without hurting us or, mostly, themselves. The knowledge base from which we now progress is the result of decades of experimentation by men who took risks, and not all those risks paid off. Do you want to risk your high-dollar handgun with an off-the-chart load? Up to you.

At the same time, don't be silly on the front end of the chart. Chuck, who has a much better library of old advertisements than do I, is currently looking up old S&W ads for Js and Ks which will approve and promote 38-44 loads. I'll post such links when Chuck gets them to me. Meantime, why bother? The 342Ti that rides my ankle most of the time is happy with wadcutters, and I'm not sure it matters whether they run at 700 fps. or 875 fps. from its 1 7 /8" tube.