Question about .38 S&W

[evan price]

In my pile of range brass I came upon a few .38 S&W cases. To my eyes they look like cut-down .38 Specials. THey are about as long as a 9mm.

To my knowledge the 38 S&W was not a great cartridge back in the day due to anemic loads and bullets.

My question is: Given the modern desire for reliable, concealable CCW guns, why could you not start with the .38 S&W and develop a fairly hot load using a 125-gr .357 bullet like a Gold Dot. A fast, low bulk powder like Titegroup wouldn't need much space at all, compared to the 38 special's large case held back from black powder days.

The purpose would be to build an "all new" revolver for CCW purposes, Backup Gun, etc. that would be a 5-shot revolver, but with a shorter cylinder and frame. My ruler says the 38 S&W is 7/16" shorter than a 38 SPL. By using a JHP with a flat profile I don't see why you couldn't cut a full 0.50" off of a 38 special cartridge length. This would give you a gun with a 1/2" shorter frame but same length barrel, thus a smaller gun- or you could have an extra 1/2" of barrel and still be the same OAL.

I would think that modern loading for a 9mm would work well in .38 S&W in a gun designed for it.

The best part is that handloaders or commercial ammo companies would not need to change much tooling since they are the same as a 357 or 38 special just shorter.

Am I off my rocker, or is this a good idea?

Kind of like .45 GAP versus .45 acp is.

That way you get basically a 9mm revolver, but no moon clips, in a very compact size, with the reliability of a revolver, for a BUG or CCW.
I'd rather carry that than a .32 personally.

 

[Old Fuff]

Actually the .38 S&W is slightly larger in diameter then a .38 Special (.386" vs. .379") and uses a larger diameter bullet (.360" vs. .358"). The reason there are no Plus-P loadings is because of the large number of questionable quality top-break revolvers that were made during the late 19th and early 20th centuries which are still in circlulation.

Smith & Wesson and Colt both did make shorter-frame revolvers for this cartridge, and they still enjoy some popularity. If one owns one of these they can safely handload the round and get improved peformance.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

It's a nice idea but I highly doubt it would catch on. Like you said, the 9mm already fills that role although there are few, if any current production revolver chambered for the 9mm. IMO the 9mm revolver gained some following because a revolver chambered in 9mm could share the same ammo as a full sized service 9mm when used as a back-up piece. I don't think a hot .38 S&W would be possible because no company will produce ammo that can be mistakenly used in an old revolver with very bad results. It would have to be a longer round so it wouldn't fit in the old revolvers just like the 38/357 and 44 Spl/44 Mag. If you lengthen the cartridge you defeat the original intent.

Another example, the .327 Federal Magnum. That round is basically a hot .32 H&R Magnum but they lengthened the case so it won't be used in a .32 H&R Magnum revolver.

 

[SaxonPig]

The 38 S&W can be loaded to decent levels but there many old and weak guns out there so you have to be careful about which guns you shoot the warm loads in.

I have sought a S&W "Terrier" (I frame 2" 38 S&W) for years as this would be smaller than the J frame models but prices are too high for me.

 

[Moonclip]

It's been done sort of. The 9mm Federal, basically a 9para with a rim was introduced in Charter Arms pit bull revolvers but it flopped.

Ballistics were decent too IIRC, it had a 115gr jhp at a fairly high velocity.

I wonder why no one makes a .45auto rim equivalent for the 9mm para revolvers out there? I guess not enough demand is a big reason.

Also IIRC .38S&W revolvers would chamber 9mm Federal ammo which is scary.

 

[Old Fuff]

You pretty well answered your own questions.

What we need here is a new cartridge similar to a .38 S&W, but slightly longer to prevent it being used in older revolvers. Also new revolvers with shorter frames and cylinders.

But I doubt that we'll see it. Future developments will be around compact pistols, like Ruger's .380 coming onto the market.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

"What we need here is a new cartridge similar to a .38 S&W, but slightly longer to prevent it being used in older revolvers. Also new revolvers with shorter frames and cylinders."

You mean a new cartridge like .38 Long Colt. And new revolvers like the Colt Lightning.

Actually, I think that is a good idea.

 

[Old Fuff]

You mean a new cartridge like .38 Long Colt?

No. The .38 Short Colt and .38 Long Colt will both fit in a .38 Special chamber. I do understand that some folks are using .38 Short Colt in combat gun-games because it's easier to extract and eject. But no manufacturer is going to hot-rod that cartridge because of the antique guns that could use it.

The .38 S&W won't fit in a .38 Special chamber. If it was slightly lengthened it wouldn't work in older top-break revolvers and could be up-loaded for use in a new generation of short cylinder/short frame revolvers. But I doubt that this will happen because I believe future development of compact handguns will be centered on pistols, not revolvers.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

"The .38 S&W won't fit in a .38 Special chamber. If it was slightly lengthened it wouldn't work in older top-break revolvers and could be up-loaded for use in a new generation of short cylinder/short frame revolvers."

Actually, that is probably the real reason you'd never see any development in this area. Any cartridge like that would be so similar to .38 special as to be redundant without the advantages of interchangeability. I'd rather see a resurgence of .38 Colt revolvers with short cylinders, but you are right. .38 Colt +P would be too much of a liability with all the old revolvers around. That's why they made .38 Special.

By the way, I've had 2 J-frame M36s that would accept .38 S&W in the cylinders, but 2 others that wouldn't.

 

[Old Fuff]

By the way, I've had 2 J-frame M36s that would accept .38 S&W in the cylinders, but 2 others that wouldn't.

On rare(?) occasions that can happen, but if the result was any kind of injury (of the legal kind) the ammunition maker would probably be off the hook from a liability point of view because the .38 S&W cartridge isn't supposed to fit in a .38 Special chamber, and they have no control over the the revolver maker's quality control.

 

[Ash]

Moonclip got it right already. 9mm Federal did just that, provided a high-power short round capable of being loaded into small revolvers. Heck, 9mm rounds with moonclips would work, too. Just never took off.

Ash

 

[Phil DeGraves]

"On rare(?) occasions that can happen, but if the result was any kind of injury..."

On the other hand, the pressures are so low in the .38 S&W as factory loaded that shooting it in modern solid frame revolvers is no problem, even if it gets squashed down a little bit going into the forcing cone.

Consequently, the only foreseeable kind of injury is to the guy the gun is pointing at.

 

[Old Fuff]

You underestimate bottom-feeding lawyers in the tort side of the business... They'd try about anything and some juries in certain parts of the country are easy to impress. :banghead:

However I'd be more worried about being able to eject a case stuck in the chamber.

I'm at a loss why anyone would try shooting .38 S&W cartridges out of a .38 Special revolver - but to each his own.

 

[Moonclip]

Revolvers don't get as much development I'd say as mentioned earlier. A quality 9mm Federal revolver with the cylinder/frame made to the shorter dementions makes sense but would the general gun buying public realize this and buy them? I doubt it.

Many guns do make sense or should be developed but sometimes poor planning or advertising, liability,an idea before it's time prevent a good gun desgn from succeding or being developed.

I thing a 5 shot quality .40S&W snub revolver maybe based on the Charter Arms bulldog concept would be good but I doubt this will happen and be successful anytime soon if ever.

I don't think the general public likes fiddling with moonclips either and I think thats why we see many more .38spl snubs out there even though the 9mm in snubs has a lot going for it.

probably the reason .45acp revolvers are somewhat more accepted and prevalent out there is because of all the WW1 1917 Colt and S&W .45acp revolvers out there that were sold at cheap pricers at one time.

 

[eotp]

** Actually the .38 S&W is slightly larger in diameter then a .38 Special (.386" vs. .379") and uses a larger diameter bullet (.360" vs. .358"). **

** The .38 S&W won't fit in a .38 Special chamber. **


Will a .38 Special fit and fire in a .38 S&W handgun?

 

[Moonclip]

No it shouldn't. .38S&W cylinders are usually quite short.

 

[Old Fuff]

Will a .38 Special fit and fire in a .38 S&W handgun?

The only 3 revolvers that I know of would be Colt Official Police/Commando, Police Positive Special's, and S&W .38-200 Military & Police models.

The Official Police/Commando revolvers as well as .38-200 S&W Military & Police (Sometimes were called.38-200 Victory Models). All were made during World War Two from 1940 through 1945, and for the most part exported to the U.K. or associated countries. During the middle 1950's many of them returned to the U.S. as surplus, and a considerable number were rechambered to .38 Special, which in effect ruined them. Those that were not, as well as post-war Colt Police Positive Special's will not chamber .38 Special cartridgs if they are chambered in .38 Colt New Police, which is idetical to .38 S&W.

 

[Cocked & Locked]

Regardless, the .38 S&W cartridge was viewed as a good self defense cartridge for many years.

 

[eotp]

I recently bought a .38 S&W caliber Smith & Wesson revolver (I mistakenly thought that it was .38 spl caliber when I bought it). I have not fired it yet, but I just put a .38 spl cartridge in its chamber and the nose of the bullet is about 3 mm from the front edge of the chamber and the chamber closes easily.

I guess my real question is, will anything bad happen if I fire it?

If the .38 spl cartridge fits as well as it seems, I am wondering why it won't fire safely (even accurately) in this gun. Has anybody here done this, or does anybody know of anybody that has done this?

 

[Ash]

No, it won't fire safely as the brass will be unsupported at the rear and may bulge or fail altogether. It will not be very accurate because of the smaller bullets and the can the round will have at firing.

Ash

 

[Moonclip]

C&L do you shoot that thing? I sort of want a S&W Victory model in .38S&W just for fun as I have so many .38spl revolvers already.

 

[Old Fuff]

Prior to World War Two S&W chambered the .38 S&W cartridge in top-break revolvers, such as their famous Safety Hammerless that was pictured above; and in little I-frame / 5 shot pocket revolvers with cylinders that were 1.250" inches long. The .38 Special cartridges have an overall length of 1.550" with a case length of 1.155" Obviously the possibilities of using a cartridge this long in so short a cylinder are limited.

The .38 Military & Police was normally chambered in .38 Special, wirh a 1.56" long cylinder. Clearly there was no problem chambering it to fit the .38 S&W. While rechambing such a cylinder to .38 Special was possible and for the most part functional, it was far from desireable. When left in their original chambering the M&P "Victory Model is very accurate, while the recoil is modest. Ammunition costs can be offset by handloading. Unfortunately, what was inexpensive a few years ago have been discovered by collectors who are driving up prices. Those who are interested in this World War Two relic should move while the "getting is still good."

 

[Moonclip]

Very true old fuff. I still live in the past in regards to victory model prices. And I frames are neat! I once owned a .22lr Llama copy of one.

 

[Old Fuff]

Very true old fuff. I still live in the past in regards to victory model prices.

Don't feel too bad, I passed them up when they were $16.00 a piece...

 

[evan price]

The whole reason I thought about this is that a 9mm revolver needs moon clips- which are not conducive to fast reloads unless you carry ammo already in moon clips- and if I want t ogo to the range and shoot a couple boxes of ammo I don't want to have to mess with demooning empties and mooning up new rounds.

I seriously believe a very small, very concealable revolver based on a small cartridge like 9mm Luger would be quite effective as a BUG or CCW piece due to the size. I just don't want moon clips.

Make it a new design with a ultra-light frame and cylinder, and IMHO I think it would be far superior to a KT P32 or Ruger LCP. I'd rather have 5 shots of a good 9mm than what- 6 shots? of .32? and know it won't jam or have a magazine malf.

OK, what about 38 super? That rimmed?