K-.38s What's the difference?

According the the Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson, 4th Edition:

The major distinction between the K-38 Target Masterpiece and the K-38 Combat Masterpiece is the barrel length and front sight.

Click to expand...

The Target Masterpiece became the Model 14 and the Combat Masterpiece became the Model 15.

The TM usually shipped with a 6" straight barrel and Patridge front sight, whereas the CM had a 4" tapered barrel and a Baughman Ramp. As usual for S&W there were variations, special orders, and exceptions.

If mechanically sound it is fine for .38 Special ammunition.

Best I can say is look at the Wikipedia article. It may be wrong but the k-38 was so dubbed from 47-57 when it became the 14. There is lots of info on there.

14's have a 6" or 8 3/8" barrel and a Patridge front sight. 15's have a 2" or 4" barrel and a ramp front sight. Safe for anything including +P. Great guns, I have every length but an 8 3/8".

The 8-3/8" Model 14's are fun to shoot.

Buy it!

Then research it at your leisure while trying to wear it out on the range!!

A S&W made before 1957 and in good working condition is a treasure. Don’t let it get away.

I have a 14 and a 15. The six inch 14 gets used much more at the range punching paper.

Howdy

The K-38 evolved from the Military and Police Target Model. This one shipped in 1917. Note the tiny screw for adjusting windage on the adjustable rear sight.






After WWII ended, S&W turned their attention away from War production and back to the police and civilian markets. This K-38 Target Masterpiece shipped in 1950. Note the large screw for the micrometer click rear sight, the slightly tapered barrel with a thin rib on top, and the 'speed hammer' an early short throw hammer design.






This K-38 Combat Masterpiece shipped in 1953. Baughman quick Draw front sight, designed to not snag on the leather when drawn from a holster. Note it has the same style 'speed hammer' as the K-38 Target Masterpiece pictured above. In 1957 this model became the Model 15.






A Model 14-3 from 1974. Modern short throw hammer, Patridge front sight, and the barrel is not tapered.

Driftwood Johnson said:

Howdy

The K-38 evolved from the Military and Police Target Model. This one shipped in 1917. Note the tiny screw for adjusting windage on the adjustable rear sight.

View attachment 1069621




After WWII ended, S&W turned their attention away from War production and back to the police and civilian markets. This K-38 Target Masterpiece shipped in 1950. Note the large screw for the micrometer click rear sight, the slightly tapered barrel with a thin rib on top, and the 'speed hammer' an early short throw hammer design.

View attachment 1069622




This K-38 Combat Masterpiece shipped in 1953. Baughman quick Draw front sight, designed to not snag on the leather when drawn from a holster. Note it has the same style 'speed hammer' as the K-38 Target Masterpiece pictured above. In 1957 this model became the Model 15.

View attachment 1069623




A Model 14-3 from 1974. Modern short throw hammer, Patridge front sight, and the barrel is not tapered.

View attachment 1069624

Click to expand...

When did the model 14 start receiving the full barrel underlug?

Blast from the past:









I have not taken the sideplate off the K38. I do believe it has the later, safer hammer block. This is the hammer block of a Victory Model:







The spring in the sideplate is the hammer block. That spring is pushed out of the way by the cylinder hand. As long as the spring is not broken, or gummed up, it will pop back up and block the hammer. This is prevents a discharge if the revolver is dropped on its hammer. However, the user cannot see if grease and oil have gummed up the spring, nor if the spring has cracked. Then, a blow to the hammer can cause a primer to ignite, and things are not wonderful.

A K38 was a primo factory target pistol in its day. Mine has a wonderfully smooth action and is very accurate. Since the buyers were target shooters, it stands to reason that S&W made sure these pistols were a little tighter, little smoother, the triggers fantastic, and accurate.

Howdy Again

Slamfire said:

I have not taken the sideplate off the K38. I do believe it has the later, safer hammer block. This is the hammer block of a Victory Model:

Click to expand...

Howdy Slamfire. You are correct, your 1952 K38 will have the same internal hammer block as pictured in this Model 17-3 from 1975. Smith and Wesson changed to that style of hammer block in 1944 after the shipboard incident where a sailor was killed when a Victory Model fell to the deck of a warship and discharged.






Here is a Victory Model, showing the type of hammer block mounted to the side plate that failed to function properly. Tests showed that hardened cosmoline had prevented it from springing to the 'safe' position and consequently when the hammer spur received a sharp blow the firing pin was able to strike the primer of a round under the hammer.

Never say never to S&W model designations. There are definitely 4" Model 14s, and I think 6" Model 15s.
And would you call the 6" Model 68 stainless .38s with ramp sight, most of which went to CHP, K38s or Combat Masterpieces?

Jim Watson said:

Never say never to S&W model designations. There are definitely 4" Model 14s, and I think 6" Model 15s.
And would you call the 6" Model 68 stainless .38s with ramp sight, most of which went to CHP, K38s or Combat Masterpieces?

Click to expand...

How about the Model 67 Combat Masterpiece Stainless?

Sure, there is one in the next room, but that is a regular catalog item, unlike the CHP 68.

Driftwood Johnson said:

Howdy Again Howdy Slamfire. You are correct, your 1952 K38 will have the same internal hammer block as pictured in this Model 17-3 from 1975. Smith and Wesson changed to that style of hammer block in 1944 after the shipboard incident where a sailor was killed when a Victory Model fell to the deck of a warship and discharged.View attachment 1069726

Click to expand...

I am absolutely certain S&W had plenty of notices of accidental discharges due to falls prior to that incident, but swept it under the rug. The Navy however, is very sensitive to loaded small arms on their ships. The earliest Blue Jacket manual I have been able to access is the 1918 version. But that document specifies that the 1911 pistol is to be holster carried, nothing in the chamber, magazine inserted, hammer down, pistol in the flap holster. And that same requirement is in the Blue Jacket manual of WW2. In fact, the text is identical for pistol carry. Military practice allows the unit commander to tailor up, for safety. Which can be upsetting for the Officer on Duty:

May/June 2020 Handgunner

Military Gun Nonsense

The recent shooting at NAS Pensacola reminded me the navy has long been politically correct regarding handguns. During the Korean police action I served in the Orient as a line officer on board an attack transport. When in port the officer of the deck was required to carry an unloaded sidearm. We were not even permitted to possess a loaded magazine on our person. I tried to object to this state of affairs, but you can well imagine how much weight the opinion of an ensign might carry. It was explained to me there are three ways of doing something-the right way, the wrong way, and the navy way. It was further explained the pistol was not to considered a weapon, but a symbol of my authority. Personally, I regarded it more as a bullseye on my back.

One very real issue with ships, is that they are made out of steel, they are crammed with sailors all over the place, and bullets shot inside a steel ship will rattle around all that equipment and people before stopping. The Navy knows, issue a pistol and the knuckleheads will be playing quick draw. Issue them magazines and ammunition, that provides a means for some knucklehead to shoot someone. Issue no magazines, even if the knucklehead manages to squirrel away a round, it becomes hard for them to load their semi auto. Of course, never say never. Knuckleheads are very clever when it comes to causing accidents.

I will bet S&W was told that the Navy was reconsidering their procurement of S&W revolvers, and that got S&W on the ball to redesign their lockworks.

Driftwood Johnson said:

Tests showed that hardened cosmoline had prevented it from springing to the 'safe' position and consequently when the hammer spur received a sharp blow the firing pin was able to strike the primer of a round under the hammer.

Click to expand...

Slamfire said:

I am absolutely certain S&W had plenty of notices of accidental discharges due to falls prior to that incident, but swept it under the rug.

Click to expand...

Or maybe the Navy was sweeping their lack of maintenance under the rug.

My boss was a Navy veteran, WWII, recalled for Korea. I remember from HIS Blue Jacket's Manual, date not recalled, that while holster carry was Cooper Condition 3, "half loaded", the recommendation if action was imminent, was to load the chamber, engage the safety catch, and "place the pistol ready to hand on the parapet or musette bag." Which struck me as strange, but more "ready to hand" than a flap holster.

Slamfire said:

I am absolutely certain S&W had plenty of notices of accidental discharges due to falls prior to that incident, but swept it under the rug. The Navy however, is very sensitive to loaded small arms on their ships. The earliest Blue Jacket manual I have been able to access is the 1918 version. But that document specifies that the 1911 pistol is to be holster carried, nothing in the chamber, magazine inserted, hammer down, pistol in the flap holster. And that same requirement is in the Blue Jacket manual of WW2. In fact, the text is identical for pistol carry. Military practice allows the unit commander to tailor up, for safety. Which can be upsetting for the Officer on Duty:

May/June 2020 Handgunner

Military Gun Nonsense

The recent shooting at NAS Pensacola reminded me the navy has long been politically correct regarding handguns. During the Korean police action I served in the Orient as a line officer on board an attack transport. When in port the officer of the deck was required to carry an unloaded sidearm. We were not even permitted to possess a loaded magazine on our person. I tried to object to this state of affairs, but you can well imagine how much weight the opinion of an ensign might carry. It was explained to me there are three ways of doing something-the right way, the wrong way, and the navy way. It was further explained the pistol was not to considered a weapon, but a symbol of my authority. Personally, I regarded it more as a bullseye on my back.

One very real issue with ships, is that they are made out of steel, they are crammed with sailors all over the place, and bullets shot inside a steel ship will rattle around all that equipment and people before stopping. The Navy knows, issue a pistol and the knuckleheads will be playing quick draw. Issue them magazines and ammunition, that provides a means for some knucklehead to shoot someone. Issue no magazines, even if the knucklehead manages to squirrel away a round, it becomes hard for them to load their semi auto. Of course, never say never. Knuckleheads are very clever when it comes to causing accidents.

I will bet S&W was told that the Navy was reconsidering their procurement of S&W revolvers, and that got S&W on the ball to redesign their lockworks.

Click to expand...

Speaking of S&W revolvers on Navy Ships. I can remember one of our enlisted sailors brought a Model 19 onboard the Nimitz. It was found during an inspection. That was the first time I ever saw a sailor sentenced to bread and water for three days, 30 days in the brig, and he was reduced from an E-5 to an E-1 and given a DD. The E-6 who was aware of the gun, and who took the ammunition to make sure the E-5 was "safe," also got hammered, but he only got reduced to E-5 (he was up for CPO).

Jim Watson said:

Or maybe the Navy was sweeping their lack of maintenance under the rug.

My boss was a Navy veteran, WWII, recalled for Korea. I remember from HIS Blue Jacket's Manual, date not recalled, that while holster carry was Cooper Condition 3, "half loaded", the recommendation if action was imminent, was to load the chamber, engage the safety catch, and "place the pistol ready to hand on the parapet or musette bag." Which struck me as strange, but more "ready to hand" than a flap holster.

Click to expand...

You can find the Navy Blue Jacket manual on the web. A 1911 is pretty dangerous with a round in the chamber, hammer cocked, and the safety not engaged. The Navy particularly was very worried about sailors rushing across the deck with a cocked and loaded 1911, and one can imagine what would have happened if someone tripped over the anchor chains, steel cables, etc, with their finger inside the trigger guard of a loaded and cocked 1911. I recall reading the Navy emphasizing putting the safety on if the 1911 was loaded and in the hands of a sailor.

I am sure lots of users of 1911's had accidental discharges with loaded and cocked 1911's.

Incidentally, how was this pistol carried? The Navy had these in inventory from before WW1 and through WW2. There is no thumb safety. Was this pistol carried with a round in the chamber and cocked? or was it carried with a round in the chamber hammer down, or was it carried with no round in the chamber?



One of my 1911 books, the pre 1911 period with Colt semi autos, there are descriptions of the US Cavalry carrying the things, in the flap holster, nothing in the chamber, magazine in the gun. And the US cavalry did not like having to use two hands to make the semi auto's ready to fire. And obviously, with their mandating a way to make the pistol safe with one hand, they did not like the idea of lowering the hammer while on a horse, or dropping the magazine and racking the slide.

DR505 said:

Speaking of S&W revolvers on Navy Ships. I can remember one of our enlisted sailors brought a Model 19 onboard the Nimitz. It was found during an inspection. That was the first time I ever saw a sailor sentenced to bread and water for three days, 30 days in the brig, and he was reduced from an E-5 to an E-1 and given a DD. The E-6 who was aware of the gun, and who took the ammunition to make sure the E-5 was "safe," also got hammered, but he only got reduced to E-5 (he was up for CPO).

Click to expand...

Non commissioned officers really have to keep an eagle eye on what their men are doing. I read a book on the turret explosion of the Wisconsin. There were very sloppy safety practices going on with the enlisted. They found sailors carrying cigarette lighters into the turrets. One can only imagine what would happen with a leaking butane lighter, a spark, and a turret filled with thousands of pounds of gun powder!

The West Loch disaster was just one of the big ones, there were lots and lots of smaller munition explosions which never got into the public domain, and happened because of sloppy over sight of enlisted soldiers and sailors.

https://www.history.navy.mil/browse...d-operations/world-war-ii/1944/west-loch.html

Lessons

There is no consensus on what caused the first explosion at West Loch, which set off the sequence of events that produced one of the greatest non-combat disasters in U.S. history.


Evidence after the fact, including eyewitness reports, shows plenty of risk factors. Men were seen smoking cigarettes near gasoline drums. Welding had been underway on deck. A Navy intelligence report hypothesized a dropped mortar shell. The mystery endures because no one close enough to the initial blast survived to give account of what he saw.

My model 14 has always been a special sixgun. Back in 1999, when I was a field tech in telecommunications, I discovered an old gun/pawn shop in a town about 2hrs from home. It was like a time machine, going back about 20yrs. They had tons of "new old stock" S&W's and Rugers and fantastic prices. It was all low hanging fruit, no N-frames but a bunch of Ruger "Six" series double actions, quite a few .357 Blackhawks and a good selection of K-frames. I remember model 10's, 19's, 15's and 14's particularly. Unfortunately, I was unable to get more than one and I guess I always thought I could go back for more. I probably would've expended more effort had there been any N-frames. Anyway, the one gun I got was my 14-4 that I dated to 1979. It was brand new in the box and I brought it home for the princely sum of $285. Shooting it the first time was nearly a religious experience and not long after I found some Herett's Roper grips for it. Then a few years ago I put a set of French walnut stocks from Culina on it. It is extremely accurate and a joy to shoot. God would I love to be able to go back to that shop and spend a few thousand dollars.

Very interesting thread. Thanks all for contributing.

So all post 1944 manufacture smiths have the mechanical hammer block safety?

Slamfire said:

I will bet S&W was told that the Navy was reconsidering their procurement of S&W revolvers, and that got S&W on the ball to redesign their lockworks.

Click to expand...

Well, what's a little more thread drift in the interest of education?

Originally S&W revolvers with swing out cylinders had no hammer blocks at all. This is the lockwork of a 38 Military and Police from about 1917 or so. S&W revolvers with swing out cylinders have always had rebounding hammers. Notice how the bump on top of the rebound slide where the two arrows are forces the hammer back slightly. Notice the gap between the hammer face and the frame pointed to by the upper arrow, showing how far back the hammer has been retracted. This feature is necessary so the firing pin will be withdrawn into the frame, allowing the cylinder to open without the firing pin getting stuck in the dent in a fired primer. Originally, it was thought that this was insurance enough against accidental discharge with a fully loaded revolver falling on its hammer.







The rebound slide of S&W revolvers is hollow, it houses the rebound slide spring. At some point, the engineers at S&W realized the current arrangement was not enough to protect against accidental discharges from dropped revolvers. The rebound slide could be crushed, and/or the lower portion of the hammer could shear off, allowing a sharp blow to the hammer to fire a round under the hammer.






Please pardon the cruddy appearance of the insides of this 38 M&P that shipped in 1920.






This is the side plate. This is the first style of hammer block S&W began installing on their revolvers. I have placed the hand in the recess in the side plate. There is a ramp on the side of the hand. The hammer block is a piece of spring steel, pinned to the side plate. The rectangle at the top of the hammer block is an extension that would normally sit between the hammer and the frame. When the hammer was cocked, either single action or double action, the ramp on the side of the hand would force a pin sideways, which retracted the hammer block into its groove in the side plate, allowing the hammer to fall all the way.






This is the insides of a 38 M&P that shipped in 1939. This revolver shows the second type of hammer block that S&W installed in their revolvers. I do not have exact dates for when each style came along, but I can tell you that this revolver shipped in 1939. In S&W's never ending quest to reduce cost to manufacture, this style is simplified from the earlier style. The hammer block is still a piece of spring steel pinned to a recess in the side plate. The sliding pin is gone, in its place there is a tab on the side of the hammer block. A ramp can be seen on the side of the hand. When the hammer was cocked, either single action or double action, the ramp pushed against the tab on the side of the hammer block, retracting it into its slot in the side plate, so the hammer could fall all the way.

This is the same style of hammer block that failed in the incident in 1944 with the Victory Model striking the deck of a warship.






Here is a Victory Model showing the same style of hammer block.





Slamfire: That is exactly what happened. S&W set up some tests, and determined that it was indeed possible for a revolver with the old style hammer block inside to discharge if dropped from waist high onto a concrete floor. Be aware that for this type of failure to happen, not only would the hammer block have been disabled by hardened cosmoline inside the revolver, but the bottom of the hammer would have to have been sheared off, and/or the rebound slide would have had to be crushed. But S&W had a big contract with the government supplying Victory Models, and the Government, not the Navy, told S&W they had better fix it. All the engineers were called in, and within one week the new style off hammer block was designed and put into production. Victory Models in the field were withddrawn and the new style hammer block was installed in them. Those already in production at the factory had the new style hammer block installed, and these had a S added to the V serial number prefix. I forget now if the new serial number prefix was SV or VS, I don't have my SCSW handy right now.

Bazoo: yes, all S&W revolvers from 1944 right up until today have the modern style hammer block inside. Unless some bozo has removed it in the mistaken idea that removing it some how makes the action smoother.

To review: Here is a photo of a 44 Hand Ejector 4th Model, that shipped in 1955. Even though it is built on the larger N frame, the hammer block works the same way. I have positioned the hammer block as it would lie in its groove in the side plate. When the hammer is cocked, either single action or double action, a pin on the rebound slide pulls the hammer block diagonally down as the rebound slide slides back, clearing the hammer and allowing it to fall all the way. When the trigger is released, the rebound slide slides forward, and the pin pushes the hammer block back up, blocking the hammer again.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I was aware of the “modern” style but didn’t know any of the former styles know when it was changed.

CraigC said:

My model 14 has always been a special sixgun. Back in 1999, when I was a field tech in telecommunications, I discovered an old gun/pawn shop in a town about 2hrs from home. It was like a time machine, going back about 20yrs. They had tons of "new old stock" S&W's and Rugers and fantastic prices. It was all low hanging fruit, no N-frames but a bunch of Ruger "Six" series double actions, quite a few .357 Blackhawks and a good selection of K-frames. I remember model 10's, 19's, 15's and 14's particularly. Unfortunately, I was unable to get more than one and I guess I always thought I could go back for more. I probably would've expended more effort had there been any N-frames. Anyway, the one gun I got was my 14-4 that I dated to 1979. It was brand new in the box and I brought it home for the princely sum of $285. Shooting it the first time was nearly a religious experience and not long after I found some Herett's Roper grips for it. Then a few years ago I put a set of French walnut stocks from Culina on it. It is extremely accurate and a joy to shoot. God would I love to be able to go back to that shop and spend a few thousand dollars.

View attachment 1069788

Click to expand...

Beautiful wood there.

Slamfire said:

Incidentally, how was this pistol carried? The Navy had these in inventory from before WW1 and through WW2. There is no thumb safety. Was this pistol carried with a round in the chamber and cocked? or was it carried with a round in the chamber hammer down, or was it carried with no round in the chamber?

Click to expand...

I never heard of the Navy procuring the 1905.
But it was surely carried with empty chamber, just like the 1911.

An old magazine article about the .38 Automatic said that while the hammer could be lowered on a loaded chamber, that it was simpler just to make "an easy motion of the slide" to charge the chamber from the magazine.