Smith and wesson 38 safety hammerless, Is this modern ammo good to shoot in it? Thanks.

Your link us screwed up. Fix the link. It directs you to the S&W forum.

I believe this and the ammo the OP is referring to. It the only 38 S&W that Remington offers for the past few years.

https://www.remington.com/handgun/performance-wheelgun/29-22278.html

I have shot it in my Iver Johnson and Webley Mk IV and its been decent ammo and excellent brass for reloading.

What type of latch does your S&W have? I believe even the earliest of the Safety Hammerless actions was strong enough for standard smokeless .38S&W however the earliest models may have not been officially rated for its use. A picture would clear the matter up.

Howdy

If 37342 is the Serial Number, that makes it a 38 Safety Hammerless 2nd Model. These were made from 1887 until 1890, with Serial Numbers running from 5251 to 42483.

This 38 Safety Hammerless 2nd Model shipped in that time period.

I absolutely, positively would not shoot it with ammunition loaded with Smokeless Powder.






Unlike Colt, who factory guaranteed the Single Action Army for Smokeless Powder in 1900, I can find no documentation on when S&W stated their revolvers could be fired with Smokeless ammunition, and I have researched this quite thoroughly. I have a reprint of a S&W catalog from 1900 which specifically states S&W revolvers (made at that time) are not guaranteed for Smokeless Powder.

We are talking about a revolver that was made between 1887 and 1890, the steel used at that time would not have been as strong as the steel Colt was using in 1900.

Of course, many or these old revolvers have been fired with modern Smokeless ammunition, but none of my antique Smiths will ever be fired with modern ammunition. I routinely load cartridges with Black Powder for these older revolvers.

I have a Lemon Squeezer of about that vintage; it is in lovely shape, and I've never fired it. Looking at the recoil shield, not sure it's ever been shot.
Somebody in the 19th Century bought it, loaded it, and stuck it in a drawer.
Really, have lots of other things to shoot, without guilt or doubt.
Moon

With a firearm as this I can’t think why anyone would consider firing such historical piece.

John wayne349 said:

With a firearm as this I can’t think why anyone would consider firing such historical piece.

Click to expand...

Because it's a gun?

I believe @Driftwood Johnson gave the definitive answer, assuming the OP gave us reliable information about the gun.

My own answer would have been "maybe". As Mr. Johnson points out, a lot of these guns have been fired with smokeless ammo - but they were never proofed for it, which means the shooter is effectively doing the proofing himself.

John wayne349 said:

With a firearm as this I can’t think why anyone would consider firing such historical piece.

Click to expand...

I have quite a few antique revolvers. I do shoot some of them, but only with ammunition loaded with Black Powder.

My pair of antique Smith and Wesson New Model Number Threes, photographed at the end of a match. Still sooty from the Black Powder ammunition. Interesting point: when I found the blue one at a gun show a number of years ago I noticed that one of the chambers had a slight dent and would not accept a cartridge. Clearly it had been dropped at some point. The seller commented that he didn't think anyone would actually be shooting it. I looked him in the eye and told him that I would. I just leave the dented chamber empty when shooting it.

My immediate concern would be mangling my hand or having an ancient firearm totally explode in my face.
The risk/reward equation is out of balance. I would play a conservative hand of cards on ammo selection.

Regardless, for an old iron, you don't want to mangle it. I would use light black powder loads, but you do you.

I read somewhere (Chuckhawk's? SCSW?) that S&W began heat treating their cylinders for smokeless ammo around 1910. Also I've been told that the 4th change lemonsqueezers are safe for smokeless, as they have a sturdier latch. In any case I doubt a cylinder-full or two of smokeless would grenade the earlier shootin' ahrns. Extended use is more likely to stretch the frame and get her out of time, ya ask me. Which you didn't.

I had a late production 38 Safety Hammerless a long time ago. It was in very nice condition and I shot it a little with smokeless ammuntion. I used smokeless because nothing else was avaliable, and more importantly, I didn't know any better.

It was interesting to shoot, mainly because of the "dwell point" built into the trigger mechanism. There was a definite point to which you could pull the trigger, stop, steady your aim, and then fire. Despite that, it was not a lot of fun to shoot because of the tiny grips and the tiny sights, and the grip safety meant there were no better grips I could put on it. And even with the dwell point, the trigger pull was not light. The Safety Hammerless may be decently accurate, but I did all my shooting at bullseye targets at 50 or 75 feet, and it's not a fun pistol for that.

I agree with the Col. They were not approved for smokeless powder until the fifth model of 1907. But I bet Grandpa used smokeless ammo when he could afford it. In 1901 the gun was $13, black powder .38 S&W was $.95 a hundred, smokeless $1.25. And as Monac says, they are not fun shooters. A hundred rounds was likely a lifetime supply for many buyers, I 'spect with plenty left over for the next generation.

Gunsmith David Chicoine once said he was seeing more and more stretched top break frames, he figured from shooting smokeless powder with its different "pressure curve." I think it was due to the old guns being SHOT, no matter the load. He was writing when CAS was going real good and we were digging out old guns for the Pocket Pistol side match. Somebody serious about it was likely putting more rounds through his than it got in the previous century.
Me? I shot a .38 Single Action with smokeless, but I did not pound it with a lot of practice. Five rounds about every other month for a few years was not a lot of wear and tear, I passed it on to a collector in the same shape as when I got it. Maybe I got away with something undesirable, but I don't recall seeing a lot of smoke over the usual card table from the other shooters, either.

I was more concerned with the durability of my Great Western derringer in the same caliber - not the more common .38 Special - than I was with my S&W.

I think it would be a public service for somebody to endeavor to wear out a matched pair of top breaks, one with black, one with nitro.

There was one guy who said he did not think smokeless too hard on a name brand because Smith and Colt held tospecification. But he had an off brand with very undersize bore that might get exciting with a dipper of Bullseye. He thought it would have held up with soft bullets and black... but he did not report trying it.

You could probably load your own mild smokeless powder rounds but I wouldn't use factory. Or do what I do: put on your welding gloves, welding mask, and ear protection, then shoot whatever you want through it.

4th Model Hammerless Safety New Departure and newer were rated for smokeless, 3rd Model and older were for black powder only, according to my sources.
Smokeless in your 2nd Model will eventually stretch the frame or worse.
Not a good thing for such a nice little revolver..

For the OP, some good news is it’s relatively easy to load blackpowder .38S&W provided you can get the basic components. Unlike loading smokeless rounds in this caliber there’s no way you can overcharge the case with real blackpowder or direct substitutes.

Interesting. ^^^ I've loaded some .45 Colt with blackpowder, and a dipper I made to measure. It's still in the ammo locker; just haven't felt the need to do a whole bunch of cleaning.
It is my understanding that blackpowder thru' a case charger is a dicey thing, hence the dipper.
In any case, for the OP, it is a great deal of messing around to feed one gun, and, as others have said, doubt those top breaks saw a lot of shooting, back in the day.
Which does make me wonder about Schofields, then and now. They were made for .45 Schofield; the army standardized on that, as they could be fired in .45 Colt. The military would have fired them a fair amount.
My current, Uberti example did not come with a ton of caveats from the legal department, tho' I normally feed it pretty mild cowboy loads. They do clock slower than the same ammo fired in an SSA Uberti; perhaps the cylinder gap, or some other dimension, was made large to keep pressures down.
Better steel?
Moon

halfmoonclip said:

It is my understanding that blackpowder thru' a case charger is a dicey thing, hence the dipper.

Click to expand...

Howdy Again

I do it all the time. Here is my Hornady Lock and Load AP progressive press with a Lyman Black Powder Measure mounted on it. I use this set up to load Black Powder into 45 Colt, 45 Schofield, 44-40, 44 Russian, and 38-40.

halfmoonclip said:

Which does make me wonder about Schofields, then and now. They were made for .45 Schofield; the army standardized on that, as they could be fired in .45 Colt. The military would have fired them a fair amount.
My current, Uberti example did not come with a ton of caveats from the legal department, tho' I normally feed it pretty mild cowboy loads. They do clock slower than the same ammo fired in an SSA Uberti; perhaps the cylinder gap, or some other dimension, was made large to keep pressures down.
Better steel?
Moon

Click to expand...

Yes, any modern replica of an antique revolver will have better steel than the originals. I have no idea why your loads are clocking slower through an Uberti Schofield than through a Single Action Army.

I can tell you that the frames of all original Schofield revolvers were made of iron, not steel. I do not know what the cylinders and barrels were made of, but frames were made of iron. But clearly, the steel used in any modern reproduction is going to be better steel than was available in 1875-1877 when all the Schofields were made.







It might also interest you to know that frames and cylinders of very early Colt Single Action Revolvers, starting in 1873, were made of iron, not steel. It was not until mid-1883 that Clot began using steel for the frames and cylinders of the Single Action Army.

The Kelley/Bessemer method of making steel, cheaply and in abundance, changed many things in our industrializing nation. This included everything from railroad rail to guns.
The Uberti Schofield is beautifully done, and I actually shoot it pretty well once I adjust to the different frame shape.
Love the way the old Lemon Squezers feel in the hand, but they do have a brutal trigger.
Moon
ETA- Hey, Driftwood, can you tell me a little more about the black powder case charger? Thnx,
M

If I recall correctly, the Bessemer process for making large quantities of inexpensive steel, was patented around 1856. I have never quite understood why Colt and Smith & Wesson, among others, were still using iron in their revolvers almost 20 years later. Perhaps it took a while to get from the patent to the actual production of inexpensive steel.

I use a Lyman Black Powder Measure.

There is a pretty good photo of it here on this Cabelas page:

https://www.cabelas.com/shop/en/lyman-no-55-classic-black-powder-measure

The body of the device is iron, the rotors that meter out the powder are brass, and the hopper is spun aluminum. Because the rotors are brass they are non-sparking.

This powder measure is basically the same as the classic Lyman #55 Powder Measure, except for the aluminum hopper. The hopper is much larger than the plastic hoppers on the Smokeless powder measures and can hold a lot of powder, because Black Powder cartridges need a lot of powder.

I buy old Lyman Smokeless powder measures when I find them cheap at the white elephant table at gun shows. Notice they have a plastic hopper.






I set each rotor (the rotating part that meters out the powder) for a specific powder charge. There are two or three (I forget now) slides built into each rotor and I set them for the specific powder charge I want.






I set up each rotor for a specific charge of Black Powder that I use in specific cartridges, then I label them.






With each rotor set for a specific powder charge, I only have to remove one screw to change rotors for different cartridges.






This is a view down inside the iron body of the powder measure with the aluminum hopper removed. It shows one of the rotors installed.






The linkage that operates the standard Smokeless powder measure on my Hornady Lock and Load AP progressive press does not operate the Lyman powder measure. I have to remember to rotate the handle to throw a powder charge for each cartridge.






Here is a photo of a batch of Black Powder 44-40 ammo being cranked out on my Hornady press. The powder measure is out of view in this photo.






Here is a view of my loading bench with the Black Powder measure installed on the Hornady press.

Nice setup Driftwood

Driftwood 教師 (Kyōshi), I thank you for today's lesson. BTW since I have an unused Lyman 55 in the back of the reloading closet, do you know where I might find a metal cylinder to replace the plastic one?

Sorry Col. The Black Powder model has the bottom of the aluminum tube threaded, and the iron body is threaded so the tube can be screwed into it. It is a very wide thread. If you grab the the plastic hopper on a standard Lyman #55 powder measure and twist it, you will see that the plastic hopper does not unscrew. It is snugged in somehow without being threaded. Although I have found the rotors to be interchangeable (sometimes they need a little bit of filing down) the aluminum hopper cannot be screwed into a standard 55 body.