.38 Ammo question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh yeah...(as for the last two Posts...)


One thing seldom mentioned about a 'Hammerless' Revolver...is, not only does it offer less potential snags/hang-ups for being drawn...but, it offers less potential snags/hang-ups if being used in a very close or contact-wound scenario on an adversary.
 
Old Fuff said:

"A member of the U.K.’s famed S.A.S. once remarked to me that “Americans are far too obsessed with bullet design, while ignorant about more important considerations.” "

Sounds right to me. We tend to obsess on a lot of things. Could you imagine how lonely The High Road would be if we all didn't?

Thanks for the scoop on using 200 grain lead in break opens. I figured an Iver in good mechanical shape would be okay.
 
Iver Johnson and Harrington & Richardson (H&R) made top-break pocket revolvers starting in the late 1890's when Smith & Wesson's patents ran out, to the beginning of World War Two. During that long time span material specifications changed. Earlier guns were intended for use with black powder, while later ones were O.K. with smokeless powder. None of the .38's were intended to be used with bullets weighing over 150 grains or so. That included the much-better quality Smith & Wesson's.

Winchester developed the so-called "Super Police" load with a 200-grain bullet in both .38 S&W and .38 Special. Both were intended to be used in hand ejector Smith & Wesson or Colt revolvers. Both were reputed to be better "man-stopper's" then their respective standard loads. The .38 S&W version was the basis of the .38-200 cartridge used as a service revolver round by the English and associated countries during World War Two.
 
Those of you that are interested in Smith & Wesson's first enclosed hammer revolver - the Safety Hammerless or New Departure model, should follow the link listed below to see one of the largest collections of these revolvers ever offered for sale.

The Safety Hammerless was made in two sizes - .32 and .38. A top-break design, it had besides the enclosed hammer a grip safety. The company advertised that this made it absolutely safe to carry, even when fully loaded. It was so popular that production lasted from 1887 to about 1942 and the beginning of World War Two. Notice that the ejection system allowed the barrel to be shorted to as little as 1 3/8 inches without affecting ejection of fired cases.

http://www.proxibid.com/asp/catalog.asp?aid=22342
 
There's some gorgeous guns there. I drooled all over my computer. I was tempted to place an opening bid on several (I would be maxed out at that point and wouldn't bid again, but what a sweet deal if I won one.)

I bought a 5th model S&W .38 Hammerless Safety with a very low serial number yesterday on Gunbroker. Made in 1907. It's in Very Good condition, with kind of a blotchy nickel finish, and the grips look good. Should be a good shooter, and I'm assuming a 5th model will be OK with smokeless powder.
 
I'm assuming a 5th model will be OK with smokeless powder.

If it is in good mechanical shape and locks up tight it should be. Back when, S&W specifically warned against using smokeless powder through the 3rd, model, which ended at approximately serial number 116,002 in 1898. The 5th. model was made between 1907 and about 1940, within a serial number range running from 220,001 to termination at 261,493.

From a shooter's point of view, the later the better... ;)
 
does that recommendation go for just the barrel and cylinder or does it include the frame as well? buddy has a smokeless rated barrel and cylinder assembly mounted on a late blackpowder era grip frame, what should he be using?
 
I'm a bit confused here - something that isn't unusual. :confused:

I presume you are refering to a S&W .38 Safety Hammerless revolver. From the 1st through 3rd models the compamy recommended black powder only. In 1898 they, among other things, changed the design of the barrel latch and created the 4th model - at which point they dropped the restriction on smokeless powder. However because of the latch change you couldn't put a 4th or 5th model barrel/cylinder assembly on a pre-1898 frame.

It would require some very careful fitting, but in theory a 5th model barrel and cylinder could be mounted on a 4th model frame. If it latched up tightly you could use smokeless ammunition.
 
5 shot 38 sw made by sw. it has a hammer that works in both double and single action. the serial numbering on the reciever puts his revolver into production just before the "antique" cut off date of 1898.
the patent data engraved ito my friends barrel and cylinder assembly indicate those parts were made 1900-1908. the factory could only help so much with him.
 
If you carefully examine one of these late 1890's - early 1900's revolvers you'll usually find the following parts stamped with part or all of the serial number.

Frame - Most likely on the bottom of the butt.
Barrel - Inside the latch cut-out (remove latch to see).
Barrel Latch (on the bottom or side (may be necessary to remove to see).
Cylinder - Rear face
Extractor - On bottom of the star (probably necessary to remove to see).
Stocks - Penciled or stamped on the inside of at least one pannel.

Why all of these numbers? Because each of the above parts were fitted to a particular frame, and were not considered to be interchangeable between different guns. The numbers were a way to identify what parts went to which frame after they were blued, casehardened or plated.

Switching pre-fitted parts around may or may not work, and if they do, it wasn't intentional.

How well Nicodemus38's friend's gun will work largely depends on the frame/barrel lock-up, and if the cylinder/lockwork are still correctly timed. Also there may, or may not be, a cylinder/barrel gap issue.

What this revolver must have is a 3rd model frame within a serial number range running from 119,001 to 322,700 (1884 to 1895) or a 4th model, within a serial number range running from 322,701 to 539.000 (1895 to 1909) or a 5th (and last) model, within a serial number range running from 359,001 to 554,077 (1909 to 1911 and end of production). The barrel/cylinder assembly falls into this somewhere.

It was simply known as the .38 Double Action Model, as as to being safe with smokeless loads - The Old Fuff won't say until he knows a lot more then he does now.
 
Well Gents, I finally got enough on the ball to figure out how to take pictures and load them onto the computer. Now, lets see if I can figure the posting part out. OK, looks like it worked. The nickle plated top break is the .38 Thames (serno 5566) that I started this post over. The group picture shows: (top) .45 Star, model PD; (center) .38 Thames; and (bottom) .32 Burgo, 7 shot.
 

Attachments

  • Pistols 001.jpg
    Pistols 001.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 5
  • Pistols 002.jpg
    Pistols 002.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 10
Thames looks very nice...Perky-and-alert-as-a-Squirrel.


Old Guns always seem to have a presence...


So...are you going to re-load for it?

Or...rely on off-the-shelf Ammo?


Good either way, of course..
 
That's not a Star PD, as that was a compact .45 with adjustable sights and aluminum frame. That one appears to be a Star BM, which is an all-steel single-action semiautomatic that resembles the 1911 pattern pistol. Some features are shared but it is not a clone. Parts do not interchange and internal systems are quite different.

Good gun, tho.

Between those two revolvers, I'd pick the Thames, also !
 
The following might be of interest to some who are following this thread, as it clears up some of the questions relative to the effectiveness of handgun ammunition in relationship to what does or doesn’t cause an immediate secession of a lethal attack. Also consider the source, as the Federal Bureau of Investigation is generally considered to be authoritive. The quote is from another thread currently running on The High Road, that also contains a link to the full report.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=478357

CONCLUSIONS

Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit. Psychologically, some individuals can be incapacitated by minor or small caliber wounds. Those individuals who are stimulated by fear, adrenaline, drugs, alcohol, and/or sheer will and survival determination may not be incapacitated even if mortally wounded.

The will to survive and to fight despite horrific damage to the body is commonplace on the battlefield, and on the street. Barring a hit to the brain, the only way to force incapacitation is to cause sufficient blood loss that the subject can no longer function, and that takes time. Even if the heart is instantly destroyed, there is sufficient oxygen in the brain to support full and complete voluntary action for 10-15 seconds.

Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed."

Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.

LINK: Human Wounding Factors and Effectiveness
__________________
 
Kinda funny how they dropped the 45acp to go to the 10mm, then went to the 40S&W. Although the SWAT still carries the 45acp.
 
I was wrong about my .45 Star being a Mod PD. It is in fact a Mod PS.

Additionally, "Mod BM is a compact, steel framed, 9mm Parabellum/Lugar variant of a series of 1911-inspired pistols that led Star design for the next 60 years". http://www.star-firearms.com/firearms/guns/

In regards to the .38 ammo, I'm still undecided wether to go commercial, Cowboy or custom loads.
 

Attachments

  • Pistols.jpg
    Pistols.jpg
    897.6 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:
If you can reload your own, trying various things it'd be a good excuse to practice with the Revolver more...


I used to use a foot long piece of 4x8, and, 8x12xGlue-Lam Beam...fire to hit at parallel to four inches up from it's bottom..measure how far it moves back on a smooth level surface...was a nice way of roughly comparing energy-delivered by various loads, re-loads or respective Calibres.


Edit...to add:


It may be that "777" or possibly ''Pyrodex-P" would permit a higher FPS than traditional BP, in re-loading .38 S&W for a short to medium length Barrels.


Also...'Magnum' Primers may also help...


I will try these things eventually and find out...


Now...just musing...wondering...inviting input and wisdom from those more experienced...





Old Fuff?


What say ye?
 
Last edited:
Why the cowboy stuff?


1. Because it's appropriate for use in his 19th. century revolver.

2. Because "more powerful" ammunition isn't available over-the-counter, and if it was it wouldn't be appropriate to use in his older gun.

3. Because "more powerful" ammunition may be desireable, but it isn't absolutely necessary.

While it is true that they're better choices, the regular .38 S&W cartridge has a track record. It's been doing the job since 1876, and still is. Sometimes people get this outrageous idea that they can make-do with what they have, rather then run out and spend the money to get a new gun, just because someone on the Internet they don't know says what they have is no good. :scrutiny:
 
Oyeboten, please continue "....musing, wondering, inviting input..." etc. I'm learning so much from you guys, the possibalities make my head spin.

Woad Yurt, I don't have the gear to hand load, yet. Next time I can get ahold of my gunnie I'll try to set something up to run a few varied loads for experimentation, but in the mean time, I am waiting on a delivery of 146gr S&W.

Opinions, please: Is 146gr S&W powerful enough or too much for my old Thames?
 
The problem is that your Thames is a medium-quality revolver made during the black powder era. Since it was not proofed with smokeless powder, no one can say for sure that it's safe or not.

Smokeless loads do not generate more pressure then the black powder ones did, and occasionally they may not equal black powder charges. However smokeless powder is faster burning so it generates more pressure in the cylinder and rear areas of the barrel. Some cylinders were made from bar stock that has seams and other flaws. While they stood up well to slower burning black powder, a smokeless charge might cause a chamber to crack or rupture. I know of no way to tell in advance, which is part of the reason no one in this thread has said, "don't worry - just go shoot it."

Past history is in your favor, because most of these elderly top-breaks don't have a wide reputation for blowing up - but there are always exceptions.
 
Yes...



Conversing and brain-storming about ".38 S&W" generally, and, doing so for this particular Revolver, are somewhat two different things.


My own acceptance, is that old Mr.Thames here, would be fine with 'Original' Loadings, in Black Powder...and, I'd expect it to p-r-o-b-a-b-l-y be fine with any present off-the-shelf 'SAMMI' blessed Loadings.


However...Mr. Thames Bore diameter may be a little large, for now-a-days .38 S&W Bullets, and, should be measured to see where it is at.


I think the old Land diameter later more or less became the 'new' Bore diameter, around the late 1890s or very early 1900s with the advent of inside-lubricated Bullets (verses the older Outside Lubricated and thus 'Heeled' and Hollow-Base Bullets)...but I may be wrong...though this did happen to other Calibres/Cartridges.



If I owned that Revolver and was going to carry it...I'd lean toward doing my own Loadings in 3f BP...and, I'd elect Bullets to suit the Bore diameter as-it-actually is for having measured it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top