t
boom boom-
I've been around awhile, and in 1966, wrote to S&W re safety in firing .38-44 ammo in a Model 10/M&P. Sales Manager Fred Miller replied, saying that it wouldn't blow up the gun, but if I anticipated the need to fire many such loads, I should buy a .357 or a designated .38-44 revolver. Otherwise, recoil would be excessive and wear would be considerably accelerated.
Colt always rated their steel guns for that hot load, as seen in, A History of the Colt Revolver, 1836-1940, by Haven & Belden. But I feel sure they just meant that the ammo was safe to fire, if need be. I certainly doubt that they'd suggest it routinely in any of their guns, apart from the SAA and heavy-framed New Service.
At the time that I wrote to S&W, I was a young airman not long out of HS. My unit of Air Police was issued USAF M-41 ball ammo for our .38's and some of us thought it gave too little power. The NCOIC took unit funds and went downtown in Denver and bought some .38-44 Hi-Velocity ammo. We loaded that for duty, but qualified with wadcutters or M-41. Given limited use, our Victory Model and Combat Masterpiece revolvers wouldn't see much wear, and I was glad to have the more potent ammunition.
In private life, because the M-19/66 is so close in weight to a K-frame .38, I've usually just used one of those. Being heat treated for .357 ammo, I wasn't concerned about occasional use of .38-44 or Plus P ammo in them. But, as with full .357 loads, such ammo should be limited. I'd fire it at big raccoons or coyotes in lieu of std. ammo, and occasional use on jackrabbits is okay, unless you shoot a lot of the big hares. And on men, I'd use the hotter loads.
About 1960, famed holster maker Chic Gaylord published, Handgunner's Guide. In it, he told how a S&W official told him that new M&P/Model 10's were being made of a new, stronger steel. This refutes Internet "experts' " idea that there is no strength difference between guns being made before and after model numbers were assigned. I believe that post 1957 guns were indeed stronger. More should have been written about this over the years.
But older ones were pretty strong. How many of you saw the photos of an M&P that someone fired six rounds through after a squib load blocked the bore? The barrel was split, but the gun didn't otherwise blow! The shooter wasn't aware of anything awry until he emptied the gun and saw that split barrel! Had he been firing Hi-Velocity ammo, the result may well have been different, and pretty grim.
boom boom-
I've been around awhile, and in 1966, wrote to S&W re safety in firing .38-44 ammo in a Model 10/M&P. Sales Manager Fred Miller replied, saying that it wouldn't blow up the gun, but if I anticipated the need to fire many such loads, I should buy a .357 or a designated .38-44 revolver. Otherwise, recoil would be excessive and wear would be considerably accelerated.
Colt always rated their steel guns for that hot load, as seen in, A History of the Colt Revolver, 1836-1940, by Haven & Belden. But I feel sure they just meant that the ammo was safe to fire, if need be. I certainly doubt that they'd suggest it routinely in any of their guns, apart from the SAA and heavy-framed New Service.
At the time that I wrote to S&W, I was a young airman not long out of HS. My unit of Air Police was issued USAF M-41 ball ammo for our .38's and some of us thought it gave too little power. The NCOIC took unit funds and went downtown in Denver and bought some .38-44 Hi-Velocity ammo. We loaded that for duty, but qualified with wadcutters or M-41. Given limited use, our Victory Model and Combat Masterpiece revolvers wouldn't see much wear, and I was glad to have the more potent ammunition.
In private life, because the M-19/66 is so close in weight to a K-frame .38, I've usually just used one of those. Being heat treated for .357 ammo, I wasn't concerned about occasional use of .38-44 or Plus P ammo in them. But, as with full .357 loads, such ammo should be limited. I'd fire it at big raccoons or coyotes in lieu of std. ammo, and occasional use on jackrabbits is okay, unless you shoot a lot of the big hares. And on men, I'd use the hotter loads.
About 1960, famed holster maker Chic Gaylord published, Handgunner's Guide. In it, he told how a S&W official told him that new M&P/Model 10's were being made of a new, stronger steel. This refutes Internet "experts' " idea that there is no strength difference between guns being made before and after model numbers were assigned. I believe that post 1957 guns were indeed stronger. More should have been written about this over the years.
But older ones were pretty strong. How many of you saw the photos of an M&P that someone fired six rounds through after a squib load blocked the bore? The barrel was split, but the gun didn't otherwise blow! The shooter wasn't aware of anything awry until he emptied the gun and saw that split barrel! Had he been firing Hi-Velocity ammo, the result may well have been different, and pretty grim.
Last edited:
