.38 Spl +P in an old Police Positive?

[gulogulo1970]

I recently bought an old Colt Police Positive (circa 1917) lock up is tight, good gap, bore bright etc, ect. I was wondering could this gun handle an occasional cylinder full of 38 +P loads. I'm not planning on shooting anything for practice but mild standard pressure loadings. I would just like to occasionally shoot a cylinder of +P loads see where they print on a target and keep it loaded with +P for self defense.

I've always heard the steel D frame colts are tough enough for +P's just not the alloy frame Cobras and Agents. If all it will do is shoot it "loose" after a few years I'm OK with that (I'm not for tearing up guns for fun, I just spent a $120 bucks on this gun as a truck/tackle box gun, so I'm going to use it up). I just don't want the thing to go off like a grenade in my hand. Is that a possiblity? I'm talking about 12-18 shots a year with +P's the rest with standard pressure or target loads. Do old Colt 38's let go and blow or does the gun just beat itself to death? If this is a really bad idea speak up and let me know.

If I can't shoot +P loads, is there a standard pressure .38 special load that will expand when shot out of a 4" barrel?

 

[Cosmoline]

I've got a second generation Colt PPS and I've shot a *little* bit of +P out of it. This one was made in the '70's, so it's new steel, and it's in prime shape. Before I shot ANY +P out of another one I'd check the SN against a list of Colt SN's. The PPS's go way, way back and if I had one from the '30's with a worn bore and a patina on it I'd stay well away from the hot stuff.

On the other hand, there's no reason I know of that a PPS in good condition from the second or third generation couldn't take at least a little bit of +p. Not a regular diet, but for SHTF situations.

BTW, I've found the very best .38 Special for defense are the old lead HP's--odd looking HP's with no jacket. They expand very easily and are supposed to be very nasty. I"ve also found that the PPS does the best with 158 Grain lead bullets. Mine's a tack driver with them.

 

[Old Fuff]

Over-standard-pressure .38 Special cartridges weren't an issue until Smith & Wesson introduced the .38-44 Heavy Duty revolver in 1930. It was built on their large "N" frame and designed to use a hot loading that pushed a 158-grain bullet at around 1150 FPS out of a 5" barrel. Shortly thereafter Colt certified that their Police Positive Special could be used with, "mid-range, standard, and hi-speed cartridges, including the .38-44."

This applied to revolvers made during the middle-1930's through about 1950. Then they dropped out the part about the .38-44 round.

Anyway, I don't think a +P load will blow-up a 1917 period Police Positive Special. It might however crack the thin section of the barrel where it faces the cylinder, especially if the chamber and bore weren't concentric. In addition, your 1917-period gun may have a fouling cup (a small groove in the bottom of the topstrap over the cylinder/barrel junction) that was intended to clear black powder fouling, but also weakened the topstrap at this critical point.

I would suggest that you either stick to standard loadings with semi-wadcutter lead bullets, or buy a more modern revolver that is manufacturer certified to use +p ammunition. I would further note that when the gun was made people used regular .38 Special cartridges in it, and apparently didn't find them to be seriously lacking in "stopping power."

 

[JNewell]

I'm looking at a 1940 Shooter's Bible.

The Colt section lists, separately, a "Police Positive Special" and a "Police Positive."

The Police Positive is "...smaller and lighter than the Police Positive Special..." and chambered for .38 S&W (or .38 "New Police").

Here's the interesting part.

The PPS description says that it is (was) chambered for "... .38 S&W Special High Speed and .38-44 S&W cartridges."

I don't know which model you have, and I have no idea whether a ca. 1917 revolver is designed, manufactured or rated the same as the 1940 version, so I'm not recommending that you do or don't shoot +P loads, but at the very least some more research might be in order.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I'd be real reluctant.

 

[Jim K]

To be honest, I would buy a newer gun for defense use.

In the first place, the PP was never made in .38 Special, only in .32 and .38 Colt New Police (.38 S&W); AFAIK there is no +P loading for the .38 S&W. The 1917 era PP is a small frame gun, with a thin cylinder and a thin barrel, not the later heavier frame models which most of the folks seem to be thinking of. (I have a PP .38, #26238, made in 1908.)

Even if the gun is the PP Special in .38 Special, I would be hesitant about shooting it with modern loads, and I certainly would not fire it with +P loads or equivalent; it was just not designed for those pressures.

Would the gun blow up? I don't think so, but if the old PP is in good shape I would try to do a trade for something heavier and more able to stand up to +P loads.

Jim

 

[Clark]

CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The High Road, nor the staff of THR assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.

I bought 5 Colt Police Positives for destructive test from AIM as police surplus.
They have the agency name welded off the backstrap, have the bluing worn off, but have rarely been fired, if at all.
They are said to be from the '50's and 60's.
I have blown two of them to pieces, splitting the cylinder and breaking the top strap.
I am now working on the third and the fourth and fifth I have not shot yet.

One died from a pinched bullet in a 9mm load with AA#5. I could go on and on here about blowing up guns and pinched bullets, but Ackley said it better 40 years ago, I just had to learn it on my own, as it didn't sink in when I read it.

The next died from 20 gr. LONGSHOT and 158 gr.

The Hodgdon max loads for LONGSHOT 158 gr. XTP are:
38 Special +P, 1.455" OAL, 5.5 gr.
357 mag, 1.580" OAL, 8.4 gr.

The third one has been shooting hundreds of rounds of 26 gr. LIL'GUN and 158 gr.
Hodgdon's max load is 18 gr., 25 kpsi, for 357 mag.


I have also damaged a Colt Agent with Aluminum frame that is identical in design to the Police Positives, just not made of steel. It still shoots, but the frame is bent .050". It was damaged in a work up of 110 gr. 18.5 gr. Blue Dot
The max Alliant load for 357 mag is 16 gr.
The max load for 38 sp +P is 8.2 gr.
The max load for 38 sp is 7.8 gr.

I got the Colt Police Positives because they were so cheap. But I have come to really respect the design. It locks up tight and is very accurate. On the Smith and Wesson's I own, some have got a rotational looseness from hot loads. I have never got a Colt Police Positive loose at all. I have Colt New Armies that are loose as a goose. Maybe Colt got serious and fixed the problem.

I would warn that what one pistol will do in a work up is not necessarily what another will do with 10,000 rounds. The fatigue of steel is something I could go on and on about, but it cannot be completely analyzed and man's knowledge depends on some testing for every new shape. A revolver frame or cylinder are certainly complex shapes. The amount of cycles a part will last is dependent on many things including surface finish that may have cracks that can grow.
Here is a plot on cycles to a Rem 700 bolt head based on a computer simulation:
http://www.jonaadland.com/SN.jpg

The reason I am posting all this stuff, is the 38 sp and 38 sp +P are very close compared to what it takes to damage a Police Positive, which is more than 357 mag.
I am also cautioning that:
1) My data is based on incremental powder work ups and not 10,000 cycles.
2) My pistols were made later.
3) Reproducing any of my experiments can be dangerous for your gun, yourself, and bystanders.

--
A society that teaches evolution as fact will breed a generation of atheists that will destroy the society. It is Darwinian.

 

[Johnny Guest]

WOW!!!

Clark, I recalled you had mentioned some of the torture-testing pf Police Positive Specials previously, but maybe I just didn't notice what strong loads you had used. Amazing! Thanks for the information, too.

Does anyone here know when Colt began the "modern heat treatment" of their cylinders and frames? I'd wager it was far later than 1917 . . . .

gulogulo1970, have you checked out that date of manufacture by serial number, or might you be going by the latest patent date shown on the revolver? If you don't have the references, post the s/n and I or another can give you an approximate date of mfg. (Substitute XX for the last two digits, if you wish.)

Best,
Johnny

 

[Cosmoline]

Hats off!

Those old Colts died to make us free.

The problem with newer revolvers is, in order to get anything as light and handy as a Colt you are limited to little snub-nosed creatures that still fit in the hand like a brick.

 

[Majic]

The PPS were rated the same as the Detective Special. Colt advised limited use of +P ammo (I think around 1500 rounds, but not sure) and wanted the revolver sent back to the factory after the round count for frame inspection.

 

[Gordon]

I for one, draw the line at +P+ loads in D frames. I used to shoot them in 80's occasionally and carried them as a BUG load , but no more . I like very few +P's in my D frames the earliest of which was made in 60's.

 

[Jim K]

The reason I emphasized "1917 era" is that around 1925 Colt modifed the frames and barrels of the PP and PPS and made them heavier. The change to the backstrap angle is the most obvious difference. So the guns that "died" in those tests were actually the newer ones and stronger than the old PP that was the subject of the original question. Even more reason to go easy on the old PP.

As to Colt lockup, it is partly an illusion. Due to the Colt double hand, the cylinder will be forced against the cylinder bolt even if that means actually forcing the cylinder OUT of alignment, with the chamber past the barrel. This happens when the cylinder bolt is worn or bent or the notches are badly worn, and makes it seem that the lockup is tight, when in fact it is out of alignment.

Colts, in fact, are just as subject to battering of the cylinder notches, the bolt stop and the frame as S&W's and much more liable to get out of time, scoring the cylinder. One advantage of the Colt is that the notches are off center of the chamber, so that the deepest cut is not at the thinnest part of the cylinder as it is with the S&W. This allowed Colt to use a slightly smaller diameter cylinder than S&W for a given required strength.

Jim

 

[Old Fuff]

Back in the middle 1960’s a detective came to me and ask if I could fix his snubby, because it wasn’t working too well. Indeed it wasn’t. When the cylinder rotated it wobbled. The crane no longer fitted snugly against the frame. When one cocked the hammer all of the way the bolt was still short of locking the cylinder by about .040â€.

Turns out that it was an aluminum-framed Cobra, which would make it a post-war gun. Seeking to obtain more power he’d had a gunsmith(?) rechamber it to .357 Magnum(!!) Even so, this did not cause the Cobra to become a grenade - It didn’t blow up.

But by the time it was brought to me it was beyond repair. It was sent back to Colt who scrapped it and then sold the detective, or his department a new gun at cost. I don’t think an individual owner would have been that lucky.

Anyway, as we discuss this issue remember that the gun in question was apparently made in 1917. Since that time substantial changes have been made in the steels and heat-treating that goes into guns. It is always wise when shooting an older gun to use ammunition that is contemporary to the gun’s age. If you feel the need to shoot current-day high performance ammunition use a gun that’s certified by the manufacturer to use that ammunition.

 

[gulogulo1970]

Yes, its really from 1917, it has the fouling cup. It looks just like a detective special, just a londer barrel. I will go easy on it, I'm probably going to load it with standard pressure Glasers or magsafes. I still want to shoot it alot with standard loads. I need to test fire it soon. The bore is bright and shiney but there is not a whole lot of rifling left. May or may not be a shooter. I'll find out, soon.

 

[Sunray]

"...Would the gun blow up? I don't think so..." Me either, but Plus P's are too hot for a W.W. I vintage revolver. There was no such thing as plus P's in 1917. Stick with regular .38 Special loads.
No handgun bullet will reliably expand. For a 'tackle box' revolver(why you'd need one is beyond me), use 158 gr SWC's using a load out of your manual.

 

[Cosmoline]

Man, this old thread made me cry. I miss that old PPS--stupidly sold off for quick cash. Finest shooting revolver I've ever owned.

 

[gulogulo1970]

I'll have you know that I've not shot anything but slow semiwadcutters though it, since I've had this gun.

I started thinking if this gun survived 87 years before I got a hold of it, do I want to be the idiot who shoots it loose?

 

[mec]

What Old Fuff said fits my memory of the early recommendations. One interpretation of it is that Colt felt like not certifying their Police Positive Special for 38-44 would be a bad marketing move and the handgun buying public would interpret them as weak and no good. I suspect these small frame revolvers will last a lot longer with standard pressure loads.

 

[grendelbane]

My only experience with old Colt revolvers is a couple of Official Police and a 1917 in .45ACP.

The grips on those old guns would be really painful with +p loads. The sights also are so small that they hurt my eyes.

Other than that, they are beautiful examples of the revolver makers art.

The Official Police which I have kept even has a checkered trigger! Guess they didn't intend to do much double action shooting in those days.