38 to 357?

[gringolet]

considering modifying cyliner on old model 10 to accept 357.
would not get steady diet of 357, but would be able to accept
and might get some practice rounds with it now and then...

I have heard two take son this..

1. model 10 cylinders not same stuff as 13 and 19 and will not
handle 357 pressures...

2. that the above is wrong and cylinder is same stuff, same thickness
only bored deeper for cylinder holes.

Any experience with this and recommendations?

 

[rcmodel]

Depends on which dash-number and how new a model it is.
Older Model 10 frames, cylinders, and barrels were most certainly not heat treated the same as the Magnums.
And certain aspects of the frame are not as beefy to begin with.

The other thing is, a .38 Spl K-Frame cylinder is 1.56" long.
A .357 Mag K-Frame cylinder is 1.67".
With a corresponding shorter barrel shank / forcing cone sticking out of the frame unsupported then the .38 would have.

That is the one weak spot on a K-Frame .357, and it would be weaker still on a K-Frame .38 Spl converted to .357.
Plus, some .357 mag ammo may be too long fit in the shorter .38 Spl cylinder anyway.

Personally, I would not do it to any Model 10.

If you need or want a .357 Mag, get one.

rc

 

[Old Shooter]

No personal experience with this approach but my recommendation would to be sell the model 10 and add some more $ to it, haunt the gun and pawn shops to find a used Ruger or Smith in .357 flavor.

If your proposal works you really didn't prove anything at all, if it does not work you will be going around being called "Lefty" for the rest of your life with no one to blame but yourself.

 

[06]

Similiar to Old Shooter's comment--good way to lose a hand and a decent firearm. Would keep the 10 and buy a hefty 357. Mine is a Taurus and I use it primarily as a hunting sidearm.

 

[Jim K]

Model 10's (Military and Police Model) in .38 Special were not and are not made for .357. While the gun would not blow up, it will be under more stress and impact than it was designed for. Likely a few rounds would do no harm but a better idea would be to use +P .38 Special, which the gun will take. I doubt anyone shot with a hot .38 load will notice that it is not a .357.

Jim

 

[Overkilll0084]

It's a lot like setting up your Ford ranger to pull that big fifth wheel trailer. Yeah, it may work for a while, but we all know it won't end well.
Purchase an actual .357.
I can't help wondering if any responsible gunsmith would do the work.

 

[Clark]

I converted a J frame S&W from 38 to 357.

The cylinder does not split, the top strap does not break, and the forcing cone does not split.

The problem is the Smith and Wesson lock up system. With the trigger pulled and held back, the cylinders often have rotational play.
What I know:
Some Smiths get loose with wimp loads.
Some Smiths do not get loose with hot loads.
Most used Smiths are much looser on some chambers than others.

What I don't know:
Is it appreciably likely that a Smith will shoot lose faster with hot ammo than wimp ammo?

The trouble is that tiny manufacturing tolerances get amplified when the bullet hits the forcing cone, deflects, and twists the cylinder. We have a hard time measuring or calculating this.

In the absence of anything better, we run on fear, ignorance, and gun culture folk lore.

 

[rcmodel]

Yes, but a J-Frame has almost a fully supported forcing cone & no gas ring cut.
A K-Frame .38 Spl or .357 doesn't, due to more barrel shank sticking out, and the gas ring cut on the bottom.

I am almost convinced the 5-shot cylinder with off-set bolt notches, and nearly as thick chamber walls, in addition to the enclosed forcing cone, make a J-Frame almost as strong as a Model 19.
But of course the smaller J frame will not take the continued beating the larger K frame will.

Course, thats true of the K vis N frame guns too!

rc

 

[1911Tuner]

I vote to leave the Model 10 alone and find an older Model 13. Other than the longer cylinder/shorter barrel face...it's indistinguishable from the heavy barrel M-10, and will offer all the punishment on the backside that you'll ever want.

I have a couple of the 4-inch guns. An early 13 and its stainless twin, a Model 65-3. Firing full power 158-grain ammunition with the OEM Magna stocks...they're singularly unpleasant and nearly as uncontrollable as a 4-inch Model 29 with the 240-grain stuff. Even with Pachmayr Signature (tm) grip sets, they ain't all that warm and fuzzy.

 

[BBBBill]

Bad idea on an S&W for the above stated reasons. However, a Ruger Speed/Service/Security Six differs only in the caliber roll mark and the depth of the chamber. Feel free to do one of those.... that is if you don't mind converting a potentially collectible piece. There were much fewer of the 38Specials built than the 357s.

 

[natman]

What I don't know:
Is it appreciably likely that a Smith will shoot loose faster with hot ammo than wimp ammo?

Yes.

 

[Old Fuff]

I know this is a wild idea, but one can call Smith & Wesson and ask...

But to save time and trouble, I already know what the answer will be, and that's NO!!!

On Military & Police model (AKA model 10) .38 Special revolvers the cylinders are not made of the same steel as magnum ones, nor do the go through the same heat-treating process. If they were the resulting revolver would cost more, and in the highly competitive police sales market the company saw no good reason to increase the cost of a revolver chambered to use .38 Special, not .357 Magnum ammunition.

While a rechambered J or K frame revolver might not blow up, there would be a high chance of getting expanded chambers caused by excessive stress. Once a chamber is expanded the cylinder is ruined. If a revolver is returned to the factory for repairs and excessive pressure is suspected as a cause, the chambers are inspected, and if expansion is found warrantee work - as well as any other - is likely out of the question.

Gunsmiths and others that rechamber .38 Special revolvers to .357 Magnum should take a hard look at the liability they are taking on, because (among other reasons) if something goes wrong and the matter ends up in court they will find that they have absolutely no friends. They may also find that they're liability insurance company won't touch it with a ten-foot pole either.

 

[Clark]

Honda said that the 1979 Civic was rated for 0 pounds towing.

I put a trailer hitch on it anyway.

I built my house on top of a mountain with 4,000 sq ft of concrete tile roof by pulling a big boat loaded with building materials.

My sister had a Civic just like mine. She went to U-haul to get a hitch, but the man in the uniform said that hitches cannot be put on Civics.

So the man with the S&W model 10 is going to have to decide if he is going to be like me or like my sister.

 

[Mizar]

Clark, the problem is not with the S&W lock system... It's just that this is a K-frame, .38Spl revolver, designed from scratch to be fired only with .38Spl.

Boris

Do some of us really believe, that they know more than the engineers that designed the revolver?

 

[rcmodel]

The OP ask about a Model 10 K-Frame .38 Spl.

But it's still a bad idea.

rc

 

[Fleet]

Clark, you can make an electric washing machine motor pull a freight train, too. Doesn't mean it's very smart.
Converting a .38 to fire .357 is right there along with it.

 

[Old Fuff]

The question isn't about hauling concrete roofing tile, it's about the materials used to make various Smith & Wesson revolver cylinders over the years. The company has always picked the best steel and heat treating processes that were, and still are, available at the time. However this does not mean that they go to extra expense where it isn't needed. This for example, is the reason the model 13 (a .357 Magnum revolver based on the model 10 .38 Special) came about, and it's the reason that the model 13 had a higher MSRP.

When Smith & Wesson decided to make a J-frame/.357 Magnum they redesigned the entire platform rather then bore out the chambers in the regular .38 Special versions.

If someone wants to recommend that people ignore the manufacturer of a car and haul overloads, that they're business. But if they come on to THR and propose that someone rechamber .38 Special's to make them into .357 Magnums, it becomes our business.

It is interesting to note that no one else has come forward to endorse the procedure.

 

[1911Tuner]

Can it be done? Sure. Many times, enterprising folks spend so much time and effort figuring out if they can do it and too little time wondering whether they should.

The .357 Magnum cartridge was never originally meant to be a self-defense or plinking/target cartridge. It's niche was as an outdoorsman's cartridge, and it was designed around a large-framed revolver...not a K-Frame.

Even though the round has been downloaded quite a bit from its original ballistics...it's still pretty rambunctious for such a light revolver. In its original guise, it would rattle a K-frame apart in short order. That's why Smith & Wesson finally threw in the towel and introduced the L-Frames. They got tired of fixing all the bent, stretched, bulged and broken K-Frames.

Even Bill Jordan...who was instrumental in the development of the K-Frame .357...gave us all good advice when he cautioned: ".38s for practice and .357s for business."
That was Bill's down-home way of telling us that the Model 19 et al wouldn't last long with a lot of full-power .357 ammo fired through it.

Finally...with the wide availability of the Model 13/65 if you like fixed sights, and the Model 19/66 if you like adjustable sights...there's really no good reason to convert a Model 10 to fire .357 Magnum ammunition. You'll spend a lot of money for a gun that you'll wind up firing .38 Special ammunition in anyway. Best compromise is to locate an older 586/686 or a 581/681 and light'em up. The L-Frame will stand up to it almost as well as the N-Frame, and it's a little smaller and lighter to boot.

My 2% of a buck.

 

[Clark]

My father was chief engineer over 150 engineers and draftsmen in designing vehicles and guns. I have been arguing with my father most of my life. I won my first argument with him when I was 2. He is now 89 and I am 60 and we are STILL arguing about vehicle and gun designs.

I would guess that NO engineering went into the Model 10, it was just an incremental evolution of previous products. I have designed a lot of things, most companies cannot make leaps, only baby steps. Just like most people can't think.

My father has an interesting 115 mm machine gun revolver for the marines called the XM70 [X because it was experimental], and I can tell you some engineering went into THAT revolver.
This is the patent on the flow control valve that gets set by the recoil force from the first round to anticipate the recoil of the second round
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4353285.pdf

 

[Old Fuff]

I would guess that NO engineering went into the Model 10, it was just an incremental evolution of previous products.

Smith & Wesson introduced their K-frame, .38 Military & Police revolver in 1899. In 1957 they changed from names to model numbers. Between 1899 and present they obviously made some "incremental" changes involving design, materials and manufacturing processes. Hopefully you would not consider taking a revolver made during the late 19th century, or the early 20th, as a platform to convert to .357 Magnum. Incidentally, most of those changes did involve some level of engineering.

I have designed a lot of things, most companies cannot make leaps, only baby steps. Just like most people can't think.

I was unaware that you had anything to do with the designing of Smith & Wesson products. It would appear that all you are doing is making a questionable modification to a previously existing product, with little or no knowledge of its possible consequences.

 

[DWFan]

If you want to ruin your Model 10, you don't have to go to the effort or the expense of rechambering it to .357 Magnum to do it. Simply load some full-power .38/44 HV ammo for it. Same end result for less money. No, it won't disintegrate, but it will become a nice paperweight in short order.

 

[longknife12]

Shooting pistols for 55+ years.....just buy a 357 n keep the 38. Just mio dos centavos worth!
Dan

 

[rbernie]

I would guess that NO engineering went into the Model 10, it was just an incremental evolution of previous products. I have designed a lot of things, most companies cannot make leaps, only baby steps. Just like most people can't think.

Being willing to put your neck on the line for your beliefs and viewpoints is fine. Recommending that others follow suit is not nearly as fine, and is not a THR behavior.

Specific to the OP:

have heard two take son this..

1. model 10 cylinders not same stuff as 13 and 19 and will not
handle 357 pressures...

2. that the above is wrong and cylinder is same stuff, same thickness
only bored deeper for cylinder holes.

The first suggestion is correct, insofar as the 357 cylinders being manufactured to handle higher pressure via different heat treatments and such - rcmodel did a great job of covering the matter back in post #2.

Whether or not that matters to you is up to you...

 

[Jim Watson]

At one time it was pretty usual to rechamber .38-44 Heavy Duty S&Ws ("N" frame) to .357. Lots of steel but without Magnum heat treat. There are some battered up HDs out there from the practice.