How hot can it handle? 10-6

[fxvr5]

The person I quoted mentioned "data". That covers a broad range. Keith's .38-44 was tested at well over 40,000psi, as I already said.

True, Keith pushed the 38 Special hard in his S&W 38/44 revolver. But that does not say that was 38/44 ammunition/ballistics/pressure. According to Keith, it was for development of 357 Magnum ammunition.

Keith writes in a January 1969 Guns and Ammo article "Favorite loads for handguns" that he was asked to help develop loads for the 357 Magnum. There he says some of his loads measured 42,000 psi.

He writes, "Major Douglas Wesson wanted me to work with him on the development of the .357 Magnum back in the early '30s, which I did. I sent him 200 of my 173- grain solid bullets, sized and lubricated, after I had put 1000 of them through a 5-inch .38 Special Heavy Duty Smith & Wesson with a heavy load of Number 80 powder. Col. Bill Tewes, then of Peters Cartridge Company, chronographed them at an average of 42,000 psi. They were very accurate but far too heavy for any light-frame gun."

Again, this is just how hard he pushed his 38/44 gun in developing 357 Magnum ammo. It does not state that was the pressure or ballistics of 38/44 ammunition. Moreover, it gives no ballistics, so we can't tell if the bullet was at 38/44 speeds or 357 Magnum speeds. What he says references the development of 357 Magnum ammunition, so it was likely at 357 Magnum speed/power.

If you can find a reference for 38/44 load data or factory ammo that lists the ballistics and measured pressure, let us know.

 

[CraigC]

That was the pressure of his .38-44 handload and it's probably the most well known. It used 2400, not Dupont #80.

Keith did not develop the .357. Phil Sharpe and Douglas Wesson did that. Same for the .44Mag. He didn't even know it was underway until it was finished.

Either way, I don't care. The K-frame is not the platform for hot rodding.

 

[fxvr5]

It used 2400, not Dupont #80.

That contradicts what Keith says. It also contradicts what John Taffin writes in his article on the 38/44 revolver. He also writes that Keith used #80 for those loads.

https://americanhandgunner.com/handguns/the-3844-heavy-duty/

"Elmer Keith really pushed the envelope with the .38 Special in the .38/44 Heavy Duty. He said he used what powders were available at the time, which weren’t very many, and settled on #80, which has been out of production for 70-plus years now. He used 10 grs. and shot hundreds of loads, then moved up to 11 grs., and while he said it worked well in both the .38/44 and the Colt SAA .38 Special, he decided to have it pressure tested. Sending them off to Peters Cartridge Company he found they were operating at 42,000 pounds pressure! "

How is it you know that's not true?

 

[WisBorn]

Back to the OP. I would check to see when your 10-6 was made. I Googled 10-6 and it said, 1962-77. The model 13 came out in 1974.

As far as loading the cartridge up, I wouldn't! +P loads would probably go ok, but personally I would stick with standard pressure and enjoy shooting the handgun for a lot longer time.

 

[CraigC]

That contradicts what Keith says. It also contradicts what John Taffin writes in his article on the 38/44 revolver. He also writes that Keith used #80 for those loads.

https://americanhandgunner.com/handguns/the-3844-heavy-duty/

"Elmer Keith really pushed the envelope with the .38 Special in the .38/44 Heavy Duty. He said he used what powders were available at the time, which weren’t very many, and settled on #80, which has been out of production for 70-plus years now. He used 10 grs. and shot hundreds of loads, then moved up to 11 grs., and while he said it worked well in both the .38/44 and the Colt SAA .38 Special, he decided to have it pressure tested. Sending them off to Peters Cartridge Company he found they were operating at 42,000 pounds pressure! "

How is it you know that's not true?

Is this a "measuring" contest??? My reference was to the 13.5gr 2400 load.

And what did he shoot them in? N-frames and SAA's. Not K-frames.

 

[amd6547]

I shoot any factory 38spl +P load in my circa 1957 Pre-Model 10 without second thought, and with no issues whatsoever.

 

[Mosin77]

I recall S&W heat-treated the model 10 cylinders exactly the same as the model 19, per an eye witness in one of the gun rags back in the day.

So, anecdotally you’ll probably be fine and so will your gun, should you bore it to .357. That said, there is undoubtedly still some risk. .357 revolvers aren’t that much harder to find or expensive than .38 guns, so I’d just buy one chambered appropriately.

 

[fxvr5]

Is this a "measuring" contest??? My reference was to the 13.5gr 2400 load.

And what did he shoot them in? N-frames and SAA's. Not K-frames.

What were the ballistics? Bullet weight, velocity and barrel length?

 

[whatnickname]

Trying to “convert” your model 10 to “357 Lite” is a bad idea. As others have pointed out here, the steel used in the 357 and the heat treating applied to that steel may very well be different in a K frame model 10. Don’t roll the dice on turning your model 10 into a grenade or accelerating the wear on it until it prematurely achieves paperweight status. You want a magnum? Buy a magnum.