The 38/44 ??

[Jim Watson]

He said he designed specific semiwadcutter bullets for Lyman to make molds.

Ray Thompson designed the .357 bullet and Charlie O`Neil designed the .44 bullet. The "O" in the famous OKH wildcats. Keith was an experimenter, not a wildcatter.

I was not making stuff up.
From 'Sixguns' XVI A Bullet Chapter. pg 229-230 in my copy.

"At that time (1928) Harold Croft was visiting me and we spent a month, all told, experimenting with the .44 Special, He did not think much of my design then, as he watched me make a rough sketch of it. The Lyman folks decided the bullet had good possibilities and their Mr Pickering had the steel model turned and sent it to me for examination. This first Lyman-Keith bullet was in 250 grain weight and is listed in the catalog as #429421."
Charlie O'Neil not mentioned. The OKH rifles were later, the .333 in 1945.

"I determined to finish the job and design a similar bullet in .38 Special. I had worked out the design of this bullet in 1929 but did not send it in to Lyman until some years later."
He mentions Charles B. Keller, Captain Frank Frisbie, and Harold Croft, the latter two for requesting a hollow point version from Mr Pickering at Lyman.
Ray Thompson is not cited, which is not surprising since he was born in 1914 and was probably not involved in bullet design at age 15. Any road, I have not seen anything about a Thompson SWC without a gas check, which Keith disliked.

So, was Elmer lying, taking credit for others' work?

lobbied the industry to adopt his heavy .44Spl load, which was 1200fps and 26,000psi. The .44Mag was developed by S&W and Remington entirely without his knowledge, 1450fps and 43,500CUP.

As I said. He called it the .44 Special Magnum.

Any update on what Keith said about the 42,000 psi loads in his book?

Those were with No 80 powder which he was glad to replace with 2400 which gave equal or better velocity at lower pressure.

As to the "-44" designation, there were previous applications of this by Smith & Wesson. They had, around the turn of the century the .32-44 S&W and the .38-44 S&W. Both of these cartridges were moderate target rounds, and featured bullets seated entirely within the case, the case being nearly the same length ad the cylinder. This to eliminate/minimize bullet jump in the cylinder. The "-44" indicated these cartridges were meant for the No. 3 Top Break revolver, which was a .44 frame.

The .38-44 Target was an interesting 19th century approach to revolver accuracy. Target shooter Walter Winans had input into the design and shot one for a while, but I understand he went back to the .44 Russian.
I saw mention on the S&W board of a .38-44 with the long 1 9/16" cylinder which would defeat the purpose of a no-jump cartridge to barrel revolver.
Likewise, the .32-44 never was full cylinder length although it was similarly loaded with a submerged roundnose bullet.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

As to the "-44" designation, there were previous applications of this by Smith & Wesson. They had, around the turn of the century the .32-44 S&W and the .38-44 S&W. Both of these cartridges were moderate target rounds, and featured bullets seated entirely within the case, the case being nearly the same length ad the cylinder. This to eliminate/minimize bullet jump in the cylinder. The "-44" indicated these cartridges were meant for the No. 3 Top Break revolver, which was a .44 frame.

Hi Bob

You are correct.

This is a page from a reprint of the 1900 Smith and Wesson catalog. The 32-44 and 38-44 cartridges are illustrated on the left.

The .38-44 Target was an interesting 19th century approach to revolver accuracy. Target shooter Walter Winans had input into the design and shot one for a while, but I understand he went back to the .44 Russian.
I saw mention on the S&W board of a .38-44 with the long 1 9/16" cylinder which would defeat the purpose of a no-jump cartridge to barrel revolver.
Likewise, the .32-44 never was full cylinder length although it was similarly loaded with a submerged roundnose bullet.

Hi Jim

Learn something everyday. I did not know about the 1 9/16" cylinders on some of the New Model Number Three Target Models. But checking my trusty copy of The Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson, Supica and Nahas state that although the early ones had the standard 1 7/16" long cylinder, some later ones did indeed have 1 9/16" cylinders.

This pair of New Model Number Threes have the standard 1 7/16" long cylinders. They are both chambered for 44 Russian, the most common chambering of this model.






I'm still kicking myself over this New Model #3 Target Model I had a chance to buy a few years ago. Chambered for the 38-44 cartridge as illustrated above. This is a pretty early one, I suspect it has the 1 7/16" cylinder. This model could chamber and fire standard 38 S&W ammo too. Yup, hindsight is 20/20, I was offered first refusal on this revolver a bunch of years ago, and said no thanks. Dumb move!

 

[Palladan44]

I have a late 1980s mfg. .38 Special Only
Ruger Police Service Six.
It is a Ruger Security Six which was originally designed to be a 357 Magnum...however they dumbed it down due to a particular contract requesting only .38 special; they must have deemed .357 Magnum as excessive. From all of my research, the only difference is the depth of the cylinders, and nothing more.
Anyways, I fire .38-44 spec. handloads from this gun without worry. They are loaded in 38 cases and are In boxes labeled 38/44 Ruger Only. Piece of paper also in the box that says Ruger Only
If I ever have the Luxury of seeing my "time" coming I'll try to make sure these are burned up to avoid any next of kin possibly crossing over to my Model 36 "chief's special" or aluminum frame airweight, among others....

 

[whatnickname]

I have a late 1980s mfg. .38 Special Only
Ruger Police Service Six.
It is a Ruger Security Six which was originally designed to be a 357 Magnum...however they dumbed it down due to a particular contract requesting only .38 special; they must have deemed .357 Magnum as excessive. From all of my research, the only difference is the depth of the cylinders, and nothing more.
Anyways, I fire .38-44 spec. handloads from this gun without worry. They are loaded in 38 cases and are In boxes labeled 38/44 Ruger Only. Piece of paper also in the box that says Ruger Only
If I ever have the Luxury of seeing my "time" coming I'll try to make sure these are burned up to avoid any next of kin possibly crossing over to my Model 36 "chief's special" or aluminum frame airweight, among others....

Ruger made a run of Security Six guns that were chambered 38 S&W years ago. As best I can remember this was for a contract with a police agency in India. There were a few that were released to the retail market as over-run items. If you can find one in decent shape expect to pay a premium.

 

[whatnickname]

Hi Bob

You are correct.

This is a page from a reprint of the 1900 Smith and Wesson catalog. The 32-44 and 38-44 cartridges are illustrated on the left.

View attachment 1106858

I look at stuff like this and wish those guns could talk. I bet they would tell some fascinating stories!





Hi Jim

Learn something everyday. I did not know about the 1 9/16" cylinders on some of the New Model Number Three Target Models. But checking my trusty copy of The Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson, Supica and Nahas state that although the early ones had the standard 1 7/16" long cylinder, some later ones did indeed have 1 9/16" cylinders.

This pair of New Model Number Threes have the standard 1 7/16" long cylinders. They are both chambered for 44 Russian, the most common chambering of this model.

View attachment 1106859




I'm still kicking myself over this New Model #3 Target Model I had a chance to buy a few years ago. Chambered for the 38-44 cartridge as illustrated above. This is a pretty early one, I suspect it has the 1 7/16" cylinder. This model could chamber and fire standard 38 S&W ammo too. Yup, hindsight is 20/20, I was offered first refusal on this revolver a bunch of years ago, and said no thanks. Dumb move!

View attachment 1106860

View attachment 1106861

 

[Palladan44]

Ruger made a run of Security Six guns that were chambered 38 S&W years ago. As best I can remember this was for a contract with a police agency in India. There were a few that were released to the retail market as over-run items. If you can find one in decent shape expect to pay a premium.

Contract for Cook County Hospital in .38 SPL only
I'm under the impression it isn't valuable or rare, and it's in excellent "shooter" shape.
I did put a set of a little thicker grips than the original service style stocks to soak up the recoil of the .38/44 type ammo that I load for it. They can do about 90% of what a full house 357 Magnum can do when seated to .38 special OALs. The extra 8-10% case capacity DOES make a difference.
I have not bothered lengthening the OALs or crimped In rear grease grooves or anything like that....not worried about all that..... I guess my loads for this gun are technically .38+p+

 

[CraigC]

So, was Elmer lying, taking credit for others' work?

Sort of.

As I said. He called it the .44 Special Magnum.

Doesn't matter what he called it. The cartridge that became the .44Mag was developed by Remington and S&W without Keith's knowledge until it was complete. John Taffin also recently wrote this up in the 2nd edition of the .44 book.

 

[Jim Watson]

Well, Elmer said that, too. He suggested .44 Special Magnum and got .44 Remington Magnum.

 

[Palladan44]

This sounds like a Tesla/Edison type situation.

 

[whatnickname]

View attachment 1107030 View attachment 1107031
Contract for Cook County Hospital in .38 SPL only
I'm under the impression it isn't valuable or rare, and it's in excellent "shooter" shape.
I did put a set of a little thicker grips than the original service style stocks to soak up the recoil of the .38/44 type ammo that I load for it. They can do about 90% of what a full house 357 Magnum can do when seated to .38 special OALs. The extra 8-10% case capacity DOES make a difference.
I have not bothered lengthening the OALs or crimped In rear grease grooves or anything like that....not worried about all that..... I guess my loads for this gun are technically .38+p+

38 Special was not particularly rare as you mention. The ones that were made in 38S&W were marked with the British designation 38/200 as I recall. Those went for big $$$

 

[CraigC]

This sounds like a Tesla/Edison type situation.

Not really. Keith advocated for the industry to adopt his heavy 1200fps .44Special load. Entirely without his knowledge, S&W and Remington developed the .44Mag with a longer case for another 250fps and nearly double the pressure. Keith found out about it when they sent him one.

 

[Palladan44]

Not really. Keith advocated for the industry to adopt his heavy 1200fps .44Special load. Entirely without his knowledge, S&W and Remington developed the .44Mag with a longer case for another 250fps and nearly double the pressure. Keith found out about it when they sent him one.

Ok, got it.

 

[tightgroup tiger]

I high lighted Elmer Keiths statements regarding the 44 magnum in this article he wrote in 1969 where he takes credit for the cartridge.


chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://www.elmerkeithshoot.org/GA/1969_01_Elmer_Keith_Favorite_Load.pdf

 

[wcwhitey]

I high lighted Elmer Keiths statements regarding the 44 magnum in this article he wrote in 1969 where he takes credit for the cartridge.
View attachment 1108487

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://www.elmerkeithshoot.org/GA/1969_01_Elmer_Keith_Favorite_Load.pdf

Patents and royalties! Mentioned and suggested, hand sketch etc. Not a smart businessman was Elmer! I have always been convinced that it was his work that led to the .44 Magnum. I also just figured that once it was done there was no need to credit him as to why pay him, that’s business! One can claim an idea in an article but the Patent Office confirms who owns it.

Patents were hugely important in forearms manufacturing. Look at any turn of the century barrel.

 

[tightgroup tiger]

Patents were hugely important in forearms manufacturing. Look at any turn of the century barrel.

You can't patent an idea, you have to build it. Elmer Keith never built anything so all he has is his ideas and articles he wrote and a few molds named after him.
The people that actually built the gun and the ammo have the patents and the ownership no mater what he says or documented.
That doesn't mean he didn't think of it first but it doesn't matter much these days except to some people.
I'm sure most of us could care less who thought of what first as far as the 44 magnum goes.
I know I sure don't.

 

[murf]

I was not making stuff up.
From 'Sixguns' XVI A Bullet Chapter. pg 229-230 in my copy.

"At that time (1928) Harold Croft was visiting me and we spent a month, all told, experimenting with the .44 Special, He did not think much of my design then, as he watched me make a rough sketch of it. The Lyman folks decided the bullet had good possibilities and their Mr Pickering had the steel model turned and sent it to me for examination. This first Lyman-Keith bullet was in 250 grain weight and is listed in the catalog as #429421."
Charlie O'Neil not mentioned. The OKH rifles were later, the .333 in 1945.

"I determined to finish the job and design a similar bullet in .38 Special. I had worked out the design of this bullet in 1929 but did not send it in to Lyman until some years later."
He mentions Charles B. Keller, Captain Frank Frisbie, and Harold Croft, the latter two for requesting a hollow point version from Mr Pickering at Lyman.
Ray Thompson is not cited, which is not surprising since he was born in 1914 and was probably not involved in bullet design at age 15. Any road, I have not seen anything about a Thompson SWC without a gas check, which Keith disliked.

So, was Elmer lying, taking credit for others' work?



As I said. He called it the .44 Special Magnum.



Those were with No 80 powder which he was glad to replace with 2400 which gave equal or better velocity at lower pressure.



The .38-44 Target was an interesting 19th century approach to revolver accuracy. Target shooter Walter Winans had input into the design and shot one for a while, but I understand he went back to the .44 Russian.
I saw mention on the S&W board of a .38-44 with the long 1 9/16" cylinder which would defeat the purpose of a no-jump cartridge to barrel revolver.
Likewise, the .32-44 never was full cylinder length although it was similarly loaded with a submerged roundnose bullet.

the 38-44 was designed for ira payne: https://historical.ha.com/itm/handg...9-with-two-add-total-19-items-/a/6079-44136.s

murf

p.s. more info on the 38-44 target: http://rvbprecision.com/shooting/sw-3rd-model-target-38-44-reloading.html

 

[Jim Watson]

Maybe so, but that link is to a Stevens, and:

"The shotgun is a 16-bore Greener gun, the rifle is a Winchester, the pistol is a Stevens, the revolver is a 44-calibre (Russian model) Smith & Wesson."

 

[wcwhitey]

You can't patent an idea, you have to build it. Elmer Keith never built anything so all he has is his ideas and articles he wrote and a few molds named after him.
The people that actually built the gun and the ammo have the patents and the ownership no mater what he says or documented.
That doesn't mean he didn't think of it first but it doesn't matter much these days except to some people.
I'm sure most of us could care less who thought of what first as far as the 44 magnum goes.
I know I sure don't.

Was my point, you are correct, he was a contributor! An idea man and the companies took what was good and developed a cartridge then patented said cartridge. Happens every day. In the early years it was the patented designs that made people like John Browning a living. Paid for a patent and later royalties. Elmer was not an engineer. More like a experimenter, a good one and his ideas and tests were important.

 

[murf]

Maybe so, but that link is to a Stevens, and:

"The shotgun is a 16-bore Greener gun, the rifle is a Winchester, the pistol is a Stevens, the revolver is a 44-calibre (Russian model) Smith & Wesson."

did you read the roy jinks letter at the end of the second reference?

murf

 

[Jim Watson]

Had to blow it up.
I did not push through the article because I had already loaded .38-44 in Maximum brass.
Working with components on hand, I tried this and that but had best accuracy from a 125 gr swaged 9mm bullet and Black Mag 3 fake powder.

So Paine gets credit for the .38-44.
Did he also influence the .32-44 or was it the Bennett brothers as I had thought?

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

You can't patent an idea, you have to build it. Elmer Keith never built anything so all he has is his ideas and articles he wrote and a few molds named after him.
The people that actually built the gun and the ammo have the patents and the ownership no mater what he says or documented.
That doesn't mean he didn't think of it first but it doesn't matter much these days except to some people.
I'm sure most of us could care less who thought of what first as far as the 44 magnum goes.
I know I sure don't.

I don't know about current patent law, but in the past inventors have gotten patents without a working prototype.

This is the drawing for the patent that the patent office granted to Rollin White for his concept of a revolver that had chambers bored though the cylinder to accept cartridges. I'm pretty sure White did not build a prototype, the patent was granted simply from the drawing. Daniel Wesson came up with the same idea independently of White, for a revolver with bored through chambers to accept cartridges. But when Wesson did a patent search he found out the idea had already been patented by White. An agreement was worked out between Daniel Wesson, Horace Smith, and White about licensing the patent to Smith and Wesson's new revolver company. But I'm pretty sure the patent was granted without a working prototype.






I have seen lots of old patent drawings from the 19th Century that clearly would not have worked, but they were granted patents anyway.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

p.s. more info on the 38-44 target: http://rvbprecision.com/shooting/sw-3rd-model-target-38-44-reloading.html

I am a little bit annoyed about that article.

If you look back at post #52 you will see I posted photos of the exact same New Model Number Three Target Model that was in the article. It is the very same gun sitting on top of a small barrel at a CAS match. But more than that, the article shows two illustrations that I have posted over the years, one in post #52, with no credit being given to me as the originator of those illustrations.

For the record, I did get a chance to shoot that revolver, and when the author of the article decided to sell it a number of years ago he gave me first refusal because he knew how much I like the S&W New Model Number Three. Like an idiot I did not buy the revolver, and have been kicking myself over it ever since.

 

[wcwhitey]

I don't know about current patent law, but in the past inventors have gotten patents without a working prototype.

This is the drawing for the patent that the patent office granted to Rollin White for his concept of a revolver that had chambers bored though the cylinder to accept cartridges. I'm pretty sure White did not build a prototype, the patent was granted simply from the drawing. Daniel Wesson came up with the same idea independently of White, for a revolver with bored through chambers to accept cartridges. But when Wesson did a patent search he found out the idea had already been patented by White. An agreement was worked out between Daniel Wesson, Horace Smith, and White about licensing the patent to Smith and Wesson's new revolver company. But I'm pretty sure the patent was granted without a working prototype.

View attachment 1108596




I have seen lots of old patent drawings from the 19th Century that clearly would not have worked, but they were granted patents anyway.

I am no Patent Lawyer. However, one of my ancestors had one of the first
Patents in the new country called the United States, it was for a Gristmill. That’s not really important just cool, anyway, I am pretty sure it was the design and not the object itself that was approved and probably not brought to the Patent Office. I do know that in the late 19th Century there is a lot of mention of “Proof of Concept” which is really just a model working or not. That may have been for the sale of an idea as much as approval of a patent.

And Mr. White is a crazy example of selling a patent. He made a good sum by selling it with royalties, however, one of the conditions was that he then had to defend it in court he then spent most of that money and most of his career doing so. Another talented idea man with poor business sense.

 

[murf]

post #52

i like the simple target sights on that gun. that seems to be the only difference between that gun and your other number three smiths.

murf

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

And Mr. White is a crazy example of selling a patent. He made a good sum by selling it with royalties, however, one of the conditions was that he then had to defend it in court he then spent most of that money and most of his career doing so. Another talented idea man with poor business sense.

Sorry, I have to be a school marm. White never sold the patent. He assigned S&W as sole licensee to use the idea of a bored through chamber, and he was paid 25 cents as a royalty for every revolver S&W made, but he never sold the patent.

Later, when the patent was to expire, in 1869 as I recall, he petitioned the patent office to get the patent renewed, but the renewal was denied. White then went to Congress, which passed An act for the relief of Rollin White (S.273). But President Grant vetoed the bill. Grant did so on the advice of Chief of Ordnance Alexander Brydie Dyer who claimed the original patent was "an inconvenience and embarrassment" to Union forces for the "inability of manufacturers to use this patent" during the Civil War.

It is true that Daniel Wesson, who was a very shrewd, businessman, wrote into the contract that White would be responsible for policing the contract against patent infringement. But I have also read that White put most of the money he earned from the patent royalties in his wife's name, so was able to plead poor when he asked to have the patent extended.