Who does good Revolver conversions from .38 Special to 9mm P-'08?

[CraigC]

I love it when somebody asks a question and then argues with the answer. If you're so convinced the Army Special will work, go for it.

The problem is not finding someone to work on Colt's. The problem is usable parts and platforms. If I thought that anybody would rechamber an Army Special to .38Super, it would be relatively easy to procure one in .32-20 to rechamber and rebore. That is a basic caliber conversion. The problem is that NOBODY will rechamber an Army Special to .38Super. Doesn't matter that you would use .38ACP, if it accepts .38Super cartridges, it has to be strong enough or said `smith is setting himself up for a lawsuit. Army Specials are simply not strong enough. I've seen that stated in print and heard it directly from custom gunsmiths. Nobody will even suggest using heavier .32-20 loads in them, even with their heavy chamber walls.

Like I also said, I do not think that the reamer will clean up a .38Spl chamber. Maybe it will, I doubt it. So the logistical problem you have is finding a cylinder of sufficient strength and small enough existing chambers to be rechambered. A K-frame would be easy because they have been made in .22LR. This is a piece of cake because we already know they are routinely rechambered to .327Federal, which runs at 45,000psi.

That is why the Colt will cost more, unless a .22LR Trooper cylinder could be fitted to another model, it will have to be scratch-built.

 

[eldon519]

I would not take the metallurgical concerns for granted. Great strides were still being made in the first half of the 1900s, and improvement continues today. Keep in mind that Liberty Ships were failing (or breaking clean in half a la the Schenectady) during WWII due to the lack of understand and application of ductile-brittle transistion temperatures and fracture toughness (now considered very basic knowledge). While probably not applicable to your Colt, this is just an example that such concerns are very real. It would be a mistake to assume that the understanding of metallurgy at that time is anywhere near what it is today, and as someone who works along side metallurgists (I am not one), I can tell you that even today there is a healthy dose of art as well as science in fabrication.

 

[goon]

Exactly how small is the rim on the .38 ACP/Super casing though? Smaller than the .45 Colt rim? Because that's a small rim that still works OK in DA revolvers (most of the time). Just saying - not second guessing you all, but will the moon-clips truly be necessary?

At the same time though, I gotta wonder...
If you've got a .38 Special revolver you already have access to all kinds of brass and reloading components. Ammo is not a concern.
Why risk an old gun and trade those advantages away and pay a gunsmith a presumably substantial fee when you already have it so good?

 

[CraigC]

I would not take the metallurgical concerns for granted.

I agree and we must remember that the Army Special was only chambered in rather anemic, low pressure cartridges like .32-20, .38 and .41Colt.

 

[CraigC]

Double post, that was weird.

 

[Jim Watson]

If my reloading gear and most of my guns were not in storage while my house is being rebuilt, I would run some experiments. But they are so fire the thread back up in about six months and I will try some things.

I still think it a bad idea unless you pay to have a .357, Trooper, or Python cylinder fitted to get better steel.

 

[eldon519]

Exactly how small is the rim on the .38 ACP/Super casing though? Smaller than the .45 Colt rim? Because that's a small rim that still works OK in DA revolvers (most of the time). Just saying - not second guessing you all, but will the moon-clips truly be necessary?

The .45 Colt rim is around 0.016". The .38 ACP is around 0.011".

 

[goon]

Roger that. In that case, moon clips it is.

 

[Oyeboten]

Well...my interest was to explore the idea.

I have not been 'convinced' of anything, I have been interested to explore the idea, and, find out more about the details concerning it's possibility.


There is no need for anyone to be getting hostile or huffy about it.


It is an idea I began brooding about decades ago, and, which I have returned to now and then.


I abandonded the possibility of electing a period K-Frame, and, was considering the Colt Army Special because it is larger, and, has especially thicker Cylinder Walls.


I understand the casual opinion is running onto how the Cylinder Walls, though thick, might not be strong enough.

Of course...they might not be...and, I had said so myself at the get go.


Or, they may be ( strong enough ).


If by trying to clearify what I had said in occasions of others seeming to have interpolated or mis-understood, if my wording had somehow made it seem as if I was "convinced" the Cylinder would hold the .38 ACP pressures with impunity, then again, what I was saying had been badly mis-read.


I have never said it would.


Nor can anyone here positively say it would not hold.


It is simply unknown...and, so far, most of those who have had somehting to say, feel it would not hold safely, while ( on another forum ) some have said they expect it might hold just fine.



Meanwhile, my original, question, was for leads allowing me to communicate with a Gunsmith who does Cartridge Conversions on Colts.


The question was never one of any head strong refusal to listen to reason, or any refusal to evaluate reason.


I am sorry that some people seem to have got so excited and snarky in this context.


Possibly, they have trouble remembering what the context is - and the context, to remind those who are or who have become confused - is that of exploring a question, not a "conviction".

 

[Jim K]

FWIW, Browning used the .32 S&W and .38 S&W in his original experiments. When he ran into the inevitable problems of feeding rimmed cases from a magazine, he kept turning the rims down until he got something that would work to support the case and still feed. That is why we ended up with .32 ACP and .38 ACP cartridges with a small rim. Later, one Georg Luger came up with the idea of supporting the case on its mouth; JMB took notice and his two late cartridges, the .380 ACP and the .45 ACP, are rimless.

The undesireable result is that old .32 S&W caliber revolvers will fire the .32 ACP and many old .38 S&W caliber revolvers will fire the .38 Super; neither is recommended.

Jim

 

[Dr.Rob]

The safest solution is to build a revolver that COULD handle 38 Super, but back off the load to shoot 38 ACP.

 

[VA27]

1. Buy a Colt Python.

2. Send it, along with a cubic yard of US dollars to Hamilton Bowen and ask him to make it look like an Army Special and chamber it for 38ACP with moon or half-moon clips.

I say this because I've seen pix of an S&W I-frame that he made to look like a 1917 and chambered it in 25ACP and made half-moon clips to go with it.

Problem solved.

 

[eldon519]

Just to look at it from an engineering standpoint, the increase in operating pressure from 17,000psi to 26,500psi will impart a 56% increase in stress in your cylinder walls. It also seems you're going to have to remove some material with a reamer which will further thin the walls by about 0.005" judging by cartridge dimensions. I am not sure what cylinder wall you have to start with, but based on some informal calculations I did looking at the Ruger .44 magnum-.45 Colt debate, I'd say that this is significant, probably putting your increased stress well into the mid 60 percentile range. Keep in mind that guns such as the Super Blackhawk in .44 magnum (what most consider a pretty strong gun) have been tested to destruction at about 100% increase. I'd say you'll almost certainly be beyond the endurance limit of the steel in your cylinder which means it's a matter of time (or rather round count) before it fails catastrophically with standard pressure ammunition.

Fatigue is a logarithmic relationship which can be very helpful or very dangerous (I'd say dangerous in this situation given the significant unknowns). This means the changes come in orders of magnitude. For example, making up a point of reference to demonstrate how this works, let's say with load X in your converted gun, it will last 10,000 rounds before blowing up catastrophically (fatigue failure is brittle, not plastic). Increase the pressure say 5%, now it might last 1,000 rounds, not the 9,500 some might expect. Increase it 5% more, now it's 100 rounds. I'm making up this slope, (5% for an order of magnitude) but otherwise, this is how a logarithmic relationship works. The question would be, where are you in that relationship? A pre-war gun reamed out and overpressured? Do you start at 10,000 rounds? Maybe 100? Maybe 1? These are the dangerous variables for this type project. I doubt it would survive a SAAMI proof load if it were tested which would be over 100% increase in pressure over the intended design pressure, BEFORE it was reamed out. Keep in mind that the natural .38 ACP load exceeds the .38 Special proof load pressure, again before it was reamed and further weakened.

So please if you proceed, be exceedingly careful. You may honestly want to consult a professional engineer or actual metallurgist before continuing. I have an engineering degree, but this is outside of my work, industry experience and real knowledge base, so please don't act on anything I have told you. I am also not an actual professional engineer (a legally protected title), and thus not capable of giving you actual design advice. I hope you do not regard this post as huffy or impolite, only an expression of concern for the safety of this project.

 

[Oyeboten]

Hi eldon519,


What nice mentions, thank you.


I have had thoughts along thoise lines, respecting the idea of how Materials may behave in conditions over time, and or, where, they are being stressed, or over-stressed.


It would be very difficult if to obtain cogent or germain Metalurgical predictions of an Army Special Cylinder under the peramiters of the anticipated 26,000 PSE loadings, as far as anyone being able to calculate on a chemical-metalurgic sectional basis, what could be expected of it, since there is no real way to know what the Alloy was, nor, what the Heat Treatment was, if any, of the Alloy which was used.

Having an analysis done to determine the percentages of elements upon which a prospective description of the Alloy could be attempted, would likely be fairly expensive, and, inconclusive anyway, as far as it being a bssis of anticipation for the engineering related behavior of the materials under the conditions which would be occuring.


Of course, if a 'Python' Cylinder would just jump right in...I would be temped to think about it...though the .357 Chambering would leave a longer 'jump' for the .38 ACP Bullet to have to do.


Here is an image ( borrowed from a Gunbroker Listing ) showing an Army
Special Cylinder, from the rear -





The Army Special in general, was intended for .41 Colt Cartridge, and, was overbuilt for occasions of it being chambered for the .38 Special Cartridge.


Part of my interest in it for this possible project, is that if the same Alloy were used in it's Cylinder, as was used in the greatly thinner walled and smaller diameter Cylinder of the 'Police Positive Special' ( in .38 Special ) then one could expect the Cylinder of the Army Special to be however much stronger, than the Cylinder of a Police Positive Special, in instances of their boith chambering the .38 Special Cartridge.


Hence, whatever .38 Special "Proof Loads' ( and, do we know what those were then? 1.5, or, 2 times the normal pressure? ) were, is only slightly relevent, since the Cylinder was overbuilt for the loading in the first place by vitrue of it's thicker Walls.


18,000 PSI x 2, would be 36,000 PSI, which is .38 Super Territory, or, .357 Magnum Territory.

1.5 x 18,000 PSI, is, as you relay, just a little over that of the .38 ACP, with it's attributed 'SAAMI' of 26,000 PSI.


So, one-and-a-half times the pressure of .38 Special, in a Cylinder whose perimter Walls, at their thinnest point, are likely twice the section/thickness of the smaller Frame Revolvers, chambering .38 Special...all else Alloy wise, being equal.

To me, if naively, this seems like a kind of 'grey' area then....like a 'Maybe might handle it, not-sure, maybe no' sort of area...it is 'grey' seeming to me, in that way.



Wherein, in the Army Special, the larger Cylinder Bores which would accompany a .41 Colt Chambering, and, which had obliged the .41 Colt Cartridge Proof Load, would be, well, "thinner" than they are in the .38 Special chambering, whatever the Proof Loads were for the .41 Colt Cartridge were.


Some thoughts anyway...far as that goes...

 

[Oyeboten]

Hi VA27,


Ye'd said -

1. Buy a Colt Python.

2. Send it, along with a cubic yard of US dollars to Hamilton Bowen and ask him to make it look like an Army Special and chamber it for 38ACP with moon or half-moon clips.

I say this because I've seen pix of an S&W I-frame that he made to look like a 1917 and chambered it in 25ACP and made half-moon clips to go with it.

Problem solved.

That is actually a very creative idea.


If I were to have a candidate PYTHON to do it with, I would go right to the .38 Super then.


Possibly there is no way to do what I had wanted, or, not as simply and purely, as I had wanted.


No matter how it all ends up, it has been fun to think about, and, useful to my education in general, to have discussed.


I had read somewhere, that Elmer Keith used to use 5 Grains of 'UNIQUE' under various 200 + Grain Bullets, in various of the Colt DA Mid Frame .41 Colt Revolvers...but, I have not tried to calculate what pressures one would expect from that.

 

[goon]

You happen to know the operating pressure of the .41 Colt though? It started as a BP round, but the .38 Special began from the beginning as a smokeless round developed from the older .38 rounds. So I'm just wondering if the .41 ran at a lower pressure.
Bear in mind, I really have no metallurgy knowledge at all and only about enough with the Colt Army Special, Police Positive, etc to be able to know that I was looking at one of them if I happen on to it at a gun show. So basically, I'm just slinging out any concerns I'd have off the top of my head.

Also, weren't there Army models made in .38 Long Colt? I know that some of them, in spite of their age and wearing the Colt logo, are practically worthless on the used market (but I am unsure of the exact model designation). I don't know if the frame could handle being converted to .38 ACP, but if you could get the gun for around $100 anyhow, then have it rebarreled and new cylinder made, it might work out to be cost effective for what you're thinking of.

 

[Old Fuff]

Colt's model 1892 New Model Army/Navy was made in .41 Colt and .38 Long Colt, but it should not play any part in this discussion. The Army Special was offered in .32-20, .38 Special and .41 Colt.

I will again point out that the revolver called the Army Special was manufactured from 1908 to about 1969, but after 1927 the name was changed to Official Police because the military services, having adopted a .45 pistol in 1911 were no longer interested in .38 revolvers.

During the middle/later 1930's Colt rated the Official Police as being able to use the S&W .38-44 cartridge. Winchester offered it in two versions, one with a 150 grain bullet @ 1175 FPS out of a 5" barrel. At the time the .38 Colt Automatic came with a 130 grain bullet @ 1070 FPS out of a 4 1/2" barrel. The .38 Colt Super Automatic used the same bullet, but the velocity was uped to 1300 FPS out of a 5" barrel.

Looking at the numbers, one might conclude that the .38 Super was a little warm for use in the revolver, but the older and less powerful .38 Colt Automatic shouldn't cause any problems.

Personally I'm not interested in this particular conversion because I don't like bothering with clips, and the performance numbers of the .38 Colt Automatic can be duplicated by any compentent handloader in a Plus-P .38 Special case. However others that feel differently should forget about the pre-1927 Army Special and go to the identical Official Police where Colt used updated materials in its construction.

Concerning the question of earlier use of the .38 Colt Automatic cartridge (and later the .38 Colt Super) - prior to 1917 the necessary clips hadn't been invented yet. During the 1920's S&W conducted experiments using their N-frame as a platform, but didn't move it into production. On a special order basis Colt made a handful of Single Action Army revolvers (that didn't need clips) in .38 Super, but never offered it as a cataloged option. Clearly, at a time when the Great Depression was on and they needed all the business they could get, neither company found any serious interest.

 

[CraigC]

It will be very difficult to find any authorityon the subject who will agree with Colt's recommending .38-44 loads in the Police Positive. Let us not forget that people didn't really shoot much back then. So I'm sure their statements cannot be construed as a free pass to put several thousand .38-44 level loads through one.

 

[CraigC]

Jim Stroh's message board is down but you can email David Clements or call Hamilton Bowen.

http://www.clementscustomguns.com/

http://www.bowenclassicarms.com

 

[Old Fuff]

It will be very difficult to find any authorityon the subject who will agree with Colt's recommending .38-44 loads in the Police Positive. Let us not forget that people didn't really shoot much back then. So I'm sure their statements cannot be construed as a free pass to put several thousand .38-44 level loads through one.

I would agree, but the revolver being discussed was the Official Police, not the Police Positive, or more correctly the Police Positive Special.

 

[Oyeboten]

Thanks for those mentions Old Fuff!


Of course, my idea, originally, and still, is to have something Colt could have made 80 or 90 years ago, using a Revolver of that time, thus being a Romatnic notion and integrity in essence, with it's practicality happening to be just fine and very appealing to me, also.


I'd forgotten about the Colt claim and and or their published Advertisments at the time, regarding the use of the .38-44 Cartridge in the Mid Frame Colts - or, in the Official Police, anyway, specifically - inj the 1930s.


Indeed, those Cartridges would likely have exceeded the pressures of the .38 ACP Cartridge by quite a bit, if not by mnore than quite-a-bit, and were as you relay, much more powerful. Those were .357 Magnum Territory, or, .38 Super Territory.


Granted, as you remind, anyone familar and comptetent, can re-Load .38 Special to whatever power their Revolver can tolerate, but, of course, that is not my motive or reason.


I always admired and liked the .38 ACP Cartridge, and, always loved and admired old Colts, and, I really like full Moon clips...so...


To have all of these in one package, is such a nice thought, as well as that I have long felt that Colt ought to have offered this arrangement for various sizes of their Revolvers, soon as the Moon Clip idea had been prooved.


Thanks also for the clearifications on the succession of names, regarding the Army Special, and, the Official Police.



Do you think the Metalurgy was in fact any different in the latter, from the former?


If so, I will take that to heart, even though the latter of course came out right about the same time as the .38 Super, which kind of puts things into a new and different era then, far as my .38 ACP Romance goes...

 

[Oyeboten]

Thanks Craig C!


My Coffee Break draws to a close, then, back-to-work for me.

I think after the Christmas harries have passed, I will make some of these Calls.



Thanks everyone for your input and ideas and creativity on this!


I have realy enjoyed this discussion, and, having some conversation and wisdom and earnest concern as well, offered to me toward evaluating my idea and possible project.

 

[Jim Watson]

I looked around on H. Bowen's website.
He altered a Ruger Redhawk to look like a 1917. It was still obviously a Ruger but the tapered round barrel, hogwallow fixed sight, and lanyard loop was strictly WW I era. What Ruger would have made on the 1917 contract alongside Colt and Smith if they had been in business at the time.
So he could certainly make a Python or Trooper look like an Army Special if you didn't mind throwing money at the job.
(I saw somewhere a picture of an Anaconda remodeled to look like a New Service, although apparently not by Bowen.)

For some weird reason, he made it in caliber .50 AE.
Moon clips for the caliber and frame size would have to be specially made. Not a big item on a job of that size, but for something less elaborate it will be a big percentage of the project cost. Unless you get lucky and an L Smith clip fits a Colt cylinder. I know you can somewhat interchange Python and 686 speedloaders but clips don't have much slop.

 

[Old Fuff]

Do you think the Metalurgy was in fact any different in the latter, from the former? (Army Special vs. Official Police).

Unquestionably, especially those Official Police revolvers made between 1950 and 1969. Both Smith & Wesson and Colt's used the latest in high-carbon steel alloys as time passed.

 

[Oyeboten]

Hi Old Fuff, all...


As far as the idea central to my interest...I could abide a later Cylinder, in an earlier Frame.


But, I could not abide a later Gun...or, trying to make a later Gun look like an earlier one.