I just picked up a S&W 38/44 I had on layaway and I have a question.I knew when I bought it that the cylinder and ratchet had recently been replaced by S&W,but on closer examination I find that they used a .357 Magnum cylinder.I was wondering if it's safe to use .357 Magnum ammunition or should I just stick with .38 specials.
38/44 Heavy Duty
- Thread starter S&W44
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
I'd stick with .38 Spl. loads, or rather mild .357 Mag. loads.
Sure the cylinder has been replaced, but the barrel hasn't. I've seen older S&Ws that have been used as test best for some of CR Sam's awsome loads
D ) that not only have bulged chambers, they also have bulged barrel extensions where the barrel threads into the frame.
Yeah, I know the older ammo developed a lot more pressure than the new flavors, but why run the risk of abusing an older S&W, unless you're as biased against them as I apparent am?
Sure the cylinder has been replaced, but the barrel hasn't. I've seen older S&Ws that have been used as test best for some of CR Sam's awsome loads
D ) that not only have bulged chambers, they also have bulged barrel extensions where the barrel threads into the frame. Yeah, I know the older ammo developed a lot more pressure than the new flavors, but why run the risk of abusing an older S&W, unless you're as biased against them as I apparent am?
Mike Irwin
Staff
I'm not certain, but I don't think a recessed cylinder would work for one of these guns. The original .38/44 HDs didn't have recessed cylinders.
If the repair was done recently, I believe that S&W dumped their remaining stocks of recessed cylinders some years ago to parts jobbers like GPC.
If the repair was done recently, I believe that S&W dumped their remaining stocks of recessed cylinders some years ago to parts jobbers like GPC.
I talked to the gunsmith who sent the gun to S&W yesterday.He's going to contact S&W to find out whether or not it's OK to use the magnum loads in the gun.
The cylinder is not recessed.The only mark I can find on it is a number 2 between the chambers on the rear of the cylinder.
If I find that it's safe for .357,I'll probably just keep the gun as is instead of getting the Bowen conversion.
Thanks for the help,guys.
The cylinder is not recessed.The only mark I can find on it is a number 2 between the chambers on the rear of the cylinder.
If I find that it's safe for .357,I'll probably just keep the gun as is instead of getting the Bowen conversion.
Thanks for the help,guys.
Might be able to use a recessed cylinder in one of the early, long frame, ones......but that would still require refitting the barrel.
S&W44.....does that cylinder have enough length to take full .357 cartridges without the bullets stickin out the front ?
Like to see that one.
Sam
S&W44.....does that cylinder have enough length to take full .357 cartridges without the bullets stickin out the front ?
Like to see that one.
Sam
Radicalcleric
New member
The chambers on that cylinder are not recessed. You can tell from the photo by the gap between rear of cylinder and frame. If this is an actual .357 Magnum cylinder of recent manufacture I don't see why Magnums could not be fired in this gun. As for Mike's barrel warning, this doesn't make any sense to me as the cylinder contains the pressure from firing, not the barrel.
Many of these guns were converted to Magnums by reaming the original cylinders. I don't recommend it, and I wouldn't do it, but I never heard of one being damaged. This is an N frame gun, built for very high pressure .38 Special ammo (about 80-90% of .357 Magnum pressures), and the original .357 magnum was little more than this gun with adjustable sights and some deluxe features.
I think the frame and barrel are plenty strong, and if the cylinder is a new Magnum number, I would shoot .357s if I wanted. S&W will certainly adivise against it for liability reasons. Just like most gun makers warn against using reloaded ammo.
Many of these guns were converted to Magnums by reaming the original cylinders. I don't recommend it, and I wouldn't do it, but I never heard of one being damaged. This is an N frame gun, built for very high pressure .38 Special ammo (about 80-90% of .357 Magnum pressures), and the original .357 magnum was little more than this gun with adjustable sights and some deluxe features.
I think the frame and barrel are plenty strong, and if the cylinder is a new Magnum number, I would shoot .357s if I wanted. S&W will certainly adivise against it for liability reasons. Just like most gun makers warn against using reloaded ammo.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Saxon,
Uh....
The pressure doesn't stop dead at the front of the cylinder.
If it did, there'd be nothing to push the bullet out of the barrel, nor would you high-pressure gas escaping around the cylinder gap.
At the barrel extension pressure is still many thousands of pounds per square inch, and drops progressively as the bullet moves farther down the barrel.
Uh....
The pressure doesn't stop dead at the front of the cylinder.
If it did, there'd be nothing to push the bullet out of the barrel, nor would you high-pressure gas escaping around the cylinder gap.
At the barrel extension pressure is still many thousands of pounds per square inch, and drops progressively as the bullet moves farther down the barrel.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Good point, Sam, I didn't mention that. With a slower burning powder that's normally the case.
Radicalcleric
New member
So, you're saying that the barrels installed on .357 Magnum revolvers are stronger than those put on .38 Special guns? Exactly how is this done? Are all magnum barrels of larger diameter, or are they made of different materials, what's the scoop?
And I still maintain that the cylinder takes the brunt of the expanding forces, not the barrel because some of the pressure is lost in the barrel/cylinder gap. Also, by the time the bullet is in the barrel it is moving pretty fast and accelerating. This means the pressure inside the barrel is escaping much faster as it is pushing the bullet down the bore, and doesn't put nearly as much strain on that part of the gun as it does on the cylinder when the cartridge is first fired since all that energy within the chamber is pushing in all directions and meeting mostly solid resistance from the chamber wall.
Think about it. The powder charge ignites, and there is an instantaneous pressure surge. The bullet is forced from case and jumps across the cylinder gap. Some of the pressure pushing the bullet escapes through the gap. It seems to me that given the pressence of this gap there is no way the pressure within the barrel can even approach that within the cylinder. Then as the bullet moves faster and faster down the bore the area containing this expanding pressure gets larger and larger since as the bullets goes down the barrel it creates an ever-increasing space behind it for the pressure to fill.
Even at double the chamber pressure, I think a barrel that would work for a .38 Special would be OK with a .357 Magnum. I would note that in my own experience I have loaded .38 Special ammo to very near Magnum pressures for use in heavier guns. So far the barrels have not been a problem. Also, in my 34 years of shooting and being around shooters I have never seen or even heard of anyone rupturing a barrel with excessive pressures. I am seen a number of cylinders let go, but never a barrel. As I recall when S&W built the prototype for the M19 in the mid-1950s it used the same barrel as the M15. Bill Jordan and others urged them to go to a heavier barrel to add weight.
Of course, there's one way to find out. I have a Heavy Duty .38 just like the one pictured above. Someone send me a non-recessed cylinder from a late model M27 and I'll slap it in there and give it a go. Assuming it's the same length, of course. I have some loads on hand that should definitely do the barrel in if it's inclined to go.
And I still maintain that the cylinder takes the brunt of the expanding forces, not the barrel because some of the pressure is lost in the barrel/cylinder gap. Also, by the time the bullet is in the barrel it is moving pretty fast and accelerating. This means the pressure inside the barrel is escaping much faster as it is pushing the bullet down the bore, and doesn't put nearly as much strain on that part of the gun as it does on the cylinder when the cartridge is first fired since all that energy within the chamber is pushing in all directions and meeting mostly solid resistance from the chamber wall.
Think about it. The powder charge ignites, and there is an instantaneous pressure surge. The bullet is forced from case and jumps across the cylinder gap. Some of the pressure pushing the bullet escapes through the gap. It seems to me that given the pressence of this gap there is no way the pressure within the barrel can even approach that within the cylinder. Then as the bullet moves faster and faster down the bore the area containing this expanding pressure gets larger and larger since as the bullets goes down the barrel it creates an ever-increasing space behind it for the pressure to fill.
Even at double the chamber pressure, I think a barrel that would work for a .38 Special would be OK with a .357 Magnum. I would note that in my own experience I have loaded .38 Special ammo to very near Magnum pressures for use in heavier guns. So far the barrels have not been a problem. Also, in my 34 years of shooting and being around shooters I have never seen or even heard of anyone rupturing a barrel with excessive pressures. I am seen a number of cylinders let go, but never a barrel. As I recall when S&W built the prototype for the M19 in the mid-1950s it used the same barrel as the M15. Bill Jordan and others urged them to go to a heavier barrel to add weight.
Of course, there's one way to find out. I have a Heavy Duty .38 just like the one pictured above. Someone send me a non-recessed cylinder from a late model M27 and I'll slap it in there and give it a go. Assuming it's the same length, of course. I have some loads on hand that should definitely do the barrel in if it's inclined to go.
Radicalcleric
New member
Just out of curiosity I got out the calipers and a couple of S&W revolvers in .38 Special and .357 Magnum. Guess what folks? All of the K frame guns (two M10s, a M15 and a M19) had the same barrel diameter and thickness no matter which caliber and the same is true for the N frames (M20, Pre-M27). I measured at the rear of the barrels where they extend into the cylinder frame. In theory, this is where the pressure would be the highest and where extra material would be needed if strength were desired.
By the way, on the N frame revolvers the barrels were also the same thickness and diameter at the muzzle. In other words, except for the M27's top rib and adjustable sights the barrels were the same contour and size. The M19 had a heavier barrel that the .38s forward of the frame, but as I noted earlier I think was done to add weight, not strength.
Apparently S&W did not feel the need to use stronger barrels on the .357 Magnum revolvers. I could certainly be wrong, and a .38 Special barrel could be unsafe if .357 Magnums were fired through it, but I doubt it.
By the way, on the N frame revolvers the barrels were also the same thickness and diameter at the muzzle. In other words, except for the M27's top rib and adjustable sights the barrels were the same contour and size. The M19 had a heavier barrel that the .38s forward of the frame, but as I noted earlier I think was done to add weight, not strength.
Apparently S&W did not feel the need to use stronger barrels on the .357 Magnum revolvers. I could certainly be wrong, and a .38 Special barrel could be unsafe if .357 Magnums were fired through it, but I doubt it.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Saxon,
It's all in the heat treating.
Prior to, I think, the late 1960s or early 1970s, the heat treating on the magnums vs. the .38s was VERY different. I don't know if this is the case or not, but someone once told me that prior to the 1950s S&W cylinders for the K-frames in .38 Spl. got no additional heat treating at all. That's why the K-frame .38s were NOT rated to use the .38/44 Heavy Duty .38 Spl. ammo.
So yes, mounting an older .38 Spl. barrel on a .357 Mag. and hammering away could cause problems.
It's all in the heat treating.
Prior to, I think, the late 1960s or early 1970s, the heat treating on the magnums vs. the .38s was VERY different. I don't know if this is the case or not, but someone once told me that prior to the 1950s S&W cylinders for the K-frames in .38 Spl. got no additional heat treating at all. That's why the K-frame .38s were NOT rated to use the .38/44 Heavy Duty .38 Spl. ammo.
So yes, mounting an older .38 Spl. barrel on a .357 Mag. and hammering away could cause problems.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Did you see me refer to rupturing of barrels, Saxon?
No.
"I've seen older S&Ws that have been used as test best for some of CR Sam's awsome loads ( ) that not only have bulged chambers, they also have bulged barrel extensions where the barrel threads into the frame."
That's a significant difference.
Bulging of the cylinders or barrel can happen either from a single, grossly overcharged load, or from repetitive use of loads that work at pressures higher than the gun was engineered to take.
"The original .357 magnum was little more than this gun with adjustable sights and some deluxe features."
You'd be wrong there, too, Saxon. The original .357 Mag. revolvers introduced new, improved heat treating processes designed specifically to deal with the higher pressures generated by the .357 Mag. ammo.
One of the reasons why S&W approached this gun as a specialty item, besides figuring that the general shooting public wouldn't want to spend the extra money (especially during the depression), was because the heat treating took longer, and cost the factory more money.
No.
"I've seen older S&Ws that have been used as test best for some of CR Sam's awsome loads ( ) that not only have bulged chambers, they also have bulged barrel extensions where the barrel threads into the frame."
That's a significant difference.
Bulging of the cylinders or barrel can happen either from a single, grossly overcharged load, or from repetitive use of loads that work at pressures higher than the gun was engineered to take.
"The original .357 magnum was little more than this gun with adjustable sights and some deluxe features."
You'd be wrong there, too, Saxon. The original .357 Mag. revolvers introduced new, improved heat treating processes designed specifically to deal with the higher pressures generated by the .357 Mag. ammo.
One of the reasons why S&W approached this gun as a specialty item, besides figuring that the general shooting public wouldn't want to spend the extra money (especially during the depression), was because the heat treating took longer, and cost the factory more money.
Johnny Guest
Moderator in Memoriam
Maybe this is an Apples and Oranges comparison - - -
-- - - But I saw the result of shooting high pressure loads in an OLD gun a while back.
A young officer was carrying his father's old Colt Army Special (pre-Official Police model) and shot a number of the then-new +P .38 Spl loads in it. He brought the revolver to me and asked if it was still safe to shoot. The rear of the barrel, the part immediately in front of the cylinder, had three or four noticible cracks all the way through. Apparently the forcing cone in THIS gun was still taking a lot of pressure from THIS ammo.
There were some lead deposits in the splits, and, when asked, he said he had backed off and was currently shooting wadcutters in it. I of course advised him to either seek out a new barrel, or to retire that old piece and obtain a newer model. I offered to loan him some money until payday . . . .
I know, the Army Special Colt was an OLD piece, even in the early '70s, but the lesson lingers in my memory.
Best,
Johnny
-- - - But I saw the result of shooting high pressure loads in an OLD gun a while back.
A young officer was carrying his father's old Colt Army Special (pre-Official Police model) and shot a number of the then-new +P .38 Spl loads in it. He brought the revolver to me and asked if it was still safe to shoot. The rear of the barrel, the part immediately in front of the cylinder, had three or four noticible cracks all the way through. Apparently the forcing cone in THIS gun was still taking a lot of pressure from THIS ammo.
There were some lead deposits in the splits, and, when asked, he said he had backed off and was currently shooting wadcutters in it. I of course advised him to either seek out a new barrel, or to retire that old piece and obtain a newer model. I offered to loan him some money until payday . . . .
I know, the Army Special Colt was an OLD piece, even in the early '70s, but the lesson lingers in my memory.
Best,
Johnny
Mike Irwin
Staff
Forcing cone cracks are another symptom of over pressure loads, Johnny.
Often, the force that cracks the forcing cone also bulges the barrel extension (if you're cracking the forcing cone, you're shifting metal around) and bulging the frame.
Often, the force that cracks the forcing cone also bulges the barrel extension (if you're cracking the forcing cone, you're shifting metal around) and bulging the frame.