38 S&W Special Ctg
- Thread starter newman84
- Start date
- Status
Peter M. Eick
New member
Does it look like the bottom one of these? They 38/44 Heavy Duty or as some call it the Pre-model 20.
The picture above is 3 examples of the 38/44 heavy duty post war (1950's) 4". This should give you something to compare to.
It is very important though. Do you see that lug underneath the ejector rod in my pictures? Does yours have that same lug or does it look like this one?
Notice the difference. If it looks like the one above then it is a "Light Lug" 38/44 Heavy Duty 4" and would be one of only 4 known to exist. It is the difference between a 800$ shooting and a $5000 collector.
I collect 38/44, mostly heavy Duty's and 38/44 Outdoorsman's (6.5" barrel and target sighted). The picture above is about 25 guns out of date so you can see I am really into these guns.
Yours with a nickeled finish (if factory original) would be worth in the range of $800 and up depending on condition but the factory did not normally nickle finish the hammer and trigger. If it is refinished with hard chrome, figure $600 and up as a shooter. 38/44's are not common. They are big heavy stout guns that can shoot the 38/44 High Speed round which is a souped up 38 Special tossing a 158 grn bullet at 1150 fps out of a 5" gun. Figure 1100 to 1125 out of your 4". That is near 357 Magnum territory today but it can only be reached by reloading.
They are great guns and very fun to shoot. Try to take care of it and if you post pictures I can give you a better costs estimate.
S&W is correct, your serial number would be about 1956 but at the time it would have been called the 38/44 Heavy Duty and not a model 20. Model 20 came about 2 years later give or take.
By the way, nice gun. I am quite fond of them but I don't do nickeled.
carguychris
New member
A couple of minor additional notes...
It's a commonplace revolver n00b mistake to measure a S&W barrel from the muzzle to the frame interface, which will cause the measurement to come up ~1/2"-1" short. The gun's barrel may be a 5-incher like the middle gun in Peter M. Eick's top photo.
Lastly, to get a good idea of this gun's relative rarity, examine the 1950s production volumes for C-series K frame and postwar S-series N frame revolvers in this post in the Serial Number thread. Almost every single C-series K frame was a .38 Special Model (or pre-Model) 10, with an average production volume of around 110,000 a year. Conversely, N frame production averaged around 11,800 units per year, and this was divided between .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .44 Special, .44 Magnum, and .45 ACP models.
I don't have the source handy, but I seem to recall reading that M10's outsold M20's by about a 20:1 ratio immediately after the war, and this ratio was around 100:1 by the early 1960s when the M20 was (understandably) dropped.
FWIW the correct way to measure a revolver barrel is from the muzzle to the cylinder face.newman84 said:
It's a commonplace revolver n00b mistake to measure a S&W barrel from the muzzle to the frame interface, which will cause the measurement to come up ~1/2"-1" short. The gun's barrel may be a 5-incher like the middle gun in Peter M. Eick's top photo.
Lastly, to get a good idea of this gun's relative rarity, examine the 1950s production volumes for C-series K frame and postwar S-series N frame revolvers in this post in the Serial Number thread. Almost every single C-series K frame was a .38 Special Model (or pre-Model) 10, with an average production volume of around 110,000 a year. Conversely, N frame production averaged around 11,800 units per year, and this was divided between .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .44 Special, .44 Magnum, and .45 ACP models.
I don't have the source handy, but I seem to recall reading that M10's outsold M20's by about a 20:1 ratio immediately after the war, and this ratio was around 100:1 by the early 1960s when the M20 was (understandably) dropped.
Last edited:
I had a problem figuring where I went wrong, and finally realized my error. The OP wrote " The serial number on the gun s 1486xx."
I read that "s" as "is" rather than as the "S" prefix of the serial number. Just goes to show that "assume" is a bad word. It also goes to show why pictures are really needed when trying to identify any gun.
Jim
I read that "s" as "is" rather than as the "S" prefix of the serial number. Just goes to show that "assume" is a bad word. It also goes to show why pictures are really needed when trying to identify any gun.
Jim
I made a couple of noob mistakes on this gun search. First off, sorry James K I realized later on that I had not made the serial number clear in my original post. Secondly, I only guessed at the length of the barrel being 4 inches from the muzzle to the frame. I will try to get out to my parents house again soon and try to use their laptop to upload some pictures and even measure the barrel. This is the fourth gun I have researched, as I am new to antique gun information and collecting and I am learning about all the subtle differences in guns. I only knew before that if it shot good, it was a good gun. I thought I got a Japanese Browning a5 12 gauge, until I looked up the serial number and found out that the barrel had been replaced. This has been very interesting to me researching these old guns. Maybe next I will try to find a year for my merridian double barrel 12 gauge, as there is only limited information on the internet as far as merridian guns go, since the were only produced for about 12-13 years. I know it's not worth a lot, but my it was my grandpa's gun .
Mike Irwin
Staff
"This ammo was largely withdrawn from the market after WWII, partially due to safety concerns given its tendency to blow apart older .38 Special revolvers, and partially for marketing reasons- S&W had discovered that buyers would happily pay a lot more for .357 Magnum revolvers that had the same basic capabilities and cost around the same amount to manufacture."
.38/44 spec ammunition was still being offered for sale through at least the late 1950s or even into the 1960s in the case of Remington's Hi-Way Master loads.
Around that time the ammo companies started marketing such ammunition primarily to law enforcement, withdrawing it from the civilian market, and stamping the boxes "Police Only."
A good example is Winchester's US Treasury Loads, which came in plain white boxes with lots of warnings and admonitions. The primary concern appeared to be that they not be used in aluminum framed or cylindered revolvers.
Regarding marketing decisions by S&W... those considerations would not have affected the ammunition manufacturers, who were separate entities from S&W.
Ammo manufacturers continued to provide ammunition as long as there was a viable market for it.
.38/44 spec ammunition was still being offered for sale through at least the late 1950s or even into the 1960s in the case of Remington's Hi-Way Master loads.
Around that time the ammo companies started marketing such ammunition primarily to law enforcement, withdrawing it from the civilian market, and stamping the boxes "Police Only."
A good example is Winchester's US Treasury Loads, which came in plain white boxes with lots of warnings and admonitions. The primary concern appeared to be that they not be used in aluminum framed or cylindered revolvers.
Regarding marketing decisions by S&W... those considerations would not have affected the ammunition manufacturers, who were separate entities from S&W.
Ammo manufacturers continued to provide ammunition as long as there was a viable market for it.
A lot of warnings by the ammo makers has to do with the fact they have no control over what age the guns are that someone is using.
Prior to 1955, I believe, the steel was considered to be a bit weaker than the newer alloys.
No, the older guns wouldn't blow up but they might sustain frame stretching which eventually ruins the guns.
When the .38/44 ammo and then the .357 stuff came along, it was thought prudent to put them in only the biggest, heaviest steeled revolvers.
In the 1950s, Skeeter Skelton wrote that because .357 brass was scarce in his part of the world, he and others would just take .38 brass, add more powder, and not seat the bullet as deeply. In a way, they were recreating the .38/44 load but closer to magnum pressures for their brand new Model 19s or their Model 27s.
Prior to 1955, I believe, the steel was considered to be a bit weaker than the newer alloys.
No, the older guns wouldn't blow up but they might sustain frame stretching which eventually ruins the guns.
When the .38/44 ammo and then the .357 stuff came along, it was thought prudent to put them in only the biggest, heaviest steeled revolvers.
In the 1950s, Skeeter Skelton wrote that because .357 brass was scarce in his part of the world, he and others would just take .38 brass, add more powder, and not seat the bullet as deeply. In a way, they were recreating the .38/44 load but closer to magnum pressures for their brand new Model 19s or their Model 27s.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Yes, yes, and yes.
carguychris
New member
The 1950s to early 1960s were after WWII.Mike Irwin said:
I didn't mean immediately after, I meant sometime after. I actually couldn't recall exactly when it was taken off the civilian market, but I remember having read that its availability was waning through the 1950s. I'm too young to remember it firsthand.
The main point is that .357 Magnum figuratively stole the thunder of the "Hi-Speed" .38 Special loading. AFAIK .357 was the very first so-called Magnum handgun round, and its name and initial exclusivity gave it an aura of superiority that a hot-rod .38 just couldn't match, even if their capabilities weren't that different in reality.
S&W and the ammo manufacturers, being moneymaking businesses, were simply following the money when they gravitated towards .357 Magnum and away from the .38/44. The buyers were willing to pay more while the costs were close to the same, so the manufacturers were understandably eager to go after the higher profits.
What's ironic is that the "super powerful" reputation of the .357 Magnum round would later come back to haunt it among certain big-city political factions, leading to the creation of the more "humane" .38 Special +P+ loads, which were conceptually somewhat of a resurrection of the .38/44.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The 1950s to early 1960s were after WWII."
Yeah, so? My point served to provide more definitive information on the product being discussed. It wasn't an effort to call you out.
"The main point is that .357 Magnum figuratively stole the thunder of the "Hi-Speed" .38 Special loading. AFAIK .357 was the very first so-called Magnum handgun round, and its name and initial exclusivity gave it an aura of superiority that a hot-rod .38 just couldn't match, even if their capabilities weren't that different in reality."
Which really doesn't mean a lot to the ammunition manufacturers. They'll keep supplying a product as long as there's a demand for it and as long as it doesn't kill off too many of their customers. A dead customer isn't a repeat customer, after all.
Even though the .357 Magnum got everyone all hot and lathered up after WW II, there was still a signficant demand for .38 Special ammunition of all stripes.
"S&W and the ammo manufacturers, being moneymaking businesses, were simply following the money when they gravitated towards .357 Magnum and away from the .38/44."
As I noted, it took some of them quite a few years to gravitate away from the .38/44 loads. Why? Because there was still profit to be had in supplying ammunition even though it was dropping in popularity.
The same is as true today as it was in the 1950s, the 1920s, or whenver.
An ammo company may keep a round in production for literally DECADES after it's ceased to be a truly popular round. They might only tool up to make a run once a year, and then warehouse the product for sale through the rest of the year. Doesn't cost them much, if anything, to do that. And in the end, they profit from it.
A good case in point is the .45 Auto Rim. Remington only dropped it from production in 1993.
The .351 Winchester Self Loading is another great example. Winchester stopped making the Model 1907 before World War II.
But they didn't stop offering the ammo until 1988.
Yeah, so? My point served to provide more definitive information on the product being discussed. It wasn't an effort to call you out.
"The main point is that .357 Magnum figuratively stole the thunder of the "Hi-Speed" .38 Special loading. AFAIK .357 was the very first so-called Magnum handgun round, and its name and initial exclusivity gave it an aura of superiority that a hot-rod .38 just couldn't match, even if their capabilities weren't that different in reality."
Which really doesn't mean a lot to the ammunition manufacturers. They'll keep supplying a product as long as there's a demand for it and as long as it doesn't kill off too many of their customers. A dead customer isn't a repeat customer, after all.
Even though the .357 Magnum got everyone all hot and lathered up after WW II, there was still a signficant demand for .38 Special ammunition of all stripes.
"S&W and the ammo manufacturers, being moneymaking businesses, were simply following the money when they gravitated towards .357 Magnum and away from the .38/44."
As I noted, it took some of them quite a few years to gravitate away from the .38/44 loads. Why? Because there was still profit to be had in supplying ammunition even though it was dropping in popularity.
The same is as true today as it was in the 1950s, the 1920s, or whenver.
An ammo company may keep a round in production for literally DECADES after it's ceased to be a truly popular round. They might only tool up to make a run once a year, and then warehouse the product for sale through the rest of the year. Doesn't cost them much, if anything, to do that. And in the end, they profit from it.
A good case in point is the .45 Auto Rim. Remington only dropped it from production in 1993.
The .351 Winchester Self Loading is another great example. Winchester stopped making the Model 1907 before World War II.
But they didn't stop offering the ammo until 1988.
The main reason the .38-44 and similar high speed .38 Special loads continued in use was that police departments, especially city departments, could not justify to their budget people the added expense of .357 Magnum revolvers. If you give the budgeteers a choice between four .38 revolvers and two .357 revolvers, they will choose to arm four cops rather than two every time.
That was the reason for the S&W Highway Patrolman and the Colt ".357"/"Trooper". The guns were still more expensive than .38 Specials, but it was closer to three to two, and that ratio could often be justified.
(The political problems associated with the very word "Magnum" came later.)
Jim
That was the reason for the S&W Highway Patrolman and the Colt ".357"/"Trooper". The guns were still more expensive than .38 Specials, but it was closer to three to two, and that ratio could often be justified.
(The political problems associated with the very word "Magnum" came later.)
Jim
Peter M. Eick
New member
As a 38/44 collector I find your comments interesting.
I would point out that in the post WWII period, or the "transition" period for S&W, less than half a dozen 357 Magnum's were made or at least that is my understanding. But during that same time several thousand 38/44's HD's were made. Mostly 4" and 5" along with some Outdoorsman's made with 357 Magnum barrels.
So if the money was in the 357 Magnum, why did S&W make so many 38/44 Transitional's?
(Unless it was to create a neat market for collector's like me to fight over the rare 6.5" transitional's and search high and low for the Registered Magnum barreled Outdoorsman's....)
One other thought, In my mind, the 38/44 High Speed round was not retired until about 73. I have seen references for police or government agency's being able to buy 38/44's until the SAAMI came out with the +P name for the 38 Special. After that the 38/44 becomes a history lesson. As an aside from another post.
This is real 1940’s vintage 38/44 ammo. It says “.38-44 S.&W. Special” 158 grn Lead bullet. The box says “r266” as the version of the load an it specifically says “specially adapted for the .38-44 Smith and Wesson Special”.
This is the 38/44 ammo that was chrono-ed.
6.5” 1198+ 1057- 141e 1121m 82s
5.0” 1131+ 1002- 129e 1079m 71s
4.0” 1069+ 739- 330e 1010m 103s (one bad round)
I had a bunch of misfires so I was barely able to get my 12 rounds for testing of each. That is why I was stuck with the one bad round on the 4”. I just ran out of decent ammo otherwise I would have voided the round and shot another one. So do I believe that original 38/44 ammo would have done about 1150 fps out of a 6.5” and 1125 fps out of a 5”? Yes. The degradation of the ammo in the last 70 years could explain my results running a bit slow compared to expectations. We are certainly not far outside the range of belief on the commercial of that vintage. Given the number of duds I had in the box, it would be quite believable that 1175 and 1150 are the targets.
I would point out that in the post WWII period, or the "transition" period for S&W, less than half a dozen 357 Magnum's were made or at least that is my understanding. But during that same time several thousand 38/44's HD's were made. Mostly 4" and 5" along with some Outdoorsman's made with 357 Magnum barrels.
So if the money was in the 357 Magnum, why did S&W make so many 38/44 Transitional's?
(Unless it was to create a neat market for collector's like me to fight over the rare 6.5" transitional's and search high and low for the Registered Magnum barreled Outdoorsman's....)
One other thought, In my mind, the 38/44 High Speed round was not retired until about 73. I have seen references for police or government agency's being able to buy 38/44's until the SAAMI came out with the +P name for the 38 Special. After that the 38/44 becomes a history lesson. As an aside from another post.
This is real 1940’s vintage 38/44 ammo. It says “.38-44 S.&W. Special” 158 grn Lead bullet. The box says “r266” as the version of the load an it specifically says “specially adapted for the .38-44 Smith and Wesson Special”.
This is the 38/44 ammo that was chrono-ed.
6.5” 1198+ 1057- 141e 1121m 82s
5.0” 1131+ 1002- 129e 1079m 71s
4.0” 1069+ 739- 330e 1010m 103s (one bad round)
I had a bunch of misfires so I was barely able to get my 12 rounds for testing of each. That is why I was stuck with the one bad round on the 4”. I just ran out of decent ammo otherwise I would have voided the round and shot another one. So do I believe that original 38/44 ammo would have done about 1150 fps out of a 6.5” and 1125 fps out of a 5”? Yes. The degradation of the ammo in the last 70 years could explain my results running a bit slow compared to expectations. We are certainly not far outside the range of belief on the commercial of that vintage. Given the number of duds I had in the box, it would be quite believable that 1175 and 1150 are the targets.
I am unaware of any metallurgical changes in S&W revolvers in or around 1955. I have read that the 357 Combat Magnum cylinders were (quoting a book on S&W) "specially heat treated" (whatever that means) but the Heavy Duty revolvers and other existing models were unchanged as far as I have read.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Steel alloys changed over time as manufacturers improved their knowledge of how to alloy elements like vanadium and molybdenum, as well as increasingly finer testing protocols.
It often simply wasn't a case of OK, it's Tuesday, time to roll out a greatly improved steel alloy and advertise same.
It often simply wasn't a case of OK, it's Tuesday, time to roll out a greatly improved steel alloy and advertise same.
Like any industry, the firearms industry is always evaluating and testing new materials and production techniques. Very often, changes are adopted and implemented with no change of model designation or notice to the public. S&W's "dash number" is (AFAIK) the only time a gun company actually made public relatively minor changes to a model and, even then, not all changes merit a "dash"; mostly it indicates a change that would affect parts interchangeability.
Jim
Jim
- Status