practical purpose for .38 spl guns gone....
- Thread starter JERRYS.
- Start date
Yeah, I see your point, how could I be so callous of other's feelings to simply spell out the way the name appears on the label of 1931 ammunition for that round. What was I thinking?? 
I am sorry, I suppose that's almost as rude as showing a picture of an ammo box that the maker labeled ".45 Long Colt".
I am sorry, I suppose that's almost as rude as showing a picture of an ammo box that the maker labeled ".45 Long Colt".
HighValleyRanch
New member
I'm positive that Mr. Wright knows more about revolver history I ever will, but I've always thought, and many, many others think of the term .38/44 as referring to the more powerful Keith loads developed for the Smith N frame models as shown in their early catalogs. Even Colt advertised their Colt Official police as being able to handle the 38/44 loads. In those days this was similar to our present day "Ruger Only" loads.
And when you google 38/44 You will find tons of people referring to this as the the old hot .38 special loads, not that antiquated 1892 target load in Bobs photo.
From Wikipedia:
"In response, Smith & Wesson introduced the large frame .38/44 Heavy Duty in 1930. It was based on the .44 Special Smith & Wesson Triple Lock revolver and was made with a 5-inch (13 cm) barrel and fixed sights.[3][4] The following year, Smith & Wesson began production of the .38/44 Outdoorsman with a 6.5-inch (17 cm) barrel and adjustable sights.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_.38/44
http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/461365-38-44-load-developement-s.html
FWIW, I believe the Buffalobore Outdoorsman to be the equivalent of that famous old load, yielding 1177 fps with 158 HC from a 4" barrel
"Elmer Keith, though a confirmed big bore sixgunner by this time, also was a fan of the .38/44 and soon developed what was to become known as the .38 Keith load. Using a bullet he designed, Lyman's #358429, a long nosed semi-wadcutter of 168 grains, and 13.5 grains of the then relatively new #2400 powder, he basically came up with the Magnum that was soon to follow. This load, in the +++P category, does 1450 fps from a long barrelled sixgun and is too hot for any .38 Special being made today. It is only for use in heavy-framed .38 Specials such as the .38/44 Heavy Duty, Colt New Service, and Colt Single Action Army."
http://www.sixguns.com/range/Mademag.htm
And when you google 38/44 You will find tons of people referring to this as the the old hot .38 special loads, not that antiquated 1892 target load in Bobs photo.
From Wikipedia:
"In response, Smith & Wesson introduced the large frame .38/44 Heavy Duty in 1930. It was based on the .44 Special Smith & Wesson Triple Lock revolver and was made with a 5-inch (13 cm) barrel and fixed sights.[3][4] The following year, Smith & Wesson began production of the .38/44 Outdoorsman with a 6.5-inch (17 cm) barrel and adjustable sights.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_.38/44
http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/461365-38-44-load-developement-s.html
FWIW, I believe the Buffalobore Outdoorsman to be the equivalent of that famous old load, yielding 1177 fps with 158 HC from a 4" barrel
"Elmer Keith, though a confirmed big bore sixgunner by this time, also was a fan of the .38/44 and soon developed what was to become known as the .38 Keith load. Using a bullet he designed, Lyman's #358429, a long nosed semi-wadcutter of 168 grains, and 13.5 grains of the then relatively new #2400 powder, he basically came up with the Magnum that was soon to follow. This load, in the +++P category, does 1450 fps from a long barrelled sixgun and is too hot for any .38 Special being made today. It is only for use in heavy-framed .38 Specials such as the .38/44 Heavy Duty, Colt New Service, and Colt Single Action Army."
http://www.sixguns.com/range/Mademag.htm
Bob Wright
New member
As a matter of fact, the designation ".38/44" or ".38-44" means the exact same thing in both cases:
The original .38/44 indicated it was a (nominal) .38 caliber cartridge intended for the .44 Framed revolver, in this case the S&W No. 3 top break.
The later round was the same thing: a (nominal) caliber cartridge intended for use in the heavier .44 Framed revolver, in this case the .38/44 Heavy Duty and .38/44 Outdoorsman.
Bob Wright
The original .38/44 indicated it was a (nominal) .38 caliber cartridge intended for the .44 Framed revolver, in this case the S&W No. 3 top break.
The later round was the same thing: a (nominal) caliber cartridge intended for use in the heavier .44 Framed revolver, in this case the .38/44 Heavy Duty and .38/44 Outdoorsman.
Bob Wright
Mike Irwin
Staff
'I'm positive that Mr. Wright knows more about revolver history I ever will, but I've always thought, and many, many others think of the term .38/44 as referring to the more powerful Keith loads developed for the Smith N frame models as shown in their early catalogs. Even Colt advertised their Colt Official police as being able to handle the 38/44 loads. In those days this was similar to our present day "Ruger Only" loads.'
Except that Smith & Wesson never advertised their round as having been developed by Keith. Keith certainly wrote about the uploaded rounds he worked on, but his association with them didn't really become commonly known until well after World War II.
Except that Smith & Wesson never advertised their round as having been developed by Keith. Keith certainly wrote about the uploaded rounds he worked on, but his association with them didn't really become commonly known until well after World War II.
If 38 only guns were more available I would buy them. The 38 will do about all I want from a revolver. And I am not talking about snubbies. I am talking about 4"-6" barreled guns. But the only new made 38s I can afford come from Taurus. And they are good guns in most cases. S&W also offers new made 38 only guns but I can't justify $700+ plus for any new handgun. Not when the world is full of used ones for around half the price.
As for cleaning the carbon ring from shooting 38s in a 357 I stuff a wad of paper towel or cotton ball in that area of the chamber and soak it with WD-40 or the Walmart equivalent spray and leave it for a few hours or over night with the gun barrel down. That softens the fouling so it can be brushed out without any real heavy duty methods needed.
But I also don't let cleaning a gun get ahead of me either. They are cleaned when I get home if a box or more was fired or at least get a light spray and cleaned later. But they are not stored for weeks or months with a dirty chamber.
As for cleaning the carbon ring from shooting 38s in a 357 I stuff a wad of paper towel or cotton ball in that area of the chamber and soak it with WD-40 or the Walmart equivalent spray and leave it for a few hours or over night with the gun barrel down. That softens the fouling so it can be brushed out without any real heavy duty methods needed.
But I also don't let cleaning a gun get ahead of me either. They are cleaned when I get home if a box or more was fired or at least get a light spray and cleaned later. But they are not stored for weeks or months with a dirty chamber.
?? Your impressed by your own skills of debate
What is the purpose of building a more expensive, and often heavier firearm, than the cartridge most users will fire from it?
You ignoring cost, outside of the scandium guns weight, according to some accuracy when firing a 38 from a 357, disallowance where competition mandates .38, and various other points brought up
I suppose, if you disregard every counter premise given, you could argue your point was still as valid as when the six pages started.
What is the purpose of building a more expensive, and often heavier firearm, than the cartridge most users will fire from it?
You ignoring cost, outside of the scandium guns weight, according to some accuracy when firing a 38 from a 357, disallowance where competition mandates .38, and various other points brought up
I suppose, if you disregard every counter premise given, you could argue your point was still as valid as when the six pages started.
Bob Wright
New member
I reckon I'm too simplistic in my outlook ~ if you want a .38 Special, buy a .38 Special. If you want a .44 Special, buy a .44 Special. (Or have one built.)
I quit worryrin' about things like that over forty years ago.
Bob Wright
I quit worryrin' about things like that over forty years ago.
Bob Wright
the 38 special only gun is..... except for cost which now I see is a big factor for many because so few 357s are priced close to their 38 counterpart.
A totally practical way to look at it is that people buy the gun they want because it's in the caliber they want.
If someone is looking for a 357 but doesn't want to pay very much, they make them. Many Taurus 357 revolvers cost less than a S&W 38 special. In fact, Taurus sells 38s and 357s at virtually the same price.
https://grabagun.com/taurus-856b2-model-856-revolver.html
https://grabagun.com/taurus-605-357mg-2-bl-fs-5rd.html
Maybe some people, jerrys, in your mind, feel they are 'forced' to buy something other than what they want. That doesn't compute. Certainly not to me. In my experience of buying guns for 40+ years, I've never felt like I bought something I didn't want. Have you?
The 38 Special is entirely practical and capable to do a lot all by itself. It's fine for self defense. It's fine for small game. It's fine for casual shooting. It's fine for super-accurate target shooting. Some folks don't feel the need for anything more powerful than that. Can't see why you might be imposing your way of thinking on everybody on the planet.
If there was no market for people to buy a mere 38 Special, manufacturers wouldn't make them. But they do. And people buy tons of them in snubby form just for self defense. That's why there are so many manufacturers that make them and in so many different models. That, in itself, contradicts what you believe. If you can't accept that, that's your problem.
If someone is looking for a 357 but doesn't want to pay very much, they make them. Many Taurus 357 revolvers cost less than a S&W 38 special. In fact, Taurus sells 38s and 357s at virtually the same price.
https://grabagun.com/taurus-856b2-model-856-revolver.html
https://grabagun.com/taurus-605-357mg-2-bl-fs-5rd.html
Maybe some people, jerrys, in your mind, feel they are 'forced' to buy something other than what they want. That doesn't compute. Certainly not to me. In my experience of buying guns for 40+ years, I've never felt like I bought something I didn't want. Have you?
The 38 Special is entirely practical and capable to do a lot all by itself. It's fine for self defense. It's fine for small game. It's fine for casual shooting. It's fine for super-accurate target shooting. Some folks don't feel the need for anything more powerful than that. Can't see why you might be imposing your way of thinking on everybody on the planet.
If there was no market for people to buy a mere 38 Special, manufacturers wouldn't make them. But they do. And people buy tons of them in snubby form just for self defense. That's why there are so many manufacturers that make them and in so many different models. That, in itself, contradicts what you believe. If you can't accept that, that's your problem.
buy and shoot all the 38 special ammo you want. I never said differently. my question is why do so in a gun that can only shoot that round when you can get one that shoots both it and 357? this is along the lines of the .223 vs. the 5.56 in a way. can you find a currently manufactured .223 only chambered gun?
When you say it is "just cost", you are missing the bigger picture.
Guns can be very cheap and guns can be very expensive. In the middle is a range of products where for a given caliber you tend to "get what you pay for".
I buy guns that have the right combination of cost, performance, durability and service reputation for the maker.
I had no problem buying a well made 38 Sp that I was confident would last a lifetime and that fit my cost point. The gun performs as expected and does what I want it to.
I considered paying a little more and getting a 357. I decided that my 357 choices would have been lower quality and/or questionable for durability. For my needs, I would have spent more and gotten a gun the does a worse job of meeting my standards.
Guns can be very cheap and guns can be very expensive. In the middle is a range of products where for a given caliber you tend to "get what you pay for".
I buy guns that have the right combination of cost, performance, durability and service reputation for the maker.
I had no problem buying a well made 38 Sp that I was confident would last a lifetime and that fit my cost point. The gun performs as expected and does what I want it to.
I considered paying a little more and getting a 357. I decided that my 357 choices would have been lower quality and/or questionable for durability. For my needs, I would have spent more and gotten a gun the does a worse job of meeting my standards.
Last edited:
Yup. Lots of them. Ruger, Remington, Browning, Savage, Weatherby, and more I'm sure.
wow, I learned something new. I figured they stopped making .223 only guns in favor of the 5.56 or .223 wylde.
Really? If you ever go looking for a 5.56mm-chambered bolt action rifle, it becomes clear fast that your choices are fairly limited.
The thing is, there are still plenty of practical reasons to buy a .38 Special only revolver versus a .357 Magnum chambered one. All we've learned in 6 pages is that those reasons don't apply to you. Which is OK, this is why manufacturers offer so many options.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk