Re: reasons for attempting to discharge .380 auto ammo in a .38 (see post below)

E

Etraveller

New member
Re: reasons for attempting to discharge .380 auto ammo in a .38 (see post below)

Hello folks.

With respect to my earlier post below (on the revolver forum page).
Re: Advice and dangers of shooting .380 auto ammunition in a Smith and Wesson Mod 10-5 .38 SPL revolver., thanks for those who gave advice, and the noted criticism with respect to attempting to do such.

I think I need to answer some questions that were asked, make some comments and share some information with you, which is part of what this forum is all about, sharing knowledge and information.

An acquaintance of mine is a firearm examiner, and a .380 auto cartridge was recovered at a scene. It was alleged that one firearm was used, and a suspect firearm was recovered which happened to be a Smith and Wesson Mod 10-5 .38 SPL revolver.

Therefore for court purposes, and otherwise it became necessary for him to test the theory, (with taking into account many variables), the possibility of a .380 auto cartridge being discharged from a .38 revolver. This is possible by using adapters, such as some people wrapping tape etc. around the cartridge, possibly with moon clips etc. But it is also necessary to attempt this without using an adapter.
(I hope that that answers the necessary question).

Now for this particular revolver, the bore of a chamber in the cylinder is not the same diameter throughout. At the end of the chamber, there is a rimmed 'constriction', which someone referred to as the chamber throat.
This I hope answers the question w.r.t. 'the rimmed area' i was referring to.

Obviously to many, a .380 auto cartridge was not designed to be discharged by a .38 Special, due to differences in length, thickness and case dimensions.

So initially the cartridge was chambered, and because the rim of the .380 auto is not wide enough, it would fall a certain distance down the chamber due to the increasing constriction of the chamber.
Therefore unless the firearm is held vertically up, or tilted, the .380 auto would not be pressed against the breechface, and thus could not be fired by a strike of the firing pin.

Now I must mention that all of these tests are conducted with safety equipment, in an enclosed environment, complete with shielding equipment etc. where necessary.

Now the bullet of a typical say 95 grain jacketed .380 auto is smaller but of comparable width to a .38, one of the problems being the length of the .380 auto cartridge in comparison to the .38 cartridge, and thus the possibility of the bullet hitting or richocetting off the chamber throat, and the piossibility of glancing at a greater than normal angle on the forcing cone.

Therefore for safety purposes, initially the bullet and powder were removed, leaving the cartridge case and primer intact.
The case was then inserted and an attempt at discharge was made.
because the rim is not large enough, the .380 auto is not held in place close to the breechface end of the cylinder, and the force exerted by the firing pin causes the case to move up the cylinder without discharge. Therefore it was necessary to use a thin piece of metal to hold the caase in place, which caused the primer to discharge.

The case will hit the breechface, the only factors to consider with increased charge and projectile would be possible splitting of the case, but the gases in any case would move to the sides of the breechface, and not necessarily backward to the shooter.

For court purposes it can become necessary to state if tests were conducted with respect to same.

So, I was just enquiring to advice and dangers, i.e. experience, or any other information that anyone had with respect to attempting to discharge a .380 auto cartridge in a .38.

I am always an advocate for safe handling of arms and ammunition, but it becomes necessary to test theories, gather all variables and make informed decisions with respect to testing certain theories.
Also, when one tests certain theories, one gains valuable information, concerning the reasons WHY things are not done, rather than just saying there's the possibility of X or why occuring.
Its the PROBABILITY that becomes important, and also the dangers of such occuring that one needs to take into consideration.

E.g. the probability of one falling through the floor in a building, how are you so sure it's safe to walk on? Probably because other people have walked on it and tested it? other than qualified people certifying it is safe to walk on and limits and tolerances with respect to weight etc.

Science is my game, and field, I like to know why, and test why.

The only thing i probably should have added other than more clarification is a disclaimer, i.e.

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DISCHARGE .380 AUTO AMMUNITION IN A .38 REVOLVER. ONLY USE AMMUNITION RECOMMENDED FOR A PARTICULAR FIREARM BY THE MANUFACTURER UNLESS QUALIFIED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE TO DO OTHERWISE.

"People perish for a lack of knowledge"...and sometimes literally when using firearms and ammunition :) (double entendre).

BTW that leads to another question:

Has anyone ever seen/experienced the the bursting of the barrel of a firearm, or the cylinder of a revolver, or gas coming back at them from a ruptured primer? I have, seen the effects of a burst barrel, but not firsthand, maybe a bullet jamming in the barrel, and the person tryingto 'shoot it out'.

Peace.
 
Etraveller:
I suggest you ask the moderators to combine this thread with your earlier one.

Otherwise it will continue to collect comments until the end of time.

In fact some folks will comment without even reading your post through.
Just tell the judge it's a crime to put .380 ACP in .38 SPL.:)

Evidence that the .380 did NOT come from the revolver would be the extractor/ejector marks on the rear of .380 brass. Those marks wouldn't be present from the revolver.

Also marks from manual use of an adapter would be evident since the inside of the brass would show marks from manual extraction (i.e. poking a rod though the cylinder or adapter to remove the empty cartridge.

There's even more but in short, the theory is easily disproved without attempting a test fire.

Larry
 
Lancel,

I completely agree with you. I never understood why people would post to a thread when they obviously didn't read the original post to begin with. Apparently it makes sense to them. Nothing kills me more than to see a person start a thread and ask specific questions about a model and make of revolver, but instead of answers they get the "Just but brand X" posts in response. It shows me that those people aren't wishing to help, but to post their preferences. As far as the .380 in a .38 special situation, I can understand the special circumstances and respect the need to do the scientific testing to validate legal evidence. If this forum was filled with more experienced and open minded posters, I think things would have been easier on Etraveller. Good luck and have fun.

.44mag
 
Etraveler,

Some years ago I heard about a person using piece of paper clip to make a "rim" for a semi-auto cartridge to allow it to be fired in a revolver.

THe paper clip was cut, and wrapped around the case in the extractor groove.

This apparently provided just enough rim to allow the case to fire.
 
Now for this particular revolver, the bore of a chamber in the cylinder is not the same diameter throughout. At the end of the chamber, there is a rimmed 'constriction', which someone referred to as the chamber throat.
This I hope answers the question w.r.t. 'the rimmed area' i was referring to.
Click to expand...

That still sounds extremely unusual. The only constriction should be the forcing cone, at the back end of the barrel, and that's going to start out wider than the bullet. Can you provide pictures?
 
If someone did manage to shoot a 380 in a 38 revolver! There should be a ring in the cylinder. The 380 is much shorter. The ring will come from burnt powder. Just like when you shoot 38s in a 357. Then try to chamber and shoot 357s. May be hard to get a 357 round in the cylinder. Even with only one round there will be a ring. Not much of one but there will be one.
 
Now for this particular revolver, the bore of a chamber in the cylinder is not the same diameter throughout. At the end of the chamber, there is a rimmed 'constriction', which someone referred to as the chamber throat.
This I hope answers the question w.r.t. 'the rimmed area' i was referring to.


That still sounds extremely unusual. The only constriction should be the forcing cone, at the back end of the barrel, and that's going to start out wider than the bullet. Can you provide pictures?"

That's not unusual at all.

He's talking about the shoulder that's present in each chamber in the cylinder of virtually ever Smith & Wesson revolver made over the past 100 years.

That shoulder prevents longer cartridges (such as a .357 Mag.) from being inserted, and possibly fired, in a .38 Special. revolver.

Smith & Wesson has been shouldering its chambers at least as early as 1917 when it developed the Model of 1917 revolver for the US military.

My circa 1917 Regulation Police in .32 S&W Long also has shouldered chambers.
 
If he's a certified firearms examiner and can't answer that question on his own then he's definitely not the firearms examiner I'd want on any of my cases. If he's not a certified firearms examiner then I wouldn't use him then either.
 
Probably possible but no so likely.

I'd use a .357 revolver instead of a .38 revolver though. .380 is a higher pressure cartridge than .38 special. Not a lot, but why take the chance. On the other hand, the .357 maximum pressure is a good bit higher than the .380.

The shoulder in the chamber shouldn't make a difference as both the .38 Special and .357 Mag cartridges are quite a bit longer than a .380.

THE TEST USING PRIMERS ONLY MAY LODGE BULLETS IN THE BARREL OR CHAMBER OF THE WEAPON. BE SURE YOU CHECK BOTH CAREFULLY BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO FIRE ANOTHER ROUND AND WHEN THE TESTING IS COMPLETE.


The way I would test it is this:

USING A SAFE BACKSTOP, do the following. PLEASE READ EVERYTHING CAREFULLY AS THIS PROCEDURE CAN RESULT IN A VERY DANGEROUS CONDITION IF IT IS NOT FOLLOWED VERY CAREFULLY.

1. Load a standard .380 ACP round of the same brand and loading and if possible the same lot # into a .357Mag revolver.

2. Point the revolver upward and shake slightly to settle the cartridge against the breechface.

3. Slowly lower the revolver to level, point at the backstop, gently cock the hammer manually and pull the trigger. Do not fire double action as the hammer fall is generally a bit lighter in double action.

4. WAIT FOR AT LEAST 30 SECONDS WITH THE MUZZLE POINTED DOWNRANGE IF THE ROUND DOES NOT FIRE BEFORE REPEATING THE PROCEDURE. This is to ensure that if you get a hangfire (round fires after a delay) that you're still safe.

5. IF A ROUND FIRES, CAREFULLY INSPECT THE CHAMBER AND THE BORE TO INSURE THE BULLET HAS NOT LODGED IN THE BARREL OR CHAMBER. It's not terribly likely but it's worth doing.

6. Repeat this procedure a couple of times with each cartridge and then several times with other cartridges or until you get one to fire.

7. If you can not get one to fire, then find the heaviest bullet .380 load you can find loaded by Federal Ammunition and repeat the above procedure with several rounds. The heavier bullet will keep the round from shifting away from the hammer strike as easily, and Federal Ammunition uses fairly soft primers which may ignite a bit easier.

8. If you still can not get one to fire then try again with another type of revolver--maybe a Ruger GP100 that has not been modified. It might have a strong enough hammer strike to make the primer pop.

Ok, on to the practical issues.

Your suspect MAY have fired a .380 out of a .38 Special revolver but I doubt it for practical reasons.

1. It's rare for a person to unload a revolver on the scene. I just don't see the guy pausing to open the cylinder and eject the spent round so it could be found. Remember revolvers don't automatically eject the empties like autoloaders do.

2. It's not so easy to eject a spent non-rimmed cartridge such as a .380 ACP from a revolver since the ejection mechanism of a revolver depends on a rim for the ejection process. If one used tape or a similar mechanism to jam the cartridge in the chamber that would increase the difficulty of ejecting the empty.

3. As pointed out, the ejection process from a semi-auto will leave distinctive markings on an empty cartridge which should be relatively easily detected. I would start there before doing any of the other stuff I listed.

The test using primers only misses one very important part of the testing. Firing with a normal powder charge causes the case to swell which will make ejection more difficult--especially since the manual ejection mechanism on a revolver won't eject non-rimmed cartridges such as the .380 ACP. That is a very important point since the person evidently unloaded the empty at the scene.
 
As was mentioned, the suspect gun should show evidence of having been fired with a shorter round from powder fouling in the chamber. A 380 round fired (by whatever means) would be noticeably shorter than a 38 spl.

Several years ago a company advertised and sold cylinders for Smith & Wesson revolvers that had spring loaded devices in the extractor star (similar to the Smith & Wesson and Ruger 9mm revolvers) that alowed rimless shells to extract. They advertised that the gun would fire 380 auto, 9mm, 38 spl, and 357 mag rounds safely. Haven't heard of them in several years, they may not have sold many of them. Have you examined the actual gun in question? Maybe it has one of these cylinders, or has been modified in some way? Or just a field expedient method used to fire 380 rounds?

It is possible that your "testing" another gun, even if of same make and model, may not be a good example of whether or not the actual gun in question could have fired the round in question. Chamber sizes vary, even with the same manufacurer. Only way to be 100% sure if that gun would be able to fire that individual cartridge (without modification) is to try that exact gun with that exact fired shell or a live round from the same box, brand or lot of ammo to see if it fit well enough without any help to fire.

I've also heard of people wrapping paper around a shell to get it to withstand the firing pin blow when it didn't fit a chamber.

I doubt anything catastrophic would happen when firing a 380 round, but it certainly would not be likely to be very accurate. The bullet would be a couple thousands undersize for the 38 spl bore, so would not likely build up much pressure. Rifling engraving on the bullet may look strange as a result also. The ridge where the chamber transitions to the chamber throat may cause some inaccuracy, but we have the same issue when firing 38 spl rounds in a 357 chamber. I doubt it would cause any serious problems in light of the cylinders that were mentioned above.

It may also be a ruse on the part of the shooter to throw off investigators, leaving an unrelated empty at the scene, or figuring it may not be conected to his gun even if it was fired in it.

I've shot many rounds in a 1917 revolver with 45 auto rounds, (rimless) without moon clips, the empties came out with a fingernail in the extractor groove unless the gun was real dirty. This to comment on the extraction marks on the empty that may or may not be present on the shell in question. If the shell was fired in the gun, it may not have any extraction marks, pencil inserted through the chamber or otherwise.
 
If the shell was fired in the gun, it may not have any extraction marks, pencil inserted through the chamber or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The key behind interior marks is that unlike a .45 ACP being fired in a cylinder designed for .45 ACP, a .380 case is smaller in both diameter and length than a .38 special.

This means that if someone used an adapter such as tape (as suggested) to build up case diameter to hold the smaller cartridge in the cylinder it would become even tighter after firing. This may require more work to extract thus the possibility of interior marks from a rod.

The point is that there may not be marks but looking requires no effort and if they exist, it's more evidence that the case did not come from a semi-automatic.

Regardless, the recovered brass may not identify a specific weapon but it should easily indicate a mismatch of caliber and family of firearm.

Larry
 
Etraveller
Is this a correct summary?:

Given:
1. A crime was committed
2. "a .380 auto cartridge was recovered at a scene"
3. "suspect firearm ... Smith and Wesson Mod 10-5 .38 SPL revolver."

Prove or disprove:
The specified .38 special revolver was used to fire the recovered .380 ACP cartridge.

Is that essentially correct? Or do you really need to go further into the realm of what's possible and how?

Larry
 
Some test results in discharging .380 auto in a smith & wesson Mod 10-5 .38 SPL

After my friend examined the .38 SPL, he determined it was safe to discharge the .380 auto with the use of a small adapter to ensure the cartridge stayed in place aka nylon thread and another material around the case.


He was well aware of extractor and ejector marks, powder fouling etc. etc. etc.

It was basically an extension of testing a theory to completeness aka discharging a .380 auto in a .38 special and observing the effects thereof.

Thanks for the information, especially from those whose theory was it could not be done or was extremely unsafe to do so.

The information gained by actually conducting the tests however were invaluable, and one thing I can say has been reinforced:

Theory and Practical work do not always coincide with each other 100%.

The proof is in the pudding.
(you can interpret pudding however you like....)

Etraveller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top