Where is the strength located?

P

Pond James Pond

New member
If you have a .38Spl revolver and a .357 revolver you have a gun with the same bore. Same with .44Spl and .44Mag.

Yet each gun in the mag category will handle far higher pressures than the Spl.

Why?

Where is the strength located in the gun. With a .38Spl and a like-sized .357Mag side by side which components will be the more heavily engineered?

My guess is the cylinder. But what about the barrel?
 
Generally, the cylinder, backstrap, and crane. The barrel "should" be thicker too. However, that isn't always the case. Take, for instance, S&W model 19. It retained the relatively thin barrel of its .38spl parent to the dismay of those who found out the weakness of the forcing cone.
 
Ummm, I think one point is being missed. There are some (many) guns where I believe there is a good chance that almost nothing is different. Let's take for example the Smith & Wesson K-frame models 13 and 10.

The Model 13 is a .357 Magnum and the cylinder is a wee-bit longer and the chambers are cut a bit longer. To accommodate that, the frame is a wee bit longer to make a slightly larger window for the cylinder to fit in.

I've seen no evidence nor suggestion that S&W used any different steel or heat-treated the cylinders any differently. While I certainly realize that it's possible they did do them differently... it really wouldn't make much fiscal sense in streamlined production. It's easier, faster and cheaper to simply make all the (very similar) parts in the same way in any mass production product.

For S&W stainless fans, insert models 64 and 65 in place of 13 and 10.

The old Ruger Police Service/Speed/Security Six revolvers were another example. If I recall correctly, the revolver was designed, built and marketed as a .357 Magnum and when ".38 Special only" versions were offered (typically on a commercial contract), these were the same guns but with chambers cut slightly shorter. This is simple fiscal responsibility in volume manufacturing.

Obviously, not all follow the same way. Guns that first hit the market as a .38 and were later offered in .357 are indeed different... the Ruger LCR immediately comes to mind.
 
If you were possibly considering "converting" a .38spl to a .357mag, then I would advise against it.
 
I believe the frames of the Model 10 and 13 are exactly the same size.
Not sure, but the cylinder MAY be the same size.
The gun is chambered differently.
Many model 10s were rechambered for .357 years ago with no ill effects.
 
I believe the frames of the Model 10 and 13 are exactly the same size.
Not sure, but the cylinder MAY be the same size.
Click to expand...

I measured it once, and the cylinder on my S&W 642 (.38 Special) was actually a hair longer than the cylinder on my Taurus 605 (.357).
 
Never try to make a 357 out of a 38 spl !!
The S&W K-frame 357 was made at a time when police practiced 90 % with 38 spl and carried 357 10 % of the time. That was not a good thing .But trying to practice and carry 357 was too much for the gun --thus the L frame was developed !
 
I measured it once, and the cylinder on my S&W 642 (.38 Special) was actually a hair longer than the cylinder on my Taurus 605 (.357).
Click to expand...

That might be a SAE vs metric thing.

If yours is a recently made .38 642, it might have the same length cylinder as a .357 60. I read that S&W began making them the same size, maybe to avoid possible confusion during manufacturing.

The cylinder on my S&W 60-9 .357 is about 1.594".
I can't measure my 642 because it seems to like living in Springfield, MA these days.
 
Have to be more specific. In some guns there are several differences. In guns like the 38 special GP100, there is no difference. If you compare a model 29 to a Redhawk, there is just about every difference imaginable. If you compare Blackhawks, the difference may be 20 percent in overall size.
 
The Mod. 13 cylinder may be a little longer, but the frame is the same as the 10.
It took S&W about 30 years more to come out with the "L" framed guns, so .357 worked pretty well in the "K" frames!
 
Also the heat treatment! Better heat treatment, better strength.
Click to expand...
Evidently there is a lot I do not understand about metallurgy. Why would a manufacturer not heat treat a gun to the metal's strongest potential without regard whether it is for a .38 Spl. or a .357 Magnum? Wouldn't that heat treatment cost the same? Ask'en for a friend.
 
Why would a manufacturer not heat treat a gun to the metal's strongest potential without regard whether it is for a .38 Spl. or a .357 Magnum?
Click to expand...
Same reason they don't use stronger alloys where it isn't needed. Cost.
 
The S&W K-frame 357 was made at a time when police practiced 90 % with 38 spl and carried 357 10 % of the time. That was not a good thing .
Click to expand...

The US Border Patrol used 357 magnum revolvers from the 1960's into the mid 1990's we had many K frame Smiths with tens of thousands of magnums and guess what we had way more trouble with longevity of Ruger GP100's than we did the Smiths. I bet we sent 10 Rugers in for every Smith.

My personal Model 13-2 has many thousand magnums through it with no ill effects.

A couple guns had problems, the internet makes it sound like every one is just waiting to fail.
 
Evidently there is a lot I do not understand about metallurgy. Why would a manufacturer not heat treat a gun to the metal's strongest potential without regard whether it is for a .38 Spl. or a .357 Magnum? Wouldn't that heat treatment cost the same? Ask'en for a friend.
Click to expand...

Because there is no need for the 357 magnum. I do recall that Ruger treated the cylinder on the 454 Casull Super Redhawk different.
 
I do recall that Ruger treated the cylinder on the 454 Casull Super Redhawk different.
Click to expand...
They used a stronger alloy for it and the 480 version, carpenter custom 465 stainless. Same for the 454 and 480 Bisleys.
 
While I don't make guns, I suspect there is little "heat treating" on most major gun parts.
I'm pretty sure the alloys used are simply tailored for their use. Heat treating is time consuming and adds expense.

The "forcing cone issue" really isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top