S&W .38-44 Heavy Duty

[L Ross]

I've always like the look of N frames and have owned a few. Two 28's, two 29's, and a 57. All gone, just too big and heavy for belt carry for a guy my size. Oh, I almost forgot. There is a 1938 Brazilian .45 acp/auto rim still lolly gagging around a safe. Also under the category of too big to carry is a long barreled New Service in .38 w.c.f. Maybe if I'd find myself a Mountiesque Sam Brown flap holstered, oh who am I kidding? If I'm gonna carry a belt gun it had better be pretty unobtrusive and not so precious that if the grips get scratched or some other mishap befalls it the amount of tears will be minimal.

Nothing wrong with nostalgia and I'm sure there are some strappin' big fellas that can stick an N frame in an inside the waist band or pancake rig and wear it all day, but not me. If I feel the need for a 160 grain SWC at 1,200 fps I can just tolerate my late 1950's Ruger flat top 4 5/8". If I get a chance at some varmint up on the ridge my ears will ring extra loud for two days with that. Plus I'd not want to scratch that up or worse chip a grip. Otherwise it's a 3" Model 60 in stainless with Ed's full wadcutter load for work-a-day packin' with rubber grips.

That hard chromed .38-44 looks like a true workin' gun. How's the sight picture Ric? A man could get near .357 performance out of dirt common .38 spl brass and not worry about a crud ring in the longer chamber of a .357.

 

[StrawHat]

I have a 38/44 Heavy Duty from 1950.



As you can tell, I prefer smooth elk and a grip adapter. The load I use is the one that Skeeter Skelton wrote about.

Yes, the loads used in these were stout. These are the models used by Phil Sharpe and others to develop the 357 Magnum. Many of these revolvers had the chambers lengthened to “create” magnum revolvers when they were hard to find. There is a lot of steel in a 38 caliber, N frame cylinder.

 

[RicinYakima]

Actually not bad except shooting directly away from the sun. The shadow box around rear sight notch is fine and the texture of the finish is ok as long as it isn’t white paper on the front.

 

[L Ross]

I have a 38/44 Heavy Duty from 1950.

View attachment 26628

As you can tell, I prefer smooth elk and a grip adapter. The load I use is the one that Skeeter Skelton wrote about.

Yes, the loads used in these were stout. These are the models used by Phil Sharpe and others to develop the 357 Magnum. Many of these revolvers had the chambers lengthened to “create” magnum revolvers when they were hard to find. There is a lot of steel in a 38 caliber, N frame cylinder.

Oh boy oh boy.

 

[Bret4207]

Weight, yup. An N frame can get heavy, 'specially if it's hanging off a standard jean type belt. But, a 4" M28 weighs about 41 oz and a 5"1911 weighs about 38-39. No one ever complains about the 1911 being too heavy. Funny how that works. In either case, a good belt helps.

 

[StrawHat]

Weight, yup. An N frame can get heavy, 'specially if it's hanging off a standard jean type belt. But, a 4" M28 weighs about 41 oz and a 5"1911 weighs about 38-39. No one ever complains about the 1911 being too heavy. Funny how that works. In either case, a good belt helps.

That is why I prefer my N frames to be chambered in 45 ACP, much bigger holes equals less metal, therefore less weight.

These weights are all for 4” barrels and rounded grip frame.

Model 1917 35.6 ounces

Models 22-4, 625-6 and custom 28-2 38 ounces

Model 25-2 39.2 ounces

 

[Petrol & Powder]

That is why I prefer my N frames to be chambered in 45 ACP, much bigger holes equals less metal, therefore less weight.

These weights are all for 4” barrels and rounded grip frame.

Model 1917 35.6 ounces

Models 22-4, 625-6 and custom 28-2 38 ounces

Model 25-2 39.2 ounces

YEP !

Those little 38/357 chambers in that big N-frame cylinder leave a lot of steel in that cylinder.
It's strong but the price you pay is weight.

 

[JustJim]

The barrel on the 28 had been shortened. There was a local gunsmith who would shorten the barrel, install a King ramp, then put in whatever a guy wanted for a blade. He did nice work, and I like the 5" barrels on 27s/28s, but this condition on this one made it a $750 gun at best. Mechanically good, but between holster wear and what looked like glove-box rash, it needed help.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

The barrel on the 28 had been shortened. There was a local gunsmith who would shorten the barrel, install a King ramp, then put in whatever a guy wanted for a blade. He did nice work, and I like the 5" barrels on 27s/28s, but this condition on this one made it a $750 gun at best. Mechanically good, but between holster wear and what looked like glove-box rash, it needed help.

I think you were right to pass on that one at $1000.

 

[oscarflytyer]

That is why I prefer my N frames to be chambered in 45 ACP, much bigger holes equals less metal, therefore less weight.

These weights are all for 4” barrels and rounded grip frame.

Model 1917 35.6 ounces

Models 22-4, 625-6 and custom 28-2 38 ounces

Model 25-2 39.2 ounces

Not carried - yet - but love the 624 and 21-4. 624 is 6 1/2 - heavier. 21-4 is sweet. And, the 1917 45 ACP is very nice indeed. Only one that might be cumbersome to carry is the long 624. And expect the 38/44 is heavier with more mass in the cylinder, but...

 

[Bret4207]

That is why I prefer my N frames to be chambered in 45 ACP, much bigger holes equals less metal, therefore less weight.

These weights are all for 4” barrels and rounded grip frame.

Model 1917 35.6 ounces

Models 22-4, 625-6 and custom 28-2 38 ounces

Model 25-2 39.2 ounces

Not to be contrary, but when you add in the ammunition the numbers get muddled. Looking at just standard bullet weights 6 rounds of 38x158grs= 948 gr, 6x230grs=1380 so, the 45 ammo is going run an ounce more than the 38 ammo. So taking the 2 models you mention that I think are most similar in barrel profile, you're adding 3.12 oz to the 22-4 for 41.1 oz and 2.16 oz to the 28 for 40.1 oz. Then there's brass and powder variations, are you using 45acp brass or 45AR, 38 or 357, 2.3 gr of BE or 15 of 2400, etc. In the end, I think it's a wash unless you can find an N frame 38 with a barrel length and profile like the '17's in which case you are still down to an oz or 2 difference. Your holster can make the difference up in either direction.

This is cutting things pretty fine IMO. I wore a gun belt with a buncha stuff hanging off it 8-16 or more hours a day for 20+ years. I have a knot of cartilage or muscle or something right under where the holster loop sat to this day. I get the idea of lighter is better, and I love 45's as much as 38's, but there are variables that can wash out any advantage one way or the other.

 

[StrawHat]

Not to be contrary, but when you add in the ammunition the numbers get muddled. Looking at just standard bullet weights 6 rounds of 38x158grs= 948 gr, 6x230grs=1380 so, the 45 ammo is going run an ounce more than the 38 ammo. So taking the 2 models you mention that I think are most similar in barrel profile, you're adding 3.12 oz to the 22-4 for 41.1 oz and 2.16 oz to the 28 for 40.1 oz. Then there's brass and powder variations, are you using 45acp brass or 45AR, 38 or 357, 2.3 gr of BE or 15 of 2400, etc. In the end, I think it's a wash unless you can find an N frame 38 with a barrel length and profile like the '17's in which case you are still down to an oz or 2 difference. Your holster can make the difference up in either direction.

This is cutting things pretty fine IMO. I wore a gun belt with a buncha stuff hanging off it 8-16 or more hours a day for 20+ years. I have a knot of cartilage or muscle or something right under where the holster loop sat to this day. I get the idea of lighter is better, and I love 45's as much as 38's, but there are variables that can wash out any advantage one way or the other.

I like contrary! You make a good point. I was comparing the weights of my ACP revolvers to the 1911, all unloaded. When I get back from this business trip, I will weigh them with loads in them. I carry 230 grain loads of some flavor but for simplicity will use 230 grain Hard Ball for the comparison.

I do have a 5” Heavy Duty I can compare to the 5 1/2” Model 1917.

I do not have a 36 caliber N frame with a four inch barrel, maybe someone can weigh one of theirs?

Stay tuned for the results!

As for leather and etc making up the differences, since I only carry the 4” N frames, I can limit them to one of my holsters. My ammo is between 230 and 240 grain bullets but again can restrict it to one choice for the purpose of testing.

Kevin

 

[StrawHat]

I have a 38/44 Heavy Duty from 1950.

View attachment 26628

As you can tell, I prefer smooth elk and a grip adapter. The load I use is the one that Skeeter Skelton wrote about.

Yes, the loads used in these were stout. These are the models used by Phil Sharpe and others to develop the 357 Magnum. Many of these revolvers had the chambers lengthened to “create” magnum revolvers when they were hard to find. There is a lot of steel in a 38 caliber, N frame cylinder.

Well, nuts! I put up the wrong image! That is my edc, Model 22-4.

Let’s see if I can find the Heavy Duty. Here is how it came to me.



As I prefer it to be stocked.



Kevin

 

[oscarflytyer]

Another load question for the 38/44. Anyone ever try a 200 grn load? I have the mold for the 38-200 (Brit 38 S&W load). Never any desire try in a std 38, but wondering about it in the 38/44.

 

[RBHarter]

The 1911 will get a half to 1-1/2 oz handicap loaded for the extra 1,2,or 3 rounds depending on mags and loading . 7-8+1 . 6 or 6+1 in a special compact vs 5-6 . Might even save a little more by using AR in the 1917 or M25 .

 

[RicinYakima]

Another load question for the 38/44. Anyone ever try a 200 grn load? I have the mold for the 38-200 (Brit 38 S&W load). Never any desire try in a std 38, but wondering about it in the 38/44.

Used 200’s in standard, HD and 357’s. They hit very high with fixed sights; 20% heavier and 15% slower. My HD is on at 25 yards with 173’s with 11 hrs 2400 and at 50 yards with 158’s and 12.5 grains.

 

[Bret4207]

I like contrary! You make a good point. I was comparing the weights of my ACP revolvers to the 1911, all unloaded. When I get back from this business trip, I will weigh them with loads in them. I carry 230 grain loads of some flavor but for simplicity will use 230 grain Hard Ball for the comparison.

I do have a 5” Heavy Duty I can compare to the 5 1/2” Model 1917.

I do not have a 36 caliber N frame with a four inch barrel, maybe someone can weigh one of theirs?

Stay tuned for the results!

As for leather and etc making up the differences, since I only carry the 4” N frames, I can limit them to one of my holsters. My ammo is between 230 and 240 grain bullets but again can restrict it to one choice for the purpose of testing.

Kevin

I must have misunderstood. I thought all the guns you listed were 4" with a rounded frame. My bad.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Another load question for the 38/44. Anyone ever try a 200 grn load? I have the mold for the 38-200 (Brit 38 S&W load). Never any desire try in a std 38, but wondering about it in the 38/44.

I've never understood the "heavy for caliber" urge.
Can you do it? - Sure. .......the real question is, Why?

A 200 gr, bullet in a 38/44 will be little different from a 200 gr. bullet in a 357 magnum.
You can push it a little faster than a 200 gr bullet from a 38 Special but you can't gain enough energy to really make the endeavor worthwhile.

Within a given caliber (diameter) the only way to make a bullet heavier is to make it longer (you damn sure can't make it fatter)
What you end up with is a longer, heavier (and therefore SLOWER) bullet. All you are doing is trading velocity for mass.

In any given caliber there will be a "sweet spot" where the weight/velocity/accuracy/terminal performance, are at an acceptable compromise.
You can go a little heavier or a little lighter from that point to gain some advantage in some area but if you stray too far from that optimal weight, there is a price to be paid.

I can put a 110 grain bullet in a 357 mag and make it scream along but it will shed velocity quickly in air and even quicker when it impacts something. Plus it will have very little bearing surface with the rifling in the bore. Muzzle velocity numbers will be impressive but penetrations and accuracy will suffer.
Going in the other direction, I can put a 200 grain bullet in a 357 mag and it may be very accurate and have some decent penetration (at short ranges) but it will drop like a bowling ball when it leaves the muzzle and will start slow and only get slower.

EVERYTHING in physics is a compromise.

You can trade velocity for mass OR mass for velocity
There is no free lunch.

 

[oscarflytyer]

I've never understood the "heavy for caliber" urge.
Can you do it? - Sure. .......the real question is, Why?

1) cause I can
2) cause I will have a 38/44
3) cause I have a 200 grn 38 mold - and lottsa lead to feed it!
4) cause it will be a hoot to shoot bowling pins with at the local range fun comps!
5) cause ain't nobody else on the range has the gun, OR the load, or will be shooting pins with it!

Just cause.

 

[Bret4207]

And because of the nose profile combining with the extra weight gives a completely different terminal impact based on something other than sheer speed. The old 38 "Super Police" load with the 200 gr RFN in 38 S+W and 38 Spec had a good anecdotal reputation for knocking down BG's far better than the standard 145 or 158 gr RN. Penetration is another thing, the 303 Savage 190 gr always had a better rep in that regard than the 150/160/170 gr 30-30, especially in moose country.

And like the man said, 'cuz he can!