• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

I sent this email to S&W

Status
Not open for further replies.

Smaug

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
1,815
Location
SE Wisconsin
Here’s what I sent:

“I noticed you don't have any in your line-up. You have the 60 and 66, which are both 357.


The market is starting to learn that 357 Magnum in a short-barreled revolver doesn't really get us much, except more flash and concussion.


You have plenty of subcompact 2" barreled revolvers, in 357 and 38.


I would like to humbly recommend for your consideration to build a Model 60 Performance Center Edition, but in 38 Special +P and with an Airweight frame to keep it light. It would be easier to handle and hit with than one of the snubby Airlights, would provide significantly superior ballistics and not be too big to concealed carry. As a matter of fact, a 3" 38+P would probably match a 2" 357, but without all the drama associated with 357 Magnum in such a little gun.


While it's true that the 357 version already available can shoot 38s, many of us don't like to do it because it etches the chambers and then 357s are hard to chamber when needed. As a handloader, my solution has been to load 38+P-level cartridges in 357 Magnum cases, but I can't do that for carry ammo due to liability concerns.


******************


One other thing. On fixed sight models, add something to the instruction manual (even a model-specific stuffer sheet) that says what ammo the sights were chosen for. It saves us a lot of money trying to find ammo that shoots to the sights. Even something simple, like: "The fixed sights on this model were developed around the regular 38 Special with 158 lead round nose cartridge at 7 yards."


Thanks for your consideration!”

I got this succinct reply:

“Thank you for contacting Smith & Wesson / Thompson Center.

I would be glad to relay your interest to our Marketing & Product Development department for review.

If you have any other questions please feel free to contact us at …”

I figure they may or may not make a new offering after looking at the market and seeing what a killing Taurus is making on their 3” Model 856.

If not, I feel good because at least I said something to the people who can do something about it instead of just complaining to my buddies here.

Am I wrong, and there just really isn’t a market for a 3” 38? S&W seems to think there’s an endless market for super light 38s and 357 snubbies.
 
I concur

Not a fan of the Ultralights.
Wif had a S&W M60 1 1/2" .38Spl. Awesome Lil chooter. Lost it to a THEIF, hopefully still a ward of the State. Replaced it with a stainless, hammer less SP101 1 1/2" .357. Another Awesome chooter, but the DAO became too much for her arthritis and sold it.

A 3" M36 would be a great option.
 
Few 38 Special loads in a 3" 38 special will match 357 loads in a 2" 357. Those are exceptions, not the rule.

I question the etching of 357 chambers with 38 special ammo. How may rounds does it take? Some people confuse etching with what is simply carbon buildup.

"As a handloader, my solution has been to load 38+P-level cartridges in 357 Magnum cases, but I can't do that for carry ammo due to liability concerns."

It's not that you can't do it. It's that you are not willing to do it.
 
I will say Colt has done surprisingly well with the new .38Spl Cobras, even with a steel frame- which irks me to no end because a "Cobra" should be aluminum......but I digress.
I think the Colts sell more to enthusiasts and the S&W Airweights are the choice of non-gun people who just want a nightstand/carry gun they will shoot seldom (if ever), largely thanks to their lower price.
 
While it's true that the 357 version already available can shoot 38s, many of us don't like to do it because it etches the chambers and then 357s are hard to chamber when needed.
It's highly unlikely that anyone would ever fire enough .38s to cause that. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you do. If your financial situation is such that you can afford enough ammo, even if reloading, to do that then the cost of a new gun should be of little concern
Now to the real question:
You start with a .357 and somehow manage to fire enough .38s through it that it is no longer capable of chambering .357s. It now will only chamber .38s.
How is what have at that point any different than if the gun had left the factory capable of chambering only .38s?

Now, as to the velocity differnce between .357 and .38 from a short barrel.
As a matter of fact, a 3" 38+P would probably match a 2" 357,
Check some ballistic tables:
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/#38spl
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/#357mag

One example of the difference is the Federal 130 grn Hydra-Shok .357 vs the Federal 125 grn Hi-Shock .38 +P. 1175 FPS (2" barrel) vs 926 FPS (4" barrel). Despite the .357 being 4% heavier it's travelling 27% faster from a 2" barrel than the .38 from a 4". Sorry, but a 3" .38 does not match a 2" .357. Even in a 6" the .38 still typically lags behind the 2" .357.
This is just one example but the results are similar for all comparable loads.
 
I love my .38 only Combat Masterpieces.

But that was another time and place. It's just
easier to produce one cylinder/frame window
size (the .357) and be done with it.

Shooters, old or even the very new, learn
quickly what they like to shoot in the small
revolvers. End of story.

Perhaps the answer lies with the ammo
makers; encourage them to produce
.357s with .38 power factors even up
to +P+. They could advertise "Cleaner
chambers, .38 pleasantness."
 
Answer: We are going to focus on small automatics right now since we can’t seem to keep up with demand on those. In the future, if LW J frames become more popular than the small automatics, we may consider this proposal.
 
Yes, hand loads are a liability nightmare if you have to shoot someone with it.
Perhaps the answer lies with the ammo
makers; encourage them to produce
.357s with .38 power factors even up
to +P+. They could advertise "Cleaner
chambers, .38 pleasantness."
Some companies have been doing that for a while. Speer Gold Dot is one that comes to mind. Advertised as 990 FPS from a 2". Buffalo Bore also makes a reduced power .357 load.
 
How is this possible?
I honestly don't believe it is possible. I'm allowing for the theoretical possibility for the sake of argument. Shooting thousands upon thousands of rounds of .38 lead and/or cast bullets can leave enough deposits that a .357 won't easily chamber but that's relatively easily remedied with proper cleaning.
 
Answer: We are going to focus on small automatics right now since we can’t seem to keep up with demand on those. In the future, if LW J frames become more popular than the small automatics, we may consider this proposal.
Yeah, compared to autos, the demand for revolvers is so low that any new model, even if it's just making it a lighter alloy frame is too much work to make it profitable.

Not too mention, S&W isn't too hip to making new revolvers. Charter does because that is all they make, Taurus recently dropped some models in favor of newer ones because the design was better, Ruger only made the Wrangler to get market share from Heritage, and Colt just went back to making revolvers because people have wanted the Cobra again for years.

Asking for ultra specific revolvers is fine, but the company has to weigh if they will sell to more than a dozen people.

The future of the revolver is definitely in lightweight snubs and the smaller they can be, the better, but the handgun market is geared for autoloaders and that is never going to change.
 
38 Spl is about as dead as the 44 Spl regarding new gun sales. We all know how delightful either of those can be but not many people want to buy one when they can have a magnum cartridge.

My personal opinion is J and K frames are better suited for 38 Spl but I'm not a marketing guru. I just bought a model 28 to properly shoot .357. I gave up on the K frame a long time ago and never had a .357 J frame.
 
Last edited:
Yes, hand loads are a liability nightmare if you have to shoot someone with it.

According to whom? I have heard this mentioned often with zero data to back it up. If you are in a bona fide self defense situation you can use an entrenching tool to defend yourself.

If you have a wrongful shoot it won't make a bit of difference what ammo you used.

But let's not go down this rabbit hole...
 
Yes, hand loads are a liability nightmare if you have to shoot someone with it.
If you were living in an area where the prosecutor or district attorney has a D next to their name, you're gonna be in for a legal hurting whether you use factory ammo or reloads. Heck, depending on the caliber you use that can get you in hot water as I'm sure others have heard the story of the guy who used a 10mm, but that was outside his home.

The bottom line is if you're justified in shooting someone, you're justified. Using non-factory ammo doesn't automatically make a justified shooting into manslaughter or homicide.
 
Yes, hand loads are a liability nightmare if you have to shoot someone with it.

That's what everyone says but can you site any court cases that would support that? Probably not. It's an internet myth. About the same as someone defending themselves with a forged-at-home knife.

The only reason I use factory ammo for my SD firearms is reliability. I know it works most off of the time. ;) My quality control isn't as good as Federal. I've had a squib with my ammo. Never experienced that with commercial ammo. When you drop the hammer you get lead delivery.
 
Last edited:
It's highly unlikely that anyone would ever fire enough .38s to cause that. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you do. If your financial situation is such that you can afford enough ammo, even if reloading, to do that then the cost of a new gun should be of little concern
Now to the real question:
You start with a .357 and somehow manage to fire enough .38s through it that it is no longer capable of chambering .357s. It now will only chamber .38s.
How is what have at that point any different than if the gun had left the factory capable of chambering only .38s?

Now, as to the velocity differnce between .357 and .38 from a short barrel.
Check some ballistic tables:
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/#38spl
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/revolver-ballistics-test/#357mag

One example of the difference is the Federal 130 grn Hydra-Shok .357 vs the Federal 125 grn Hi-Shock .38 +P. 1175 FPS (2" barrel) vs 926 FPS (4" barrel). Despite the .357 being 4% heavier it's travelling 27% faster from a 2" barrel than the .38 from a 4". Sorry, but a 3" .38 does not match a 2" .357. Even in a 6" the .38 still typically lags behind the 2" .357.
This is just one example but the results are similar for all comparable loads.

I stand corrected. I must've been thinking about 22LR vs. 22 WMR.

I admit that I'm curious as to why. 357 Mag has a lot more powder, and slower-burning, but if it burns outside the barrel, how is it so much faster?!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top