What was the appeal of the .38 S&W cartridge?

[TTv2]

Since I got that H&R .32 Young America I'm just accepting that I'm becoming an H&R collector, probably gonna become a C&R this year as a result. Anyway, as I look at what's on gunbroker I notice that there are a lot more .32 S&W revolvers than there are .38 S&W and I'm wondering was the .32 S&W more popular back in the day or did the advent of the .38 Special and .38 Long Colt kill the .38 S&W going into the 20th Century?

I mean, with the .32 and .327 Magnums having come about over the last 35 years I can see the appeal of the .32 S&W's given you can shoot the .32 S&W and S&W Long in the .32 magnums, while the .38 S&W is basically a dead cartridge now and seems to have been for a long time.

The only thing I can say is that when it comes to top breaks the .38 S&W was the largest caliber available, at least until after 1920 when H&R (and others I presume) dropped the .44 Webley chambered models. So, for those who liked top breaks and wanted the biggest caliber available, .38 S&W was the way to go.

Was that it or was it that the H&R's and Iver Johnsons were cheaper than .38 Colt and .38 Special revolvers made by Colt and Smith & Wesson?

 

[mcb]

Not sure what or even if there was a great appeal for the 38 S&W cartridge when it was new but for me personally it's all about short and fat cartridges and top break revolvers.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

The only thing I can say is that when it comes to top breaks the .38 S&W was the largest caliber available, at least until after 1920 when H&R (and others I presume) dropped the .44 Webley chambered models. So, for those who liked top breaks and wanted the biggest caliber available, .38 S&W was the way to go.

Howdy

The largest cartridges chambered in S&W Top Breaks were the Webley .455 Mark I and .455Mark II chambered in the New Model Number Three, although most were chambered for 44 Russian. S&W chambered the American Model for the 44 S&W American cartridge starting in 1870 shortly after the Rollin White patent expired in 1869. 45 Schofield was the largest cartridge commonly chambered in S&W Top Breaks starting in 1875.

38S&W was a bit of a Johnny-Come-Lately, not appearing until 1876 with the 38 Single Action, 1st Model, also known as the Baby Russian.






I don't have the numbers handy, but there many, many revolvers chambered for 38S&W before the 38 Special showed up in 1899.

 

[orpington]

Driftwood,

Do you own that Baby Russian in its original box?

Here are a couple of mine.

 

[Riomouse911]

The British liked it enough to use it in battle as the .380/200. Quite a few were made here and abroad in the caliber for war duties.

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/.38/200

Stay safe.

 

[Monac]

38 Special was considered a cartridge for at least medium sized revolvers for quite a while. S&W did not offer it in a small frame gun until 1950, when they came out with their J-frame. Colt seems to have started making the Police Positive Special for it as early as 1907, but that is not much smaller than the K-frame, and they did not start selling the short-barreled, small grip version called the Detective Special until 1927. And they kept making the Bankers Special and Police Positive 38 (which were chambered for 38 S&W) for some time after that, or at least selling them out of inventory.

So for a long time, 38 S&W was considered the cartridge of choice for anyone who wanted a 38 caliber pocket revolver. And H&R, Iver Johnson, and Hopkins & Allen made a lot of them because they made decent guns that were good value for their price, bearing in mind that their price was quite low. I will say straight out they were not as good as a Colt or a S&W, because they were more difficult to shoot well with and not as durable, despite the large numbers that have survived until now. But they were adequate for what was they were, which was a short-range means of self-defense that could be easily carried if desired, that people could afford. They were the High Points of their day, although I would say that despite all our nostalgia for the past, a High Point is a MUCH better weapon, if not as convenient to carry.

 

[RevolvingGarbage]

It seems to me that the .38S&W largely duplicates the performance of the classic .36 percussion revolver, which was always considered adequate for defense against humans.

The limitations of the cartridge are that it’s effectiveness falls off quickly with range or almost any kind hard barrier. A .38 S&W will bounce off front windshield glass, and with soft lead bullets probably wouldn’t perforate a modern flimsy car door.

So what the cartridge gives you today is good enough performance within its limitations, low recoil/blast, and the ability to use a gun even smaller than J frame size revolver.

 

[DocRock]

So, 38 S&W was 10, until 1899 when 38 S&W Special went to 11...

In 1877, a metallic cartridge delivering a 36 cal 160grs bullet at 750 fps was pretty much state of the art. Knock 50 fps off for a conceivable 4" barrel top break and you have the ubiquitous 9 mm CCW of the day. It delivered more umph than the popular 32 S&W ( or 32 and 38 rimfires) without requiring a vastly bigger revolver. It could be chambered in relatively less expensive revolvers for those who probably didn't intend to use it much, unlike the 44 and 45 cal belt pistols of the day - real working tools and pretty much all open belt carry.

When metallurgy and design allowed, 38 Special was the next step.

 

[TTv2]

The limitations of the cartridge are that it’s effectiveness falls off quickly with range or almost any kind hard barrier. A .38 S&W will bounce off front windshield glass, and with soft lead bullets probably wouldn’t perforate a modern flimsy car door.

I mean, pretty much any revolver caliber that uses lead bullets only and is a low pressure/non-magnum isn't going to be as capable in that role like a 9mm or .40 would, but for a mugger or an aggressive dangerous person who doesn't like your MAGA hat it sounds like .38 isn't incapable.

So what the cartridge gives you today is good enough performance within its limitations, low recoil/blast, and the ability to use a gun even smaller than J frame size revolver.

Really, the .38 S&W revolvers of yesteryear are smaller than a J frame? That's unique. I just knew that they were available in top breaks while .38 Special wasn't, but if even in the solid frame H&R's and Iver's, if they're smaller than a J frame, that's possibly good.

 

[TTv2]

So, 38 S&W was 10, until 1899 when 38 S&W Special went to 11...

In 1877, a metallic cartridge delivering a 36 cal 160grs bullet at 750 fps was pretty much state of the art. Knock 50 fps off for a conceivable 4" barrel top break and you have the ubiquitous 9 mm CCW of the day. It delivered more umph than the popular 32 S&W ( or 32 and 38 rimfires) without requiring a vastly bigger revolver. It could be chambered in relatively less expensive revolvers for those who probably didn't intend to use it much, unlike the 44 and 45 cal belt pistols of the day - real working tools and pretty much all open belt carry.

When metallurgy and design allowed, 38 Special was the next step.

I can understand the interest in the .38 S&W before the .38 Spl showed up, but companies were making .38 S&W revolvers up until the 1970s. So, I assume what kept that interest going was the price of the H&R's and Iver's and also they were top breaks.

 

[RevolvingGarbage]

...Really, the .38 S&W revolvers of yesteryear are smaller than a J frame? That's unique. I just knew that they were available in top breaks while .38 Special wasn't, but if even in the solid frame H&R's and Iver's, if they're smaller than a J frame, that's possibly good.

So if we’re talking factory guns, the snub nose top breaks in .38S&W are fairly rare from what I’ve learned, so you would usually have a 3&1/4” barrel unless you chopped the gun.

I don’t have a J frame in it, and this picture isn’t the best but you can roughly see how much smaller my shortened Iver Johnson is compared to the Colt Cobra on the right, and compared to the S&W Safety hammerless on top which would be even more trim than either if it had a similar length barrel.



All are much smaller than the beefy Enfield on bottom which also can shoot .38S&W, and with heavy enough bullets to make things interesting.

 

[DocRock]

So if we’re talking factory guns, the snub nose top breaks in .38S&W are fairly rare from what I’ve learned, so you would usually have a 3&1/4” barrel unless you chopped the gun.

I don’t have a J frame in it, and this picture isn’t the best but you can roughly see how much smaller my shortened Iver Johnson is compared to the Colt Cobra on the right, and compared to the S&W Safety hammerless on top which would be even more trim than either if it had a similar length barrel.

View attachment 985826

All are much smaller than the beefy Enfield on bottom which also can shoot .38S&W, and with heavy enough bullets to make things interesting.

Man that Enfield looks brutal and primordial! It's sort of Steampunk-Apocalyptic! Meanwhile, the S&W Safety Hammerless looks positively elegant. I'm a fool for the S&W Top Breaks. That's quite a nice little collection

 

[TTv2]

So if we’re talking factory guns, the snub nose top breaks in .38S&W are fairly rare from what I’ve learned, so you would usually have a 3&1/4” barrel unless you chopped the gun.

I don’t have a J frame in it, and this picture isn’t the best but you can roughly see how much smaller my shortened Iver Johnson is compared to the Colt Cobra on the right, and compared to the S&W Safety hammerless on top which would be even more trim than either if it had a similar length barrel.

All are much smaller than the beefy Enfield on bottom which also can shoot .38S&W, and with heavy enough bullets to make things interesting.

I was admittedly thinking about the solid frame revolvers available in .38 S&W, not the top breaks, as the solid frames all seemed to have a 2 inch barrel if they were an H&R or Iver.

 

[mnrivrat]

QUOTE="Monac, post: So for a long time, 38 S&W was considered the cartridge of choice for anyone who wanted a 38 caliber pocket revolver. :End Quote.

I think that sums it up nicely .

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

The 38 S&W preceded the 38 Long Colt and 38 Special by over 20 years, while there may have been some debates over "stopping power" and terminal ballistics back then, and perhaps Wild Bill Hickcock defended his choice of the 36 Navy over the 44 Army, your average/typical gun buyer didn't worry about such things. And it was in the 1960s with the spread of drugs that the traditional 38 Special RNL load began to be seen as inadequate. The 38 S&W seems to be the maximum load a top break revolver can handle and H&R, Iver Johnson et al. were the more economical brands of the day.
I read S&W introduced the Chief's Special at the urging of Rex Applegate after he found his 38 S&W Terrier inadequate.
Also it seems back then they ascribed to the military idea that all you have to is wound an enemy, make him a casualty, that will take the fight out of him. The primitive-by our standards-medical care would do the rest.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Also it seems back then they ascribed to the military idea that all you have to is wound an enemy, make him a casualty, that will take the fight out of him. The primitive-by our standards-medical care would do the rest.

That was pretty much the argument Teddy Roosevelt used to sell the idea of a standard police weapon - in that case, the .32Colt New Police or .32S&W Long cartridge - because it was accurate, simple to master, and the Colt New Police Model was seen as a strong, reliable and safe weapon compared to what else was available in that day. The .38S&W was a powerful close range defense cartridge for the size of weapon it was made for - pocket revolvers - and back then there were no Supermen who would stand still and let artillery-shell-sized bullets bounce off their chests like we have today. Back then, at close range, a .38 was a dangerous weapon.

 

[BillWM]

In 1934 the 38 case was lengthened and we had the 357 magnum. Purportedly the 357 mag. was developed to penetrate vehicles where the 38 had difficulty in doing so. A .22 LR can kill so a larger diameter 38 does the job if not immediately.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

Yes, Orpington, that is my Baby Russian in its box. Notice that mine, like one of yours, has the distributor's name, M.W.Robinson, printed on the box. I was told when I bought this one that it is relatively rare for the distributor's name to be printed on the box.

I have no information about other revolver manufacturers, but S&W was producing the 38 Regulation Police, chambered for 38S&W, a revolver built on a relatively modern Hand Ejector style frame up until the change over to model names in 1957. This model continued to be made as the Model 33 until 1969.

This model was built on the I frame, closer to the modern J frame in size than a K frame. The I frame was the frame originally developed in 1896 for the first 32 Hand Ejector.

This photo shows a 38 Regulation Police at the top and a 32 Regulation Police at the bottom. The I frame cylinder was not large enough in diameter to accommodate six 38 caliber cartridges, so the 38 Regulation Police was a five shot revolver. Notice the middle flute of the 38 is not dead center on the cylinder, indicating it is a five shot revolver. Notice the middle flute on the 32 is dead center, indicating it is a six shot revolver.






This photo gives a good comparison of the various frame sizes of Smith and Wesson revolvers. Starting at the bottom left is the tiny M frame Ladysmith. Above that is an I frame 38 Regulation Police, chambered for 38 S&W. Jumping to the bottom right is a 38 Special J frame Chiefs Special. Directly above the J frame is a K frame 38 Military and Police, the forerunner to the modern Model 10. At the top right is a 44 Special N frame Triple Lock. Sorry, I don't have an L frame in this photo, I took it a while ago before I owned one. The L frame would fit between the K frame and the N frame in size. None of those stupid overesized revolvers chambered for 45 Colt and 410 shotgun either. I will never own one of them. Notice the I frame 38 cylinder is much shorter than the cylinder of the J frame Chiefs Special. The I frame could never be chambered for 38 Special because the cylinder was too short. There were a few other 38S&W revolvers built on the I frame too, such as the Terrier. The J frame was not developed until 1950 with the advent of the first Chiefs Special. Up until then, if one wanted a 38 caliber Hand Ejector it had to be one of the I frame models. Also, the J frame cylinder is not large enough to be a six shooter, only 5 38 Specials can be chambered in one.






If one wanted a 'more concealable' six shot Smith and Wesson revolver chambered for 38 Special, one would have to get a 2" barrelled 38 M&P like this. Not as concealable as an I frame or a J frame.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

In 1934 the 38 case was lengthened and we had the 357 magnum.

Just to be a nit picker, the 357 Magnum was developed in 1935.

It was a further refinement of the 38/44 Heavy Duty and 38/44 Outdoorsman revolvers, which like the first 357 Magnum were built on the large N frame. The cartridge for these was a special high velocity 38 Special cartridge, sometimes known as the 38 Special High Velocity. The Heavy Duty showed up first in 1930. A year later the Outdoorsman, with adjustable sights became available. The problem with these revolvers was the High Velocity cartridges could be inadvertently loaded into a standard N frame revolver, with possibly disastrous results. So the 357 Magnum case was lengthened about 1/10" so the cartridge could not be chambered in a standard K frame 38 Special revolver.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

Howdy

Yes, Orpington, that is my Baby Russian in its box. Notice that mine, like one of yours, has the distributor's name, M.W.Robinson, printed on the box. I was told when I bought this one that it is relatively rare for the distributor's name to be printed on the box.

I have no information about other revolver manufacturers, but S&W was producing the 38 Regulation Police, chambered for 38S&W, a revolver built on a relatively modern Hand Ejector style frame up until the change over to model names in 1957. This model continued to be made as the Model 33 until 1969.

This model was built on the I frame, closer to the modern J frame in size than a K frame. The I frame was the frame originally developed in 1896 for the first 32 Hand Ejector.

This photo shows a 38 Regulation Police at the top and a 32 Regulation Police at the bottom. The I frame cylinder was not large enough in diameter to accommodate six 38 caliber cartridges, so the 38 Regulation Police was a five shot revolver. Notice the middle flute of the 38 is not dead center on the cylinder, indicating it is a five shot revolver. Notice the middle flute on the 32 is dead center, indicating it is a six shot revolver.

View attachment 985856




This photo gives a good comparison of the various frame sizes of Smith and Wesson revolvers. Starting at the bottom left is the tiny M frame Ladysmith. Above that is an I frame 38 Regulation Police, chambered for 38 S&W. Jumping to the bottom right is a 38 Special J frame Chiefs Special. Directly above the J frame is a K frame 38 Military and Police, the forerunner to the modern Model 10. At the top right is a 44 Special N frame Triple Lock. Sorry, I don't have an L frame in this photo, I took it a while ago before I owned one. The L frame would fit between the K frame and the N frame in size. None of those stupid overesized revolvers chambered for 45 Colt and 410 shotgun either. I will never own one of them. Notice the I frame 38 cylinder is much shorter than the cylinder of the J frame Chiefs Special. The I frame could never be chambered for 38 Special because the cylinder was too short. There were a few other 38S&W revolvers built on the I frame too, such as the Terrier. The J frame was not developed until 1950 with the advent of the first Chiefs Special. Up until then, if one wanted a 38 caliber Hand Ejector it had to be one of the I frame models. Also, the J frame cylinder is not large enough to be a six shooter, only 5 38 Specials can be chambered in one.

View attachment 985857




If one wanted a 'more concealable' six shot Smith and Wesson revolver chambered for 38 Special, one would have to get a 2" barrelled 38 M&P like this. Not as concealable as an I frame or a J frame.

View attachment 985858

As always, highly informative and much appreciated!

I'd like to mention that the fact that the Metropolitan Police was introduced - and continued to be made for decades - in both .32S&W Long and .38S&W indicates the length of time those cartridges were considered perfectly adequate for community policing. The idea of an armed police force making arrests and using numbers to subdue criminals for arrest and trial was normal at one time. I won't speculate on what "changed" here and suggest that aspect of the conversation be left alone lest the thread get closed down for going down a dark path.

 

[Duster340]

I have a couple old 38 SW chambered break tops. Forehand Gun Company and unknown Spanish S&W clones. My great grandfather carried the blue Spanish made SW knockoff everyday 60+ years ago. Have an old box of Winchester 38 SW, Haven't worked up the nerve to shoot either one yet LOL! But would like to give them a try someday.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

People were generally leaner and thinner 100-150 years ago.
I have read it was the 38 Super with its FMJ bullets that was designed to penetrate vehicles, which were also generally thinner.

 

[JohnKSa]

Body panel steel in cars was thicker back when the .38Super was introduced. As nearly as I can tell, it was nearly a third thicker.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I have a 1932 No. 2 Mk 1 and a 1910 vintage Colt Police Positive. In my reloading days I found an HBWC over 2.7 grains of Bullseye an excellent plinking/target load.

 

[ThomasT]

Body panel steel in cars was thicker back when the .38Super was introduced. As nearly as I can tell, it was nearly a third thicker.

Car bodies were a whole lot thicker. I have looked at some old car bodies and they didn't spare the metal when they built a vehicle. There is a place around Houston called the Ambulance Museum or something like that and the frames, bodies wheels and everything was built like it would never go out of style and would last a century. And you know what? They did.

In spite of what they said in the latest corn ball movie about Bonnie & Clyde Ted Hinton and Sheriff Smoot Schmid did shoot at B&C with a couple of Thompson machine guns and the bullets bounced off the bodies but broke out a couple of windows. They said they wanted nothing else to do with the "Tinny Thompsons" and got a couple of BARs like Clyde used.

https://www.nmfh.org/