Which steel does S&W use for their revolvers?

[rpenmanparker]

But "chromoly" doesn't cover all steels, as you pointed out. "Carbon steel" does. ALL steel has carbon in it so it's a little silly to argue your point about chromoly.

Further, the initial comment that started it all specified 4130. So all this crap about carbon vs chromoly vs whatever was completely unnecessary. The whole argument is just dumb and completely tangent from the OP.

IMHO, this is a case where someone knows just enough to get an argument started.

I gave up a long time ago.

 

[Monac]

The field of plastics is so large and confusing to me that even I can't define what I would like to learn about it. There seem to be hundreds of different kinds of plastics, and many of them seem to have a vast array of applications. I guess I would like to learn about the different families of plastics (if that is a valid concept to apply) and what they are used for, and why some plastics, once common, are no longer common. For example, I used to see plastic objects marked "NYLON"; that no longer happens today. And many old plastic items just seem to feel different than the plastics used to today. I guess the history of plastics, past and present, would be a huge subject to cover, especially to anyone who does not have a background in chemistry or materials science.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Like said, +P is a marketing tool.

Short story, a while back there was a thread on this forum where a new shooter wanted to know if .38 Special +P ammo could be safely fired in a .357 Magnum revolver. I don't blame the new shooter for the confusion.

From what I have read, .38 Special pressures used to be higher but we're lowered because of ultra light revolvers. Then a +P designation was added bring the pressures back up to where they should be. That could be wrong but sounds right to me.

 

[mcb]

I keep seeing this on the internet, in various places, that they changed the pressure of 38 Special (or 357 Magnum) and yet I have never seen any documented proof of SAAMI changing the pressure of 38 Special (or any other cartridge once accepted as a SAAMI cartridge). 38 Special has always been 17,000 psi (or CUP in this case) going back as far as I have seen SAAMI manuals. The +P designation came along in the early 70's and it has always been 20,000 PSI (or CUP in this case too). The only thing I can think is the people are confusing the old 38/44 (sometime called 38 Special Hi-Speed or HV) with 38 Special. I have a hard time believing SAAMI would chance an accepted cartridge simply due to the liability issues.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

I keep seeing this on the internet, in various places, that they changed the pressure of 38 Special (or 357 Magnum) and yet I have never seen any documented proof of SAAMI changing the pressure of 38 Special (or any other cartridge once accepted as a SAAMI cartridge). 38 Special has always been 17,000 psi (or CUP in this case) going back as far as I have seen SAAMI manuals. The +P designation came along in the early 70's and it has always been 20,000 PSI (or CUP in this case too). The only thing I can think is the people are confusing the old 38/44 (sometime called 38 Special Hi-Speed or HV) with 38 Special. I have a hard time believing SAAMI would chance an accepted cartridge simply due to the liability issues.

First, CUP and PSI are not the same so 17,000 CUP could be close to 20,000 PSI. ( but I'm not sure, no true conversion)

Additionally, there was a time SAAMI lowered thec.38 Special +P to 18,500 PSI so it hasn't always been 20,000 PSI. No confusion on my part but I guess it's useless to discuss this because people will believe what they want to believe.

 

[Slamfire]

I have a hard time believing SAAMI would chance an accepted cartridge simply due to the liability issues.

I could believe it. From Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_liability#Strict_liability

Strict liability

Rather than focus on the behavior of the manufacturer (as in negligence), strict liability claims focus on the product itself. Under strict liability, the manufacturer is liable if the product is defective, even if the manufacturer was not negligent in making that product defective.

also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

Instead of requiring Proof Houses and lots of legal code, we in the US use the Courts to ensure our products are safe. Something hurts you, you sue the bastards! For the Politicians, it is a lazy man's way of doing business, because otherwise, they would have to do something. Politicians just let the injured and the makers of defective product fight it out in court. This does carry a lot of liability for the manufacturer. You can search "Strict Liability" and "product liability" and make a decision for yourself just what will happen to a manufacturer, either of guns, or ammunition, if they suddenly find out that the ammunition they have been making is actually higher pressure than they thought it was. And of course, what will happen if someone is injured when their firearm kabooms? Incidentally, firearms do kaboom with factory ammunition. So, if you are hurt, and you know the firearm was built to pressure standard X, and the old pressure measuring equipment was found to be under reporting the pressure, so the actual pressure is X plus something, and yet, the ammunition makers did not drop their pressures, you might have a case against someone.

I believe that in the future, you will have to sign a "binding arbitration" requirement for each gun purchase and each ammunition purchase, just as we are doing on about everything else. That might raise ammunition pressures, as ammunition makers may give us what we want, and it may not be good for us.

 

[mcb]

First, CUP and PSI are not the same so 17,000 CUP could be close to 20,000 PSI. ( but I'm not sure, no true conversion)

Additionally, there was a time SAAMI lowered thec.38 Special +P to 18,500 PSI so it hasn't always been 20,000 PSI. No confusion on my part but I guess it's useless to discuss this because people will believe what they want to believe.

I understand that CUP (Copper Units of Pressure) and PSI (as measured by piezo tranducer) are not the same thing. There is no conversion from one to the other that work across various cartridges. But in the case of 38 Special and 38 Special +P they turned out to be the same numerical values. SAAMI still published the specification in both CUP and Transducer since a few manufactures are still using CUP for some cartridges.

https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Z299-3_ANSI-SAAMI_CFPandR.pdf

Page 12 for CUP specification for 38 Special and 38 Special +P.

Page 20 for Transducer (PSI) for 38 Special and 38 Special +P.

As you can see from above as of 2015 SAAMI specifications for 38 Special is 17,000 CUP or 17,000 PSI and similarly 38 Special +P is 20,000 CUP or 20,000 PSI.

Just to be clear this may not be the case for other cartridges and 45 ACP (Automatic) is a fine example. 45 ACP is 18,000 CUP but is 21,000 PSI, 45 ACP +P has no CUP specification only a Transducer specification of 23,000 PSI. Pages 14 & 23 of the same document above.

I am more than happy to believe that SAAMI changed the pressure specification of a cartridge if I see some proof, some documentation. I have read lots of rumors on the internet of a specification changes but I have never seen concrete documentation of a change. If you have a link to an old SAAMI document that proves they have changed a specification I would love to see it. I simply have not in my own research and remain skeptical but willing to be proven wrong.

 

[hdwhit]

jski asked:
If not the quality of steel, what makes it go from "no +P" to "yes +P"?

Whether there was a change in the design, material or manufacturing process, before any manufacturer is going to change a "no" on a +P designation to a "yes", they are actually going to do sufficient testing to ensure their management (and their insurance carrier) that the change in designation is warranted.

What you are seeing there is that in one list, the tests had not been completed, but in the other they had.

This is not confined to firearms or the +P designation. Any time a manufacturer wants to certify that their product meets a design, manufacturing or performance standard, they have to provide information required by the certifying body to show that the product conforms to the desired certification.

 

[Stargater53]

I've talked to many people who shot +P out of their 1968 Model 36 S&W recovers. Ditto with their Model 60s (older model) and their Rossi 88s. I don't know any who have shot their guns loose with factory ammo. I would never shoot +P+ out of any of them, but some people will shoot anything that fits in the cylinder. If the gun hurts the hand, I tend not to use it (except for my Ruger Security-Six), but I knew several Treasury agents that routinely used and practiced with +P in their small steel and stainless steel revolvers.

Also, some people who sold their S&W 66 .357s said their no-dash 66s had a better grade stainless steel than other model 66s. Don't know if that was true, but that's what they said! I don't know anyone who said they shot their J-frames loose by shooting +Ps, but I can't make any claims. I do know of some cops who said they wore off the front sights of their S&W 681s back in the 80s because the heat treat was bad.

 

[Slamfire]

I am more than happy to believe that SAAMI changed the pressure specification of a cartridge if I see some proof, some documentation. I have read lots of rumors on the internet of a specification changes but I have never seen concrete documentation of a change. If you have a link to an old SAAMI document that proves they have changed a specification I would love to see it. I simply have not in my own research and remain skeptical but willing to be proven wrong.

I don't disagree. We are all in the situation of the blind men holding a piece of the elephant and attempting to describe the whole. None of us work at SAAMI, none of us are privy to their deliberations, so we all are giving our interpretation of what we think they are doing. This has caused a lot of fuss and feathers in threads, all amounting to nothing.

I do think loads have been toned down, I am sure we would all agree that the loads in 1970's and earlier manuals have been cut. Most particularly in the manuals that did not use pressure testing equipment. Just look at some of the mini-nuke loads in P.O Ackley's manuals. One poster said, a minimum Ackley load resulted in primer pocket expansion so great, the case could be reprimed with a shot gun primer! EEK! Gunwriters have claimed that classic loads, like the 240/250 LSWC 22.0 grains 2400 load used in the 44 Magnum had to be reduced because the powder formulation changed. I don't believe that, I believe that they don't want to tell us, that the old load was measured using modern pressure equipment and found to be over pressure. Industry is famous for telling us what we want to hear, and telling us that a cut in powder will result in less performance (velocity) is not what we want to hear. So they tell us, the formulation has changed, how nice. They were just unable to mix the new formulation so that 22.0 grains was not over pressure. That's the ticket.

Sort of like Apple telling us, by slowing down the older models of the IPhone, they are just helping us extend the life of our phone batteries. They are just looking out for us, doesn't everyone believe that?

 

[DPris]

It was interesting to note that when I did some accuracy & chrono testing with a .38 a while back, I used two commercial loads & just for fun, some of my wife's old CAS leftover .38 reloads.

I'd worked those CAS loads down to match her sights & to keep recoil as low as I could safely go, using data from a long-established manual.

When I chronoed all three, the "low-powered" CAS stuff ran faster than both commercial .38 loads.
The manual listed heavier powder charges, so that was an indicator to me about the current level of commercial .38s.
Denis

 

[Monac]

I don't know what CAS means, except for Close Air Support, which seems unlikely here.

 

[Venom007]

I don't know what CAS means, except for Close Air Support, which seems unlikely here.

Look here, Maverick, now CAS mean yer "Cowboy Action Shooting!"

Some of the members (well, most of them) grew up in the 50's when Westerns were huge. It's basically that generation's version of LARPing or cosplay, but with guns.

Very cool stuff, some of them folks can run a single action as good as some can run a Glock. Not to be messed with!!

 

[Stumper]

FWIW, Speer manuals 10 and 11 both listed .38 special SAAMI standard working pressure as 18,900 CUP and 22,400 CUP as +P working pressure. It seems undeniable that the .38 spl has been gelded. As for +P in the older chief specials.....Elmer Keith received one the year they were introduced and ran 500 rounds of 38/44 through it. "Rated" for plus P or not the steel J frames have always been able to safely fire it.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

There very well may be a lot of revolvers out there which are perfectly safe with +P ammo but not marked +P.

Why? Because before 1972 there was no +P so how could a revolver be marked as such? It's like finding a coin marked B.C. It can't be genuine.

S&W has stated their all steel revolvers with model numbers (post 1957) are safe with +P ammo. Some even believe any post WWII revolvers are also safe with +P ammo too.

A friend has an M&P revolver dated 1948 which is almost identical to mine. He has shot thousands of the FBI Load in it and it's just fine.I 'm not telling anyone to do anything. I'm only reporting what I have seen. Personally, I'm more protective over my M&P but it is loaded with the FBI Load when on HD duty.

 

[Monac]

Thanks for explaining what CAS means in this context, Venom007! From my skimpy knowledge of cowboy action shooting, a 38 Spl CAS load should be a relatively mild one. That makes DPris's post clearer.

 

[mcb]

FWIW, Speer manuals 10 and 11 both listed .38 special SAAMI standard working pressure as 18,900 CUP and 22,400 CUP as +P working pressure. It seems undeniable that the .38 spl has been gelded. As for +P in the older chief specials.....Elmer Keith received one the year they were introduced and ran 500 rounds of 38/44 through it. "Rated" for plus P or not the steel J frames have always been able to safely fire it.

Can you post a picture of those pages from the Speer manual?

 

[DPris]

That was the point- a very mild CAS load actually turned out to be hotter than two commercial loads.
Denis

 

[Stumper]

MCB, I'll try to scan one and post it in the near future. ArchAngelCD, A supporting argument for the "all post WWII S&Ws are safe with +P" is found in the S&W ads which stated that the M&P was safe with 38/44 ammo. Nobody really seems to know what the pressure standard was for the 38/44. Dave Scovill has postulated "under 30Kpsi". I saw pressure test data from George Nonte of loads that were bumping up against the factory specs for 38/44 which were also bumping 25kCUP----I suspect that that was the pressure spec and the 38's first reduction was setting +P at 22,400 CUP(but not an unjustified one-the 38/44 was introduced as a 'different' cartridge-externally the same but higher pressure.)

 

[Stumper]

Here is the scan from Speer #11. Naturally the pertinent part is the muddy stuff near teh fold but hopefully you can read it.

 

[mcb]

Here is the scan from Speer #11. Naturally the pertinent part is the muddy stuff near teh fold but hopefully you can read it.

Thanks a bunch for that Stumper. This thread has me on my research kick again on this 38 Special 357 Mag pressure history. I have found some more data sources and am compiling as many years of SAAMI Specification as I can get my hands on.

Not sure if I should start sharing that here or if we should make a new thread just focused on 38 Special pressure history. I found a reloading manual from 1961 published by the NRA with pressure data supplied by HP White that in the intro section to 38 Special talks about the pressure limit being 20,000 psi though they don't specifically mention SAAMI. One of the loads on the same page though shows a 38 Special load with a measure pressure of 20,980 PSI but in 1961 they probably mean CUP though given HP White's history in developing the modern pressure measurement methods it might have been a piezo pressure transducer though it would be a few more years before they were official accepted by industry.

ETA: Oooh I found load data for 38/44 published in 1962

 

[MachIVshooter]

The stainless steels tend to be stronger and tougher than the CrMo types, especially when air hardened, cold worked, and/or heat treated. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that higher chambering in a revolver with thinner walls between the chambers might be accomplished by using a high strength stainless instead of just increasing the diameter of the cylinder. Same for lightening a barrel by reducing the wall thickness. The surface finish might cover that up or not.

Nope.

Some stainless are precipitation ("air") hardening, some require water or oil quench. Work hardening achieves a surface hardness on austenitic grades, which aren't typically used in firearms. Spend some time looking over material data sheets. Stainless and carbon steels come in all different flavors, but there is absolutely no merit to the statement that "stainless steels tend to be stronger and tougher than the CrMo type" without specifying a certain alloy at a specific temper and identifying the properties which would exceed the CRMO alternative, and also realizing that some of the other properties may make it undesirable in a given application.

4130 is not commonly called carbon steel although it may have a similar carbon content to carbon steel. it is more commonly known as chrome moly alloy steel or CrMo steel. The chromium and molybdenum are where the strength comes from, hence those ingredients being part of the name.

4140 is another CrMo steel used in guns.

It is when all you're trying to do is differentiate it from stainless.

100% correct.

 

[Slamfire]

Thanks a bunch for that Stumper. This thread has me on my research kick again on this 38 Special 357 Mag pressure history. I have found some more data sources and am compiling as many years of SAAMI Specification as I can get my hands on.

Not sure if I should start sharing that here or if we should make a new thread just focused on 38 Special pressure history. I found a reloading manual from 1961 published by the NRA with pressure data supplied by HP White that in the intro section to 38 Special talks about the pressure limit being 20,000 psi though they don't specifically mention SAAMI. One of the loads on the same page though shows a 38 Special load with a measure pressure of 20,980 PSI but in 1961 they probably mean CUP though given HP White's history in developing the modern pressure measurement methods it might have been a piezo pressure transducer though it would be a few more years before they were official accepted by industry.

ETA: Oooh I found load data for 38/44 published in 1962

Take a look at Sharpe's Complete Guide to Handloading. He has pressure data from before WW2. https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Gui...sr=1-1&keywords=Complete+Guide+to+Handloading

 

[Jim Watson]

I have the book. He doesn't say much about factory load levels, his reload data is very interesting. Most bullets he loaded with various powders up to 15000 crusher psi, some to 20000. His own design of bullet figured in .38-44 and .357 levels. His table would definitely contribute to the delinquency of curious reloaders, those who ask on the www "Can I put .357 loads in .38 brass?" Well, Sharpe DID. How about 35000 psi worth of Bullseye? Or enough 2400 for 1500 fps?

 

[CraigC]

I think Keith wrote that his .38-44 load was 42,000 or 46,000psi.