[Zebulon_Graves]

I have never heard or seen of an army special 38 being only chambered for 38 long colt. They will certainly fire 38 long colt being chambered for the longer 38;special. I sold my 1909-10 army special 38 that was clearly chambered for 38 special. Of which a friend of mine owns and currently shoots 38 special in it. It’s my understanding that when reading the caliber designation on colt factory letters the 38C stands for 38 caliber. Depending on the model in question, that could be 38 special ( army special) 38 colt new police ( police positive) 38 long colt ( colt DA 38).

Yes, the Army Special I had would certainly chamber a
38 Special. The Colt people told me some early AS production had chambers bored straight through and would fully chamber a 357 magnum round. The point they were trying to make to me was the AS was not designed to handle the increased pressure. After seeing the Colt ads posted earlier in this thread. What Colt told me is a little hard to swallow.

 

[Zebulon_Graves]

A good reference for the earlier Colt's is Haven & Belden's "A History of the Colt Revolver: 1836 To 1940".
Until the 1950's or so, this was the official history of the Colt company and their firearms.
Included are very early patents and pages on the various firearms.

In the case under discussion, the first Colt revolver made for the .38 Special, was the Colt New Army & Navy, which was originally chambered for the .38 Long Colt, but starting in 1903, in .38 Special.
The second was the small frame Police Positive Special in introduced in 1907.
This was followed in 1908 with the Army Special, made in .32-20, various .38 calibers including .38 Special, and .41 Colt.

So yes, according to Colt's own period records, the Army Special was originally chambered in the .38 Special to replace the then fast becoming obsolete black powder era .38 Long Colt.

Thanks.

 

[Zebulon_Graves]

Thank you. That is very helpful.

 

[Zebulon_Graves]

Ironically I was reading the patent section in Haven & Belden earlier this evening - I bought my copy at Abercrombie & Fitch, on Wabash Ave. Chicago in 1968, and have used it ever since - of course much of the information is now outdated, but it is a great time capsule (with photos) of current Colt practices in on the eve of WWII.

I'm having a little trouble replying, but want to say thank for referring me to your source. I'm going to try to add a copy to my library.

 

[Zebulon_Graves]

Welcome to the COLT Forum from the Cradle Of Liberty...Pennsylvania !!

Enjoy Our Community Sir... and what I found more interesting than your findings and subsequent reply from Colts engineers was your choice of name...a quick search was even more enlightening...Zebulon Graves...both a real persons name and the name of a cemetery in North Carolina.

Zebulon Graves was my Great Uncle who lies buried next to my late mother. Because of our significantly different ages I never met him but we are related by blood.

 

[Zebulon_Graves]

Bold mine. So you are a lawyer. It sounds like you are building a law suit or a case against someone. Maybe you're not...but I'm out of this conversation.

Thankfully I retired from practice in 2006. The only case building I do is in my wood shop.

 

[Agarbers]

A History of The Colt Revolver From 1836 to1940 Haven & Belden 1st Edition | eBay

A History of The Colt Revolver From 1836 to1940 Haven & Belden 1st Edition

www.ebay.com

 

[azshot]

Thank you for clarifying you purpose.
Your notes and you are saying the bores are .346 to .347. That would be extremely tight and possibly cause over pressure problems shooting the normal .357 38 Special or 38 Long Colt in these guns, especially with jacketed bullets. The ammo industry would have had warnings and the gun community would have that knowledge to constantly warn people. But I've never heard any of that. As an example, current .22 WRF made by one company, CCI I believe, is OFTEN warned against shooting in revolvers. The reason being the bores of some Colt revolvers in that caliber are .002 or .003 under diameter of their bullets. The concern is a jacketed bullet could wedge in the bore and cause an obstruction. Surely if Colt Army Specials are .011 under, that warning would be loud.

I'll get my Army Special out sometime and check the bore diminsions. I know I shot .358 diameter bullets in it for years, and would have checked before ordering that diameter. This was 15 years ago, I haven't shot it recently, but still have it. I remember it's accuracy was very good, usually an indication that the chamber mouths and bore are exactly what is needed for that diameter.

 

[azshot]

There is some info about Colt bores being .354-.355 though.
"Modern (1950s to 1980s) Colt double action revolvers gave always had. 354/355 bores. "
"My Officers Model 38 (CA 1929) has a bore of about .355 ..."
"
Older Colt barrels have always measured .354-.355. The largest one I had was a 1963 vintage New Frontier (.357 Mag), that ran .356.
The cylinder throats on these sixguns tend to run larger than Smith and Wesson at .359.
In spite of these numbers the Colt Officers Model and Officers Model Match shot head to head with Smith and Wesson K-38s for many years in Bullseye competition. Some shooters preferred Smith and others Colt.
I have shot thousands and thousands of 38 Special cast bullet loads through these tight Colts with bullets sized .358 and .359. I have never had a problem and have had great accuracy.
You are worrying about something that is not a problem."

https://forum.castbulletassoc.org/thread/6548-extreemly-tight-colt-bore/

"...not all 38's and 357 Mags. have .357" diameter barrel bores (actually groove diameter). Smiths (normally, but not always) and Rugers do, but a lot (most all) of Colts have .355" bores (or smaller)."

https://www.shootersforum.com/threads/reloading-38-special-questions.235675/

 

[thecoltguy]

The four barrel lengths of the Army Special, 4", 4 1/2", 5" & 6". All were chambered in these three chambering: .32-20, .38 Special & .41 Colt.



Cam

 

[kenhwind]

It seems to me that with Smith & Wesson's introduction of the .38 Special Cartridge in their M & P that Colt would market a revolver explicitly chambered for the same, or their version of the .38 Special. At the time the U.S. may have still been interested in revolvers. Army Special.

The High Velocity .38 Special round or 38/44 post dates the A. S. and the A. S. may not have been rated for that higher pressure.

 

[azshot]

Actually, the opposite is true. S&W developed the .38 Special to match the notional diameter of the .38 Long Colt round, so that there would be some cross-sales potential.

This video is long, but has some good history about it.

 

[Zebulon_Graves]

Thank you for clarifying you purpose.
Your notes and you are saying the bores are .346 to .347. That would be extremely tight and possibly cause over pressure problems shooting the normal .357 38 Special or 38 Long Colt in these guns, especially with jacketed bullets. The ammo industry would have had warnings and the gun community would have that knowledge to constantly warn people. But I've never heard any of that. As an example, current .22 WRF made by one company, CCI I believe, is OFTEN warned against shooting in revolvers. The reason being the bores of some Colt revolvers in that caliber are .002 or .003 under diameter of their bullets. The concern is a jacketed bullet could wedge in the bore and cause an obstruction. Surely if Colt Army Specials are .011 under, that warning would be loud.

I'll get my Army Special out sometime and check the bore diminsions. I know I shot .358 diameter bullets in it for years, and would have checked before ordering that diameter. This was 15 years ago, I haven't shot it recently, but still have it. I remember it's accuracy was very good, usually an indication that the chamber mouths and bore are exactly what is needed for that diameter.

I can't cite you chapter and verse this morning but I'll try to find the articles by Massad Ayoob about the narrower bore and groove diameters used by Colt's in their double action revolvers. I believe Colt's reasoning was it contributed to accuracy and those decisions were made at a time when the Colt Officers Model was king of bullseye competition. At least up through the original Python (mine is an '86 model), Colt's never saw fit to change, so it must not be hazardous. I do remember reading Elmer Keith telling Speer in the late Seventies that using half-jacketed bullets in a .38 Special with magnum primers was a bad idea and highest velocities with lowest pressures could be gotten with cast lead and standard primers. Not sure he was talking about Colts and maybe that's irrelevant; but I also recall the old .38 Special Hi-Speed a/k/a 38/44 factory loads used an all-lead 150 grain hollow point they cranked up to an alleged 1100 foot seconds in a 6" barrel. I've never shot that stuff and wonder why a lot of the bullet didn't get welded to the rifling!

I had a cup of coffee after dinner last night and finally located my old MS Word copy of the letter I sent to Colt in 2003 and redacted it to remove burglary instructions so I can post it here. I thought you might want to see what I was concerned about. Settles nothing, of course, but it's the context for my original post. As soon as I can figure out how to upload the images, I'll do that. ( If you can tell me how to get the document to you privately, I'll send you the unredacted letter.))

Hope you will work with me and we'll get this figured out,
Bill

 

[azshot]

In a nutshell there is nothing to figure out: Colt had slightly tighter bores in their .38 Specials than S&W did. Around .355, not .357.

Unless you mean figuring out what those two men you talked to on the phone meant, 20 years ago? The crux of which was "don't shoot a .38 Special in an Army Special", correct? For that, I'll leave it to others. I believe "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It would be up to these two gentlemen on the phone to prove what they are saying, not for me to forensically try to disprove it, years later, hearing about it 3rd party.

You hear some strange things in life, I don't worry about trying to figure out if it was accurate, when I know it was not. I've shot and studied Colts most of my life, have read most of what was written about them the past 45 years. I never stopped reading about guns since I was 9 years old. Colt made very good barrels, back in the day, and I shoot many Officers Models quite often. Along with other Colts. You can't shoot a .357 bullet out of the smaller bore you were quoting, safely.

 

[kenhwind]

In my 2006 Edition if The Standard Catalog of firearms, page 319.
Snap Shot:
The Colt Python .357
"...but its bore was laboriously tapered by a thousandth of an inch from back to front, forcing the bullet tighter into the grooves."
Masad Ayoob
There are a couple of these Snap Shots in the Colt section by Masad, and none state anything about a tighter bore other than that quote.

 

[azshot]

That is referring to the much debated, "magic ball" process that Colt supposedly used to create a tapered bore or "choked bore". I.E. it gets tighter from the throat to the muzzle. Another big ball of worms because many reputable sources mentioned it, people that worked at Colt on the Pythons talked about using or seeing it, etc. But some insist it's a myth. Tapered bores are not a myth or impossible to make, they are common on some target guns.

That is totally different than talking about the nominal bore diameters of Colt .38s. All companies bored their barrels however they wanted. SAAMI dictates the ammo specifications, which relate to the chamber specs, but not the bore.

 

[JohnnyP]

Don't know if I missed it, but the .45/c refers to .45 caliber and not Colt. A Colt letter on .45 ACP or a .45 Colt caliber will both show the same marking.

I have a letter on the Colt Official Police with .38/c, and a 1988 letter on a Government Model that indicates .45 ACP.

 

[Zebulon_Graves]

Don't know if I missed it, but the .45/c refers to .45 caliber and not Colt. A Colt letter on .45 ACP or a .45 Colt caliber will both show the same marking.

I have a letter on the Colt Official Police with .38/c, and a 1988 letter on a Government Model that indicates .45 ACP.

Thanks for your help. I think I understand but check me on this: You're saying Colt letters on a .45 Colt revolver and a .45 ACP GM would both say ".45/c" in the caliber field? By extension, would that mean a .38 Colt revolver and a .38 Special revolver would get the same ".38/c" in the caliber field? I'm a little slow, occasionally, and its late. Bill

 

[Zebulon_Graves]

That is referring to the much debated, "magic ball" process that Colt supposedly used to create a tapered bore or "choked bore". I.E. it gets tighter from the throat to the muzzle. Another big ball of worms because many reputable sources mentioned it, people that worked at Colt on the Pythons talked about using or seeing it, etc. But some insist it's a myth. Tapered bores are not a myth or impossible to make, they are common on some target guns.

That is totally different than talking about the nominal bore diameters of Colt .38s. All companies bored their barrels however they wanted. SAAMI dictates the ammo specifications, which relate to the chamber specs, but not the bore.

Tapered bores run the cost up but it can be and has been done, and not necessarily by hand lapping, which would be very tedious. A good toolmaker working with a skilled machinist can solve the problem Of course, anybody with a star gauge or even a set of pin gauges could test it on a Python, etc. and see but, except for the 5 minutes of notoriety the tester would get, it wouldn't mean much. The bullseye competitors have long since gone to automatics, although I don't think it was necessarily for reasons of more intrinsic accuracy.

 

[Zebulon_Graves]

A History of The Colt Revolver From 1836 to1940 Haven & Belden 1st Edition | eBay

A History of The Colt Revolver From 1836 to1940 Haven & Belden 1st Edition

www.ebay.com

Bought that First Edition!! Thanks much for the heads up. Bill

UPDATE: the book came to hand safely and, if anything, its advertised condition was understated. I'm very pleased to have this important reference work on my bookshelf and I'm grateful to you for enabling me to get it. Bill