Colt Police Positive Special

[BlueTrain]

My reference here on the notes above is TM9-2200, Small Arms Materiel and Associated Equipment, dated October 1956, also published as TO 11W3-1-5 as a US Air Force Technical Order.

There is only the one revolver model in .38 S&W listed, as I suspected. But like I say, that doesn't mean it was ever actually used in US service. There are several other revolver models listed, all S&W and Colt models and all in .38 Special. Interestingly, the new M13 (the military model number) lightweight revolver, which I didn't know both Colt and S&W produced, has performance figures for 130 grain ball ammo. All the others list 158 grain bullets. Equally curious, they list tracer ammo, too, which I didn't know existed.

Other interesting items in the manual are survival rifles, something not mentioned very often around here. There were no .45 revolvers and no 1928 Thompsons.

But returning to the original question, the 1962 Gun Digest, my only original reference for that time frame, lists the Colt Police Positive Special, the Detective Special and the Cobra as all available in .32 New Police, .38 New Police and .38 Special. But that doesn't mean you could necessarily find one in any caliber you wanted just anywhere, same as some of the small frame S&W revolvers. But they all turn up now and then, invariably in excellent condition with the box. How about a Colt in .256 Magnum? Seen one of them lately?

 

[BillCA]

Oh, it was in the US Army manual, all right, and there were S&W revolvers made in that caliber. I had one. It was a 5" barrel version with a plain wooden grip. The barrel was indeed marked with ".38 S&W Ctg." designation. The revolver was literally covered with stamps, both British and Austrian, so it had been around. There were no importer markings.

My family still has one. It was a K-200, a S&W M&P revolver chambered for the .38 S&W cartridge with a 5-inch barrel and pre-magna smooth walnut grips. It's called a Victory Model revolver. These have serial numbers beginning with a "V" (or rare: "SV") and were built between 1942 and 1945. Our family Victory model has both the US Property marking and British crown proof marks. It was converted in post-war years to .38 Special and Dad bought it mail order in 1948 for the princely sum of $27.50 plus shipping.

There were a lot of war surplus revolvers sold in the 1950s and judging from advertisments in old gun magazines, a lot of them were modified, presumably to make them more marketable. It looked like a lot had barrels shortened to two inches (they lack the forward latch under the barrel but have a full length ejector rod), nickel plated and have new grips of stag (real or plastic, can't tell). I think there have been threads about such variations here before.

Most of those S&W snubbies missing the front locking lug on the barrel are either unsafe or close to unsafe to be fired. Especially if the gun gets out of time, it can force the cylinder open when firing. Adding a locking ball-detent system in the yoke can alleviate this problem.

But returning to the original question, the 1962 Gun Digest, my only original reference for that time frame, lists the Colt Police Positive Special, the Detective Special and the Cobra as all available in .32 New Police, .38 New Police and .38 Special.
.32 New Police = .32 S&W Long
.38 New Police = .32 S&W

Never heard of the .256 Colt Magnum. Did you mean the .256 Winchester Magnum? (The .256 WinMag was a .357 case necked down to .257.)

Looking at the ballistics, the 130gr FMJ .38 Special rounds are ballistically not even as powerful as the .38 S&W. Most ballistics show the 130gr FMJ poking along around 800 fps (189 ft-lbs). Several sources show the .38 S&W with a 158gr bullet at 767 fps for 206 ft-lbs. Modern .38 S&W loads are very mild to allow for older, well-used/aged break-top designs. Winchester's .38 S&W is a 145gr RNL at 685 fps (151 ft-lbs). Hand load that same bullet to 800 fps and it will duplicate the original performance of the .38 S&W.

 

[BlueTrain]

I was referring to the Colt Three-Fifty-Seven revolver chambered for the .256 Magnum. As you know, Colt wouldn't dream of using another maker's name with any of their chamberings, although they would make guns in such calibers just the same. The cover illustration of the 1962 Gun Digest was an S&W revolver in the new .22 centerfire with chamber liners so it could use .22 rimfire cartridges also. Don't remember the model number but I've actually seen one. Don't think I've ever seen anything in .256 magnum but I'm sure eventually someone will rediscover it and start calling it new.

The first revolver I ever owned was a Webley in .38/200. Sturdy thing, incredibly practical break-top action, not particularly accurate.

 

[Mike Irwin]

The US not only had the .380-200 in inventory, it kept it and the ammo in inventory up through at least the Vietnam War.

Issuance is another matter entirely.

Supposedly during WW II OSS officers and operatives were the prime users of .380-200 chambered Smiths.

 

[Mike Irwin]

He didn't say a .256 Colt Magnum...

He said a Colt IN .256 Magnum.

I've never heard of Colt chambering any revolvers in .256 Magnum. It would have had the same problems as the .22 Jet, and probably a lot worse because of the sharper neck.

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, I've heard of it, just never seen one and I'll bet not many others have either. You might call it a non-starter or something. In a way, it was a development of a trend in hot small bore cartridges for revolvers that seemed to have a limited degree of popularity in the 1940s and 1950s, most of which might be called wildcats. The .22 Kay-chuck was another. I don't think there's anything like that in revolvers today. These days extra big-bores get more interest but come to think of it, there are a couple around at the moment. How different are they?

Another thing that seems to have come and gone is the practice of putting long relief telescopes on revolvers, something those hot little revolvers might have benefited from. I gather there must have been a relative abundance of war surplus German telescopes that were mounted in the original scout-rifle format.

The Colt PPS is a charming little revolver and I once owned one. It shows up a lot in old movies, no doubt why I wanted one. They are a nice size, too, and I've seen several excellent examples. For shooting, however, they seem extra stiff, because of the hand that gives it that rigid lock-up, if you can describe it that way.

 

[Mike Irwin]

The closest thing to the Harvey Kay Chuk out today are the Taurus revolvers chambered in .22 Hornet. IIRC the Kay Chuk used the .22 Hornet case as its origin.

The Kay Chuk had a fairly straight body and sharp shoulder, but it kept pressures pretty low compared to the Jet or the .256 Win Mag.

 

[BlueTrain]

I think it is worth mentioning that the Police Positive Special was made relatively recently, as was the Official Police, although the barrel was changed to a sort of underlug style and I think different grips were used. They had nothing of the look of their predecessors even if the mechanism was the same. I suppose my comment is another example of someone not wanting Colt to make anything new, but for a while there we were all anxious to see what the latest thing from S&W was going to be, even though they, too, were just the same inside, more or less, until the internal lock came along.

 

[ronl]

I took my Mom out to shoot the little thing and it is absolutely sweet. I put three shots in less than 1" at 15 yds and I can't shoot pistols very well at all because my eyesight is not very good. Well, for $200 I think it was definitely worth it. Even my Mom, who has NEVER shot a gun before, did well with it. Absolutely no recoil at all. Perfect match for my Mom. Now if I could just find a .38 Special cylinder for it.

 

[Johnny Guest]

I fear you would be dissatisfied, sir - -

Now if I could just find a .38 Special cylinder for it.

ronl, are you aware that the .38 S&W cartridge uses a bullet slightly larger (.361") than the .357" .38 Special bullet?

Many handloaders load the .38 S&W with Spl bullets, with varying degrees of success. With a tight .38 S&W bore, and the use of soft Spl bullets, a good degree of accuracy may be possible. The smaller bullet "slugs out," or obturates to fill the larger bore. On the other hand, using hard bullets at low pressures does not allow the bullet base to expand and fill the bore very well. If one is satisfied with a self-defense arrangement of marginal accuracy, with say, a four inch group at 20 FEET (not yards,) then that might be okay.

I haven't priced Colt revolver cylinders in the past 20 years, but I doubt you could buy one in .38SPL and have it installed for under $150. Colt cylinders are NOT "drop-in" parts; they must be fitted by a knowledgeable 'smith. This doesn't even factor in the time, effort, and telephone charges necessary to locate such a cylinder available for purchase.

ronl, it's your revolver, your money, and your Mom, and I wouldn't essay to tell you what to do. I simply submit that it'd be more economical to sell or trade off that neat little revolver and obtain one originally built in .38 SPL. ALSO, take this into account: You've commented on how soft-shooting it is, and how easy your Mom handles it. That will change greatly with more powerful .38 SPL ammo, especially if you jump right up to +P loads. Might the elderly lady be better off with a less powerful revolver that she can shoot pretty well?

Oh, and one final consideration: It might be reasonable to expect that a Police Positive Special, in a non-standard caliber, with foreign proof marks, could have some significant collector interest. I believe that occasional practice firing with factory ammo or gentle handloads, with prompt and careful cleaning would not harm this little revolver. And a 72-year-old woman would be unlikely to subject it to a lot of wear and tear.

I think it likely that you'll get this piece back some time in the next couple of decades, and it could only have risen in value during that time. UNLESS, that is, unless you've modified it so as to destroy any collector value.

Again, your choice. Good luck to you.
Johnny

 

[James K]

It might be considered that if the woman has fired the .38 S&W and can hit with it, going to the .38 Special could actually be counterproductive, especially if "hot" loads are to be used. Nothing will ruin a beginner's gun skill faster than a lot of noise and blast.

(One odd thing: Everyone claims that .38 S&W is weak and useless, but no one seems to want to test that by being shot with one.)

Jim

 

[SIGSHR]

Only real drawback to the 38 S&W is that at present it is a very out fashion round, hence the only factory ammunition available is the 146 grain RNL, unless you find sone old UK ammo with the 173 grain FMJ. On the Revolver Forum one board member described his tests of the 38 S&W, checking penetration, etc. Yes, no one wants to stand in front of one and as Elmer Kieth might say, not his first choice but sure beats your fists.