Question about S&W M438

XIIIthguards · December 27, 2014, 01:25 AM

So I just recently picked up a new Smith and Wesson model 438. I know that some people have a strong disdain for them, but I've always thought the old Bodyguard was an ideal design for defensive carry, with a shrouded hammer that doesnt snag but allows for SA firing.
But I digress- my main issue was I was wondering about the frame. According to Smith and Wesson's own website, the 438 is a Scandium frame model rather than the aluminum of the 638. Half of the reason I bought it was to replace a sweet model 360j that I traded off in a fit of insanity some time back. However, I have also seen much talk on reviews and such that act as if it is just a regular aluminum frame like the 638 but with a black finish. I was just curious if anyone can say for certain if it is indeed a scandium frame model, or if it no longer is and S&W needs to update their site info. I have noticed that it has an extra pin in the body (see picture) like my 360j did, which I know was a scandium model. Any insight would be appreciated.

Jack19 · December 27, 2014, 06:55 AM

From the S&W website:
ARCHIVE: Model 438
The price is No price available. *
*Suggested Retail, Dealer Sets Actual Pricing
SKU:163438
Model: 438
...

Material: Aluminum Alloy Frame
Stainless Steel Cylinder
Finish: Matte Black
....

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...layErrorView_Y

carguychris · December 27, 2014, 10:36 AM

FWIW an "Airweight" trademark indicates an aluminum alloy frame; the M438's I've seen were marked as such.

The scandium alloy frame versions are typically marked as an M&P (stainless steel cylinder) or AirLite (titanium cylinder). Also, most scandium frame Smiths have been built in Magnum calibers, but there are enough exceptions that you can't count on this as a general rule.

That said, S&W has an annoying habit of producing special runs without Airweight, M&P, or AirLite markings, so if your gun is not marked as any of these, I understand your confusion.

XIIIthguards · December 27, 2014, 09:31 PM

The stock photos show it marked as a "Bodyguard" but the actual gun says "Airweight" probably a change they made with the introduction of the new polymer series bodyguards. I found some old armslist photos of my 360j, and just looking at it, the finish doesn't look the same, so I would guess this 438 probably is just an aluminum frame. Not a huge deal in the long run I suppose, but a little disappointed.

heyjoe · December 27, 2014, 11:51 PM

the 342 is a scandium frame .38

rodfac · December 28, 2014, 07:15 AM

Call Smith....the CS people should be able to help you, cross checking Serial Number vs. Model number. Rod

ScaryWoody · December 30, 2014, 02:58 PM

I bought one of those for the wife. It is an aluminium frame with stainless steel cylinder. I also liked the single action capability in the "hump".

XIIIthguards · December 30, 2014, 11:39 PM

So I had another question if someone thought they could help me with. I was able to take the revolver apart no problem and ground down the nub on the internal lock so I don't have to worry about it unintentionally engaging.
However, upon reassembly, something seems a bit different- when I was taking it apart, the safety bar simply fell out of the lockwork. I didn't think much of it at the time, and was able to reassemble it no problem. However, it now rattles around and I can see it moving when the hammer is cocked if I shake the revolver, and I can hear it but obviously not see it if I do the same while it is uncocked. Is this something normal? this is the first J frame I've owned for any amount of time so maybe it's something normal, but it seemed like it wasn't doing it before I took it apart. Any insight would be appreciated. The picture attached shows the part I'm talking about.

Shadi Khalil · December 30, 2014, 11:51 PM

Yes the shake and rattle of the transfer bar is normal.

Webleymkv · December 31, 2014, 01:35 AM

As Shadi Khalil already pointed out, hearing the hammer block (the proper name for the "safety bar") rattle when the gun is shaken is perfectly normal (every so-equipped S&W revolver I've owned or handled has done so). Honestly, I'm kind of surprised that you didn't notice this before you disassembled your revolver because even the S&W's that I purchased NIB have rattled.

It is also normal to see the hammer block move when you cock the hammer: its supposed to be cammed down by the rebound slide as the hammer is cocked. If the hammer block did not move, it would either not be doing its job of preventing a blow to the hammer from discharging the gun or it would prevent the gun from firing even when the trigger is intentionally pulled.

As an interesting side note, the DAO Centennial models such as the Models 40, 42, 340, 442, 640, and 642 don't have hammer blocks at all. This is because their fully enclosed hammers pretty much preclude any possibility of a blow to the hammer causing an accidental discharge and thus a hammer block is unnecessary.

XIIIthguards · December 31, 2014, 02:07 AM

Like I said, I just don't seem to recall it rattling beforehand. So rattling is normal with the hammer down as well? I thought that the bars worked by blocking the firing pin while the hammer was down so it seems like it rattling around means it isn't doing its job.

Webleymkv · December 31, 2014, 02:28 AM

Yes, it's normal to have a slight rattle even when the hammer is at rest (in fact, they usually rattle less when the hammer is cocked). The hammer block does not block the firing pin but rather, as its name implies, blocks the forward motion of the hammer. If you notice on your revolver that when you dry fire it, the hammer moves back a slight distance when the trigger is released; this is because the hammer is being cammed backward by the rebound slide.

When the action is at rest, the hammer actually isn't in contact with the firing pin and the top portion of the hammer block is resting between the forward face of the hammer and the inside of the frame. This blocks the forward movement of the hammer unless the trigger is pulled in order to prevent a discharge in the case of a sharp blow to the hammer. When you pull the trigger, the rebound slide cams the hammer block down and out of the path of the hammer so that the gun can fire when the hammer is released by pulling the trigger. Upon releasing the trigger, the rebound slide moves forward and simultaneously cams the hammer back slightly and hammer block up. On a S&W revolver with a frame mounted firing pin, the only thing restricting the free movement of the firing pin is the weight of the firing pin return spring.

As I said before, I'm kind of surprised that you didn't notice the hammer block rattling before you disassembled the gun. The only reason I can think of that you didn't was that perhaps there was a bit of dried oil or other debris in the hammer block's channel in the sideplate which caused a tighter fit and thus prevented it from rattling. Perhaps when you disassembled the revolver you unknowingly dislodged this debris thus allowing the hammer block to rattle as it normally would upon reassembly.

XIIIthguards · December 31, 2014, 06:07 AM

It's a possibility- when I took the grips off, a tiny piece of metal, maybe the size of a half grain of rice fell out. This was obviously alarming, but I carefully examined every piece of the lockwork as I disassembled it, and there was no sign at all that anything has chipped or broken off. The revolver functions just fine in terms of locking and turning. However, I took it apart again today and figured out where it came from- I don't know what the part is specifically called but it appears to be the part that is attached to the trigger which then ratchets the cyclinder in double action mode. I've included pictures of the part and the piece that broke off. So, I once again, have a couple questions about it-
1- Is this a part that I should replace with a new one or not something particularly alarming?
2- Is this a part that I can work on myself or would I need to take it to a gunsmith?
3- Does this part being broken impact the safety of the firearm and should I stop carrying it until it is fixed?

I don't really know how this could have happened, other than a result of my brother jacking around with it the other day- I haven't even had a chance to take it to the range and fire it yet. Considering that I've technically voided the warranty by modifying the lock, it would be somewhat irksome to have to send it in to S&W for repairs on my dime.

ScaryWoody · December 31, 2014, 03:09 PM

I found this series of videos helpful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATrz7SSbpAk

It uses a 642 but it's pretty much the same. I disassembled mine to do Wolff spring upgrade and trigger polish.

dahermit · December 31, 2014, 07:37 PM

You broke the "hand" at its pivot point. It will have to be replaced. Numrich Gun Parts may have it. The hand rotates the cylinder. If you can find the part, you may get lucky and find that it just drops in (no fitting required). If you are not lucky, the timing will not be correct.
In any event, you have demonstrated that you do not know enough about the S&W lock-work to mess around with the side plate off. After it is repaired, I suggest you stay out of the insides...just carry and shoot it; leave the parts/rattles, etc., to a gunsmith.

Quote:

3- Does this part being broken impact the safety of the firearm and should I stop carrying it until it is fixed?

The cylinder will not rotate until the hand is replaced.

BigG · December 31, 2014, 07:43 PM

The Centennial DAO type is much preferable to the SA/DA type of pocket revolver. I have learned to fire DAO and not worry about trying to draw too fine a bead because the action allows fine enough control without the SA function.

XIIIthguards · December 31, 2014, 11:07 PM

I've contacted S&W to see what their thoughts are on the matter. It just seems strange that this part broke from normal use on a gun that hasn't even been fired yet. And while it still works fine, it seems like it would probably be better to err on the side of caution and not fire it until this issue is resolved.

Webleymkv · January 2, 2015, 02:29 AM

The hand is, I believe, a common part to all J-Frames so one from another model such as a 637, 638, 642, or 442 should work though it will probably require fitting. S&W may or may not charge you to repair your revolver, but you can be pretty much guaranteed that when it comes back, they will have restored the ILS to functioning condition. Not to be rude or anything, but I have to agree with dahermit's advice that once your revolver is repaired, you should probably leave the insides alone. While the innards of a S&W revolver aren't exactly a Swiss watch, they're not something that a novice should really be fooling with either. The ILS is not the issue that internet forums would have you believe and I suggest that you simply leave it alone and ignore it. If the notion of the lock bothers you so much that you simply can't ignore it, then perhaps you should look into trading your revolver off for a 642 or 442 as both of those models are available without the lock.

December 27, 2014, 06:55 AM	#2
Jack19 Senior Member Join Date: August 18, 2001 Location: Earth Posts: 751	From the S&W website: ARCHIVE: Model 438 The price is No price available. * Suggested Retail, Dealer Sets Actual Pricing SKU:163438 Model: 438 ... Material: Aluminum Alloy Frame Stainless Steel Cylinder Finish: Matte Black .... http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...layErrorView_Y __________________ Once people stop believing in God, the problem is not that they will believe in nothing; rather, the problem is that they will believe anything. - C. S. Lewis Last edited by Jack19; December 27, 2014 at 07:01 AM.*

December 28, 2014, 07:15 AM	#6
rodfac Senior Member Join Date: January 22, 2005 Location: Kentucky Posts: 3,657	Call Smith....the CS people should be able to help you, cross checking Serial Number vs. Model number. Rod __________________ Cherish our flag, honor it, defend it in word and deed, or get the hell out. Our Bill of Rights has been paid for by heros in uniform and shall not be diluted by misguided governmental social experiments. We owe this to our children, anything less is cowardice. USAF FAC, 5th Spl Forces, Vietnam Vet '69-'73.

December 27, 2014, 10:36 AM	#3
carguychris Senior Member Join Date: October 20, 2007 Location: Richardson, TX Posts: 7,523	FWIW an "Airweight" trademark indicates an aluminum alloy frame; the M438's I've seen were marked as such. The scandium alloy frame versions are typically marked as an M&P (stainless steel cylinder) or AirLite (titanium cylinder). Also, most scandium frame Smiths have been built in Magnum calibers, but there are enough exceptions that you can't count on this as a general rule. That said, S&W has an annoying habit of producing special runs without Airweight, M&P, or AirLite markings, so if your gun is not marked as any of these, I understand your confusion.

December 27, 2014, 09:31 PM	#4
XIIIthguards Member Join Date: December 25, 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Posts: 22	The stock photos show it marked as a "Bodyguard" but the actual gun says "Airweight" probably a change they made with the introduction of the new polymer series bodyguards. I found some old armslist photos of my 360j, and just looking at it, the finish doesn't look the same, so I would guess this 438 probably is just an aluminum frame. Not a huge deal in the long run I suppose, but a little disappointed.

December 27, 2014, 11:51 PM	#5
heyjoe Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2007 Posts: 448	the 342 is a scandium frame .38

December 30, 2014, 02:58 PM	#7
ScaryWoody Senior Member Join Date: September 4, 2004 Location: Atlanta Posts: 368	I bought one of those for the wife. It is an aluminium frame with stainless steel cylinder. I also liked the single action capability in the "hump".

December 30, 2014, 11:51 PM	#9
Shadi Khalil Senior Member Join Date: September 24, 2006 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 5,210	Yes the shake and rattle of the transfer bar is normal.

December 31, 2014, 01:35 AM	#10
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,610	As Shadi Khalil already pointed out, hearing the hammer block (the proper name for the "safety bar") rattle when the gun is shaken is perfectly normal (every so-equipped S&W revolver I've owned or handled has done so). Honestly, I'm kind of surprised that you didn't notice this before you disassembled your revolver because even the S&W's that I purchased NIB have rattled. It is also normal to see the hammer block move when you cock the hammer: its supposed to be cammed down by the rebound slide as the hammer is cocked. If the hammer block did not move, it would either not be doing its job of preventing a blow to the hammer from discharging the gun or it would prevent the gun from firing even when the trigger is intentionally pulled. As an interesting side note, the DAO Centennial models such as the Models 40, 42, 340, 442, 640, and 642 don't have hammer blocks at all. This is because their fully enclosed hammers pretty much preclude any possibility of a blow to the hammer causing an accidental discharge and thus a hammer block is unnecessary.

December 31, 2014, 02:07 AM	#11
XIIIthguards Member Join Date: December 25, 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Posts: 22	Like I said, I just don't seem to recall it rattling beforehand. So rattling is normal with the hammer down as well? I thought that the bars worked by blocking the firing pin while the hammer was down so it seems like it rattling around means it isn't doing its job.

December 31, 2014, 02:28 AM	#12
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,610	Yes, it's normal to have a slight rattle even when the hammer is at rest (in fact, they usually rattle less when the hammer is cocked). The hammer block does not block the firing pin but rather, as its name implies, blocks the forward motion of the hammer. If you notice on your revolver that when you dry fire it, the hammer moves back a slight distance when the trigger is released; this is because the hammer is being cammed backward by the rebound slide. When the action is at rest, the hammer actually isn't in contact with the firing pin and the top portion of the hammer block is resting between the forward face of the hammer and the inside of the frame. This blocks the forward movement of the hammer unless the trigger is pulled in order to prevent a discharge in the case of a sharp blow to the hammer. When you pull the trigger, the rebound slide cams the hammer block down and out of the path of the hammer so that the gun can fire when the hammer is released by pulling the trigger. Upon releasing the trigger, the rebound slide moves forward and simultaneously cams the hammer back slightly and hammer block up. On a S&W revolver with a frame mounted firing pin, the only thing restricting the free movement of the firing pin is the weight of the firing pin return spring. As I said before, I'm kind of surprised that you didn't notice the hammer block rattling before you disassembled the gun. The only reason I can think of that you didn't was that perhaps there was a bit of dried oil or other debris in the hammer block's channel in the sideplate which caused a tighter fit and thus prevented it from rattling. Perhaps when you disassembled the revolver you unknowingly dislodged this debris thus allowing the hammer block to rattle as it normally would upon reassembly.

December 31, 2014, 03:09 PM	#14
ScaryWoody Senior Member Join Date: September 4, 2004 Location: Atlanta Posts: 368	I found this series of videos helpful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATrz7SSbpAk It uses a 642 but it's pretty much the same. I disassembled mine to do Wolff spring upgrade and trigger polish.

December 31, 2014, 07:43 PM	#16
BigG Senior Member Join Date: May 20, 1999 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 4,334	The Centennial DAO type is much preferable to the SA/DA type of pocket revolver. I have learned to fire DAO and not worry about trying to draw too fine a bead because the action allows fine enough control without the SA function.

December 31, 2014, 11:07 PM	#17
XIIIthguards Member Join Date: December 25, 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Posts: 22	I've contacted S&W to see what their thoughts are on the matter. It just seems strange that this part broke from normal use on a gun that hasn't even been fired yet. And while it still works fine, it seems like it would probably be better to err on the side of caution and not fire it until this issue is resolved.

January 2, 2015, 02:29 AM	#18
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,610	The hand is, I believe, a common part to all J-Frames so one from another model such as a 637, 638, 642, or 442 should work though it will probably require fitting. S&W may or may not charge you to repair your revolver, but you can be pretty much guaranteed that when it comes back, they will have restored the ILS to functioning condition. Not to be rude or anything, but I have to agree with dahermit's advice that once your revolver is repaired, you should probably leave the insides alone. While the innards of a S&W revolver aren't exactly a Swiss watch, they're not something that a novice should really be fooling with either. The ILS is not the issue that internet forums would have you believe and I suggest that you simply leave it alone and ignore it. If the notion of the lock bothers you so much that you simply can't ignore it, then perhaps you should look into trading your revolver off for a 642 or 442 as both of those models are available without the lock.