I am very much in agreement. I think that velocity is crucial to these smaller calibers. IMO, if you can get the 38 Spec. "jacked up" enough, it's fine, but why bother when you've got the 357 and 9mm? The 357 is great and the 9mm is adequate and the 38 is barely so in their best loadings. I want at least 1300 fps. That makes for a mid-range .357. No doubt the .357 is the best of the three. In the old days it was always claimed that one of the reasons you didn't shoot such hot loads in 38's was that they didn't have as strong a steel as the .357's...at least in the Smith's. Thus you get failures from 38-44 Heavy Duty's and model 13's that run fine, even though the 38-44 is the bigger gun.
Perhaps I'm mis-reading this, but are you suggesting that Smith & Wesson Heavy Duty and Outdoorsman revolvers (both chambered for the .38-44 High Velocity round) are prone to failure if "hot rounds" are fired? I ask because in 1929/30 the standard .38-44 chrono'ed at 1,150 fps from a 6-inch barrel with factory ammo, whereas a .38 special trundled down range at 850 fps, in both instances firing a 158-grain bullet. Given that the .44 Special N-Frame revolver was the basis for both the .38-44 HV and the .357 Magnum, I fail to see how a .38-44 revolver (either Colt or S&W) would be subject to failure from "hot loads". But, as I said up front, perhaps I've misread what you've posted.
