RotoMetals2RepackboxInline FabricationReloading Everything
WidenersLoad DataTitan ReloadingLee Precision
MidSouth Shooters Supply
Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 294

Thread: Fun with a Webley Mark IV 38/200 AKA 38 S&W AKA 380 Rimmed

  1. #241
    Super Moderator




    Buckshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    So. California
    Posts
    11,833
    ...............I'm going to get this thread made into a sticky. Definitely at least a Jr College level dissection of the striving 38 S&W

    ....Buckshot
    Father Grand Caster watches over you my brother. Go now and pour yourself a hot one. May the Sacred Silver Stream be with you always

    Proud former Shooters.Com Cast Bullet alumnus and plank owner.

    "The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

    Shrink the State End the Fed Balance the budget Make a profit Leave an inheritance

  2. #242
    Boolit Master smkummer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    So. Indiana
    Posts
    1,861
    Hope I am not too far drifting from original post but I was searching for Outpost 75 loading data for 38 S&W. Anyway, I was at the range with my Colt official police 38-200. Older Lyman data showed a max. of 3 grs. bullseye and Lyman’s 358477 150 gr. SWC in 38 S&W. This chronographed at 850 FPS out of the 5” colt and shoots a 2” group at 25 yards! I did fire some of these in my post war colt cobra 2” chambered for 38 Colt New Police and it ran 800 FPS with some noted recoil. All my 38 S&W chambered gun’s are solid frame Colts but I’ll probably back down to 2.8 bullseye for more comfort in the small D frames.
    Funny how different 3 grs. Bullseye and the 150 bullet in a 38 S&W case feels compared to 3 grains bullseye and lee’s 148 solid wadcutter flush seated in the 38 special case.

  3. #243
    Boolit Grand Master Outpost75's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    over the hill, out in the woods and far away
    Posts
    10,158
    Sending you a PM.
    The ENEMY is listening.
    HE wants to know what YOU know.
    Keep it to yourself.

  4. #244
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Denial
    Posts
    4,212
    Stickied at last!

    Replying to LouisianaMan's post 231:

    Sufficiently bored with the ongoing COVID stay-at-home nonsense that I'll be firing up the MKI mold tomorrow. Might even knock out the loads, but that should happen shortly at any rate.

    Not really knowing what the official British alloy was, I'll probably just wing it with either recovered shotgun slugs (near pure) or recovered jacketed core material (some antimony content). Given the 600fps launch speed, I'm thinking hardness is largely irrelevant - deformation highly doubtful.

    Current thinking is some kind of medium card stock between the jugs to see if we can get a Wile E. Coyote impact outline from a tumbling impact. Typing paper proved a little too flimsy when wet.

    Of course, the problem with doing this in a non-gel testing medium is that you only get data collection points at the intersections between jugs, and if the bullet does a complete 180 or 360, one's only indication of tumbling would be yaw off the orginal line of flight.

    I'm still convinced they WON'T tumble, but hey, putting one's assumptions forward for failure is how science works.
    WWJMBD?

    In the Land of Oz, we cast with wheel weight and 2% Tin, Man.

  5. #245
    Boolit Grand Master Outpost75's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    over the hill, out in the woods and far away
    Posts
    10,158
    Recent tests firing S&W Victory and Ruger India Model revolvers with heavy 190-240-grain FN bullets show yaw in the bullet holes hitting the target paper, but accuracy is satisfactory.

    Attachment 272255Attachment 272256Attachment 272257Attachment 272258Attachment 272259

    Attachment 272260Attachment 272261Attachment 272262Attachment 272263
    Last edited by Outpost75; 11-28-2020 at 10:23 PM.
    The ENEMY is listening.
    HE wants to know what YOU know.
    Keep it to yourself.

  6. #246
    Boolit Buddy LouisianaMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    366
    If I recall correctly, the .455 alloy was 20:1 Pb:Sn. Not sure whether the Brits made any conscious decisions that a different alloy offered an advantage worthy of adoption with the .38/200; surviving records of the Mk 1 ammunition's development and adoption are apparently fragmentary and omit the Board's analysis of bullet alloy, wounding mechanisms, and expected target effects.

    Well, little besides their oft-remarked assertion that it offered "stopping power" basically equivalent to the .455! That statement drives American shooters practically crazy, probably because (1) it evokes the .45 ACP FMJ vs. .38 SPL LRN argument and the school of thought articulated to such effect by Jeff Cooper in the literature of the 1970s; (2) received wisdom from two World Wars; (3) experience from the Philippine Insurrection, in which the .38 Government (aka .38 LC, NOT the .38 S&W) was notoriously unsatisfactory vs. Moro tribesmen and therefore was partially replaced by Model 1873 Colts chambered for .45 LC, which apparently were used with .45 Schofield ammo; and (4) the experience of today's American shooters with anemic .38 S&W factory ammo, 145-46g @ nominal 685 fps. (In my experience, factory loads from Winchester, Remington, and Prvi Partizan are generally even milder, with Fiocchi's LRN and FMJ loads meeting or exceeding 685 from my 4" S&W revolvers.)

    The matter is confused even further by the fact that British combat experience with their ".380 Revolver" was achieved with the 178g FMJ Mk 2Z ammo, not the 200g Mk I blunt, round-nosed "soft lead" bullet. Outpost75 has explained elsewhere how the disastrous bullet-in-bore problems--as well as the grotesque bullet failures to reach the target, much less penetrate it--likely resulted from "tolerance stacking" that could match minimum-diameter, thick-jacketed bullets, excessive barrel-cylinder gaps, max-tolerance groove diameters, and perhaps low-end or environmentally-degraded propellant charges. Mk 1Z lead alloy bullets wouldn't have suffered B-i-B except in cases of total absence/failure of powder charges.

    My interest in .38/200 alloy has long been piqued by the findings of Thompson-LaGarde in 1904, as their report expounded rather enthusiastically upon the marked "crushing effect" heavy, soft lead bullets displayed when impacting bone in living animals and human cadavers. They contrasted such devastating effects with the caliber-sized, thru-and-thru holes and minimal fracturing inflicted by jacketed and hardcast bullets. Would such "crushing effects" perhaps be compounded by yawing .38-200 bullets?

    Like you, I doubt seriously that you'll experience bullet deformation either of pure Pb or 20:1 bullets through water alone. Through bone, however? I like your idea of card stock between water jugs, or perhaps using 1/2 gallon cartons would be preferable to gallon jugs.

    Assuming the Fackler "permanent crush" theory is correct for low-velocity, non-expanding bullets, the difference in "stopping power" between British .455-265g @600 conical nose and .380-200g @600 blunt round nose ammunition would tend to be a function of bullet frontal area, assuming stable bullets and equal shot placement. If the bullets yaw equally, we'd need to compare their maximum surface areas, and if yaw rates were unequal, that would have to be calculated, too. I leave it to those more qualified than I, to calculate whether a blunt nose .38 delivers more impact than a conical .455; how much difference might be made by their respective yawing characteristics; relative penetration against human targets; the quantitative difference between the .455's 20:1 or FMJ bullets and the original .38/200 and its putatively "soft lead." Given what I *think* I know about all of it, I can well imagine that their terminal effectiveness upon enemy soldiers was heavily dependent upon hitting critical organs or major bones, in which case the .38 probably could do approximately equal damage to the .455.

    Fairbairn and Sykes were emphatic about the need for multiple, rapid torso hits with any handgun, and they remarked they'd seen even this fail with both .455 and .45 Automatic. In antipersonnel usage, it was probably true that .455 and .38/200 bullets had roughly the same effects, *given equal shot placement*. Clearly the British Army concluded the average soldier was more able to deliver good, fast, multiple hits with the .38/200 Enfield, and most US police departments of the 20th century would've concurred.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigslug View Post
    Stickied at last!

    Replying to LouisianaMan's post 231:

    Sufficiently bored with the ongoing COVID stay-at-home nonsense that I'll be firing up the MKI mold tomorrow. Might even knock out the loads, but that should happen shortly at any rate.

    Not really knowing what the official British alloy was, I'll probably just wing it with either recovered shotgun slugs (near pure) or recovered jacketed core material (some antimony content). Given the 600fps launch speed, I'm thinking hardness is largely irrelevant - deformation highly doubtful.

    Current thinking is some kind of medium card stock between the jugs to see if we can get a Wile E. Coyote impact outline from a tumbling impact. Typing paper proved a little too flimsy when wet.

    Of course, the problem with doing this in a non-gel testing medium is that you only get data collection points at the intersections between jugs, and if the bullet does a complete 180 or 360, one's only indication of tumbling would be yaw off the orginal line of flight.

    I'm still convinced they WON'T tumble, but hey, putting one's assumptions forward for failure is how science works.

  7. #247
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Denial
    Posts
    4,212
    Got about 400 of the little buggers cast up today:

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]272321[/ATTACH

    For the alloy, I decided upon recovered range scrap that was segregated to include only jacketed bullets, and this alloy has been tested to include 0.3% antimony and tests consistently at about 9-9.5BHN.

    My logic on this is that the mass produced bullets of the era would have almost certainly been swaged, the raw materials I salvaged the alloy from were swaged, and there probably hasn't been much change in how to optimize the material for squeezing into shape. Not knowing what the original alloy spec was, this is probably gonna get us close. Given that a bunch of that .38/200 load may have been provided by U.S. manufacturers via Lend-Lease, the Brits may not have cared overly much.

    Just for giggles, I tried to get an idea of the location of the balance point for this bullet by see-sawing it on the edge of a bullet tray compartment. Best I can tell, it's pretty close to the middle of that wide front driving band, so pretty well centered. I think we may see yaw, but I'm still having trouble envisioning how it's going to dramatically swap ends.

    FYI - it did cast on the fat side at .365". Fortunately, the metal was soft enough it gave no problems sizing down to .360". 207 grains instead of 200, but cest la guerre.

    With the earlier, "incorrect" 200 grain tapered nose NOE, 2.3 grains of Titegroup got me 625 fps. Looks like we want to slow that down by about 30 fps Any suggestions for charge to get us around 590?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 38-200-2.jpg  
    WWJMBD?

    In the Land of Oz, we cast with wheel weight and 2% Tin, Man.

  8. #248
    Boolit Buddy LouisianaMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigslug View Post
    Got about 400 of the little buggers cast up today:

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]272321[/ATTACH

    For the alloy, I decided upon recovered range scrap that was segregated to include only jacketed bullets, and this alloy has been tested to include 0.3% antimony and tests consistently at about 9-9.5BHN.

    My logic on this is that the mass produced bullets of the era would have almost certainly been swaged, the raw materials I salvaged the alloy from were swaged, and there probably hasn't been much change in how to optimize the material for squeezing into shape. Not knowing what the original alloy spec was, this is probably gonna get us close. Given that a bunch of that .38/200 load may have been provided by U.S. manufacturers via Lend-Lease, the Brits may not have cared overly much.

    Just for giggles, I tried to get an idea of the location of the balance point for this bullet by see-sawing it on the edge of a bullet tray compartment. Best I can tell, it's pretty close to the middle of that wide front driving band, so pretty well centered. I think we may see yaw, but I'm still having trouble envisioning how it's going to dramatically swap ends.

    FYI - it did cast on the fat side at .365". Fortunately, the metal was soft enough it gave no problems sizing down to .360". 207 grains instead of 200, but cest la guerre.

    With the earlier, "incorrect" 200 grain tapered nose NOE, 2.3 grains of Titegroup got me 625 fps. Looks like we want to slow that down by about 30 fps Any suggestions for charge to get us around 590?
    Loaded "long" with a COL of 1.175", a charge of 2.1g Win231 would've gotten me right in the 590 range from my 4" S&W Mod. 33-1 (.359" groove diameter). I say "would've," because the notes I have handy state that 2.0g gave me 573 fps; 2.2g gave 604 fps; and 2.4g gave 642 fps. Bullets were loaded as-cast, avg. .360-.361".

    Assuming your TiteGroup load COL and revolver groove diameter are identical to mine, my guess is 2.1g TG for your next load. Based on your 200g long-ogive bullet results with 2.3g TG, I'd say 2.1g TG is reasonable with your NOE Mk I mold.

    Most important caution, however, applies to your COL. Again, mine were loaded "long" at 1.175" COL. My NOE long-ogive 200g gave me a COL of 1.235", and 2.2g Win 231 gave me 609 fps from the same S&W M33-1 revolver. Note that the 2.2g W231 gave me almost precisely the same velocities with both the Mk I and Mk II (i.e. long-ogive) bullets, despite their differing COLs.

    You can see my old notes in the attached file. It will also provide you some of my results in shooting similar loads, milk jugs, etc. I look forward to hearing your next results!
    Attached Files Attached Files

  9. #249
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Denial
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by LouisianaMan View Post
    Fairbairn and Sykes were emphatic about the need for multiple, rapid torso hits with any handgun, and they remarked they'd seen even this fail with both .455 and .45 Automatic. In antipersonnel usage, it was probably true that .455 and .38/200 bullets had roughly the same effects, *given equal shot placement*. Clearly the British Army concluded the average soldier was more able to deliver good, fast, multiple hits with the .38/200 Enfield, and most US police departments of the 20th century would've concurred.
    If I recall correctly, .45ACP hardball rated about 60% in the big "one shot stop" category, and .32 ACP wasn't all that far removed from it.

    My own limited observation on deer-sized game, backed up by a similar-minded acquaintance who's been scientifically slaughtering trapped feral pigs, is that solid cardiovascular hits that don't also hit spine or supporting leg structure typically take about ten seconds to put the animal on the ground from blood loss in the brain, and that it doesn't seem to matter if it's a duty handgun load, a .30-06-class rifle with Barnes TTSX's, or a .45-70 LFN.

    More hits certainly means more "drains in the tub", but it also means more points of trauma to be perceived as "bad stuff happening" in the myriad ways the brain can perceive it. If the other guy is trying to kill you, there is much to be said for overloading his system with a bunch of stuff that simply hurts in addition to the one good shot that might ultimately prove incapacitating - - -but still giving him time to empty a magazine at you before the message gets through.

    I mentioned this some pages back, but it bears repeating: the .455 Webley MKVI, the Colt New Service .45, and the N-Frame Hand Ejectors are all big, heavy hog-legs that take a fair amount of physical WORK to handle well. While there is not a great deal more recoil on my .455 MKVI than on my .38 MKIV, there's more weight to elevate, a longer trigger travel, and the mass of the big cylinder rotating and coming to a stop on a DA trigger pull is noticeable. The little .38 is definitely a lot easier to run. When you step up to .45 Colt or ACP, then you get to manage the bigger gun - -WITH recoil. If you want your conscripts to be effective and quickly, the hand cannons are not what you want to give them.

    Now, if we didn't have that pesky Hague Convention and could load those large frame, but light-loaded revolvers up with 452423's, there MIGHT be a dual argument in terms of the largest possible meplat causing faster blood loss and a greater incapacitating pain effect. Since we're just poking holes with round noses, however, 2-3 .38's delivered in the same time span as one .45 begins to show some appeal - especially when that one may not be as well placed as you'd like it to be.

    One of my pro-9mm theories might have some relevance here: In those "one shot stop" studies, the .40 S&W and .45 duty loads typically rate about 92%-94% and the 9mm equivalents follow slightly behind at about 90%.

    Now, many would latch onto this as meaning the bigger rounds are slightly more effective. The notion I put forth for consideration is that a 9mm may be equally effective, but it doesn't rate a one-shot-stop as often because the guy shooting it has an easier time getting back on target to deliver a second round before he can perceive that his first did the job. The threat is down just as fast, and we are left with THE PERCEPTION that it took more rounds, when the reality is that the system simply allows for easier delivery of punches.

    I guess the proper - if somewhat grim - way to measure the effectiveness of either system is not in the disposal of the enemy, but in the survival rate of the operators.
    WWJMBD?

    In the Land of Oz, we cast with wheel weight and 2% Tin, Man.

  10. #250
    Boolit Grand Master
    9.3X62AL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Redlands, NorKifornia
    Posts
    11,551
    Some great reasoning and assessment going on in this thread. Nothing to really add or subtract, and I'm enjoying the discussion.
    I don't paint bullets. I like Black Rifle Coffee. Sacred cows are always fair game. California is to the United States what Syria is to Russia and North Korea is to China/South Korea/Japan--a Hermit Kingdom detached from the real world and led by delusional maniacs, an economic and social basket case sustained by "foreign" aid so as to not lose military bases.

  11. #251
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Denial
    Posts
    4,212
    Well, if this picture doesn't inspire joy with you fellas, I don't know what will:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MK4 MKI.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	19.0 KB 
ID:	272584

    MKI's ready to go with LA.M.'s suggestion of 2.1 grains of Titegroup. I had hoped to bust some jugs with them today, but when we got to the range, we found a cleaning party in progress. Sadly, the science will have to wait a couple weeks.

    I chopped up a bunch of soda cans into flat sheets, which I intend to tape to the front surface of each jug after the first in the hopes that they register any instability.

    I'm glad Outpost has invested in his flat nosed monster molds for this project. The WWI / WWII geek in my insists I run the traditional bullets in these things - at least as the primary. That said, his 36-190 is messin' with my head. We gotta find somebody to make a pump action to shoot those!
    WWJMBD?

    In the Land of Oz, we cast with wheel weight and 2% Tin, Man.

  12. #252
    Boolit Buddy LouisianaMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigslug View Post
    Well, if this picture doesn't inspire joy with you fellas, I don't know what will:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MK4 MKI.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	19.0 KB 
ID:	272584

    MKI's ready to go with LA.M.'s suggestion of 2.1 grains of Titegroup. I had hoped to bust some jugs with them today, but when we got to the range, we found a cleaning party in progress. Sadly, the science will have to wait a couple weeks.

    I chopped up a bunch of soda cans into flat sheets, which I intend to tape to the front surface of each jug after the first in the hopes that they register any instability.

    I'm glad Outpost has invested in his flat nosed monster molds for this project. The WWI / WWII geek in my insists I run the traditional bullets in these things - at least as the primary. That said, his 36-190 is messin' with my head. We gotta find somebody to make a pump action to shoot those!
    That's a great-looking Webley with ammo that looks like "The Right Stuff." What COL are they loaded to? They look like they're seated a bit deeper than mine, but I can't tell for sure. If so, it'll boost your velocity and also reduce the tendency to tumble after impact. They'll certainly punch through some soda can metal, but I don't know how much

    Although the Brits' stated velocity was 590 fps, I imagine anything between 570-620 is right in the sweet spot. I very much doubt they could hold mass production specs any tighter than that.

    I look forward to your results! I guess I should sign off with "Tally ho!" or something of the sort, eh what?

  13. #253
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Denial
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by LouisianaMan View Post
    What COL are they loaded to?
    1.14 to 1.15". Used the taper off the front band for a slight roll crimp. Seemed the logical thing.
    WWJMBD?

    In the Land of Oz, we cast with wheel weight and 2% Tin, Man.

  14. #254
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Powder Point Bridge
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigslug View Post

    Just for giggles, I tried to get an idea of the location of the balance point for this bullet by see-sawing it on the edge of a bullet tray compartment. Best I can tell, it's pretty close to the middle of that wide front driving band, so pretty well centered. I think we may see yaw, but I'm still having trouble envisioning how it's going to dramatically swap ends.
    NOE gives the center of gravity and center of pressure here: https://noebulletmolds.com/site/shop...ss-mk1-38-200/ (You have to click on the diagram and then click the little magnifying glass icon to get the diagram to hold still. It was easier on their old site. But I suppose that's progress.)

    A while back I did some minimal (very minimal) testing of 200 grain .38 Specials from a snubby. Did 5 shots each of five or six different bullets into Clear Ballistic gel. I had the Lee, SAECO, M-P, RCBS, and two different Lyman bullets, all at about 600 f/s. The only one that didn't swap ends and veer off course was the Lyman 358430. That plowed straight through like a miniature .600 Nitro Express. Of course, that's the one with the nose shaped most like your NOE. I'll be interested to see how yours does.
    Last edited by pettypace; 12-05-2020 at 04:55 AM.

  15. #255
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Denial
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by pettypace View Post
    NOE gives the center of gravity and center of pressure here: https://noebulletmolds.com/site/shop...ss-mk1-38-200/ . . .
    Potentially useful, that. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by pettypace View Post
    A while back I did some minimal (very minimal) testing of 200 grain .38 Specials from a snubby. Did 5 shots each of five or six different bullets into Clear Ballistic gel. . . . all at about 600 f/s. The only one that didn't swap ends and veer off course was the Lyman 358430. That plowed straight through like a miniature .600 Nitro Express. Of course, that's the one with the nose shaped most like your NOE. I'll be interested to see how yours does.
    I had exactly that result with the 358430 shot into FBI gel at 570fps.

    One observation here: arrows, darts, aerial bombs, Sidewinder missiles, etc..., all fly point-forward because they have drag-reducing noses and drag-creating fins at the back. All the driving bands and lube grooves on the MKI are behind the balance point and will probably serve in the same fashion to provide drag at the back and keep the bullet point forward, even after gyroscopic stability slows/ceases on impact.

    One can begin to see how this would NOT apply to the MK2z.
    WWJMBD?

    In the Land of Oz, we cast with wheel weight and 2% Tin, Man.

  16. #256
    Boolit Buddy LouisianaMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    366
    If I understand correctly, the British Mk 1 200g blunt-roundnose-bottlenose (take your pick!), when it remains stable and penetrates without yawing significantly, should theoretically inflict a wound mass of 18g, thus being roughly equivalent to other .38 caliber non-expanding "police service-style" loads of its era

    Assuming that's about right, why did the British expend so much apparent effort in improving the regular .38 S&W cartridge of 146g @ 685? Supposedly their small arms selection board explored ammunition R&D intensively for several years, eventually choosing the 200g blunt LRN as the best option for their handgun and cartridge choices, and for the soldiers expected to use this weapon system. I do NOT know whether they developed the ammo and US police forces and ammunition manufacturers embraced it, or vice versa. I think Outpost stated that it was probably developed here and subsequently adapted by the British Army for their manufacturing methods and materials.

    One way or the other, the Brits tested it, considered its characteristics and capabilities to be adequate, and adopted it as their standard service ammunition. They did affirmatively express confidence in its "stopping power," as we know, comparing it as they did to the .455. I believe the .38 Colt New Police already existed, with 150g LFN bullets at velocities I've chrono'ed at 670, 770, and several points in between. The Brits could've adopted that solution, or developed it readily enough (flat nose bullet + more powder = a simple, obvious fix).

    So...what advantages did they believe the Mk 1 ammo actually offered? If they believed a flat nosed bullet hit harder, why not adopt that configuration in whatever weight they desired? Or why not reflexively adopt the conoido-conical bullet shape of the .455 ammo if it offered advantages, which is roughly what they did just a few years later with the .380 Mk 2 anyway? (In my admittedly crude backyard testing, MILSURP Mk 2 178g FMJ tumbled more reliably than my Mk 1 dupe handloads, more drastically, and clearly inflicted much more damage to rows of inoffensive water jugs. I was pleasantly surprised, given the bad reputation of the of the Mk 2.)

    Of course, it's possible the Board simply needed a quick solution in 1932 to upgrade the 146@685 and satisfy The Boss, the American "Super Police" ammo was available, so they grabbed it up and called it good enough.

    My question, ultimately, is almost that simple: Knowing what WE know today, what advantages did the Mk 1 of those days offer? If WE had to sell it to OUR Boss, what advantages could we cite, compared to the obvious alternatives I've outlined above? Even if we basically had to accept the Mk 1 for reasons of availability, what positive characteristics do we believe it has besides being soft-shooting and adequately accurate?

    OK, some final twists. If YOU had to adapt the ".38 S&W" in the Enfield or Webley revolver for ALL of YOUR defense needs, what load would you cook up? Why? To what extent would the Mk 1 load merit your consideration? How about if you were required to use a non-expanding bullet?

    This is the kind of stuff I come up with on a COVID Saturday night in Baton Rouge, when Bama massacred LSU 55-17 in Tiger Stadium.

  17. #257
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Denial
    Posts
    4,212
    Quote Originally Posted by LouisianaMan View Post
    If I understand correctly, the British Mk 1 200g blunt-roundnose-bottlenose (take your pick!), when it remains stable and penetrates without yawing significantly, should theoretically inflict a wound mass of 18g, thus being roughly equivalent to other .38 caliber non-expanding "police service-style" loads of its era

    Assuming that's about right, why did the British expend so much apparent effort in improving the regular .38 S&W cartridge of 146g @ 685? . . .

    . . .So...what advantages did they believe the Mk 1 ammo actually offered? If they believed a flat nosed bullet hit harder, why not adopt that configuration in whatever weight they desired? Or why not reflexively adopt the conoido-conical bullet shape of the .455 ammo if it offered advantages, which is roughly what they did just a few years later with the .380 Mk 2 anyway? . . .

    My question, ultimately, is almost that simple: Knowing what WE know today, what advantages did the Mk 1 of those days offer? If WE had to sell it to OUR Boss, what advantages could we cite, compared to the obvious alternatives I've outlined above? Even if we basically had to accept the Mk 1 for reasons of availability, what positive characteristics do we believe it has besides being soft-shooting and adequately accurate?
    Without knowing the actual mindset of the Brits at the time, I can take some reasonably educated guesses:

    1. The American Civil War, the Indian Wars, Euro/African/Asian colonialism, the introduction of smokeless powder, WWI, Prohibition. . . Today, we tend to think of these as as widely separated events in history, but the reality is it was only about two generations, and that the movers and shakers of the 1930's would have been raised on firsthand accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg, and probably WERE at Ypres and the Somme. Those guys would have pulled from what they knew, and they KNEW an 1851 Navy Colt with it's .375" round ball to be an effective tool for antipersonnel use.

    2. Military "requirements" bring out some weird things, such as the development of the M855 5.56mm load with a need to penetrate a Soviet helmet at a stated distance. Putting down a horse was a common military requirement even through WWII. The Hague convention had already led to the .455 MKIII and MKIV being discontinued, so they were somewhat painted into a corner. While there are often quests for the "Swiss Army Knife" that does all tasks, the British pistol needs were pretty straightforward - not violate Hague, be shootable in the hands of a novice and be effective in a military capacity. Adding mass and sectional density to the .38 S&W was a pretty easy way to do all of that.

    3. What had the guys in the British arms industry of 1930 been doing for the last 50 years? Making guns and ammunition for hunting in Africa, that's what. W.D.M. Bell's exploits on elephant with 7x57mm 175 grain FMJ being the extreme example, those guys KNEW that bottlenose solids offering deep, straight line penetration would do the job, so long as the shooter did his.

    Those of us today have to think in terms of what they "KNEW", and weigh it against what we have learned - and in some cases, unlearned - since. We have to remember that we today are on the other side of an era in which we THOUGHT velocity and and energy transfer were all that and a bag of chips. In the context of that era, the .38 S&W in any form is a gutless wonder, but I think we can all agree that the very existence of this thread is proof that we are seriously rethinking that notion, and that the inter-war Brits were not morons after all. In the final equation, the .38/200 MKI is a Navy Colt in which the velocity of a plain round ball is traded off for the "big game" penetration of added mass. Remember, those guys in the '30's weren't brainwashed by Roy Weatherby, so that is a totally reasonably logic path for them to have followed.

    Quote Originally Posted by LouisianaMan View Post
    OK, some final twists. If YOU had to adapt the ".38 S&W" in the Enfield or Webley revolver for ALL of YOUR defense needs, what load would you cook up? Why? To what extent would the Mk 1 load merit your consideration? How about if you were required to use a non-expanding bullet?
    First off, I think expanding bullets in this particular package would be a HIDEOUSLY bad idea! First off, the velocities are too low for reliable and consistent expansion, even with pure, unjacketed lead as the material. Second, at the weights and velocities in question, if they DID expand, penetration would be greatly compromised. We are seeing this shift with the pocket auto calibers - a .32 or .380 lack the energy to provide BOTH penetration and expansion, and the FBI data crunchers tell us if you can only have one, take penetration. FNFMJ has become the preferred tool of many for those rounds. The .38 S&W is the same kind of animal.

    So, if I were going to optimize the .38 S&W system for defense in a sturdy (Webley, K-frame, Ruger, etc...) revolver?

    1. We'd be shooting a WFN profile that is tapered just enough to not hinder a reload. Probably about a 75% meplat of about .27".

    2. I would seek a weight/velocity combination that puts us near or slightly beyond the FBI's maximum desired penetration of 18" in bare gelatin, on the assumption that the additional FBI tests of clothing, drywall, plywood, automotive sheet metal, and laminated auto glass will reduce that penetration. As long as we stay between 12" and 18" (Accepting that glass may be the one area in which we fail slightly) we're golden. Since we are not seeking expansion, this should not be all that hard.

    3. Since we are not seeking expansion, I would harden up the alloy so that resistance to deformation through the above media tests is improved. Since we are possibly considering this as a mass-marketed commercial venture, this would probably be best done as a full metal jacket flat point. For us casters, lube grooves or powder coat will serve.

    4. I would perform a study on twist rate and bullet shape to ensure the optimum weight/velocity combination stays nose-forward on impact.

    5. If I'm looking to launch a new line of revolvers, I stick by my earlier statement of using the .38 Short Colt rather than the .38 S&W as the starting point to take advantage of the wider range of bullets in the .358" diameter and have the ability to use as a gallery load in a .38 Special or .357 Magnum.

    6. Obviously for this thread, we need to stick within the C.O.A.L. of the .38 S&W for compatibility with cylinder length. If we are R&Ding something new, we want to stick with the same basic shortness in order to market smaller revolvers, but could certainly expand slightly if the ideal combination of ammo variables require it.

    EDIT TO ADD: The MKI would not really be a first choice because the round nose is going to be a limiting factor to rapid hemorrhage. That said, in keeping with the notion of "make holes until there's nothing standing in front of you", it's no worse than the 9mm FMJRN we go to war with to this day.

    (Given all the downthrust our propeller beanies have generated on this thread, I certainly hope somebody at Ruger or S&W is reading )
    Last edited by Bigslug; 12-06-2020 at 01:56 PM.
    WWJMBD?

    In the Land of Oz, we cast with wheel weight and 2% Tin, Man.

  18. #258
    Boolit Grand Master Outpost75's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    over the hill, out in the woods and far away
    Posts
    10,158
    ^^^^^Bravissimo!!^^^^^


    Maybe one of these?

    Attachment 272712Attachment 272713Attachment 272714Attachment 272715

    At max OAL 1.375 you get this Attachment 272717
    Last edited by Outpost75; 12-06-2020 at 02:15 PM.
    The ENEMY is listening.
    HE wants to know what YOU know.
    Keep it to yourself.

  19. #259
    Boolit Buddy
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Powder Point Bridge
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigslug View Post

    4. I would perform a study on twist rate and bullet shape to ensure the optimum weight/velocity combination stays nose-forward on impact.
    I'm guessing that unless these things "tumble" we'll end up with too much penetration (for the FBI, anyway) and not enough wound mass. In that case, we might be better off with a simple target wadcutter for a snubby or a "full-charge" wadcutter for a service revolver.

    For instance, a non-tumbling 200 grain .36 caliber SWC at 600 ft/s should penetrate about 30" of gello but only give about 17 grams of "effective" wound mass (using MacPherson's calculation).

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	36-swc-600.png 
Views:	20 
Size:	7.2 KB 
ID:	272734

    A 200 grain wadcutter at 600 f/s should penetrate about 23" and give about 26 grams of wound mass.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	36-wc-600.png 
Views:	17 
Size:	7.7 KB 
ID:	272735

    A 200 grain WFN might be somewhere in between, but I suspect closer to the SWC than to the WC.

    On the other hand, a .36 caliber 150 grain wadcutter at 650 f/s should penetrate 18" and still give the same 26 grams of wound mass with significantly less recoil (PF = 98 vs PF = 120).

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	36-150-wc-600.png 
Views:	17 
Size:	7.2 KB 
ID:	272736

    It's worth noting that 26 grams of wound mass is about the same as GI .45 hardball -- nothing to turn up your butt to.
    Last edited by pettypace; 12-06-2020 at 06:42 PM.

  20. #260
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Denial
    Posts
    4,212
    I'm gonna have to read up on this whole "wound mass" thing, assuming it to be the quantity of tissue turned to pulp.

    That's where some of Veral Smith's observations come in - that a bit more ragged passage through tissue results in more bleeding from the wound channel walls. in that regard, a deeper penetration adds to the wound volume simply because it makes more of those walls.

    As to exceeding the FBI's 18", yes we might, however, that's not something I'd lose a great deal of sleep over with this particular cartridge. One thing the FBI protocol does not address is the dynamics of the opposing side of the torso. A LOT of the modern duty rounds are stopped by the skin and clothing on the exit side. A WFN out of this thing is not going to have much gas left if it does exit. The WFN concept is a compromise between the max crush of a wadcutter and the ability to rapidly reload and feed it through the tubular magazine rifles that I just KNOW will catch on. Besides. . .if it penetrates 30", think of the suppressor and feral hog possibilities.
    WWJMBD?

    In the Land of Oz, we cast with wheel weight and 2% Tin, Man.

Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check