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

[pettypace]

I need to catch up on lots of things, including the .455 thread and the June 2018 Minutes of Her Majesty's S.A.A. (Revolver, Service, Webley .455-inch) Terminal Ballistic Science, Testing & Experimentation Board.

Pending fuller review, let me ask this: did you verify whether the conoidal-pyramidal-cylindrical &c. (I'm getting in the spirit here!) bullet shape tumbles in water jugs? I scanned your results with those nifty flat-nosed bullets and see that they did NOT tumble. My own shooting in various calibers .32, .38, .44 also has consistently resulted in flat-nosed bullets penetrating straight, nose-first. Round-nosed heavy bullets at low velocity were the ones quite likely to tumble, with .38 caliber efforts yielding most consistent tumbling with 200g LRNs at sub-600 fps MV. The British military spec for the .380-inch Mark 1/1Z 200g LRN was 590 fps, which corresponds closely with what I was finding to be the "sweet spot" when shooting water jugs.

In shooting CIS Mk 2Z 178g FMJ ammo of modern manufacture, I was observing a strong tendency to tumble. My impression was that tighter bores such as Colt and Ruger generally developed higher velocity, more stability, and were less likely to tumble. I should've done more shooting with Enfields when I had the chance, but having the largest dimensions and looser military/wartime tolerances, I consider them the most likely to develop low velocities and tumble after penetration.

That's safe with lead bullets such as the 200g, but that combination of characteristics is what gave the guns and Mk 2 FMJ ammo such a disastrous reputation for bullet-in-bore incidents when shooting low-powered or degraded ammo built to loose wartime tolerances. "Tolerance stacking" is the engineering concept Outpost explained to me, and it makes perfect sense even to this History-German major...!

So, is the lead, bottle-nosed .38-200 Mk 1 bullet, and/or in its guise as the Mk 2Z 178g FMJ, the "poor man's hollowpoint"? The low-pressure, low-blast, low-recoil way to enhance terminal ballistic effects without violating the Hague Convention restrictions against expanding bullets? Did the transition to jacketed bullets make a good thing go wrong?

And did the .455 in its round-nosed forms perform the same way, and thus show the way for reduction to .38-200? Given the dimensions of the .455" and .380" bullets, how do their surface areas compare in cross-section? Assuming that maximum terminal ballistic effect is achieved when the bullet is vertical, how does the "stopping power" potential of the two cartridges compare?

Let's say, for example, that the cross-sectional surface area of the 262g .455 bullet is 1.00. Is the 200g .380 bullet, say, .890? Therefore the .38 might be calculated as having 89% of the permanent crush cavity (aka wounding potential, aka "stopping power") of the .455, assuming (1) equal depth of penetration, and (2) equal number of revolutions as each bullet tumbles through its target.

Conventional Internet wisdom scorns the British Army's c. 1930 conclusion that their new .380" 200g LRN bullet offered essentially the same "stopping power" as their .455" 262g LRN bullet. If Fackler is correct in asserting that permanent crush cavity is the only thing that truly matters as a handgun bullet wounding mechanism, might the Brits have been onto something after all?

Do any of our CB engineering types care to calculate the cross sectional surface areas of the two bullets in question?

I'm guessing that the "tumbling" bullet is barely stabilized, tail heavy, and yawing badly enough to eventually flip 180 degrees and then continue on in that more stable, weight-forward orientation. If that's true, the actual longitudinal cross sectional area may not help in assessing "stopping power" or calculating volume of wound cavity because the tissue (or gelatin) does not actually "see" that cross section for the length of the penetration.

But what if we could calculate an "effective diameter" for the tumbling bullet and then plug that into existing models for "stopping power" and wound cavity volume?

For example, here's a link to a ballistic gel test on the Lucky Gunner site which shows the penetration of some JHP bullets that failed to expand: https://www.luckygunner.com/9-mm-147...rounds#geltest

Two of the bullets stopped after 18" of penetration and can be clearly seen facing base forward. Let's focus on the those two tumblers.

Here's a calculation (from Schwartz) for the predicted penetration of a 147 grain 9mm truncated cone bullet at 960 ft/s:

960**0.735*147/7000/(0.355/2)**2/3.14

When I copy and paste that calculation into a Google search, I get 33" of predicted penetration -- much more than the 18" the two backwards bullets actually penetrated. So the tumbling retarded the penetration, compensating for the failure to expand. The bullet actually penetrated as though it had bigger effective diameter.

Now, we could do some algebra and write an equation to solve for the effective diameter. But it's late. So, I'm just gonna poke some bigger numbers for the bullet diameter into that google calculation until I get an answer close to 18.

OK, that was easy. If I change the 0.355 to 0.48 I get an answer close to 18" of penetration. So that tumbling 147 grain Hydra-Shok penetrated just about as far as if the JHP had actually expanded to 0.48".

So now maybe I can just say that a 147 grain Hydra-Shok would have the same wounding effect as a non-tumbling .48 caliber bullet that penetrated the same distance. Both MacPherson and Schwartz have calculations for mass of crushed tissue -- "wound trauma incapacitation mass" or something like that -- for non-tumbling bullets. My guess is that using an "effective diameter" for tumbling bullets in those calculations wouldn't be much shakier than the calculations themselves.

But more to the point of the exercise, if the "effective diameter" of a tumbling 9mm is .48 caliber, doesn't that lend some credence to the notion that a tumbling .380/200 might approach the stopping power of a .455? Of course, the ice would be a little thicker if we had used gel test data from a 650 ft/s 200 grainer instead of a 960 ft/s 147 grain bullet.

It just now occurred to me that a couple weeks ago I fired a 200 grain .38 into a block of calibrated gel. The bullet did the 180 degree flip and stopped in about 14". Tomorrow I'll dig out my notes and see what that looks like.

[LouisianaMan]

Interesting tidbits:

I rechambered my S&W 940 in 9mm, using the Manson .380 Rook Rifle reamer, based on the .38 S&W case, having a rifle throat. It can now shoot .38 S&W without clips, or 9mm Parabellum with clips. Similar to the mod done at the Ruger factory to rework leftover 9mm Service Six cylinders from the French order, to fill early guns of the India order. Later India revolvers had purpose-built .38 S&W cylinders.

My S&W Model 10-5 .38 Special will accept R-P brand of .38 S&W, but not Kynoch, WRA, Rem-UMC (balloon head), W-W, Starline or Fiocchi, because those case heads are bigger and won't enter the .38 Special chambers. Handloads of R-P .38 S&W brass which have been fire-formed in the Model 10 also work, using .38 Special carbide dies with a .38 S&W RCBS Cowboy seater.

My S&W Model 37 Airweight Chief's Special will do the same thing.

And thanks to you, I also have a reworked .38 Special cylinder shortened to fit into my S&W Model 32-1 Terrier. As you know, the Terrier cylinder is shorter, so the swap-cylinder is limited to .38 Special rounds of ctg. OAL shorter than 1.40" - wadcutters are fine, and I made a trim die to file the noses off 158-grain LRN to fit the cylinder, produce a 1/4" meplat, and reduce bullet to 146 grains, which shoots to the fixed sights of the Terrier and is much more effective than LRN.


Attachment 239096Attachment 239097Attachment 239098Attachment 239099
Attachment 239100

Outpost, what you do with firearms and ammunition is little short of wizardry! I appreciate how you share both theory and practice with the rest of us, and hope that there are many out there who are busily learning to do these kinds of things. It's mostly magic to me! If I ever find a broadsword plunged deep into a stone, I know who to call....

[pettypace]

OK... Here's the info on the 200 grain .38 Special gel test mentioned in my previous post:

The bullet was from a Lee 358-200 RF mould, tumble lubed as cast in liquid alox, and loaded with no gas check. The bullet was loaded over 4.0 grains of Unique and averaged 628 ft/s for a 15 shot string with SD=30.

I shot two of these into a 16" brick of calibrated Clear Ballistic gel as an afterthought at the end of some two-projectile tests. The first shot swept in an arc to the left an up and exited the side of the gel brick after, maybe, 12" of penetration. The second shot, aimed more to the right, followed a similar curve and stopped, base forward, approximately 3" from the end of the brick.

Here's the calculation for the predicted penetration from the Schwartz "expedient equation";

628**0.72*200/7000/(0.358/2)**2/3.14

Cut and pasted into a google search, that calculation gives about 29" of predicted penetration. But actual penetration was only about 13". So, I'll just try some larger values for bullet diameter until the google calculator gives me a value of about 13...

My first try was with .455 but no such luck. That was too low. A few more tries and I got to 0.53 with a predicted penetration of 13.4".

To review:

The Schwartz "expedient equation" predicts that a non-tumbling, non-expanding 200 grain .36 caliber bullet fired at 628 ft/s would penetrate about 29" into calibrated 10% ballistic gel. In an actual test, that bullet "tumbled" (actually, "yawed, flipped 180 degrees, and continued base-forward" might be a better description) and only penetrated about 13" of gel.

I think both MacPherson in Bullet Penetration and Schwartz in Quantitative Ammunition Selection are silent on the question of tumbling bullets -- probably just too hard to model mathematically. But, for what it's worth, we can use their non-tumbling models to figure what "effective" bullet diameter that "same" bullet would have needed to achieve the actual penetration distance without tumbling. In this case, the "effective diameter" is 0.53".

Where to go from here with the "effective diameter" idea is not clear to me. Using the current example, it does seem to me that a tumbling 200 grain .36 caliber bullet is, in penetration at least, equivalent to a non-tumbling .53 caliber 200 grainer at the same velocity. That equivalence in penetration might seem to add some weight to the notion that a tumbling .380/200 from a break-top Webley (or a S&W Terrier, for that matter) is somehow just as effective as a much larger caliber, say a .455 Webley.

But one problem with making that jump is that we haven't yet calculated the predicted penetration of the .455 Webley. Guaranteed that's not 13" -- at least not without some tumbling of its own, in which case it, too, would acquire a much larger "effective diameter."

What is the predicted penetration of a .455 Webley? I'll just plug 265 grains, 600 ft/s, and 0.457 diameter (all from Hatcher's TTP&R) into that google calculation: Answer: 23".

So, at least in terms of penetration (if not "stopping power" and wound cavity, however they might be calculated) my 200 grain .36 caliber tumbler doesn't come close to the Webley 265 grain .455 caliber lumberer.

I think any consideration of "stopping power" and wound trauma incapacitation needs to consider bullet nose shape which I've all but ignored (except for guessing at an appropriate exponent for the velocity in the google calculation). The long, tapering nose of the .455 is the least effective shape for crushing tissue. That could easily be changed to a wadcutter, dropping the predicted .455 penetration from 23" down to 18" (just change the velocity exponent to 0.685). That would still put the big Webley at the far end of the FBI standard and add (according to MacPherson) about 50% to its "wound trauma incapacitation mass." But you can't very well change the shape of the tumbling bullet to present a sharp edge to the penetrated tissue.

There's more to think about here. But my best guess at this point is that the effectiveness of the .380/200 Webley is much improved by tumbling, but not near enough to equal the roundy .455/265 Webley, let alone a handloaded .455 wadcutter, that HPHB "manstopper", or that .476/288 beast. My shooting mentor (may he rest in peace) was also a Corvette guy. He would sometimes remind me that "there's just no substitute for cubic inches." In this case, maybe there's just no substitute for bullet mass.

[LouisianaMan]

I look forward to your Back to the Future gel tests with 1930 lead bullet technology. As a history type, I've always thought "no question too arcane"!

Do you also have some Mk 2Z ammo to try out on those gel blocks? If not, please advise and I'll gladly donate some to this worthy cause. I know I was clearly getting lots of in-target activity from some CIS ammo I shot through things such as greatcoats, water jugs, and on into pine trees guilty of nothing except being a handy upright support for my prey. I generally found bullets embedded sideways in the tree, apparently undamaged except for rifling marks, ready to reload and shoot again had I wished.

It proved nothing other than there was a lot of work being done by that bullet as it hurtled through water, unlike typical LRN 145-46g commercial ammo. Slightly warmer LFN loads, similar to some .38 Colt New Police ammo I've since obtained, tended to slam the first water jug harder and penetrate straight and deep. The Mk 2Z ammo drilled through the first jug with little fanfare, although it sometimes tore up the jug a bit on its way out the back, but it definitely tended to rip up and knock around jugs 2-3, leave sideways holes tracking left and up or down in 4-5, and either slice through or bounce off a sixth jug in the next row.

I understand fully the point you and Outpost emphasize, in that you both strongly prefer a straight, predictable bullet track and the uniform crush cavity results of a large meplat (or expanding bullets with sharp petals). I don't disagree with your stance. Nor do I actually advocate the tumbling, veering, tilting, or curving track, or lack thereof, that may be achieved by the British Mk 1 or 2 types of ammunition.

I do, however, see evidence in my own unscientific, homespun "experiments" that there was some tendency for the Mk 1-style bullet to destabilize and "do more work" than the lighter LRN commercial .38 S&W bullet as it courses through some sorts of target media. The Mk 2 displayed the same tendency, but much more violently and reliably.

Is it more effective in downing a live target than "flat, sharp-shouldered, fast(-er) and straight"? I don't know.

More than commercial 145-46g LRN? My bet is yes.

More than commercial 150g CNP LFP, which ranges from 685 fps to 770 fps in my earlier chronicles work? I don't know.

We do know that the British Army small arms board emerged from the Great War with the conviction that a smaller, lighter, .38 was a better fit than a .455 for their run-of-the-mill conscript. We also know that the board chose a slow, heavy round nose bullet rather than a flatpoint, whether light or heavy, and that they at least *advertised it* as being about as effective as the standard .455. (They may or may not have truly believed what they said, of course, but that's not our point of inquiry.)

To close, I'll briefly clarify a couple of my personal thoughts on handgun combat, insofar as they're germane to our .38-200 line of questioning. (Disclosure: I have NOT experienced ANY actual combat, so I personally claim ZERO standing in that regard. I soldiered 24 years, qualified with my weapons, and have been a shooting enthusiast for almost 50 years. I've bagged 13-15 deer, but mostly plinked and punched paper. Also drank lots of milk and shot the jugs! And I've read. That's all the "expertise" I have or claim.)

With all that said, I find Fairbairn and Sykes's c. 1940 Shooting to Live with the One-Hand Gun to be by far the most convincing, helpful take on the matter of handgun self-defense for someone in my position now, i.e. for concealed carry and home defense--NOT for military or police duties. If I have to shoot, I consider it highly likely that my encounter will be close, fast, personal, and fraught with danger. I'm not overrunning an enemy position at the head of my troops, winkling an armed hard case out of a barricaded hostage situation at 25 yards, or shooting it out in a nighttime traffic stop on a lonely highway.

Accordingly, my baseline scenario is 0-25 feet, 1 or 2 BGs, highly reactive and instinctive, most likely point and shoot. Perhaps I'll have shot lines to consider and can take a Weaver stance from cover, but those are luxuries I don't expect Murphy to grant me. Point and plug, hope to shoot first and fast, with a goal of "good, solid hits." Anything else is cake. I'm a decent shot, but don't really expect to be able to benefit from niceties if shot placement.

Accordingly, I want my bullets to penetrate deeply and do damage, and I want to make multiple, fast hits. In other words, pretty much what Tracy, Small Arms Committtee, and Fairbairn and Sykes posited long ago, although I can cast my own and handload anything I wish. I note that Tracy, F&S all wanted .45s, but for civilian concealed carry in 2019 in the stifling heat and practically visible humidity of south Louisiana, plus VA disabilities galore, one or two snub .38s in my shorts or pants pockets is usually what I'll have. I've got 110 and 135 GDHP handloads and cast solids and HPs of every description, but have long wondered what the British Army saw in those slow, 200g bottlenosed heavyweights and the 178g FMJ.

[LouisianaMan]

Pettypace,
Thanks for your excellent, thought-provoking testing, info and analysis! It's an admirable product of an inquiring mind informed and empowered by mathematics, but not limited by it. Socrates would doubtless approve, and that's plenty good enough for me.

If we could sit at a table before the hot stove on this one, I'd drink my coffee while listening to you, Outpost, Bigslug, 9.3, and others bat this back and forth. As it is, I'll enjoy doing it with this iPad...!

PS: sorry I've lagged miserably on my correspondence with so many of you gents. I'll snipe away as opportunity allows!

[Outpost75]

Outpost, what you do with firearms and ammunition is little short of wizardry! I appreciate how you share both theory and practice with the rest of us, and hope that there are many out there who are busily learning to do these kinds of things. It's mostly magic to me! If I ever find a broadsword plunged deep into a stone, I know who to call....

For those who are history buffs, the sword in the stone is not a work of fiction, but exists at the Abbey of San Galgano in Italy, where I visited with my friend Giorgio in 2011.

Attachment 239195Attachment 239196Attachment 239197Attachment 239198

[Piedmont]

Pettypace, Excellent posts. Your logic on the math seems right to me. But I do suspect the .455 roundnose also would tumble and I think the .45 ACP roundnose probably does too at some depth.

[pettypace]

Pettypace, Excellent posts. Your logic on the math seems right to me. But I do suspect the .455 roundnose also would tumble and I think the .45 ACP roundnose probably does too at some depth.

The .455 tumbling wouldn't surprise me at all. The nose looks long and tapered enough to push the center of gravity well to the rear. The .45 ACP, maybe not. At the risk of violating copyright or something, I'll try to upload a Fackler wound cavity profile for the .45 ACP:

[Outpost75]

The .455 tumbling wouldn't surprise me at all. The nose looks long and tapered enough to push the center of gravity well to the rear. The .45 ACP, maybe not. At the risk of violating copyright or something, I'll try to upload a Fackler wound cavity profile for the .45 ACP:

No problem posting the Fackler wound profiles as long as you give credit. The .22 LR, 9mm and .38 Special LRN all do the 180-degree "flip"

Attachment 239208Attachment 239209Attachment 239210

[Bigslug]

Did we ever determine what the official British alloy was for the .38/200? The same 12-1 as was common for the .455, or something else?

If more jug busting doesn't yield anything definitive, I can probably schmooze some shots into actual calibrated gel on my own, but don't want to make that pitch until the ammo's locked down to spec. I've got the .455 MKII and MKIV covered, and will soon have the correct .38, so it would probably be a worthwhile trip.

My thought is that as long as we're shooting proper gel, we should probably do the FBI's "Heavy Cloth" test, as that's the most likely to replicate WWI/WWII era uniforms.

[LouisianaMan]

Bigslug,
I've got some good info on the .38 ammo specs, but it doesn't specify the alloy--only that it is "lead alloy," ergo not pure Pb. If I've ever found anything that does, it escapes me at the moment. Here's what I've got that's relevant to our discussion, hoping some may find it handy. Last pic shows accuracy standards, which should help with a question someone posted a day or two ago. (Pics of titles and authors shown for attribution):

[Outpost75]

Ok children. Latest iteration for a heavy, large meplat, long-nosed bullet to fill cylinder length of .38 S&W Victory Model, with minimal seating depth. The mold arrived today, 220-grains in wheelweights, but I have yet to cast any, so stay tuned. Looking at 3.5 grains of AutoComp in .38 S&W brass for about 700 fps from 5" barrel, absolutely NOT for Webley top-breaks! I will shoot in 4" India Model Ruger, WW2 S&W Victory 5" and 2" S&W Terrier 32-1.

The 240-grain version gives a bit over 600 fps in 5" Victory with 3 grains of AutoComp. Shoots way high for POI, with grouping approximating WW2 Mk2z FMJ, but with noticeable yaw showing in the target paper. I am hoping that the shorter 220-grain bullet will be more stable, shoot closer to point of aim and probably still shoot through a cow... The 240-grain bullet shoots inch groups at 25 yards from my .38 S&W rook rifle John Taylor built having 1:10" twist 9mm barrel, the 3 grain AutoComp load being about 720 fps and "silent without suppressor" from a 20-inch barrel.

Attachment 259906Attachment 259907Attachment 259908Attachment 259909Attachment 259910

[LouisianaMan]

Ok children. Latest iteration for a heavy, large meplat, long-nosed bullet to fill cylinder length of .38 S&W Victory Model, with minimal seating depth. The mold arrived today, 220-grains in wheelweights, but I have yet to cast any, so stay tuned. Looking at 3.5 grains of AutoComp in .38 S&W brass for about 700 fps from 5" barrel, absolutely NOT for Webley top-breaks! I will shoot in 4" India Model Ruger, WW2 S&W Victory 5" and 2" S&W Terrier 32-1.

The 240-grain version gives a bit over 600 fps in 5" Victory, and shoot way high, with grouping approximating WW2 Mk2z FMJ, but with noticeable yaw showing in target paper. Hoping the shorter bullet will be more stable, shoot closer to point of aim and probably shoot through a cow...

Attachment 259906Attachment 259907Attachment 259908Attachment 259909

Should we call it "Big Bertha"?

[Outpost75]

Should we call it "Big Bertha"?

Don't know about Bertha, but the grandpa of Boris the British PM would have approved:

https://www.forces.net/services/raf/...ns-grandfather

[nikonuser]

the cartridge was a valid police round in the US in some areas in the 1950s for "junior cops". But then again the standard way to deal with fleeing suspects was, yell stop, shoot in the air. and if they didn't stop put the sights between their shoulder blades and pull the trigger.

Talking with elderly former cops as a kid was a good thing.

[LouisianaMan]

Outpost, your Big Bertha bullet is a larger-meplat version of the Remington .35-200 bullet I did some early testing with in .38 S&W loads. In my alloy, it cast 214-15g. I may have bumped the meplat mildly, but not aggressively enough to make it as large as Bertha's. (I think these pics show it as-cast, not bumped.)

.38 S&W loads (L-R) RCBS Remington .35-200, @214g; GB 358430 clone, bumped; 358430 clone; Lee .358-158-SWC/TL

#1-3 are .38 S&W, #4 is .38 SPL loaded with 35830.

[pettypace]

the cartridge was a valid police round in the US in some areas in the 1950s for "junior cops". But then again the standard way to deal with fleeing suspects was, yell stop, shoot in the air. and if they didn't stop put the sights between their shoulder blades and pull the trigger.

In the section of Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers dealing with the .38 S&W Super Police load, Hatcher quotes from a letter he received from the Western Cartridge Company:

"A policeman shot a hold-up artist in East St. Louis the other day with this Super Police. Hit him square in the center of the back at 75 yards which was a darn good shot. When the coroner dug the bullet out of the crook he found it more than half way through him and flattened on the point to about the size of a quarter. This officer was certainly good. He had two hold-up artists, one of whom broke and ran. Without further ceremony, he cracked one over the head with his revolver, took deliberate aim at the other and made a dead center bull's-eye on him."

Looks like yelling "stop" and firing a warning shot was, at best, optional in the 1930s.

[LouisianaMan]

That's a great old account of the Super Police in action! Of course, the hold-up artist in question would respectfully disagree...if he could!

I've seen it before and wondered how on earth that bullet flattened out. I guess it must've hit bone.

[nikonuser]

That's a great old account of the Super Police in action! Of course, the hold-up artist in question would respectfully disagree...if he could!

I've seen it before and wondered how on earth that bullet flattened out. I guess it must've hit bone.

most likely hit the spine. that can stop lots of things. Heck the "mighty" 62 grain fusion in .223 at 50 yards cant go through a deer neck bone, so the "lowly" super police shouldn't at 70 yards.

[nikonuser]

don't forget tumbling is also caused by centrifugal forces. Slowest moving end of an object tries to become the rear end. its how we stabilized bombs. Fins slow one end down so it hits fuse first.

Rifle bullets, .303 with wood pulp and later plastic and tin tips were designed with the light tip so they would tumble on impact with a person. That was acceptable for rifle work, but not the 38/200 go figure