A lot of the United States' adversaries--both foreign and domestic--remain pretty feral. The Hague Conventions remain some of the most arcane and stilted idiocies of armed conflict--in the context of fuel/air bombs, artillery capabilities, and 6000 RPM 30mm Gatlings.......the concern over expanding small arms bullets is ludicrous.
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.
Believe me, I would have laughed out loud to see that!! Bullets impacting, then dropping to the ground = NOT a good thing!Originally Posted by Patrick56
If I had a Webley or Enfield .38 (I have had several Enfields), I would be careful testing Mk 2Z ammo, to ensure that any given lot of ammunition was well-matched to the gun before I would use it in combat. In other words, avoid the tolerance-stacking issues that led to BIBs, ensure the ammo isn't damaged from improper storage or defective manufacture, etc.
I would feel more confident with S&W, Colt, or Ruger revolvers using that ammo. And while that wouldn't be my personal first choice in a combat sidearm/ammunition combination, it wouldn't be my last, either. That is especially the case when military requirements have specified FMJ ammo. Personally, per *individual* shot, or for the first six shots, I'd prefer both the Mk 1 and the Mk 2 to 9mmP FMJ at handgun distances. (Once you get into comparing revolvers and automatics, however, I'd choose a good 9mm automatic over the revolver for military combat. Firepower.) I would also choose a good .380 Rim revolver over any semi-auto .22, .25, .30, .32, .380 ACP (except something hi-cap like the 14-shot Beretta 84).
Once you get into quality automatics of 9mmP, .38 Super, .40, 45, etc., the .380 Rim revolver would take a back seat for me. Ditto for quality .41, .44, .45 revolvers. Not sure about the ?455 Mk II, though. Let me emphasize that I would DEFINITELY take the .380 Rim military loads over the weakly-loaded .38 Specials used by the US military. No thanks to a .38 SPL, 130g FMJ-RN, at 800 fps. I think the 200g Mk 1 blunt-nosed lead bullet and 178g Mk 2 FMJ (quality gun, quality ammo) are superior to the common military .38 SPL load.
Now what I'd really like to do would be to compare a quality Webley or Enfield, with quality .380 Rim Mk 1 (200g soft lead, blunt RN) military ammo, to the Webley .455 and its Mark II ammunition. THAT is the specific choice the British were making c. 1930. They tested against cadavers, animals, paper targets, and Lord knows what else. Unfortunately these tests aren't available, the reports aren't available, and all we're left with is this: they concluded that the .380 Rim *weapon system* was superior to the big .455 *weapon system* for *average, hastily-trained conscript soldiers.* Also, that the cartridge itself had "stopping power roughly equivalent" to the Mk. II .455 ammo.
Clearly, the lighter, compact, ergonomic .380 Enfield was easier to carry & handle, probably easier to point (my guess), and doubtless less-intimidating for the *average conscript* to hold & fire. Remember, this was England, where "regular people" had zero experience with pistols, and little or none with other firearms. To me, then, that part of the Small Arms Committee's decision was almost certainly correct, and probably by a significant margin.
Many of the modern-day critics of the change from .455 to .380/200 are unaware, or pay little attention, to these factors I've named. What they hear and vehemently disbelieve is the idea that a ".38 was considered somehow equal to or better than a .45." (my emphasis) If they know a bit more about the situation, they've often seen and/or heard that the .38 S&W was a pipsqueak. (For instance, your impression of shooting it at a Land Rover. Also, my impression of shooting most modern commercial ammo at 400-low 600 fps with 145-46g LRN bullet. Not my impression when I fired a brand of .38 Colt NP that had a 150g flatpoint at a chronographed 770 fps from a 4" barrel. Not my impression of a 200g blunt LRN at 600.)
Still others have heard the true horror stories of relatively widespread bullet-in-bore incidents with the service Enfield and its Mk II ammunition. Of course, no sane man will choose THAT!!!
What many of these people have NOT seen is the violent tumbling and remarkable momentum of the .380 Rim service ammo--AS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED AND ADOPTED--after it penetrates a soft medium. I've seen it, at least in homemade experiments, and while it's not a nuclear blast, it's surprisingly potent for such a calm cartridge with low report and recoil. I've also seen reliable sources (Hatcher, Keith) state that the blunt-nosed .38 SPL 200g bullet, generally loaded down to sub-700, but sometimes faster--delivered a surprisingly damaging blow. Askins killed a German soldier with its "creakingly slow" bullet at 25 yards, penetrating through and through, knocking him "heels over jockstrap," and leaving him unconscious and dying. Askins was rather amazed at the effectiveness of the round.
What I, and most other current-day commentators, have NOT seen is the performance of the other option: Webley & Mk II pointy, moderately hard lead alloy. Was it a tumbler? I don't know--I've seen one printed, undocumented assertion that it was. Would it smash bone? At 265g, I have no doubt...except its shape would make it a bit more likely to deflect than the blunter .380 Mk I. And the latter had not only a superior configuration, but a very soft alloy more likely to crush a large section of bone than harder alloys or FMJ, which tend to drill cleaner holes at low velocities. (I'm uncertain of the .380's actual alloy, although I'll keep digging because I think I've seen it somewhere unofficial at least. One reference shows it flattened out in a loaded cartridge, reportedly a common condition due to its softness and liability to flattening when dropped. I can attest to its top-heaviness, and like a shuttlecock, it always lands on its nose.)
The 200g .38 also has a very high sectional density--I need to compute how it compares to the heavy .455, but both are impressively dense, with a correspondingly high momentum for caliber & velocity. What size wound did they make in living flesh? I don't know, and I'd love to hear from those that have. My eyes tell me that the strong tendency of the .38/200 to tumble has a tendency to inflict "permanent crush cavity" damage more analogous to a hollowpoint than to an FMJ. Uncertain about the .455. Would either poke a hole that could bleed out an opponent? Yes & yes. Would either strike a significant blow to anyplace in the upper CNS it happened to hit? Yes and yes. Would either physically "knock a man down" as was/is often thought? Modern science says no & no.
To me, all of this sounds remarkably like the .38/200, aka .380 Rim Mk I/IZ, aka .38 Super Police, aka a few other things...delivered "approximately the same stopping power" as the .455 in its Mk. II form. Both apparently delivered significant "permanent crush cavities," both could carry through and severely damage the CNS, both could smash a lot of bone, and both could inflict non-dynamic wounds with peripheral hits.
In 24 years in the Army, they kept teaching me that step 1 of the Problem-Solving Process is to "identify the problem." In this tiny corner of military ballistic history, that problem has almost always become entangled with so many anecdotes, preconceptions, emotions, and OTHER problems as to be unidentifiable. As such, on the gun forums and in many books--especially more modern ones--the whole "replace .455 with .38" doesn't identify the actual problem, doesn't analyze the actual relevant evidence, doesn't understand the limitations of the available historical evidence, misunderstands and misquotes the conclusions of the Small Arms Committee, and still argues stridently about what even constitutes "stopping power" in the first place.
The specific problem statement that shines the most light on the military decision to replace the .455 is, "How do we determine the relative military effectiveness, in British service, of the Enfield .380 Rim with Mk I ammunition, compared to the Webley Mk. VI with Mk. II ammunition?"
From a shooter's perspective, the basic problem is "How does the .380 Mk I ammo compare in effectiveness to the .455 Mk. II ammo?"
A fair subsequent problem statement that arose about 1937, some 15 years after the decision to adopt a .380/200, was: "How does .380 Mk II FMJ ammo compare to the Mk I lead bullet ammo? And to the older .455 Mk II lead alloy ammo?" Finally, "How does .380 Mk II FMJ ammo compare to .455 Mk VI FMJ ammo?"
Sooooo, does anybody know Brassfetcher or some of the other scientific jello shooters? Does anybody know a Spec Ops unit willing to run a lengthy combat test? Anybody want to come down to the bayou with a Webley and some .455 Mk II and Mk VI? I'll provide a .38, some actual Mk II and some duplicate Mk I ammo, and we'll shoot everything we can think of?
I'll be banned for bloviation here!!!!
I don't know about that, but you should get a hard smack for what seems to be an attempt to convince me I need to buy a MKI .38 mold.
WWJMBD?
In the Land of Oz, we cast with wheel weight and 2% Tin, Man.
I have 2 S&W's in the muscular 38 S&W chambering.
This one which has British acceptance markings (and was apparently returned)
And then this one, which has all the 'V' MArkings, but must have remained in the U.S as maybe a bridge or factory guard pistol. It probably had a 6"bbl to begin with. My dad bought it from a California Highway Patrolman in 1964 for $75. I doubt my dad's weekly pay was much over that, but since he gave it to me I didn't give him any negatives.
The barrel was expertly shortened to 4" and the front sight was silver soldered back on. As was common for the time, it had had a 38 Special reamer run into it's chambers:
While it is NOT wonderously accurate when firing 38 special (the cases swell, and the boolits rattle down the barrel) It is nicely accurate when firing .363" slugs from the 38 S&W cases.
This is 5 rounds a 25 yards. It would not be my first choice as a personal defense firearm, but on the other hand, I really would no like ot be on the receiving end either.
.................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
I still have the gun. I think I bought it 1982
Dents made in the side of the LR van
Lapua 38S&W, 38 Colt New Police (Remington), 38S&W Remington and a .455 (I think?)
Front sight is modified and the lanyard ring is missing.
My Landrover, which I resolutely refuse to supply for testing, is steel, but an old one would be Birmabright, an aluminium-magnesium alloy which is thicker and designed to work-harden. While not as good as the plastic-armoured versions, British soldiers in Northern Ireland derived some slight reassurance from its qualities.
I think Louisianaman sums up the qualities of the .38-200 quite accurately. It was designed to give the average officer or specialist of the time, whose training time was needed for other things, the best chance of successfully defending himself in the kind of military confrontation he was actually likely to get into. Body armour was a thing of the past then, and in contrast to policemen the target demographic had little need to defend even the community against men inside soft-skinned vehicles. The use of submachine-guns had caused the 9mm. to mutate into a jacketed ogive less likely even than the truncated cone La Garde knew to have good stopping power on unprotected human targets. The .38-200 doesn't seem like a bad choice.
I haven't seen the full British inquiry findings either, and I suspect that the .38-200 being just as good as the .455 was probably an unofficial view or one with some dissent. I think acceptably inferior was probably more like it, a thing that could as well be said of the .45ACP hardball, which certainly wasn't inadequate unless it was in the hands of a soldier who had only been allowed to fire a couple of magazines. If you skimp on training in paperwork or cooking it shows up tomorrow, but skimped pistol training shows up in the next war, on another continent. There was even a view, which I think also wasn't an official finding, that a slow bullet was actually more effective than a faster one. This strikes me as false. Velocity is good, as long as you aren't sacrificing something important to get it.
An incident often quoted against the lead-bullet, low-velocity .38 is that of the Filipino Antonio Caspi, who had to be sedated with a carbine butt after being shot four times at close range with the .38 Long Colt, and was handed over to the civil authorities in a remarkably short period. But I have seen his photograph with the entry and exit wounds identified. Of the three in the chest none would have hit heavy bone, and there seems a distinct possibility that he wasn't actually standing up for two of them. I doubt if a pistol round suitable for the casual user, and acceptable under the Convention, could be counted on to do better.
A few years back there were a couple of quite contrasting media scandals about bullets in the US, which I think actually overlapped. The Bearclaw bullet, which expanded (or was meant to) into a clawed shape was presented as horribly lacerating flesh. Other bullets were denounced as cop killers, because they gave (or were meant to) an improved chance of penetrating body armour. It is a bit like the world of advertising (which indeed was part of the commotion): if it is high in something, it is low in something else. Extremely expansive bullets don't penetrate solid objects well, and bullets which penetrate obstructions don't have great stopping power. At pistol velocities plain old Pb or a moderate alloy takes a lot of beating.
The early Express rifle bullets were so hollow as to be almost thimble-shaped in the worst examples, and often disintegrated badly on even soft-skinned dangerous game at around 1800 ft./sec.. It was probably done to get the slow rifling twist and light weight which would give the best paper velocity. The most successful (and long-lived) hunters went over to solid pure lead, which did indeed lead the bore enough to be severely troublesome to the recreational shooter. But it is no great burden to defoul the bore as often as you are going to shoot one of the Big Five or defend yourself with a pistol in war.
We have 12:1 lead-tin in the official specifications for the .455, with no clear information on the .38-200. I find that puzzling. That is very nearly the hardest you can get with lead and tin alone, and acceptable in rifles with double the velocity. Tin is much more expensive than lead, far more difficult to recycle, and mostly had to be imported to the UK in wartime. Only the .38-200 was developed after submarine blockade became a seriously dangerous factor in war, and for that reason alone I wouldn't be surprised if it used less tin. But I think it would have practical benefits as well.
Last edited by Ballistics in Scotland; 08-27-2015 at 07:58 AM.
I've heard this one too. Remember this exchange fromthe Kevin Costner / Alan Rickman Robin Hood: Prince of Theives?:
Sheriff of Nottingham: LOCKSLEY! I'm going to cut your heart out with a spoon!
later. . .
Guy of Gisborne: Why a spoon, Cousin? Why not an axe or. . .
Nottingham: Because it's DULL you twit, it'll hurt more!
I believe the the theory was that a fast RN bullet's passage through tissue was similar to yanking a tablecloth so quickly that all the plates, glasses, bud vases, etc... remain in place. A slow one would tend to drag and tear to a greater degree. In practice, I think the low velocity rendering the bullet instantly unstable on impact would have had more to do with it - if these things DO in fact tumble with any kind of reliability.
I think the British GOT that given the limitation of the Hague Convention and the velocities in question - or anything even close to them - it was going to be all about penetration and nothing else was going to factor much, if at all. The post-Miami FBI studies hint that hydrostatic displacement is not a factor in permanent damage until you close in on 2000 fps for an impact velocity. What the Brits opted to do was go for the lightest, most controllable pistol that would perform adequately. The wisdom in this approach becomes IMMEDIATELY and ABUNDANTLY clear when you have to teach pistol marksmanship to large groups of people who don't have much time, interest, or desire to learn it.
WWJMBD?
In the Land of Oz, we cast with wheel weight and 2% Tin, Man.
Several years ago I read a WWll memoir by a British sniper who also happened to be a gun enthusiast. He had a S&W K frame in .380R that he carried through the war and you could tell he was in love with it. The only thing I remember him shooting with it was a rabbit, but he thought you could hardly find a better military handgun. He had a stash of US 200 grain ammo for it.
After the war he was absolutely incensed that he couldn't legally own a rifle like he used in the war.
Rule 303
While golfing with a former Canadian Army sniper who served with the UN in the former Belgium Congo in the 60's I had this tid bit passed on to me. I suspect it may be relevant to your British sniper carrying his handgun.
While serving under a Belgium officer my friend was offered this advice. Aim for the head, the bustards don't like to see their buddies brains on the forest floor, and by the way the Hi-Power ( an Inglis) is for you. If you are caught they don't take kindly to snipers.
His targets were in the main, European "contractors".
Take Care
Bob
ps My uncle was a Captain in the Canadian Armoured Corp in Europe in the mid 40's Carried a Webley 38 across Europe and never fired it...once.
Its been months since I bought the book, "How to scam people online". It still has not arrived yet!
"If the human population held hands around the equator, a significant portion of them would drown"
Well, it's a daisy! Duplicate the .38/200, .38 Super Police, .38 Special Super Police, use in PPC .38 SPL MPF (I think), bang gongs with it, download it in .357 to duplicate any of the .38 loads, shoot water jugs with it (you'll need 6 in a row, and starting with #3 or 4 place jugs on either side to catch it if it cartwheels off a straight line when loaded at 600 (although it may come out #5 going high--so lay a stop board atop the row); load it to 700 and emplace a stop board behind jug 6 if you don't want to lose it; load it to 600 and shoot at a car from an oblique angle to watch ricochets, load to 600 and shoot a Land Rover from 50 yards & duck VERY fast, bump a flat on it (or not) to wallop small game in any of those calibers, cast a small baggie full to use as a doorstop, cast a pile to run through your fingers like a King Midas of Lead, fill a 5-gallon can full to use as a boat anchor....Well, you get the picture. But don't feel bad about not having one!I don't know about that, but you should get a hard smack for what seems to be an attempt to convince me I need to buy a MKI .38 mold.
This is Bubba Gump, signing off.
Bingo, well said. Excellent post!
Many indeed misunderstood the value of low velocity with this round, and got entangled with dwell time theories and the like. In fact, it's all about finding the velocity that will keep the bullet stable in flight for at least 50-75 yards, while being slow enough to destabilize and tumble within the target. Too fast, and you get straight-line pass through. Too slow, and it destabilizes in flight. About 600 fps is the magic number MV for this purpose, with the sweet spot being between about 550-650 for best results. When I shoot them at 700, they'll pass 6 water jugs (36" water) in a pretty straight line.
I have some vintage Winchester .38 S&W, "Especially adapted for Police Service" on the box; they advertised 620 MV, I averaged about 610 in my 4" Smith's and 560 in the snubs. They tumble nicely. Typically an oblong hole emerging from jug 2, significantly increased damage to jugs 3-4, caroming out of #5 either high, low, or to one side, and miss jug #6. (Sometimes miss #5 from a snubbie.) They'll either enter a 6th jug on either side, sometimes bounce off #6 and drop, sometimes carom off #6 and are unrecoverable. Again, usually subtract one jug for a snubnose.
My handloads perform this way, too. Most .38, 9mm, and .45 JHP's I shoot stop in jug #3. Of course, lots of damage along the way! (Unless plugged by clothing, which increases penetration but leaves small holes.) Some heavy & fast .45 JHP's make it to jug 4. Felt recoil is, subjectively, perhaps 3-4x that of the .38/200 (which load I can shoot comfortably from an I frame Terrier weighing 17 oz., at about 550-560 fps).
If you load to 700-800, or to 900+ in a .357 Magnum, you'll blast through any bones you happen to hit. On the higher end of this scale, I expect you'd penetrate ribs/sternum and blow out a significant part of the spine on the way out the back door. Or fracture an uplifted arm, smash ribs sideways, and smash tumbling into spine, perhaps stopping in it or in the skin before exit. Just my best guess, of course.
Downside of higher vels is straight-line round nose pass through if you hit only soft tissue. But you will reach and perforate any/all organs as it passes through.
Last edited by LouisianaMan; 08-27-2015 at 11:58 AM.
BigSlug - THIS mold has YOUR name on it! I'm having two cavities of mine hollow pointed ala "Manstopper." This one should not tumble, but will penetrate deeply with outstanding crush characteristics. I'm thinking that in very soft alloy 1:40 tin/lead, a large diameter cup-shaped HP will expand, even at low velocity. We shall see!I don't know about that, but you should get a hard smack for what seems to be an attempt to convince me I need to buy a MKI .38 mold.
Attachment 147622Attachment 147623
The nose length of 36-201D being 0.44, and max. .38 S&W case being 0.775”, at 1.215” OAL you are comfortably below the SAAMI max. overall cartridge length of 1.28”
Last edited by Outpost75; 08-27-2015 at 06:51 PM.
The ENEMY is listening.
HE wants to know what YOU know.
Keep it to yourself.
Outpost, I think that solid FP bullet at 40:1 will deform appreciably on large bones, and tend to crush its way through carrying away an appreciable amount of bone. Being flat, it's also less likely than the Mk I blunt RN to glance off a bone it strikes at a sharp angle.
I typically carry .38 S&W's, and like to load them with a pure lead Mk I followed by a 50:50 Pb-wheelweight alloy 200g SWC. If I carry both a 2" and a 4", which I like to do (Cirillo's "New York reload"), I load the 2" with 3 RN + 2 SWC or bumped flatpoints; the 4" with 3 SWC + 2 RN. I keep the RN at about 620 (4" vel) and the SWC at 650-80 (4" vel). Subtract about 60 fps for the snub. At close range, the slight trajectory difference doesn't matter, and felt recoil is roughly the same.
I can bump the 358430 to a shape and meplat very similar to yours, without the sharp edges. After bumping to this extent, I run them back through the resizer before loading.
If you note the drawing, there is a short radius behind the meplat, which almost matches the RCBS round nosed seating plug.
On the cartridge photograph at left, you will see a slight deformation caused by the seating plug. I corrected this in the die by "kissing" the seating plug with a 1/2" ball cutter to break the outside edges of the seating plug, so it now seats bullets perfectly, any "marking" simply being to create a slight smoothing of the short radius behind the meplat.
The ENEMY is listening.
HE wants to know what YOU know.
Keep it to yourself.
Outpost, that picture has me drooling. Nice cartridge, nice bullet!!
Here's some more relevant bullet porn:
(From L-R):
1. CIS (Singapore) Mk 2Z 178g FMJ. Penetrates well, tumbles like a drunken sailor coming down stairs)
2. vintage Winchester .38 S&W, 200g bullet
3. 358430 Group Buy. (bullet; cartridge, crimped in lube groove; bumped flat)
4. 360200 SWC Group Buy (crimped in lube groove)
5. 364200 Webley Group Buy (200g, but profile similar to Mk 2 FMJ)
6. RCBS .35-200 FP (.35 Remington rifle bullet, as-cast 215g. A penetrator in .38 S&W!!)
7. (far rear) 200g "Webley" test load
Some more cartridge porn. I lucked out and found on GunBroker 500 rounds of Fiocchi .38 S&W Corto, which I am going to dedicate to my 1924 vintage Colt Police Positive.
Interestingly, the body diameter of the loaded rounds measures .382" and those rounds will enter the chambers of my .38 Special Ruger Police Service Six and the .357 cylinder of my Ruger Blackhawk convertible, as well as my Cadet Martini in .357. It will be interesting to try some of these in the .38 Specials and .357s they will fit, to see how accuracy of the "short" rounds is affected in the longer chambers. They should be nice as factory "cat sneeze" loads.
Pulling the bullet from one, the Fiocchi bullets are dead soft lead, cupped base and .357" diameter. The powder charge is 2.5 grains of a square flake.
Photos follow:
Attachment 147630Attachment 147631Attachment 147632
UPDATE 28 AUG 2015 - fired some of these for velocity in the 4" Ruger, with 0.005" cylinder gap with my Ruger Only handloads for comparison.
Fiocchi .38 S&W Corto 146-grain LRN 809 fps, 21 Sd, ES 62, n=12 rds.
NOE 359-190FNRD 2.5 Bullseye 738 fps, 17 Sd, 56 ES, n=12 rds.
NOE 359-190FNRD 6.2 #2400 806 fps, 26 Sd, 64 ES, n= 12 rds.
Accurate 36-201D 6.2 #2400 723 fps, 22 Sd, 62 ES, n=12 rds.
Last edited by Outpost75; 08-28-2015 at 03:54 PM.
The ENEMY is listening.
HE wants to know what YOU know.
Keep it to yourself.
Good-looking modern ammo, great-looking classic Colt!
I bought a box of Fiocchi 145g FMJ a few months ago, but haven't test-fired and chronographed yet. The box states 720 fps. Too bad they don't load the lead or FMJ with flatpoints!
See! That's EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm thinking about for the .38 Short Colt in a modern gun designed for the purpose like we discussed a few posts ago. That is all the recoil-shy wives of the world would ever need for a legit SD gun. . .and if someone would chamber it in a pump action carbine like an upscaled 1890/1906/62A Winchester, I'll take TWO!
WWJMBD?
In the Land of Oz, we cast with wheel weight and 2% Tin, Man.
NOW you're talkin'!!!
The ENEMY is listening.
HE wants to know what YOU know.
Keep it to yourself.
Posting Permissions
| 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 |
Reply With Quote
