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

[Love Life]

Fun with a Webley Mark IV 38 S&W

I’ve always wanted a Webley. Not sure why, but I’ve always wanted one.

I reckoned I wasn’t getting any younger so I might as well order one up!! I perused Gunbroker for a while and found one that looked to be in good condition (all things considered), made a bid, and walked away to do cool stuff. A couple days later and I got the email that I was high bidder!! Yippee!! What I ended up with is an Israel contract revolver manufactured between 1968-1970 according to this site: http://www.armsresearch.co.uk/The%20Webley%20and%20Scott%20Achive/Webley%20and%20Scott%20Archive.html

104739

Now the search was on for reloading components. I ended up getting some Lee 9mm Mak dies (work very well for the 38 S&W), new Starline brass, 200 boolits of the 200 gr variety from Matt’s Bullets, 50 factory PPU loaded ammo, and I was off to the races!!

Once I picked up the revolver I completely tore it down using this site: http://leolani.net/relics/webleyIV.html I made it through the disassembly process, cleaned it really well, deburred a lot of spots, and reassembled it. I put grease where it seemed fitting. I didn’t have any parts left over so off to the range I went with the 50 Factory PPU loaded with 148 LRN bullets. I fired off hand from 15-25 yds. I was actually pretty impressed. That large hole in the bullseye is from 7 yrds (six shots) standing. Recoil was minimal and fun factor was high. Below is my PPU target:

104740

I fired all my factory ammo so now it was reloading time. Below is my experience reloading the cartridge, some measurements, targets, etc.

Here is a picture of the kit used to put it all together:

104741

The LEE 9mm MAK dies worked splendidly. IME, loading small charges is much easier using a dipper. What I do is fill the trickler up, dip from it, and trickle in whatever may be necessary.

Now to targets. All groups are 9 shot groups. All groups are fired at 15 yds from the sitting position. No powder info is listed due to the start charge I used showing max case expansion (.001 over SAAMI).

1.7 gr:

104742

2.0 gr

104743

2.2 gr

104744

2.5 gr

104750

Recovered boolits:

104751

Summary: I will pick another powder to play with. At the end of the day, accuracy and POA/POI came with more powder (speed?), but unfortunately all cases had expanded to .387 at the case head with all loads. No other high pressure signs were noted. As you can though, this gun with this load combo will put a bunny in the frying pan!!

[FergusonTO35]

Looking good! Those Webleys are very cool. Buffalo Bore now makes a true high performance load for them that is within SAAMI specs.

[Char-Gar]

I bought a Webley about 7 years ago and it was buried in my safe unfired. A couple of months ago I got some bullets from Matt and loaded up some ammo. I had some long ago purchased 38 S&W dies (Lyman) and also about 500 W-W cases. I have been using Unique and like 2.4 grains best. These are mild mannered sweet shooting accurate handguns.

Mine was made in 1955 and saw duty with the Singapore Police.

[Love Life]

Very nice!!

I need to work on loads a bit. I was able to pull out the magnifying glass and look at primer pockets and there is a pinprick in each one (punctured). I looked at the firing pin and didn't see any obvious burrs. I'm going to do some thinking here as the firing pin hits the primers with authority so I may relieve it a bit.

[DonMountain]

Very nice!!

I need to work on loads a bit. I was able to pull out the magnifying glass and look at primer pockets and there is a pinprick in each one (punctured). I looked at the firing pin and didn't see any obvious burrs. I'm going to do some thinking here as the firing pin hits the primers with authority so I may relieve it a bit.

I have two Webleys and both of them punch holes in the softer small pistol primers. So I switched to small rifle primers and the problem was solved. If you do this you should start at the bottom again in working up loads. I have been shooting the 200 grain Matts Boolits with mine quite successfully. Fun for the younger shooters in the family before they advance to the bigger pistols. My wife enjoys shooting them too.

[Love Life]

DonMountain- Thank you for that info!!! I was using Remington SPP (Started using those after getting an action job on a revolver) and will try the CCI SP before I try SR. I hadn't even thought of using SR primers until you mentioned it and I thought I had a major gun or load issue.

Back to the drawing board!!

[Char-Gar]

I have not noticed any primer abnormalities with my Webley using CCI 500 SP primers.

[robertbank]

Back in 1968 the Bank I worked for had a brach robbed at gun point. The silent alarm was set off and as the BG's exited the bank the Edmonton Cithy Police rolled up. Shots were exchanged as the robbers fled in their car. 12 rounds hit the back of the window of the getaway car. Allbounced off the slopped rear window. Shortly thereafter the Bank met with the Mayor of Edmonton. The Edmonton City Police at the time were carrying the Webleys purchased or given to the department as a war surplus gun from the Army. They were still shooting surplus ammo issued back in the day. As a eresult of the visit the city bought their Department S&W Model 10's in 38 spl which lasted until the City bought the force .40-cal Glocks.

Had an uncle who served as a Captain, later Colonel of the South Alberta Tank Regiment. He said he carried a Webley for three years.. preferred the 75MM his Sherman had. Better choice under the circumstances. Italy, France and Germany were not the place to visit during the 40's.

I traded my Webley off for a pristine #4 Longbranch. Scoped it does 1" at 100yards using my cast loads Mo Betta!

Take Care

Bob

[Love Life]

I've seen scared and confused Iraqis get out of their vehicle after a 20+rd burst from a SAW. Car windshields are tough!!

[robertbank]

The SAW has a bit more juice than the S&W. lol

Bob

[Love Life]

True. The point of that is that car windshields are tough!! It's best to aim at the intersection of the dashboard and windshield. Mo' betta probability of your bullet not being deflected.

[Treetop]

Love Life, thanks for the Webley disassembly website. I have .45 caliber Webley that's been in my gun safe, disassembled, since my Dad passed away in 1987. This site may help me finally reassemble it. I don't know any details on this particular revolver, but it appears to be in very good condition. Bore is nice and bluing is near perfect except on the sharp edges. Tt.

[Love Life]

I hope the site helps you get the old warhorse up and running!

Is it still the original .455 or has it been cut for 45 acp?

[9.3X62AL]

I have not noticed any primer abnormalities with my Webley using CCI 500 SP primers.

Ditto.

As soon as I get home from my southern sojourn, I gotta plug my Webley-Enfield's number into that site you gave. Cool info to know.

[Love Life]

I have CCI 500 primers and will give them a try. If those don't work then I still have Tula and Winchester primers to try as well. After that I have SR primers. Something will work...I hope.


Hmmm. Mayhaps my powder was fine. I was using Herco and I came to the charge range based of a SWAG when comparing Ken Waters loads to current Lyman 49th loads with the 358430.

[9.3X62AL]

Given the high hits, I would speculate that your powder weights were light. Slower bullet = longer barrel time = higher placement due to recoil impulse. I use 3.3 grains of Herco for my S&W M&P and the W-E, but my bullet (NEI #169A) has A LOT of nose outside the case. Deeper seat depth with a differing bullet could crank pressures up--make haste slowly.

[Love Life]

I was thinking along the same lines, but the pierced primers kind of threw me off there. This bullet has less body in the case than the 358430 and the 200 gr Markell boolit loaded by Mr. Waters.

Mr. Waters used significantly more Herco than I did. What made me start at the 1.7 gr charge (incredibly dirty with mucho unburned powder in the bore) are the anemic charge weights listed in the Lyman 49th for the 358430.

Once I get this boolit figured out, it will be time to paly with the 358429, but that boolit is undersized for this gun.

[Char-Gar]

There are 38 S&Ws and then their are 38 S&Ws. I have had over the years several Smith M&Ps and one Colt OP in 38/200. These are considerably stronger machines that the top break Webley's. Looking at that small lug and latch arrangement quickly dispels any thought I have to boost the velocity/pressure of the loads.

[Love Life]

I agree with you on that Char-Gar. I am just looking to get POA/POI hits.

[Char-Gar]

I agree with you on that Char-Gar. I am just looking to get POA/POI hits.

If the velocity and weight of the bullet matches that of the original British load the point of impact relative to the sights should be as intended. That leave the question as what was intended? Many military and police pistols of days gone by were not sighted for a 6 O'clock hold. Shoot a pre-war Smith and Wesson M&P and that will be evident quickly. I don't know how the Brits wanted their sights to hit. But, I seriously doubt if they were concerned about shooting paper bulleye and hitting center. They were concerned about soldiers being able to hit the enemy under stress at short ranges. They might have set the sights for 200 yards, who knows what madness is in the minds of the British military. They did do things different at times.

My Webley shoot high as well with the windage spot on. I just learn to hold low, figuring the pistol was not sighted to suit my needs or how I wanted the point of impact vis-a-vi the sights. need to make the adjustments in how I use the sights.

[Love Life]

All very good points. In my targets, I am cutting the orange spotter in half with the front sight. Where it sits, if I aim at a rabbit's feet then he/she is going home for the fricassee!!

[robertbank]

They were concerned about soldiers being able to hit the enemy under stress at short ranges. .

These guns were to give officers something else to hold on to when they had nothing else to do. Any pretense of a combat arm went out the door when the Brits adopted the 38-200 round. Anything you want to do with a handgun can most certainly be done better with almost any other handgun round. The guns are fun to play with noiw but for serious work...I don't think so.

Take Care

Bob

[roadie]

I had one for a few years, definitely not something I'd want for serious work. I once shot a bottle at about 20 feet....the bullet bounced off it and landed at my feet.

Fun to play with as all guns are, but not built for tough battles....or bottles.

[Char-Gar]

These guns were to give officers something else to hold on to when they had nothing else to do. Any pretense of a combat arm went out the door when the Brits adopted the 38-200 round. Anything you want to do with a handgun can most certainly be done better with almost any other handgun round. The guns are fun to play with noiw but for serious work...I don't think so.

Take Care

Bob

I have never set foot in Canada and know little about that place excepted for the droves of Canadians that come down here to deep tropical south Texas to get away from the cold. But I have lived outside the US and traveled allot around the world and know that folks there have a different point of view on what folks need as handgun to take care of business. They think the 32 ACP, 380 ACP and 9mm are good service rounds. I lived in Costa Rica for a time and the police there carried High Standard 9 shot revolvers in 22 LR. Only in the US do we think it takes a 45 or smaller caliber expanding high velocity bullet to knock the bad guy down and out of his shoes if possible. We like our handguns stout.

From my point of view the Webley 38/200 is a pretty puny round, but I am not going to be as dismissive of it and the British military as you seem to be. There are plenty of stories around about it being effective for it's intended use. I certainly would not want to be shot with it, or any gun for that matter.

[Outpost75]

I am reminded of a favorite story told by the late Harry J. Archer, about an incident which took place in the China Sea, when on a "fishing" vessel conducting SIGINT between the Chinese mainland and Matsu island, when they were boarded one night by a group of combat swimmers wielding knives. The ROC first mate was armed with a 1922 Browning in .32 ACP and Harry had a .45, their being outnumbered 3 to 1 it was touch & go for a while playing "whack-a-mole" until the boarders were all repelled.

Harry said that the first mate was calmly shooting at the bobbing heads as they came over the transom, while Harry kept his .45 trained on a panicked crewman to prevent him from depressing the Browning .50, engaging and sinking the boat with friendly fire.

The story always ended the same way, "Hell, I never got a shot off! The first mate was doing fine with ten rounds in his .32, as there were only six swimmers... he didn't need any help."

[robertbank]

I have never set foot in Canada and know little about that place excepted for the droves of Canadians that come down here to deep tropical south Texas to get away from the cold. But I have lived outside the US and traveled allot around the world and know that folks there have a different point of view on what folks need as handgun to take care of business. They think the 32 ACP, 380 ACP and 9mm are good service rounds. I lived in Costa Rica for a time and the police there carried High Standard 9 shot revolvers in 22 LR. Only in the US do we think it takes a 45 or smaller caliber expanding high velocity bullet to knock the bad guy down and out of his shoes if possible. We like our handguns stout.

From my point of view the Webley 38/200 is a pretty puny round, but I am not going to be as dismissive of it and the British military as you seem to be. There are plenty of stories around about it being effective for it's intended use. I certainly would not want to be shot with it, or any gun for that matter.

If there are stories about how effective this round is they are simply just stories. I know of no one who ever claimed to have used one in combat other than to waive at German prisoners. No doubt you will find someone who claimed to use one and might even say it was effective but they would be rare indeed. While most of my relatives never spent much time talking about the war, none ever spoke of using a handgun in combat. For the most part they were to engaged with their rifles and in the case of my one uncle his 75MM gun in his Sherman.

Texas 268,820 sq miles
British Columbia 364,764 sq miles

We like um bigger up here too.:razz:

Take Care

Bob

[ShooterAZ]

Those things always looked clunky and unwieldy to me as a younger guy...but now I'm rethinking that opinion. Maybe because I'm not younger any more.

[Love Life]

It is very fun gun and actually quite slim and easy to use.

[9.3X62AL]

It is no 357 Magnum, but Robert is not the only Dominion resident I've heard deriding the 38/200 round. It may be as simple as "Familiarity breeds contempt"--a lot of peace officers weren't real impressed with the 38 Special at the time it held sway as the universal USA police sidearm loading. Getting shot with ANYTHING is no flippin' joke, and I will again say that the 200 grain 36 caliber slugs hitting steel targets at 25 yards make a far more significant impact than do the 150 grain #358477s at the same speed. Cold hard fact of the matter is......very few people who carry sideiron as their primary defensive implement are abundantly happy with them, because even a lick of sense tells you that the handgun is a compromise between portability and stopping ability that hugely favors the former element. They do beat hell outta throwing rocks, but good-sized rocks work well too--if you connect.

[Love Life]

My brother busted my head open with a thrown rock.

Al has hit it on the head as usual. Holes in the body tend to make people reevaluate their life choices.

[9.3X62AL]

A rude gesture by your brother, indeed.

The Webley revolvers aren't my idea of a Doomsday Prepper mainstay. They are fun, a little funky, and accurate enough to be enjoyable. They are conspicuous by their absence at Camp Perry, but so too are Winchester 94s and Marlin 336s, and both leverguns keep right on harvesting the venison--and have for 120 years. It is easy to get carried away with the uber-efficiency and ultimate-tactical foofahrah that besets our hobby field--just trying to keep it real. (Spoken like the longtime owner and user of an 1895 Nagant revolver).

[Love Life]

A rude gesture by your brother, indeed.



I kind of had it coming.

[Treetop]

I hope the site helps you get the old warhorse up and running!

Is it still the original .455 or has it been cut for 45 acp?

It accepts and locks up correctly on .45 Colt cartridges, but I haven't slugged the bore yet. I plan to use smokeless powder data thats meant for use in the old .45 black powder revolvers. If the bore and chamber throats slug near .455", I can use my Mihec 455423 boolits with a cat sneeze powder charge for some fun shooting. Tt.

[robertbank]

My load for my old Webley was 2 gr of Bullseye under a 358477 boolit for an avg velocity of 531 fps or a power factor of 82. This is over twice the power calculation of a 22LR. I never did run factory ammo over my Chrono. I guess I should have.

Phil Sharpe's Complete Guide to Handloading lists a 147gr boolit at 731 fps using this load. I could not duplicate those results with the slightly heavier 358477 Lyman boolit. My load was fairly accurate at 15 yards so I left it at that.

Take Care

Bob

[Love Life]

It accepts and locks up correctly on .45 Colt cartridges, Tt.

I don't know if that is good or not. Don't 45 Colt have thicker rims than the .455 Webley/eley? If it closes on the Colt cases then it may be shaved for 45 acp? Somebody else will have to verify that.

[robertbank]

Sounds like it has been shaved. My old 455 would not lock up on a 45 Colt.

Take Care

Bob

[Outpost75]

Most old Webley Mk4 and Mk6 revolvers I've checked will accept shortened .45 Colt brass or .45 Cowboy Special, without alteration. Most of these guns were intentionally built with loose headspace and excess firing pin protrusion for "mud clearance". I have NEVER seen one with tight headspace which actually saw combat service.

[FergusonTO35]

My understanding is that there was some .38 S&W with decent ballistics back in the day. Didn't Winchester once sell a .38 S&W "Super Police" load for solid frame revolvers?

[robertbank]

My understanding is that there was some .38 S&W with decent ballistics back in the day. Didn't Winchester once sell a .38 S&W "Super Police" load for solid frame revolvers?

Sharpe's book quotes loads to 900 fps which using a 147 gr bullet is respectable. The military load using a 200 gr bullet ran along at 620 fps according to Wikipedia. I suspect the 620fps might be the upper range but maybe not.

From what I can gather the American loads used lighter bullets with higher velocities.

The Edmonton City Police used commercially made cartridges from Winchester if memory serves me correctly in their Webley's.

Take Care

Bob

[9.3X62AL]

My understanding is that there was some .38 S&W with decent ballistics back in the day. Didn't Winchester once sell a .38 S&W "Super Police" load for solid frame revolvers?

The "38 Super Police" loads I'm acquainted with were 38 SPECIAL loadings with a 200 grain bullet at about 700 FPS. I have fired a large number of these "dupes" using Lyman #358430 and enough WW-231, Unique, or Herco to arrive at 700 FPS. The usual victim of these experiments were Mojave Desert jackrabbits, and these loads dispatched them handily and showed signs of tumbling as they traversed the target. The Lyman bullet was and is accurate as all get-out. We have gone from "pillar to post" with the 38 Special in our attempts to "improve" it for street fighting, using standard-weight (158 grain), uber-heavy (200 grain), and ultra-light (90-110 grain) bullets to work magic. The 9mm has been given the same treatment more recently. Ghost-chasing, most of it.

[FergusonTO35]

A retired big city cop I once talked to said that the .38 Special +P 158 grain lead hollow point was the most effective handgun round he ever saw. He stated that he had seen the autopsy results and they were quite impressive. "One per customer is all you need" he quipped. My .38 Specials are loaded with the Lee 358-158-RF at 875 fps.

[robertbank]

As some of you know I am involved with IDPA. We recently reduced the power factor for our SSR Division (38spl or larger with speedloaders) to 105 from 125. PF = Vel x weight of bullet.

This action was due to the fact our shooters could not often buy commercial ammunition that would make 125 PF, the minimum requirement for two of our pistol divisions usually shot with 9MM guns.

HQ ran a test and found commercial 38spl ammo at a PF as low as 95 and some as high as 115. To reach 125 PF the ammo had to be +P or the shooter was left to reloading as his only option. In comparison the floor for IDPA CDP .45acp Division PF is 165 as is the floor for IPSC Standard Division using .40cal.

While perfectly adequate for some of their intended purposes neither the 38-200 or the 38spl in it's commercial loading's are/were much in the way of man stoppers in their heyday when compared to some of the newer cartridges and current loading's for the 38spl.

Take Care

Bob
ps As Al indicated getting shot with anything is not a pleasant experience. S&W made one of the first self defense metal cartridge handguns...using the .22 Short as the cartridge of choice.

[9.3X62AL]

A retired big city cop I once talked to said that the .38 Special +P 158 grain lead hollow point was the most effective handgun round he ever saw. He stated that he had seen the autopsy results and they were quite impressive. "One per customer is all you need" he quipped. My .38 Specials are loaded with the Lee 358-158-RF at 875 fps.

This +P load with the 158 grain swaged HP is likely the Best of Breed for 38 Special carried in harm's way. FBI has recommended it for 38 Special usage for decades. It "rahrs raht bak" in a J-frame snubby, not all of which are recommended for +P as a steady diet. From a 4" barrel these run in the 900 FPS ballpark. GOOD STUFF. 142.2 P/F, too. The much-touted 9mm subsonic load (147 JHP @ 950 FPS) gives a 139.65 P/F. Very close "on paper", but that soft lead hollow point seems a better bet than the uber-modern controlled-expansion buzzword bullets. Gotta score hits, and hits where it matters. 22 Shorts or 454 Casulls sprayed into the background are equally superfluous.

[LouisianaMan]

Can't believe I've missed out on all the fun so far, but have enjoyed catching up on the thread just now.

My experiences and opinions on .38-200, aka .380 Rim Mk1/1Z, aka .38 Super Police; father of .380 Rim Mk2/2Z; offspring of .38 S&W and its fraternal twin, the .38 Colt New Police, tracks closely with the observations of 9.3x62AL. He, however, has loaded this round slightly heavier than I have to date (soon will remedy that) and he has shot a bunch of stringy jackrabbits with it (don't think I'll ever manage that down here on the bayou).

Nonetheless, using my humble target penetration tests, chrony, etc., I have seen 200g bullets from these guns hit *far* harder than some have averred here. Ditto for 178g Mk2Z ammo of relatively modern manufacture by CIS.

Here's my rambling summation of everything I've found in 5 years of trying, from horror stories to hallelujahs. READ ALL THIS AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!!!! YOU PROBABLY SHOULD TURN & RUN!!!

1. Haven't used a Webley, but two Enfields achieved markedly lower velocities than did tighter guns manufactured by Smith & Wesson, Colt, and Ruger. In the modest 145-46g commercial loads, even a vintage 4th Model and Perfected Model easily outperformed the Enfields.

2. Shooting at "soft targets," the 178g and 200g bullets usually penetrated and then quickly began to tumble. They plowed through several feet of water and plastic, unlike 1000+ fps Winchester 110g JHP that tore up water jugs 1 and 2, and stopped in #3. The heavies killed 5-6 jugs every time. 200g LSWC bullets at 650-700 smacked several jugs hard, drilled thru several more, and stuck in/against stop boards. Ken Waters cranked up one 200g LRN to 882 fps from a 4" Ruger; use a 200g hardcast LSWC at that velocity, and it's "Katy bar the door." My SWAG would be 10-12 jugs.

3. Mk2Z 178g FMJ drilled through several layers of overcoat, blew up a milk jug, penetrated an inch of bark, and then smashed sideways about an inch into a live pine tree. A second test shot drilled straight thru coat & water and into the wood of a living pine tree, about 2" deep. Ranges were paced off to be 56-58 yards for both shots.

4. Modern 146g LRN by Remington and Prvi ran very slow: advertised at 685, they were more like 625, with some audible "poof" Prvi rounds registering in the 400's. Some Remington 150g Colt New Police LFN's were consistently anemic, at about 585. That is from the tighter guns, not the Enfields, which would likely be even worse.

5. With the low-600's Enfield velocities, a jacketed Mk2Z bullet threatens to stick in the bore, especially if the load were a bit light, the groove diameter or cylinder gap a bit off-spec. (BTW, I can't see how .455 262g FMJ at 600 would be different.)

6. With the 700-720 vels of the Mk2/2Z load from all other guns, it's tough on soft targets, as are 200g at 600-700.

7. I expect the 200g LSWC at 675-700 would penetrate a car door or window glass *if* it strikes at something approximating 90 degrees angle of incidence. The more acute the angle, that progresses to unlikely and probably impossible. Forget about 145-46g or 150g LRN commercial loads doing anything to a car at any angle. Replace that with a hardcast 140-160g SWC at 700-800, though, and it's close or identical to a .38 SPL, FWIW.

8. I don't know if the old service .455 262g bullets (lead or FMJ) at about 600 typically stay point-first, or if they tumble. IF the .455 stays point first and if the .38-200 Mk1/1Z LRN tumbles as often as I have observed, I could well imagine that permanent cavity tissue damage would be very similar in extent. Damage to bones would be highly dependent on angle of incidence, but a soft lead .38-200 might very well inflict as much or more damage than a jacketed .455. . .but less than a soft lead .455. . .unless the .455 is stable and the .38 tumbles. Either lead bullet recipe is sufficient to smash sternum/ribs and still penetrate to strike a serious blow to the spine. Neither would be good against barriers.

9. The 218g .455 "Man-Stopper" was widely considered very effective against personnel; it had a hollow base and a gaping, flat-contoured hollow point that apparently expanded in flesh and/or bone at low-600's velocity. BUT the Brits didn't use this load against "civilized" foes; instead, they used heavy lead solids in WWI and heavy FMJ solids in WWII. Likewise, the British changed from .38-200 soft lead Mk1/1Z to the 178g Mk 2/2Z before WWII due to Hague Convention concerns, so I suspect that in the transition they lost (1) the benefits of soft lead vs. bone, and (2) the momentum of a 200 vs. a 178 at similar vels. Tumbling should have remained highly likely with both.

10. I suspect that an illustrative parallel is offered by the 9mm/.45 argument. If a fast 124-47g 9mm JHP expands as intended, it's quite likely *about* as effective as .45 FMJ against unarmored personnel. JHP vs. JHP, perhaps not. Ditto the .38 SPL, much maligned in LRN but applauded in SWCHP form. I suspect that the .38 S&W with heavy service bullets, good ammo, tight guns, is closer in effectiveness to the FBI load than to the 158 LRN load, and thus probably roughly comparable to the .455 in solid 262g form, but not in the Hague non-compliant "Man-Stopper" form. (Again, if the .455 in 262g lead or FMJ form is a tumbler, it's a different story.) With light bullets, light loads, loose guns, the .38 S&W is clearly inferior to the .38 SPL and to the .455 in just about any format.

Finally. . .(gasp). . .maybe all the Brits really meant in 1930 by comparing the "stopping power" of their original .38-200 to their service .455 was this: hit an opponent in a relatively sweet spot with either load, and they both had the power/penetration to smash through to the vitals and put him down. Hit him somewhere else, and neither was really likely to do so. The .38 S&W in commercial 145-50g form was far less capable. I have no idea if the Brits considered a 150g hardcast LFP souped up to 800-900, or how that would compare in effectiveness to the .38-200 in original form. (Although I do have some hardcast 148g loaded to a true 900 fps from a Mod 33-1 :-)

[jumbeaux]

Great post LouisianaMan...

rick

[LouisianaMan]

Thanks, Jumbeaux. The .38 S&W is the cartridge that many love to hate, especially because of the widely known--but I believe partially misunderstood--heretical claim that it somehow provided "stopping power roughly equal to the .455." It's probably the most diminutive pocket pistol cartridge that ever became a full-blown service cartridge, and unfortunately nobody has ever been able to discover exactly how the British Army came to such an apparently absurd conclusion. So, it's wrapped up in all kinds of baggage amidst American handgunners' rabidly favorite topic of "stopping power."

Anybody who knows the uneven record of the .38 Special in its 158g LRN version, is instantly appalled at the comparison of the .38 S&W's pocket pistol 146/685 load to a .40-anything. That's magnified by what people see, feel and hear when they shoot modern watered-down ammo, and even further by the true stories of Mark 2/2Z 178g bullets barely making it out of the muzzle of the gun.

What I tried to show above was how these patently true tales of woe don't tell, as Paul Harvey always said, "the rest of the story." Kinda like when our Army substituted powders in producing the standard-issue 5.56mm ammo with the then-new M-16. The ORIGINAL ammo wasn't what we fielded. It's very telling that both .38-200 and 5.56 were intended to derive much of their effectiveness from bullets designed to destabilize violently after penetrating the target. When either was thwarted by an intermediate barrier, or drilled straight through without destabilizing, the failures were obvious.

The 7.62 and .455 cartridges supplanted by the .38-200 and 5.56 suffered the same problems, but not to the same extent, because their size and weight afforded a greater margin of error. Same exact thing when comparing .38 and 9mm JHP's to .44 and .45 of any sort. The smaller, expanding projectiles must function as designed to achieve fullest effect, but still work fine if they DON'T expand, BUT nonetheless hit something vital. The various .44-.45 calibers have an inherently greater margin of error.

As Forrest Gump said: "And that's all I have to say about that." :-)

[robertbank]

LouisianaMan (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/member.php?9742-LouisianaMan) what you say is true. What most don't fully understand as the Brits and for that matter the Canadians nevere spent a great deal of time on the revolver. During the war years little time was spent training on the revolver. Most couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with it due to the absence of training and from what I gather the guns were not held in high regard as in why carry something I can;t hit anything with anyway.

I suspect the answer to your question you raise regarding why the Brits would claim the equvalent power from the 38-200 vs the .455 lies with the fact few cared and the decision to replace the 455 had already been made. Hell if nothing else the 38 Webley was lighter to carry than the 455. That alone would send me straight to the 38 if I had no intention of ever using the gun anyway.

Take Care

Bob

[LouisianaMan]

Hi Bob,

Government procurement is always subject to the "pet rock" approach :-) If somebody somewhere has already decided on the answer, they may just blow off subsequent objections. Certainly the .38 was lighter to carry and quicker-handling than the Webley .455, and novice handgunners assume that a smaller gun kicks less than a bigger one. And all accounts agree that the British small arms people believed that they needed something "easier" for wartime conscripts to handle.

It's also noteworthy that the British Army apparently was quick to accept Webley's position that it was too hard (or too expensive) to retool & redesign their existing .38 revolver with a longer cylinder. That is given as the reason they put design effort into modifying the .38 S&W cartridge rather than selecting the .38 Special in some form or other. That macro-logistics concern would have been fully understandable in 1940, when a war emergency was underway. It's more puzzling to have done so in the early 1920's, unless the powers-that-be simply made the assumption, "That'll cost too much & never fly, so forget it and make do." Given the financial straits of the British Army (and others) following the Great War, that's logical. But if cost were the only issue, why worry about changing? Yet, apparently it was high on the list of changes they wanted to make as a result of the war.

What it boils down to is that today we'd understand lots of reasons to "settle" for a .38, but we wonder what the heck they meant by claiming "roughly equal stopping power." The conventional wisdom has been that the claim was frankly b.s. My theory is that the claim was more logical than we assume. I'd like to know if I'm on the right track about that logic, though, because maybe they really thought the magic ingredient was energy dump, dwell time, or something else. And we can't evaluate the history of the matter, or any relevant implications for the ongoing "stopping power wars," with mere conjecture.

[Char-Gar]

LouisianaMan....Thank you for taking the time to give such interesting and informative information about the subject at hand. I don't keep my Webley Mk IV by my bed side, but I don't dismiss it either for it's intended purpose.

A few years back the NYPD did a analysis of police shooting in regard to caliber all the way back to when Teddy Roosevelt was Police Commissioner. This covered the range of calibers from 22 Short to 458 Magnum. When they got through, the data indicated it is far more important where you hit the bad guy, then what you hit him with. This was not any surprise to folks who have an interest in guns.

Hitting the bad guy in the right spot seems to be the difficult task for many folks who carry handguns. William Butler (Wild Bill) Hickok was considered the Prince of Pistoleros and took care of business with a pair of Colt Navy 36 caliber cap and ball sixguns. Compare the ballistics of those handguns with the 38/200 and the latter will appear to be a genuine stomper.

I am not about substitute a Colt Navy or a Webley IV for my 1911 any time soon. But it they were all I had, I would not feel defenseless or afraid. But, I am a fair country pistol shot and have a cool head.

[LouisianaMan]

Char-Gar,
I agree completely!

[FergusonTO35]

I think the .38 S&W is a pretty good cartridge when we compare it to what was commonly available in similar size handguns at the time of its introduction. These would be the .22 and .32 rimfires and the little .32 S&W. To get anything better you had to move up to a full size revolver. The .38 S&W was for a long time the best cartridge you could get in a small handgun.

[robertbank]

LouisianaMan (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/member.php?9742-LouisianaMan) I think today we give more value to a handgun than anytime in the past, outside of the movies of course. The 1911 was of great value during WW1 when compared to rifles of the day and the type of warfare going on. Trench shovels probably killed as many men in the trenches as did handguns but that is for another thread. The Brits (Dominion forces did too) issued them to offices to ensure men in the trenches got out of the trenches when the whistle blew and kept going forward. I suspect the Americans did as well.
After the War to End All Wars ended I suspect military procurement was a pretty low priority for the Brits as it was for everyone else at the time. The US was not the world power it was after WW11 and I would expect the US Army suffered like all the rest during the period between the wars. I assume they needed a handgun for the officers and the Webley/Enfield design was chosen.

Lets not make these revolvers something they are not. They were designed to be carried by officers, and they were. The apparently do well on California jack rabbits but I really doubt many Germans or Japanese fell to the wobbly Webleys. After WW11 they were surplus and did well in the holster of municipal police forces where for most of the time they just gathered dust. Edmonton probably got them for free and used them as police side arms as late as 1968/69 when they converted to the M&P 38spls before the adoption of the Glock 40. The current drug trade calls for better arms for the local gendarmes.

Take Care

Bob

[9.3X62AL]

No disagreement with anything posted since my last blurb. The 38 S&W is purely a recreational caliber for me, but if some goblin insists upon pressing an aggravated assault upon me while I have such an arm on board.......I will present its contents. FWIW, Colt D-frame speedloaders by HKS do a fine job of refilling my Webley-Enfield cylinder all at once. I hold the barrel in my left hand, hold the revolver butt in my right, and depress the latch with right thumb. I open it fully while rotating the piece forward, the empties fall away, and retain the barrel in my left hand while grasping the fresh loader with my right. I refill the cylinder--drop the loader--and use the right hand to re-grasp the handle and close the piece. This is much faster to do than to describe.

[FergusonTO35]

I love the way top breaks operate even if it is less strong than the hand ejector design. I imagine a trained shooter could reload it pretty quickly too. Would love to see Jerry Miculek running a Webley or Lemon Squeezer!

[LouisianaMan]

Bob,
No pistol is a ray gun, and 24 years as an Army officer certainly gave me a good feel for how much emphasis the US Army placed on handguns, at least from 1981-2005. That was almost precisely none whatsoever. It was last on the priority list, even below every imaginable piece of administrivia. The most important thing was not to LOSE it, as that would cost your career. So would losing a bayonet, which is why most units I saw kept them locked in a foot locker inside the arms room.

We were supposed to qualify annually, and I and many others could. (When ammo was available, which was dicey.) Some couldn't, which reminded us all of the other handgun priority: don't shoot yourself or others with it. Range time and ammo were nobody's priority, nor was practice. The only people who worried about it were "gun types" like me and those of us who had to keep and/or justify training statistics. There were *many* more of the latter than the former.

In short, I have no illusions about the institutional realities of the matter.

I am also a military historian, however. The lassitude I've just described in my part of the US Army, in my time there, is rather typical. One of the reasons for arming most officers with a pistol was specifically to discourage them from personally engaging the enemy, as opposed to directing and coordinating the unit's efforts. History shows that pistols have almost nothing to do with winning wars--certainly not at levels above small-unit command. The US Cavalry did precious little fighting with pistols even in frontier days.

But history also shows that some armies expected more, at certain places and times. Confederate cavalry in the west, Texas Rangers, raiding parties or Stosstruppen of WWI, Finns in 1939-40, German machinegunners, antitank gunners, and artillerymen on the Eastern Front. (Everyone who tangled with the Russians of that era had bolt action rifles in large part, and never could get enough fire support, armor support, or air support, so close-quarter fighting was absolutely par for the course. SMG's were worth a mint and pistols had to be more than badges of office. That's also why those front-line units demanded and got P-08's and P-38's by the million. Given the partisan threat, German logistics troops had to have pistols, even if they were .32 or .380 caliber.)

So, while the generals marshalled their divisions and corps, many privates, NCO's, company- and even field-grade officers had to worry about stuff like pistols sometimes. And even bayonets once in a while. A pain to mess with, until needed, at which point that particular person placed it higher on their list of priorities. . . .

Can't remember the source, but a US Marine's Pacific War memoir pointed out that everybody had a bayonet or a Ka-Bar, and that by war's end at least half of the men he knew had had to use them in close combat against the Japanese. It might have been Eugene Sledge, a 60mm mortar crewman who considered himself extremely fortunate to have his father's .45, since the USMC didn't issue many pistols to enlisted men.

In sum, many a prissy officer in a prissy unit in a prissy military wore a prissy pistol as a badge of office, or to shoot or threaten reluctant peasant soldiers. Pistols were often on unit tables of organization simply to provide a semblance of a weapon to soldiers who weren't expected to ever use them. Nonetheless, many of these people wound up needing pistols like they'd never imagined. (And some who imagined they'd need pistols and knives never did.) Some people have to touch a hot stove to believe it hurts, but others think it through without getting scorched. Like pistols and edged weapons, it's all a matter of perspective.

[FergusonTO35]

Excellent post. When I worked at an LE agency I observed that the desk cops who hadn't pulled a uniform patrol in years carry pistols for much the same reason.

[Char-Gar]

These posts remind me of the time I was in a gun shop in Houston Texas about 1966. A Houston Deputy Chief came in with his service revolver (a 2" Chief's Special) that was giving problems. He had to do his yearly qualification and his little pea shooter would not work. He brought it in for a fix. The owner was busy and asked me to go back in the shop and take a look. I removed the cylinder and the side plate and the handgun was packed with a dry hard white substance that prevented anything from moving. I smelled it and it smelled like ice cream. I removed all the internals, cleaned and lubed everything and took it back to the Deputy Chief. He asked about the problem and I told him. He looked sheepish and said about six months earlier he had dropped an ice cream cone on his pistol, but he thought he had clean it all off. It was good he had not needed it, for it was dead in the water. His little pistol was a badge of office and nothing more.

[LouisianaMan]

C-G,
Hysterical story!!!!!!

When I assumed command at a nuclear ammo company in Germany in 1988, the armorer had been stuck cleaning most of the officers' pistols for 2 years. Some officers didn't know how to disassemble or assemble their 1911A1.

That changed for the next two years. No idea what happened after 1990 when I left.

[Outpost75]

As FYI for the peanut gallery, I'm posting drawings of some new bullets from Accurate which I am using in my .380 Rimmed and 9mm Ruger revolvers. One of these may be just the ticket. The think the 201-grain ogival wadcutter would really get a bad guy's attention. In the Ruger I'm shooting it with 6.3 grains of #2400, but you wouldn't want to do that in a Webley!

The 37-125T is intended as a heavy bullet for the 9mm Makarov, but can be ordered with the driving bands smaller if you want. Mine drops .362+

147117147118147119147120

[LouisianaMan]

Any problems with those chambering in the Indian Contract Ruger? The 178g should be perfect for the sights, and of course I have a soft spot for the 200g bullets. The chambers in my Ruger are so darned short that I wonder if those bullets would chamber!

[Outpost75]

Any problems with those chambering in the Indian Contract Ruger? The 178g should be perfect for the sights, and of course I have a soft spot for the 200g bullets. The chambers in my Ruger are so darned short that I wonder if those bullets would chamber!

When seated and crimped in the crimp groove, these all fall into and out of the cylinders of both revolvers of their own weight.

Throats of my French contract-era (1984) 9mm cylinder are .358", the .380 Rimmed cylinder was simply a "French contract" 9mm cylinder which was rechambered to .38 S&W to lengthen the chambers, and it has the 9mm clip clearance around its outer circumference, whereas the extractor star enables .38 S&W rounds to headspace. That particular gun will eat 9mm with clips or .380-200 without clips.

The purpose-built 9mm cylinder does not require clips to headspace, but does require them to eject the empties. If you will note on the bullet drawings, "front band tolerance negative" - therein lies the clue!

When ordering you can specify different diameters to fit your throats if required.

[9.3X62AL]

More good stuff, gentlemen! Thank you.

I remain amused that NEI #169A for the 38/200 is longer at .810" than the case it gets seated into (.775"). This--the great SMLE rifle--and their 1960s automotive technology leave the impression that most things British were designed by committee.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The Webley is weaker in the frame than solid frame revolvers, but I think the cylinder of either would be at risk before the topstrap. It is stronger than most American top-breaks, for surfaces at an angle to the bore axis meet at the top rear, one on the frame and one in the rear of the topstrap mortice into which the former fits. Because they are angled, an extreme overload can make them slide, bending or breaking the topstrap and breaking the latch. But it would have to be extremely extreme. The latch normally bears little load. I have seen Webley .38 barrels seectioned when full of jacketed bullets, and they were ripply with obstruction bulges but not burst, and the topstrap was intact.

I would suspect that the first round, and perhaps other tales of .38/200 being underpowered, originated with rounds degraded by the ingress of oil or (I jest not) Brasso metal polish, a staple munition of the British army. The example given was a rear window, not a windshield, but sloping automobile glass is surprisingly good at deflecting any conventional pistol bullet. The British army intelligence operatives who worked under cover in Belfast were instructed, if things went wrong, to fire through steel, not glass, and everybody designed a "window" in his door Kevlar to his own taste.

It is surprising how much recent discovery about handgun stopping power is actually old discovery. One of the best books I know was by Surgeon Lieutenant-colonel La Garde, of the Chicago stockyard trials, which led to the introduction of the .45ACP. He was disappointed by the poor performance on steers of smallbore jacketed rounds such as the 7.65 Luger and the previously highly regarded 7.63 Mauser, although the latter might be fine for an officer caught out by riflemen at a couple of hundred yards. He claimed that no conventional pistol had reliable stopping power unless it hit part of the central nervous system or broke one of the long bones of the leg. In the latter case a small, hard bullet could simply pierce the bone, or make a small X-shaped fracture which could give someone a great deal of trouble after your demise. He considered that to break bone a bullet should be of large diameter, heavy and soft, so that it didn't glance so easily from the bone, and velocity mattered a lot less.

He didn't, in fact, get quite the .45 he would have liked, for he would have preferred a heavier and much more thinly jacketed bullet than the now familiar GI hardball. At one time the .45ACP, although extremely effective at making an assailant desist and go home to take his pension, was said never to have been proven to kill an enemy in combat. I don't know how early in its service history that was. I used to know an ancient Saudi falconer who assured us that his falcon was faster than any aeroplane, which was obviously true, since his father had told him when he was a boy.

The Second World War saw very little use of pistols as a prime combat weapon, but the First did. The standard trench-clearing team was the bomber and the bayonet-man, but they told me in my youth that the latter was really a misnomer, since the bayonet was rarely used. A subaltern often took this role, since although they were expected not to engage in long-range musketry, trench clearing was leadership. Although plenty of them found a rifle from somewhere, the revolver was often used, and found effective.

The .455 Webley was effective, but it took a lot of practice to shoot well beyond the shortest of ranges. WW1 had brought increasing reliance on conscripts and duration-of-hostilities enlistees, with a drastically increasing need for technical training. In trenches heavy weights often had to be man-carried, including by specialists, so a saving in weight would be useful too. The .38/200 was found to fall short of the Webley in stopping power, but by surprisingly little when the original 200gr. bullet was in use. It undoubtedly did tend to tumble, but I think that probably affected stopping power less than it does with higher velocity bullets. Shortly before the war, though, a perceived need to comply with the Hague Convention produced a heavily jacketed 178gr. bullet, with a greater loss of stopping power than the weight would suggest. Personally I think not expanding in soft tissues should have sufficed, since just about any rifle bullet is liable to deform or break up on heavy bone. I have dug up the 178gr. bullets on old military ranges, and found them far less deformed than 9mm.

The military .38/200 round was initially intended for a firearm we don't now call a Webley. Webley were invited to design a new revolver, which in some ways was a considerable improvement on their commercial products. It had one improvement the French had insisted on only sixty years earlier, a removable sideplate, so that the internals were exposed but couldn't fall out unless you wanted them out. There was an improved cylinder bolt, and it did away with the long-term British tradition of a long lateral groove in the cylinder for each chamber. But Webley, who expected the production contract as well, were disappointed when production went to the government's own Enfield factory. They ended up suing and receiving a fairly modest award, but fences got mended when Enfield production couldn't keep up in wartime and Webley ended up doing a very good thing in sales of their own MkIV, on a frame very much like their earlier pocket and police revolvers.

A good peacetime Enfield is a far better pistol than many people think. But wartime production was placed in the hands of contractors unused to making firearms, with inadequate guidance. Albion Motors of Glasgow might have produced some good ones, but you would be beating the odds if you found one. Also from 1938 they were double action only - a rather good double action when they were well made (some of the others having a pull only a gorilla could appreciate), but unpopular with military and civilian users.

Webley made many .38s up to the MkIII for the .38S&W cartridge before the Enfield misadventure, but I think most, up to the MKIII, were for the light bullet. Some commercial MkIVs were made for both, with two detachable front sight blades supplied. The only one I have owned was bought by the Metropolitan Police at some time before they abandoned "cording" of the trigger and backstrap in 1961. They decided it was obsolete, said "Oops" and and put it away, boxed and unfired, until the mid-90s. As I got that same primer-piercing problem, I know it is built in, not due to pressure as primer failure around the edge of the pin could be. It should be curable by light stoning of the pin. Yours is also about the right age, since production standards deteriorated, with the use of castings, before the end of Webley revolver production in the 1970s.

[LouisianaMan]

Ballistics in Scotland (=BIS, change to "Bisley" for reasons clear to this audience...); oh well, what do you prefer to be called? :-)

I knew much of that info already, but a LOT of it was utterly new to me and VERY interesting!!! Bravo! Yours is the most interesting post on this topic I've read in a very long time--perhaps ever.

As to the tendency of the Enfields and Webley ".380 Rim" to suffer the BIB, or "bullet in bore" syndrome, this link has what I think may be the definitive explanation: http://www.castbulletassoc.org/forum/view_topic.php?id=10443&forum_id=4&highlight=Ed+Harris+on+the+.38+Special

Take a look and see what you think.

I've done a lot of shooting with the .38 S&W, much of it with loads that very closely replicate the .380 Rim Mk. 1/1Z service ammunition.

http://i872.photobucket.com/albums/ab287/batonrougeman/misc%20photos/38%20SW/closeupearlyhandloads.jpg (http://s872.photobucket.com/user/batonrougeman/media/misc%20photos/38%20SW/closeupearlyhandloads.jpg.html)

Have also gotten a nice little stockpile of 178g FMJ Mk 2Z service ammo made by CIS (Singapore) and by FN. I've been favorably impressed by it all.
http://i872.photobucket.com/albums/ab287/batonrougeman/I%20frames%20May%202015/image.jpg3.jpg (http://s872.photobucket.com/user/batonrougeman/media/I%20frames%20May%202015/image.jpg3.jpg.html)

The 200g soft lead bullet can do a lot of damage with its combination of terrific sectional density and a pronounced tendency to tumble violently. I haven't been able to test it in ballistic gel, much less against malefactors, but it seems likely to have far more pronounced target effects than most would imagine. I suspect it was/is a different approach to wounding than a hollowpoint, but perhaps similar in its tendency to inflict a "permanent crush cavity" that would be quite respectable by modern standards of measurement.

My crude tests against water-filled milk jugs, overcoats, and pine trees--sometimes in combination and even at distances just shy of 60 yards--have indicated to me that the Mk 2Z ammo's woeful reputation is due almost entirely to the fact that it was mismatched to the Enfield/Webley revolvers. I suspect that anyone using it in a Smith & Wesson, Colt, or Ruger revolver had far more satisfactory results. The Colt and Ruger generate significantly higher velocity, though, due to bores that run from .3545" to .3565". That extra velocity probably tends to over-stabilize the bullet and cause it to drill holes, rather than tumble, except at ranges much farther than are typical for a sidearm. The S&W's .359" bore seems to allow for more pronounced tumbling, due to lower velocities and thus a greater tendency to destabilize when penetrating a soft target, even at close range.

The Mk 2Z's metal jacket is indeed tough. I've recovered bullets fired through water and bundled overcoats that were engraved by the rifling, but othewise unmarked. I'm sure they could be reloaded and fired again. See:

[LouisianaMan]

Well, the end of that post was annihilated, but here's the photo at least:

http://i872.photobucket.com/albums/ab287/batonrougeman/misc%20photos/38%20SW/photo162.jpg (http://s872.photobucket.com/user/batonrougeman/media/misc%20photos/38%20SW/photo162.jpg.html)

[LouisianaMan]

Here are some bullets made from a group buy mold meant to replicate the Mk1 / Super Police bullet closely:

http://i872.photobucket.com/albums/ab287/batonrougeman/misc%20photos/38%20SW/closeup200s.jpg (http://s872.photobucket.com/user/batonrougeman/media/misc%20photos/38%20SW/closeup200s.jpg.html)

Bullets on left and right are from the Mk1 mold; the middle is from a group buy 358430.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

A simple "Hey, you" will suffice, but thank you for those kind words.

That website is certainly interesting. I would think the tightness of the chamber throats was more significant than the tightness of the bore. The reason the Enfield revolver was termed No2 in the military was that there was an earlier and generally unloved .476 Enfield of 1879, before any Webley revolver became a standard service weapon. The designer worked in the belief that revolver velocity is achieved entirely in the cylinder. It is untrue, of course, but clearly what happens there is of great importance.

Many (all?) .455 Webleys apparently violated a fundamental of handgun design by having a throat considerably smaller than the bullet or groove diameter. Excellent accuracy was nonetheless achieved, due principally I think to the hollow based bullets, although generations of users have found solid-based ones acceptable if they were soft. I have measured a commercial Webley-Fosbery at .448in. This brings us to a possible danger with .45ACP conversions.

Some of these work well, but my guess is that many converters reamed the cylinder throatws to suit the bullet diameter. There were a lot of gunsmiths and amateurs doing this work, though, and no doubt many didn't. Without doing this I think soft lead bullets or .45 Auto-rim would be safe, but I wouldn't like to fire them with GI hardball.

A similar situation exists with the French M1873, which was surely the best military revolver in the world for a short period, although usually supplied with needlessly underloaded ammunition. Some were rechambered (a very slight difference) for .45 ACP, both by the French resistance and by civilian users. But they had a tendency to break the topstrap. I have seen calculations by a French engineer which suggest that the standard GI powder charge with a lead bullet would have been safe. The culprit appears to have been the extra resistance or forcement exerted by the hardball bullet engraving in the rifling.

I have never understood why the .38S&W fell out of favour for small pocket revolvers which aren't loaded to very high velocities. It strikes me that quite a bit of cylinder and frame metal is devoted to getting powder space which isn't used.

[Outpost75]

I agree that the .38 S&W in a modern, strong, solid-frame revolver would have great potential. Personally, I would like to see something like a Ruger LCR, but with a 3-inch barrel, chambered for the .38 S&W. Of course the factories would never make a modern defense load for it, but based on my experience loading for the .32 ACP and S&W Long, I don't think that you could put enough of a slower burning powder, such as #2400 in the tiny case to get into trouble. It would require pressure testing to be sure. But I have found that 5.5 grains of #2400 in .32 ACP with Accurate 31-087T, or 6 grains in the .32 S&W Long with Accurate 31-134D to be accurate and powerful with no signs of pressure.

I also use the 36-201D in .38 S&W brass trimmed to .750" with 6 grains of #2400 in my 9mm Ruger and it works very well. Velocity is around 700 fps. But, of course, I have no plans to try it in my 1924 Colt Police Positive in .38 Colt New Police... But if somebody cares to run it on QuikLoad I'm curious...
147276.32 ACP
147246.32 S&W Long
147247.38 S&W

[Bigslug]

How do I miss a thread like this until it's over a year old and undergoing resurrection???

Webleys. . .I love 'em! Like most gun nerds, I have my theories on the "why" behind a lot of the choices the British government made about them.

Having two .45 MKVI's (one original and the other an ACP conversion) and a "WAR FINISH" .38 MKIV, I tend to agree with the the mindset of lighter to carry and better handling. The .455 is a big hunk of iron to handle - not from recoil, but in terms of weight and balance, it's a beast best suited to folks who really know their way around guns. Comparing to the .38, it's a much more pronounced version of the difference between a 1911 and a Hi Power. In automotive terms, the serious gearheads who know how to drive hard will gravitate toward the big block muscle cars, but those merely looking for transportation will find a Corolla less fatiguing and more within their skill level.

As to the .38/200 or ".38/178" being "as good as the .455" argument, I tend to think the British were on a similar wavelength to where the FBI was in the early 1990's when they were working out what has become modern wound ballistic protocol. The short version of that is:

#1 priority is to put the bullet in the right place. Inaccurate shooting does not solve your problem.

#2 priority is that the bullet has to penetrate deeply enough to hit major arteries, organs, or nerve clusters. If the bullet doesn't make it to the Tootsie Roll center of the Tootsiepop, it doesn't solve your problem.

#3 priority is the diameter and expansion are ONLY advantageous AFTER priorities #1 and #2 have been met, meaning that a big hole that is in the wrong spot or doesn't go deep enough doesn't solve your problem.

This is being borne out today by the shift BACK to 9mm service autos in some departments, the notion being that if you design the bullet with those priorities in mind, the bad guys usually can't tell the difference when hit and the less dedicated shooters on the department are much more likely to meet priority #1 with a gun that isn't beating them up.

I think the Brits pretty solidly understood this in the 1930's, and also understood that there probably wasn't a whole lot of difference between the wound made between a round nose .45 and a round nose .38. Might as well then go for the lighter gun. Before I owned my Webleys, I had the opportunity to test the .38/200 concept by shooting FBI gelatin with a 195 grain Lyman 358430 soft loaded to a mere 570 fps out of a .357 case. It penetrated 18" of the stuff in a perfectly straight line and was stopped by the hard rubber safety backstop behind the block. Penetration is not a concern. . .even at pokey .38 S&W speeds.

147279
Here's a side by side of both rounds; the .455 loaded with the RCBS 265 grain HB in front of 4.1 grains of Unique, and the .38 with NOE's 200 grain RN sized .361" with 2.3 grains of Titegroup at 625fps. I gather the NOE turned out to be something of an error in that it's the weight of the older lead bullet with the rounder nose, but it has more the pointier profile of the later 178 grain FMJ. NOE has since come out with the rounder nose and is selling both, but this one shoots POA/POI for me at 25 yards, so I feel no burning desire to buy a new mold. It flips empty dog food cans around with great authority, so its current purpose is more than served.

[Outpost75]

I agree that you cannot permit any wounded dog food cans to escape! Cat food cans are just as dangerous!

And if you don't believe it just ask the CAT!
147290

[Bigslug]

I agree that you cannot permit any wounded dog food cans to escape! Cat food cans are just as dangerous!

It could be argued that the cat food cans are MORE dangerous, as they are less than half as tall and are harder to hit. They are also evolved to be more cunning, as getting cats to willfully eat their contents is far more difficult. The dog food cans are of course larger and stronger. When you see ranks of 20-30 of them shining before you "in the wire", it can be very hard to maintain a cool head. Fortunately, I keep my Bobby's whistle on a lanyard at all times so it is handy to summon the stalwart SMLE-toting Tommies.

147298:bigsmyl2:

[Love Life]

It's nice to see this thread alive and kicking. Since I first started this thread, I have solved the primer issue. CCI SPP hold up just fine. I also worked up loads with SRP.

It is easy for me to shoot 50 rds from this gun at the range. It's just that fun.

[Bigslug]

Many (all?) .455 Webleys apparently violated a fundamental of handgun design by having a throat considerably smaller than the bullet or groove diameter. Excellent accuracy was nonetheless achieved, due principally I think to the hollow based bullets, although generations of users have found solid-based ones acceptable if they were soft. I have measured a commercial Webley-Fosbery at .448in. This brings us to a possible danger with .45ACP conversions.

Some of these work well, but my guess is that many converters reamed the cylinder throatws to suit the bullet diameter. There were a lot of gunsmiths and amateurs doing this work, though, and no doubt many didn't. Without doing this I think soft lead bullets or .45 Auto-rim would be safe, but I wouldn't like to fire them with GI hardball.


It is indeed a part of the Webley picture I find puzzling. As I recall, both of my MKVI's gauged .452" on the throats, but larger on the bore (.455" IIRC). The scary issue of full-power .45ACP in these of course would be from the added pressure of the rounds, not the diameter. The moral of the story of course is to know the gun and load along the lines of what it was designed for, not what some profit-hungry importer said you could do with it.


I have never understood why the .38S&W fell out of favour for small pocket revolvers which aren't loaded to very high velocities. It strikes me that quite a bit of cylinder and frame metal is devoted to getting powder space which isn't used.

Absolutely agree. In fact, why not duplicate the .38/200 performance with the .38 Short Colt case, which uses the same body diameter and rim dimensions of the currently-far-more-common .38 Special and .357 Magnum? This would allow for shorter, lighter frames and cylinders that could still use existing extractors. No, Roy Weatherby wouldn't like is as it wouldn't be super fast or have a laser-like trajectory, but let's not lose sight of what these British service cartridges were FOR: they're for plugging an enemy in the face from 20 feet, not replacing an XP-100.

[Outpost75]

...... why not duplicate the .38/200 performance with the .38 Short Colt case, which uses the same body diameter and rim dimensions of the currently-far-more-common .38 Special and .357 Magnum? This would allow for shorter, lighter frames and cylinders that could still use existing extractors.....for plugging an enemy in the face from 20 feet, not replacing an XP-100.

Actually Charter Arms and Federal produced for a very short time, a cartridge called the 9mm Federal, which was essentially a 9x19mm Rimmed for the Charter Arms revolver. Unfortunately the Charter Arms revolvers did not hold up well and nobody else picked up the round, so it is as dead as the .35 S&W Automatic....

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?181160-9mm-rimmed-advise-please

[LouisianaMan]

Interesting twists and turns on the subject, branching out in several directions. I think the FBI's recent "back to the future" experience with the 9mm is an excellent modern parallel to the British studies--and probable conclusions--of the 1920's-1930's.

I still imagine that the Brits determined the original Mk1 blunt LRN might do as well or better against bone as the heavier, but pointier .455. Additionally, I've thought the tumbling action might have played a significant role in their decision. A question in that regard, however: since the .455 MkVI (?) 262g bullet is also heavy for caliber and loaded in that slowpoke 600 fps range, is it a tumbler as well? Or was its good reputation a result of the generally salutary effects of that huge slug whenever it hit (1) a critical spot; or (2) any bony structure, which it was pretty likely to shatter and render inoperable (pelvis, knee, shoulder, skull). If it hit a rib, it might be more likely than most to cause both "secondary projectiles" and a runaway 262g bullet tumbling around inside the target's ribcage.

Nonetheless, it is interesting that they had earlier seen fit to adopt a 218g hollow-based cup point, the famous "Manstopper," to *improve* target effects. Perhaps luckily for the Kaiser's men, the Brits had pulled that round from service after a very short time, apparently because it was considered inappropriate for use against civilized troops. ("Savage tribesmen" merited no such consideration, of course. Highly interesting that the US military has only now decided to issue hollowpoints for general use in handguns...after a decade+ spent fighting the descendants of some of those same tribesmen.)

I think the idea of a 2.5"-3" LCR or 637/642, shortened to fit a .38 Short Colt launching a 200g soft lead slug at 600+ fps, could be an excellent one. There are a LOT of people who dislike the blast, flash, and sharp recoil of +P ammo in those featherweights--enough for Hornady to bring out its pink-tipped 90g Critical Defense Lite, pronounced underpenetrator that it may be.

Of course the plain-Jane lead slug would be a helluva lot cheaper than these increasingly sophisticated expanding whizzbangs that cost $1.25 a shot, and it would undercut a lot of that R&D and marketing expenditure. On the other hand, there are also a lot of people carrying .32, .380, and 9mm micro-autos who might be much better-served by a smallish .38/200, and you could cut into that market.

Of course, we could give them that high-tech feeling by using a shiny (and unnecessary) copper alloy gas check, a slightly undersized bullet, and specially bonding copper jacketing material onto caliber-sized driving bands to prevent leading. (And port the barrel to make it recoilless--at 13,000 PSI or so, shouldn't be too loud.)

[Bigslug]

I still imagine that the Brits determined the original Mk1 blunt LRN might do as well or better against bone as the heavier, but pointier .455. Additionally, I've thought the tumbling action might have played a significant role in their decision. A question in that regard, however: since the .455 MkVI (?) 262g bullet is also heavy for caliber and loaded in that slowpoke 600 fps range, is it a tumbler as well? Or was its good reputation a result of the generally salutary effects of that huge slug whenever it hit (1) a critical spot; or (2) any bony structure, which it was pretty likely to shatter and render inoperable (pelvis, knee, shoulder, skull).

All of these questions are worth looking into.

I doubt very much that the MKI .38 would do anything more than punch a straight hole. At 600~ fps, I think even asking for significant deformation is a bit much. The 358430 I Jell-O tested years ago was HARD, but as it is basically a blunted cylinder, it showed ZERO sign of trying to deviate off course. The MKI is basically the same bullet up-sized for a .360 bore with a different groove configuration, so I wouldn't expect much difference in behavior.

The .455 MKI and MKII conicals MIGHT be tumblers, but then again, because of the hollow base, they may actually be pretty well balanced to keep moving through tissue point-first. That's one I'm in a position to test the authenticity of. I have a veritable army of well-disciplined milk jugs willing to make the supreme sacrifice. I'll get back to y'all on that. One thing I have noted in my execution of the dreaded dog food cans is that the nose profile tends to cause it to skip. I set the cans up some yards in front of the berm, and have found a large percent of my .455 slugs laying on the berm with skid marks from where they passed the can and bounced. I'm probably running a little harder than Queen Victoria's original spec, but at 700-ish FPS, I doubt it would pancake much unless you cast it from marshmallow cream.

As to my NOE 200 grain RN, it might be a tumbler with its longer nose, but as it technically isn't an authentic bullet, we'll only gain insight into what might help us today, not what the Brits had in mind 80 years ago. I suppose the truth is in the milk bottles. . .

[9.3X62AL]

Bigslug et al--

The NEI #169A that purports to copy one of the British 38/200 service bullet designs showed occasional tumbling when sent at 600-700 FPS, as did Lyman #358430. This was versus jackrabbits over a couple varmint seasons in the East Mojave. Entries were round, exits ranged from round to stellate to ripped. Speeding them up to 850 FPS caused them to bore straight through, and that behavior continued to and through 1300 FPS. I'm assuming the velocity increases enhanced flight integrity. I'll add here that black-tailed jackrabbits can be tough customers, but the 200 grain-class bullets anchored them decisively......a behavior that Dr. Fackler's pet 9mm sub-sonic 147 grain JHPs strayed from when hits weren't in the boiler room. I still don't trust those weak-sistered sissy-la-la 9mm downloaded wunderpatronen he cobbled up.

[LouisianaMan]

It could be argued that the cat food cans are MORE dangerous, as they are less than half as tall and are harder to hit. They are also evolved to be more cunning, as getting cats to willfully eat their contents is far more difficult. The dog food cans are of course larger and stronger. When you see ranks of 20-30 of them shining before you "in the wire", it can be very hard to maintain a cool head. Fortunately, I keep my Bobby's whistle on a lanyard at all times so it is handy to summon the stalwart SMLE-toting Tommies.

147298:bigsmyl2:


Have the lads fix bayonets--the long pig-stickers used with the No. 1 Mk. III, not the spike bayonets used on their WWII No. 4 Mk. I rifles, and all will be well vs. the mass attacks by cat food cans. (I hope I got my numbers, marks, and asterisks almost correct--that identification system damages my brain, and at 0200 I'm not looking it up! :-)

I am also prompted to write this simply to comment on that beautiful photo of your .455 and its gear. Buy a Wilkinson sword, a smartly-tailored uniform, get a good batman, and you're ready for the trenches. In Hollywood, you'd also be fit to stand next to Michael Caine and repel Zulus.

I can't believe I find a Webley "beautiful," practical gun though it was/is, but this photo does the trick. Perhaps I'm a victim of gun porn addiction, or perhaps it's simply the time of night "when all cats look grey in the dark," but that is a nice-looking selection of ordnance.

You fellows are going to make me go back and obtain a .38 Webley or Enfield once again, I can tell. Since our cat decimates dry food purchased in bags, rather than canned food, it may make it tough to justify to the Quartermaster/Commissary Officer, ahem, if you know what I mean. She may insist that edged weapons in current inventory are quite sufficient for bags....

Having quickly reviewed much of this thread tonight, I am also bound to (1) dig out some of my separate posts evidencing the .38/200's tendency to tumble violently when loaded down to original MILSPEC 590 fps or a bit more; (2) the .38/178's (ok, the Mk 2Z) inspiring tendency to do the same, but NOT in a tightly-bored Colt or Ruger, either of which generate higher velocities and greater stability than the design's intended 600-620 fps; (3) and a vintage ad showing the .38 Super Police, i.e. a .38 S&W with 200g bullet, advertised as a separate offering than the .38 Special Super Police (also with 200g bullet).

Also, I am going to have to try some of Outpost's recommended Accurate 201g flat-noses, as I've been exploring numerous desperate options to get a slobber-knocking 200g flatpoint in my Indian contract Ruger Speed-Six. Since lightweight Terriers and the like are fully adequate for the 200 @ 600 LRN/tumbler role, I can't justify to my bad back that the grand Hunk of Steel Ruger is justified for carry with that load; but a large-meplat 200g @ 700 is a different level of lethality, methinks, not dependent on tumbling.

Outpost, if you're willing and able to provide me a small sample of the 201's for testing in my Indian Ruger at a modest fee, please PM me or email at danamangham@hotmail.com. Failing that, I can always revert to bumping 358430's to a huge flat for straight-line penetration with a meplat that would inspire confidence.

[LouisianaMan]

Postscript to all: Ken Waters used a 4" Service-Six Indian contract Ruger with Blue Dot to generate **885 fps** with a 200g Markell bullet at 1.19"; he found it more accurate than a lighter charge of Blue Dot yielding 845 fps. He preferred a charge of Herco yielding 784 fps and outstanding accuracy. The Markell seems very similar to the 358430.

What does this thread's unofficial Small Arms Committee think of me working up to duplicate any of the above loads with a bumped 358430 (or an Accurate 201) in my Speed-Six Indian Ruger? Assuming, say, 40-60 fps velocity loss due to my shorter 2 3/4" barrel, any of these hell-on-wheels loads still would make the beefy Ruger a far more attractive carry option.

Also, any suggestions to substitute for Waters's Blue Dot? Perhaps Outpost's 2400? Others?

Finally, I have some of GTBullets 185g LHP's with a gaping hollowpoint. If the above loads are feasible with 200's, perhaps I could substitute the 185's and a tad more powder to have a heavyweight LHP at well over 800 fps? Sort of an FBI Load with an additional 25-30g bullet weight.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

All of these questions are worth looking into.

I doubt very much that the MKI .38 would do anything more than punch a straight hole. At 600~ fps, I think even asking for significant deformation is a bit much. The 358430 I Jell-O tested years ago was HARD, but as it is basically a blunted cylinder, it showed ZERO sign of trying to deviate off course. The MKI is basically the same bullet up-sized for a .360 bore with a different groove configuration, so I wouldn't expect much difference in behavior.

The .455 MKI and MKII conicals MIGHT be tumblers, but then again, because of the hollow base, they may actually be pretty well balanced to keep moving through tissue point-first. That's one I'm in a position to test the authenticity of. I have a veritable army of well-disciplined milk jugs willing to make the supreme sacrifice. I'll get back to y'all on that. One thing I have noted in my execution of the dreaded dog food cans is that the nose profile tends to cause it to skip. I set the cans up some yards in front of the berm, and have found a large percent of my .455 slugs laying on the berm with skid marks from where they passed the can and bounced. I'm probably running a little harder than Queen Victoria's original spec, but at 700-ish FPS, I doubt it would pancake much unless you cast it from marshmallow cream.

As to my NOE 200 grain RN, it might be a tumbler with its longer nose, but as it technically isn't an authentic bullet, we'll only gain insight into what might help us today, not what the Brits had in mind 80 years ago. I suppose the truth is in the milk bottles. . .

About the best modern book on wound ballistics I knows is Vincent di Maio's "Gunshot Wounds", and although he wrote in the age of modern hollow and soft point bullets, he says the only way to be sure whether a bullet was of expanding design or not, is to recover the bullet. All of these, especially the hollow points, are irregular in performance, and even when they work as planned, aren't as incapacitating at handgun velocities as is sometimes imagined... or advertised. There is certainly some logic in not sacrificing, for that, the chances of reaching or shattering heavy bone.

The Webley manstopper MkIII bullet remains the only round with which I have ever achieved what the British army very reasonably terms not an accidental but a negligent discharge. When is a double-action revolver not a double-action revolver? When it is a Webley-Fosbery, so you can't keep your finger resting on the trigger... Fortunately I commit mistakes of that magnitude one at a time, and although it was inches from my knee as I squatted by the target, it was pointing in a safe direction. It makes you think, though.

That bullet would turn itself inside out in four or five inches of water, without hitting rock only a shade deeper, and I have seen a very interesting experiment on TV, testing what was thought to be the Japanese myth of the arrowproof cloak. Astonishingly it was found that a thin silk cloak, billowing like a bubble behind a galloping horseman, could at least of the time stop the sharp-pointed Japanese cloak. I decline to imagine an Afghan's underwear, but the Queen's enemies would often have been wearing sheepskin poshteens or turbans. Even in Sudani attire it is likely that a well placed frontal hit cold have caused a tribesman to expire after contemplating your demise, which many of them would have considered a great consolation.

The manstopper bullet was introduced in 1898, and withdrawn in compliance with the Hague Convention of 1899, the final removal from inventory being in 1900. As the Convention said "The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them", there is no truth in the often-repeated claim that primitives were considered different. The British like primitives, and feel guilty about half-civilizing them into some sort of Levantine. In fact the Scots like them more than the English - I can't imagine why.

History, especially mythic history often overlooks the British achievement of making the Border tribes only temporary enemies. British soldiers generally liked them far better than down-country Indians, and they sometimes turned up after a Border war asking for the campaign medal, because they were British subjects and an extremely diverting war couldn't have been had without them. There are probably a few ancient Japanese left who get goose pimples at the memory of the many who gave good service in the British army.

If there is any virtue at all in expanding bullets, using them in pre- and post-Hague Convention times are quite different phenomena. Do not forget Malala Yusefzai, who was shot in the head by the Taliban for going to school and has just achieved phenomenal exam results in the UK, and do not forget the rule that everything happens in India. Tribesmen are quoting the Convention to one another right now. You win a colonial war by being less trouble than you are worth, and not by calling the foe no better than your own criminal classes.

I have a booklet written in the 1950s by Thurlow Craig (my favourite author on shooting, fishing and South American revolutions) and Eric Bewley of Webley. It contains a description of Henry Webley's demonstration of the .450 Metropolitan Police model to the force and to the press:

In demonstrating to his police pupils the manner in which the revolver ought to be used, Mr. Webley fired five shots at nine yards at a target having a bull's eye two inches in diameter. The results were that the bullets were lodged in a space 2¼in. by 1¼in. Then the range was increased to fifteen yards and five shots were fired at a similar target, the bullets in this case being put into a space 2½in. by 1½in. The next move was made to a distance of twenty-five yards from the target, and at this range five shots were fired by Mr. Webley. The same undeviating accuracy was maintained, a space 2½in. by 3½in. being riddled. Having witnessed the expertness of their instructor, the police sergeants had a little practice to themselves, and soon satisfied Mr. Webley of their ability to make good use of their weapons at short and long ranges. The sergeants who took part in the experiment will act as instructors to other members of the force."

The booklet confirms what I believed, that the RIC started out as a .442, and the pocket British Bulldog was a .442 and .450 before it was available in the smaller calibres, in which it was so much copied in Belgium. It also states that the RIC was available in .44 Winchester (i.e. .44-40) as well as .45 Long Colt. But I think this would be a larger, longer-cylinder version, the Army Express, which almost certainly was killed off by the top-break versions.

Here are some Webley workers of the time. It is unlikely that Mr. Egginton jointed more than a few of the 100,000 MkIV revolvers they made in WW2, or the 300,000 .455s in WW1. But with a 1950s or 60s one it is very possible that he did. Mr. Siddons would have been an experienced gun (i.e. shotgun) finisher by the time of the amalgamation with W&C Scott and son, who brought a renewed interest in shotguns to Webley. So it is perfectly possible that he finished my 10ga Scott single, which is well up to best gun standards in everything but being a barrel short.

147379

[Bigslug]

Given the short service duration, it's unlikely that the MKIII Manstopper did a lot of manstopping, but I am curious about what record it may have generated. I tend to think that being 218 grains of hollow point/hollow base wadcutter, effective penetration may have been compromised and that its reputation may be a bit inflated by the mists of time. As the Ballistic Scot says, "mythic history". Unfortunately, it just about has to be a swaged bullet, so testing is going to be beyond my financial and technical means.

The flat nose/hollow base MK IV and V's could be a possibility. We started a group buy discussion on them over at NOE a long while back, but didn't manage to generate much of a feeding frenzy.

Tumbling vs. not tumbling. . .I'm curious to find out, but I hypothesize that at 600-700 fps, we aren't going to see much that is consistent or dramatic. These are not, after all, base-heavy 5.56 NATO bullets striking at SR-71 speeds. On this topic, however, does anyone know what the regulation British bullet alloys were for these things? If I'm gonna test the Queen's Bullet, I should probably use the Queens Metal.

[Outpost75]

I don't think there is a need for a group buy, Accurate already has in its catalog a very similar bullet which I use in my (shaved) Webley MkIV and US S&W M1917 and Colt New Service M1909. Erik at www.hollowpointmold.com did his inset bar conversion on two of the cavities on my mold, which drop a 225-grain cup point "Manstopper" type nose, whereas the others drop flat-nosed solids.

147394

I cast these bullets of 1:40 tin/lead, and load them as-cast and unsized, lubricating with Lee Liquid Alox, using a charge of 4 grains of Bullseye in the .45 Auto Rim, 5 grains in the .45 Schofield and 6 grains in the .45 Colt for the New Service M1909. An appropriate charge in the .455 would be 3.5 grains of Bullseye or 4 grains of Unique.

147392

Notice on the drawing that the forepart in front of the crimp groove is small enough to enter tight Webley cylinder throats WITHOUT requiring sizing, whereas the driving bands cast large (drawing is minimum material condition, cast diameter with specified alloy tolerance +0.002") enough to seal larger cylinder throats in the US M1917 Colt and S&W revolvers, while the reduced forepart IS large enough to receive guidance from the lands and therefore be engraved by the rifling for most of its tapering length.

If you were to order this mold, you can also specify alloy to be used and "tweak" the diameters. If tight cylinder throats on your Webley are an issue, state the slugged throat diameter on your order and then specify "nose tolerance negative" on your order and Tom can do this.

[robertbank]

It is indeed a part of the Webley picture I find puzzling. As I recall, both of my MKVI's gauged .452" on the throats, but larger on the bore (.455" IIRC). The scary issue of full-power .45ACP in these of course would be from the added pressure of the rounds, not the diameter. The moral of the story of course is to know the gun and load along the lines of what it was designed for, not what some profit-hungry importer said you could do with it.



Absolutely agree. In fact, why not duplicate the .38/200 performance with the .38 Short Colt case, which uses the same body diameter and rim dimensions of the currently-far-more-common .38 Special and .357 Magnum? This would allow for shorter, lighter frames and cylinders that could still use existing extractors. No, Roy Weatherby wouldn't like is as it wouldn't be super fast or have a laser-like trajectory, but let's not lose sight of what these British service cartridges were FOR: they're for plugging an enemy in the face from 20 feet, not replacing an XP-100.

Or to ensure the boys went in the right direction when the whistle blew. To roughly quote my Grand-Dad when asked why the Canadians did not run at Ypres when the the gas was first used on troops. "Well Robert", he said with a far away look not understood by a 15 year old kid, "if we stayed in our trenches the gas would kill us, if we ran the officers would shoot us, so we just got up fought." He concluded it was the best of three very bad options. Aside from a "Rank" there was a darker reason for carrying the revolver. Story ny memory from about 1958 some 40 plus years after the event. The Canadians carried the 455 Webley.

Take Care

Bob
ps The shovel was also used with great effect during trench encounters. Not much glory in war I am afraid.

[Bigslug]

Outpost. . .if you were to load that bullet of yours BACKWARDS, you'd have a decent enough approximation of the HBWC MKIV / MKV bullet - 25 grains heavier, but probably close enough for testing the concept.

Spin it around the proper way, and we can see if Webley velocities actually will open a 40-1 hollowpoint.

My standard unit of measurement is gallon milk jugs lined up and shot at 7-10 yards. You feeling sciencey?

[LouisianaMan]

OK "mates," here's some sciency info:

1. a diagram specifying info on the Manstopper, among others:

http://i872.photobucket.com/albums/ab287/batonrougeman/Indian%20Ruger%20and%20Heavy%20Bullets/image.jpg46.jpg (http://s872.photobucket.com/user/batonrougeman/media/Indian%20Ruger%20and%20Heavy%20Bullets/image.jpg46.jpg.html)

2. The alloy used in the bullet (as well as other interesting info) is shown below. Surprisingly hard at 12:1.

http://i872.photobucket.com/albums/ab287/batonrougeman/Indian%20Ruger%20and%20Heavy%20Bullets/image.jpg1_2.jpg (http://s872.photobucket.com/user/batonrougeman/media/Indian%20Ruger%20and%20Heavy%20Bullets/image.jpg1_2.jpg.html)

3. The source for the page in 2. (above) is:

http://i872.photobucket.com/albums/ab287/batonrougeman/Indian%20Ruger%20and%20Heavy%20Bullets/image.jpg1_3.jpg (http://s872.photobucket.com/user/batonrougeman/media/Indian%20Ruger%20and%20Heavy%20Bullets/image.jpg1_3.jpg.html)

[LouisianaMan]

On the previous page of this reference, i.e. p. 168, it explains that the Mark III came about as a result of concerns over the "man-stopping" ability of the Mk II cartridge. Three designs were tested against sheep carcasses, with one type having an MV of 707 fps, and a second having an MV of 679 fps. Those two were declined as having little improvement in man-stopping power over the Mk II, although their MV was higher than the Mk II's 600 fps. A Webley patent bullet fired at an MV of 723 fps was considered "very much the best" in man-stopping power, and was standardized as the Mk. III. The Mk. II bullet demonstrated the best penetration in the tests vs. the three new designs.

[LouisianaMan]

A quick perusal shows me that I've failed to post the official drawing of the .38/200 bullet, so here it is. See lower left, both Mk. I and Mk. II:

http://i872.photobucket.com/albums/ab287/batonrougeman/Indian%20Ruger%20and%20Heavy%20Bullets/image.jpg23.jpg (http://s872.photobucket.com/user/batonrougeman/media/Indian%20Ruger%20and%20Heavy%20Bullets/image.jpg23.jpg.html)

[Bigslug]

Louisianaman: COOOOL! Does that lovely tome of yours have alloy spec beyond the MKIII?

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I met Peter Labbet once. He preferred to pronounce his name "Labette", as only those learned in the classics, notably the works of Beatrice Potter, can well understand.

147494

"The wee varmint!"


Elsewhere Outpost's bullet might pass as a fairly extreme example of the hollow point, but it isn't as eggcup-shaped as the MkIII. On part tin in 40 sounds fine, but I don't think it would take much harm from a bit more or less. Antimony, however would probably produce more brittleness than this bullet can afford.

I have no medical training, but the best books on wound ballistics are medical ones, and I don't fully trust ballistics engineers on this subject when they are selling something, in either the literal or figurative sense. Some wound ballistics texts are hardly worthwhile for the general reader. But La Garde's findings are pretty thoroughly summed up in General Hatcher's "Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers", which was often printed as an omnibus volume with his "Textbook of Firearms Investigation, Identification and Evidence".

Thompson and La Garde found that the manstopper was very effective in incapacitating steers in the Chicago stockyard trials, and the associated cadaver studies. Like the other large bullets it took five or less rapid shots to obviously incapacitate a steer. Both sizes of the FMJ Luger bullets, truncated cone rather than the WW2 ogival, produced no such effect with the ten shots after which the steer was slaughtered in the normal way. The animal wasn't allowed to suffer long enough to find out if it would have died reasonably soon. Most likely it would. But initially they seemed untroubled, and looked at the shooter as if wondering what he was doing. There is no career pattern and pension plan for steers in the normal course of events anyway.

But the circumstances may have made these tests untypical of what happens with a well directed shot at a live human. They avoided vital spots, major circulatory and locomotory organs, firing into the chest and abdomen, and leaving the effect on large bones untested. His human X-rays with the manstopper bullet show one fairly throrough fracture of a major leg bone, one slight, and one in which it had been stopped by the bone without fracturing. Another X-ray of the shoulder shows numerous bullet fragments without bone fractures being mentioned, or detectable by me. I don't believe this is as good as the other large caliber bullets.

I don't believe anything perfectly duplicates the texture and resilience of flesh. Ballistic gelatin is non-fibrous, and muscle fibre is stronger and more elastic than most attempted substitutes. The temporary wound cavity closes in with nothing like the zone of devitalized tissue found at rifle velocities, whether the bullet has tumbled or not. Areas like the stomach and liver are less fibrous, but heavy and liquid saturated, and damage to them is not quickly incapacitating. Some people live for years with their livers in a sorry state (I reflect on Gabriel Chevalier's Clochemerle in the Beaujolais winemaking region of France, where cirrhosis of the liver was the death of honour), and while having your stomach protect your spine might not sound like a very good deal, it could be a very bad one for someone you are shooting at or spearing. That is just where the manstopper ranks low among the .45 bullets.

I think the Mk IV bullet is probably more reliable, with no great disadvantages for the person who will uswie it at moderate ranges. It might still have less penetration in heavy clothing or equipment than the 265gr. conicals. I have seen it referred to, I forget where, as the naval bullet, and the War Office's 1929 Textbook of Small Arms mentions only the conical bullet. At that time the War Office was concerned with the army's wars, naval operations being the province of the Admiralty. The .455 Webley Automatic had become the naval standard before WW1, but I know a small number of Colt 1911s were bought for the .455 Automatic cartridge, and it might be that so were some Webley revolvers.

[Outpost75]

Accurate does not produce the mold in hollow point configuration. I sent mine to Erik to modify a few cavities. In doing so you can specify the cavity geometry desired and provide a sketch or sample bullet and he can do this. My modified bullet expands in water jugs at 700 fps. if alloy is quite soft, 1:30 or 1:40 tin/lead.

[9.3X62AL]

Good material, gentlemen. Many thanks for sharing it all.

[LouisianaMan]

Louisianaman: COOOOL! Does that lovely tome of yours have alloy spec beyond the MKIII?

OK, let's see what specs "The Book" has got for us:

Webley Mk I: 265g conical; 12:1 Pb:Sn alloy; MV 700 fps; 1894-99

Mk II: 265g conical; 12:1 Pb:Sn alloy, changed 1914 to allow 99:1 Pb:Sb alloy; MV 600; manuf. 1897-1939 (with brief interruptions) and beyond 1939 in Dominions

Mk III: 218.5g cup point; 12:1 Pb:Sn alloy; MV 723 fps; manuf. 1898-1901; Mk II re-adopted in 1900 due to Hague Conv. concerns.

Mk IV: 220g flat point (~full-caliber meplat); 12:1 alloy; MV not stated, but somewhat similar experimental designs were in the 690-720 range. Manuf. 1912-14, withdrawn due to Hague concerns.

Mk V: 220g FP bullet essentially same as Mk IV, but alloy was 12:1 Pb:Sb. Adopted and withdrawn 1914; apparently intended as competition/match cartridge.

Mk VI: 265g Pb alloy core, cupro-nickel or gilding metal jacket; MV 620 fps. Introduced 1939 to avoid German anger experienced in WWI, when Jerry considered the lead alloy bullet a violation of Hague Convention. Declared obsolete 1946.

Essentially, the Brits fought WWI with the 265g lead alloy Mk II @ 600 fps; and the .455 in WWII was used with its near twin, now jacketed and dubbed Mk VI, at 620 fps.

I'm still digging around to rediscover the alloy used in the .380/200 cartridge of the 1930s, which was officially superseded (yes...due to Hague Conv. concerns AGAIN) by the 178g FMJ Mk. II, sporting a Pb:Sb core.

The Brits kept going back to lead bullets, progressing from conical to cup-point to flat-point to blunt LRN; experimenting pre-WWI with dual-projectile and hollowpoint bullets. They stuck to conical lead under duress in WWI, but decided not to try their luck with it against Herr Hitler.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The flat nosed bullet was indeed noted for accuracy, and the jacketed MkVI is the one the accuracy of which I would doubt, especially in a revolver with a throat smaller than the grooves.

I don't know whether the Germans protested at the lead bullets, or the British made the change spontaneously. It was around the time when Britain and France were gambling that concessions would reduce tension - and America was saying "What tension?" As I said earlier, I don't believe a solid lead alloy bullet from a revolver of that velocity would expand in soft tissues, and probably not much on bone. I don't believe it violated the Convention, and the British certainly did use and even manufacture unjacketed bullets in wartime to eke out supplies.

Of course international law does allow departure from the Convention as a reprisal for violations. That is how such charming modernities as carpet bombing, unrestricted submarine warfare and poison gas (to which Hitler, a victim, seems to have had a perfectly sincere objection) came into unremitting use. If lead bullets had been kept, he would have thought of something.

[Patrick56]

.38 Colt New Police from a Enfield No.2 Mk1* could not even penetrate an old Land Rover MkII used as a target.:oops: 9mm Para whistled through both sides.

[Outpost75]

Tons of great historical and practical information in this thread. It should be made a sticky!

[LouisianaMan]

Tons of great historical and practical information in this thread. It should be made a sticky!

I would cheerfully second the motion. Of course, the idea of .38's, 200g bullets, the controversy over the 178g Mk 2Z, the controversy over the .380/200 being "nearly equivalent to the .455 in stopping power," the actual "stopping power" of the .455, etc., are my favorite topics.

[LouisianaMan]

.38 Colt New Police from a Enfield No.2 Mk1* could not even penetrate an old Land Rover MkII used as a target.:oops: 9mm Para whistled through both sides.

Hello Patrick. With all due respect to your location in Finland, a country & people I hold in the highest esteem, I must take issue with your post on several accounts.

First, nobody here is arguing the relative merits of the .380/200 vs. every other caliber against which one might compare it. This thread isn't a caliber war. It's a discussion of the OP's fun with a .38 Webley Mk. IV and the history of that pistol, its adoption, the Army's hijacking of the design as the Enfield, and the arguments then and since about the real, perceived, advocated, or advertised value of the British Army's .455 and its .38 caliber replacement.

Second, while the .38 Colt New Police is essentially a flatpointed, Colt trade-named version of the .38 S&W; and the latter was popular in England as the .380 Webley; and this latter cartridge was the starting point for the British Army's transition from the .455 revolver to a .38 revolver...the .38 Colt NP isn't the same cartridge as either of the two Marks of ammunition used by the British Army.

Third, no low velocity .38, designed with a soft lead bullet, was ever designed or intended to shoot through automobiles. It was experienced in police vs. gangster ("automobile bandit") shoot-outs of the 1920's-30's that the .38 S&W/.38 Colt NP and .38 Special (S&W and its knock-off Colt version--just another trade-name issue) weren't up to the task of penetrating automobiles. Among other responses, this deficiency led to the popularization of the .38 Super Automatic. It also resulted in the development of metal-piercing versions of the .38 S&W, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, and .45 ACP, all in an attempt to give police departments some capability of fighting back more effectively.

Fourth, gun forums are full of anecdotal evidence about .38 S&W bullets (and some others) bouncing off of 55-gallon drums, stumps, and Lord knows what else.

Fifth, I have personally sampled .38 S&W/.38 Colt NP ammunition that averaged muzzle velocities of 620's to 680's (with some "poof" shots that clocked in the 400's); to 730, 740, and 770 fps. These velocities were achieved mostly from my Enfield, Smith & Wesson, Colt, and Ruger revolvers. Rugers (.3555-.3565") and Colts (.354-.355") have tight bores and chambers and typically run markedly higher than Smith & Wessons (.359") and WWII Victory Models (.359-.361" or so, with larger chambers). All of them run higher than the looser-bored Enfields (approximately .361-.363"), by far. The Enfields and Webleys generally have loose barrel-cylinder gaps, and I suspect--but don't know--they also have very generous chambers. All of these factors mean lower velocities, and with the 178g jacketed Mk 2/2Z service ammo, tolerance stacking often led to BIB's (bullet-in-bore) events, or situations in which bullets exited the barrel, but with so little energy that they didn't reach or penetrate even paper targets.

Sixth, for what it's worth, give me modern Mk 2Z ammo made by CIS, and a Ruger Indian contract 4" Service-Six to shoot it from, and I'd bet you a Coca-Cola I'd shoot through your Land Rover door--at least in a roughly 90 degree shot :-) And give me some hardcast 200g ammo loaded to high 700's or the 885 fps velocity achieved by Ken Waters, and I expect it'd get through both car doors.

But again, that's not the original design intent of the .38 S&W pocket pistols of the 1870's, or the Mk 1/1Z lead bullet and Mk2/2Z British service ammo. The former were for personal defense, plain and simple, in an era where a bullet through the intestines meant, at the very least, an agonizing death from peritonitis 3 days later. The British Army's ammo was known to penetrate a "soft" target, destabilize, and tumble through its target, and the blunt, soft Mk 1/1Z was particularly likely to smash any bones it struck along the way. It was intended for trench clearing and engagement within 0-15 yards. Although it was declared obsolete/ "for training use only" before the outbreak of WWII, I've seen unverified accounts that it (1) was used to some extent in the war (which I believe, both as a historian and a retired US Army Ammunition Materiel Management officer); and (2) that it was found very effective. I can't verify that historically; personally, however,I have shot Mk 1 duplicates and actual Mk 2Z ammo and find that assertion quite likely true, *as long as* we're talking Mk 2 ammo fired from the Victory Models or from an Enfield or Webley in which tolerance stacking didn't degrade its performance below design specs.

I've fired Mk. 2Z rounds into pine trees at 56-58 measured yards. One, shot straight at an unadorned tree, drilled point forward into the tree and my steel probe couldn't reach it in the 4-6" I could work it into the tree. Another was shot through about 4 layers of a woolen overcoat, burst open (tumbling) a gallon jug of water, smashed sideways through perhaps 1/2" of pine bark, and was buried sideways about an inch deep into the wood of the live tree. So, the hard target prevented tumbling and maximized penetration. The soft target caused the projectile to function as designed: penetrate a soft target, quickly destabilize, then tumble with sufficient momentum to hit hard, all with minimal recoil and ease of use by a minimally-trained soldier.

Finally (whew!), I'll note that the 9mm Parabellum is easily mastered by quickly-trained personnel, also. And its penetration in FMJ form is both famous, and infamous. Anecdotes are illustrative at best, misleading at worst. But...remember the one in which the Illinois State Police pumped more than 30 9mmP FMJ rounds through a BG, who kept shooting back until he was shot in the neck at close range with 12 gauge buckshot? Jim Cirillo also stated that the NYPD used FMJ when it first adopted the 9mm, only to suffer a depressing series of overpenetration events in which innocents were wounded or killed unintentionally by the police.

[Patrick56]

I was having just fun with my Enfield some thirty years ago, as this thread says. It was not an issue of what caliber is the most powerful. In that case I would have taken my Winchester .458 with 500gr Hornady steeljacket bullets or a M39 7,62x53R. I only found it funny to see the bullets drop down on the ground leaving a dent in the side. After nearly three decades of military service I still think that the Enfield / Webley .380 revolvers are marginal. Main purpose must have been to show the enemy sniper who is the target?
Hope that you have fun with your 38/200 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana Man. I was there back in -92 or -93 when visiting the Shot Show in Dallas. Drove from Houston down to Miami and back.

[Outpost75]

If there are any British Army vets here, feel free to correct me, but my understanding is that the handgun was never viewed by them as a primary combat weapon, but more a badge of authority to accompany the whistle and the swagger stick. This was not the case in all units, but I think mostly true. Though I welcome hearing of historical accounts to the contrary.

[Bigslug]

If there are any British Army vets here, feel free to correct me, but my understanding is that the handgun was never viewed by them as a primary combat weapon. . .

Patrick Sweeney addresses this in the historical bits of one of his 1911 books - the Continental Europeans were more likely to be fighting other Continental Europeans who would probably just take prisoners, feed the captured enlisted men, and have a glass of wine with the captured officers. Consequently, Continental European officers tended to carry fairly small pistols that wouldn't pull the pretty uniform out of line.

The British with their colonial concerns, and the Americans with their western frontier both tended to face aboriginal adversaries who's idea of chivalry was to kill you BEFORE they skinned you. Thus, a whole lotta handguns that start their caliber designation with the number 4.

[9.3X62AL]

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.

[LouisianaMan]

I was having just fun with my Enfield some thirty years ago, as this thread says. It was not an issue of what caliber is the most powerful. In that case I would have taken my Winchester .458 with 500gr Hornady steeljacket bullets or a M39 7,62x53R. I only found it funny to see the bullets drop down on the ground leaving a dent in the side. After nearly three decades of military service I still think that the Enfield / Webley .380 revolvers are marginal. Main purpose must have been to show the enemy sniper who is the target?
Hope that you have fun with your 38/200 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana Man. I was there back in -92 or -93 when visiting the Shot Show in Dallas. Drove from Houston down to Miami and back.

Believe me, I would have laughed out loud to see that!! Bullets impacting, then dropping to the ground = NOT a good thing!

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?

[LouisianaMan]

I'll be banned for bloviation here!!!!

[Bigslug]

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?"


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.:veryconfu

[Buckshot]

I have 2 S&W's in the muscular 38 S&W chambering.

http://www.fototime.com/8F3A1A58BE06A7F/standard.jpg

This one which has British acceptance markings (and was apparently returned)

http://www.fototime.com/3242183B1B0826F/standard.jpg

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:

http://www.fototime.com/F07416FB0193628/standard.jpg

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.

http://www.fototime.com/65DD322CACAA2FE/standard.jpg

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

[Patrick56]

147595
I still have the gun. I think I bought it 1982



147596
Dents made in the side of the LR van

147597
Lapua 38S&W, 38 Colt New Police (Remington), 38S&W Remington and a .455 (I think?)

147598
Front sight is modified and the lanyard ring is missing.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

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.

[Bigslug]

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.


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.

[Piedmont]

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.

[robertbank]

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.

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.

[LouisianaMan]

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.:veryconfu

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! :-)

This is Bubba Gump, signing off.

[LouisianaMan]

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.

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.

[Outpost75]

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.:veryconfu

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!

147622147623

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”

[LouisianaMan]

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.

[Outpost75]

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.

[LouisianaMan]

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!

147622147623


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

http://i872.photobucket.com/albums/ab287/batonrougeman/image.jpg1_2.jpg (http://s872.photobucket.com/user/batonrougeman/media/image.jpg1_2.jpg.html)

[Outpost75]

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:

147630147631147632

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.

[LouisianaMan]

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!

[Bigslug]

BigSlug - THIS mold has YOUR name on it!

147622147623


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!

[Outpost75]

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!



NOW you're talkin'!!!

[9.3X62AL]

One of the first three moulds I purchased at the start of this hobby activity of mine in 1981 was Lyman's #358430, a 195 grain RN. It has cast A LOT of bullets for me, initially in 38 Special and 357 Magnum and over the last 8-10 years it got a little work "beagled" to about .362" for the 38/200. Whether stepping out at 600 or 1300 FPS, a 200 grain 38 caliber bullet packs a healthy dose of WHOMP-UM.

[Buckshot]

...............Forgot this other 38 S&W I have:

http://www.fototime.com/86C54337F979FDD/standard.jpghttp://www.fototime.com/CD1F80B43CD4C22/standard.jpg

It's actually an Iver Johnson and must have spent it's life in a side table drawer.

http://www.fototime.com/9877DF39C588BA8/standard.jpghttp://www.fototime.com/5F1992A31630875/standard.jpg

The 5 shooter is in quite fine condition. It's rather difficult to shoot accurately due to it's tiny 'V' on the locking latch, and the fact that the front sight blade isn't much thicker then a razor blade :-)

http://www.fototime.com/3B773CE97D573A2/standard.jpg

A collection of the 38 S&W I've used over time. All are cast of pure lead. From the left is the Lyman 358430 @ 200grs, Lyman 35863, a 150gr WC which drops from the 4 cav mould at .363". A Lee group buy (6 cav) 100gr DEWC, another Lee Group Buy (6 cav) that drops a duplication of the original S&W 146gr RN. A loaded factory Colt Super Police, and a 38 Special case. In the Iver Johnson THE LOAD is 1.6grs of Red Dot, which propels the 150gr Lyman WC from the 4" barrel to a staggering 525 fps. However it's no problem putting 5 into a pop can at 25 yards, if your eyeballs have the strength to stand the strain of trying to maintain a sight picture!

The 150gr WC is seated out to equal the same OAL as the same slug seated flush in the 38 Special. The old Lyman manual has a 38 Special target load using this slug seated flush. As a consequence in my 2 S&W V models with the slug loaded to this OAL, I use the 38 Special book loads.

...................Buckshot

[LouisianaMan]

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!

Bigslug,
Personally, I honestly think you're onto something, although it goes against the grain of modern "bullet salesmen" who have convinced people that a(ny) JHP will blow a hole in a man you could put your fist through. They've done wonders for JHP's in the past 30 years, certainly, but they've also popularized the notion that anything other than a JHP may just as well be pointed at the home defender's own head, to avoid the wrath of an enraged criminal he has annoyed with a puny "target practice" round.

Nonetheless, a few interesting numbers for the group's consideration, courtesy of the Recoil Calculator on the beartoothbullets.com website. All powder weights are calculated at 2.5g; gun weights at 1 pound. Velocities estimated for 2" bbl.

CAL. BULLET WT. VEL. FREE RECOIL (fpe/fps)

.38 S&W 146 635 3/14 typical, actual 2-4" vel
685 3/15 advertised 4" vel
200 565 4/16 actual 2", vintage "Police"

.38 Colt NP 150 690 4/15 c. 740 in 4"
720 4/16 c. 770 in 4"

.38 SC "SPL" 190 550 4/15 poss. vel for Bigslug &
575 4/16. Outpost's ammo :-)
600 4/17

.38 SPL./+P 110 850 3/14 typical Crit Def. vel
925 4/15 represents typ. 2" +P 110g
1000 4/16 to expand many JHP loads...
158 710 4/16 control: old Police LRN, 2"

.380 ACP. 90. 850. 3/19. Approx LCP (wt. 0.6 lbs)

Note the striking similarities in the numbers across the board.

The main idea here is to give some sense of free recoil across a range of common wts. and vels: (1) previously considered "good for recoil-shy people " (e.g. the ".38 Short," but also a couple of the stronger Colt New Police vintage loads I've encountered); (2) Bigslug's proposed ".38 Short Colt Special" with Outpost's 190g bullet; (3) some common benchmarks on .38 Special loads; (4) an approximation of a .380 load in an LCP.

We know that *felt* recoil, which includes flash, blast, and muzzle flip, grip design and composition, and a host of other variables. As cast bullet shooters, we also know that cast tends to shoot "lighter" than jacketed. Some autos help soak up recoil, but the handy LCP is known for a wicked muzzle flip (the number "19" in the above chart is a hint). The 710 MV from a .38 snub with the old 158g is deceiving, as that bullet emerged at 850 from a 6" gun--lotsa blast for occasional or reluctant shooters of a snub.

We know that many commercial .38 S&W/Colt NP rounds were/are well down into the 500's, with lower recoil AND a lower effectiveness level. For dimensional/ manufacturing and commercial reasons, it's probably more likely that gun/ammo companies would be interested in doing something with Bigslug's Short Colt variation than in retooling for the .38 S&W--although they'd only need to ream chambers differently to make a .38 SPL into a .38 S&W, as is clear in reading this thread. Most manuals use .358 bullets to load .38 S&W anyway, so groove diameter isn't the issue.

Anyway, shooting the Bigslug/Outpost .38-190 would not be a particularly tough proposition. Pressure perhaps 2/3 of .38 SPL "defense ammo," so low blast & flash (with the right powders). Correct powder choice could also make the recoil even more of a push than a slap. Penetration would be excellent, but my guess is it would have minimal overpenetration concerns with that monster meplat matched carefully to velocity.

So, now we just need Smith & Wesson to dust off its original I frame Terrier drawings, with shorter frame & cylinder than today's J frame (some pics tomorrow for visual comparison). Modernize metallurgy and grips. Chamber it for the .38 Middleweight or Manstopper (or whatever we call it), load it in a shiny nickel case, black bullet, silver meplat for sex/style/visual appeal to owners and so the glinting silver slugs are visible to a BG standing before it, and let's roll! Oh yeah, and some with pink bullets (ugh) and optional pink grips....forget I said that.

Want limited expansion? Get some CB guys to design soft lead front ends on harder alloy bullets. Or soft front shallow HP's loaded faster (ooh, a Magnum!)

Want other levels of expansion? Change alloy, weight, shape & depth of cup point....

Cutting action? Knock off Cirillo's design, pin-grabbers or some such. Use hard alloy, deep cup point, strong meplat "rim."

Penetration? See Magnum above, substitute tougher alloy.

Tumbling? Blunt round nose, or some hi-tech aluminum insert like the 5.45mm Soviet AKS-74 (I think).

Easy to design ammo versions ranging from truly reduced recoil to a true 700+ fps.

Market Combo Packs (see under "Judge") so you can "tailor to your individual needs."

Outpost and Bigslug, you've opened Pandora's Ammo Box.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

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.

Would that be Captain Clifford Shore, and "With British Snipers to the Reich"? He certainly agreed with the reasoning expressed on this thread about the decision behind the .38-200, and carried a Smith and Wesson in that chambering, and expressed even greater admiration for the concept of the M1 Carbine. He very much admired the mechanical ingenuity of the Luger and Walther P38, and thought that a pocket automatic similar to the Walther PPK would be a good thing to issue to snipers, or to soldiers who were required to carry arms in peaceful occupation of enemy territory. But he had as high an opinion of the Enfield as the Smith and Wesson, and considered both of them superior as a military weapon to any automatic.

My guess is that Shore wasn't contemplating a sniper turning from rifle to pistol in combat (although apparently Sergeant York did.) The sniper's prime weapon, such as the No4(T) would often be on transport in its chest while travelling, with its card saying the sniper was authorized to forbid anyone but a qualified armourer to handle it. I don't suppose the Enfields in his unit were DAO, or perhaps products of Albion Motors of Glasgow, which produced the worst.)

I haven't found the bit, if there is one, where he was absolutely incensed at being unable to legally own a rifle. A former army captain with a good record, and a shooting enthusiast, would have found no legal difficulty in the way of owning anything not fully automatic. I believe he would have been charged seven shillings and sixpence at the time, which was the same as a dog licence although I was charged about £2 as an 18-year-old schoolboy in the 60s, as a friend of mine did for a .455 Webley in Northern Ireland. I aways imagine the negotiation as going "Shooting fenians, sir? Aye, that will be perfectly satisfactory." His school made him keep it in the cadet corps armoury, though.

Overrating the horrors of war, admittedly not an easy thing to do, is itself a cosy form of dramatization. A major difference between European war and the Congo was an almost total absence of cannibals. It was notoriously difficult for a sniper to surrender. He was usually at a distance, and not a person you could afford to give a second chance. But I don't believe suffering a fate worse than death was any commoner than it was for ordinary soldiers encountering the occasional psycho. There are plenty of cases of German soldiers cheating on the Fuhrer order to shoot commandoes.

As for shooting men who refused to go over the top, I knew a man who did it twice, right at the end of the war, but that was in what he described as a rotten, newly raised battalion which had scraped the bottom of the conscript barrel for morale and physique, at a time when most new battalions, even, were still of a high standard. He was most emphatic that it would have been unthinkable earlier. I also knew a sniper who was smaller, weaker and far shyer than the woman soldiers of today, and got into the army with the "Daily Mail" for the 4th August 1914 wadded up inside his boots. He insisted that he never killed anyone when he could break his shoulder and send him safe home, and thought that that placed far higher strain on enemy manpower and morale than killing people. The nearest I saw him come to anger was when his friends goaded him into admitting that he must have killed two hundred, for doing that deliberately would have been unchristian. He always said that shooting was the least of it, and his ability to enter and leave a room unnoticed, like Jeeves the butler, was far more important.

I think the reason for American issue .38S&W ammunition to be light-bullet and weakly loaded was the large numbers of small break-open revolvers from the minor American companies which were issued to couriers, security guards etc. I do have a soft spot for the Iver Johnson Safett Automatic, which wasn't an automatic, but copied the lockwork of the excellent French M1873, overcoming its one major fault by lengthening the double-action mentonnet or chinpiece to act as a transfer bar.

147664147665

[Bigslug]

So, now we just need Smith & Wesson to dust off its original I frame Terrier drawings, with shorter frame & cylinder than today's J frame. . .

And if we get them making I-frames again, maybe we can get the .22 Bekeart back on the market. . .

But back to Webleys for the moment. . .

One of the facts that rattles around in my brain - the .451 Whitworth used for sniping by the Confederacy used 10-1 alloy for its bullets, and they were noted for a pretty amazing degree of penetration. The 12-1 listed by Louisianaman's sources for the .455 is going to be pretty darned close to the same 12 BHN, so I'm thinking that at our Webley's piddling 600-720 fps operational range, deformation - at least consistent deformation - is not going to be in the cards.

I'll be executing some gallon jugs next Friday with the 200 grain NOE "long nose" which I have running at the regulation 625 fps, and the .455 MKII. I'll have to go back and check data - I believe my sources at the time I loaded them indicated the military .455 load was about 720fps, and I think that is what I duplicated. I'll present the hard numbers on alloy and speed when it's staring me in the face.

At any rate, I have enough milk jugs saved up (my co-workers graciously donate their "scientific research subjects") to where collecting the bullets should be no challenge. I am figuring that even if I don't see a sideways hole, penetration less than about 5 jugs will probably be evidence of tumbling in one jug and bouncing off its back wall. To be continued!

[Bigslug]

I think the reason for American issue .38S&W ammunition to be light-bullet and weakly loaded was the large numbers of small break-open revolvers from the minor American companies which were issued to couriers, security guards etc.

Agree 100%. Having worked in gun shops from '92 to '05, I've seen scads of those old top breaks, and I think it's fair to say that most of them suffer from being ancient, cheaply made, or both. My standard operating procedure with them is to automatically assume they're out of time and have broken springs. It's this unfortunate reality that holds the current commercial examples of the cartridge to levels even more gutless than the .38/200. It would be fun to explore a "Ruger Only" version. . .

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The .451 Whitworth is a slightly untypical case. Sir Joseph Whitworth was a notable precision engineer, whom the government called in to investigate the deficiencies of the .577 Enfield at long range. He had pioneered the standardization of screw threads, and machining to unheard-of standards of precision. But he knew little of firearms. Some of his innovations, widely followed by others, were priceless, such as extreme consistency in boring and rifling, an extremely elongated bullet of smaller caliber, and establishing the right rifling twist to stabilize it. But his hexagonal bore and mechanically fitting bullet, besides being prone to fouling, was described by others as being capable of transmitting enough rotary force to stabilize a field-gun shell. Others, such as Metford, soon did as well with extremely shallow conventional rifling. Metford even span a bullet with the scratches made by coarse emery on a lead plug, or rifling so shallow that it wouldn't have withstood even black powder erosion.

So other people needed extremely hard bullets, but Metford, at least for ballistic purposes, didn't. They might have been required for military (in which the limited favour his rifles found in the American Civil War was about as close to acceptance as they got.) The concept of military barricades of timber, brushwood fascines, old rope etc. hadn't entirely died at the time.

[Piedmont]

Ballistics in Scotland, Yes it was the With British Snipers to the Reich. In looking at my records I see it was almost five years ago that I read that book and you seem to own your own copy. It is possible it was a different memoir that contained the incident of the author being disgusted he couldn't own what he fought with after the war. If it is in Shore's book it is probably near the end.

You put a list of books on the old Shooter's board around 15 years ago that I copied. These were mostly military history/adventure type books. Thank you for that. I've read many of them and ended up buying the entire Tales From the Outposts series from a UK bookseller and have read the series twice. You mentioned someone taking a goose on the Scapa Flow with I think a New Service .45 in your Shooter's post and attributed it as being in the Tales From the Outposts series. It isn't there. Would you happen to remember just where you read that?

[LouisianaMan]

Fellows, lots of interesting and entertaining stuff on here!

Ballistics in Scotland:
1. "Shooting fenians, sir? Aye, that will be perfectly satisfactory." Priceless! I could hear Sean Connery's voice in The Untouchables saying such a thing (although IIRC he played an Irish cop).
2. "an almost total absence of cannibals"--lucky I wasn't drinking anything at the moment, because I would have drowned in it!
3. The stories about the WWI sniper and the officer having to shoot his men were certainly in a more serious vein, but very interesting, to say the least.
If you write or have written a book, I'll buy it! Just tell me how. Also, I'd be interested in seeing your reading list mentioned by Piedmont.

Bigslug: I also will bet a Coca-Cola that your wheelweight-hardness .455 won't deform in flesh OR water. Any Germans complaining about that bullet in WWI--which they apparently did at some level--must have been reacting to its devastating effects on bone. Otherwise, perhaps simple propaganda harassment, or very likely soldiers who'd heard a reference to Hague Conventions that reduced the matter to "jacketed bullets only." No details about "expanding," "liable to deform," or "causing undue suffering." (Plus, there was widespread anger on both sides about "exploding bullets," almost all of which was probably their understandable reaction to the massive exit wounds caused by high vel jacketed bullets. We understand the ballistics now, but few had witnessed it then.)

I've shot many wheelweight (and softer) bullets into a hard stump. After blasting away enough of the stump to recover some bullets, I noted that the only ones deformed were those struck by, or that had struck, other bullets. Anything smashing into the wood could have been reloaded and fired again.

The "gutless" .38 S&W loads of today are indeed a disappointment, and doubtless due to the old topbreaks of poor manufacture, black powder-era metallurgy, or simply age & metal fatigue. Unfortunately, however, there are hundreds of thousands of Terriers, Regulation Police, M32-1, M33, M33-1, and modern-era Police Positives (and variants) that would thrive on a big meplat 150g at 770 fps from a 4" barrel. Ditto for Webleys, Enfields, and Victories, even though sighted for 200/178g bullets. Of course, some few Indian Rugers, too, built for .357 Magnum! Some people on this forum have the expertise to design a compromise projectile that would chamber in everything, shoot accurately in most of the larger British bores, and squeeze down within safe pressure limits to function powerfully in the tighter Colts, not to speak of the Rugers. With all the hoopla about +P ammo, Ruger & T/C loads, Beretta Tomcats that can't use any cartridge that rates greater than 130 fpe, Buffalo Bore, imported CIP-level loads, and certain lead bullets/weights not to be fired in popular .38 SPL Airweights & titanium guns...it would be a simple matter to add some good .38 S&W loads to the list of ammo sold "FOR USE ONLY IN MODERN GUNS IN GOOD CONDITION."

Frankly, if enough of the right people pushed that to the ammo companies, that should fly. Buffalo Bore offers a strong 125g SWC, but at $1-2 per shot, few people will put the older guns back into service.

Personally, a common handload in my M33-1 4" guns is a 135g Gold Dot HP-Short Barrel bullet at 860 fps. The .38 SPL+P load is designed to achieve that same velocity from a 2" barrel, so I figure I'm over SAAMI for .38 S&W, but probably at a "+P" level suitable for a solid frame gun in excellent condition. That load gets approx. 765 fps in my 2" guns, which also seems to indicate that pressures aren't excessive, as it's fully 100 fps slower than the .38 SPL +P load. (Until I test it for penetration and expansion, though, I don't carry it in my 2" guns.) I use nickel-plated brass to get a good tight fit for the .357 jacketed bullet, although I could probably seat/crimp with a .38 SPL die just to bullet depth in regular brass. I also load soft 145g LSWCHP to 825 and 110g JHP to over 1000 (per Speer 13) and get perfect expansion and the usual JHP 2-3 jug penetration--3 to 4 jugs with the 145. Next over the chrony will be a 130 LHP, for which I have high hopes, plus a Hunters Supply 115g PHP (pentagon hollowpoint) for wife & daughters to use as a low recoil round with good penetration and excellent expansion. Lots of other solids at respectable vels, too, which I'll omit here. Bottom line: this cartridge CAN be loaded respectably.

[Driver man]

"Fellows, lots of interesting and entertaining stuff on here!

Ballistics in Scotland:
1. "Shooting fenians, sir? Aye, that will be perfectly satisfactory." Priceless! I could hear Sean Connery's voice in The Untouchables saying such a thing (although IIRC he played an Irish cop).
2. "an almost total absence of cannibals"--lucky I wasn't drinking anything at the moment, because I would have drowned in it!
3. The stories about the WWI sniper and the officer having to shoot his men were certainly in a more serious vein, but very interesting, to say the least.
If you write or have written a book, I'll buy it! Just tell me how. Also, I'd be interested in seeing your reading list mentioned by Piedmont."

I read these posts with pleasure, informative,entertaining and without the least pretence . I follow BIS posts and feel dissapointed if the day has none. I enjoy this style of writing and too would buy a book if written by BIS

[Outpost75]

UPDATE 28 AUG 2015 - fired some of the Fiocchi .38 S&W Corto 146 LRN 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.

The Ranch Dog plain based bullet from NOE: 147747

Accurate 36-201D 6.2 #2400 723 fps, 22 Sd, 62 ES, n=12 rds.

As FYI, my Colt .38 Police Positive 4" SN 3401XX, looked up on Colt website and actual date of manufacture is 1930!, well after introduction of the Police Positive Special with longer frame window, my gun has cylinder gap 0.005" "Pass" and 0.006" "Hold," with cylinder throats .3590-.3595", bore slugs .344", with groove diameter .354."

Next plan is to chronograph the Fiocchi factory loads in it, then try Accurate 36-155D, 36-178D and 36-201D to check point of impact and to work up charge establishment to develop 750 +/-30 with the 155D, 700 +/- 30 with the 178D and 600 +/- 30 with the 201D.

I'm expecting correct charges will most likely be be in the neighborhood of 2.5 Bullseye or 6.2 #2400 with 155D and 5.5 #2400 or 2.0 Bullseye with 178D and 201D, though will fire in the Ruger first as sanity check!

Might also try Accurate 37-125T (heavy 9x18 Makarov bullet) sized .359 and see if I can get something around 800 +/-30 fps. (I ordered my mold to drop .360 in wheelweight rather than the normal .365" for the PM pistol).
147748

Some eye candy, "Crooks Eye View" of 201D and some of the rounds with the pocket piece.

147745147746

[Buckshot]

................Don't want to get off the 38-200, but speaking of my pal, Sir Joseph.............

http://www.fototime.com/037950A91DF99C5/standard.jpghttp://www.fototime.com/0AF53E3DEEEAD3F/standard.jpg

It was the twist man, the twist!

http://www.fototime.com/F5B2831828DBFE3/standard.jpg

...................Buckshot

[LouisianaMan]

[QUOTE=Buckshot;3359209]................Don't want to get off the 38-200, but speaking of my pal, Sir Joseph.............

http://www.fototime.com/037950A91DF99C5/standard.jpg

My g-g-grandfather served in a Georgia Sharpshooter Battalion in the Late Unpleasantness; outfits like his were assigned to each infantry brigade as skirmishers, advance guard, rear guard, flankers, picket duty, etc. They were equipped with the standard .577 caliber 3-band Enfield, but a couple of men in the battalion had globe (aperture) sights for greater precision. The Army of Tennessee had a very small number (I think 1-2 dozen) of so-called "Whitworth Sharpshooters," who were snipers in the true sense and were an Army- or Corps-level asset.
An account survives of a boy soldier in the Sharpshooters' Co. C teaming up with a Whitworth sharpshooter, each picking a blue-coated soldier riding on a wagon at an estimated 600 yards. At the command to fire, the boy saw he'd missed his target ("my rifle wouldn't carry that far"), but the sniper's target slumped off the wagon to the ground. Chivalry or a sense of fair play wasn't completely dead however, as both riflemen sat and watched as the unhurt soldier dismounted, loaded his buddy on the wagon, and drove away unmolested.
Sorry for thread drift--Buckshot is a bad influence on me !!! :-)

[LouisianaMan]

Outpost, that is excellent, thorough information! Boy, that tight-bored Ruger really cranks up the velocity on the Fiocchi ammo! Give that cartridge a nice flat meplat, and it would be a good defense round in its own right. I suspect your Colt's results will be very similar, given their tight bores and the .005" cylinder gap on yours. And that Police Positive must be a dream to carry if you wish to--light, but steel, compact, and possessing a handy power level with your loads.

"Returning to active duty" with the .38 S&W on this thread, I could kick myself bloody for the selection of great guns in that caliber which I have swapped away for other "priorities." I may post a picture next week of old collection vs. current collection, but y'all will probably publicly stone me :-(

One thing is sure: I'm going to print out a LOT of info from this thread and build a special notebook devoted to this caliber!!!

[Bigslug]

Jeez! All I do is bring up the Whitworth's bullet alloy, and we end up with lengthy Whitworth diatribes and sniper porn on a pocket pistol ammo thread. FOCUS PEOPLE!:kidding:

Lousianaman - I think it's well that you're deciding to archive this thread, as I think there's the possibility to do some real good here.

Over the last 160 years or so terminal ballistic application has been driven by all manner of theories with regard to shape, speed, weight, diameter, and plasticity of bullet. While few would argue that all else being equal, bigger is better, our understanding of the science has progressed to where it is certainly possible to do more with less - to the point of that which was once regarded as totally insufficient can now be totally suitable to the task.

On the one hand, the industry should take note, as we have the potential to "mirconize" pocket pistol effectiveness rather substantially.

On the other hand, the industry runs largely on appealing to the mindless Ewoks who make cooing sounds over the latest shiny object. If it isn't rivaling the SR-71 for speed, the U.S.S. Missouri for bore diameter, or the Yucatan Meteor for impact energy. . . the advertising bureaus will have a hard time knowing what to do with it. I wonder if it's possible to create a fad for something that simply WORKS - after all, they sell a lot of Camrys, Accords, and .30-06's. . .

[9.3X62AL]

The Whitworth rifle.......a Glock for muzzle-loaders and The Holy Black.

[Bigslug]

The Whitworth rifle.......a Glock for muzzle-loaders and The Holy Black.

Maybe if we paper-patched all our auto-pistol ammo, people would quit squeaking about cast in polygonal bores. Anyone feel like wrapping a couple thousand .45 ACP slugs next weekend? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

[LouisianaMan]

Sorry, the Whitworth photo struck a big nerve with me, which typically causes outbursts of randomness. Someday it will get me voted off the island, I reckon.

I agree that this thread has the potential for a sticky, but I'm merely a case of what happens when enthusiasm meets opportunity, not the brains of the operation. Outpost and 9.3, OTOH, are the ones to convince!

I hereby support the motion by Outpost, seconded by Bigslug, to make this a sticky. What happens next, I know not.

It would be nice if someone reading this thread has pull with the gun & ammo companies sufficient to get S&W or Ruger to listen. S&W could reintroduce the I frame, team it up with the cartridge we're discussing, and sell the idea as the ultimate pocket pistol, designed to deliver stopping power through momentum that guarantees reliable penetration, a meplat that maximizes wound channel without dependence on expansion, matched with the low pressure that prevents overpenetration, minimizes flash, blast and recoil to optimize a shooter's ability to hit key spots very fast. Delivers a punch unmatched by pocket autos, with the revolver's ability to shoot through clothing. Smaller than the J frame, with "outstanding shootability & a bullet that will always do its work, regardless of chancy 2" expansion." Actually, the perfect BUG--a New York reload for even the J frame. Carry its ammo as your reload, because it can be used in your larger .38 SPLs or even .357.

If Ruger would do it, shorten the LCR's frame & cylinder, to make a BUG that is manageable by all shooters. Alternatively, shorten only the cylinder and lengthen the barrel within the cylinder frame window to improve performance, or load cartridge down even more and make it super-tame while still getting the performance designed for the cartridge.

Colt, if they ever wanted to get back in the game, could use the Banker's Special as a starting point.




Jeez! All I do is bring up the Whitworth's bullet alloy, and we end up with lengthy Whitworth diatribes and sniper porn on a pocket pistol ammo thread. FOCUS PEOPLE!:kidding:

Lousianaman - I think it's well that you're deciding to archive this thread, as I think there's the possibility to do some real good here.

Over the last 160 years or so terminal ballistic application has been driven by all manner of theories with regard to shape, speed, weight, diameter, and plasticity of bullet. While few would argue that all else being equal, bigger is better, our understanding of the science has progressed to where it is certainly possible to do more with less - to the point of that which was once regarded as totally insufficient can now be totally suitable to the task.

On the one hand, the industry should take note, as we have the potential to "mirconize" pocket pistol effectiveness rather substantially.

On the other hand, the industry runs largely on appealing to the mindless Ewoks who make cooing sounds over the latest shiny object. If it isn't rivaling the SR-71 for speed, the U.S.S. Missouri for bore diameter, or the Yucatan Meteor for impact energy. . . the advertising bureaus will have a hard time knowing what to do with it. I wonder if it's possible to create a fad for something that simply WORKS - after all, they sell a lot of Camrys, Accords, and .30-06's. . .

[9.3X62AL]

<----"BRAINS" of the operation?? Au contraire, mon ami. I've already been voted off a goodly chunk of this island, so staying low and keeping dark has been clearly indicated as my approved mode of travel hereabouts. I wouldn't recommend following too closely in my wake.

[Outpost75]

....It would be nice if someone reading this thread has pull with the gun & ammo companies sufficient to get S&W or Ruger to listen. S&W could reintroduce the I frame, team it up with the cartridge we're discussing, and sell the idea as the ultimate pocket pistol, designed to deliver stopping power through momentum that guarantees reliable penetration, a meplat that maximizes wound channel without dependence on expansion, matched with the low pressure that prevents overpenetration, minimizes flash, blast and recoil to optimize a shooter's ability to hit key spots very fast. Delivers a punch unmatched by pocket autos, with the revolver's ability to shoot through clothing. Smaller than the J frame, with "outstanding shootability & a bullet that will always do its work, regardless of chancy 2" expansion." Actually, the perfect BUG--a New York reload for even the J frame. Carry its ammo as your reload, because it can be used in your larger .38 SPLs or even .357. If Ruger would do it, shorten the LCR's frame & cylinder, to make a BUG that is manageable by all shooters. Alternatively, shorten only the cylinder and lengthen the barrel within the cylinder frame window to improve performance, or load cartridge down even more and make it super-tame while still getting the performance designed for the cartridge. Colt, if they ever wanted to get back in the game, could use the Banker's Special as a starting point.

I don't think the young kids would buy it, because they ARE mindless Ewoks who have been brainwashed by spray and pray movies, and there are not enough old farts like us to support production. I still think it would be a good idea, but it would take full standard .38 Special pressure at 16,000 psi to get the performance, which is no problem for a sturdy revolver, but they would not introduce a +P .38 S&W load (16,000 vs. 14,000) because of worries with the old top-break guns. Although a modest pressure increase will simply loosen them up and take them out of circulation, rather than turning them into a veritable hand grenade, which is exactly killed the 9mm Federal rimmed which operated at 9mm Parabellum pressures which were double the proof pressure of the .38 S&W! The cheesy Charter Arms revolver wasn't suitable for a steady of the stuff either.

Now had the Ruger LCR been on the drawing table then, and the round introduced as the "9mm Ruger" in the "White Mountain Hideout" we wouldn't even be having this conversation as the world would have been set on its proper axis....

But I fully intend to work up what I believe to be suitable loads for my Colt, share the results here and also shoot a lot of them and see if the gun loosens up. Then we will know where we stand and everyone will have a proven recipe!

Based on my experience with the .32 Long, I have hopes that a suitable charge, maybe 5.5-6.0 grains of #2400 would approach 700 fps with the 36-201D from a 4" barrel, and with that bullet weight will burn and in doing so put less strain on the gun than attempting that velocity with Bullseye or Unique behind so heavy a bullet.

[LouisianaMan]

9.3: FWIW, you're one of the brains of the operation in my opinion! :-) Seriously, you've provided lots of insightful info and advice from which I have benefited, on this forum and others. And I've certainly gotten many a chuckle from reading your lively posts, too!

Outpost: you and others are right, of course, that trying to sell this not-so-shiny object made of "old technology" is likely a pipe dream today. But hey, there are always CB shooters to chew it over with! I look forward to your testing and impressions, only fearing that I may now have to add another powder (2400) to the inventory. With the I and J Smiths I shoot most often, I've stayed somewhat short of 700 fps with various configurations of 200g bullets, but would like to work up the Smith 4" J frames to about 700 with a SWC and perhaps the same+ with the Accurate 190g.

With my Indian Ruger 2 3/4" Speed-Six, I hope the Accurate 190g will chamber cleanly; if it does, what velocity level do you suspect might be reasonable and with what powders? With I's and J snubs, my velocity targets remain 550-650 or so, but I'd like to get that sturdy Ruger to get well above 700 with a flatpoint--no quibbling about low vels and tumbling with a FP! I'll want highest vels compatible with safety, wear & tear, accuracy and controllability.

[Outpost75]

In the RUGER 800 fps with the 201D is absolutely do-able, just stuff the .38 S&W case with all the #2400 it will hold (about 7 grains), stuff in a bullet, hold on and cut loose!

DO NOT do this in your Colts, S&Ws or Webleys!!!!

The nose immediately ahead of the crimp groove is reduced slightly to .359" by my RCBS seater die and drop into and falls out of the Ruger and Colt chambers of its own weight. If your seater die has greater internal clearance it may be necessary to size the bullets to enter tight throats, but mine are .3590-.3595 so fit is perfect.

[Bigslug]

I still think it would be a good idea, but it would take full standard .38 Special pressure at 16,000 psi to get the performance, which is no problem for a sturdy revolver, but they would not introduce a +P .38 S&W load (16,000 vs. 14,000) because of worries with the old top-break guns.

Been thinking about solutions for working around this:

#1. Use the .38 Short Colt Case - at least as the starting concept. I don't know what the .38SC originally came in, so I don't know if a tiny increase in length would prevent chambering in those guns or not. I honestly can't say that in almost a quarter century of working with and on guns, that I ever recall seeing a gun chambered for the .38SC. I've seen new made Cowboy ammo, and .38SC blanks are used to drive 40mm sponge rounds out the barrel - that's about it. I don't think there's many out there in service TO blow up. Obviously, whatever we cook up would work fine in a Special or .357 chamber, so no worries there.

2. Change the headstamp. I vote ".36 Noisy Cricket" after the pocket ray gun from Men In Black, but the point is not to even call it a .38 (because it technically isn't) and it'll at least make SOME folks do some homework before plunking it in an old Colt.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Ballistics in Scotland, Yes it was the With British Snipers to the Reich. In looking at my records I see it was almost five years ago that I read that book and you seem to own your own copy. It is possible it was a different memoir that contained the incident of the author being disgusted he couldn't own what he fought with after the war. If it is in Shore's book it is probably near the end.

You put a list of books on the old Shooter's board around 15 years ago that I copied. These were mostly military history/adventure type books. Thank you for that. I've read many of them and ended up buying the entire Tales From the Outposts series from a UK bookseller and have read the series twice. You mentioned someone taking a goose on the Scapa Flow with I think a New Service .45 in your Shooter's post and attributed it as being in the Tales From the Outposts series. It isn't there. Would you happen to remember just where you read that?

Thank you for thekind words from yourself and others, but I hope I didn't mislead you all thoseyears ago. The story of a deniable naval mission shooting domestic geese and ducks isn't from any of the "Tales of the Outposts" series, but from the excellent "Shooter's Delight" by Thurlow Craig, whom I have already mentioned on this thread for his pamphlet on Webley firearms. www.bookfinder.com (http://www.bookfinder.com/) is the best place to look for his books, which nowadays vary from cheap to the triumph of optimism over experience. But you sometimes find bargains on eBay.

Craig was involved in pistol training in the early stages of WW2, and had a low opinion of the spurless .38 Enfield, the main reason probably being that those he encountered had brutally heavy trigger pulls. (I've only ever handled a couple of early ones, in which it was excellent.) His own favourite was the New Service Colt, bought as .455s but with the chamber lengthened for .45LC and the cylinder shaved for the .45ACP in half-moon clips, with a screw-on plate foruse with the revolver cartridges. That way he was pretty sure of getting useful ammunition anywhere and at any time.

I suppose we had better not waste too many of someone's electrons by straying too far from the topic. Here is some evidence that the Webley revolver is not completely dead, although the standard velocity .32 is a poor substitute for even the .38-200 in my estimation:

http://ofbindia.gov.in/index.php?wh=Sporting Arms&lang=en

I think Bigslug is very right in his assessment of a short .38 and matching frame for a small pocket revolver, equaling or slightly exceeding normal .38 Special performance. But I am not so sure there is a need to go for the .38 Short Colt (or .38 Special) diameters, effective as these would be. People accept .32 or .25 caliber all the time to get a smaller pistol, on thequite reasonable principle that having any sort of pistol is better than having none at all. It seems pessimistic to assume a very small .38 would remain a limited production proprietary cartridge, for which standard case and bullet diameters would be a big cost-cutter.

I now live in the UK, where handguns are how prohibited... with exemptions. The prohibition provoked the start of my fairly extensive and totally legal collection of European military revolvers. Self-defence has never, in modern times, been looked on as a valid reason to own a firearm, although to keep a shotgun in the home, the perfectly valid legal reason of wanting to have one will do instead. It makes some sense. Like anyone in the UK who doesn't keep bad company or work with large quantities of cash or valuables, I have never felt in the slightest danger of deadly violence. There has never been any heart disease in my family that I know of, and yet I think my chances of survival would be better served by carrying a portable heart defibrillator.

But I sometimes think the cause of fighting crime would be well served if everyone were permitted a powerful single-shot, non-reloadable pocket pistol which he could never replace, once fired, unless the victim were proven byinquiry to be a dangerous assailant. Taggant grains could be inserted in the powder, and bullets serial numbered. Imagine if one were attached by a short steelcable to every airline seat? We would get the occasional psycho committingmurder that way - not many, as they could hardly get out and swim for the shore afterwards, and certainly not every soul aboard. I don't fancy walking downthat aisle with a box-cutter.

I keep up a detailed booklist, but in the interests of good order and economy I will append it as an attachment. Unfortunately there is a severe limit on the size of Word files, so I have had to reduce it to text, and it is a bit of a lottery how that will show up. There are one or two coffee table books with little to recommend them but pretty pictures, but the majority have something else good, and a few are real treasures.




148216

[Bigslug]

I think Bigslug is very right in his assessment of a short .38 and matching frame for a small pocket revolver, equaling or slightly exceeding normal .38 Special performance. But I am not so sure there is a need to go for the .38 Short Colt (or .38 Special) diameters, effective as these would be.

I think the logistics of using a .357/.358 bore would greatly aid this round's appeal. MANY more options for what you can load it with here in the States, and you can even fake it with some 9mm bullets. The ability to shoot it in a Special or Magnum would also help sell it as a "gallery load" for the wives and kids. The .360+ of the S&W bores & cylinders are dinosaurs that amuse gun nerds like us, but are a headache most sane folks don't want to deal with.

[Bigslug]

OK! MILK JUG TESTS!

I would post photos, but I think you guys have a pretty good idea what a totally undeformed .455 MKII and NOE 200RN with rifling marks on them look like. . .

I fired and recovered two 600-630fps .455's which took six and seven gallon jugs to stop. These were some of the first boolits I ever cast - the ingots they came from were 9.75BHN range scrap, but they got water dropped, so who knows?? All the jugs were your standard white plastic gallon milk jugs except for the last one - clear plastic Minute Maid O.J., which tends to be more brittle and shatters when hit with something socially significant - like a 1600fps .45-70. In this case, it drained it's water from a perfectly round hole. I'm pretty sure that after close to two feet of water and 13 layers of plastic, if they're not tumbling, they aren't likely to do much in soft tissue. I think if the .455 bullet were a solid base, it might be more likely to swap ends on impact, but with the hollow skirt, it's pretty well balanced. Best just to direct your bullet to the spine and not rely on any "special effects" to get the job done.

As I said earlier on, the .38 NOE 200RN is not an authentic bullet profile, but I think I can make some deductions. This was basically WW consistency at 14BHN and running at 630fps. The bullet today stopped in its fourth jug. The holes were not super clean - more of a bullet-sized tear - with nothing definitive to show if it tumbled or not. I think in retrospect that a sheet of paper between each jug might be helpful in showing the bullet's orientation as it passes. I also think that the MKI bullet, being more cylindrical than the NOE would be MORE stable and LESS likely to tumble.

But here's my main point - while the .38 got the second jug in the stack to hop slightly out of line, neither caliber managed to do more to the jugs than make them "stand there and bleed". Neither .38 nor .455 is displacing much of anything - I'm pretty solidly convinced at this point that the British service rounds were all about penetration, and weren't seriously trying for anything else. Even if you drove them through an adversary sideways, you're looking at a slightly elongated round ball at 600fps - which the .38MKI's nose basically is anyway.

I think that the flat nose is our answer guys.

[Bigslug]

Well. . .this thread petered out quick. A little more data and head scratching - such as it is.

When I did the jug shoot a couple weeks back, I chrono'd the .455 load and learned pretty definitively that Unique is too slow a powder for the round - velocities pretty erratic and lots of unburned powder granules falling out. So off to the range yesterday to burn up what's left in preparation for starting over.

As I mentioned earlier, the ingots for those rounds tested at 9.75 BHN, but the bullets were cast in my early "water drop everything" phase, so no telling where they're at. At any rate, plugging dog food cans at about 20 yards has them hitting the ground at a fairly shallow angle, skipping up to the berm five yards behind, leaving many lying on the berm pretty much undamaged save for a slight skid mark from the intial impact.

So, I'm thinking that the next time I visit the pot for Webley bullets in either caliber, I'm going to pour some from 40-1 to see if we can achieve any upset at all in milk jugs with round nosed designs. The hollow base for the .455 and the small throat / big bore combination will probably appreciate this anyway.

I also have NOE's copy of the 452423, which, if cast soft enough, should work well enough in the .455 to give us a read on monster meplat (.34") performance at 600fps. I also have NOE's 358429 which seems to cast a little big, so should work in the MKIV. It's similar in weight and not completely different in shape from the 178 grain FMJ, so we may learn something there as well.

Who knows when there'll be TIME for all that, but the wheels are a-turnin'. . .

[Outpost75]

Chronograph data from my circa 1930 Colt Police Positive .38 Colt New Police, with 4" barrel, bore .344", groove .354", cylinder throats .359", cylinder gap 0.005," Fiocchi cases, Federal 200 small pistol magnum primers. Bullets cast 1:40 tin/lead from Roto Metals, shot unsized, .360" Lee Liquid Alox lube.

149301149302149303

Fiocchi 146-grain LRN, 794 fps, 14 Sd, n=12 rds.
Accurate 36-155D (solid) 2.5 grains Bullseye, 718 fps, 6 Sd, n=12 rds.
Accurate 36-155D (solid) 6.3 grains Alliant #2400, 771 fps, 33 Sd, n= 12 rds.
Accurate 36-155D (hollow-pointed, 146 grains), 2.7 grains Bullseye 789 fps, 14 Sd, n=12 rds.
Accurate 36-178D 2.5 grains Alliant Bullseye, 706 fps, 12 Sd, n=12 rds.
Accurate 36-178D 5.6 grains Alliant #2400, 705 fps, 8 Sd, n=12 rds.
Accurate 36-201D 5.6 grains Alliant #2400, 710 fps, 11 Sd, n=12 rds.

These loads showed no signs of hard extraction in my Colt and should be OK in sturdy solid-frame revolvers. I expect that they DO exceed factory pressures for .38 S&W, but probably are below the level of .38 Special +P, based on pressure tests of flush-seated .38 Special wadcutters of similar bullet weight and overall cartridge length. I would not use them in small hinged frame US revolvers. I leave to your own judgement whether you want to risk your collectible Webley militaries as your mileage may vary.

149297 149298149299

Accurate 36-201D mold is currently off to Erik at www.hollowpointmold.com for his inset bar conversion to what I call the "Cavernous Cup Point" which will reduce weight to about 185 grains in 1:40 alloy.
I may try shooting these as as a HBWC (in .38 Special brass) as well as loading normally in .38 S&W brass and in .38 Special as a cup point.

[LouisianaMan]

Outpost, that is a very nice-looking old Colt! Its sights sure seem to have been regulated for the 150g +/- 5g bullets, too, and "Super Police" bullet weights of 200g reliably bang in there several inches higher, as expected. Is it just me, or does that rounded Colt frame tend to roll in your hands enough to make a heavy bullet hard to group as tightly as the 150-ish bullets?

As someone who has no access to pressure testing but who loves to load .38 S&W from mild to hot, I find it extremely helpful to read your estimate comparing these loads to .38 Special +P. Some book .38 S&W loads have given me velocities in the .38 SPL +P range; guns and brass have handled them beautifully, even though I was a bit shocked by the chronograph readings!!!

(NOTE: I've used only solid-frame Smiths, Colts, and Rugers to handle the "rough stuff," with a couple of warm 200g loads tried in Enfields after proving them in the other guns. I've owned several nice old S&W top-breaks, but fed them ONLY factory-level 146/685 type loads, as every manual takes care to emphasize.)

It's been a while since I fired a Police Positive or Special, but I found myself pawing over a PP at the LGS a few days back. It was tight as could be with trigger pulled, just as it was designed and manufactured to be, and timing was only the tiniest hair slow if I cocked it as slowly as I could. With a normal cocking action, of course, it worked fine. It was dark colored with plastic/Bakelite (?) grips, luckily for me--if it had had the old fire blue look like yours, I don't think I could have resisted. And I don't think my better half would let me get away with blaming Outpost!!!

I will soon be able to load up some of these bullets and give 'em a try--got "range clearance" from a buddy so will get some loads ready to shoot when this blazing heat backs off again. Some hints that fall may actually come sometime soon down here on the bayou.

[Outpost75]

I have a Tyler T-grip adapter ordered to fit the old Colt frame. Factory stuff is like shooting wadcutters, but a cylinder full of 200s shot DA with those tiny service grips will raise a blister on your thumb knuckle!

[Bigslug]

Outpost,

Any chance you can line up some rows of sacrificial milk jugs with those 40-1 slugs of yours? I can handle the round nosed side of the puzzle, but seeing as you're already rockin' the flats. . .

[9.3X62AL]

Still looking on here, was off the board for a while with illness but still very interested. Like Outpost noted, the little Colt Police Positive grip frames don't provide a whole lot to hold on to. I do have Tyler T-grips for both of my examples, but even those lack a bit for my big old paws. I re-worked the innards of a Pachmayr Presentation grip set for the 2nd-series Colt D-frames, and they do a decent job of allowing some comfort and control while shooting. Not what you could call "elegant", but they allow for effective use. No one ever accused Glocks of surplus elegance, but they seem to have caught on nicely.

[Outpost75]

Outpost,

Any chance you can line up some rows of sacrificial milk jugs with those 40-1 slugs of yours? I can handle the round nosed side of the puzzle, but seeing as you're already rockin' the flats. . .

That is in the works, but firing tests will wait until the 201D mold has been return from Erik converted to cup point, so I can test bullets of both configurations, side-by-side on the same day. I am now hoarding milk jugs!

[Combat Diver]

Got my first Webley Mk IV back in West Germany in 88' from Frankonia in Munich. IIRC I paid 188 DM for it (around $90 US without the Value Added Tax). Went home to San Antonio and brought back a Lee Classic Handloader kit in .38 S&W. Used .357 bullets and some French BA powders. When it was time to rotate home sent ATF my Form 6 importation license and came back denied as they considered it War Surplus at the time and non importable (same with my all matching 1939 dated P08 Luger).

Had couple battlefield pick ups in Iraq in 08'. Course had to leave these there too as ATF again won't let us bring anything home :(
Enfield No2 Mk1 in .380/200 British (.38 S&W) made in 1932
Nickled Webley MkIV in .380/200 British
Webley MkVI in .455 Webley made in 1923
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/P3200176_British_revolvers_rz.JPG


CD

[LouisianaMan]

CD,
Great photo of some great guns!!

And sad stories about ATF--those are utterly irritating on several counts. War surplus in 1988--come on, really, with a Webley and Luger? Re. the battlefield pickups: other than an anti-gun mentality, there is no excuse to refuse servicemen the right to bring home these trophies of war. Not sure exactly HOW the Army did it in WWII, other than the fact that (a) they DID allow it, and (b) lots of guys managed to avoid the paperwork and get them home by hook or by crook. It's not like looting the kitchen silver or whatnot, it's something taken from enemy soldiers. You can kill 'em, get killed by 'em, but you can't bring home a pistol...that's legal to buy in the US anyway?

Well, it's not like everybody on this forum doesn't know this already, but I just had to rant about that. A *DOZEN* combat deployments, and you can't bring back a pistol. Yet our Commander in Chief can take multi-million dollar shopping trips and vacations on our dime, anytime, anywhere, with wife, dog, etc. flying separately.

OK, back to gun stuff. What types of ammo have you fired thru the .380/200 and the .455, and what are your impressions? (Or are they wall-hangers?) Among other things, I'd really like to know whether .455 service ammo, or its close equivalent, tumbles after penetrating a soft target. Likewise, it would be informative to know if you've stacked up the blunt-nosed 200g soft lead .38 against the pointy, 265g lead alloy .455 cartridge it was officially declared "roughly equivalent to in stopping power."

Although I've never seen anything confirming the alloy used in the original Mk 1/1Z .380/200 service ammo, lots of accounts describe it as soft or dead soft. On the face of it, I can imagine that a blunt, soft, slow, 200g .38 could equal a pointy, harder, slow, 265g .455. If neither tumbled, then both would damage only what their meplat hit, more or less. Both have the sectional density to plow through a human target fairly well. The blunt .38 probably has similar "meplat" size to the pointy .455, if not more. The soft lead .38 could well have similar effects on bony structures to the heavier, harder .455, especially since the latter would have a greater tendency to glance off of bone struck at an angle.

But if both tend to tumble, then the greater diameter of the .455 should inflict somewhat greater damage than the .38, on average.

I haven't calculated momentum or sectional density to compare the two, so it's certainly possible that the .455 would smash through a soft target deeper, and more reliably, than its .380/200 counterpart. Have you shot anything to compare them?

BTW, I'm not on some quest to declare the Mk I/IZ .38/200 "equal in stopping power" to the .455 Mk II. What I'm really after is to determine the truth of the matter, since the British Army said one thing, and modern American shooters routinely declare that conclusion to be impossible poppycock (to keep the adjectives family-friendly). I have a sneaking suspicion that modern American views primarily reflect our experience with the old .38 Special 158g LRN "police service" round, as compared to our experience with .45 ACP ball ammo. I think there's a tendency among many to assume the British .38 vs. .455 experience duplicates ours. Insofar as your average Internet commenter is aware that the .38/200 had a velocity of about 600 fps, they may also be making the mistake of comparing that to our .45 ACP at about 850 fps, perhaps forgetting that the .455's vel was also only about 600 fps.

[9.3X62AL]

LA Man--

This whole "wounding potential"/"stopping power"/"lethality" question as discussed EXHAUSTIVELY over the years has generated a lot more heat than light. As a trainer and as one of the people going in harm's way at work for a long time, getting at the truth was a strong motivator. After some 45 years as a very active shooter in a lot of roles, I'm not sure that we can couch our conclusions as "facts" or even as "knowns". The results (terminal ballistics and the recipient's response to same) are just too variable, as opposed to the "exact science" statuses of internal ballistics and external ballistics. To corral terminal effects prediction is like herding cats.......a surplus of effort for a surfeit of results. In short, Caliber Wars are the wrong answer to the question raised (How do I enhance handgun defensive performance?) A better and more reliable answer should be "TO SHOOT WELL". Placing hits on assailants in meaningful locations is the best predictor of ballistic performance, and for darn sure when 91% of your defensive shots fired do not connect with their intended target, none of those background bullets will do you a bit of good irrespective of diameter, weight, or velocity. I'll take an X-ring hit with a 200 grain 38 bullet at 600 FPS over five 230 grain 45 ACP SXTs in the assailant's background any day of the week.

[Combat Diver]

LA,

Never used the Webley's on anything other then paper targets and plywood target boards. The .455 ammo that I had in 03' which was by the case load (think 10 wooden cases of Indian manufactured to British specs but using a copper washed bullet) but never got to shoot that as I didn't have a MkVI that year (did have a Polish PM63 machine pistol in 9x18 and 2 ea MP44 7.92 Kruz) Later in 05' fired the only 6 rds of .455 and one bounced back off the 1/2" plywood stand! Ammo was battlefield pickups and don't remember the origin. No ammo for either the Webley's or Enfield in 08'. When I was reloading for the .38 S&W in Germany in the late 80s used primary 125gr or 158 gr JSP/SWC as HPs are a No No there. You have to remember Iraq was a British territory from 1918 till 1933 and armed the Kingdom of Iraq until 1958, so lots of British guns here (ie Sterlings and Enfield rifles) and at least on immaculate preWWI field gun.

CD

[LouisianaMan]

LA Man--

This whole "wounding potential"/"stopping power"/"lethality" question as discussed EXHAUSTIVELY over the years has generated a lot more heat than light. As a trainer and as one of the people going in harm's way at work for a long time, getting at the truth was a strong motivator. After some 45 years as a very active shooter in a lot of roles, I'm not sure that we can couch our conclusions as "facts" or even as "knowns". The results (terminal ballistics and the recipient's response to same) are just too variable, as opposed to the "exact science" statuses of internal ballistics and external ballistics. To corral terminal effects prediction is like herding cats.......a surplus of effort for a surfeit of results. In short, Caliber Wars are the wrong answer to the question raised (How do I enhance handgun defensive performance?) A better and more reliable answer should be "TO SHOOT WELL". Placing hits on assailants in meaningful locations is the best predictor of ballistic performance, and for darn sure when 91% of your defensive shots fired do not connect with their intended target, none of those background bullets will do you a bit of good irrespective of diameter, weight, or velocity. I'll take an X-ring hit with a 200 grain 38 bullet at 600 FPS over five 230 grain 45 ACP SXTs in the assailant's background any day of the week.

No worries, 9.3. I, too, lose no sleep over the "stopping power" matter, as I have what I have & carry what I carry, and that's that--for me, anyway. I can hit pretty well with any of them, and figure that in 99.99999% of situations I'll have enough other things to occupy my mind. I don't chase the latest magic bullet, although I do find the attempts to provide ever-better technical solutions interesting. I agree fully that the holy grail of "stopping power" really isn't achievable with any certainty, but the attempts of various military (and law enforcement) organizations to find an answer are interesting to me.

As a career soldier (ret.) and especially as a historian (my book and articles were Civil War-related, not gun-related), my curiosity was piqued some years ago about the British Army's apparently intensive efforts to work out some sort of solution to this particular question c. 1930. Issues beyond my control have prevented me from researching British military records as I'd like to; unless that changes, I won't be able to evaluate whatever documentary evidence they developed--flawed or not. There are countless reasons why the relevant materials may not even survive at all: WWII is one possibility that comes to mind. I'm left, therefore, with trying to learn what I can about this exceedingly arcane topic through a sort of backyard reverse-engineering process.

After all, this question is why we have a .38 Webley to paw over :-)

[LouisianaMan]

CD,
Certainly, Mesopotamia and other lands thereabouts were British stomping grounds for quite some time, and I'm not surprised that your years there have brought you into contact with lots of British ordnance. I would say that I envy you that, except you clearly weren't there as a tourist or gun crank, as the Brits call(ed) it.

Indeed, their Imperial experiences "East of Suez" had a great deal to do with their Army's concern with the topic of handguns and handgun ammunition in the first place. Too bad you couldn't bring back that pre-WWI fieldpiece. Was it a 13- or 18-pounder, or something larger or older?

I was stationed in Germany from 1983-90, but wasn't yet handloading. Simply shot what was available at the Rod & Gun Club, for the most part! Unfortunately my line of work was nuclear ordnance, not conventional, and it would have upset Pres. Reagan if we'd cavorted around much with his nukes. If you were already SF then, perhaps we kept your SADMs up & running :-)

[Combat Diver]

LM,

Believe it was a 18 pounder like this.
149694

I was SF my whole career coming straight into SF in 84'. Spent time in Bad Tolz 88-90 and then Stuttgart 00-03. I remember the SADM but never got to play with them.


CD

[ddixie884]

Good info, I've really enjoyed the pics.......

[Bigslug]

In gearing up for my next installment, I dug up and started re-reading this thread again, and found the following useful bit in LouisianaMan's Post #92:


OK, let's see what specs "The Book" has got for us:. . .

Mk II: 265g conical; 12:1 Pb:Sn alloy, changed 1914 to allow 99:1 Pb:Sb alloy; MV 600; manuf. 1897-1939 (with brief interruptions) and beyond 1939 in Dominions. . .

. . .Mk VI: 265g Pb alloy core, cupro-nickel or gilding metal jacket; MV 620 fps. Introduced 1939 to avoid German anger experienced in WWI, when Jerry considered the lead alloy bullet a violation of Hague Convention. Declared obsolete 1946.

Essentially, the Brits fought WWI with the 265g lead alloy Mk II @ 600 fps; and the .455 in WWII was used with its near twin, now jacketed and dubbed Mk VI, at 620 fps.


It is this alloy change in 1914 that makes me go "HMMMMMM. . ." Undoubtedly, the Brits had MUCH better things to do with their tin under press of war than to alloy pistol bullets with it.

I suspect the German later objections to the lead bullet were either merely political whining or part of a combined operation to drain the enemy's resources by making their ammunition more expensive, BUT the fact remains that a lot of leftenants were going over the top with what amounted to a pure lead MKII bullet. We have to assume that much of the data acquired from WWI - and as such probably the biggest data sampling - on the performance of the .455 on human tissue was generated with this round.

So, in the meantime, I've been tweaking my MKII load to use softer 40-1 alloy (BHN of 8) from my Mihec 4-cavity copy of the RCBS 1-holer, switched my powder from Titegroup to faster and cleaner burning Bullseye, and my lube from a trip through the sizer with Ben's Red to a tumble in Ben's Liquid Lube. Gotta say it's working great, and the chrono data has us right in the 600-625fps range of the King's specs.

Unfortunately, due to the changes in gear brought to the range caused by my mother retiring and picking up an interest in shooting again, I got to my folk's place and forgot to load the milk jugs, so the terminal side is going to have to wait a few days to a couple weeks. My plan is to put a sheet of typing paper between each jug, so we should have a fair answer on the matter of a soft MKII deforming and tumbling quite soon.

[Bigslug]

OK. . .not the hugely definitive results I was hoping for, but results all the same.

Cast of 40-1 alloy and running at ~625 fps:

161447 I had some trouble getting centered early on and wasted a few of the available jugs as a result, but penetration still runs in the 5-7 jug range. Bullet in the middle was recovered from jugs. Bullet on the bottom was shot through an approximately 9" thick pumpkin that had been left by a previous shooter. That bullet was found lying on a slight rise in the ground about two feet behind the pumpkin directly in line with the bullet hole, point facing directly downrange.

161448 The more deformed of these two was the one recovered from the jugs. The cleaner base was the pumpkin-whacker.

What do I gather from all of this?

Well, both bullets show slight compression from the impact, and the OAL of both bullets is essentially identical. I figure the 9" thick pumpkin had two inches of meat on front and rear with the usual hollow space in the middle. Since the slug from the jugs looks essentially the same, I have to conclude that 40-1 will begin deforming at 625 fps in water or pumpkin, but is pretty resistant to deformation at speeds even slightly slower than that.

The squashed base of the jug bullet has me a little puzzled. I placed sheets of paper between each jug, but none of these told me definitively that the bullet was trying to go through sideways. At any rate, in the earlier failed-to-recover shoots, the holes in the first 2-3 jugs WERE round.

So without a more testing, here's what my current thinking is:

A .455 MKII bullet - even a soft one - at issue velocities would probably poke a neat hole entering the exterior muscles of a human chest cavity, travel through relatively hollow lung and other soft tissue without anything dramatic happening, and poke a neat hole through exterior muscles on the way out, leaving the recipient to deal with hemorrhage and sucking-chest issues commensurate with the placement of the shot . If it hit bone solidly, it might deform a little more, giving a little more dramatic exit. I could certainly see a glancing bone hit on that tapering ogive initiating a tumble, but probably not with reliability that could be counted on as a performance-enhancing factor inside something as relatively thin as a male torso. I DO NOT think the Brits were trying for tumbling with this load - the bullet is too slow and weight-forward for that.

See my earlier comments on the MKI .38/200 bullet being probably AT LEAST as stable as the HB .455. Hopefully, someone can find a way to reasonably test the concept with the WWII-era 178 grain FMJ.

[LouisianaMan]

Looks like I popped back just in time for the latest installment! That .455 seems to be a hole-driller, a concept popularly applauded now as "penetration." :-) Although it's ambling along at a stately 600-625 fps, it still wades through 36-42" of water plus about 12-14 plastic jug walls. So, boring holes through soft stuff and either glancing off of bone, boring through it, or perhaps deforming against it and smashing whole sections away (as Thompson-LaGarde described the phenomenon of a soft lead bullet striking bone squarely). As you say, any of the above could lead the unlucky recipient to have a mediocre day at best, or a catastrophic one at worst.

My experiments several years back with some .380 Mk 2Z FMJ ammo loaded by CIS (Singapore) showed a very distinct tendency to tumble pretty ferociously in water. I'll go back and get some links to old reports and/or excerpts to bring back here.

[robertbank]

One of the fellows at out club has asked me to load him some 38 S&W rounds for his old wobbly Webley. I just ordered a set of Lee dies and a conversion kit for my Dillon 550. I sold off my old dies when I let my own Webley go a while back. I am going to use my 195 gr Lyman bullet. Light loads should work well. With the right light we should be able to watch the bullets fly through the air.

Take Care

Bob

[Bigslug]

Hmmmmm. . . Here's my latest two lines of thinking for the .38. . .

1. I have an NOE RG Keith 358429 clone that certainly can drop at .360" and I MIGHT be able to get a .361" bullet out of if I work my mojo properly. My first thought is to (hopefully) pull off a soft-alloy hollowpoint that will squish at .38 Webley speeds. The hollowpoint pin would take weight out of the nose and possibly help to stabilize this long-for-caliber, likes-to-be-shot-fast bullet somewhat.

BUT. . .

2. Then I thought, "Wait a second. . .we're actually investigating the possibility of this bullet tumbling, so maybe we WANT it to be unstable. If a slow 358429 tumbles on impact, we've validated the concept of a tumbling pistol bullet. If it DOESN'T tumble on impact, it's STILL a sharp-nosed Keith SWC, and we don't have to prove ANYTHING with those!" If I can't get proper diameter with a softer alloy, I can cast hard and still test the tumbling concept with the design.

So. . .I plan to cast up some soft HP's soon to make some low vel. plinkers for a GP-100. Where I go from there will depend on what falls out of the mold.

Glad I've got you fellow anachronisms to tell me I'm "normal" and enable me in this madness!:drinks:

[9.3X62AL]

Erik--you say "anachronism" as if it's a bad thing. SMILE when using the term, if you would.

NEI #169A and Lyman #358430 have both apparently tumbled for me in live targets (East Mojave jackrabbits). Elements present were slow velocity (650 FPS +/- 25 FPS at muzzle) and longer ranges, which slows their velocity even more. I am fairly certain from the stellate tearing exit wound form and size/shape of exit wound itself that the bullets went out "side first". The slow impact speeds may assist in the de-stabilization, though that is pure conjecture on my part. Run these bullets at 800-1200 FPS, they drill through nose-first. All hits are BANG-flops, no customer complaints to date.

[Bigslug]

Heee!

I think the proper, most straightforward answer here is going to be a 200 grain wadcutter seated long, possibly with just enough radius on the nose to make getting them into the chamber easier.

This whole tumbling thing. . .a quest for Nollij:

161893

[9.3X62AL]

Nollij. Right.

Internal ballistics = hard science. External ballistics = hard science, once all variables are plugged in. Terminal ballistics = marginally-perceived art form. Terminal effects = one step to the right of guesswork.

[Outpost75]

...I think the proper, most straightforward answer here is going to be a 200 grain wadcutter seated long, possibly with just enough radius on the nose to make getting them into the chamber easier....

161930161931or161932

[robertbank]

Ok I got hold of my friends S&W. The gun is one from WW11 and marked US Property. I loaded the gun with 1.5 gr of 231 under my 200 gr 358230 bullet sized .358. A slug measured .357 out of the barrel with very deep rifling engraving. Perfect! From a rest though at 15 yards they all went into a 2`` hole BUT 6 inches high. I need more speed. I have a range of 38 bullets cast and will try some 358477 and a 158 RN RCBS bullet.

While the gun on the outside looks terrible the barrel is like new and the gun deserves a decent load. I am not sure I can get enough increase in the 200 gr bullet to get it to shoot 6 inches lower but should be able to do so with lighter bullets. Thoughts.

Bob
The new Lyman Handbook lists 1.7gr of 231 as maximum

[9.3X62AL]

With the NEI #169A (202 grains) I have used 3.0 grains of Unique or 3.3 grains of Herco for about 700 FPS in both the Webley-Enfield and a S&W M&P. Be mindful that #169A has most of its weight outside the case--a deeper-seated bullet might boost pressures considerably.

[robertbank]

With the NEI #169A (202 grains) I have used 3.0 grains of Unique or 3.3 grains of Herco for about 700 FPS in both the Webley-Enfield and a S&W M&P. Be mindful that #169A has most of its weight outside the case--a deeper-seated bullet might boost pressures considerably.

Thanks Al I will try your load and load the bullets long. You should see this gun. Looks like someone left it out in the rain for a week and did not dry it off. After some scrubbing and copious amounts of oil rubbed in the gun looks a lot better and is it tight, Like new in fact. Rifling and cylinders are clean and not pitted. The outside...not so much. Sometimes the ugly ones are the best.:-o

Take Care

Bob

[Captain O]

So many people sell the old .38/200 short when they always seemed to perform rather well when "the feces impacts the air motivator".

Good stuff, Maynard!

[9.3X62AL]

A range site I used in the recent past had lots of iron cutout targets placed at 25 yards in its handgun bays, and I shot a lot of 38 S&W loads at a B-27-ish silhouette. It absorbed a lot of my carry guns' ammo, too--but that's another thread. Anyway, the #358477s at 700-725 FPS gave the swinging victim a nice TINK TINK TINK and gave it just-perceptible sway. Hit the target with the 200 grainers at 700 or so, and the sound was TANK TANK TANK and the swinging was more like 2" or so. Definitely more going on downrange with the heavier bullet. How that converts to felon repellent potential is a mission for the folks with slide-rules wearing propeller hats. Or maybe the Facklerites with the Jello fetishes.

[robertbank]

Al, assuming Dillon gets my ordered shell plate to me today, I should be good to go on loading over the week-end. My primary objective at this point is to develop a load that will shoot to POA. Your loads for the 200 gr bullet will be utilized along with the 358477 and a RCBS RN that weighs in at 160 gr. The gun will only be used as a paper and can puncher by the owner. The more recent loading manuals are pretty meek when it comes to loading this cartridge compared to the older manuals. Given I am working with a S&W, I feel more comfortable moving upstream a bit for my loads to improve velocity which i turn should lower the point of impact.

The cartridge can work on soft targets but, as my friends in the Edmonton Police Dept. found out, the cartridge was way out of it`s depth chasing car windows. After WW11 the Webleys and S&W`s were dirt cheap and up here, and I suspect in other Commonwealth countriesé including the Hong Kong Protectorate, used them in their police forces for that reason. Wearing a sidearm and actually ever using them or expecting to use them are two very different things. Only one of the two latter points would have been the driver for acquiring them for law enforcement back in the day. Things seem to be a bit different up here today with the drug trade boys accounting for most of the lethal use of handguns and fortunately mostly on themselves. The murder rate up here using firearms is pretty insignificant. I believe the number is under 150 last year out of a total of 550 odd murders for the whole country. Local Police Forces today are well armed and from what I can see have all the fire power they need to keep the locals safe.

Take Care

Bob

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Ok I got hold of my friends S&W. The gun is one from WW11 and marked US Property. I loaded the gun with 1.5 gr of 231 under my 200 gr 358230 bullet sized .358. A slug measured .357 out of the barrel with very deep rifling engraving. Perfect! From a rest though at 15 yards they all went into a 2`` hole BUT 6 inches high. I need more speed. I have a range of 38 bullets cast and will try some 358477 and a 158 RN RCBS bullet.

While the gun on the outside looks terrible the barrel is like new and the gun deserves a decent load. I am not sure I can get enough increase in the 200 gr bullet to get it to shoot 6 inches lower but should be able to do so with lighter bullets. Thoughts.

Bob
The new Lyman Handbook lists 1.7gr of 231 as maximum

Loading the same bullet for higher velocity is unlikely to make much difference to the point of impact. The bullet will be out in the open air sooner, but after a portion of the recoil which will be greater than before, and they may still balance up at about six inches high. It sounds like the change to 158gr. may do the trick, more or less regardless of the charge.

The only way to determine terminal effect is to terminate something, and preferably enough somethings to write natural variation out of the statistics. It is very doubtful whether a Webley bullet (other than the cup-shaped "manstopper", at the expense of ability to penetrate heavy clothing or equipment) would expand much in soft tissues, or that any difference would be made in its stopping power if it did. Vincent di Maio, in his modern "Gunshot Wounds", says that the only way to be sure if an expanding pistol bullet was used in crime, is to recover the bullet. I would be surprised if tumbling, in soft tissues, would be very different.


Many of the most convincing authorities, including La Garde, have said that no bullet at conventional pistol velocities, has really good stopping power on soft tissues alone. The only circumstances when they do (other than a person being psychologically convinced that he has to fall down because he has been shot) is when part of the central nervous system is hit, or when the major bones used in locomotion are severely broken. Small, very high velocity jacketed bullets (or perhaps, my conjecture, very hard cast ones) are liable to pierce these bones, leaving either a clean hole or a characteristic X-shaped fracture which is no doubt very unpleasant to have, but doesn't deprive a man with a combative mindset of a few minutes' payback time.

This last situation is the one in which the soft bullet of the .455 Webley is likely to be particularly effective, not necessarily in striking bone at 90 degrees, but in deforming the little which prevents it from glancing off without causing a major fracture. La Garde found this to be very much the case with human cadavers and with steers in the Chicago stockyards. When repeated shots were fired into the chest of steers, the large, slow revolver bullets were still found very superior to high-energy small bullets such as the .30 Luger.

It is not true that their recommendation led directly to the .45ACP. What they recommended, in the knowledge that an interpretation of international law would probably prevent it, was a much more thinly jacketed .45 round with a soft lead core, to give the same non-skidding deformation on bone.

In fact Martin Fackler, in his introduction to the 1991 edition of La Garde I have, heartily endorses his findings as superior to most of that time, and pours scorn on those who place their trust in velocity and effect on gelatin.

[robertbank]

I agree driving the 200 gr bulllet might not get the impact lower but it is worth a try and I do intend to try the 158gr bullets as well.

Here is a rather famous photo up here. Maj. Currie took the surrender of a column of Germans and won the VC for his efforts. He had about 17 infantry and of course his South Alberta tanks with him. My uncle was the Battle Adjutant for the Albertans and a Captain at the time. He received the Bronze Star (an American Award) for his contribution. Maj. Currie can be seem holding a .38S&W in the picture. Uncle Newt told me had the German Colonel known how few troops were in front of him he might not have been so quick to surrender. Sometimes you get the peanuts and sometimes you get the shells.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a387/robertbank/Major_david_currie_vc.jpg (http://s15.photobucket.com/user/robertbank/media/Major_david_currie_vc.jpg.html)

Take Care

Bob

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I'm sure plenty of pistols work better through car glass than the Webleys, but despite the gas stations that used to give away neat little stick-on James Bond bullet-holes, none are really dependable. The British Army intelligence personnel who operated under cover in Belfast were trained to shoot out of a car through steel, not glass (after triggering the device that projected multiple flash-and-stun grenades out from under), and each one individually tailored his (or her) choice of "window" in their Kevlar door armour to suit. It was one of the few situations in which a double-column pistol with extended magazine seems justified, as they would keep firing in the knowledge that some shots would be stopped or deflected.

The best account I know of a .455 Webley used in action comes from Harry Patch, the last surviving British soldier from WW1 in Flanders, who dictated a book very much his own at the age of 108.

He was Number 2 on a Lewis gun team, and had compounded with his Number 1 to shoot people in the legs if they possibly could. In the mud of the Salient a German charged at them as they were changing a magazine, and didn't stop when Harry shot him in the shoulder with his revolver and he dropped his rifle. Harry thought he meant to kick the Lewis into the mud, which meant half an hour making it usable, and probably friends of his not getting home. So he shot him in the ankle and above the knee at a range of about fifteen yards, and hoped he didn't lose a leg as a result.

[GWM]

Test load with the Lyman 358315, at 206 gn with Lyman #2-ish alloy. Starline 38 S&W cases and Vihtavouri N105 powder. Started at 3.0 gn very mild but did not tumble at 45 yds, test fired in an S&W 940, printed very high tho. Haven't chronographed yet but working up the load.
163333

[Dave_n]

I have been loading 180 grain FP sized 0.360 from a local caster, who happens to be an old friend which helps. I have used these loads in Enfield No 2's Mk 1, I* and 1** plus in four Webley MK IVs and a significant number of S&W M&Ps (some pre-Victory, a couple with the "V" prefix and one genuine Model 11). My load is 2.4 grains of Clays international with an OAL of 1.200". POA at 7 to 10 yds, so I have no complaints. Similarly, in the 0.455 arena, 3.45 grains of International behind a 0.454 250 grain FP for an uncut S&W HE Mk II or 3.20 grains in an uncut 1935 commercial Webley Mk VI Both are 1.100 OAL. For my cut Mk VIs (including two Enfields from the 1922-26 batches), I use 3.30 grains of International in 45 AR cases OAL 1.270. These are all to POA at 10 yds. Got to love those old pistols. Dave_n

[LouisianaMan]

I have been loading 180 grain FP sized 0.360 from a local caster, who happens to be an old friend which helps. I have used these loads in Enfield No 2's Mk 1, I* and 1** plus in four Webley MK IVs and a significant number of S&W M&Ps (some pre-Victory, a couple with the "V" prefix and one genuine Model 11). My load is 2.4 grains of Clays international with an OAL of 1.200". POA at 7 to 10 yds, so I have no complaints. Similarly, in the 0.455 arena, 3.45 grains of International behind a 0.454 250 grain FP for an uncut S&W HE Mk II or 3.20 grains in an uncut 1935 commercial Webley Mk VI Both are 1.100 OAL. For my cut Mk VIs (including two Enfields from the 1922-26 batches), I use 3.30 grains of International in 45 AR cases OAL 1.270. These are all to POA at 10 yds. Got to love those old pistols. Dave_n

Dave:
Nice info, and nice guns! An actual Model 11--wow! Any chance to chronograph those loads?

[robertbank]

I thought I should report back on my results with my friends S&W in 38S&W.

As reported earlier someone cut the front sight down by about a 1/3. My 200 gr bullets were hitting 6" high at about 10 yards off a rest. After several different loadings the gun now shoots POA. I use 356402 Lyman 125 gr TC bullets sized .358 over 2.5gr of 231. I previously slugged the barrel at .357. At 10 yards off a rest 10 rounds went into a 1 1/4" hole. Success!

This gun is marked US Property and likely came into this country on the Wars Lend Lease Plan or as a direct order from Cdn Army. The gun looks like it was dragged behind a bus and left out in the rain EXCEPT the cylinder locks up real tight, the inside of the cylinders and the barrel's rifling is sharp and smooth with no apparent wear. I can only assume from the diameter if the barrel, that S&W just put in 38spl barrels to fill the order. In any event the gun is a real shooter. I have let my friend know when he wants to sell the gun I have the bills available. For those in the US who have this model I would like to kow if their guns barrels are sized .357 as well.

Take Care

Bob

[Outpost75]

The tight barrel doesn't present any problem. My 1930 .38 Colt New Police has a .354 barrel and .359 cylinder throats.

166626

[robertbank]

Actually the tight barrel in the gun I was working on was an excellent find. I hope to either get this one or find another if the barrel was tight as .357. I have a friend who could bore out the cylinders to run 38 spl in the gun.

Take Care

Bob

[9.3X62AL]

I have a 1920-made Police Positive x 4" in 38 S&W, and it also has .359" throats. I didn't slug the bore on it or on my S&W M&P x 5" in 38 S&W; its throats are .362"-.363". I size to fit each revolver's throats.

ETA--Case diameter differential might bite ya, Bob. 38 Special runs about .379", 38 S&W runs more like .386". Your fired brass after said conversion will look like fat 32/20s, and will get worked a lot with each resizing. I am very happy to leave my 38 S&W's (all 3 of them) in their original caliber and enjoy them as-is.

[robertbank]

Hi Al. I was really surprised at the results I got with the 125 gr bullet. It runs at 609 fps avg. If it were my gun I would either consider converting the gun to 38spl or more likely just have the sight either removed and replaced or have the sight itself worked on to bring the height back to it's proper height. To be fair the gun is a good range plinker and up here that is about the extent of what we can do with the gun. Not enough power as a bush gun unfortunately. I have better handguns to deal with situations where one runs into a bump in the night when at home or away.

Take Care

Bob

[9.3X62AL]

I imagine the front sight was altered to compensate for bullet weight differential in down-range targeting. My S&W M&P shoots right where the sights look at 25 yards with a 200 grain NEI #169A meant to duplicate the WWII service bullet's weight and form, as does my Webley-Enfield top-break chambered for the same ammo. These big slugs poke along at about 675-700 FPS. Most 38 S&W commercial loadings use a 145 grain RN lead bullet that seldom reaches the 700 FPS mark. Recoil dynamics + barrel time interface = differential distribution.

[robertbank]

You are most likely spot on. That said the guy who who did it was no target shooter and I suspect he was dipping so he figured the gun was shooting high so he tool a farmers file to the front sight. Sure was a rough job. In any event the light 125 grain pellets are going where you are pointing. The little truncated bullet would do a job on our bunnies up here if it was er, ah, legal to hunt with a revolver just saying.

I was surprised how slow the 125's are going. I am not sure I want to put much more than 2.5 gr of 231 under them. Thoughts?

Bob
ps edited to add he may have been wanting a six oclock hold. Guess we will never know.

[9.3X62AL]

Bob et al--

What follows herein is just my interpretation of "the lay of the land" as an unschooled but experienced and well-read hobbyist. The K-frame M&P revolvers made by S&W for the British contract likely did not differ significantly in metallurgy from the 38 Special versions the company had been making since 1902, apart from the engineering changes that are noted in the record. For sake of layman simplicity, I ventured a guess that standard-pressure 38 Special intensity was as hot as I cared to load any cartridge to be housed in a K-frame platform of this vintage.

I have no pressure-testing equipment, and fired-primer appearance as a pressure estimator is about two clicks to the right of fortune-telling on my reliability meter. In looking at 38 Special standard pressure loadings with 200 grain bullets, these long slugs are seated fairly deeply into a relatively long case. My chosen bullet for the 38 S&W aka 38/200--NEI #169A--is also a long critter, but more than half of its length is seated outside the case. Lyman #358430 (195 grain RN)'s base depth when seated in 38 Special brass at Lyman-recommended OAL is for all practical purposes identical to the NEI's #169A base depth in 38 S&W cases. The boiler rooms, if you will, are very similar. It would follow that 38 Special 200 grain load data (which is a little scarce, but obtainable) could be appropriate for 38/200 loads--worked up carefully.

I cross-referenced these beliefs with data found in Ken Waters' "Pet Loads" column in "Handloader" concerning the 38/200.......his loads paralleled my thoughts closely. I derived 3.0 grains of Unique and 3.3 grains of Herco as appropriate for both the S&W and W-E 38/200 wheelguns.

For the Colt Police Positive, RCBS/Speer shows load data in its "Cast Bullet Handbook, Vol. 1" for the 38 S&W using their cast bullets. I believe the Speer Manual #13 has a listing for the 38 S&W using a S&W Model 33 x 4"--any load safe in one of those revolvers should be OK in your K-frame.

I run 150 grain Lyman #358477 at 725 FPS in my Colt PP x 4". That load is (ha!) 3.0 grains of Unique. These fired in my M&P print low downrange......maybe that is what the doctor ordered with your altered front blade.

[robertbank]

Ok I have the 358477 bullet and when time permits, try the load in the revolver. You may well be correct. The history of this particular gun is [probably interesting. From the lock up, barrel and cylinders I would guess the gun was never shot much, just stored terribly. I have seen worse but mostly from farmers carrying the guns under the seat of their pick up trucks. Rural Canada have a more liberal approach to handguns than urbamites despite what the idiots in Ottawa think.

From what you say, and I do respect your opinion, a conversion of one of these guns to 38spl would not be out of reason. The barrel being as tight as it is for the intended cartridge leads me to believe the 38S&W chambered guns only differed in how the cylinders were cut. Makes sense and no harm no foul.

The guns come up for sale here occasionally and I may pick one up if the price is right. I have my eye open for a 5" Model 10 right now.

Take Care

Bob

[Outpost75]

I just wanted to dust off this old thread and post the drawing for Accurate 36-190T, which I am fooling with in both .38 S&W and .38 Special. The Accurate 36-201D converted to cup point did not expand reliably in 1:40 alloy in the .38 S&W, so I decided to go with a slightly lighter bullet, still with large meplat, but with longer head radius which would carry up better at ranges past 50 yards when shot in the longer barrel revolvers and cowboy and rook rifles. Ctg. OAL is 1.59" in .38 Special.

210451210454

[LouisianaMan]

That is one good-looking picture! Gun, cartridge, and bullet.


I just wanted to dust off this old thread and post the drawing for Accurate 36-190T, which I am fooling with in both .38 S&W and .38 Special. The Accurate 36-201D converted to cup point did not expand reliably in 1:40 alloy in the .38 S&W, so I decided to go with a slightly lighter bullet, still with large meplat, but with longer head radius which would carry up better at ranges past 50 yards when shot in the longer barrel revolvers and cowboy and rook rifles.

210451210454

[Outpost75]

That is one good-looking picture! Gun, cartridge, and bullet.

When it warms up enough to cast again I'll run some and send to you.

[LouisianaMan]

Those 190g .38 cal. tree stumps look like they will knock the stuffing out of whatever they hit, thanks!

From 4” guns, I’m thinking about 675 fps in .38 S&W, 750 in a .38 SPL, and 900 in a .357 Magnum....Will have to look at POA-POI in fixed-sight guns, but at short HD/SD ranges that’s a fairly forgiving metric. Pie plate at 10 yards will work for “minute of BG.”

[Outpost75]

Those 190g .38 cal. tree stumps look like they will knock the stuffing out of whatever they hit, thanks!

From 4” guns, I’m thinking about 675 fps in .38 S&W, 750 in a .38 SPL, and 900 in a .357 Magnum....Will have to look at POA-POI in fixed-sight guns, but at short HD/SD ranges that’s a fairly forgiving metric. Pie plate at 10 yards will work for “minute of BG.”

Thinking off the top of my head, 2.5 grains of Bullseye in S&W 32-1 and India Ruger, 3.5 grains for +P in .38 Special and 4.2 grains for +P+ in Ruger .38 Specials...

[LouisianaMan]

Yep, some well-documented articles in recent editions of “The Fouling Shot” lay out the “sweet-spot” loads in excellent detail. That info will save me a lot of work!

[9.3X62AL]

I am intractably attracted to this diminutive 38 caliber. I added another example to the herd in mid-Fall, a 1933-made S&W Regulation Police x 4". All-matching and 90%+ condition. I can't hit the broad side of a flock of barns using OEM grip sets on I/J-frame S&Ws, so I have removed and preserved the excellent-shape factory stock set (those square-butt grips adapted to round-butt frame) and installed a set of Pachmayr Grippers in their place. Much mo' bettah for hitting things with. The usual "#358477 atop 3.0 grains of Unique" shot close to where the sights looked, and the bullets sized .359" for the little Colt did not lead-foul throats or the bore after 100 rounds through the R/P's .361" throats.

[Drydock]

Sorry to knock the dust of this grand old thread, but reading thru it, (and greatly enjoying it) I noticed a question that was never really answered: Loading to achieve point of aim, but not knowing what that point is, at least in the British Top Breaks.

According to the War Office pamphlet of 1942 "Small Arms Training, Volume 1, Pamphlet No. 11, Pistol (.38-inch)"

Lesson 3. - FIRING FROM COVER, USING SIGHTS
Instructor's notes


2. AIMING
explain:-
i. The sights
ii. The rules if aiming are similar to those for the rifle. One eye may be closed in using the sight.
iii. The aiming mark will be the center of the target. At a target moving across the front, aim should be directed at
the front edge.

I've tried to write it out as it appears in the pamphlet. Fascinating little booklet. The first half of it is all point shooting, all one handed. When using the sights though, it is recommended to use two hands. Aimed fire should begin at ranges greater than 15 yards it seems. I read this as holding center and hitting center at 20 yards or so.

FWIW I have the Accurate 36-190, and my No. 2 and Mk IV both hit the above poa, between 625-650.

[LouisianaMan]

British Army accuracy standards for .380 Rim (aka .38-200, etc.) were 2" at 20 yards, if I recall correctly. It would make sense for the sights and ammo to be regulated for 20 yards.

[Drydock]

Indeed. Glad to see you're still paying attention to this one. This thread was the gold standard for setting up my .380Rs. If only I could find a Ruger . . .

[LouisianaMan]

Indeed. Glad to see you're still paying attention to this one. This thread was the gold standard for setting up my .380Rs. If only I could find a Ruger . . .

Last time I checked, Fugate Firearms had a mint, boxed, Service-Six with 4" barrel. Price is steep, but it's a find! They also had it on GB auction.

[LouisianaMan]

Indeed. Glad to see you're still paying attention to this one. This thread was the gold standard for setting up my .380Rs. If only I could find a Ruger . . .

Oh, and thanks for inspiring me to re-read this thread! It's now on my official to-do list.

The British Army's 1930-ish adoption of the .38 S&W in the form of the .38-200, aka .380 Rim, intrigued me as a historian and as a shooter. When I decided about 2007 to get my wife and daughters each a duplicate set of S&W J frame 2" and 4" revolvers, seeking something lower-powered than a .38 Special, I knew it would likely be a choice between .32 S&W Long and .38 S&W "Short." A search of online auction sites quickly showed me that the .38s were available in great shape (dresser drawer guns) and at reasonable prices.

Of course I had to get myself a set, too! I'd owned an Enfield in my college days, but that was pre-Internet, before I became a reloader, and before I owned some suitable rural property to load in my garage and shoot from my driveway, over my own chronograph, at water jugs and other fun targets.

Some of those factors have since changed, but my interest in this caliber never waned. Quite the opposite, actually, as I often carry 1-2 of them. Maybe someday we can scare up somebody to do modern gel testing with 200g handloads, vintage Super Police ammo, and British Army 178g FMJ Mk. 2Z ammo. Ideally, we need to test it side by side against .455 Webley, and see what modern terminal ballistics testing tells us about the (in-)famous British Army determination that the .38-200 had essentially the same "stopping power" as the .455.

[Drydock]

If only I could find a .380 rimmed Ruger . . . that I could afford!

[Outpost75]

I got lucky and found an India Model Ruger without box, manual or packaging, which had been gently shot and well taken care of, or about half of the usual collector price. It is a wonderful shooter.

239062

[LouisianaMan]

I got lucky and found an India Model Ruger without box, manual or packaging, which had been gently shot and well taken care of, or about half of the usual collector price. It is a wonderful shooter.

239062

That's a beauty, Outpost, and your published work with it is much appreciated! A great test vehicle for load data, isn't it? Impervious to any pressure that could be generated in load developments, short of using nitroglycerin instead of powder!

239069

There's my Speed-Six, which does similar duty for me. I got lucky with a .357 cylinder that turned out to be a drop-in, and it does "six for sure" nightstand duty in Pachmayr grips, lanyard ring removed, and Winchester PDX-1 125g JHPs. (In the top right corner you can glimpse the lanyard ring of the matching Service-Six I had...past tense. Oh, painful recollection! One of many, tragically enough, lol. My home would require armory certification if it and many others had stayed instead of having to pass through, I guess, so there's that.)

[LouisianaMan]

More pics:
239071

239072

[Outpost75]

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.


239096239097239098239099
239100

[Bigslug]

I'm glad this thread got a re-boot - I've been dabbling more in the realm of archaic British terminal ballistics. We were able to push through a group buy with MP Molds for the .455 Webley MKIV (HB wadcutter)

My adventures on that last summer are recorded here: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?362961-455-Webley-MKIV-Bullet-(HBWC)-Testing

Usable intel, I think, for what can be achieved with a sub-700 fps pill. Once again I'm struck by how prescient (by modern standards) the British thinking was. Being on target and penetrating being understood to be more important than diameter, this heavy wadcuttter concept still manages to give you all the diameter feasible, and the radiused nose still facilitates fairly easy reloading. But for the Hague Accords, that round would have been no joke.

Outpost and Louisiana - those Rugers are SWEEEEEEEET! I wonder if it's even possible to create a suitable "proof load" for those guns using a .38 S&W case.

[LouisianaMan]

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?

[Bigslug]

.455 MKII - pretty solidly convinced it is NOT a tumbler

.38 MKI - pretty solidly convinced of the same, having shot it's near clone Lyman 195 grainer into FBI gel twice from a 2" S&W 640 at 570 fps and observed perfectly straight, nose-first, full-18"-block penetrations on both rounds.

I think if any of the British handgun bullets would tend to tumble, it would be the WWII, fully jacketed .455. Given that this was a hard, solid, jacketed slug being fired through the MKVI revolver's odd combination of small-throat / big bore which was designed for a soft, hollow-based one, this seems like the ideal combination for stability failure.

Maybe the 178 grain .38 had better luck in the "wobbly" department - I dunno. I do not think the terminal effect of this slug would be greatly altered travelling sideways, at only 600 fps. At any rate, how much COULD it tumble within the target depth (underfed youth) it has to work with?

One current statement of duty round performance seems to be that a coroner probably can't tell if someone was shot with a 9mm, .40, or .45 until they actually recover a bullet and start measuring it. Another is that a pistol-velocity bullet really only damages the tissues it comes into direct contact with. I think what the Brits probably meant in their 1930 statement is that, by the time you factor in tissue elasticity, heavy .38 and .45 round noses with enough sectional density to pierce a full torso, will leave effectively identical wound tracks.

And truthfully, I don't find this odd. Consider that the big players in British ammo at the time were in the business of equipping folks for African hunting. They were ALL ABOUT this straight-line penetration game, and it seems unlikely that they would say "this formula worked perfectly well to bag thousands of elephant and Cape buff. . .so let's do something COMPLETELY different for handguns".

[Outpost75]

...Outpost and Louisiana - those Rugers are SWEEEEEEEET! I wonder if it's even possible to create a suitable "proof load" for those guns using a .38 S&W case.

FOR RUGER ONLY! Speer 135-grain Gold Dot HP, R-P case, Federal 200 primer, 4.0 grains AutoComp, 953 fps, 8 Sd from Ruger Service Six .380 Rim with 4-inch barrel, - equals .38 Special +P "Lawman" load. Does hit low to sights, which are regulated for 178-grain .380 Mk2z. I use the same charge in my S&W Model 940 revolver in ether .38 S&W or 9mm Parabellum brass.

[Outpost75]

...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?...

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?

Way to do this would be to measure "energy deposit" comparing entrance and exit velocities of the bullets in perforating a gelatin block of standard thickness.

http://www.grantcunningham.com/2011/11/ed-harris-revisiting-the-full-charge-wadcutter/

"The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) conducted “energy deposit” studies in 1970s in which rounds were chronographed near the muzzle, and again after the bullet exited a 20cm (7.8″) gelatin block. A standard velocity 158-gr. lead round-nose .38 Special bullet fired from a 4-inch revolver at 755fps produces 200 ft-lbs of energy, and exits the gelatin block at about 655 fps with a residual energy of 150 ft-lbs.

Permanent crush cavity volume in gelatin is measurable and in direct proportion to kinetic energy. A round which deposits twice as much energy in the gelatin block produces approximately double the crush volume. A target velocity factory 148-gr. hollow based wadcutter fired from a 6 inch K-38 which strikes the gelatin at 780 f.p.s., produces the same 200 ft-lbs of kinetic energy as the LRN load fired from a 4 inch gun, but it exits the gelatin at 474 fps, having a residual energy of only 74 ft-lbs and depositing 126 ft-lbs! This compares to many common .38 Special JHP +P loads, but with deeper penetration approximating .45 ACP hardball."


Firing Accurate 36-176P giving about 620 fps from my 1-7/8" barrel S&W Model 32-1, with 2.5 grans of Bullseye would have potential.

239152

[LouisianaMan]

Way to do this would be to measure "energy deposit" comparing entrance and exit velocities of the bullets in perforating a gelatin block of standard thickness.

http://www.grantcunningham.com/2011/11/ed-harris-revisiting-the-full-charge-wadcutter/

"The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) conducted “energy deposit” studies in 1970s in which rounds were chronographed near the muzzle, and again after the bullet exited a 20cm (7.8″) gelatin block. A standard velocity 158-gr. lead round-nose .38 Special bullet fired from a 4-inch revolver at 755fps produces 200 ft-lbs of energy, and exits the gelatin block at about 655 fps with a residual energy of 150 ft-lbs.

Permanent crush cavity volume in gelatin is measurable and in direct proportion to kinetic energy. A round which deposits twice as much energy in the gelatin block produces approximately double the crush volume. A target velocity factory 148-gr. hollow based wadcutter fired from a 6 inch K-38 which strikes the gelatin at 780 f.p.s., produces the same 200 ft-lbs of kinetic energy as the LRN load fired from a 4 inch gun, but it exits the gelatin at 474 fps, having a residual energy of only 74 ft-lbs and depositing 126 ft-lbs! This compares to many common .38 Special JHP +P loads, but with deeper penetration approximating .45 ACP hardball."


Firing Accurate 36-176P giving about 620 fps from my 1-7/8" barrel S&W Model 32-1, with 2.5 grans of Bullseye would have potential.

239152

Outpost,
That is indeed a timely, cogent, and welcome refresher on info I've read a few years back, "filed away" in my brain housing group, and (in-)conveniently forgotten. I didn't make the connection, so thanks for making it for me!

I also recall reading an old article by a former Dallas P.D. officer who did a field-expedient version of this type of testing in the 1960s or early 1970s, when tasked with selecting new duty ammo for the DPD. He tested a LRN 200g .38 Special "Super Police" load, alluding broadly to the manufacturer's name as an insider cop joke that left me wondering which bullet configuration he meant: the famous blunt (Winchester or Western?) bottlenose like the Brit Mk 1 bullet, or the Remington (?) that visually duplicated the 158g standard police duty ammo of the day. (I know some cops carried that 200g ammo, as a supervisor's quick glance was likely to mistake it for the required 158g department-issued load.)

At any rate, this Dallas officer noted that this (mysterious) 200g bullet sailed straight through his test medium in the same way the standard 158g load did, with minimal energy deposit/velocity loss.

Certainly, boosting velocity on a .38 200g bullet increases FPE, momentum, and impact power when it strikes bone, etc. Everyone's experience also indicates, however, that this increased velocity also increases bullet stability and straight line penetration. Which begs the question of whether the British approach, which specified low velocity, and which was widely understood to destabilize upon penetrating a soft target, provided significantly enhanced terminal ballistics.

As a retired US Army 91D (Ammunition Materiel Management) officer and former member of the faculty at the USMA Dept. of History, I've developed a wacky sort of Holy Grail fixation on the historical question: "What led the British Army to conclude that their blunt LRN .38-200 Mk 1 ammo provided 'stopping power' substantially equal to the .455 service ammo used in the Great War?" They were well aware of flatpoint bullet designs, velocity and energy calculations, etc., but for some reason(s) they specified very low velocity (590 fps), 200g, and a bottlenose LRN bullet configuration. They piddled around from about 1921-1930 settling on that decision, then spent further years ironing out production issues with it. Certainly, a great deal of their effort is best understood as giving hastily-trained soldiers a weapon-ammo combination they could employ at a basic level of proficiency, and which provided "acceptable target effects." But why didn't they just choose a flatpoint? And boost the 200g velocity a bit? Or select a lighter bullet weight and higher velocity, similar to American .38 Colt New Police loads?

As a lifelong shooting enthusiast who often carries I and J frame revolvers in this caliber, I'd love to understand as well as possible what advantages and disadvantages accrue to the various options. I've loaded a variety of bullets that give me performance roughly equivalent to many .38 Special loads, and you've designed, developed, and professionally documented a far wider variety of bullets and loads than anyone ever has, as far as I can tell: 148g WC, 150g LFP, 178g "Coke cans," 200's of several types, 135g GDHP...and those are only some of your very best!

From a standpoint of utility, my quest for understanding the Brit Mk 1 .38-200 would qualify me for nothing short of a rubber room and a funny white jacket that zips in the back! Just load 'er up with something that gives a comforting "bang!" and recoil, and shoot the heck out of it. Put bullets on target and fight to win. Stop theorizing and practice shooting. Simple. Ah, if only my brain worked that way! lolol

Someday I need to load up my truck with these classic old .38's, the buttload of vintage ammo I've assembled (buttload being an unofficial Army unit of measurement that's as handy as it is flexible), and get up to the old Outpost in West By God Virginia and burn out some gun barrels with you. Terrorize bunnies, rooks, milk jugs, and dent some chronographs....Your next article could be something like "When the Going Gets Tough, the .38 S&W Goes Cyclic."

[Outpost75]

A refresher on why the Brits picked the .38 S&W:

Prior to WW1 service pistol instruction in the British Army was one-handed, single-action slow fire. Shooting was conducted at 30 paces on 8-inch bullseye targets. Two-handed or double-action shooting were not taught. Rapid, continuous fire was expected only in an extreme emergency.

WW1 British Army practice was to arm officers and NCOs, as well as cooks, trumpeters, farriers, gunners, transport drivers, pilots, observers, engineers, and sappers with “pistols.” (Brits call all handguns “pistols,” and the term “revolver” was also commonly used to describe any handgun.)

Trench warfare spurred the development of “practical pistol shooting” as we know it today. Revolvers, Mill’s bombs, cutlasses, hatchets, and clubs were the preferred armament carried on trench raids. In 1916 Capt. C.D. Tracy and Capt. J.B.L. Noel produced the “Instructional Course for the Webley Pistol,” which emphasized instinctive point shooting with the objective for every soldier armed with a revolver to be able to accomplish “The War Shot” — hitting a 16” high x 12” wide steel plate at ten yards in one second.

Pistols were universally thought of as close-range weapons for fast encounters:

“The revolver is . . . a weapon for quick use at close quarters . . . looked upon more as a defensive weapon than an arm of precision . . . for delivering a knock-down blow within the limits of its normal short fighting range . . . used instinctively . . . aligned and discharged as a shotgun is used on moving game, rather than being consciously sighted . . . .”

Soldiers were taught to hold pistols with two hands only when engaging the enemy at distances beyond 20 yards, such as when firing at the charging Hun over a trench parapet, or when in “No Man’s Land” from the shelter of a shell crater, firing from a prone position. Otherwise WW1 British soldiers were taught a one-handed, stiff-armed position, intended to absorb recoil, pivoting the body as if a gun turret, and to thumb-cock the revolver as it is raised in a smooth motion after the draw, discharging the gun instinctively at the top of its vertical rise at the precise instant the sights came into alignment with the target, without dwelling upon sight picture.

The expectation was for a soldier to produce six hits on a man-sized silhouette at 15 yards in 12 seconds. By 1915 it began to be recognize that when threats presented at contact range to ten yards, as was common in clearing trenches and dugouts, double-action shooting began to be recognized as preferable. After trench warfare training an expert shot, firing double-action, was expected engage three targets, firing six shots in 3 seconds, engaging from near-contact to 10 yards, firing instinctively from the hip.

Training conditions were realistic. Elaborate trench systems with canvas houses featured moving targets which fleetingly appeared, advanced, and retreated, crossing quickly in front of the shooter or just popping up momentarily before vanishing. Instruction included ambidextrous firing around corners when moving through a trench, clearing a dugout or house room-by-room. Training emphasis stressed use of cover vs. mere concealment, to protect raiding parties from shells or enemy fire, exploiting wall corner beams, rubble piles, or shell craters. Two-handed shooting recommended beyond 20 yards, using aimed, precision fire out to 50 yards or more.

Common-sense instructions included advice such as:

• Keep track of the number of rounds fired and top off the revolver as frequently as possible.
• Never advance with fewer than 3 chambers loaded.
• When loading single rounds, load the chamber at 10:00 first, with the others to follow anti-clockwise, because the Webley (and Colt) cylinder rotates clockwise, the cartridge will be rotated into position straightaway.
• When unloading, to avoid a spent case being trapped under the extractor, always hold the pistol muzzle up or on its side when breaking it open.
• If in the heat of battle should a revolver run empty or become unserviceable, attempt to bluff the enemy,
• If the above fails, use the pistol as a bludgeon. Use the barrel to jab at the eyes or throat or use the front sight in a backhanded slash across the neck.
• The grip on the gun must never be relinquished, nor should the gun ever be held by the barrel to use it as a club!

(Indeed, there had been accounts of officers being shot after having experienced a misfire when they grasped the barrel for bludgeoning purposes, only to have the enemy grab the butt, and pull the trigger repeatedly until the weapon discharged).

Tracey’s Revolver Shooting in War (1916) describes these methods in detail.

Consider that by the mid-1920s the British Army was mostly a conscript force. Its career officer and NCO cadre having been decimated during the First World War. There was no longer the luxury of time to develop his competence in firing the heavy .455 revolver.

A lighter “pistol” (the Brits call all handguns “pistols”) of smaller caliber was sought.
Webley & Scott was then producing its Mark III, a 26 oz., top-break, simultaneous ejecting police revolver, in .380 Rimmed (.38 S&W). This was basically a scaled-down version of its Mk VI .455. Samples submitted to the British Army were tested on July 19th, 1921. The Army suggested changes to better adapt the civilian police revolver for military use. The modified Webley Mark IV submitted for testing in January, 1922, received favorable reports from the Small Arms School at Woolwich. The smaller .38 revolver was well liked for its lighter weight and reduced bulk, shorter barrel and mild recoil.

A .38 revolver was easier to train inexperienced, hastily trained troops to adequacy.

The Army concluded it was better to hit with a .38 than to miss with a .45, but asked that a cartridge loaded with “a heavier projectile of sufficient stopping power” be developed.

In the meantime the sample Webley & Scott Mk. IV revolvers were sent to the Small Arms School in March, 1924 and underwent trials from September 4th to 11th, 1924. These guns, one with a 6 inch barrel and one with a 5 inch barrel achieved 1 inch groups at 10 yards and 2 inch groups at 20 yards.

In Britain’s post WW1 financial austerity, the government chose not to pay Webley for its design. Webley sued for development costs, and years later received a token settlement, while the British Government severed its long relationship with the company. As fate would have it, RSAF Enfield wasn’t able to produce its No.2 Enfield revolver, a blatant Webley “knockoff”, in sufficient quantity, and the Webley & Scott firm received contracts from the British Government in 1942 to produce about 120,000 Mark IV revolvers which were issued to British and Commonwealth forces during the war.

Because the Webley's 1.3 inch length cylinder precluded using a longer cartridge (such as the .38 Special), Kynoch was approached to produce test ammunition loaded with blunt, 200-grain lead bullets propelled by 2.8 grains of "Neonite" nitro-cellulose flake powder in a case dimensionally identical to the commercial .38 S&W. The objective was to ensure that bullets tumbled predictably after having lost their gyroscopic stability during initial target penetration, thus improving their lethality. Despite low initial velocity, retained velocity was 570 feet per second at 50 yards, which was deemed adequate. The 200-grain cartridge was adopted as the .380/200 Mark 1 in 1929. Specifications were 625 fps +/– 25 fps from a 5-inch barrel.

Western Cartridge Company in the US followed Kynoch’s developments with great interest because a heavy-bullet .38 S&W cartridge providing an “improved knockdown blow” was being requested by police to dispatch heavily armed criminals. So, in 1929 Western introduced its .38 Super Police, a direct copy of the new British service round, loaded with a 200-grain, blunt, soft lead, hemispherical-nosed bullet loaded with 2.5 grains of Hercules Infallible (similar to modern Unique) producing 610 fps and 166 ft.-lbs., capable of penetrating four 7/8” pine boards.

In 1937, the British Army lead-bullet MkI cartridge was replaced by the 178-grain FMJ Mk2 cartridge, to comply with the 1899 Hague Declaration. Remaining MkI cartridges were expended for marksmanship training and civilian law enforcement purposes. The .380 Mk.IIz cartridge with 178-grain FMJ bullet is still loaded by Chartered Industries of Singapore, Fiocchi and the India Ordnance Factories. Postwar commercial production Webley Mk. IV revolvers remained in service with police in Britain, Jordan, Israel, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Australia into the 1980's, and may still be found in Iraq, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan.

239156239157239158239159239160

[LouisianaMan]

Outpost,
Thank you very much for this superb survey! I've read your articles of the past several years with great interest, but this digest is extremely useful as a "one-stop shopping" reference on this topic I hold so near and dear. I culled some great new info, to boot. Certainly, the British Army's thoughts on the combat use of revolvers by 1917-1918 remain worthy of consideration to this day, a century later. Anyone is his right mind today would greatly prefer to have Capt. Tracy on his side, rather than as an opponent in a handgun fight!

Questions: the British Army chose the slow 200g LRN with its tendency to tumble within the target, AND because they concluded this gun-ammunition combination would be readily controllable and adequately effective in the hands of hastily-trained conscripts. If I'm not mistaken, isn't your personal preference for a flat nose/large meplat and perhaps a bit more velocity? Since almost all surviving British military revolvers are regulated for the 178g Mk 2 FMJ load, I believe you prefer a 178-ish grain LFN to a 200g bullet, and your velocity preference is primarily a function of matching load to sights. Now, if the trajectory match weren't at issue, i.e. if ballistic performance and recoil management were your only concerns, would you prefer the 178g or the 200g? And why do you prefer the flat meplat and straight-line penetration over the tumbling hemispheric LRN?

Since I often carry 1-2 of these revolvers, in any combination of 2" and 4" barrels, I commonly 200g bullets in the snubs and 150-ish grain bullets in the 4" guns. The assumption is snub for instinctive shooting at extremely close ranges, thus trajectory and sights are non-issues; and a possibility of using the 4" gun for a longer shot that might profit from a close match between the load and my gunsights. In I framed snubs, I use slow, soft lead bullets which closely duplicate the Mk 1 hemispheric 200g load at about 575 fps over the chrony. In J frames, I typically load a harder cast 200g SWC at a true 600-640 fps (i.e. 640-675 from a 4" gun). I bump ("smush") the .28" meplat to about .32" before loading the bullets. Spare ammo is is loaded with 200g long-ogive hardcast LRN bullets whose profile somewhat resembles the Mk 2 178g bullet; they're loaded "slow" to tumble, and the long, tapered ogive provides ease of reloading. If that bullet is fast enough to stay nose-first, it'll pass through a target medium like an arrow and put very little of its energy to work inflicting much of a permanent crush cavity.

Thoughts on any or all of this are most welcome!

[Outpost75]

Outpost...Questions:

...If I'm not mistaken, isn't your personal preference for a flat nose/large meplat and perhaps a bit more velocity? Since almost all surviving British military revolvers are regulated for the 178g Mk 2 FMJ load, I believe you prefer a 178-ish grain LFN to a 200g bullet, and your velocity preference is primarily a function of matching load to sights. Now, if the trajectory match weren't at issue, i.e. if ballistic performance and recoil management were your only concerns, would you prefer the 178g or the 200g? And why do you prefer the flat meplat and straight-line penetration over the tumbling hemispheric LRN? ...Thoughts on any or all of this are most welcome!

I prefer the flat-nosed bullet which combines good crush with dependable through and through penetration. That way I can depend upon shot placement and knowledge of anatomy to do the job, instead of wondering in what direction a tumbling bullet might or might not take. Bullet weight is solely dependent upon what shoots best to the sights of the particular revolver.

239166239167

[9.3X62AL]

The 38/200 cartridge gets a lot of bad press from the tacticool mall ninja types, but those worthies don't seem willing to stand downrange and field the incoming bullets with baseball gloves in order to recycle the bullet metal.

I don't know whether or not the Lyman #358430 or the NEI #169A tumble after impact on live targets. I have shot a bunch of jackrabbits with both bullets, and started at 625-700 FPS both bullets exit with far more ragged wounding than I would expect to see from a RN bullet form exiting nose-first. Driven at 1100-1200 FPS, Lyman #358430 clearly runs straight-through, with exit wound characteristics that bear this out--and are far less ragged than those produced at lower velocity impacts. "What does it all mean, Mr. Natural?" It don't mean......jack.

Those heavier 38 bullets do produce a pretty solid impact on downrange iron. I have always noticed the "PA-TINK!" produced by my Lyman #358477 150 grain SWCs at 725-750 FPS at 25 yards (standard 38 S&W loading) vs. the "WHANG!" that results on the same targets when the 200 grain NEI #169A connects at 675-700 FPS. Lots more goes on with that heavier bullet. Net result? All of these calculations we use to quantify ballistic performance are lacking one or several elements of applicability for purposes of assessing a caliber--a bullet weight or form--or a weapon system used to keep one's frame unhit. Ya pays yer money and takes yer chances.

And NO, I won't be swapping out my Glock 23 for a Webley-Enfield as carjacker repellent.

[JoeJames]

Very interesting thread. Agree on the tacti-cool group, but I am hoping it is a generational thing and they will outgrow it. Quite tired of seeing nothing but black plastic pistols at local gun shows, row upon row, with very few older Smiths and Colts. I am mostly reloading cartridges developed before about 1908 - 32 S&W Long, 38 Special, and 44 Special. But upon reading this excellent thread y'all have gotten me thinking about Webleys and 38/200.

[Bigslug]

Louisianaman - I'm going to weigh in on your post #216 with a little bit more modern feedback.

I'm in the process of attempting to convince my agency to ditch the .40S&W in favor of 9mm. As such, I've been spending a lot of time picking through the current science on the topic. Most of that resulted from the FBI's '86 Miami shooting, and that's when they really started looking at the "Why?" of why some bad guys fell down and some didn't.

One of the things that's been largely debunked in this is the once-common notion of "knockdown" or "energy transfer". This is simple Newtonian equal/opposite reaction physics. If a handgun actually had the force to knock a man down on his backside, the recoil of the pistol would do the same to the man trying to shoot it.

We've also largely debunked hydrostatic effects from anything striking below 2000 fps. Below that speed, most human tissues are elastic enough to spring right back into shape, so all you really get from handguns is a bullet-diameter-sized permanent channel. At 600 fps there might be some yaw. . .some banana shape to the wound path. . .the bullet might swap ends 180 degrees and travel through the target backwards. . .but basically, you might get a .36 wide projectile travelling sideways briefly. A MKI bullet might, at times, present its .36" width x .812" length to the axis of the wound path, but there really isn't going to be any predictability to this.

Another concern I'd have with tumbling - does the bullet stay on line with what I'm shooting at? It would be darn inconvenient to line up a perfect heart shot through a sideways-presented torso, and have the bullet spin off line after encountering solid bone in the upper arm.

The major lesson we've learned since the Webley's heyday is that if you aren't causing bleed-out from major arteries or scrambling brains or upper spine, you aren't stopping the fight quickly, and that takes penetration to the Tootsie Roll Center.

So on this topic of tumbling - I don't WANT a projectile to be reliant on a lot of weird, "magic bullet" special effects. I want it to stay irrevocably on the line I launched it on, which hopefully I was skillful enough to make intersect with something important. If it happens to open up to 1.5x its original diameter with some nifty razor jacket petals on the way to being stopped by skin or clothing (or not) on the far side of the body, that's great, but I want that non-deviating penetration along the path I choose rather than the wobblings of random chance. To that end I would NOT select a bullet known to tumble, but would instead prefer something closer to the wadcutter profile that will tend to grab, tear, or crush tissue as far beyond it's basic diameter as possible. This will ensure not only maximum trauma, but maximum trauma on the line of sighting.

But at any rate, since I flat out don't believe the information on the 200 grain round nose MKI .38 bullet being a tumbler, I have just now elected to "pee on the electric fence for myself" and ordered a 4-cavity mold from NOE and these will be shot through a 1944 production Webley. I don't think we'll get more authentic than this. Don't know how long I'll be in getting around to it, but stand by to learn stuff!:mrgreen:

[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-gr-jhp-hydra-shok-federal-20-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.


239096239097239098239099
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.

239195239196239197239198

[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:

239205

[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:

239205

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"

239208239209239210

[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):

239244

239243

239245

239246

239247

239248

239249

239250

[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.

259906259907259908259909259910

[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...

259906259907259908259909

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/anniversary-ww2-air-crash-involving-boris-johnsons-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.)

259918 .38 S&W loads (L-R) RCBS Remington .35-200, @214g; GB 358430 clone, bumped; 358430 clone; Lee .358-158-SWC/TL

259919 #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

[Buckshot]

...............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

[smkummer]

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.

[Outpost75]

Sending you a PM.

[Bigslug]

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.:mrgreen:

[Outpost75]

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.

272255272256272257272258272259

272260272261272262272263

[LouisianaMan]

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.


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.:mrgreen:

[Bigslug]

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?

[LouisianaMan]

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!

[Bigslug]

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.:shock:

[9.3X62AL]

Some great reasoning and assessment going on in this thread. Nothing to really add or subtract, and I'm enjoying the discussion.