.38 S&W--letter to Underwood Ammo

[LouisianaMan]

Below is a note I just sent to Underwood about modern defense ammo recommendations for the .38 S&W/.38 Colt New Police cartridge. If you have similar opinions, I hope you'll contact Underwood and encourage them to manufacture something we can use!

"Hello and Happy New Year!

Do you have any plans to provide a defense load (or loads) in caliber .38 S&W? If not, I hope you'll consider adding one or more to your line.


Currently, only Buffalo Bore offers such a cartridge, in 125g LSWC with large meplat, and appropriately warns consumers NOT to use this ammunition in old top-break guns. Other manufacturers load 145-46g LRN at about 685 fps, typically even slower, to accommodate the old top-breaks (lowest common denominator).


Published manuals such as Speer 13, Lee 2nd, and Lyman 48th each list high performance loads in .38 S&W, attainable with canister powders. I personally have vintage Winchester ammunition that loaded a 150g LFP at a chronographed 770 fps from my 4" S&W Mod. 33-1. It was termed ".38 Colt New Police," but as you doubtless know, that designation was simply Colt's method of avoiding the use of ".38 S&W" rollmarks on their revolvers! The cartridges were identical.


Using the above-listed manuals and Ken Waters's famous "Pet Loads" as a guideline, I have gotten fine results from the following handloads, just to give you a glimpse of some possibilities. (Unfortunately, I have no ability to conduct pressure testing. All vels are 4" barrel. Snub 2" guns typically lose 60-90 fps.)
110g JHP @ 1000+
125g LRNFP @ 900-1000 (tel:900-1000)
130g LHP @ 900
***135g Speer GDHP @ 860-900
140g LSWC @ 800+
145g LSWCHP and LHP @ 850
148g LWC @ 900 (loaded "long")
150g LSWC @ 800
158g LSWC @ 750
200g LRN and LSWC @ 600-700, duplicating the old ".38 Super Police" load and its twin, the British service Mk1/1Z blunt nose, soft lead bullet, intended to destabilize and tumble soon after penetrating a soft target, plus deform easily to crush bone. (And they do!) The harder cast LSWC loaded between 650-700 gives massive penetration and crush cavity.


Other loads I have yet to test, but that comprise options worthy of your consideration:
--dual projectile 75g LWC @ 750
--110g LWC @ 1000+
--115g LPHP @ 1000+
--125g LWC @ 1000
--140g LWC @ 900+
--150g LSWC @ 800+
--158g LSWC @ 800
--173g LSWC @ 750


At the risk of giving you more information that you already know, the guns suitable for use with these loads are no longer manufactured, but exist by the tens or hundreds of thousands in great condition. These include the S&W Regulation Police/33-1, Terrier/32-1, Colt Banker's Special, Colt Police Positive. The 173g-200g loads @ 600-650 would also shoot to the sights of military surplus British Enfield and Webley revolvers, plus the widely available S&W Victory models. None of these guns were target guns, and they all predated the era of extraordinary round counts; they typically sat in nightstands and dresser drawers, and are mechanically in excellent consition,


The SAAMI pressure for .38 S&W is 13,000, just like the .44 S&W Special. You and Buffalo Bore both provide effective loads suitable for the Charter Bulldog, and much hotter .44 loads for sturdier guns. The .38 S&W is analogous, and it is only necessary to warn users of top-break pocket pistols to stick to standard 146g/685 fps ammo. The J frame S&W and D frame Colt models were commonly chambered for .38 Special; although I don't know that the .38 S&W guns were proof-tested to the same level, it is almost certain that they were, and are, easily capable of handling 17,000 like the standard velocity .38 Special.


Admittedly, no manufacturer currently chambers a handgun in .38 S&W, although an I frame Smith loaded with ammo as listed above would be a crackerjack concealed-carry gun! Great fit for small hands, markedly less bulky and weighty than a J frame, and could handle an effective cartridge with less recoil and blast than the current Airweight Smiths.


I realize that your ultimate consideration is marketability, and hopefully you'll find some options that will allow people to utilize their elderly, but totally sound guns. Ed McGivern carried a 4" Regulation Police and a 2" S&W top-break, and considered them handy, concealable, and hard-hitting. Hatcher also had kind words for the LFP Colt New Police ammo, and Ken Waters was impressed by the versatility of the cartridge.


Thanks for your time and consideration."

[Bigslug]

We had a discussion about this some months ago on a fun, rambling thread about the British .380/200.

My thought on the matter was that the .38 Short Colt might be a better way to explore this general concept with newer guns. Possibly with a name change or a slight length change to preclude use in old guns. Unlike the .38 S&W, the Short Colt uses the more common, same diameter slugs as the .38 Special and .357 Mag, and the round will fire out of guns so chambered. Even if dimensions remain the same, the Colt round is enough of an oddball/dinosaur to stand a good chance of avoiding the new-hot-round-in-old-guns issues of the .38 S&W.

And as long as we're lobbying, bring it out in an upscaled version of the Winchester 1890/1906/62A pump gun!

[Kosh75287]

The first step would be re-introducing the 200(ish) gr. tail-heavy pointed-nosed soft-leaded projectile at 650 f/s, since:
1.) It is a load with demonstrated stopping power.
2.) It is a load with demonstrated stopping power most likely to be achieved without exceeding SAAMI Maximum pressure.

But the projectile's configuration is critical. There's nothing magical about a run-of-the mill 200gr. projectile launched at 650 f/s. oe there would never have been a perceived need for the .38 Special +P . If it is not designed along the lines of the British .38/200 Mk. whatever projectile, nothing much is gained.

Crack THAT nut, first. THEN play around with other projectile weights and velocities.

[dtknowles]

I don't know what you want to shoot this ammo in but does not seem like a lot of guns would be appropriate hot .38 S&W. Hey, this is a cast bullet site, cast your own, maybe hollow points and crank up the load for what you think the gun could handle.

I always thought a compact revolver in .38 Super might be a good ticket or if you wanted to use moon clips 9x23

Tim

[LouisianaMan]

We had a discussion about this some months ago on a fun, rambling thread about the British .380/200.

My thought on the matter was that the .38 Short Colt might be a better way to explore this general concept with newer guns. Possibly with a name change or a slight length change to preclude use in old guns. Unlike the .38 S&W, the Short Colt uses the more common, same diameter slugs as the .38 Special and .357 Mag, and the round will fire out of guns so chambered. Even if dimensions remain the same, the Colt round is enough of an oddball/dinosaur to stand a good chance of avoiding the new-hot-round-in-old-guns issues of the .38 S&W.

And as long as we're lobbying, bring it out in an upscaled version of the Winchester 1890/1906/62A pump gun!

Those are great points and certainly would ease the logistics involved with the more common and current .38 SPL revolvers. Unless one kept the case short, however, it would be impossible to have a compact cylinder and frame like the Smith I frame. Tomorrow I will check my notes and "admit" what I once cranked up a .38 Short Colt cartridge to do!!! It was, well, a bit ambitious! As you say, though, the case could be lengthened slightly with the benefits you noted, plus the extra capacity....

Interesting point on bullet diameters:
I've measured a few of my S&W's and they seem to run a .359" groove diameter, and do fine with .358-.362 bullets. They actually do great with .357" jacketed bullets, too, but with my Lee dies and Starline brass I can't get good neck tension. Could probably squeeze it slightly with a .38 SPL die, but I find it easy enough to use nickel-plated .38 S&W brass, which has the slight additional thickness necessary to give good neck tension.

Discounting the old-fashioned top-breaks, which aren't appropriate for anything but light factory fare, here's the real "rub" I've found on bullet diameters. Colt guns that I've owned or used have always had tighter chambers than the Smiths and groove diameters about .354". Perhaps the chamber is merely cut shorter, so SWC and long-loaded WC's that fit my Smiths perfectly won't chamber in the Colts. (Not in the Indian Rugers, either, based on the 9mmP as they were, but they're quite scarce.) I don't have a Colt to check with right now, but a standard length WC, i.e. seated just beyond the case mouth, would probably fit. Notably, the flatpoints on vintage .38 Colt New Police ammo had a meplat of only .20-.22" and almost a truncated cone slope to the ogive, and that was doubtless to accommodate the "tighter" Colt chambers.

Indeed, that factor would be crucial in any potential .38 S&W/.38 Colt NP ammo a manufacturer might wish to provide today. The bullet would either have to be short, or have something less than a sharp, full-caliber shoulder, to chamber in the old Colts. I've found that LRNFP 125g or 158g bullets do fine, as do most LRN's (loaded to 1.17"; the original military 1.24" blunt LRN would not chamber reliably). More on that below....

[LouisianaMan]

The first step would be re-introducing the 200(ish) gr. tail-heavy pointed-nosed soft-leaded projectile at 650 f/s, since:
1.) It is a load with demonstrated stopping power.
2.) It is a load with demonstrated stopping power most likely to be achieved without exceeding SAAMI Maximum pressure.

But the projectile's configuration is critical. There's nothing magical about a run-of-the mill 200gr. projectile launched at 650 f/s. oe there would never have been a perceived need for the .38 Special +P . If it is not designed along the lines of the British .38/200 Mk. whatever projectile, nothing much is gained.

Crack THAT nut, first. THEN play around with other projectile weights and velocities.

Do you mean ones like these?

http://i872.photobucket.com/albums/ab287/batonrougeman/Indian%20Ruger%20and%20Heavy%20Bullets/th_image.jpg55.jpg (http://s872.photobucket.com/user/batonrougeman/media/Indian%20Ruger%20and%20Heavy%20Bullets/image.jpg55.jpg.html)

Matt (Happy7) makes them commercially (see http://www.mattsbullets.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=72&products_id=283); since he also loads the original blunt, 200g LRN Mk 1 bullet (see http://mattsbullets.com/ammunition/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2&products_id=4), he might be willing to load up the long-ogive bullet, too.

The original British (Mk 1 or 1Z, which had same bullet but different propellants) was the very blunt one, The Brits replaced it before WWII with a 178g FMJ bullet, whose long, skinny ogive resembles the shape of the long 200g bullet in my photo.

Both of those bullets were designed to operate at 590-625 fps, at which velocity they would tumble violently and quickly after penetrating a soft target. My unscientific observation is that the violent tumbling and high momentum gave these bullets both enhanced "permanent crush cavity" and the necessary momentum to penetrate deeply in soft targets. Much higher velocity, and the tumbling effect was nullified or occurred too late to do much good.

I've seen various references to the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of these ammunition types, but nothing scientific. ****Would very much welcome anything you have!*** One shooter on this forum and on CBA loads the long 200g lead bullet up to about 700 and finds it deadly on big jacks, and sees exit wounds that evidence tumbling. This bullet is the NEI 169A, or its NOE clone. I have no reason to doubt that it performs well, but haven't seen evidence about targets larger than big jacks.

BTW, I've also used a 200g LFP RCBS .35-200 rifle bullet designed for the .35 Remington, and it penetrates to beat the band! Straight as an arrow, decent meplat. Its high BC seems to give it an extremely high trajectory, though, in my relatively limited tests.
.35-200 on far left; 358430 195g clone "smushed" (2nd); unaltered 358430 clone loaded long (3rd); Lee TL 358-158-SWC loaded long (4th).

http://i872.photobucket.com/albums/ab287/batonrougeman/Indian%20Ruger%20and%20Heavy%20Bullets/th_image.jpg16.jpg (http://s872.photobucket.com/user/batonrougeman/media/Indian%20Ruger%20and%20Heavy%20Bullets/image.jpg16.jpg.html)

In sum, I think that the Mk1 blunt LRN clone, the 358430/clone, and the NEI 169A/clone all show a high likelihood of tumbling IF velocities are kept low to allow quick destabilization after target penetration. The RCBS .35-200 penetrates forever and has a good meplat. A plain 200g LRN shaped like a bigger version of the old police standard 158g LRN is unlikely to tumble; its sole advantages would be deep penetration and a higher capacity to smash heavy bone structure than the 158g LRN, but the other options discussed will do all that, plus tumble violently.

Again, would greatly welcome whatever you may have as far as proven stopping power.

[LouisianaMan]

I don't know what you want to shoot this ammo in but does not seem like a lot of guns would be appropriate hot .38 S&W. Hey, this is a cast bullet site, cast your own, maybe hollow points and crank up the load for what you think the gun could handle.

I always thought a compact revolver in .38 Super might be a good ticket or if you wanted to use moon clips 9x23

Tim

Actually, I do. I cast and load the Lyman 358430 clone, NEI 169A clone, British Mk 1 clone, and a NOE 200g SWC. Used to do the RCBS .35-200-LFP as well. That's just the heavy bullets. Take a look at original post to see some others I load. Quite a few, with many more on the "to do" list.

My thought is twofold:
1. Not everybody can do this for themselves.
2. If used as carry loads, many people are more comfortable carrying factory ammo. (Don't want to hash that issue out here, just mention it because it's a major concern for many.)

Guns are actually plentiful: Victory models, S&W I and especially J frames in 4" and 2", and Colt Police Positives and Banker's Specials. Also MILSURP Enfields and Webleys. As I mentioned before, the loads I'm discussing aren't suitable for the old American top-breaks of weak latch design and often uncertain quality and condition.

[Tackleberry41]

Yes there are some who would love for the 'oddball' calibers to be sold in self defense loads. But how much market demand is there for 38 S&W self defense ammo for a company like Underwood to put the effort into developing a load for? And you pointed out a huge reason they wont, the old guns running around. A safe load for the old guns would make it not much of a self defense load. And the minute they make a decent 'hot' self defense load, we all know somebody will stuff it in an old break top with expected results.

I can almost see Underwoods answer now "Why not just use a 38 spcl, we sell self defense loads for those, but thank you for the interest".

[Bigslug]

The trick to all of this is to determine a cylinder length that offers real overall gun size advantages over your typical .38 Special and design the round & gun to suit. If the gun is too close to what we already have with J, K, and L-frame family guns, all we really have is an oddball that doesn't do anything you can't do with a Special or Magnum. I.O.W., a sales dud.

Hollowpoints will most likely be senseless with this round. While an ultra-heavy wadcutter is a likely choice, a WFN with some tapering that can be loaded quickly is probably more in line with the intended market target.

I don't know jack about how the guns originally chambered in the .38 SC were built. The main consideration would be if their chambers had a shoulder (which would allow us to increase the length of our hypothetical new version just a tiny bit to prevent chambering in the dinosaurs) or if they were bored straight through (which wouldn't).

Three main attractions I see to doing this:

1. Downsized guns and grip frames for the CCW or for little people. I think this is where ALL of the marketability is going to lie, the rest are just niches.

2. A slow, heavy bullet from a full case has a lot of accuracy potential. Short cylnders with long barrels and target sights could be a new Bullseye match craze.

3. The round could be used as something like a gallery load in existing Specials and Magnums - mainly for people who don't handload (as there's no magic in watering those down), or don't own a .22.

Personally, I'd like to see the industry revisit the top-break concept. Something like a Webley mechanism, but with an ambidextrous method of opening that's sturdier than the flexible rear sight approach. Main problem I see on a snubby is not having enough of a lever to crack it open. Hmmmm...

[Outpost75]

Velocity Comparisons Webley & Scott .380 Mark IV vs. .38 Colt New Police Positive

Ammunition:_____________Webley Mark IV____________Colt Police Positive
Fiocchi 146-grain LRN factory load____750 fps, 19 Sd__________794 fps, 14 Sd
Accurate 36-125T, 2.7 grs. Bullseye___761 fps, 10 Sd__________803 fps, 10 Sd
“ “ “, 3.0 grs. Bullseye______________837 fps, 16 Sd _________883 fps, 9 Sd
Accurate 155D-146-gr.HP 3.0 Bullseye___794 fps, 15 Sd_______852 fps, 12 Sd
Accurate 36-155D, 2.1 grs. Bullseye_____640 fps, 8 Sd________671 fps, 11 Sd
“ “ “, 2.5 grs. Bullseye_________________710 fps, 16 Sd_______756 fps, 11 Sd
Accurate 36-178D, 2.1 grs. Bullseye_____595 fps, 10 Sd_______601 fps, 18 Sd
Accurate 36-201D, 2.1 grs. Bullseye_____601 fps, 12 Sd_______612 fps, 20 Sd
NOE 201-grain Mk2, 2.1 grs. Bullseye____609 fps, 12 Sd_______629, fps 15 Sd

[Kosh75287]

Okay, I missed the part about the 200gr. projectile having best performance in the 590 - 620 f/s window. That's even better, since it's more likely the manufacturers can achieve the lower velocities without exceeding SAAMI Max specs. An inverted 150(ish) grain .361" HBWC at a somewhat higher velocity might also be well received.

[LouisianaMan]

Okay, I missed the part about the 200gr. projectile having best performance in the 590 - 620 f/s window. That's even better, since it's more likely the manufacturers can achieve the lower velocities without exceeding SAAMI Max specs. An inverted 150(ish) grain .361" HBWC at a somewhat higher velocity might also be well received.

That 200 @ 600+/- was known as the ".38 Super Police" load, and it was essentially a duplicate of the British Mk 1, aka .380/200. The British design had a COL of 1.240", and I've got American-made Super Police rounds that are 1.170" (Winchester) and 1.240" (Western). I've chronographed the former at about 600+, have not yet fired the latter. (That's coming soon, as a thread on .38 S&W/.38 Colt NP vintage ammo. I've gathered about 20 boxes or partial boxes of the vintage ammo, and will document and publish how they do.)

I don't know the pressure of this round in its US form, but suspect that the "For Police Use" markings were to scare away civilian owners of weak, old breaktop postols. Just a guess.

I know that many loaded a hollow-based WC backwards in .38 SPL as an "instant hollow point," and see no reason why that can't be done with the .38 S&W.

Outpost75 has worked up a good LHP design from Accurate Molds, and GTBullets offers a very nice LSWCHP and LHP component bullet that run 145-50g, depending on whether you coordinate with them to get a soft, heavy alloy. I've loaded the LSWCHP to 824 fps and obtained a nicely mushroomed .61" bullet in jug 3 or 4. (Will look up in notes and also take pics.) I need to load the LHP a bit hotter to get it to expand fully--more on that later. Both it and Outpost's Accurate 155D-146 HP have rounded ogives that allow easy chambering in Colts and Rugers.

Maybe Outpost has expansion & penetration info on his bullet? At 852 fps from his Colt, I imagine expansion is positive. I have some of his bullets loaded over Win231 that I hope to finally shoot and document soon.

[Outpost75]

The Accurate 36-155D as hollow-pointed by Erik at www.hollowpointmold.com runs 146 grains in 1:30 alloy. With 3 grains of Bullseye velocity from my 4" Colt compares to the X38SPD Winchester .38 Spl. +P load fired from a 2" snub and performance is similar, expansion to .50" or better with 20-24" water jug penetration.

The 36-201D ogival wadcutter is shown at right converted by Erik to a 185-grain "Ash Can" hollow-point and gives 630 fps with 2.1 grains of Bullseye.

184429184431

Accurate 37-125T shown above left originally intended in .366" for the 9mm Makarov, was ordered by me in .360 diameter for the .38 S&W. When similarly hollow-pointed and run in soft 1:30 alloy weighs 115-grains. With 3 grains of Bullseye velocity from a 4" BARREL is 895 fps, with expansion to 0.60"+ with 20" of water jug penetration.

[Tackleberry41]

I never understood why the break top concept simply died, that was it, abandoned nobody ever tried it again. Yea back in those days it was a bit lacking, but with todays materials could probably work.

The old S&W in 32 short is a handy little gun, just rather anemic with the pressure limit. I was at the shop yesterday, 2 women in there looking at something new. The woman had a 38 snubnose, but wanted something smaller. But they really dont make a wheel gun nowadays smaller than the 38, except those little 22lr, theres the 327 mag, but its just so they can squeeze an extra round in a 5 shot 38 cyl, the pistol itself is the same size. The woman was having issues with an autoloader as many do. Seems like the market screams for a reborn S&W break top in a new hotter 32 w some good hollow points.

[LouisianaMan]

The Accurate 36-155D as hollow-pointed by Erik at www.hollowpointmold.com (http://www.hollowpointmold.com) runs 146 grains in 1:30 alloy. With 3 grains of Bullseye velocity from my 4" Colt compares to the X38SPD Winchester .38 Spl. +P load fired from a 2" snub and performance is similar, expansion to .50" or better with 20-24" water jug penetration.

Accurate 37-125T originally intended in .366" for the 9mm Makarov, was ordered by me in .360 diameter for the .38 S&W.
When similarly hollow-pointed and run in soft 1:30 alloy weighs 115-grains. With 3 grains of Bullseye velocity from a 4" BARREL is 895 fps, with expansion to 0.60"+ with 20" of water jug penetration.

Outpost,
Man, that was a blitz-fast response! Highly encouraging, too, as so many light JHP's in various calibers can't make it into jug #3 (18"), much less #4 (24"). Those look like promising options, most certainly. I also have work to do with GTBullets 130g LHP, which tumbled at low 800's through water but will blossom as it approaches 900 fps.

I can't wait to see how your Accurate Molds LHP does in my Smiths over 3.0g W231. With their larger groove diameter, I expect velocity will drop 30-50 fps compared to your Colt. That may or may not drop below a speed that expands reliably, although it should be simple to boost a 145g back to the necessary 850-ish.

[LouisianaMan]

I never understood why the break top concept simply died, that was it, abandoned nobody ever tried it again. Yea back in those days it was a bit lacking, but with todays materials could probably work.

The old S&W in 32 short is a handy little gun, just rather anemic with the pressure limit. I was at the shop yesterday, 2 women in there looking at something new. The woman had a 38 snubnose, but wanted something smaller. But they really dont make a wheel gun nowadays smaller than the 38, except those little 22lr, theres the 327 mag, but its just so they can squeeze an extra round in a 5 shot 38 cyl, the pistol itself is the same size. The woman was having issues with an autoloader as many do. Seems like the market screams for a reborn S&W break top in a new hotter 32 w some good hollow points.

That's exactly the niche once filled by the S&W I frame .38, which was built on their .32 frame for the reasons you describe.

[rintinglen]

Taurus advertised a 380 revolver, but I have yet to see one. That is the only snubby I know of that is currently made for something other than 38 Special length cylinders.

I wouldn't mind seeing the I frame revisited, but truthfully, the sub-compact market is saturated with 380's and 9 mm's. I don't think you'd see enough of a market for sales to warrant tooling up for manufacture. of course, I never thought we'd see a five shot 44 special GP 100 either.

[LouisianaMan]

Taurus advertised a 380 revolver, but I have yet to see one. That is the only snubby I know of that is currently made for something other than 38 Special length cylinders.

I wouldn't mind seeing the I frame revisited, but truthfully, the sub-compact market is saturated with 380's and 9 mm's. I don't think you'd see enough of a market for sales to warrant tooling up for manufacture. of course, I never thought we'd see a five shot 44 special GP 100 either.

I'm not necessarily optimistic, but I've been told "No" before and survived :-))) Your point about the Taurus is a good one--the .38 S&W, properly loaded, would be a great fit for that gun. Heck, if somebody would manufacture a 148g WC @ 700+, it would beat anything in .380 solids, and of course they're notorious for being unable to get much JHP expansion from the pocket guns. And no need for fancy ejector apparatus for a rimless cartridge.

The modern .38 SPL Airweights are great guns, not necessarily well-served with the best commercial ammo offerings, and also big enough to cause some difficulty in pocket concealment. They are, most significantly, punishing to shoot for most people, especially ladies who at first are attracted to its handiness and lightness.

A new steel or alloy I frame S&W could equal or (easily) better the weight of the current Airweight line, while being significantly less bulky in every dimension. With proper ammo selection, a ".38 S&W+P New Terrier" could be more effective than a .380, but more tolerable for most shooters than a .38 SPL.

Especially when used with slim grips, the gun can do a disappearing act for CCW.

http://i872.photobucket.com/albums/ab287/batonrougeman/th_IMG_1314.jpeg (http://s872.photobucket.com/user/batonrougeman/media/IMG_1314.jpeg.html)

[bouncer50]

I can recall old wars story on the Webley 38 stopping power. In the battle with Germany in the winter with the heavy under garment and heavy wool coats. They were all most bullet prove against the S&W 38. Strange as it sounds i can believe some are true story.

[LouisianaMan]

I can recall old wars story on the Webley 38 stopping power. In the battle with Germany in the winter with the heavy under garment and heavy wool coats. They were all most bullet prove against the S&W 38. Strange as it sounds i can believe some are true story.

That's a war story that I both debunked and proved...if you can believe that!

First, here's what Mk 2Z 178g FMJ of modern manufacture can actually do (see post #27)
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/defensive-ammunition-ballistics/98025-38-s-w-200g-bullets-penetration-tests-2.html

No problems drilling through multi-layers of overcoat and blowing up water jugs galore, drilling into pine trees from 50+ yards, etc.

HOWEVER...the British top-break Enfields and Webleys are rather loosely dimensioned, and in every test I've done with (at least two) Enfields, the velocity was well below solid frame Smiths or Colts or Rugers of every sort. Reliable reports exist of the damning results of "tolerance stacking," in which bullets lodged in the bore, barely made it out the barrel, etc. Loose chambers, excessive barrel cylinder gap, groove diameter just right (actually "just wrong"), ammo tolerances likewise stacking up, with a low-velocity *jacketed* bullet...and disaster could and did strike. I've fired this 178g FMJ ball ammo made by CIS (Singapore) through several revolvers and was actually impressed with its tendency to tumble violently and tear up water jugs.

If the Brits had stuck with the Mk 1 200g bottle-nosed lead bullet originally adopted, there would have been no such drastic, utter failures. The thick bullet jacket of the Mk 2 changed the equation, and major problems occurred. My own attempts, while not definitive, convince me that such problems would not occur with Victory model revolvers made by S&W, but the Enfield and Webley revolvers were a different story.

Actually, in a strong solid-frame revolver, the old Mk 2 FMJ ammo would not be a bad choice for the kind of defensive ammo I'm talking about. Its tumbling effect is dramatic: the "poor man's hollowpoint," I call it. Permanent crush cavity is far superior to normal ball ammo, and overpenetration would typically be a non-issue.

BTW, I'm having fits attaching photos from Photobucket. Can somebody get me back on track?

http://s872.photobucket.com/component/Download-File?file=%2Falbums%2Fab287%2Fbatonrougeman%2Fimag e-116.jpg

[Piedmont]

The subject of the 200 gr. RN .38 bullet has always intrigued me. It seems odd that no one to my knowledge used the same idea in .44 and .45 calibers. Perhaps a 280 grain .44 and a 300 grain .45. Does anyone have any idea why this wasn't attempted? Some individual experimenter must have done it.

[LouisianaMan]

The subject of the 200 gr. RN .38 bullet has always intrigued me. It seems odd that no one to my knowledge used the same idea in .44 and .45 calibers. Perhaps a 280 grain .44 and a 300 grain .45. Does anyone have any idea why this wasn't attempted? Some individual experimenter must have done it.

Hi Piedmont!
Good question. Just a guess, but here goes: with the development of the .44-40 (1873?) and its hard-hitting 200g LFP bullet, the problems of the weaker Henry and sundry other .44's were solved satisfactorily. The subsequent .44 Russian/Special family of cartridges started with a 246g LRN at low vel. Slow as they were, they apparently were satisfactory enough for a "slow-heavy" alternative to the sharper .44-40, at least until Elmer came along.

The British development of the .38/200--or perhaps the idea originated in the US and was borrowed by the Brits--resulted from the unique circumstances that led the Brits to select the .380 Webley revolver's short cylinder as the basis of their new service weapon, and *subsequently* try to beef up the cartridge to give it suitable "stopping power." The weapon was essentially selected before suitable ammunition was developed.

I know the British Army wound up shooting cadavers and animals to test "stopping power," as had the 1904 US Army Thompson-LaGarde tests. Unfortunately, I have never found anyone who can locate any documentation of this testing. The board's subsequent declaration that the .38/200 had stopping power essentially equal to the .455 Webley has been the source of much puzzlement, apparently on both sides of the Atlantic. The British Army's testing very specifically determined that the .38/200 bullet tended to yaw radically and even tumble after penetrating a soft target, so they apparently found something about that specific aspect of its performance to lead them to conclude that equivalent damage was done to more or less equal the .455.

In any event, the specific .38/200 situation arose from a predetermination that they were going to find a way to fit a quart into a very specific pint pot, in order to meet low-end expectations of a close combat arm for hastily trained wartime conscripts. Neither the .44 Special nor .44-40 was ever found lacking badly enough to demand any such solution, at least until EK decided to use it for hunting and wound up developing the .44 Magnum.

PS: I imagine the general .44 rationale applied to .45 Long Colt and .45 Schofield, as they were both powerful enough for their purpose to begin with. Going from memory, I believe the Schofield cartridge was adopted by the Army to allow use of the new S&W Schofield's weaker, but adequate, cartridge in the already adopted, more powerful 1873 Colt Army. Again, they found that less was more, or at least enough!

[Piedmont]

Yeah, I guess it was diminishing returns on recoil with the .44 and .45. The army was happy with the Schofield cartridge, so they were going the other direction on power. A little known fact is the .45 ACP was a step up in power from what they had been using in a .45.

[LouisianaMan]

184521

Retro ammo shoot coming soon! I'll chronograph this ammo through 4" and 2" guns, and we'll see "what was what." I have to do some sorting, and I'm sure some of it won't fire, but nonetheless should be a fun project to document.

[Rattlesnake Charlie]

184521

Retro ammo shoot coming soon! I'll chronograph this ammo through 4" and 2" guns, and we'll see "what was what." I have to do some sorting, and I'm sure some of it won't fire, but nonetheless should be a fun project to document.

From the condition of those boxes, I would expect almost all of them to fire. I started shooting in the late 1960's with a wooden box of mixed ammo from my great-grandfather. He was sheriff of Ford County, KS, during WWI. Most of that ammo fired just fine. Some of it smoked. Now I know that I fired unopened boxes of ammo that is currently collector stuff. Many pheasants fell to my Winchester M12 in 16 ga with a solid barrel that had Nickle Steel on it using Star brand shotshells of #4 shot. Boxes marked UMC? Red Head Reliance, DN Oval, and more. I do have many of the empties. And the memories.

[LouisianaMan]

From the condition of those boxes, I would expect almost all of them to fire. I started shooting in the late 1960's with a wooden box of mixed ammo from my great-grandfather. He was sheriff of Ford County, KS, during WWI. Most of that ammo fired just fine. Some of it smoked. Now I know that I fired unopened boxes of ammo that is currently collector stuff. Many pheasants fell to my Winchester M12 in 16 ga with a solid barrel that had Nickle Steel on it using Star brand shotshells of #4 shot. Boxes marked UMC? Red Head Reliance, DN Oval, and more. I do have many of the empties. And the memories.

Yes, I think most will fire just fine, although a box of Winchester "Staynless" (not pictured) looked great, but had dud primers. I've pulled down those rounds and will reassemble them with Bullseye, the original (?) type of propellant used. Of course it will invalidate that ammo for purposes of historical accuracy, but it'll still be fun to shoot! I recall reading somewhere that early non-mercuric primers were short-lived and "shelf life challenged," so perhaps that's the case with this Staynless ammo.

I'll save some of each type, but I'm a shooter, not a collector, so want to make this stuff go "bang!" I'm the same way with guns--I won't buy one and not shoot it. After all, I buy it because I *want* to work out with it and see how it does :-)

With all that said, let me add this: Americans are free to have their hobbies, and pursue them however they wish. I have absolutely no problem with folks who want to buy, shine up, and display immaculate guns and ammo, "safe queens." If that's what makes them happy, I'm all for it. I say, "to each his own."

As you said, you fired some vintage ammo and have your memories and some mementos. Works for me, too.

Matter of fact, my pic shows almost 1000 reloadable brass cases (inside the boxes), and I fully intend to use them as such :-))) I'll use them for target or standard power loads, and load my warmer handload recipes and experiments in Starline brass--which seems indestructible!

[FergusonTO35]

I think the .38 S&W is a dandy cartridge for a small revolver, as long as the ammo actually performs as it is supposed to. I carry the equivalent in my S&W 637: 150 grain Lyman full wadcutter over 3.1 grains Bullseye for a chrono'd 712 fps. This is actually going faster than most 158 grain lead factory loads do out of a snubby. The ammo is easy to shoot, accurate, and the sharp shouldered wadcutter packs a pretty good wallop for it's size. I see no reason why the same performance couldn't be safely achieved with the .38 S&W.

[LouisianaMan]

I think the .38 S&W is a dandy cartridge for a small revolver, as long as the ammo actually performs as it is supposed to. I carry the equivalent in my S&W 637: 150 grain Lyman full wadcutter over 3.1 grains Bullseye for a chrono'd 712 fps. This is actually going faster than most 158 grain lead factory loads do out of a snubby. The ammo is easy to shoot, accurate, and the sharp shouldered wadcutter packs a pretty good wallop for it's size. I see no reason why the same performance couldn't be safely achieved with the .38 S&W.

Indeed, Speer 13 provides recipes for .38 S&W 148g hardcast wadcutter at 797 fps from a 4" gun, which should give 725-750 from a snub.

I have a light practice load of 2.0g of VV N310 that gives almost exactly 750 from a 4" and 700 from a snub with a 148g hardcast WC. Pleasant, consistent, accurate.

[Earlwb]

That's a war story that I both debunked and proved...if you can believe that!

First, here's what Mk 2Z 178g FMJ of modern manufacture can actually do (see post #27)
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/defensive-ammunition-ballistics/98025-38-s-w-200g-bullets-penetration-tests-2.html

No problems drilling through multi-layers of overcoat and blowing up water jugs galore, drilling into pine trees from 50+ yards, etc.

HOWEVER...the British top-break Enfields and Webleys are rather loosely dimensioned, and in every test I've done with (at least two) Enfields, the velocity was well below solid frame Smiths or Colts or Rugers of every sort. Reliable reports exist of the damning results of "tolerance stacking," in which bullets lodged in the bore, barely made it out the barrel, etc. Loose chambers, excessive barrel cylinder gap, groove diameter just right (actually "just wrong"), ammo tolerances likewise stacking up, with a low-velocity *jacketed* bullet...and disaster could and did strike. I've fired this 178g FMJ ball ammo made by CIS (Singapore) through several revolvers and was actually impressed with its tendency to tumble violently and tear up water jugs.

If the Brits had stuck with the Mk 1 200g bottle-nosed lead bullet originally adopted, there would have been no such drastic, utter failures. The thick bullet jacket of the Mk 2 changed the equation, and major problems occurred. My own attempts, while not definitive, convince me that such problems would not occur with Victory model revolvers made by S&W, but the Enfield and Webley revolvers were a different story.

Actually, in a strong solid-frame revolver, the old Mk 2 FMJ ammo would not be a bad choice for the kind of defensive ammo I'm talking about. Its tumbling effect is dramatic: the "poor man's hollowpoint," I call it. Permanent crush cavity is far superior to normal ball ammo, and overpenetration would typically be a non-issue.

BTW, I'm having fits attaching photos from Photobucket. Can somebody get me back on track?

http://s872.photobucket.com/component/Download-File?file=%2Falbums%2Fab287%2Fbatonrougeman%2Fimag e-116.jpg

I doubted that a heavy coat would stop the bullet or slow it down much if any too. But this had me wondering if the colder temperatures had something to do with affecting the ability to penetrate a heavy coat or not. They typically wore the coats when it was really cold outside. Then the cold may affect how well the cartridge works too. If it was really cold say, under -10 degrees F, would that have affected the outcome any? If the coat had been wet and frozen up some too maybe. The colder temperatures could have resulted in a squib load effect.

[LouisianaMan]

Earlwb,
Once you get into the realm of ammo malfunction, literally anything is possible. If tolerance stacking is already a design problem in the gun-ammo combination, any added alterations such as reduced velocity due to cold, could make things that much worse. I know that ammo that is left in the sunshine can develop excessive pressure, ammo fired in higher ambient temps has a higher vel, and vice versa. Winter of 1944-45 was worst in a century or so in NW Europe, so plenty of opportunities for the Brits' ammo to get cold and suffer velocity loss. At what point that occurs, and how bad it gets, I don't know. Obviously German and Russian ammo functioned on the Eastern Front....

[Earlwb]

You are correct LousianaMan.

That for some odd reason reminded me of a story I read years ago. A notorious criminal was fleeing from the Newhall shootout in California and was trying to hijack a get away vehicle.

It was the story number eight mentioned in this article here: http://listverse.com/2009/10/14/top-10-most-audacious-shootouts-in-us-history
when one of the criminals got into a gunfight with a camper in a RV park. The camper fired a 38 S&W round though the door and hit the guy, but it was decelerated by the door and didn't do much but piss the criminal off. Years ago there was a big write up about it.

[LouisianaMan]

That story is also in Mas Ayoob's "Files" book. Definitely caught my attention! I remember the description of the camper's gun as a "war relic." lol

Of course, a Webley or Enfield loaded with 145-46g ammo loaded specifically to NOT blow up an 1875 pocket pistol isn't exactly "Magnum Force," is it?

[FergusonTO35]

Therein lies the main problem with this cartridge. Nearly all of the factory ammo is watered down so as not to blow up the many decaying relics chambered in it. Likewise, the guns themselves are all over the place in terms of chamber dimensions, barrel-cylinder gap, and bore size. All this adds up to lousy performance from the average .38 S&W gun and ammo.

[LouisianaMan]

And that's why I've addressed my discussion to sound, solid-frame guns like the Smith I & J frames, Victory models, and Colt Police Positives/Specials and Banker's Specials. (And the few Indian contract Rugers.) Buffalo Bore has already shown it can be done with their 125g LSWC @ 1000.

Needless to say, the BB box carries warnings against its use in breaktop models besides Enfields and Webleys in sound condition. Another technique often used by that company (and numerous others) is to declare a product "+P" when there is no such established standard under SAAMI, while also posting written warnings on the box and/or labeling.

The only further hurdle is to account for the practical difference in chamber dimensions used by Smith & Colt in modern-era guns. What that boils down to in concrete terms is loading the cartridge "short," such as a wadcutter seated at the bullet's crimp groove, or by using a slightly tapered LFP, RNFP, or truncated cone design. A bullet with concave or even hollow base allows still further margin for reducing the bullet's diameter, while providing a base that will expand into a Smith's more spacious rifling and thereby ensure accuracy. So will a plain based bullet of soft alloy.

I've pulled down a vintage Winchester 200g .38 S&W load designed to accomplish exactly that. The bullet is of .356" dimension, concave based, and made of soft alloy. It chambers and fires readily in the tighter .354-.356" Colts and .355" Rugers, while the concave base provides a Minié ball quality allowing expansion upon firing into the .359" groove diameter of a solid frame Smith.

In other words, manufacturers of the 1940s-1950s knew how to use 1850's technology to answer the need quite nicely. As long as you rule out the old breaktops, the challenge is handily met.

I haven't yet pulled down a cartridge from a recently acquired box of vintage Western .38 Super Police 200g ammo, but expect to see some variation of the techniques outlined above once I do.

Many LBT-style bullets also would be great candidates for such ammo, with an extremely broad meplat slightly radiused on the leading edge. It will chamber correctly in a Colt, and still serve well in a Smith. Forum member Outpost75 did something quite similar with multiple designs he had custom made by Accurate Molds. His post #13 illustrates the concept quite nicely with a heavyweight LHP design.

[Outpost75]

Louisiana Man,

I'm anxious to see what velocities you get from the various vintage .38 S&W ammos in your tests. I've managed to accumulate a smaller number of samples to run parallel comparisons from 2" S&W 32-1, 4" Colt New Police and 4" Webley & Scott Mark IV.

I have the following:

WW2-era WRA Co. .38 S&W 146-grain LRN, plain lead bullet, nickeled case and primer with blue primer lacquer
186613

1960s-era Remington-Bridgeport 146-grain LRN, mint green and white box with red lettering, plain lead bullet, nickeled case and primer.
186614

FN, Mk2z 178-grain FMJ
186618

Fiocchi Made In Italy white box 146 LRN
186615

Current production W-W 146 LRN in silver-gray box
186620

Current production R-P 146 LRN in olive green and yellow box.
186616

After confirming factory load benchmarks, I will test handloads in the 2" gun previously chronographed in the two 4" guns and shoot some water jugs with Mk2Z and the LRNs with the noses clipped off to flat nose, and determine what charge is needed with Accurate 36-151H to approximate the velocity of the Fiocchi factory load, which gave highest velocity previously in the 4" guns. OAL of the new bullet is 1.18" in .38 S&W brass, and my thought is to test 2.5 grains of Bullseye with the 151H, as this was fairly well established in previous testing of 36-155D to be close to a factory duplication load.

Depending upon velocity test results I might cautiously increase a bit above the 2.5 grains of Bullseye in the S&W 32-1, based upon the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook 4th Edition data for the .38 Special with 146-grain DEWC at same Ctg. OAL, perhaps up to 2.7-3.0 grs. of Bullseye for a "full charge" load ~800 fps in strong, 4" revolver like the postwar Israeli police model Webley & Scott MkIV, and let it go where it does in the S&W 2-incher.

With luck I may find some more vintage ammo yard sales this spring, but those I have should confirm for us what we need to know...

[LouisianaMan]

Outpost,
Good Lord willin' and the creek don't rise, this week I'll measure and photograph the ammo in the Vintage Ammo Supply Point (VASP), which has now reached approx. 25 boxes, plus a number of CIS and FN Mk 2Z, plus nearly full boxes of 4-5 current production types.

I'll photograph the VASP first, then open up and measure and photograph the contents. Some of the GB auction boxes mix the nominal ammo brand and type with other vintage brands, so I'll figure out some way to account for all that as appropriately as I can. I'll post those photos and info first.

Then it's chrony time, with a bit of cooperation from a nearby indoor range, which I need to partially light in order to get more reliable chrony readings than I experienced there before. Since I can't shoot prone supported, my "groups" will be more like patterns, but I've rationalized that away as subject to so many variables as to be barely relevant to the tests. I think the primary value of the project will be simply to see what vels the old stuff was actually loaded to.

One of the most interesting aspects, to me, will be head-to-head comparisons of the same brand & vintage, in their respective .38 S&W and .38 Colt New Police guises.

I've kicked around which guns to use, and finally decided to try the following concept, limiting myself to 5 shots per gun, per ammo type. So while statisticians might look down their noses at n=5, I believe it will show velocity levels to a useful degree. And to the extent that vels vary based on assembly tolerances or condition of individual guns, I accept the results as fair indication of the spreads experienced by individual shooters in any case. In case of chrony malfunction, I'll decide on the spot how to ration the available ammo.

1. I frame Regulation Police (4") and Terrier (2")
2. Modified I frame Regulation Police and matching Terrier
3. Select one of my two sets of J frame RP (33-1) and Terrier (32-1). Will limit set 2 to some odds and ends shooting just for fun.
4. I'll shoot the two brands of military Mk 2Z ammo through a 5" Victory and a Ruger Indian contract Speed-Six 2 3/4". They'll also be tested with the nearest equivalent to Mk 1 ammo I have, which is two brands of commercially loaded 200g .38 Super Police.
5. A half-interest in a box of Matt's Bullets 180g LHP will be carefully husbanded across a Terrier, Regulation Police, Victory, and Ruger.
6. Unfortunately I have no Colts to use in testing, as their smaller dimensions invariably result in higher velocities than the Smiths.

The two .38 break-tops I have will get photographed, but do no shooting! Well, maybe the cut-down S&W snub I'm having a Fairbairn/Sykes style brass shotgun bead mounted on this week will get just a little work with current tame stuff!

I'll try to upload partial results and updates as I go, because 900-1000 rounds of the stuff will take some shooting! Regrettably, my outdoor shooting "facilities" have dried up, and even the nearest outdoor range has been closed in a land use dispute.

And as a kicker, I've got 200 handloaded rounds made up with four different bullet types you provided me in the fall, all over charges of Win 231.

Although I have a bunch of grip adapters, I don't have enough to go around, so have decided to stick to original grips for all shooting, rather than trying to swap out adapters non-stop.

So that's the plan! More to follow soon.

[GONRA]

GONRA's sez - Outpost75's comparative test plans REALLY look good!
Not everyone has all these "sample ammos" to test!

[Outpost75]

Louisiana Man and I are in communication and will share and compile data. I've sent him bullets from my molds for him to test in his revolvers for sanity check. Have also done so with a couple other regulars on this forum.

If anybody else has well proven .38 S&W revolvers they have experience with who can test and provide accuracy and chronograph data against factory or other loads you have confidence in, I can cast bullets and send to you, provide guidance on load data if requested, and we can all post results here.

Water jug penetration tests especially welcome. How does that sound?

[LouisianaMan]

Outpost,
I look forward to you getting to take a crack at all that with your new-to-you, practically mint Terrier Mod. 32-1. Should be a lot of fun! I think there's a good chance it'll find its way into favor as a carry gun from time to time, whenever you wish to save a little size and weight over your trusty Colts.

You owe it to yourself to shoot some water jugs with unmodified Mk. 2Z if you haven't done so before, as its low velocity from a 2" Smith almost guarantees it will tumble to beat the band! Jugs 2 and possibly 1 and 3 will get a particularly rough ride, as the bullet will probably lose stability as it traverses #1 or just after entering #2. It's liable to come out of #3 at any height, either side, at any angle, and with enough force to penetrate another jug or two. I found it best to shoot the middle column of jugs, with "catch" columns on left and right starting with jug #3, as the bullet will likely come wilding out of #3! I now have FN ammo to shoot for the first time, too, as well as the CIS which has previously given me the results I've described.

This will be a fun and interesting addition to our ongoing projects!

[ddixie884]

ttt,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[BunkTheory]

https://john1911.com/9mm-federal/

Then i have read about people using 38 sw cases to make their own 9mm federal.

Then i have read about folks on here who have discovered that 38 special and 357 magnum chambers at max dimensions CAN take a 38 sw cartridge.

And that has lead to the follow up question of the 38 sw was a stop gap revolver in ww2. And the guns made for it really were only made for it because the British wanted it.

[Outpost75]

https://john1911.com/9mm-federal/

Then i have read about people using 38 sw cases to make their own 9mm federal.

Then i have read about folks on here who have discovered that 38 special and 357 magnum chambers at max dimensions CAN take a 38 sw cartridge.

And that has lead to the follow up question of the 38 sw was a stop gap revolver in ww2. And the guns made for it really were only made for it because the British wanted it.

I was told by Roy Jenks at S&W that in 1939 the company had received a million dollar advance from the British government to develop a semi-automatic 9mm carbine, which was an abject failure. The Brits wanted their money back, but S&W had already spent it. So a deal was struck to produce the 5-inch barrel Victory revolvers in .380-200 to pay the debt and the rest is history.

Fast-forward to 1980, the Government of India wanted new police revolvers, because their old Webleys were wearing out. They wanted them to be chambered for the .380 Mk2 service cartridge, because the India Ordnance factories were not tooled to produce .38 Special and they wanted to utilize existing ample stores of .380 Mk2 ammunition. So Ruger produced the India Model Police Service Six revolvers. Additional quantities were produced for export to civilian police organizations throughout the British Commonwealth, notably the RUC in Northern Ireland, London Metropolitan Police, New Zealand and Australia.

The Ruger India model is the strongest revolver ever produced for the .38 S&W cartridge and lends itself to "adventurous experimentation."

[BunkTheory]

I was told by Roy Jenks at S&W that in 1939 the company had received a million dollar advance from the British government to develop a semi-automatic 9mm carbine, which was an abject failure.
The Brits wanted their money back, but S&W had already spent it. So a deal was struck to produce the 5-inch barrel Victory revolvers in .380-200 to pay the debt and the rest is history.

Fast-forward to 1980, the Government of India wanted new police revolvers, because their old Webleys were wearing out. They wanted them to be chambered for the .380 Mk2 service cartridge, because the India Ordnance factories were not tooled to produce .38 Special and they wanted to utilize existing ample stores of .380 Mk2 ammunition. So Ruger produced the India Model Police Service Six revolvers. Additional quantities were produced for export to civilian police organizations throughout the British Commonwealth, notably the RUC in Northern Ireland, London Metropolitan Police, New Zealand and Australia. The Ruger India model is the strongest revolver ever produced for the .38 S&W cartridge and lends itself to "adventurous experimentation."

They made GP-100s in 38 sw for india as well from what i have seen on Gunbroker over the years. Issue is its virtually impossible to get one now. And what company wants to devote time and money and production space to making ammunition for a gun that has perhaps, 1000 in the USA market that COULD buy their ammo?

[Outpost75]

They made GP-100s in 38 sw for india as well from what i have seen on Gunbroker over the years. Issue is its virtually impossible to get one now. And what company wants to devote time and money and production space to making ammunition for a gun that has perhaps, 1000 in the USA market that COULD buy their ammo?

I am aware of export SP101s made in .38 S&W, but not GP100s. Interesting.

The .38 S&W cartridge and revolvers chambered for it are more common and popular than you might believe. Still very popular outside the US and all the major ammo manufacturers still make it. They wouldn't continue to do so if there wasn't demand. Lots of these guns remain hiding in sock drawers. I frequently come across them in estate sales and they usually go cheap. Light recoil, accurate, energy approximates .38 wadcutter.

Not your first choice for defense, but great around the farm, especially when handloaded with 148 HBWC and 2.7 grains of Bullseye at 1.20" OAL to approximate .38 Special wadcutter velocity. Also a logical choice to restore old British black powder action rook rifles to service, which I have had done. Very accurate and little louder than an air rifle, doesn't need a "can."

287202
287199287200287201

[BunkTheory]

I am aware of export SP101s made in .38 S&W, but not GP100s. Interesting.

The .38 S&W cartridge and revolvers chambered for it are more common and popular than you might believe. Still very popular outside the US and all the major ammo manufacturers still make it. They wouldn't continue to do so if there wasn't demand. Lots of these guns remain hiding in sock drawers. I frequently come across them in estate sales and they usually go cheap. Light recoil, accurate, energy approximates .38 wadcutter.

Not your first choice for defense, but great around the farm, especially when handloaded with 148 HBWC and 2.7 grains of Bullseye at 1.20" OAL to approximate .38 Special wadcutter velocity. Also a logical choice to restore old British black powder action rook rifles to service, which I have had done. Very accurate and little louder than an air rifle, doesn't need a "can."

287202
287199287200287201

Saw a few GP-100s in 38 sw on gun broker few years ago. They had the genuine police markings and had actual documentation on them from factory to police unit to bring back to america. The person selling wanted 1k$ for each.

There is NOTHING wrong with the cartridge. Its nifty but it has been supplanted by the 38 special.

There are several different qualities of guns, solid frame, break open like sw, break open like webley/enfield, and then the low quality copies of everything else.