RepackboxInline FabricationMidSouth Shooters SupplyLoad Data
Reloading EverythingLee PrecisionTitan ReloadingWideners
RotoMetals2
Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 294

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

  1. #41
    Boolit Grand Master FergusonTO35's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Boonesborough, KY
    Posts
    6,925
    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.
    Currently casting and loading: .32 Auto, .380 Auto, .38 Special, 9X19, .357 Magnum, .257 Roberts, 6.5 Creedmoor, .30 WCF, .308 WCF, .45-70.

  2. #42
    Moderator Emeritus robertbank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Terrace, B.C. Canada
    Posts
    5,245
    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.
    Its been months since I bought the book, "How to scam people online". It still has not arrived yet!

    "If the human population held hands around the equator, a significant portion of them would drown"

  3. #43
    Boolit Grand Master
    9.3X62AL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Redlands, NorKifornia
    Posts
    11,551
    Quote Originally Posted by FergusonTO35 View Post
    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.
    I don't paint bullets. I like Black Rifle Coffee. Sacred cows are always fair game. California is to the United States what Syria is to Russia and North Korea is to China/South Korea/Japan--a Hermit Kingdom detached from the real world and led by delusional maniacs, an economic and social basket case sustained by "foreign" aid so as to not lose military bases.

  4. #44
    Boolit Buddy LouisianaMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    366
    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
    Last edited by LouisianaMan; 05-17-2014 at 07:18 PM.

  5. #45
    Boolit Buddy



    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NE Texas
    Posts
    245
    Great post LouisianaMan...

    rick

  6. #46
    Boolit Buddy LouisianaMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    366
    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."

  7. #47
    Moderator Emeritus robertbank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Terrace, B.C. Canada
    Posts
    5,245
    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




    Its been months since I bought the book, "How to scam people online". It still has not arrived yet!

    "If the human population held hands around the equator, a significant portion of them would drown"

  8. #48
    Boolit Buddy LouisianaMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    366
    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.
    Last edited by LouisianaMan; 05-18-2014 at 01:05 PM.

  9. #49
    Boolit Grand Master Char-Gar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Deep South Texas
    Posts
    12,820
    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.
    Disclaimer: The above is not holy writ. It is just my opinion based on my experience and knowledge. Your mileage may vary.

  10. #50
    Boolit Buddy LouisianaMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    366
    Char-Gar,
    I agree completely!

  11. #51
    Boolit Grand Master FergusonTO35's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Boonesborough, KY
    Posts
    6,925
    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.
    Currently casting and loading: .32 Auto, .380 Auto, .38 Special, 9X19, .357 Magnum, .257 Roberts, 6.5 Creedmoor, .30 WCF, .308 WCF, .45-70.

  12. #52
    Moderator Emeritus robertbank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Terrace, B.C. Canada
    Posts
    5,245
    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
    Its been months since I bought the book, "How to scam people online". It still has not arrived yet!

    "If the human population held hands around the equator, a significant portion of them would drown"

  13. #53
    Boolit Grand Master
    9.3X62AL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Redlands, NorKifornia
    Posts
    11,551
    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.
    I don't paint bullets. I like Black Rifle Coffee. Sacred cows are always fair game. California is to the United States what Syria is to Russia and North Korea is to China/South Korea/Japan--a Hermit Kingdom detached from the real world and led by delusional maniacs, an economic and social basket case sustained by "foreign" aid so as to not lose military bases.

  14. #54
    Boolit Grand Master FergusonTO35's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Boonesborough, KY
    Posts
    6,925
    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!
    Currently casting and loading: .32 Auto, .380 Auto, .38 Special, 9X19, .357 Magnum, .257 Roberts, 6.5 Creedmoor, .30 WCF, .308 WCF, .45-70.

  15. #55
    Boolit Buddy LouisianaMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    366
    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.

  16. #56
    Boolit Grand Master FergusonTO35's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Boonesborough, KY
    Posts
    6,925
    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.
    Currently casting and loading: .32 Auto, .380 Auto, .38 Special, 9X19, .357 Magnum, .257 Roberts, 6.5 Creedmoor, .30 WCF, .308 WCF, .45-70.

  17. #57
    Boolit Grand Master Char-Gar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Deep South Texas
    Posts
    12,820
    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.
    Disclaimer: The above is not holy writ. It is just my opinion based on my experience and knowledge. Your mileage may vary.

  18. #58
    Boolit Buddy LouisianaMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    366
    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.

  19. #59
    Boolit Grand Master Outpost75's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    over the hill, out in the woods and far away
    Posts
    10,158
    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+

    Attachment 147117Attachment 147118Attachment 147119Attachment 147120
    The ENEMY is listening.
    HE wants to know what YOU know.
    Keep it to yourself.

  20. #60
    Boolit Buddy LouisianaMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    366
    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!

Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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

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