.38 S&W--letter to Underwood Ammo

[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]

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]

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/...n-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/componen...Fimage-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-...-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
Attachment 186613

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

FN, Mk2z 178-grain FMJ
Attachment 186618

Fiocchi Made In Italy white box 146 LRN
Attachment 186615

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

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