.38 S&W penetration test, 200g bullets

[LouisianaMan]

Many of you have heard of the report attributed to a British sergeant, who stated that the weak .380/200 FMJ ammo wouldn't even penetrate a German greatcoat. Well, after thinking briefly about that claim, I concluded it was either an exaggeration or a case of a near-squib load. Who ever heard of any service bullet that can't penetrate a coat?

Today I shot some CIS-manufactured 178g Mk. 2Z ball ammo from my Mod. 33-1 S&W 4", and it zipped thru three layers of an overcoat, a gallon jug of water, and hammered into the pine tree from which the coat & milk jug were suspended. On the first try, the water caused the bullet to tumble, but it still embedded itself about an inch into the tree--sideways, undistorted.

An additional test saw the bullet drill straight through 3x coat layers, the jug, and drive straight into the tree, much deeper; since the wood closed in behind the bullet, I couldn't measure the depth of penetration. My steel probe couldn't find it. A Colt Police Positive Special 4" bbl. in caliber .38 S&W had the same results. Ditto for another bullet fired from the 33-1 thru three layers of overcoat, w/o a water jug--straight into the trunk, too deep to find. Tomorrow I'll try to find them with a drill.

I've seen a report elsewhere by a former member of the Royal Hong Kong Police, who stated that he shot much of the Mk. 2Z ammo in the 1960s, and many bullets barely made it out of the barrel. (I'll find the link & include it in my upcoming range report.) Clearly, that's a manufacturing flaw in the ammo and is not any true reflection of the caliber's inherent capability. I believe that the "German greatcoat" story stems from the same cause: bad manufacturing, not bad design per se.

More follows soon about a variety of other .38 S&W tests conducted today, as well as photos of today's "Greatcoat Test." I'll also chronograph the 2Z ammo I'm shooting, to compare to British Army specs.

[LouisianaMan]

Just a short report tonight from the battlefront, as your correspondent is busy catching up on both shooting and writing at this time. More to follow soon on yesterday's shoot!

LOAD: CIS .380 Rimmed, Mk. 2Z ball ammo, 178g FMJ

GUN: S&W Mod. 33-1, 4" bbl.

CHRONO RESULTS (10 rds.), temp. 80 degrees: LO 618.1; HI 656.4; AVG: 641.1; ES: 38.29; SD: 13.49. Completely consistent with 600-650 fps velocities listed for British ammo. Quite consistent. Absolutely no barrel fouling.

POI at 50 feet, off chair/sandbags, sitting on ground: +5 3/4", R 2 1/2". First two rds. off paper (high); adjusted POA to bottom of cross, resulting in 8/8 hits in 2 1/4" group. 7 of the 8 went into 1 1/4".

ADDITIONAL "GREATCOAT TESTING":

1. Shot #1 @ 15', chrono'ed at 604.1 fps: went thru approximately 12-16 layers of wool coat plus multiple linings, cracked open milk jug behind the coat. Bullet fell out of coat upon examination, and the density of folds made it impossible to accurately determine the bullet's path. (It makes a small hole in the wool, and tends to practically seal up.) Bottom line: poorly-designed test shot, but it did show that if you rolled your overcoat up into a tight roll about 12"H x 18"W x 18"D, the bullet wouldn't get through In the photo, the uppermost cartridge case & bullet are from this shot. Bullet is undeformed, and neatly fits into fired case.

2. Shot #2, chrono'ed at 632.2 fps: went through 8 layers of wool coat fabric, 8 layers of synthetic coat lining, 4 water-filled milk jugs, lightly dented stop board and rebounded into jug #4. The holes ripped in the milk jugs indicated the bullet was nose-first entering jug #1, tumbling as it exited jug #1 and thereafter. I read somewhere that the water:gelatin ratio for bullet penetration is approximately 2:1. If that's correct, this shot would have penetrated 12" of gelatin (9" while tumbling), plus 8 plastic layers of milk jugs (7 while tumbling), AFTER passing through 16 layers of coat/lining. The bullet path was generally straight, deviating only slightly while traversing the jugs more or less through the center. Appropriately, this coat was marked "Made in England"! In the photo, the lower cartridge case & bullet are from this shot. Bullet is undeformed, and neatly fits into fired case.

I guess opinions may differ as to the desirability of having a pistol bullet tumble within its target, as tumbling may generally cause the bullet to veer unpredictably. If it was originally on track to hit vitals, it might miss. On the other hand, if it was originally on track to miss vitals, it might veer into a vital part. But the way Shot #2 acted, it provided both a straight track & lots of tumbling; plenty of penetration against unarmored targets, with presumably a wicked wound channel. This would also tend to reduce overpenetration & get lots of "target effects" before possibly exiting the target.

I will provide more shot analysis from yesterday's shoot ASAP. I'll close now with the observation that it's high time to put the infamous "German Greatcoat Story" to rest. Obviously, it was a case of faulty ammo. BTW, the only BIB I've ever experienced was in a S&W M-1917, shooting WWII surplus .45 ACP ball ammo. That didn't lead me to argue that the .45 was a "weak sister."

[pmeisel]

Fine write up, LM!

[Multigunner]

When handloading for an officers model target .38 Special many years ago, the local shop ran out of small pistol primers so I gave small rifle primers a try. The pistol had a very slick action, I'm sure it had been honed for target work and the hammer fall was fairly light.
I was using 160 gr half jacket bullets.
Accuracy was good, but the bullets did not seem to have full velocity, then one shot hit the dirt just below the target stand at 25 yards, with very little velocity.
I luckily checked the gun before firing again and found an empty half jacket sticking halfway out of the muzzle.

I figure the harder cup of the small rifle primer coupled with light hammer fall gave a greatly reduced ignition flash. Probably less than one grain of 3.5 gr of Bulleye had burned.

British pistol ammo normally used flake cordite similar in composition to Bulleye, so it should take a stout primer flash to ignite properly.
If the casehead has the Z, that would denote some other propellant though. While single base powder was used along with double base for the US .45 ACP I don't have any information on the SB used.

Some POF Duds I took apart had degraded cordite, the primer had apparently at least partially ignited, but the cordite strands were just melted on the bottom end, these would barely burn if lit with a lighter, sputtering and going out.

The thing that degrades cordite worst is heat over 125 degrees for any length of time, and that level of heat can be reached in a few hours of tropical sun on an exposed ammo crate or ammo left in an enclosed vehicle or cargo compartment.
A pamplet on RAF munnitions stated that ammo cases left in the sun on India's Northwest frontier reached 160 degrees at mid day.
If the cartridge contains an over the charge wad exuded nitroglycerin will soak into the wad if it is not glazed.
The POF rounds had a dark brown laquer like material around the card wad. I suspect exuded nitro had bubbled past the wad and mixed with sealants to form is gunk.

Anyway defective ammo is a not uncommon problem, especially pistol ammo carried for a long time before use, or stored in uncontrolled conditions.
Single base powders usually "went sour" due to humidity.

PS
The Russian Great Coat at one time had inside pockets intended for thin titanium plates to be inserted as a minimal body armor. Titanium ores are not as rare in Russia as in the US or most of Europe, so they made greater use of it when possible.
Bullet resistent silk vests had been around since before WW1, and would probabbly stop a .38 S&W at any distance. These vests were good for low velocities, about 500 fps or less.
The Japanese had several types of body armor in WW2 that could shrug off a low velocity lead slug, and could stop a FMJ .45 ACP at a distance.

I have a feeling that some tales of the ineffectiveness of the M1 Carbine in Korea may have been due to concealed body armor under the quilted uniform coats, possibly captured Japanese body armor from WW2.
Some US troop in our Civil War wore steel vests that could stop a mine' ball at longer ranges and pistol fire that close range.
A politician of our state in the 1800's after receiving death threats wore a steel breatplate under his coat and carried two rifles over his shoulders as he walked to his office every week day.

[9.3X62AL]

LA Man--

I concur with your findings and opinions concerning the performance of the 178-200 grain boolits in the 38 S&W. I'm sure as hell NOT going to stand downrange with a fielder's glove and try catching them while Buckshot sends them my way. No matter how ya cut it, 200 grains of dense heavy metal moving at 2 football fields per second is not going to do its recipient any good.

I think a lot of shooters have the idea that every shot fired should be a hit, and every hit scored should be a "bang-flop". Any result short of this is a disappointment and comes to be viewed as a failure of the caliber.

Reality--at last count, 91% of the rounds fired by the personnel at my old agency did not hit their targets. OK, that's a problem, and a large one. Goblins tend to stay standing and keep shooting when they go unhit. I suspect that most of the members here shoot at least as well as our personnel, and many likely shoot a whole lot better. A good thing, that. But as training regimens have emphasized for over 20 years now, don't fire one round and admire your work--no, anyone who chooses to project lethal force in your direction is worth shooting, and anyone worth shooting is worth shooting repeatedly until the concept is fully transmitted and received. YOU FIRE UNTIL THE THREAT NO LONGER PRESENTS ITSELF. You shoot to stop the threat. The question of kill vs. disable is both moot and irrelevant, the idea is to survive the exchange of finality.

Caliber wars tend to dominate discussions of this nature, and a subtext to those poetics are bullet performance and construction. A wonderful diversion for Mall Ninjas and Facklerites, but those of us that limit ourselves to real-world preparation need to keep things a lot less esoteric. Like this--

Any gun is better than no gun if someone is projecting lethality in your direction.

A rifle or shotgun is better than a handgun for stopping bad guys. Artillery is better yet, but portability is an issue. Too much of a good thing, perhaps.

There are no such things as too much velocity--too much bullet diameter--or too much bullet weight when lives are on the line.

[Multigunner]

Heres a free PDF download of a study on body armor of the early 20th century.
http://books.google.com/books?id=6Oe...um=2&ct=result

Some of this stuff was pretty effective, though heavy.

I also ran across a US Navy study on Japanese body armor including results of testing of a US made copy.
The manganese alloy the Japanese used was superior to that used by the US and allies.

Also the Russians fielded a breastplate that would stop 9mm from the MP40, its not unlikely that a few captured breastplates were carried back by German troops and worn under their coats.

[Bret4207]

LA Man--

I concur with your findings and opinions concerning the performance of the 178-200 grain boolits in the 38 S&W. I'm sure as hell NOT going to stand downrange with a fielder's glove and try catching them while Buckshot sends them my way. No matter how ya cut it, 200 grains of dense heavy metal moving at 2 football fields per second is not going to do its recipient any good.

I think a lot of shooters have the idea that every shot fired should be a hit, and every hit scored should be a "bang-flop". Any result short of this is a disappointment and comes to be viewed as a failure of the caliber.

Reality--at last count, 91% of the rounds fired by the personnel at my old agency did not hit their targets. OK, that's a problem, and a large one. Goblins tend to stay standing and keep shooting when they go unhit. I suspect that most of the members here shoot at least as well as our personnel, and many likely shoot a whole lot better. A good thing, that. But as training regimens have emphasized for over 20 years now, don't fire one round and admire your work--no, anyone who chooses to project lethal force in your direction is worth shooting, and anyone worth shooting is worth shooting repeatedly until the concept is fully transmitted and received. YOU FIRE UNTIL THE THREAT NO LONGER PRESENTS ITSELF. You shoot to stop the threat. The question of kill vs. disable is both moot and irrelevant, the idea is to survive the exchange of finality.

Caliber wars tend to dominate discussions of this nature, and a subtext to those poetics are bullet performance and construction. A wonderful diversion for Mall Ninjas and Facklerites, but those of us that limit ourselves to real-world preparation need to keep things a lot less esoteric. Like this--

Any gun is better than no gun if someone is projecting lethality in your direction.

A rifle or shotgun is better than a handgun for stopping bad guys. Artillery is better yet, but portability is an issue. Too much of a good thing, perhaps.

There are no such things as too much velocity--too much bullet diameter--or too much bullet weight when lives are on the line.

Silly Allen, trying to inject common sense into a discussion again.....

[LouisianaMan]

Does anybody have access to Textbook of Small Arms 1929, a British publication that evidently has good info about the original British Army .380/200g cartridge?

It was just recommended to me by Ian Skennerton, author of "The Book" on the .380 Enfield revolver.

[LouisianaMan]

Well, that's not the solution. . . .
See a quotation of the minimal info about the .380/200 contained in the Textbook of Small Arms, 1929, as provided to me by someone on another forum. Oh well, the search for info continues.
.380/200 bullet - British Military Handguns - Old Guns - British Militaria Forums - Message Board Yuku

[BarryinIN]

I just want to thank you for sharing your findings thus far. I bought a Webley a little over a year ago, and have found any commentary on loading the 38 S&W to be pretty scarce.

The history of the cartridge, in that revolver especially, had me planning to do penetration tests. As it turned out, I had other work to do first.
It wouldn't hit the broad side of a barn with the first ammo tried.
I couldn't test penetration if I couldn't hit the penetration medium.

The gun was fine - nice bore, tight lockup. I had dug out a box of Winchester 38 S&W ammo with a 146 grain RN bullet I had bought three years ago for a S&W model 33 I traded off before shooting. At 50 feet, I got a 9.5" 6-shot group.
Great.

This was right when I was getting started into casting, so I didn't have any .38 cal bullets of my own. I did have some gunshow, no-name, unknown mould, "hard cast" .38 caliber 158 SWCs. A trial load of those bullets over 2.0 grains of Bullseye sent five rounds into 2", with me yanking one out into 4.5".
I had hope now.

I returned a week later with the same bullets over a slightly heavier charge of Bullseye and another load with Unique. This should do it.
The BE load ran 713 fps, and made a 6" group with four oval holes and two with bullet-shaped profiles. The Unique load made a slightly better group of 4.5" but all holes were bullet-shaped ragged things where all six had tumbled through the paper.
My hope faded.

And that's where things stayed for a while. I really wanted a Lyman 358430 mould, but couldn't find a used one for a reasonable price (holy cow, they bring a lot). I didn't want to spend the money on a new one since I didn't really have any other plans for it other than this little fun exercise.

Then I spotted the NOE 360-180 WFN moulds. That was something I had a use for in guns other than the old Webley, so I got one. It wasn't a 200 grain, or a RN, but was a relatively heavy bullet with a big blunt nose on it, so what the heck. I'm using it without the gas check.

I haven't done much with it yet thanks to other projects, but have tried about a dozen loads. So far, all the bullets have struck nose-first. Actually, the accuracy has been pretty good with some loads, hovering around 2".

Thanks to the tiny amount of data out there, I'm working up slowly. Velocities are not very impressive yet. The highest averaged 789 fps, but most are lucky to get much over 600 fps. Baby steps.

I have this odd desire to shoot it in an IDPA match, so should meet the power factor (bullet weight times velocity equalling 125,000). I need 694 fps to do that. I have what appears to be a good shooting load that makes that with some room to spare, but hope to try a lot more.
BTW- K-frame speedloaders work with .38 Webleys, just in case anytone might ever need to know.

I hope to get the frame/box started soon to hold ziploc bags of water that I intend to use as a test medium. I am curious to see if the flat noses of the WFNs track straighter than the big RN. You never know until you try.

[LouisianaMan]

Barry,
Welcome to the "club," such as it is

Interesting to see the experiences you've had. Have you slugged your barrel to see if the groove diameter is the issue? Likewise, how about the diameter of your bullets? If bullets are at or above groove diameter--or often even a tad less than groove diameter--they should stabilize, I would think, regardless of the powder used.

I first heard of the box you mention a couple of weeks ago by "Revolvergeek." He called it a "Fackler Box," presumably after Dr. Martin Fackler.

I presume you're getting good elevation results with your 180g bullet as the Webley .380s were generally built for use with the 178 FMJ bullet, or reconditioned to that standard.

My own tests show that LFNs track straight, whereas LRNs don't do so for very long. It will be interesting to see if your results are the same or different.

Happy shooting, and thanks for sharing.

[BarryinIN]

I meant to mention bore diameter. The bore slugged at .358. Two cylinder throats were .358 and four were .359.
The gunshow bullets were .358.
My bullets from the 360-180WFN are sized to .359.

I'd say the diameter made the difference, but the first two loads with the .358 gunshow bullets did fine. The later ones did not. My suspicion is that the small case makes it sensitive to small changes in the load.
I found this when working with the .32-20: Everything would be developing fine and then a couple tenths change in the powder charge would cause shotgun patterns.

Yes, the 180s do hit to point of aim.

[meadams314]

If we can confirm my hypotheses, then it's time for more testing. Who out there has a Colt revolver in this caliber & would like to do some testing? How about Enfield or Webley? "Pointy" Remington (or other?) bullets? An S&W .38SPL snubbie?

I recently inherited an Enfield No. 2 Mk 1** after my grandfather passed.. I've got 2 boxes of 38/200 british lead ammo on backorder, once I find a suitable spot to test, i'll gladly do a penetration test and post my results..

Or better yet, if anybody on here happens to be in the Amarillo, Texas area and has access to some form of bone I can shoot.. contact me and we'll do some more realistic testing.

[LouisianaMan]

meadams314--good luck on getting your ammo & doing some test shoots!

Since I wrote last, I've come into a Police Positive Special in .38 S&W--a former Royal Hong Kong Police issue revolver. Now reblued and with some replica Colt grips, it's ready for some testing. Since its chambers are tighter than my S&W's, I've "smushed" some RCBS 35-200's (about 214-15g as-cast) into a flatter point, and the long, sloped ogive allows it to chamber in the Colt. Will load up some over the next few days & try to test-fire this weekend.

Also have some "donated" 195g "pointy" LRNs I need to load & shoot--I forget the mold number offhand, but the bullet is shaped far more like the conventional 158g LRN than the blunt 358430s I've shot so far. In fact, it's so streamlined that it resembles the 178g FMJ military round. Since the latter tumbles shortly after impact, maybe the lead bullet will, too.

[Oyeboten]

Well...some while back I finally got an old 'LYMAN' 358 430 Mold.


I began Casting, and made up a couple Dozen Boolits.

They seem to weigh around 200 Grains, and to be right on about .360 in Diameter.






In my case, I am interested to use these for .38 Special.


The only .38 S&W Revolvers I have, are a 3rd Model 'Iver Johnson' Factory 'Snubby', and, a circa 1906 Smith & Wesson DA...and this Boolit would be too heavy for those I think.

Glad to see the Thread still breathes!

[Oyeboten]

The Colt 'New Police' Cartridge, and the Colt Revolvers made for them, I believe had smaller Bores than did the various Smith & Wesson Revolvers chambering various loadings of the .38 S&W or British version Cartridge.

Same Bullets/Boolits may not give equal results then, in differing Makes of Revolver because of Bore diameters being different.

Probably everyone already knew that...but, jus' sayin'...

[LouisianaMan]

Oyeboten,
Those look nice! I agree with you that I wouldn't try those heavyweights in old break-tops, but they'd be nice in something more modern.

For some reason my 358430 Lee custom mold no longer casts at .360ish, but at .357-358. Perfect for .38 SPL, but not what I need for .38 S&W. I've used straight WW and also 50-50 WW-Pb+ tin. Somehow the mold seems to have warped slightly, as it got much harder to squeeze shut. What alloy are you using?

I'm getting another custom mold for 200g LSWC in October. Depending on how it casts, I may wind up looking for a Lyman 358430 myself. I guess I could always beagle my existing mold, though, because any out-of-roundness would be a non-issue for a short-range proposition like the .38 S&W. I guess I do need to see if my slimmer bullets will chamber in my Colt RHKP .38 S&W (OK, OK, .38 Colt N.P. revolver--that's a possible silver lining!

Although the heat index was still almost 100 degrees this evening, I went out and put 50 rds. of my 147g (as-cast), 693 fps loads thru that Colt. After initial EXTREMELY heavy SA trigger pull--I'd estimate 12-15 lbs.--it suddenly lightened up to perhaps 6-7 pounds. That's probably because I'd had it reblued & it was dry; I subsequently emptied an entire can of Gun Scrubber into every hole allowing access to the action, hoping to get rid of any accumulation of gunk that may have remained--that was a drier, too. Then I gave it some RemOil. I guess it must have eventually loosened up as I shot today. When I put 36 rds. thru it in 2-rd. DA bursts, point-shooting at an 8 1/2" x 11" target, it felt great. I counted 27-28 hits, plus saw about 4-5 others impact the tree to which the paper was pinned, missing the paper by 1-4". Only about 4 shots missed the 10" wide tree altogether. All shooting was below eye level.

Maybe tomorrow I can load & shoot some more heavyweights & write it up. . .the antidote to "thread drift"!

[Oyeboten]

Hi LouisiannaMan,


My Cast-at-Home Boolits so far, have been of Range Lead I scrounged from the Earth Banks of the 'Pistol Only' section of the Range I shoot at. Most are .45 Hardball, and a medley after that of 9mm Hardball, and, maybe 40 percent non0Jacketes Pistol of various Kinds.

So far, the Boolits cast from the Ingots, seem to have a BRN of about - I guess - 12. You can dent with a Fingernail by pressing hard, or, leave a long very shallow 'dent' by running a Fingernail edge along it if pressing hard.


Do you have a Boollit Sizer-Lubricator?

[Oyeboten]

Kind of a nice one on Gunbroker right now -

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=174118748


I have no affiliation with the Seller, just thought it would fun to admire such a nice example.


See Louisianna Man? Now you got me all interested in looking for a .38-200 again.

Like I had nothing else to do?


Lol...

[exile]

Teaching history at West Point sounds interesting. One of the last places in the world (I would think) where one could teach facts instead of politically correct nonsense. Would love to visit there someday.

exile