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

[35remington]

S, no expansion whatsoever with the hemispherical nosed NOE. My castings were predominately wheelweights with maybe a little dental foil and slight “potluck” ish metallurgy thrown in. Hardness did not quite approximate that typical of wheelweights but was definitely nowhere near pure lead either.

I am not brave enough to risk the chronograph concurrently with testing in water. I shoot enough to get a representative average and, with the gun and powder oriented the same way shoot for effect.

Given point of impact and recoil effects in exchange for what is obtained, versus my impression that a wadcutter is delivering from the get go, I’m inclined to stick with the wadcutter of 148 grains overall when speaking of non expanding bullets and controllability. To maximize such in an Airweight 700 odd fps seems appropriate or maybe I need to practice more intensively if I want to go much faster.

I will say however that witnessing the instability and behavior of the NOE has been informative and carrying it and the prospect of using it if that is what I had would not leave me feeling unarmed, certainly.

[35remington]

I am giving the NOE bullet serious consideration as a speedloader reload due to the shape being more reload friendly. I realize the chance of me ever employing a revolver reload are just about zero, but such thoughts are a way to while away my spare time, I suppose.

The alternative is a 150 odd grain RNFP that tends to shoot to the sights more directly but lacks the tumbling effect. Actually the 358311 with the nose clipped a bit. A fella gets a mould to play with and at some point he has to conceptualize a purpose for it given the observed benefits....and drawbacks. So it is with the NOE design mentioned.

[LouisianaMan]

I am giving the NOE bullet serious consideration as a speedloader reload due to the shape being more reload friendly. I realize the chance of me ever employing a revolver reload are just about zero, but such thoughts are a way to while away my spare time, I suppose.

The alternative is a 150 odd grain RNFP that tends to shoot to the sights more directly but lacks the tumbling effect. Actually the 358311 with the nose clipped a bit. A fella gets a mould to play with and at some point he has to conceptualize a purpose for it given the observed benefits....and drawbacks. So it is with the NOE design mentioned.

Most reload friendly of all these is the NOE .364-200-RN (elongated bullet, similar to Mk II profile).

Like you, I doubt I'll be speed-reloading a revolver under such emergency conditions. My thought is that I want to reload while waiting for the police to arrive, however, because the BG's friends & family might arrive before the flashing blue lights do....

[35remington]

Yes that comment is most assuredly on point.

For those that don’t carry a reload, I wonder if the idea of holding an empty or mostly empty gun is reassuring when the fight is over....when you’re not really sure it actually is over.

Someone may decide to reengage. You may not be able to get out of Dodge as fast as is necessary either.

[9.3X62AL]

LOTS of experience with the Lyman #358430 in 38 Special and 357 Magnum. I've seen evidence of tumbling in small game when run 550-600 FPS, but that seems to disappear somewhere between 600-750 FPS. From 800-1200 FPS (357 Magnum) it is not present at all.

If I'm carrying a firearm--and I always do so outside my home--I'm also carrying a speed loader, speed strip, or 2nd magazine. It's a very old habit I have not overcome in almost 16 years of retirement.

[robertbank]

LOTS of experience with the Lyman #358430 in 38 Special and 357 Magnum. I've seen evidence of tumbling in small game when run 550-600 FPS, but that seems to disappear somewhere between 600-750 FPS. From 800-1200 FPS (357 Magnum) it is not present at all.

If I'm carrying a firearm--and I always do so outside my home--I'm also carrying a speed loader, speed strip, or 2nd magazine. It's a very old habit I have not overcome in almost 16 years of retirement.

I now load that bullet in .357mag for my 4 legged friends that inhabit this country. You put me on to it. I should add I carry two speed loaders always.

Take Care

Bob

[Outpost75]

As FYI because people have asked, the Accurate 240-grain FN bullet is only marginally stable in an S&W Victory Model 5" barrel in .380-200. Obvious yaw is seen in the target strikes. Due to its heavier bullet weight it impacts way high relative to the sights. Magtech 158-grain LRN cup base shoot a bit low but accurate and acceptably close enough to point of aim. The Accurate 36-176P ogival wadcutter or 36-190T are satisfactory solutions to load for Brit .380-200 Victory S&Ws to give correct point of impact and to approximate service velocity, with 2.5 grains of Bullseye. The targets below tell the story:

Attachment 278227 Attachment 278226[Attachment 278229ATTACH=CONFIG]278228[/ATTACH]

[pettypace]

As FYI because people have asked, the Accurate 240-grain FN bullet is only marginally stable in an S&W Victory Model 5" barrel in .380-200. Obvious yaw is seen in the target strikes. Due to its heavier bullet weight it impacts way high relative to the sights. Magtech 158-grain LRN cup base shoot a bit low but accurate and acceptably close enough to point of aim. The Accurate 36-176P ogival wadcutter or 36-190T are satisfactory solutions to load for Brit .380-200 Victory S&Ws to give correct point of impact and to approximate service velocity, with 2.5 grains of Bullseye. The targets below tell the story:

Attachment 278227 Attachment 278226[Attachment 278229ATTACH=CONFIG]278228[/ATTACH]

Some thoughts on that 240 grainer:

First, for rabbits I suppose the POA vs POI difference might be a problem. But for skunks -- not so much. I'm guessing the standard deviation of impact on that 240 grain target might be something between 1" and 2". So, with a center of mass hold and the gun shooting where it looks, you might after 1000 shots get something between the "targets" below. In either case, there's plenty of room to move the POI higher by 6-8" with no decrease in "vital hits" on the 2" wide white stripe. With the higher POI, a rabbit might get away, but the skunk is still hurting.

sd_1_2.png

Another thought has to do with "potential" wound mass of that bullet:

In Quantitative Ammunition Selection, The_Schwartz calculates "Permanent Wound Mass" for the entire predicted penetration path of the (non-tumbling) bullet. I think of this as a maximum "potential" wound mass. In Bullet Penetration, MacPherson does essentially the same calculation but ignores the last 3" of penetration as well any penetration over 15" to get what he calls "effective permanent wound cavity mass."

For self-defense handgun ammunition that falls within the FBI 12"-18" penetration limits, there's little practical difference between the two calculations. But for something "weird" like Outpost75's 240 grainer in a .38 S&W, the difference is worth thinking about. Even at just 600 ft/s, without "tumbling" that bullet should penetrate about 36" of gelatin. By The_Schwartz calculation, the wound mass would be about 40 grams. By the MacPherson calculation, only about 17 grams.

So which is right? Well, for a charging grizzly bear big enough to absorb the full 36" of penetration, the 40 grams makes more sense. For skinny skunks, the 17 grams is probably closer to the truth.

But, interestingly, The_Schwartz's calculation shows that full penetration permanent wound mass doesn't really have anything to do with bullet diameter: So long as the nose shapes are similar and the bullets don't tumble, a 240 grain bullet at 600 ft/s will have the same "potential" permanent wound mass whether it's fired from a .38 S&W or from a .45 Colt.

So, now, the obvious question is this: "What happens to the 40 grams of "potential" permanent wound mass in that 240 grain bullet at 600 ft/s if the bullet is yawing before it hits the target, flips 180 degrees shortly after entering the target, and comes to rest, base forward, after penetrating, let's say, 15"?

Maybe somebody can chime in on just how permanent wound mass can be measured in 10% ordnance gelatin (as opposed to calculated in thin air). But my guess (and it's only a guess) is that a 240 grain .35 caliber bullet at 600 ft/s that "tumbles" to a stop inside of 18" will produce about as much wound mass as a good 9mm JHP.

[Bigslug]

I suppose it's worth asking the question whether we'll get more wound mass via tumbling versus a good old LFN/WFN?

The whole deliberately tumbling bullet concept is, after all, a military "letter-of-the-law/screw-the-spirit" way of thumbing the nose at the Hague Convention, when the .455 MKIII and MKIV were what they initially had in mind.

[robertbank]

[QUOTE=Bigslug;5126047]I suppose it's worth asking the question whether we'll get more wound mass via tumbling versus a good old LFN/WFN?

The whole deliberately tumbling bullet concept is, after all, a military "letter-of-the-law/screw-the-spirit" way of thumbing the nose at the Hague Convention, when the .455 MKIII and MKIV were what they initially had in mind

You surely aren't suggesting we would ah er ah cheat the Hague Convention. I think it was a delberate attempt to do exactly that. The round on it's own is pretty anemic; unless you top it off with a bullet that prefers to fly sideways.

Take Care

Bob

[Outpost75]

New double-crimp-groove design from Accurate 36-185H optimized for the WW2 S&W Victory Models.

Use the rear crimp groove for .38 S&W and front crimp groove for .38 Special.

The ½ caliber meplat gives better terminal effect on small and medium game than a true round nose, but the nose shape is speed-loader friendly.

Bullet is heavy enough to shoot to the fixed sights on WW2 S&W Victory Models, and is tube-magazine safe for use in the Cowboy rifles.

Can be ordered with a plain base, for those who object to the bevel, which reduces weight to about 178 grains, similar to the Mk2 service bullet.

Attachment 292444

Tom says alternately he can make the base band full diameter for its entire length, ignoring the bevel, which increases weight very slightly. For those wanting a lighter bullet or larger meplat, refer to the notations in upper right corner for examples of meplat diameters provided by shortening the bullet OAL from the nose by various amounts. You aren't limited to those specific lengths or meplat diameters, they are examples. You can order by weight and let meplat diameter go where it does. I like to refer to Accurate as the Burger King of Mold Makers.

You can order it "Your Way!"

[LouisianaMan]

Thanks, Outpost75, this is a good-looking, flexible bullet!

[ddixie884]

Looks good to me.........

[9.3X62AL]

That is a GREAT bullet design for any of the 38/357 calibers, sized to fit your revolver's throats.

[Bigslug]

Waking the thread back up with some load development data for the NOE clone of the MKI bullet out of the 5" "WAR FINISH" MKIV:

205 grains cast of jacketed range scrap cores with added tin for fillout quality.

Sized at .361" & lubed with White Label's 2500+

Hodgdon Titegroup

Did this load workup with CCI SPP's, which really cut down on the primer piercing I and other have seen in these guns with other types.

12 shot strings over the chrono except for the last.

1.6 grain charge: Average velocity 423 fps / SD of 12 fps

1.7 grains: Avg 440 fps / SD 11 fps

1.8 grains: Avg 477 fps / SD 10 fps

1.9 grains: Avg 488 fps / SD 13 fps

2.0 grains: Avg 518 fps / SD 14 fps

2.1 grains: Avg 548 fps / SD 16 fps

2.2 grains: Avg 565 fps / SD 7 fps

2.3 grains: Avg 573 fps / SD 13 fps

2.4 grains: Avg 592 fps / SD 12 fps (duplicates the spec of 590 fps from the old British publication referenced back in the early days of this thread)

2.5 grains: Average for six rounds 615 fps / SD 10 fps

2.3 grain charge with the older "incorrect" blueprint NOE 264-207-RN that I loaded up in 2013, lubed with Ben's Red in front of a not recorded type of primer (probably Win SPP's): Avg 603 fps / SD 13 fps.

IMPRESSIONS:

The higher end charge got a couple of perforations even with the CCI primers. I think this is more a factor of the Webley's design than the pressure of the loads - the gun bites them DEEP.

The MKIV is a REALLY well-balanced handgun - probably owing deeply to the shorter cylinder and slender barrel moving the balance point back. Coupled with the full size grip, it is a very mild-mannered machine. I'd LOVE to see those concept elements in a modern swing-out gun with better sights. I still think doing this in the .38 Short Colt case, maybe with minor alterations, would be The Way.

NEXT: I want to revisit my milk jug / aluminum can testing from Page 14 of the thread. I got as far as confirming that the MKI bullet does in fact tumble - which was the goal - but the amount of penetration was inconclusive. I want to see if I can get some repeatable results across several shots. This may be difficult due to the tumbling - if they curve up, down, or sideways, they may exit the stack. This may consume a lot of jugs and rate of progress will be determined by their rate of accumulation, but I'm back on the case of MKI terminal science.

TO BE CONTINUED!

[Outpost75]

Thanks for posting this. I am using the .363-204 RN in my 5-inch Victory S&W.

Does shape of this bullet differ from yours? Or only the difference in diameter?

363-204-RN_PB_W1_Sketch.jpg

[Bigslug]

Same bullet, but in point of fact, they cast fatter than the blueprint - been a couple weeks since I poured this most recent batch - I think .365" - maybe even .367"?

Fortunately, they're soft enough running them through the .361" die isn't a problem.

[LouisianaMan]

Happy to see that the quest continues! A couple of questions and comments:
1. Are you using a 4" Webley Mk IV or a 5" Enfield #2, Mk. I revolver?

2. What COL are your loads?

3. In my water-jug testing some years back, I found that bullets from 4"-5" revolvers would stay in the targeted column of jugs until exiting #4, perhaps #5, at which point they typically exited leftward and either penetrated a jug in the adjacent column, or caromed off of it. Revolvers with 2" barrels typically performed similarly, but penetrated one less jug due to their lower velocity. If you place jugs alongside your targeted column, you'll ventilate some in the adjacent row, but save the last jug or two in the row you're shooting at. I used columns of 6 and a stop board behind them, and a piece of cardboard between the jugs might show you the orientation of the bullet as it transits your target array.

Most of my jug shooting was done with a S&W Mod. 33-1 with 4" barrel, and I don't recall what differences I observed in projectile behavior when shooting British service revolvers, other than lower velocities achieved from the latter. (Probably due to a combination of larger barrel-cylinder gaps and groove diameters.) Glad to look it up if you wish.

Thanks for sharing your diligent efforts!

Waking the thread back with some load development data for the NOE clone of the MKI bullet out of the 5" "WAR FINISH" MKIV:

205 grains cast of jacketed range scrap cores with added tin for fillout quality.

Sized at .361" & lubed with White Label's 2500+

Hodgdon Titegroup

Did this load workup with CCI SPP's, which really cut down on the primer piercing I and other have seen in these guns with other types.

12 shot strings over the chrono except for the last.

1.6 grain charge: Average velocity 423 fps / SD of 12 fps

1.7 grains: Avg 440 fps / SD 11 fps

1.8 grains: Avg 477 fps / SD 10 fps

1.9 grains: Avg 488 fps / SD 13 fps

2.0 grains: Avg 518 fps / SD 14 fps

2.1 grains: Avg 548 fps / SD 16 fps

2.2 grains: Avg 565 fps / SD 7 fps

2.3 grains: Avg 573 fps / SD 13 fps

2.4 grains: Avg 592 fps / SD 12 fps (duplicates the spec of 590 fps from the old British publication referenced back in the early days of this thread)

2.5 grains: Average for six rounds 615 fps / SD 10 fps

2.3 grain charge with the older "incorrect" blueprint NOE 264-207-RN that I loaded up in 2013, lubed with Ben's Red in front of a not recorded type of primer (probably Win SPP's): Avg 603 fps / SD 13 fps.

IMPRESSIONS:

The higher end charge got a couple of perforations even with the CCI primers. I think this is more a factor of the Webley's design than the pressure of the loads - the gun bites them DEEP.

The MKIV is a REALLY well-balanced handgun - probably owing deeply to the shorter cylinder and slender barrel moving the balance point back. Coupled with the full size grip, it is a very mild-mannered machine. I'd LOVE to see those concept elements in a modern swing-out gun with better sights. I still think doing this in the .38 Short Colt case, maybe with minor alterations, would be The Way.

NEXT: I want to revisit my milk jug / aluminum can testing from Page 14 of the thread. I got as far as confirming that the MKI bullet does in fact tumble - which was the goal - but the amount of penetration was inconclusive. I want to see if I can get some repeatable results across several shots. This may be difficult due to the tumbling - if they curve up, down, or sideways, they may exit the stack. This may consume a lot of jugs and rate of progress will be determined by their rate of accumulation, but I'm back on the case of MKI terminal science.

TO BE CONTINUED!

[Bigslug]

It's a 5" Webley.

COAL is 1.245".

Another observation: The Titegroup load data for the 195 grain 358430 in the 50th edition Lyman manual was fired with a 5.5" barrel on a "universal receiver" - I'd guess a Contender, so probably no barrel/cylinder gap. Granted it's ten grains less bullet than I'm throwing, but they're claiming significantly higher speeds than I was seeing for their two data points - 1.5 grains at 534 fps for starting and 1.7 grains for 602 fps for their max.

[Bigslug]

Thanks for posting this. I am using the .363-204 RN in my 5-inch Victory S&W.

Does shape of this bullet differ from yours? Or only the difference in diameter?

363-204-RN_PB_W1_Sketch.jpg

Clarification:

The bulk of my testing yesterday was done with the AUTHENTIC MKI bullet - which is our NOE 363-204-RN

The one string was fired with the 364-207-RN which I purchased years prior, not yet knowing what the correct bullet for the MKI loading was. It looks a lot like the .455 MKII bullet in miniature - albeit without the hollow base.

The gun seems to shoot both bullets with equal accuracy, though I think the defective interface of old eyes with crappy sights is the limiting factor there. With larger sample groups to dial out the operator induced flyers, the gun itself seems to have a good ability to stack them tightly.