Love to see discussion of the .38 S&W "Super Police," aka .38-200, .380 Rimmed, and a few other names besides. My bottom line up front: I think it's underrated, often grossly so, although I'm not saying it's a howitzer. I often carry one concealed: an S&W 32-1 snubby. Am I crazy? Maybe, but not on this account :-)

Some background reading with lots more detail, from me & many others:
38 S&W load devopment Pt. 1
200 gr "Super Police"
.38 Failure pre WWI and bad rep of it and 9mm. Why?
New Page 4

Some thoughts:
I've recovered undeformed hardcast 250g .45 LC slugs fired into an old wood stump at 900-ish FPS. The fact that .380 Rimmed Mk. 2 FMJ 178g bullets didn't deform in a dirt backstop doesn't worry me.

When I shoot a .38/200 at 600-650 fps in flatnose or SWC profile, it drills straight through 6 gallon jugs of water. When I use a blunt round-nose bullet, similar to the British Mk. I .380 Rimmed, it starts veering and tumbling as it passes through jugs, and generally it makes it through 5 jugs of water and comes out at such an angle that it misses the 6th jug; when I place jugs in multiple rows to catch such shots, the bullet busts into another, 6th, jug. Same kinds of results from vintage .38 S&W 200g "Specially adapted for police service" Winchester ammo. This bullet is essentially identical to Brit Mk. I ammo, except for lube grooves, to include its chrono'ed velocity of low 600's. See original Brit tech drawing at http://members.memlane.com/gromboug/webstry3.jpg

When I shoot my 200g lead bullet @ 640fps at live pine trees at about 58 yds. range, it drills a couple of inches into the tree. Don't recall if I tried it with the softer bullet in Winchester vintage ammo.

When I used some CIS (Singapore?) Mk 2 ball ammo, which is 178g FMJ, I've shot it through an overcoat, a gallon jug, out the back of the overcoat, and drilled it into a pine tree--sideways, about an inch deep IIRC. Couldn't dig it out with a pocket knife, FWIW. Shooting jugs, it's tumbling so violently after one that it tends to burst jugs 2 and 3, then penetrate a few more to boot.

Moral: don't believe the old tale that "it won't even penetrate a German overcoat!!"

Another moral: soft lead bullets have often been found to have salutary effects when they strike bone (see 1904 Handgun Ammunition Trials and Thompson-LaGarde, among others); flat noses penetrate both deep and straight; and the 178g FMJ has a violent tumbling action that--I believe--generates terminal effects out of proportion to its paper ballistics and unimpressive velocity. I've read several sources that indicate this tumbling characteristic is typical of the .38-200, as the bullet is long & heavy for caliber, and is stabilized only marginally. As it penetrates a soft target, it starts to tumble. Ditto for some brands of .38 Special Super Police--I think it was the blunt-nosed Winchester load, not the pointier Remington version. Could be wrong. An interesting reference here indicates that this was notable back in the 1960s, but unfortunately the author considered it too well known to specify for us! (http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammunit...ngtest_200808/) Ugh. Anyway, this ballistics man for the Dallas PD noted how much more energy was transferred by the tumbling version than the one that didn't tumble.

The original .38-200 clearly penetrated deeply, and may have tumbled. At its weight and SD, it was a bone-smasher in soft lead form. The 178g FMJ version was, IMO, the victim of either poor manufacture or poor storage in wartime conditions, because the stories of bullets barely exiting the barrel and falling to the ground cannot pertain to serviceable ammunition, period.

Some note that British soldiers gladly dispensed with their .38-200 Webleys, Enfields, and S&W Victory models, swapping any or all of them for a 1911A1 or Browning High Power. I could be wrong, but they would have done this if for no other reasons than firepower & reloading speed. Not to mention 9mm HP ammo would work in their Sten SMG, use captured German ammo, etc.

At snubbie vels, many have noted that .38 SPLs often don't expand despite their design. A 200g lead bullet isn't dependent on expansion, but if it tumbles, you get both penetration and an enhanced wound channel. My only concern with packing my 32-1 is: am I better served with a soft LSWC that drills deep and straight, or a soft blunt LRN that may tumble?

If I were a LEO worried about shooting through car doors and windshields, I wouldn't want this round. For concealed carry and close combat, it'll do for me.

COL Charles Askins shot a German thru-and-thru at 20-25 yards with a "creakingly slow" 200g bullet from a .38 SPL. Knocked him "heels over jockstrap," in Askins' words. Now, I have chrono'ed Winchester .38 SPL Super Police in the high 500's from a 4" barrel, and my Winchester .38 S&W 200g ammo clocked at about 610 from a 5" gun. Don't know how the .38 SPL Super Police at 730fps performed--better due to velocity? More stable, thus less tumbling? Don't know.