Walnutred: interesting historical parallel, indicating an important part of the equation the Brits may have taken into account when assessing the .38-200 in the 1920s.

Coloradosherpa: I agree, FWIW. If a heavyweight 200g bullet is as effective as a lightweight expanding bullet--a point I agree with, but not everyone does--it's clear that .38 S&W heavyweights were roughly equal to some .38 SPL versions.

Although I don't think any .38 S&W 200g load reached the 730 fps claimed for the .38 Special Highway Patrol (?) 200g load, Ed Harris states that modern era solid-frame revolvers in caliber .38 S&W can be loaded with 200g bullets that deliver 700 fps, without loosening the gun unduly. Also, Ken Waters' .38 S&W "Pet Loads" shows some recipes that garnered far more than 700 fps.

My conclusions: (1) some .38 S&W 200g loads are ballistic twins to some commonly used .38 SPL 200g commercial loads; (2) some .38 S&W handloads exceed some--or even all--commercial .38 SPL 200g cartridges of yesteryear. So, if .38 SPL 200g loads were/are generally as effective as lighter JHPs, then it's clear that .38 S&W could achieve te same result.

That's why I feel comfortable carrying a 2" 32-1 or 4" 33-1 loaded with 200g LSWC at 600-ish. In essence, the same load was what Askins used to knock that German soldier "heels over jockstrap." Doesn't sound like a pathetic cartridge that is now unable to stop anyone. . . .