My brother once owned one. Keep in mind that many S&W .38's were NOT LEND LEASE. The UK PAID for those.
Read about the S&W Light Rifle debacle and how Britain agreed to accept revolvers in payment for the botched project. Had they not accepted those, S&W would have gone bankrupt. Those guns had normal commercial finishes, and only the chambering and the lanyard ring distinguish them from regular M&P production.
My brother had an accidental disharge with that gun, and the 146 grain US commerial load's bullet impacted a copy of Haven & Belden's, "A History of the Colt Revolver, 1836-1940", which was lying down on a bookcase. The bullet didn't penetrate even an inch in the paper. It impacted the bottom of the book, which was lying flat.
That saved a catastrophe, had the bullet gone elsewhere in Mother's home, but it also dissuaded me from carrying any revolver in .38 S&W chambering for serious work. I really cannot understand anyone carrying a Terrier in preference to a Chief's Special in .38 Special. If the smaller ctg. performs like that from a six-inch barrel, what might a snub Terrier have done?
The .38 Special is no powerhouse, itself.
The late David W. Arnold told me that he'd fired a S&W .38-200 at a Britsh Army greatcoat, & the military ball load failed to penetrate it. David carried a 9mm P-38 as a senior anti-terror cop in what was then still Rhodesia. But if he'd had the option as an official service weapon, he'd have used his Colt .45 auto. I should mention in passing that he was on the Rhodesian team in the world IPSC matches and was a gun enthusiast. He and his dad were both quite knowledgeable about Colts, inc. historical models. He was later editor of
Petersen's Handguns after coming to the USA. (He was a native of South Africa, where he returned for some years after Rhodesia became Marxist-ruled Zimbabwe.) When I reviewed his book,
Shoot a Handgun in,
Gun Week, I called it probably the finest beginner's handgunning book, ever. I still think it is, if you can find a copy, printed either in South Africa or here.
I've seen a photo of RAF pilots in North Africa who had those six-inch barrelled S&W .38's. They had crammed them into regular Pattern 37 webbing holsters meant for guns with five-inch barrels. The butts stuck 'WAY out. I'm surprised that they could force the holster flaps shut and snap them. I've also seen a photo of these longer guns in Australian hands.
These guns were made with four, five, and six-inch barrels.
I think Churchill knew that the .38-200 was no real killer and that may be in part why he insisted that the newly formed Commando units (a pet project of his) have Colt .45 autos, a std. with them whenever possible throughout the war. He also tried to have his own bodyguard carry a .45 auto, but the man preferred his .32 Webley, for its convenience. Probably figured that no one would try for Churchill's life, or that soldiers would take care of the matter. Churchill also carrried his own .45, bought new in 1916, when he went to France in WW I. It is definitely a .45, not a .455 Colt.
Man at Arms did a really splendid article on his guns about 20 years ago, with fine photos, authorized by the present Lord Churchill.
All of this said, if I was a Commonwealth soldier with a choice of .38-200's, I'd select a S&W over a Webley MK IV or an Enfield No. 2. The late Geoffrey Boothroyd said in,
The Handgun that the S&W was preferred by those with a choice. I think that was mainly for the better trigger pull, and perhaps the exotic appeal of a foreign weapon. However, one member of the SAS either told an author that he had a Smith & WesTon or the author couldn't spell! I think her name was Virginia something. Cowles? I believe the book is,
Stirling's Desert Raiders, but can't find my copy just now to check the exact title. I hope that many of you read her book, which is otherwise excellent and quite exciting.
It always baffles me why otherwise very knowledgeable S&W collectors know so little about the .38-200 revolvers. They're really a quite simple issue, well documented in many sources.
The early Colt Govt. Model.45's for the Commandos in 1940-41 were also evidently BOUGHT from Colt, and were not Lend-Lease guns. However, many other .45's were supplied later under that program. Ditto for the rough gray finished S&W .38's, all standardized by then with five-inch barrels.
If you see the well known photo of Lord Lovat just returned from the raid on Dieppe in 1942, look carefully at His Lordship's pistol. If the photo is large enough, you can see clearly that it's a .45 auto. If memory serves, the webbing holster has a magazine pouch sewn on. (Lovat's Scouts were a Commando type unit.) His rifle is a Mauser-actioned sporter. He also was known to sometimes carry a Mannlicher-Schoenauer carbine, these probably being his deer-stalking arms. Peer Lawford, playing Lovat in, "The Longest Day" had a Mannlicher. Watch for it as his unit is piped ashore on D-Day. If you haven't seen that remarkable B&W movie, get thee to a rental store and see it. You'll be glad that you did. In fact, you'll probably buy the DVD.
Oh: the reason why this gun in the OP has no UK proof marks is probably that it was issued in Canada or that it evaded the commercial UK proofing process after being released from Commonwealth service. It may have been "liberated" during the war, or just slipped through when sold as surplus. Does it have a C with the Broad Arrow head property mark on the frame below the hammer, on tne left side? Sorry if this seems insulting: I don't know how sophisticated you may be in deciphering such things. You may well have already checked for that. Your post was unclear (to me) about that. But I seriously doubt that you have anything other than one of those early .38-200 guns made for the Commonwealth nations. They didn't all mark them up with a lot of proof marks after the war, as the British usually did. Some seem to have been issued in 1940 without ever being proofed, as the need was so urgent. Some may have even evaded receiving the Broad Arrow mark as Crown property. Those were desperate days, following Dunkirk.
If I had the finances to buy guns just as collector items, I'd certainly pay $550 for a really nice blued .38-200. They aren't that common today. Both British martial collectors and S&W collectors would find that gun to be a prize.
M&P in .38 S&W?
Linear Mode
