Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Star
I agree that the Colt is stronger, but .455 Colt shouldn't be a problem for the S&W, either.
BTW, I've read that ammo boxes of some lots of MK III (HP) and IV (wadcutter) .455 ammo are marked as not being authorized for use against European foes. It was evidently thought to be so brutal that it was meant only for use on savage native peoples in colonies.
|
Why is the Colt any stronger than an N frame S&W that ultimately became a 357 & 44 Magnum?
I have a Canadian Military 12 pack from WWII (1942) that is Mark VI. That ammo was available in WWI starting in 1915, so if the II had something to do with the ammunition marking, why didn't S&Ws have a "VI" stamp?
On the other hand, The "II" stamping does not appear to be S&W factory applied, as it was stamped by hand and appears heavier and lighter and at times not perfectly vertical?? So why would England label it II if it referred to the gun model? Roy does name both the TL and 2nd Model as
455 Mark II Hand Ejectors.