It was the .38 Long Colt that failed in the 1899-1902 fighting against Moro tribesmen in the Philippines, NOT the .38 S&W. (In its 146g LRN @ 685fps configuration, the .38 S&W probably would have experienced failures similar to those suffered with the 150g/770fps Colt lead bullet that was the standard US Army-issued ammo at that time.)
Without opening the "stopping power" can of worms too far, suffice it to say that a round-nosed lead bullet of small/moderate caliber, at low-medium velocities, basically drills a caliber-sized hole through a human target. It doesn't expand & it doesn't cause remote neural shock, apparently. Based on physical wounding characteristics alone, such ammo is unlikely to immediately incapacitate an attacker unless it happens to hit the central nervous system. And fanatical attackers such as some of these Moro tribesmen are exactly the type of target that doesn't quit just because they realize they've been shot, either.
The .38 Smith & Wesson Special cartridge was a slightly lengthened version of the .38 Long Colt, with a slightly different & more accurate 158g bullet design. Its police & civilian record as a "manstopper" was also spotty, although there is some indication that heavy 200g LRN bullets may have helped marginally through tumbling and almost certainly through more decisive damage to bone structures when these were hit directly. Basically, however, the development of reliable expanding bullets in the past 40 years have made the .38 Special a much more effective "fighting" cartridge.
Take a look at
http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/98749-38-s-w-load-devopment-pt-1-a-4.html for some information on the .38 S&W cartridge & its history as a US police & British military cartridge. Shorter and slower than the .38 Smith & Wesson Special, this cartridge was sometimes known as the ".38 Super Police" when loaded with a 200g LRN bullet, and the British Army of the 1930s adopted a very blunt-nosed 200g version (aka .380/200, .380 Rimmed, etc.) for general service. Subsequently, concerns about the international legality of this ammo led them to adopt a 178g FMJ bullet, which suffered a bad reputation that lasts to this day. My own amateur experimentation & research indicate that this bad rep was probably a result of three things: ammo weakened spectacularly by poor storage; the drastic accuracy limitations of the Enfield DAO revolver design; and the fact that British WWII soldiers were saddled with the slow reload inherent to a revolver, whereas their opponents & allies all carried automatic pistols as primary sidearms.
Take a look at the page link I provided and see if you agree with me that (1) properly functioning .38 S&W 178g FMJ ammo is NOT exactly a weak sister--the old stories about its inability to penetrate a German overcoat were almost certainly a result of a powder charge that had degenerated through improper storage. Other credible reports of the bullet barely leaving the muzzle of the gun point clearly to an ammo malfunction NOT attributable to design. (2) When loaded with a flat-nosed 200g bullet moving at the slow 600-ish fps velocities of the old Super Police and British Mark I ammo, the straight-line penetrative power is pretty dramatic. (6 water-filled milk jugs, straight-line thru & thru.)
Ian Skennerton's book on the Enfield .380 Revolver (again, Brit terminology for their version of the .38 S&W cartridge) cites British military tests from the 1930s that assert that the original Mk I 200g blunt-nosed ammo was equivalent in stopping power to the .455 Webley. Other Brit reports apparently stated that the testers concluded that the combination of lighter gun & smaller caliber would make it easier for hastily-trained wartime soldiers to use this weapon rather than the old, large .455 revolvers.
Until I can get my hands on these reports and read them for myself, my personal supposition remains that the latter statement was definitely true, as a .38 is more user-friendly to a novice than is a .455. The former statement would seem to be an exaggeration of some sort. . .but it may have simply reflected British experience that torso hits with either .455 or .38 non-expanding bullets were an iffy proposition when it came to stopping power, although either definitely had the ability to decisively smash bone structures they happened to hit. The Brits had used expanding bullet ammo in .455s pretty extensively, but generally used non-expanding bullets in WWI (against "civilized" opponents). They knew a lot about fighting with handguns--I imagine at least as much as did the US military--and I think that lends great credibility to their experience & testing. Again, though, until I read the reports and/or learn about the tests & the testers' backgrounds, their results must be viewed as an intriguing issue to research, not as proof of the equivalency of .455 and .38/200 (.380 Mk I).
