So as I recover from bronchitis I was watching my favorite film Zulu and see the officers using a Webley. Then I did some internet searching and see the British and other nations used .38 S&W along with .455 in their Wesley’s. Further research shows S&W and Colt made revolvers in those calibers as well.

Just curious why didn’t these calibers catch on in the US? Why did the .38 special or .45 ACP become our standard?

Just wondering other folks thoughts are

And if anyone owns a Webley in .455 what is the recoil like? Same as say a .45 ACP in a 1917?

The 38 S&W saw widespread use in the black powder cartridge era-Hopkins and Allen, Iver Johnson, Harrington and Richardson, the Colt Pocket Positive, e.g. but the 38 Short and Long Colt, then the 38 Special offered more power in the same size handgun. The .455-NIH. We had the 45 Schofield, then the 45 Long Colt. Why adopt someone else's round that is only a Me Too ?
Recall reading that Rex Applegate urged S&W design what we call the Chief's Special after using an S&W Terrier and finding it lacking in stopping power.

I have a Webley in .455 and the recoil is pretty mild. You're talking about a cartridge that has a muzzle velocity under 700 feet per second.

The 45 Colt predates the 455 Webely by almost 20 years. By the time the 455 was introduced the 45 Colt was already established in the States. When the Army decided they wanted a semi automatic they basically were looking for 45 Colt ballistics in a cartridge that would function in a semi auto.

Regarding the 38 S&W to me the mystery is why Britain chose the 38 S&W over the 38 Special. Had Webley Mk IV been designed around the 38 Special it might still be in production.

The U.S. Army conducted a trial with the 6” Safety Hammerless in .38 S & W in the early 1880s. The emphasis was finding a suitable sidearm for Cavalry use and it was found wanting.

It is good we wound up with the .45 ACP. 1911s were made in .455 caliber for the British but why would we change to a less powerful .45?

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

...was very common in the US in the first half of the 20th century. I have one that belonged to my Grandfather from his railroad security guard days.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

The British military adopted the .380 Revolver-
.38/200-.38 S&W in the 1930's, about 40 years after the .455, about 50 years after the .476 Enfield, and about 60 years after .450 Adams. The gentleman at the Drift did not have .455 Webleys, and the only reason the .455 and .380 served together in WWII was wartime expediency. The concept of worldwide common calibers is a post-WWII development. Before that, everyone was very happy with their own proprietary designs.

If I recall the .45 ACP is approximately the same power as the .455 webley proof load. The .455 is a mediocre anti-personnel load, but is superior to the .38/200 that supplanted it, which is a truly mediocre anti-personnel load.

I like my .38 S&W Webley. I would shoot it more often if it came in .38 Special.

As noted, the .38 S&W was one of the earlier black powder revolver cartridges used in the USA, and was quite popular here well into the 20th Century. I believe it was popular mainly because of the multitude of smaller revolvers made by numerous manufactures which were sold at low prices. My understanding is that the .380 Mark I cartridge was adopted by the British Military to replace the .455 in military use as it was easier to control and the revolvers were smaller. But the British .380 cartridge used a 200 grain bullet, somewhat longer and heavier than the 145 grain bullet which was essentially the standard weight in the USA. They believed that the heavier and longer 200 grain bullet was preferable as it would have less stability and would yaw when passing through bodily tissue, therefore producing more damage than the old .455 lead bullet. In other words. the .380 Mark I cartridge allowed the British military to use a smaller, lighter revolver firing a bullet having at least the equivalent "stopping power" of a heavier and slower .455 bullet. At least that was the rationale behind their decision. The British military did not consider the .380 Revolver Mark I cartridge to be the same as the US .38 S&W cartridge, despite the obvious similarity between the two.

As most know, when used in a more modern and stronger solid frame revolver, the .38 S&W cartridge can be easily handloaded to safely equal the ballistics of the standard US .38 Special cartridge. It is puny in its factory loading only because of all those old .38 S&W revolvers of the black powder era (many of them being weak top-breaks) that are still in use.

That's funny! We all needed a good laugh today.

Nothing mediocre about it. The British proved that their .455 and similar revolver cartridges were very effective performers in battle during the later 19th Century colonial wars and WWI.

I have both uncut 0.455 Webleys and 0.38 versions. I load the 0.38 with 180 grain lead round nose cast locally and 0.363 diameter. As mentioned earlier, both served well as handguns in WW2 and the 0.455 in WWI in the hands of UK/Commonwealth forces. One advantage of the break top revolvers is the speed of reloading. As mentioned above, the 0.45 ACP round is the Proof load in 0.455. So with my cut 0.455s I use a drop in circular "gadget" that will hold 0.455 rounds at the correct distance or load 0.45 AutoRim with 0.265 grain bullets. i also use the 0.45AR with the 0.265 head in the cut versions. Quite amusing to see the looks on anyone under 50 at the range I use when I bring those out and couple them with an uncut S&W in 0.455. Dave_n

Times change and governments change because they want to be different. Or, they want to copy.

I would ask, after designing the best pistol in the world using .45 ACP, why in the world did the USA conform to others using a 9mm Luger?

Yes, I understand higher capacity magazines, but otherwise it makes no sense.

That and uniformity with other members of NATO.

__________________
You're shy a few manners.

Principally for NATO ammunition standardization. Along with 7.62x51 and 5.56x45. That, and also because the 9x19 is effective enough and easier to shoot well.

And more rounds per pound. That matters at the production level, and with shipping by plane, train, ship, truck, or a man's back.

__________________
John 3:16 .

I own handguns in both 38 S&W and 38 Special .
The 38 S&W is pretty lack luster - loading a 150 gr. LRN @750 is a top maximum load ... most max loads are only 650 to 700 fps .

The 38 Special has it beat Seven Ways to Sunday ...
A 155 gr. LSWC can be pushed to 900 fps and that's not a +P load .

I started reloading in 1967 and the 38 S&W wasn't highly reguarded ...
But ... the 38 Special was a whole different thing . Even our policemen were issued 38 Special S&W revolvers and if you had a handgun , that wasn't a 22 LR , it was usually a 38 Special .

I have had no experience with the .455 but I usually like any cartridge that starts with a "4 " ... just never got my hands on one !
Gary

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

We are the foundation of NATO. They should conform with US.

In the olden days police carried 6 rounds of .38 spl. Today it's 17 rounds of 9mm. We had a shootout locally last week. The police fired at a lone gunman carrying a shotgun. Fired 27 times and only hit him once. So much for high capacity.

And of course just my opinion.

I think it has been mentioned here several times that during WWII there were instances in which 9mm ammunition was used in the British revolvers by mutilating the 9mm extractor groove so the cartridge would not fall through the chamber. That was done by both the British and the Germans.

IIRC the 38 S&W has always loaded on the mild side because of the large number of old and lower quality revolvers out there, Iver Johnson changed
the position of the Owl's Head to indicate their revolver was safe for smokeless. The UK loading was originally a 200gr RNL, this was changed to a 173gr cupro-nickel bullet to comply with the Geneva Convention requirements. The British found it was easier to train people with the 380/200. British practice up until WWI at least was that an officer provided his own equipment.

One must also recall that a sidearm is largely a tertiary weapon and sometimes a badge of office for military folks. Crew fired stuff (artillery and morons, for example) are used in preference to individual weapons; rifles are the common individual weapons for combat arms, and pistol are specialized niche platforms in a most military uses.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Yet Seals and other special forces in Viet Nam did very well with Model 39's, silenced and standard. Tunnel rats found handguns much more maneuverable than rifles. While it is true that the average soldier had very little training time with handguns, not all do and several depend on them.

__________________
Front sight and squeeze

I like mine too. I would shoot it more often if I could hit the broadside of a barn with it. I doubt it would do it from inside the barn!