.38/200 Logic

One of the challenges in the new M855A1 cartridge was to design the bullet so that yawing commences very early in the penetration of tissue. The bullet is of 2-piece construction with a steel nose inside a copper body, so it is front-light and base-heavy. Many military bullets operate on the same principle. The British came up with the idea of a base-heavy bullet design for the .303 very early on, after they weren't allowed to use the "Dum Dum" exposed lead nose expanding bullet. Most every FMJ bullet will yaw in tissue, but the trick is to design the bullet to begin yaw quickly, thereby producing maximum disruption and bullet breakup. Some people call this "tumbling", but the bullet never actually tumbles end-over-end. It's all a pretense to technically comply with the Hague convention's restrictions upon expanding bullets. It says nothing about yawing bullets or bullets that break up into fragments, so those are "legal."

"I think we are talking about terminal ballistic stability, what the bullet does after it hits the target."

Not necessarily just that. The earlier M16 situation cited involved yawing in air and key holing on target as a result of a slow rifling twist.

I think one of the earlier .455 cartridges used a wadcutter-style bullet which was nicknamed "manstopper." I don't know if the WW1 .455 rounds used a lead bullet or if they were jacketed.

One of the foremost authorities on British small arms is Ian Skennerton of Australia. He co-authored with Mark Stamps and published a softcover book titled .380 ENFIELD NO 2 REVOLVER which includes some info on rationale for & development of the ammo.

While the appearance of the British top-breaks may appear somewhat crude to gun buffs accustomed to side-swing cylinder revolvers, the fact is that the top latch designed by Webley during the late 1800s is far more rugged than the arrangement used on top breaks made by S&W and other US companies. The lower portion of the latch makes a nice thumb rest for right-handed shooting.

Many people here know of the Mark VI Webley .455s that were altered to use .45ACP ammo and sold surplus in the USA during the 1950s. What may not be so well-known is that some big Webleys were altered to take .45 Colt ammo. This alteration just involved lengthening the chambers & did not require machining the rear face of the cylinder.

I have A Webley-Green Army revolver so altered that I once shot with factory .45 Colt ammo. After receiving a factory letter stating the gun was made in 1901 and out of respect for its age, I used low-power reloads in it thereadter. (This was before .455 revolver ammo became more available during the 1980s.)

What I would like to know from "STCM(SW)" who has shot the British ammo in his S&W RP revolver (made for US ammo) is where the heavier bullets hit the target relative to point of aim. My guess is they might shoot high but I could be wrong. Others besides myself might be curious about this point also.

It probably didn't really matter much what type of pistol or ammo the Brits issued, they never had enough ammo to train properly. I don't have the reference for WWII anymore, but I remember reading that it was not much different than WWI figures.

The Brits produced less than 100 million rounds of ammo for their pistols during WWI and issued over half a million pistols (officers were actually required to purchase their own side arms).

The war last over 4 years, which means there was less than 50 rounds per gun per year total (for both training and combat combined).

Here is a neat reference for WWI: []http://www.worldwar1.com/tripwire/pdf/davidthomas.pdf[]
You are going to have to copy and paste it, I'm having trouble making a link. it's got plenty of good info and even some pictures of some very nice Smith & Wessons.


If I can find the WWII reference material, I will post a link.

DWalt said:

One of the challenges in the new M855A1 cartridge was to design the bullet so that yawing commences very early in the penetration of tissue. The bullet is of 2-piece construction with a steel nose inside a copper body, so it is front-light and base-heavy. Many military bullets operate on the same principle. The British came up with the idea of a base-heavy bullet design for the .303 very early on, after they weren't allowed to use the "Dum Dum" exposed lead nose expanding bullet. Most every FMJ bullet will yaw in tissue, but the trick is to design the bullet to begin yaw quickly, thereby producing maximum disruption and bullet breakup. Some people call this "tumbling", but the bullet never actually tumbles end-over-end. It's all a pretense to technically comply with the Hague convention's restrictions upon expanding bullets. It says nothing about yawing bullets or bullets that break up into fragments, so those are "legal."

"I think we are talking about terminal ballistic stability, what the bullet does after it hits the target."

Not necessarily just that. The earlier M16 situation cited involved yawing in air and key holing on target as a result of a slow rifling twist.

Click to expand...

Walt..When you say "yaw" are meaning the bullet as it starts or enters it target turns sideways, or somersaults back to front in some fashion? So much so that if use ballistic gelatin that the nose of the round might be pointing any any given direction and vector?

DWalt said:

One of the challenges in the new M855A1 cartridge was to design the bullet so that yawing commences very early in the penetration of tissue.

Click to expand...

There's a good article in this months American Rifleman about the adoption of the 885a1 "green" round for those of you who like such things.

Military Ordnance officers tend to be reactionary to an extreme. The U.S. Army's folks were not at all cutting edge either. They fought against repeating rifles etc 130-ish years ago. Expecting the Brits to be any more progressive, especially with a secondary personal weapon and badge of office, is probably not realistic.

"There's a good article in this months American Rifleman about the adoption of the 885a1 "green" round for those of you who like such things."

I was there, as the USAF's member of the Joint Service Non-Toxic Ammunition Working Group. It was a pretty good and fairly complete article, but there was much unsaid. One comment was made several times - that it was a lead-free round. It's not. There is still lead in the priming composition, but for a good reason.

STCM(SW) said:

I have several box's of thies:



Shot them from this Reg. Police.



I've loaded a 200 gr bullet I mold and belive at short range they would work OK.

A half oz of lead even going around 700 fps can be deadly.

Click to expand...

I'm quite intrigued with this little gun, which was very well thought out for a close range defense gun in that caliber.

And the wadcutter loaded ctg. is the same principle of that of the .455 MK III "manstopper" bullet, issued only for use against natives in India, I believe, as was the similar, but HP MK IV.

What velocity do you get from that lead WC in that little case? There was once a full speed (850 FPS or so) WC load for the .38 Special. Maj. George Nonte wrote that it would be pretty effective for defense.

The normal issue for a British soldier with a .38 in WW II was just 12 rounds. I've read books by two officers who tried to scrounge more before going into battle. One went into combat at El Alamein with just nine rounds!

I think the Enfield was adopted in 1927 in .38 S&W caliber because the load was well known there and used in Webleys and because the .38 Special may have been too long for the cylinder of a top break revolver. They were also after low velocity that'd leave a bullet in the body of an enemy and generate a minimum of recoil, as the average soldier in a major war would not receive much training with handguns.

Strangely, I've read that the British military insisted that the .38 S&W cartridge is not the same as the .380 Revolver military cartridge, just dimensionally the same. I suppose that's what you could call a distinction without a difference. However the Mk2 did have a FMJ bullet, which is something that I do not believe the civilian .38 S&W cartridge ever used.

As some may know, the U. S. Army actually considered using the S&W Safety Hammerless revolver in .38 S&W for military service, sometime around 1890, and even did some field trials. I don't think anything came of it. Here's one of them: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=395638273

The Army test report: http://books.google.com/books?id=Mi...t of Smith & Wesson Safety hammerless&f=false

kaaskop49 said:

Sometimes expediency carries the day. In 1911, Britain developed a modern, rimless, roughly 7MM rifle round (believe it was called the .276) much superior to their .303 cartridge. Trajectory at 1000yds, important for long-range MG fire was, I believe, 4 feet less. Why was it not adopted? Belief held that a war was in the offing and Britain was already tooled up for the .303 in their rifles and MGs.

Wars are not won with handguns. The British had used military revolvers for decades in the 19th Century. Made sense to them to continue what they already had. Also less expensive. IMO

Click to expand...

The Garand was designed around a .276 round as well. Army Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur decided in 1936 to stick with the .30-06. He also knew that the US had stockpiles of WW I ammo on hand.

I LIKE the Wobbleys!! I've had two; a MK IV and a MK V. Both were 4" and roundbutt. The MK IV was still in .455. I managed to load it with deep seated .45 Colt cartridges. I'm guessing the headspace was excessive. The MK V was converted to .45 ACP.

At one time, Webley sold shorter front sight blades to get their revolvers on target with commercial 146 gr .38 S&W.
I think the .38-200 was inspired by the Super Police but doubt that load was in good supply in the Commonwealth.


The 1913 Enfield .276 was almost the direct opposite of the 1926 .276 Pedersen. The Pedersen round was a small, mild cartridge suited to the delayed blowback of that rifle. The Enfield was a high velocity round for its day, meant to give the maximum of range and penetration with manageable recoil in a bolt action.

The British had actually designed a new rifle for their 7mm cartridge. It was designated the Pattern 14, and Remington was contracted to build it. WWI came along and it was decided to change the rifle to .303 to simplify ammo supply. When the US got into the was, the rifle was changed again to .30-06 and became the US model 1917. It was built by Remington, Winchester and Eddystone in the US, and after the war, Remington civilianized it as their Model 30.

No, Skeeter, the .276 was the Pattern 13. The few made were produced by the Royal Small Arms Factory.
The .303 version contracted out to US plants was the Pattern 14.
The .30-06 version was the 1917.
A good solid rifle, nobody seemed to like them. The British ramped up production of SMLEs and used as few P14s as possible. Although we had more 1917s in WWI than 1903s, the 1903 was kept as standard after the war.

For much of the military a pistol is a badge of office, not a serious weapon. Might as well have one that is easier to carry if you don't ever intend to actually shoot anybody with it.

DWalt said:

Strangely, I've read that the British military insisted that the .38 S&W cartridge is not the same as the .380 Revolver military cartridge, just dimensionally the same.

Click to expand...

The Mark II 178 gr (don't know about the MarkI) operated at considerably higher pressure than did the commercial 145 gr load.

Peter

jw mathews said:

.......What I would like to know from "STCM(SW)" who has shot the British ammo in his S&W RP revolver (made for US ammo) is where the heavier bullets hit the target relative to point of aim. My guess is they might shoot high but I could be wrong. Others besides myself might be curious about this point also.

Click to expand...

FWIW, in the above-referenced fir stump test, my 200-gr 38 Spl handloads shot almost 4" higher (at about 10 yd) than my 145 gr. Lee wadcutters. My wadcutters have been cronyed at 850 fps; alas, we haven't measured the 200 gr. cartridges, but were using load book data for 750 fps.

In the 38 S&W, the difference wasn't as dramatic: 200 gr. landed 2" higher (at the same distance) than his 145 gr. SWC loads.

Also, as stated above, we loaded the 38 Spl., with both bullets, with more vigor than the 38 S&W. The difference was noticeable when firing.

I apologize for not have more scientific data. But it sort of takes away the fun humping a crony through the woods!

Jim Watson: I stand corrected. Now that you have reminded me, I recall the earlier pattern. The M1917 rifle was in most ways superior to the 1903. It had a weakness in breakage of the ejector, but that was easily corrected, and it was among the strongest of military rifles.

It was also one of the heaviest of military rifles, and longer than 1903 or SMLE. And of course, NIH Syndrome for us.

Fellow by the name of LouisianaMan used to post often here. He did alot of testing on the 38S&W. He loaded his own ammo and just a little more zip than factory, not much. He did alot of test shots with the 38/200.
Through water jugs, gelatin jugs, and other things. He reported good
results. He did this because he wanted to equip his wife and daughters
with both a two inch 38S&W for their car and a four inch 38S&W for home. He was able at that time to buy some safe queens at very cheap prices as this was before gun prices went sky high. This guy was a ex police officer and knew alot about guns. He seemed to think the 38/200 was more than acceptable.

Note that he did not take it as it was, but loaded his own. A better bullet shape is likely to make a LOT more difference than increasing "power". He was also making it part of a system that reflected the realities of the expected user group. "Circumstances dictate tactics".