I've often wondered the logic behind using the 200gr bullet that the British used in the .38 S&W cartridge. A cursory search disclosed the .38/200 had a whopping 620 fps with 176 lbs of energy!

Hopefully someone can explain the rationale.

It was the slow, heavy bullet stopping power theory, also tried with the .38 Special 200 gr loads from the 1930. For the British, I think it lost something in the translation from .455 to .38, however.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

Part of the logic was that the 200 grain bullet was longer than the typical 148 grain bullet, therefore somewhat less stable, and tended to yaw in body tissue, causing greater damage during its passage. The heavier bullet also was thought to have improved penetration vs. the lighter bullets. They also felt the .38 could be more easily used owing to less recoil, vs their earlier .455 revolvers. Part of the same philosophy the US had when it adopted the 9mm in the 1980s. You also have to remember that the British military leadership considered a handgun more as a badge of rank than as a weapon.

The real question is why did the British embrace an obsolescent cartridge from the late 19th Century and a top break revolver from the same period as their standard military cartridge and revolver, when so many better cartridges and revolvers were available after WWI.

The choice of the .38/200 round never seemed to make much sense to me either. But as with so many other gun/caliber 'mismatches' it doesn't need to make sense ; it just is what it is and we collect em or reject em. The model 34 with a two inch barrel and adjustable sights in .22lr also never made sense to me but there's enough guys out there that like em so it works.... big or small love em all for what they are.

I thought longer bullets were more stable, not less.

__________________
No life story has happy end.

Precisely the opposite. It requires a much more rapid rifling twist to stabilize a longer bullet.

It depends on the rate of twist......longer bullets become less stable in slower twist rates.......

Bullet stability depends on the twist rate of the rifling. For a given caliber, a heavier bullet will be longer, and therefor need a faster twist to stabilize it. The original US .30 caliber rifle was the .30-40 Krag, using a 220 grain round nose bullet which required a 1:10 twist for stability. The same twist was retaied for the 1903 Springfield and the M1 Garand although bullet weight for the .30-06 cartridge had been reduced. When the M14 rifle was adopted, the caliber was 7.62 Nato, which never used over a 150 grain bullet, so the rate of twist was reduced to 1:12, which gave adequate stability. There is a formula for determining the required rate of twist for a given projectile called the Greenhill formula that has been around since before 1900 that can be used to calculate what bullets can be used accurately in the S&W standard rate of twist of 1:18.75.

__________________
Tom
1560

I assume the 38-200 was much like the old military 45 Auto-loaders, which showed up on my targets key-holing as often as they made round holes. Slow speed and heavy bullet, but still made quite an impact so to speak.

I think this caliber is a British invention. It seems the Brits were very interested in having many types of guns, but all in the same caliber. Their choices in calibers were not the best, but they were more about economics and convenience, than about ballistics. Think about their historical choices in military weapons. Those who have shot a 577 Snider rifle know about how inaccurate they were, but they could do it cheaply. Those who have shot the 455 caliber revolver know that the cartridge is a relatively poor choice for WWI troops, but it had history. I assume the 38-200 falls into both the preceding categories.

__________________
Gary
SWCA 2515

A good example is the M16. The earlier M16 rifles used a cartridge having a 55 grain bullet and a 1:14" twist. At very cold temperatures, bullet instability was noted, so the twist was increased to 1:12". Later, when the M855 round was adopted, it had a much longer 62 grain bullet (and the tracer version had an even longer bullet). Those bullets in a 1:12" twist barrel resulted extreme bullet instability, and the rifling twist was then increased to 1:7" to regain stability.

In answer to DWalt in the second part of post #3: I have considered the reasoning behind the crudity and obsolescence of the British revolvers of WWI and WWII, and have decided that it was a matter of economics. I have no doubt that the British recognized the superiority of the later solid frame, side swing cylinder revolvers, but were unable to make the capital investments necessary to adopt the designs. The Webley designed revolvers could be produced from plate and bar stock using existing machinery, without the expenses that would have been needed for the heavy forging equipment that would have been required to build a S&W or Colt style revolver. The Webley design was stronger than the older S&W top break design, as proved by the conversion of many of the MkVI and earlier .455 top breaks to .45 ACP, a much higher pressure round than they were designed for. As for the .38/200 cartridge, I don't think it was obsolete in the time frame that the .38 Webley and Enfield revolvers were adopted. S&W and Colt were still using the cailber for police revolvers until the S&W RP and Terrier revolvers were dropped from production after 1960, and Colt used it in the Police Positive for many years.

__________________
Tom
1560

There is no reasoning or logic to British thinking.
At the beginning of both World Wars the British found themselves short on arms. Therefore they looked to other countries for arms. Then after both wars the British sold off or destroyed weapons instead of putting them in storage/reserve.

Again, here I come with stuff I remember reading , but not when. Its been a while though. It was an article about the .38 S&W 200gr from the 1920's. To make a long stay short, it mentioned a police shooting with it and the recovered slug was described as about the size of a quartier.

I have 3 boxes of .38 Special 200 gr Super Police and just last week end shot 12 rounds from a box. 6 form a 2" M-10 and 6 from a 6" m-10. I shot them into a Cabellas hard bound spring catalog with about 1000 pages and gallon water bottles. All rounds fired into catalog first, with bottles as back up went through the catalog and stopped in the second (mostly) bottle and sometime 3rd bottle. When shot into a gallon jug with the book behind, the bullets stopped in the book and all were sidewise. All had some deformation with one fired into book first flattened out to about .54 cal., maybe more. The velocity listed on the back of the boxes (Western, yellow box) is 745fps.

It's odd that by WWII, most of the major national armies had already converted, or largely converted, to the use of semi-automatics as official first-line sidearms. Think of the Colt 1911A1, the Luger, the P-38, the Tokarev, and the Nambu to name just a few. Except, that is, for the British Commonwealth. There were a few Canadian-made Browning Hi-Powers in Commonwealth service during WWII, but a large majority of their handguns remained revolvers until well after the war.

A friend has pointed out to me the .38-200 may have been considered the practical upper limit at the time with regard to recoil and controllability. This may well be true. My thoughts are certainly the British high command of the 1920’s felt the .38-200 and its Enfield revolver were satisfactory for war use. Julian Hatcher writing in his book Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers gave examples of a few uses of the .38 S&W Super Police load on criminals which were satisfactory..

The British handgun training of WWII era did not discuss slow fire shooting. The British soldier was taught to shoot double action on disappearing silhouette targets. “This new weapon has been designed throughout to facilitate instinctive aiming and firing.”

W.H.B. Smith thought highly of the Pistol No. 2 Mark I* when he wrote of it in early WWII American Rifleman Magazines. Smith stated the revolvers grip was developed using “try grips” which allowed use by many testers in developing the right balance and pointability of the revolver. Smith went on to ask the need for sights at all since the revolver was designed for “point and shoot” use.

The cylinder latch and the receiver side plate garnered considerable praise from Smith. The two-point hand – similar to that of the Colt revolver also gathered it shares of praise for pushing the cylinder forward and helping to seal the cylinder/barrel gap.

The fixing pin which locks the extractor star came in for praise as it helped to prevent lead spitting as the mechanism wore in use.

Of the cartridge smith wrote that it was an adequate man stopper and that it saved one and 1 ½ pounds weight per every 100 rounds of ammunition over the .455 cartridge.

“Battle tests have demonstrated to the satisfaction of British field commanders that the .38-200 answers all the needs for a close-quarters weapon, and more and more stress has been lain on the efficient use of these revolvers.”

__________________
William Iorg

"I think this caliber is a British invention." Actually, as has been pointed out, the cartridge (not caliber) was originally the black-powder 38 S&W; the Brits loaded it with a 200 gr. bullet and called it the 38-200 or more accurately, 380-200. From what we know about the reactionary Brit military establishment, we can be mildly surprised they didn't continue to use black powder. But then again, since the 380/200 is much more economical to load than the .455 Webley, I'm thinking that fact may have influenced the powers-that-be as much as relieving the hand-gun carrying infantry officer of a couple of pounds (no pun intended).

Friend of mine wanted help in loading his WWII M&P in 38 S&W. In the process of loading standard 150 gr. loads, we found a bullet maker who casts .360"/200 gr. bullets. We had so much fun shooting them, I bought some .358"/200 gr. bullets from the same maker for my Mdl 10 38 Special.

Our standard "mortality test" is to find a large, rotting Doug fir stump. (hard on the outside, soft on the inside; .22 LR barely get past the hard outer crust, 45-70 and 300 Win bullets blow through and out the other side).

38-200 went nicely through the hard outside and ended up well inside; many, but not all, had turned sideways. My 38 Special loads, because I'd boosted the load somewhat, went slightly deeper, but not substantially so, again, many were sideways.

So I suppose in wartime conditions, the 380-200 was much more effective than throwing a rock, but still.....I'd much rather have something with a little more oomph.

During WWII, the official revolver combat load did not use the earlier 200 grain lead bullet, but rather a 178 grain FMJ bullet (the ".380 Revolver Mk2" cartridge) to comply with the Hague convention restrictions on use of "inhumane" bullets in warfare. Apparently stockpiles of the old 200 grain lead bullet loads (Mk1) were used only for training during the war. I've often wondered why the S&W revolvers were not called the ".38/178".

By the way, for a long time I reloaded the .38 S&W with typical .357-.358 lead bullets as used for the .38 Special. They always seemed to work fine for me. More recently, I have been using the Missouri Bullet Company .361" diameter lead bullets. I don't see much difference, but as those don't cost any more than .357" bullets, why not use them in the .38 S&W?

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.

__________________
Only difference Fool/Mule-ears

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

I think we are talking about terminal ballistic stability, what the bullet does after it hits the target. The longer bullets tend to be less stable after penetrating a body. The weight of the long, pointed bullet is mostly in the rear so that when it hits a body, the front of the bullet wants to slow first and the momentum in the heavier rear wants to continue on causing the bullet to yaw inside of a body. If you look at the photo of the 30/200 in the previous post, you notice that it is quite pointed for a handgun bullet. That is what the Brits were after when they designed this bullet. The Russians have used this principal with the 5.45x39 round for the AK74. The front of 53 grain bullet is actually an air pocket leaving the maximum weight in the rear. On contact with flesh, the bullet almost immediately starts to yaw causing a larger wound. When the same round hits a solid object, the resistance causes the air pocket to collapse and the steel penetraitor continues on. The 5.56 m16 round also uses this principal, just to a lesser degree. In fact, most military small arms rifle ammo uses this principal to one degree or another. It is how they get around not being able to use expanding ammo.

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.

__________________
My sgntr is mor thn 30 chrctrs

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?

__________________
John 1:17
NRA Life Benefactor

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.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

"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.

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/Vie...Item=395638273

The Army test report: http://books.google.com/books?id=Mi8...erless&f=false

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.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

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.

__________________
Tom
1560

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.

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

Peter

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.

__________________
Tom
1560

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.

__________________
Goose
I'm still standing.

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".

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

I still think it was silly to send an officer into battle at El Alamein with a .38-200 and nine rounds! I know that officers are supposed to direct the fighting, not fight, themselves. But they sometimes have to take a hand in the killing. One US officer wrote to Randall Made Knives that his Model 1 knife played a considerable role in killing the 364 enemy for which he received personal credit! He must have been in the thick of the fighting a lot. Maj. Gen. James Gavin carried a Randall knife and a Garand as well as his .45. He meant to deal with the enemy himself if need be.

BTW, the Brit with nine rounds wounded an Italian soldier in the back and the men, both wounded, wound up in the same British aid station, waiting a long time for a doctor. The Italian was in great pain and kept asking when the doctor would come. He died.

Not the best result...

Another British officer, one Raleigh Trevelyan if you want to look for his book, had a Thompson as well as his .38. He sprayed a bush that was offering cover (well, concealment) to a German and later went by and found the man's body. He was pretty happy, writing later that this was his first kill. Not everyone is PC morbid about killing the enemy, especially when an enemy is trying to kill the man reporting the results, thank goodness. This was at Monte Cassino.

There's a good photo of New Zealand machinegunners at Monte Cassino and one has the flap of his Pattern 37 webbing holster folded back. The gun is a S&W .38-200. That the man folded the holster flap back suggests that Germans were close and that he did indeed place some faith in his revolver.

Here's a bit of history on this.

The .455 Webley was judged by the British service hierarchy to be more bulky, heavy and unwieldy than desired. Also, it was believed that training time could be reduced due to the softer recoil of a smaller, less powerful gun.

In 1922, the British War Office made a decision to seek a scaled-down and lighter service revolver in a smaller caliber. Webley & Scott Ltd. was appointed the agent for development. The caliber of the new revolver was to be, in British terminology, a “.380.” This round was not the same as the cartridge we know as the .380 in the U.S. (a shorter rimless 9mm round), but was a rimmed, stubby cartridge with a bullet diameter somewhat larger than that used in our own .38 Special cartridge. On these shores, today we call it the .38 S&W. This round could fit in the shorter cylinder of a Webley, which would not accept our standard .38 special cartridge.

It was recognized, of course, that the stopping power of this number could not equal the older .455, which had a bullet weight of between 220 and 265 grains. In an effort to make a .38 round with the stopping power of a .455, the bullet weight of the new cartridge was ramped up to more than 200 grains. Webley submitted a sample gun dubbed the new “Mark IV model” in January 1922, and tests were conducted at the Royal Small Arms School in Hythe.

The reports were generally favorable. The new smaller gun was liked for its lighter weight, but it was thought that it would be a better service weapon if the stopping power of the cartridge could be made greater.

Kynoch made some test cartridges with 200 grain lead bullets, powered by 2.8 grains of nitro-cellulose powder. These bullets tended to yaw after penetration, a desirable feature, and registered a 50-yard velocity of 570 feet per second from a 5-inch barrel. The standard issue cartridge was modeled on this design, and became known as the .38/200 in England. In August 1922, the test committee pronounced the stopping power sufficient.

And now you know "the rest of the story."

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

As you can guess from my user name, I am pretty fond of the British service cartridges. I got a .38 Enfield DAO from my Father when I was 13, and carried pretty all the time around our home and property in the foothills west of Boulder, CO. I used FN surplus, Win and Rem factory loads, and always found it to be comforting with the ever present threats from wack-out druggies, mountain lions, bears and dogs. Let's just say it came out of the holster quite a few times when things got hairy. It is still one of my most cherished firearms.

It's no big trick, if you are a handloader, to reload the .38 S&W to very nearly .38 Special ballistics. The Lyman cast bullet handbook shows some of those loads. However they caution that such loads be used only in solid-frame revolvers (such as the British Victories), and not in top breaks. The .38 Mk1 and Mk2 loads are pretty much the same ballistics as factory .38 S&W loads, but with heavier bullets. For some reason, many think that the British loads are hot - but they are not. I once fired quite a few Mk2 loads in a S&W .38 DA 4th Model top break, and it held together OK. But that was many years ago (Commonwealth .380 Mk2 ammunition was very cheap on the surplus market back then, as were Enfield revolvers). I wouldn't do that now, nor would I recommend the practice.

Before purchasing a 38 SW Regulation Police I researched the round and variations over the years. This thread of a 38 spl load is similar and appears appropriate enough though I've no speculation on the alleged rebirth.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/reb...ice-cartridge/

The Winchester Western 200-grain blunt nose “Super Police” load.

Maybe this could be offered in the .38 SW for those that do not twist their own. Two hundred gn at 700'ps is 217'lb of energy. Perhaps a SWC for across the room engagements that would not require a taller front sight for point & shoot. Magtech's 146 gn LRN claims ME 152'lb @ 686'ps, so perhaps a 200gn .38 SW pushing around 200'lb of ME wouldn't be that much of a leap for a lightly fired defensive round out of an I-frame. Certainly wouldn't be an issue all day long in the K-frame and other than the Webly I wouldn't wish to run it through a top loader.

BB offers above anemic loads for the .38 SW[125 gn hard cast FN ME 224'lb/900'ps w/claims of 926-977'ps out of 4" Regulation Police] at more than a buck a round, not including shipping, utilizing the other end of the spectrum in a lighter/faster cartridge.

I understand that rationale at 25 yds, but at point blank to seven yards give or take I can also see merit in the heavier projectile on a soft target.

As a point of reference Blazer 38 spl 158 gr LRN lists ME out of a 4" test brl at 200'lb/755'ps. I shoot them out of my pre-heat treated 1916 roughly M&P 1905 HE. That's a mild load out of the old K-frame & I see no reason why one wouldn't be able to fire similar load out of a Regulation Police.

Of course I've been known to be wrong on multiple occasions within the same day.

Hello again to all,
My posting habits have gotten even more erratic than usual due to health & moving from St. Francisville to Baton Rouge, but I still lurk out here occasionally :-)

Most of the established history has been brought out in this thread about the British Army's adoption of the .38/200, aka .38-200, aka .380 Rim; in civilian guise as .38 S&W, .38 Short, .38 Colt New Police, and doubtless others I've omitted. Until and unless somebody gains access to as-yet unknown archival material on the British Army cadaver and animal studies that were associated with this test, we are left with scant evidence and lots of speculation to fill in the blanks.

As soon as I finish this note, I'll try to track down Ljutic and see if he can run an ammo test for us, as I've personally watched & helped this question simmer for at least 5 years now. It's a simple matter to load .38 SPL 200g cartridges to .38-200 ballistics so that he can run the tests with guns he owns.

In my personal attempts to figure this out, I've fired vintage ammo, modern commercial and military ammo, and handloads of many shapes and descriptions. My tools have been limited to chronographs and water jugs, as well as the odd overcoat, tree, etc. Nothing that allows me to get a handle on wound volume, and I think that's the precise issue at point.

Lead alloy flat-nose bullets are easily driven through columns of water/milk jugs at .38 S&W velocities, i.e. 550-800 fps or so. In 200g flavor, I've fired vintage .38 S&W, vintage .38 Special Super Police Lubaloy, plus handloads with 358430 clones and custom Mk 1/1Z duplicate bullets, closely modeled after British Army technical drawings that give some important details, and omit others. I've also shot a clone of the NEI 169A, which is quite pointy, and resembles the profile of the Brit 178g Mk2/2Z ammo. Also the RCBS .35-200 LFP rifle bullet. I've also used some of the CIS (Singapore) .380 Rim 178g long-ogive bullet that the NEI 169A mimics (albeit 22g heavier). Lots of fun with a 200g custom mold in sharp-shouldered SWC format, and even with 358430's "smushed" or bumped into nearly full WC format.

Main observations:
1. 145-46g LRN commercial loads typically give about 625 instead of advertised 685 fps, i.e. from weak to weaker.

2. 200g LRN bullets, whether with the blunt Mk 1 nose or the pointy Mk 2 profile, not only blast through about 6 milk jugs when MV is 600+, but they almost always tumble markedly. This begins in jug #1 or #2, knocks the (relative) stuffing out of the next jug or two, then tumbles on its way with less predictable trajectory and milder results. (Leaking holes.) Not uncommon for the bullet to leave #3 or #4 and cross into adjacent jugs, penetrating 1-2 more.

3. 200g LSWC or LFP bullets drill straight through 6 jugs, with the large meplat of the SWC being noticeably rougher on jugs 1-2.

4. 140-158g SWC's and other FPs drill straight through, and even at vels in low 700's they'll stick nose-first into a stop board.

5. Mk 2Z 178g FMJ ammo drilled through a greatcoat, milk jug, and into a living pine tree at a paced 56-58 yards. One jug blew up and that bullet slammed sideways into the tree and had to be dug out with difficulty. The other test shot drilled a straight hole through jug and deep into tree, unrecoverable.

6. Terrible stories abound of the misbehavior of Mk2/2Z 178g FMJ, and I believe them to be true. Pretty sure that was substandard/degraded ammo, or a combination of jacketed bullet, bore diameter and low velocity causing BIB situations, or nearly so. But the CIS (Singapore) ammo I fired of post-WWII vintage performed rather impressively.

7. The blunt lead factory 200g .38 SPL and .38 S&W that I had available were extremely similar. From a 5" Victory, the .38-200 was slightly faster than the Special from a 4" Model 10.

8. Soft, slow, heavy lead bullets will bounce off hard intermediate barriers, but with a direct hit on an unarmored flesh-and-bone target, I would expect these .38 cal. 200g bullets to go T&T in a shallow target (fleshy arm); tumble violently through deeper targets (entrails); and to have a devastating crushing impact when hitting bone. (I base this latter comment on Thompson-LaGarde, which assessed it using X-rays.) This means it probably did well with good torso hits, spectacularly with hits on heavy bone structures, marginally on shallow-angle flesh wounds, and failed against targets behind any angular hard cover.

9. My girls' guns are loaded with a 140g SWC or 148g WC at about 700. My snubs carry 200g LRN of pure lead; my 4" guns hardcast 200g SWC or 135g GDHP-SB; my Ruger Speed-Six 200g 169E clones; my 5" Victory 200g LSWC.

10. This last is pure speculation: the British Army may have said the .38-200 had roughly equivalent "stopping power" to the .455 Webley, since service ammo for the latter was pointy-nosed 262g lead at about 600, the former blunt 200g lead at about 600. Accordingly: both bullets depended primarily on momentum, and each had sufficient to smash bones it hit directly, and damage ONLY what it hit directly. PERHAPS the blunter .38 was considered to have an advantage in ogival shape, and PERHAPS its pronounced tendency to tumble gave it "hollowpoint effects from the inside out," so to speak. IF the 262g .455 lead bullet also tumbled, then the .38's advantage could only be its blunt ogive. Or, the testers factored in recovery time for both guns and concluded that their style of pistol-fighting would get better hits, faster, with the .38, thus heightening the chance of stopping the "wily Hun or Johnny Pathan."

Can anyone out there tell us if .455 lead or WWII FMJ tumbled?

Perhaps because they thought they would have ANZAC /AIF to throw at them again. Kitchner and Hamilton were like that.

I'll bet Sir William Robertson would've opted for the 1911, I know Blamey would've.

__________________
Halfway and one more step

"1. 145-46g LRN commercial loads typically give about 625 instead of advertised 685 fps, i.e. from weak to weaker."

One must remember that no two revolvers firing the exact same round with the exact same barrel length will produce the same muzzle velocity. I have extensive evidence of this, wherein I have measured average MV differences of 50 to 100 ft/sec with identical .38 Special lead bullet loads in different revolvers having 6" barrels. This appears to be a function of the width of the gap between the cylinder and the barrel. But other dimensional differences between revolvers may also be involved. Throw into the mix the fact that ammunition factory MV measurements are not usually made with actual revolvers, but rather using standard vented ballistic test barrels, and the only conclusion you can draw is that the only way you can know reliably your MV is to chronograph your revolver and ammunition yourself. You cannot believe the MV data the factory provides, nor what any reloading manual says.

Good to see you posting again LouisianaMan. As always you posted excellant info on the 38-S&W. Have you ever shot any of the 200 grain or the 160 grain for the 38-S&W from the Old Western Scrounger Co? If
so would you consider it reliable? Have any stats on it? Right now I have my 38-S&W loaded with the Buffalo Bore 125 grain flat nose, their version of the 38 Colt New Police. If I new it was reliable I would alternate that with the heavier ammo from OWS. Thanks, Goose

__________________
Goose
I'm still standing.

LousianaMan's the Man!

I've run some tests with the .38 S&W loaded with 200 grain bullets; some that were even obtained from LouisianaMan. They are very accurate and shoot to point-of-aim in a World War II Webley Mark IV. They also give a Colt Bankers' Special a full 1200 grain complement of lead for its six shots. Couple that with the ability of the solid-framed Bankers' Special to handled 200 grain lead bullets to over 700 fps from its 2-inch snub barrel and there ain't a .380 pistol or load made I'd prefer over a .38 S&W loaded with a soft lead 200 grain bullet.