Texas, I would offer this observation with regards to the British .380-200 round, the original with a 200-grain chunk of soft lead. That round, at muzzle distance, most combat ranges, would have been most effective in war time conditions, including law enforcement applications. You have a big bullet, traveling at a moderate velocity (650-feet or so per second) impacting on "any" standard german great coat of WW2, at 10-feet or less; the show is over!
Now the later .380-180 full metal jacket round, of 180-gr. size, would not have been as effective for sure. I would never contest "any" observation made by David Arnold for sure. But that round he was speaking of may not have been properly loaded. At 10-feet, the surplus stuff that came into the country a few years ago, went "slap through" a 2"X4" piece of lumber I used for testing the strength. Soft clothing, layered or not, I don't believe, would defeat a properly loaded .380-180 round. Just an observation on my part from personal, informal testing done by myself. I was really, really into this stuff a few years back. Now don't think for a second that I would choose an Enfield over a 1911 A-1 for combat purposes, but many professional British soldiers felt strongly concerning their Enfields. There were "some" that favored other hardware, but many did not! Just a little input Texas, on this interesting subject matter, of which I've profited much from "your" interesting posts!
David
David-
That FMJ bullet has more bore friction, despite being lighter than the lead bullet. I think some lots of ammo were underloaded.
This could account for the instances where RAF shooting teams actually had the danged bullet stall IN THE BARRELS. I read about that in British gun magazines published before the awful 1997 law. I hope it wasn't common. It seemed to happen mostly in S&W guns. I think Webleys and Enfields have slightly looser bores.
Was Peter Laidler saying that he favored a .38 Enfield as his personal arm over the 9mm Browning? Odd...
Now, this: my youngest brother owned a six-inch barreled .38-200 S&W. He loaded it with US made 145-146 grain ammo. One night when alone, he thought he'd snap it a few times. The dimwit forgot to check the cylinder. BANG! He put a bullet into a copy of Haven & Belden's, History of the Colt Revolver, lying on a shelf in my room. The bullet hit the book as it lay flat and it penetrated about an inch, maybe less, into the paper.
The varlet hid the book in his car trunk and didn't admit what happened for several months, during which I wondered greatly what had become of my book.
Finally, he confessed & showed me the book, by then ruined by moisture. I had to buy a new book, and it was hard to find.
But that poor penetration stayed with me, and I wasn't impressed.
I respected David W. Arnold. I still have some carved African animals that he sent me, on a bookcase. He may have got a bad lot of ammo, combined with a tight revolver bore. But if he said the bullet didn't totally pierce that coat, I believe him.
I was therefore VERY interested to read David Abney's account of shooting through that board. Evidently, at least some of the time, the .38 S&W works better than it does other times.
BTW, if you can find a copy of the late David W. Arnold's, Shoot a Handgun, it's the best such book I've ever seen, and I gave it a very favorable review in a magazine where I wrote for 30 years. Many photos and superb line drawings by his talented wife, Patricia. It was initially printed in his native South Africa, but after he came here to edit for Petersen Publications, there was a US edition.
I mention his middle initial because there has been a different David Arnold who wrote gun articles. He's probably a nice guy, but I've never met him and don't know anything about him. I think this DA is an American. I believe he's still living. David W. Arnold is deceased.
