Old Western Scrounger (OWS) .38 S&W 200 grain load

[sigp220.45]

I just got this from the UPS man today:

It wasn't cheap - with shipping it came to about 43 bucks for this box of 50, but I wanted to try some 200 grainers in my little Terrier and my Brit Victory.

They are pretty funky looking. I expected a more rounded shape, but I got these. They look like the Coneheads from Saturday Night Live.

That's a Fiocchi 145 grain lead round nose next to it for comparison.

No headstamps:

I didn't think they would fit into my trusty Terrier, but they did, with not a lot of room to spare.

They came after I got home from the range. I'll try to shoot some tomorrow, but I don't have a chronograph so I may have to time them with a stopwatch as they meander down to the 50 foot line.

Has anyone chronographed these? I suspect 650 fps tops, maybe less out of deference to the old breaktops out there.

 

[ralph7]

The bottom pic really shows how bizarre this round looks.
Conehead, hah!

 

[GeoJelly]

Interesting load and info - Thanks! I don't have a Terrier but I did the poor-man's version of this with .38 Short Colt. I still haven't been out to fire any of them but I'm thinking they should be pretty mild - with 125-g bullets. The 200-grainers in your rounds should make that Terrier rear up a little bit. Hopefully you go to an outdoor range and can shoot a gallon jug of water with one ...

 

[sigp220.45]

I wish I had good news to report after a trip to the range, but I'm afraid not.

My initial reaction to firing them from my little Terrier was - WHOA! My usually mild mannered gun bucked and reared like never before. OK, says I - these are more stout than the milquetoast loads I've been using up to now.

I fired five at the 50' range, the longest available at the indoor range. When I wheeled the target back I saw only three holes in the head of the target, though I had held center mass. The other two went over the top. I suspected they would shoot high, but not that high.

I moved the target to 21 feet, and let off five more. This was with a solid two hand hold dead center on a standard silhouette. The rounds landed in the neck area.

Sorry for the quality of the photos.

Of more pressing concern was the excessive recoil and the difficult extraction. I'm a fan of 200 grain loads, and shoot the .38 Special variety in my Detective Special. These loads were noticeably more stout. They were hard to punch out, and the primers looked flattened.

I quit at 14 rounds. On that cylinder the gun locked up before the last shot. I thought I had broken the gun, but it turned out the last round had crept forward and kept the cylinder from turning.

I pushed it back in and packed up my stuff. Here it is and this is after I pushed it in enough to get it out, next to one from the box.

I'll shoot the rest out of my Enfield. I wish they would have worked out better, but for now I'm back to the old LRN Fiocchis.

 

[M1A]

You might want to pull one and check bullet diameter. Does not say in your pic. They could be .360 or .361. Not sure, but Fiocchi are .357 or .358.

 

[Topsarge]

Way back when, we were encouraged to carry 200 gr loads in our model 36 because they tended to tumble (I think you call it keyholing) from short barrels therefore possibly hitting the target (thug) sideways and possibly causing more damage. Didn't know if the theory behind it was true, but I tested it. They did hit the target sideways quite a lot so if the theory is true, why not. I'm sure with today's short barrel ammo there is a better chance of expansion, but not always guaranteed.

 

[.455_Hunter]

I want to try the loading from Matt's Bullets- a proper 200 gr hemispherical roundnose.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Oh my, $43/50 rounds is a big number...

I load my own 38/200 ammo and they cost me only $10.50/50 rounds at current component prices. I'm using the correct 200gr bullet used in the original 38/200 British ammo, before they were forced to go to a 170gr FMJ bullet.

 

[Dave_n]

I use a 180 grain semi wadcutter made for me by a local bullet caster and sized to 0.361. POA at 7-10 metres out of Enfields, Webley Mk IVs and SW M&Ps with 5" barrels (the revolver that became the prototype for the UK). Dave_n

 

[reddog81]

Expensive, over pressure and jump crimp... I think I'd pass on buying any more.

 

[les.b]

Thanks for the report...as you may remember, I have a couple of Terriers and several other guns, including a Colts Banker's Special that will use that round. Maybe I'll try to find the plain bullets and try loading my own versions. Very interesting!!! Thanks also for the photos....

Best Regards, Les

 

[Arik]

I'd call them. Any company can have problems and maybe you'll get an extra box of ammo out of it

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[jimmyj]

What powder are you using and what charge ?

 

[cowboy4evr]

Gentlemen , I believe this is correct to say that using a std size (.358) cast bullet is too small . You need about .361 or a bit more , depending on the groove diameter of your barrel to shoot with any accuracy . I have read that the 38sw , (not the 38spl) is a larger size barrel , approx .360. You might have to go to a custom mold maker to get the weight and diameter that you need .

 

[Absalom]

Apart from technicalities of reloading and pressures, just a historical note:

While the original British military .38/200 load was dimensionally identical to the .38 S&W, it would not occur to me to buy ammo purporting to be loaded as such for shooting in small-frame revolvers designed for US commercial loads in .38 S&W, like a Terrier, or even worse, an older topbreak.

Of course, S&W didn’t help things when they labeled the BSR barrels “38 S&W CTG”, but just like with the .38 Long Colt and the .38 Special, interchangeability does not mean they are the same cartridges, and I would not expect a box labeled “38-200 British” to be loaded mildly “in deference to the old breaktops”.

I am somewhat surprised that the OP would be surprised to find the load “stout” when fired from a Terrier.

 

[Texas Star]

I wish I had good news to report after a trip to the range, but I'm afraid not.

My initial reaction to firing them from my little Terrier was - WHOA! My usually mild mannered gun bucked and reared like never before. OK, says I - these are more stout than the milquetoast loads I've been using up to now.

I fired five at the 50' range, the longest available at the indoor range. When I wheeled the target back I saw only three holes in the head of the target, though I had held center mass. The other two went over the top. I suspected they would shoot high, but not that high.

I moved the target to 21 feet, and let off five more. This was with a solid two hand hold dead center on a standard silhouette. The rounds landed in the neck area.

Sorry for the quality of the photos.

Of more pressing concern was the excessive recoil and the difficult extraction. I'm a fan of 200 grain loads, and shoot the .38 Special variety in my Detective Special. These loads were noticeably more stout. They were hard to punch out, and the primers looked flattened.

I quit at 14 rounds. On that cylinder the gun locked up before the last shot. I thought I had broken the gun, but it turned out the last round had crept forward and kept the cylinder from turning.

I pushed it back in and packed up my stuff. Here it is and this is after I pushed it in enough to get it out, next to one from the box.

I'll shoot the rest out of my Enfield. I wish they would have worked out better, but for now I'm back to the old LRN Fiocchis.

Let us know how that load shoots in the Enfield .38. But as that bullet crept forward under recoil, I wouldn't use that ammo for carry needs.

 

[sigp220.45]

While the original British military .38/200 load was dimensionally identical to the .38 S&W, it would not occur to me to buy ammo purporting to be loaded as such for shooting in small-frame revolvers designed for US commercial loads in .38 S&W, like a Terrier, or even worse, an older topbreak.

I am somewhat surprised that the OP would be surprised to find the load “stout” when fired from a Terrier.

I'm surprised that you are surprised that I was surprised.

Is the British .38/200 load hotter than the .38 S&W Super Police 200 grain load? The Terrier was advertised as being suitable for that load, which I thought was ballistically identical to the British .38/200.

I've fired the .38 Special Super Police 200 grain load, which should be hotter than the .38 S&W 200 grain load. This .38/200 was waaaaay more stout than that.

It wasn't the recoil that concerned me, though I admit it did take me by surprise. It was the other signs of high pressure - the hard ejection and flattened primers.

T-Star, I won't be carrying this in my Terrier. I think I'll try some Matt's Bullets next, or just load my own.

We are supposed to get pounded by a snowstorm tomorrow, though it is currently a sunny 75 degrees here in Colorful Colorado. If I can get to the range I'll try to bang the rest of these off in my BSR and Enfield, but if I keep getting high pressure signals I'll just write these off.

 

[TripleLock]

My one-and-only experience with OWS ammunition was similar to that of the OP... but with .351 W.S.L. for a Winchester Model '07. When .351 ammo was finally discontinued and shelf-stock dried up, I ordered a box from OWS and could not wait to head out to the range. Immediately I noticed, in comparison to the Winchester and Remington factory ammo an uncomfortable increase in muzzle blast from the OWS ammo, sharper recoil, and very definite signs of over-pressure (swollen cases, poor extraction, flattened primers). I only fired a couple of rounds out of the box of 50, and relegated the remaining rounds to spending the remainder of their days simply sitting in the colorful box... with a note placed inside the box warning that I consider the rounds to be unsafe to fire.

I seem to recall (this was almost 30 years ago) scattered reports of suspected over-pressure incidents - none of a catastrophic nature - involving OWS ammo.

Perhaps some day I'll break the rounds down and salvage the cases and bullets for future reloading. But that experience pretty much ended my desire for OWS ammo.

 

[Absalom]

I'm surprised that you are surprised that I was surprised.

Is the British .38/200 load hotter than the .38 S&W Super Police 200 grain load? The Terrier was advertised as being suitable for that load, which I thought was ballistically identical to the British .38/200.
......

Sorry about the following sermon; please do not take it personally :

The problem is that post-war American gun writers have talked themselves and others into the myth of the “weak” .38 which the foolish British adopted instead of the wonderful .455 which knocked everybody for a loop if you hit them in the finger.

However, nobody else that I’m aware of has been documented, in the entire British Commonwealth and elsewhere, as seeing this as an issue through WW II and the following decades.

There seems to be little available in chronograph data (believe me, I’ve searched), when it comes to actual pre-war loads of the .38-200. But the British Army seems to have been satisfied based on penetration tests and such that the .38 load was an adequate load, and beyond snarky remarks by US gun writers, backed up by no knowledge or evidence, I have found nothing to contradict that impression.

The inevitable conclusion is that a realistic .38-200 British load would be of quite a bit higher pressure than the relatively tame .38 S&W commercial load. For the .380 Mk IIz, the wartime 178 grain version, I’ve read about pressures of 50% more than a standard .38 S&W load.

Now the caveat: I have no idea whether there are standards for the military load anywhere, and what individual manufacturers have in mind when they label a box “.38-200 British”. Maybe some just stick a 200 grain bullet on top of a regular .38 S&W load. I’ve found an old chronograph report where a guy tested a post-war FN load labeled .380 Mk IIz which actually came out weaker than a .38 S&W.

So basically, people don’t seem to know what they really mean. My default assumption would therefore be that .38-200, properly loaded, is hotter than .38 S&W, and I would limit its use to mid-size guns specifically built for it, like Enfields, Webleys, and S&W BSRs.

With the BSR being the obvious exception (and that was just vanity on the part of S&W ), ammo for a gun labeled .38 S&W should probably come in a box labeled .38 S&W. If THAT causes problems, you’ve got reason to complain.

PS: None of this, btw., is meant to suggest that OWS couldn’t have screwed up and that you and the other contributors couldn’t be correct with your suspicions that this box of yours is defective and was mis-loaded.

 

[jupiter1]

The problem is that post-war American gun writers have talked themselves and others into the myth of the “weak” .38 which the foolish British adopted instead of the wonderful .455 which knocked everybody for a loop if you hit them in the finger.

However, nobody else that I’m aware of has been documented, in the entire British Commonwealth and elsewhere, as seeing this as an issue through WW II and the following decades.

I came around to the same conclusion quite some time ago.

They did the same thing to the .38 Special; not to mention the 9mm too.