S&W BNP Revolver Information

Io thought the 9x18 was the 9mm Ultra .but there well may have been more than one marketing name , if nor more than one loadong for a 9x18 ctg.

We are seeing a disconnect between current procedures and terminology for Proofing between modern SAAMI and 1940s and 50s UK .

I suspect the OP does not reside in the USA , but instead probably in a Commonwealth country. Certain firearms of specific vintages may be possable/ simpler for them to own , and ammo for former British service weapons may be be more common there than here.
 
The only thing on this revolver that is lacking is the grips were whittled to fit the owners hand/grip. I have Pakmyer grips on it now and have fired it. The ammo he gave me was .380 DA ammo that ejected no problem and I still have a dozen rounds of it left I did try it and thought twice about firing 50 yr old ammo out of it. I will be selling it and getting myself a .357 or .38 if I can find a buyer interested in Canada. The markings on it are impecable and it is in great stored shape. Any idea #1 where in Canada it would be worth posting for a collector and #2 what price range that I should be asking? I don't want to be shooting something historical or collectable just wanted a .38special capable revolver... Thank you for the information and yes I am in Canada... The information was awesome to see...
 
"you in Canada or somewhere like that? If so, .38-200 ammo may be more available than in the USA."

.38S&W ammo is not something you would see on the shelves of any retailer up here.

My suggestion to the OP is to list it for sale on "Canadian Gun Nutz" which is probably the most active firearms forum up here. Post some clear pic's. There have been many K-200's listed in the past.
 
.....
"It was a pip-squeek of a load for sure, making their change over to the 200gr bullet all that more important in an attempt to gain some knock down effect."

You have it backward. The .380 Revolver, Mk1 service cartridge had a 200 grain lead bullet, and was used prior to WWII. The later Mk2 round had a 178 grain FMJ bullet, adopted because the lead bullet was illegal under the protocols of the Hague Convention as being presumed inhumane, causing unnecesary suffering, because it could expand.

Thanks for the answer on my open question.

I don't understand the 'You have it backwards' on my 200gr bullet statement.
Yes the 200gr lead bullet was the adopted projectile that got the 38S&W into the replacement spot for the .455 in the early 30's.

It was the weight of the bullet that increased the cartridge effectiveness at such slow velocity. Nothing to do with expansion.

Commercial loadings of the round used bullets in the 140gr range (the pip-squeeks),,. and were not up to the challenge of competing with the .455 in knockdown.
The Brits decided the 200gr bullet in the 38S&W was.


The fact that the International Whatever Committee decided that the composition of the bullet (lead) was a no-no in warfare had nothing to do with the reason the bullet weight in that caliber was employed to begin with.
 
Thanks for the answer on my open question.

I don't understand the 'You have it backwards' on my 200gr bullet statement.
Yes the 200gr lead bullet was the adopted projectile that got the 38S&W into the replacement spot for the .455 in the early 30's.

It was the weight of the bullet that increased the cartridge effectiveness at such slow velocity. Nothing to do with expansion.

Commercial loadings of the round used bullets in the 140gr range (the pip-squeeks),,. and were not up to the challenge of competing with the .455 in knockdown.
The Brits decided the 200gr bullet in the 38S&W was.


The fact that the International Whatever Committee decided that the composition of the bullet (lead) was a no-no in warfare had nothing to do with the reason the bullet weight in that caliber was employed to begin with.

The 200 grain .380 Revolver Mk1 load was not used in combat during WWII precisely because it was in violation of the Hague Convention, and was therefore illegal. However, it was used some for training, and Mk1 ammunition in inventory was used up that way. The only official combat .380 load used in British Commonwealth Victory and Enfield .38 revolvers during WWII by the British was the FMJ 178 grain Mk2 load (but I cannot say there was no surreptitious use of the Mk1 load in combat from time to time).

Presumably the reason for the original adoption of the 200 grain lead bullet load in the post-WWI era was that it was assumed to be capable of producing equivalent "knockdown" performance to the .455 revolver cartridge used by the British during WWI, but in a smaller and lighter-weight revolver. I have never read how the British reached this conclusion, nor why they chose a weak obsolete cartridge (the .38 S&W was one of the first black powder cartridges in the 1870s), instead of a much better caliber, such as the .38 Special which was well-established by WWII, nor why they chose to adopt an obsolete top-break revolver design when far stronger solid frame revolvers were also available. My guess is that they were somehow wedded to the break top revolver design because they knew how to make them, and by so doing, they were then limited to selecting a weak cartridge, as the break top design is in itself weak.
 
British chamber pressure values are given in long tons of 2240 lbs per square inch AND are measured with an axial crusher gauge which does not register the same as a US radial crusher gauge. Gough Thomas compared guns and loads across the Atlantic and concluded that a GB ton was about 2800 lb (now CUP) in shotshells. That is still not a direct correlation in pistol and rifle loads, but gives an idea of what is going on.
 
I believe that part of the "effectiveness" of the 200 gr. bullet was that it was intentionally unstable and started tumbling as soon as it hit something and didn't need to expand to be effective. As it was meant for close range work accuracy at longer distances was not considered.
 
The use of handguns was far from universal among troops in British and European armies of that time. Most enlisted soldiers were issued only rifles, while officers and some non-commissioned officers were issued handguns, and also some special and support troops, such as machine gunners, truck drivers, and tank captains. And it was intended that the handgun would serve more as a "badge of office" than as an actual weapon, or possibly only in some last-ditch life-or-death situation. Therefore the caliber of the revolver was probably considered as not being particularly important for military use. Undoubtedly, the British did use revolvers as combat weapons during WWII, but from what I have read, the .380s were considered somewhat ineffective for that purpose. I remember one story concerning the British campaign in North Africa where it was stated that the main use of the revolver was in keeping wild desert dogs out of troop encampments, and it wasn't very effective even for that.
 
I think that I have posted this before, but it bears repeating (the NRA is the British one):

The following notice appeared in the NRA Journal, Vol. XLIX, No.1 (Spring 1970)
From: The Director, Inspectorate of Armaments.
Cartridges. S.A. Ball. Revolver .380" Mark 2z
It should be noted that whilst the dimensions of cartridges of the above description are similar to those known commercially either as .38" S&W or as .38" Smith & Wesson Revolver and that they will chamber and fire in commercially made weapons their use in other than Service No.2 Revolvers is not recommended unless the weapons in which they are to be fired have been submitted to Special Definitive Proof in which event they will bear a marking in excess of "3½ tons" customarily found on weapons proved for .38" S.& W. Not only is the pressure generated by the Service .380" Mk 2z cartridge some 50% greater than that of the .38" S & W round but, because the bore size of the Service No.2 Revolver is greater than that found in pistols chambered for .38" S&W a considerable loss of velocity and accuracy may[italics] arise from its use in commercially produced weapons.

Peter
 
I think that I have posted this before, but it bears repeating (the NRA is the British one):

The following notice appeared in the NRA Journal, Vol. XLIX, No.1 (Spring 1970)
From: The Director, Inspectorate of Armaments.
Cartridges. S.A. Ball. Revolver .380" Mark 2z
It should be noted that whilst the dimensions of cartridges of the above description are similar to those known commercially either as .38" S&W or as .38" Smith & Wesson Revolver and that they will chamber and fire in commercially made weapons their use in other than Service No.2 Revolvers is not recommended unless the weapons in which they are to be fired have been submitted to Special Definitive Proof in which event they will bear a marking in excess of "3½ tons" customarily found on weapons proved for .38" S.& W. Not only is the pressure generated by the Service .380" Mk 2z cartridge some 50% greater than that of the .38" S & W round but, because the bore size of the Service No.2 Revolver is greater than that found in pistols chambered for .38" S&W a considerable loss of velocity and accuracy may[italics] arise from its use in commercially produced weapons.

Peter

I hae done some research on the various flavors of the .38 S&W and .380 Revolver ballistics, and nothing I have seen indicates that there is any significant difference in muzzle velocities among any of them, suggesting that chamber pressures are very similar also.

The information I have gathered is that actual experimental .380 Mk2 average MVs have been reported to run in the upper 500 to lower 600 ft/sec range from both 4" and 5" revolvers. The "official" British MV spec for the .380 Mk2 is supposedly 620 ft/sec from a 5" barrel. "Cartridges of the World" gives the MV of the .380 Mk1 as 630 ft/sec. I have never personally chronographed MVs of the .380 Mk1 or Mk2 cartridges, so I can neither confirm nor deny, but the evidence suggests the high 500 to low 600 ft/sec MV range is probably correct.

I have personally chronographed MVs from various .38 S&W commercial loadings using 146 grain bullets in several revolvers. In general, and from both 4" and 5" barrels, I have found the MV runs in the approximate same range as the Mk2 - high 500s to low 600s. Fiocci loads averaged higher - in the upper 600s.

I have also personally chronographed some old Peters and Western .38 S&W 200 grain "Super Police" loads from a 5" barrel revolver. The Western loads averaged 631 Ft/sec, while the Peters averaged 613 ft/sec.

I conclude that there is very little difference in MV no matter what loads are being considered, .38 S&W or .380 Revolver, and no matter the bullet weight or barrel length (4" or 5"). It's therefore difficult to believe that the peak chamber pressures differ very much either. And I do not believe the "Not only is the pressure generated by the Service .380" Mk 2z cartridge some 50% greater than that of the .38" S & W round " statement.

Perhaps someone with an adequate supply of British military .380 Mk1 and Mk2 ammunition could perform some chronograph measurements to substantiate the foregoing.

One more point I forgot. Some years ago, probably in the early 1970s, I came into several boxes of WWII British .380 Mk2z ammunition. I fired it in a S&W .38 DA 4th model top break revolver (1896) with a 5" barrel (which I still have). Nothing bad happened. It didn't seem any different from commercial ammo, as I remember.

One last item. Some may know that the U. S. Army once considered adoption of the S&W Safety Hammerless as a cavalry revolver, and in 1890 performed some tests. The Army report gives the following ballistics for the .38 S&W black powder load in the S&W SH revolver:

.38 S&W: 14.125 gr Black Powder, 146.3 grain bullet
10 shot avg. velocity 635 ft/sec (@25' from the muzzle) (Note: it is unclear from the report what barrel length was used, but it was either 5" or 6")
 
Last edited:
The 200 grain .380 Revolver Mk1 load was not used in combat during WWII precisely because it was in violation of the Hague Convention, and was therefore illegal. However, it was used some for training, and Mk1 ammunition in inventory was used up that way. The only official combat .380 load used in British Commonwealth Victory and Enfield .38 revolvers during WWII by the British was the FMJ 178 grain Mk2 load (but I cannot say there was no surreptitious use of the Mk1 load in combat from time to time).

Presumably the reason for the original adoption of the 200 grain lead bullet load in the post-WWI era was that it was assumed to be capable of producing equivalent "knockdown" performance to the .455 revolver cartridge used by the British during WWI, but in a smaller and lighter-weight revolver. I have never read how the British reached this conclusion, nor why they chose a weak obsolete cartridge (the .38 S&W was one of the first black powder cartridges in the 1870s), instead of a much better caliber, such as the .38 Special which was well-established by WWII, nor why they chose to adopt an obsolete top-break revolver design when far stronger solid frame revolvers were also available. My guess is that they were somehow wedded to the break top revolver design because they knew how to make them, and by so doing, they were then limited to selecting a weak cartridge, as the break top design is in itself weak.

Post WW1/1922, England began searching for a replacement for the heavy Webley MkV1 .455 revolver. The War Office made that decision.
Webley & Scott which had always had close ties with the British Gov;t was commisioned by the WD to undertake development of the new revolver (how delightful,,thank you W/D!)
They offered up a modified MkIII .38 first,,then the new (at the time) MkIV 38.

Both were liked by the Small Arms Committee of the WD ,,probably the modified MkIII a bit better as it is a little lighter and smaller OA.
The caliber 38S&W was a concern of course with it's effectiveness potential.
With commercial ammunition the pistols were very easy to shoot assumed easy to teach recruits to shoot..

The short cylinder length of the Webley kept chambering in 38sp out of the picture. So the step up to the max bullet weight possible was the choice. The 200gr lead.

At 600fps,,adding to bullet weight was all they could do to increase effectiveness over commercial loadings,,the pip squeeks as I labeled them.

It's approval,,the 200gr load,,as a suitable replacement for the .455 was nothing more than a Gov't W/D & Small Arms Committee report and sign off stating that it was so.
I guess we really don't rely on much more than that for most performance tests.

It wasn't till almost 10yrs later that the round was officially adopted 1931 or 32. Arguements over tiny changes in bullet shape, training rounds, blank ammo, everthing imaginable had delayed the project.

Then in '37 it was changed from the 200 gr lead and given an alloy FMJ to meet the International demands of play nice during war rules.

The resulting 178gr weight is nothing more than the result of what weight they ended up with after stripping the bullet of enough heavy lead to apply a lighter weight FMJ covering.
It still was the heaviest, largest bullet of the design style they agreed upon.
Now a FMJ leadcore make-up just a few grains lighter than the solid lead example, and it made everyone that got shot at with it happy because it wasn't solid lead.


S&W H/E's were never in the picture. Short cylindered Webleys were the original gun to fit the cartridge.
Gotta go with the home grown product,,in this case it was the Webley topbreak.

Webley got it stuck to them by the Brit Gov't when the latter took Webleys production examples to ROF Enfield and designed their own revolver.
The Enfield No2MkI was the result and what was adopted. (A Capt. Boys was involved in that development at Enfield as Asst Supt of Design at the time.)

Webley later sued, but received little if any in return. Bad blood between the W/D and Webley after years of very close business relations and contracts. Webley did produce MkIV 38's later in WW2 as the gun starved Nation needed everything they could get.
But the Gov't designed and made Enfield 38 No2MkI beat it out to the line.
 
I had always assumed that the top-break Webley/Enfield style revolver was simpler and cheaper to produce than anything else, suitable production equipment and tooling for it already existed, and that's why it was adopted, instead of going for something more modern and more effective. Most every other country, even Poland and Russia, were already designing and using superior semiautomatic pistols for military service while the British military were messing around with an obsolete revolver and cartridge design.
 
I had always assumed that the top-break Webley/Enfield style revolver was simpler and cheaper to produce
They may have been cheaper and simplerto produce but thyere was more "hand fitting" required. Especially when it comes to cylinders and ratchets. I have a Webley Mk IV .38 with one broken finger on the extractor star. I figured that it would be an easy fix to just replace it and maybe need a little timing adjustment of the hand.
Not even close! The guide pins on the star didn't come close to the pin holes in the cylinder. So my next try was with a complete cylinder /extractor set. Again, nowhere near anything that could be adjusted for. I have no idea just how a six round cylinder could be so different in two similar guns from the same maker.

However, the Webley works just fine missing a finger.......
 
I've never owned, nor even fired, one of the WWII British top breaks. I remember back when they sold dirt-cheap, maybe for around $20 or less. Those I see at gun shows (but not often) usually have $400 price tags on them now.
 
Back
Top