Source of .38/200 Ammunition Experience?

[PJGP]

The wording in the Hague Convention is an exact description of the British bullets and was clearly written by Germany!

Peter

 

[PJGP]

This extract from British War Office Army Order 190 Feb 1901 shows the issue of the Mk IV "Dum Dum" (hollow point) .303 for shooting practice on board ships bound for South Africa. Note that all of this ammo was to be used up before arrival in SA. Not withstanding this there were allegations from both side in the Boer War about the use of deforming bullets.

Peter

 

[Green Frog]

To take the conversation in a slightly different direction, I'm wondering about the physics of the heavier bullet with regards to recoil. It seems like more bullet mass would generate more recoil, other things being equal.

My reason for this whole line of speculation is use of the 38/200 in a CCW like a Terrier... if the recoil wasn't too objectionable, you could get the ballistic advantage of a heavy (if somewhat slow) projectile to make up for some of the perceived shortcomings of the round. I wonder about a mil-spec loading of 38/200 for my pre-War Terrier.

Froggie

 

[DWalt]

I don't believe I would get enamored of using anything like the .38 S&W 200 grain loads for defensive purposes. As I mentioned earlier, Buffalo Bore makes a high-velocity .38 S&W load (for solid frame revolvers only) which would be superior. Or if you reload, you can go somewhat beyond even the Buffalo Bore load.

 

[Green Frog]

Thanks for the reply DWalt. I am just tying to determine the balance point between "big and slow" vs "light and fast" as a self defense round.

Obviously we're talking bad breath range, so accuracy is secondary, and as a yardstick, I've shot +P loads (FBI from Federal) through my Baby Chiefs Spl (not really recommended) without feeling recoil problems; so for purposes of actual emergency use, I'm thinking anything I could safely shoot from the Terrier would be manageable. It comes down to my original question, "slow 200 grain or faster 125 grain," which is more likely to be effective in a bad guy scenario? I'm not interested in hunting or targets with this gun, I've got lots of revolvers much better for either one, only want to look at applications involving "close encounters of the worst kind."

Froggie

 

[DWalt]

Were I to develop a .38 S&W defensive load for a snubby (solid frame) I'd start with a lead 148 grain HBWC bullet (seated about halfway), and work up to about 750-800 ft/sec. I think that is achievable and safe.

 

[J. R. WEEMS]

38/200

If I am not mistaken I saw an un opened tin of this ammo just yesterday. Asking price was I believe $325.00 . just caught my attention because I saw this post a couple days ago.. Im thinking they would be blackpowder?? Any way, just sharing.

 

[Green Frog]

GASP!!

 

[J. R. WEEMS]

GASP!!

Frog, yeah I did too Was not aware they are just S&W 38's.. Well i have several boxes loaded as we speak and shot shells as well. Going to try and make some shot shell using Grits, for bumble bees. Learn something every day here.

 

[Walter Rego]

Some years back I purchased a bunch of the FN manufactured .380 Mk.IIz ammo (Number 4 in the photo posted by Absalom). It came in little clear plastic boxes holding 24 rounds if I recall and was about $2 a box at the time. It shot very well in my Australian marked Victory Model in .38 S&W and most importantly, shot to point of aim.

It's too bad that most current manufacturers only load 146 grain bullets. I suspect those are more intended for the old top break revolvers. I would like to try some true .38/200 loads with lead bullets sometime.

 

[DWalt]

It's too bad that most current manufacturers only load 146 grain bullets. I suspect those are more intended for the old top break revolvers. I would like to try some true .38/200 loads with lead bullets sometime.

Neither the Mk I (200 grain lead) nor the Mk II (178 grain FMJ) military loads were ballistic powerhouses. The MV given for both is approximately 600 ft/sec. Both Cordite and NC smokeless propellants were used, the latter designated by "z"., e.g., Mark IIz.

"If I am not mistaken I saw an un-opened tin of this ammo just yesterday. Asking price was I believe $325.00 . just caught my attention because I saw this post a couple days ago. I'm thinking they would be black powder??"

The British .380" revolver military cartridges were never loaded with black powder, only Cordite or NC smokeless. About 4 grains for Cordite, and about 2.5 grains (Mk Iz) or 3 grains (Mk IIz) for NC smokeless. Of course, early .38 S&W cartridges of U. S. manufacture used black powder (about 14 grains) and 146 grain lead bullets until the late 1890s when smokeless powder was introduced and adopted.

 

[PJGP]

Neither the Mk I (200 grain lead) nor the Mk II (178 grain FMJ) military loads were ballistic powerhouses.

Quite true. However, they were considerably higher pressure rounds than the standard 145 gr lead commercial load. In 1970 the British Army Inspectorate of Armaments issued a warning about using the Mk II .380 round in other than "Service No 2 revolvers" (ie the Enfield 38). They should have added the Webley Mk IV and S&W M&P, but neither of these was still in service by then. They stated that the pressure generated by the .380 was some 50% higher than the normal S&W 38.

The late Tony Edwards, who did extensive research into British military small arms ammunition, gave a figure of 7 Tons/square inch for the Mk I 200 gr lead load and 8 Tons/square inch for the Mk II 178 gr jacketed load. His website British Military Small Arms Ammo is well worth a visit.

Peter