Picked another one up today. Ordnance bomb, US PROPERTY GHD on top of frame. British proofs; Crown over circled BV BP NP, NOT ENGLISH MAKE stamped on barrel and frame. Serial number V735399..all parts match. Finish is dull matte ble grey, bore is ecellent, really good case colors on hammer and trigger. Walnut grips have different SN# though..E stamped on bottom left grip.. This one has a feature my others do not have..a stamping on the rear grip strap..R.H. 362. As with many of these revolvers the lanyard is missing. I paid $295 for it.
Victory Model...
- Thread starter coneten
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Picked another one up today. Ordnance bomb, US PROPERTY GHD on top of frame. British proofs; Crown over circled BV BP NP, NOT ENGLISH MAKE stamped on barrel and frame. Serial number V735399..all parts match. Finish is dull matte ble grey, bore is ecellent, really good case colors on hammer and trigger. Walnut grips have different SN# though..E stamped on bottom left grip.. This one has a feature my others do not have..a stamping on the rear grip strap..R.H. 362. As with many of these revolvers the lanyard is missing. I paid $295 for it.
LWCmdr45
Member
coneten,
A 5" barreled .38 S&W, I presume? For the database, does it have the "P" proof(s) at the upper left frame, rear of cylinder and/or underside of barrel?
Steve
A 5" barreled .38 S&W, I presume? For the database, does it have the "P" proof(s) at the upper left frame, rear of cylinder and/or underside of barrel?
Steve
ordnanceguy
Member
Coneten:
The back strap marking is interesting. The practice of unit marking weapons in the British and Commonwealth Armed Forces seems to have fallen into disfavor by the time of WW2, although I have seen some examples of WW2 weapons that were unit marked.
As to your marking, if it is indeed a military unit marking my guess would be that the "R.H." might mean the Royal Highlanders, and 362 an inventory or rack number. An interesting marking to contemplate.
Regards,
Charlie Flick
The back strap marking is interesting. The practice of unit marking weapons in the British and Commonwealth Armed Forces seems to have fallen into disfavor by the time of WW2, although I have seen some examples of WW2 weapons that were unit marked.
As to your marking, if it is indeed a military unit marking my guess would be that the "R.H." might mean the Royal Highlanders, and 362 an inventory or rack number. An interesting marking to contemplate.
Regards,
Charlie Flick
opoefc
US Veteran
Coneten, Charlie's guess that R.H. stands for Royal Highlanders may well be correct, however you might wish to email the people at the Imperial War Museum in London and query their staff curators about the R.H. marking. They have been very helpful to me in solving similar questions. 9 times out of 10 the R does stand for Royal but the H covers a lot of British units. (Herfordshire, Hempstead, Henley, etc. ) Highlander is an almost generic lable covering a number of Scottish Regiments and small arms assigned to those units would have the unit name, if their followed regulations and marked them. Ed.
El Paso Mark
Member
I collect British & Commonwealth bayonets, and it certainly sounds like a regimental mark for the Royal Highlanders- The Black Watch. Rack number 362. Sweet!
Here's a link to descriptions of markings on B&C bayonets. The Regimental marks are about 2/3 of the way down, post 1881 in the right hand column:
http://www.radix.net/~bbrown/brit_bayo.html#cypher-gb
Cheers,
Mark
Here's a link to descriptions of markings on B&C bayonets. The Regimental marks are about 2/3 of the way down, post 1881 in the right hand column:
http://www.radix.net/~bbrown/brit_bayo.html#cypher-gb
Cheers,
Mark
charlie sherrill
Member
Anybody know why the Brits wanted such an underpowered round? Mine barely goes through a beer can.
ldp4570
US Veteran
Pretty much the same stupid reason we changed to the 9mm from the 45ACP. The brits thought that the 455 round was to much and they went to a .38/200 load. Which was later changed to a 147gr projectile instead of the original 200gr. More politics than actual military needs.
Originally posted by charlie sherrill:
Anybody know why the Brits wanted such an underpowered round? Mine barely goes through a beer can.
I don't remember what book it was in but they were discussing the .38/200 load. The book had accounts of the Brits using this load in combat and it actually did just as well as the .45 round. The theory behind it was the round was so slow and heavy that it went in and stopped. Took the fight right out of the German.
I'll go through my books and see if I can remember what book I found the story in. If I can find it I will post the reference.
Anybody know why the Brits wanted such an underpowered round? Mine barely goes through a beer can.
I don't remember what book it was in but they were discussing the .38/200 load. The book had accounts of the Brits using this load in combat and it actually did just as well as the .45 round. The theory behind it was the round was so slow and heavy that it went in and stopped. Took the fight right out of the German.
I'll go through my books and see if I can remember what book I found the story in. If I can find it I will post the reference.
digi-shots
Member
I'm not sure, but didn't the Brits also want a cartridge that would fit their existing Webley and Enfield revolvers...?
Also the bullet from the .38/200 is longer than the standard .38 special and had a "tumbling" and lethal effect.
Here's a pic of .380 Mk II ammo (178 grain)
along side of a S&W .38/200 revolver.
Also the bullet from the .38/200 is longer than the standard .38 special and had a "tumbling" and lethal effect.
Here's a pic of .380 Mk II ammo (178 grain)
along side of a S&W .38/200 revolver.
ldp4570
US Veteran
The .38/200 was an all lead slug and I don't remember which Hauge or Geneva convention which fobade the use of all lead bullets during war time, but that was the reason the Brits went to the 173gr plated bullet.
There was some merit in there thinking of useing a 200gr projectile, but it would have worked alot better in .38spl.
There was some merit in there thinking of useing a 200gr projectile, but it would have worked alot better in .38spl.
PJGP
Member
The very good reasons for changing to the 9mm Para were: NATO standardisation and consequent ready availablity of ammo in time of war; the NATO 9mm would penetrate a Russian bullet proof vest, the "mighty 45" definitely not.
Peter
reddogge
Member
Coneten,
You can still sniff out the good ones. Congratulations.
You can still sniff out the good ones. Congratulations.
PJGP
Member
Can someone please tell me what this business about "P" proof marks is all about? I found a P on the bottom of the butt of one of my South African purchase 38 S&Ws.
Thanks
peter
PJGP - the letter "P" indicates proof firing by the Ordnance Department, the proof loads were overpressure loads that generated a specified min. to max. pressure, IIRC the .38 Special proof was supposed to be between 21,000 PSI - 24,000 PSI, the .38/200 proof load was lighter, I think around 18,000 PSI. After proof firing the revolver (or rifle/pistol/etc.) was marked with the "P" in specified locations. Hope that answers your question.
