The British Method...380/200

[telewinz]

Study upon study, who knows for sure?

Heavier Ball ammo (any round of 200gr weight or greater) such as .45ACP 230 gr., .44 Special 246 gr., .45 LC 255 gr., .38 Special 200 gr. LRN,(3) all followed the intended flight path, even upon hitting bone. These projectiles gave the best observed handgun performance in creating damage that would be consistent with producing incapacitation of a human target with the fewest possible shots fired. They also did not exit the cadaver torso as the energy was invariably shed in the target, leaving no apparent energy for over-penetration and exit(4). Exit wounds did occur with face shots, head shots and extremities, face shots causing imparting of secondary velocity to teeth and chunks of bone, creating secondary fragment projectiles.

Softer lead gave surprising results(5), in that it deformed on impact but pushed ahead through bone and flesh and shed its velocity and energy quicker, stopping 3 to 5 cm earlier than FMJ. In other words, it produced a MORE violent stopping effect than harder leads. This result also duplicates the Army findings from the 1904 tests. It is problematic for modern law enforcement use, however, as soft lead does not feed reliably in semi-automatic pistols. It's use is outstanding, however, in revolvers as there is no feed travel problem.
QUOTE]an effective bullet will also make as wide a wound channel as is possible. This facilitates rapid blood loss. Wound channel size is increased by bullet size, tumbling, mushrooming and bullet shape [/QUOTE]

A heavy bullet may have less energy at the muzzle, but will have a greater proportion of this energy retained by the time that it reaches the target.

Muzzle energy can be deceptive, and is not really a good indicator of incapacitation capability. For example, a .38 Spl +P 115gr bullet at 1,250fps has 399 ftlbs of energy, while a 158gr at 890fps has only 278 ftlbs. Penetration of gelatin for both rounds is effectively the same (14.8-15.4"), and in actual shootings the 158gr has proven a more consistent manstopper

From these figures it should become

apparent why throughout history slow heavy pistol bullets have proven so effective.

Most medium calibre expanding rounds are too light. Tests indicate that bullets lighter than 200gr are far more likely to be deflected by an impact and veer off path, missing the internal structures that they were aimed at. The only medium calibre round that did not show this tendency in tests was the 200gr 38 Spl LRN round. Soft lead versions of this round had even more marked wounding.

The M&S study was a bold effort but poorly designed, so little credibility can be given to many of the results. Less forgivable is that some of its proponents refuse to admit that there are errors.

 

[mrmeangenes]

380/200

As I recall, the 38/200 is NOT a "low recoil" round, but it doesn't have that "explosive" kick associated with faster moving rounds. I was shooting them in an old Colt "Official Police"-4" bbl,light frame. Muzzle blast was more tolerable.Penetration-in hardwood-was astonishingly BAD.

 

[Sean Smith]

By slowing down or stopping light do you refer to black holes? Or something more esoteric.

More esoteric, specifically physics geeks in a lab environment. It was covered in Scientific American fairly recently.

 

[DMK]

Two question as I try to absorb new/old data on this topic

1) What was the weight of the old .38 Long Colt round that the U.S. Armay was having so much trouble with against the Phillipine Guerillas around the turn of the century?

2) Does anybody still make a commercial 38/200 round with a 200gr. bullet anymore?

 

[BluesBear]

DMK,

The .38 Long Colt used a 150gr bullet.

If my memory serves me, I think Winchester stopped loading the 200gr .38 Special around 1981. Remington had already dropped it several years before.

 

[DMK]

Thanks BluesBear

 

[telewinz]

2) Does anybody still make a commercial 38/200 round with a 200gr. bullet anymore?

Not that I know of, I cast my own bullets and Lyman and RCBS both offer a 195 grain bullet. I wonder what a 200 grain 35 Remington rifle bullet could do?

We now return you to the discussion of lousy handgun loads, wherein somone actually compares a .38 Super Police to a .45-70. Oh, well; it's his life

Grasshopper you must think outside the envelope, their are old and new studies to support both points of view.

100 grain bullet at a velocity of 1500fps has nearly identical KE to a 250 grain bullet moving at a velocity of 950fps, yet the 250 grain bullet will have over 50% more momentum.

Heavier Ball ammo (any round of 200gr weight or greater) such as .45ACP 230 gr., .44 Special 246 gr., .45 LC 255 gr., .38 Special 200 gr. LRN,(3) all followed the intended flight path, even upon hitting bone. These projectiles gave the best observed handgun performance in creating damage that would be consistent with producing incapacitation of a human target with the fewest possible shots fired. They also did not exit the cadaver torso as the energy was invariably shed in the target,

Most medium calibre expanding rounds are too light. Tests indicate that bullets lighter than 200gr are far more likely to be deflected by an impact and veer off path, missing the internal structures that they were aimed at. The only medium calibre round that did not show this tendency in tests was the 200gr 38 Spl LRN round. Soft lead versions of this round had even more marked wounding.

 

[racenutz]

I'm willing to bet my life that a slow, heavy bullet that tumbles upon impact will be an effective defensive load.

For your sake I really hope the BG gives up upon seeing you are armed.

 

[telewinz]

Hickok did quite well for himself with two .36 caliber 1851 Colt Navies. Again, a tumbling 200 grain bullet moving at a lowly 620 fps has a proven reputation as a stopper. That load is a magnum compared to a an 1851 Navy which Hickok chose to keep using long after the .44 and 45 came out. Its a natural in a snub nosed revoler where high velocity is tough to come by.

 

[Lone Star]

The proof of the pudding is that the Commonwealth troops who had to use that .38/200 load, actually reduced to a jacketed 178 grain bullet by the time that WW II opened, to conform to Hague Accords prohibition of lead bullets, is that those who could usually chose the older .455 Webley or got hold of US .45's or captured 9mm's.

Commando forces, in particular, preferred the .45 auto when available, and paratroopers, also considered especially likely to need their handguns, were the first to be issued 9mm Brownings made in Canada.

Sometimes, the jacketed .38 bullet even stuck in the barrel of the gun if the powder charge wasn't enough. Smith & Wessons were worse than Webley or Enfield revolvers about this, because of the Smith's wider rifling lands. Bore dimensions were probably also tighter, although they were NOT made to .38 Special specs. I got Roy Jinks at the S&W factory to check that for me a few years ago. Lead bullets have less friction, and I don't know of any of those sticking in the bores.

Lone Star

 

[telewinz]

Not buying it, documentation please. If I had a choice between a webley/enfield, a .45 auto or a 9mm Hi-power the webley would be my last choice also. No reflection on the cartridge. Lets see your documentation Or is it personal opinion? thats OK but please state it as such.

 

[jc2]

I think what LS is failing to take into account (though he acknowledges the fact) was change from the 200-grain soft lead bullet for which the Webley was designed to the 178-grain FMJ which the troops were forced to use (because the 200-grain was too effective for "civilized war"). Another factor was the Enfield revolver (particularly after the "tanker conversion" to DAO left a lot to be desired as a weapon (regardless of calibre).

 

[Lone Star]

telewinz-

I have studied firearms, especially handguns, for over 40 years, and have access to a number of works not seen by most people who ask questions like yours on Net forums. Moreover, as a gun writer, I have access to industry personnel not available to the public. I have additional personal contacts who can give me data to add to what I find in print. What I said is not personal speculation.

Without digging too deeply (which I lack time to do), I can cite the following:

"The Handgun", by Geoffrey Boothroyd, page 323: this very learned British author states the preference of the forces for the S&W .38/200 over the Enfield No. 2 equivalent. He cites in that chapter, among other issues, the heavy trigger pull of the Enfield. See page 298 for a discussion on the cosmetic crudeness of the wartime-made Enfield, and why.

"The Fighting Handgun", by Richard Law and Peter Brookesmith, 1996. Pages 105- 106: discussion of the .38/200 with wartime ammo being so underpowered that it would barely penetrate a German greatcoat, and dissatisfaction with the round by the troops. Then, "Front line soldiers grabbed alternatives whenever possible, ranging from captured German kit to borrowed, scrounged, or stolen American Colt .45's to the previous generation's' .455 in. revolvers."

"Target Gun", Nov., 1993: (A UK gun magazine that dealt with firearms in general. The title was probably a social requirement to make the magazine more acceptable to the average news dealer.) Special article on the .38/200 and reloading for it. Discusses the added friction of the jacketed bullet and confirms the statement that it would barely penetrate a greatcoat, "thereby making its occupant very cross!" (I was told privately by a former senior (white) member of an African police force that he personally tried the .38 on a police coat, with similar results. He thereafter preferred a 9mm for anti-terrorist operations!)
This article is also one of several places where I've seen the comment that sometimes, bullets would actually stick in the bore. However, the author is incorrect in thinking that the S&W .38/200 had .38 Special bore dimensions. I obtained actual bore specs from Roy Jinks, the historian at S&W, and the .38 S&W (.38/200) does have a slightly "looser" bore than the same model when chambered for .38 Special. However, the wider lands and grooves of the S&W as opposed to the Webley and Enfield .38's, which can be seen by anyone who looks at both, would add friction.

Item: my brother once had an accidental discharge with a six-inch barrelled .38/200 Smith & Wesson. The 146-grain bullet (American commercial lead bullet) struck a copy of, "Small Arms of the World" lying flat on a nearby bookcase. The bullet penetrated not even a full inch into the book, which it struck on the bottom.

I hope this will be of help to you. I also hope you were not confusing the Webley .455 and the Webley Mk. IV .38 in your post. The former has similar velocity, but naturally has more mass and caliber. Alas, I cannot find any examples of how it fared in WW II use, when it was also forced to employ jacketed ammo. However, the late Wilfred Ward in an issue of, "Shooting Times" which I cannot immediately locate (and perhaps in his .38 Enfield article that appeared in an edition of, "Gun Digest") noted the WW I performance with the lead bullet. One officer shot some 40 Germans with a .455 Webley, many of them prisoners attempting to escape. It proved very effective. The .455 also had a good reputation in India, where it was mostly used at quite close range. The flat nosed and hollowpoint Mk. IV and Mk. III ammo, respectively, giving good results. Even the roundnosed (normal) Mk. II bullet fared pretty well, if well placed.

However, I once read a quote from Lt. Col. Vincent Fosbery, VC, who later invented an automatic revolver made by Webley's, saying that the Colt Frontier .44/40 was the the most effective handgun he'd seen employed on the NW frontier of India, now Pakistan. The area was then, as now, famed for wild Islamic tribesmen who sometimes took a good deal of killing to realize that they were dead. The quote is from John Parsons's, "The Peacemaker and ts Rivals". Fosberry won his Victoria Cross while fighting these fanatics, and I think he thought a good deal about revolver performance...

Oh: Winston Churchill, in, "The Malakand Field Force" cited an instance in which Maj. General Sir Bindon Blood had to quickly draw his revolver and shoot a fanatic who went after him with a Khyber knife...at a peace conference! The man dropped less than three feet from Sir Bindon, who had a very quick draw. Churchill noted that the general later told his staff that he'd been watching the dead man, suspecting that he was on the verge of trying something, thus was ready to go for his gun. (Sir Bindon had considerable experience of these wild tribes, and could "read" their minds better than most Englishmen could.)

Lone Star

 

[Lone Star]

Oh: while I'm thinking of it, I used to know a San Antonio cop who used 200 grain lead .38 Special ammo. His experience of it on dogs and men (by several officers) was that it fared poorly. He went to the .41 Magnum.

Lone Star

 

[Old Fuff]

Now comes the Old Fuff …… again.

While the 38 S&W cartridge’s effectiveness as a combat cartridge is certainly open to debate and discussion, I find speculation that the round isn’t powerful enough to drive the bullet through a 5 or 6 inch revolver barrel if a jacketed rather then a lead bullet is used to be amusing. The following may add more controversy to the issue.

During World War Two the single largest customer to buy or obtain S&W’s .38/200 revolvers through Lend Lease were England and its Commonwealth. Supringly the next largest service was the American Office of Strategic Services, or OSS. This was the Army’s “behind enemy lines†guerrilla warfare and intelligence outfit, which preceded today’s Special Forces. It included such individuals as the late Col. Rex Applegate, whose knowledge and expertise in weaponcraft should need no further explanation.

Exactly how or by whom these substantial quantities of revolvers were used is not known, but it is assumed they were intended to arm anti-Axis resistance fighters.

Anyway the question of ammunition came up, and since nothing was in the military’s standard inventory it was deemed necessary to order up some with the requisite full-jacketed bullet. The specifications submitted to the ammunition companies were as follows:

Cartridge: .38 S&W (.38-200)
Bullet: 125 grain, copper-clad, steel-jacketed with round nose, lead core.
Muzzle Velocity: 625 FPS (+ or – 25 FPS) from 4 inch barrel.
Chamber Pressure: 13,000 PSI (Max.)

Remington was the successful contractor. The initial contract called for 10,000 rounds, and after successful testing a second contract was issued for 50,000 more. So far as it is known all of it went to the OSS. No issues arose concerning bullets getting stuck in any barrels. Additionally the OSS must have considered a full-jacketed 125 grain bullet @ 625 FPS to be adequate for their needs. Without question the velocity of the 125 grain slug could have been increased to 850 FPS or even more without straining wartime S&W K-frames.

It is quite possible that defective cartridges, particularly those being loaded in Britain while the factories were being bombed might have stuck in a revolver’s bore as would a classic “squib†load. But it is highly unlikely this would have happened with loaded-to-spec ammunition.

 

[racenutz]

Old Fuff correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the 38 Special 158 grain LRN considered a "good" police load at its inception?

We all know how feeble that load is & IMO, I don't think a 38 S&W loaded with a 200 grain bullet would be much better.

 

[Old Fuff]

Yes indeed. Smith & Wesson and Colt were serious business rivals. Colt was ahead in that the official U.S. Military Handgun Service Cartridge was the .38 Long Colt. Down in Springfield the designers at S&W decided to lengthen the cartridge so they could increase the black powder charge and up the bullet weight from 150 grains to 158. Of course at the time “high-performance†revolver ammunition was unheard of. If you wanted more stopping power the only answer was go to a gun chambered to use a bigger cartridge. The classic example was when Uncle Sam decided to give up on .38’s and go back to .45 after the smaller round failed to do the job in Philippine Island warfare.

Now at the time within urban police circles such cartridges as the .32 S&W Long, .32 ACP, .38 S&W, .380ACP and .38 Special – all loaded with plain, round nose lead or jacketed bullets – were considered to be O. K. This attitude continued to about the end of the 1940’s, although highway patrolmen and others that had to deal with “automobile bandits†gladly adopted the Colt .38 Super, S&W .38-44 and .357 Magnum when the came along because they wanted more penetration through car bodies.

Now while the standard .38 Special and smaller rounds are considered to be “inadequate, if not worse†by many today they did indeed knock off a lot of hairy-chested bad guys during the first half of the 20th century. On the other hand there were also recorded failers. The evidence suggests that the whole issue came down to placement. When the bullet hit and damaged or destroyed something important inside the bad guy they worked. When they didn’t the intended target would keep right on doing whatever anti-social behavior he was engaged in. Although we have much better ammunition today, at least so far as jelly is concerned, the same rule holds. It is bullet placement that will most likely neutralizes a subject, not a trick bullet.

As for the 158-grain bullet vs. the 200. I suspect the blunter nose on the latter might have increased it’s potential as a “stopper.†Regrettably no one thought to load the standard and hi-speed .38 Special with the same soft lead/flat nose 158-grain bullet that was being used in the .357 Magnum. If they had we might have a better opinion of the “pecial,†but who knows?

 

[Tamara]

One WWII British sergeant commented on the Enfield revolver that it "wasn't powerful or accurate enough to be a good handgun and was too small and too light to be a good club."

Now while the standard .38 Special and smaller rounds are considered to be “inadequate, if not worse†by many today...

...as well as such new-fangled, high-tech, gadget geeks as Elmer Keith, Charles Askins, Jeff Cooper, and Bill Jordan...

 

[Old Fuff]

.>> ..as well as such new-fangled, high-tech, gadget geeks as Elmer Keith, Charles Askins, Jeff Cooper, and Bill Jordan... <<

I've had the pleasure of knowing all of those individuals personally.

None of them had much use for "magic bullets" and all believe in bullet placement.

On the other hand they weren't particularly strong advocates of the .38 S&W cartridge.

Askins carried a customized .38 Special Colt New Service during many of his years with the Border Patrol, and was the driving force in getting them to adopt the same gun in .38 Special, not .357 Magnum. Not even .45 ACP to replace the model 1917's they turned in.

And during his early years with the B.P. Bill carried the same New Service, as it was the issue sidearm.

Fact is, they were all fine shots, and the particular cartridge they used didn't really matter.

 

[telewinz]

I don't understand the problem then if bullet placement is the most important:

Heavier Ball ammo (any round of 200gr weight or greater) such as .45ACP 230 gr., .44 Special 246 gr., .45 LC 255 gr., .38 Special 200 gr. LRN,(3) all followed the intended flight path, even upon hitting bone. These projectiles gave the best observed handgun performance in creating damage that would be consistent with producing incapacitation of a human target with the fewest possible shots fired.

"One can think of energy absorption (of a target) as Force x Distance, and momentum absorption as Force x Time. Hence, the heavier but slower bullet with the same energy will travel the same distance in the absorbing material, but because of larger momentum, will take a longer time doing it. It will therefore also impart a greater "kick" to the absorber object."

Another advantage of using a heavy bullet is that it is far less likely to be deflected. There is no point in having good shot placement if the bullet takes a random path as soon as it encounters a rib or pocket of change.

Most pistol bullets are loaded with rounds way below their optimum weight for the charge and calibre, so unless you start using very exotic handloads you are unlikely to get a bullet weight "too heavy" for the charge.

In fact the superior stopping power of large bore rounds over smaller faster ones has been well known since the days of the Indian Mutiny,(

Against humans hollow-points must deal with clothing of differing thicknesses and construction plus belts, zippers, buttons, cigarette packs, and varying layers of fat. Ribs are a solid barrier but brittle, capable of partially fragmenting some bullets and itself becoming secondary fragments. There is nothing consistant in what the bullet is hitting so results are unlikely to be consistant too

Most medium calibre expanding rounds are too light. Tests indicate that bullets lighter than 200gr are far more likely to be deflected by an impact and veer off path, missing the internal structures that they were aimed at. The only medium calibre round that did not show this tendency in tests was the 200gr 38 Spl LRN round