.32 S&W vs .38 S&W vs .44 Webley

I like 455 Webley allot, if I where to get a Bulldog I always wanted one in 450 Adams.

I will take the 44, all else equal. My assumption is it would have a bit more stopping power than the 38. But unless I had a chance try it out first, I don't really know.

If I placed myself back in 1890, I would have to decide on the .38S&W for the same reasons most people did at the time.

I have some doubts for myself if .32S&W even with smokeless powder is truly potent enough to rely on, so I would most likely not go for something in that caliber for carry even though I own a few and enjoy them.

I also would probably not bother with the .44 Webley just due to it being the least common and available of the three cartridges mentioned even though it’s probably the most potent, even if only by a little bit.

The .38S&W had and has sufficient power for the job, and there were plenty of high quality firearms chambered for it and available in normal channels.

A Bulldog revolver in .44 or .45 would be my preference.

I’d choose the.44 Webley only because they didn’t make a .50 Webley. Old joke but appropriate here. I’m a big guy and a large frame revolver conceals as easily on me as a small gun. All things being equal, a large bore is better for social work.

I guess my choice would really depend on the situation. Just as today, a larger caliber requires a larger handgun and makes concealing that much more difficult. Also, just like today, the larger the handgun the less likely you are to carry it all the time. The 32 was under powered even by 1890 standards; but, in the end, nobody wants to get shot. So having a 32 pointed at your head was and is effective at ending an altercation. I have carried a 380 everyday for about 30 years. A guy was dogging me one day for carrying a small pistol because he felt like only a 45 would reliably stop an attack. I asked where his 45 was. He said it is in the truck. I said "mine is in my pocket". Then I said if the 380 is totally ineffective, stand there and let me shoot you with it. He said "f*** no". I then said "I think I just proved my point". Honestly, If it was 1890, I would probably carry a 38.

44 Webley is a pretty good cartridge, at least on paper, if you look up its stats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.442_Webley

It's actually got more kinetic energy (about 230 ft/lbs) than standard velocity 158 grain 38 Special, let alone 38 S&W. And it's pretty short, which is nice for a compact revolver.

But it has got some strikes against it. It has a tiny rim, and almost certainly cannot be used with a star extractor. That limits it to rod-ejector or non-ejector revolvers. Second, it has a heeled bullet, not an inside lubricated one. That is not good for accuracy. Both of these things are due to the fact that it is a very early metallic pistol cartridge. The Royal Irish Constabulary (which was the British police force in Ireland - unlike the bobbies in England, the RIC needed guns) adopted it in 1868.

Also, the revolvers made for it in the United States were not very good. Because both S&W and Colt had their own big-bore revolver cartridges, and because other major makers, like Remington, used Winchester's carbine/revolver rounds like 38-.40 and .44-40, the only people I can think of that made 44 Webley revolvers here were Iver Johnson and H&R, and maybe some other small makers. The guns they made were small, with small and badly shaped grips. They were probably good value for the money, but they cost very little money. I would not want to shoot any of them with a round that probably has more felt recoil than 38 Special.

So which would I want? In the 1870's, I think the 44 Webley would be good if you could get a well made gun for it, like a Webley RIC. Even in the 1880's, I think it would make sense in the Webley RIC Model 1883: https://www.rockislandauction.com/d...ott-new-model-1883-ric-double-action-revolver

But after S&W comes out with the 38 Double Action, or especialy the 38 Safety Hammerless, I would want to re-think what I might want to actually carry. Or even the Colt Police Positive 38 (the 38 S&W six shot pistol, not the later Police Positive Special in 38 Spl). They offer a more compact size and a faster reload.

Oh, and 32 S&W? Please. It's the 25 ACP of its day. Better than nothing, but the tiny size of the guns that use are all it's got going for it.

If I can't have an open-top conversion in .41 Colt, .44 Colt, .45 Schofield, or .45 Colt (my favorite!), I'll take the .44 Webley, so long as I can find a real Webley (not one of the many copies made during its time) to use it in. I concur with Monac: the Webley R.I.C. is a great choice. The R.I.C. No. 1 has always appealed to me. If I can't have a Webley, I'd take the .38 S&W in a high quality S&W.

A heeled bullet--from what I've read--isn't a really big problem at the usual distances. I read a .41 Colt page a few year's ago that concluded that a soft lead, heeled bullet, backed by black powder was the best choice for that caliber in the author's experiments, though it is not a target pistol. Hollow base bullets can also work.

Heck, I wouldn't feel all that disadvantaged with a .44 Webley R.I.C. No. 1 today! A modern .44 Special--like the Rossi 720 5-shooter--might be a little quicker to reload, but 6 .44 Webley loads at hand--even if loaded with black powder--don't exactly make me feel nervous that I'm "undergunned."

Like Watson, I'll remember to bring my Webley!

Picture of three cartridges. L to R
.44 Bulldog, .44 Webley, .442 Revolver.(RIC)
The .
Bulldog cartridge is the pipsqueak of the bunch, producing only 80 or so fpe.
The Webley and the RIC are on par with each other at about 230fpe. Neither is as energetic as modern .38 Spl. Ammo which is about 20% hotter.
The .38 S&W is about 20% less than the .44 Webley, though the Brit evaluation of the round prior to its adoption by the Royal Army was that it had as much “stopping power” as the .455 Webley which it replaced.

Pete D. said:

View attachment 1079277
Picture of three cartridges. L to R
.44 Bulldog, .44 Webley, .442 Revolver.(RIC)
The .
Bulldog cartridge is the pipsqueak of the bunch, producing only 80 or so fpe.
The Webley and the RIC are on par with each other at about 230fpe. Neither is as energetic as modern .38 Spl. Ammo which is about 20% hotter.
The .38 S&W is about 20% less than the .44 Webley, though the Brit evaluation of the round prior to its adoption by the Royal Army was that it had as much “stopping power” as the .455 Webley which it replaced.

Click to expand...

I thought the 38 S&W round that the British Army evaluated was the "Super Police" load with the 200 grain bullet. The British felt it would get extra stopping power by tumbling on impact, because it was both over-length and spinng slowly compared to the standard 146 grain load (thus having less gyroscopic stability. They seem to have been wrong about this - at least the Super Police load was never found to be particularly useful by American police - and they did not use it anyway, switching to a 178 grain FMJ bullet before 1939.

Monac said:

I thought the 38 S&W round that the British Army evaluated was the "Super Police" load with the 200 grain bullet. The British felt it would get extra stopping power by tumbling on impact, because it was both over-length and spinng slowly compared to the standard 146 grain load (thus having less gyroscopic stability. They seem to have been wrong about this - at least the Super Police load was never found to be particularly useful by American police - and they did not use it anyway, switching to a 178 grain FMJ bullet before 1939.

Click to expand...

IIRC….the change from the 200 gr.LRN to the 178 FMJ was a matter of the Geneva Convention ruling about lead bullets.

Three of my older burners. The Webley, of course, is WW2 issue in .38/200. The upper left is a little Forehand and Wadsworth .38 S&W. The Bulldog - a Belgian copy - is .44 Webley.

Pete D. said:

IIRC….the change from the 200 gr.LRN to the 178 FMJ was a matter of the Geneva Convention ruling about lead bullets.

Click to expand...

Which was an early reaction to lead poisoning… eventually a ban on lead paint followed.

The 1899 Hague Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets states:
The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.

Pete, what's the barrel length on that Bulldog?

Dave

Barrel length. Sorry, I dont have the guns with me right now so I will have to get back to you about that. They are pretty stubby....less than three inches.

Just to add a bit to this thread/discussion. Here is another little pistol....very little, a Baby Bulldog. 32 Colt.

That's a great little gun. Those things were very popular back then.