I had no idea the British conducted actual tests of the 38/200 style round. Where can I find out more about these tests? Is there some book, magazine article, or website I could read? I assumed they used what they considered the best available theory at the time in the absence of funds for conducting research.
Also, at the risk of being disputatious, I would suggest that the poor stopping power of ANY 38 S&W / 38 Special RNL load is a given. It is the effectiveness of some special kind of RNL round that needs be demonstrated. Saying that the 200 grain 38 Special load may be effective because no one here has cited specific cases where it was ineffective does not do that.
As you have, I agree with lumping the 200 gr hemispherical .38 S&W and Special loadings together, because the difference in velocity between them is more platform driven than cartridge driven.
That I can remember, I have not seen a formal write-up of the British testing (I will have to look in more depth in my reference sources). Obviously, given the military restrictions of the time, loading something like a 148 gr reversed HB wadcutter, like the old .455 "Manstopper", would have been a NO GO. However, a higher velocity FMJ (perhaps flat nose) in the 95 to 125 gr range would have been distinctly possible, and the British had extensive experience being on the receiving end of a high velocity 9mm FMJ in WWI, so I would entrust that the made the best choice based on the limitations of the time and the revolver platform.
I hate analogies, but let's use one for fun to qualify effective versus non-effective...
You need to move 3000 lb of road base and you have three vehicle choices:
A 1981 VW Sport Truck, a 1978 F-350 and a 2010 F-550 Dump Truck.
The VW truck is a big bucket of fail, and would be like using a .22 short revolver as a primary military sidearm. This is non-effective.
The F-350 hauls the load and gets it there in time, but has a busted radio, you need the windows down because there is no AC, and their are no air bags to help protect your butt in case of a crash. This is effective, and represents the 200 gr .38 loadings in question using a standard service revolver from the era.
The F-550 hauls the same load as the F-350 and makes the same pile of road base at the destination. However, the F-550 has AC, surround sound, air bags and anti-lock breaks. This is also effective, like a 147 gr .38 HST +P+ loading would be in a nice new scandium carry gun.
Both the F-350 and the F-550 accomplished the mission of delivering the road base. Is one more effective than the other? I would argue they are both effective.
Most of my ballistics R&D time at work right now is occupied with projectile resistant building materials, so my time to devote to continuing this topic is limited.
