.38 S&W w/200g bullets vs. milk jugs--penetration test

[LouisianaMan]

Update, 15 FEB 10, for heavy bullet fans.

TARGET: 6 water-filled jugs, backed by 2x12.

RANGE: approx 10 feet

GUNS: S&W Mod. 32-1 (2") and S&W 33-1 (4"). Chronography done from 4" bbl. approx 3" from muzzle.

LOAD:
a. BULLET: Lee GB mold 358430, LRN, 197-98g with 50-50 WW-Pb + 4 oz. tin per 20 lbs. alloy. Estimated BHN = 7-9. COL: 1.270"

b. POWDER: Win 231. Charge: 2.7g. My charge IS IN EXCESS OF RECOMMENDED LOAD FROM LYMAN 49th. USE A RELOADING MANUAL, CHRONO, etc. TO WORK UP YOUR OWN LOAD. In previous tests, I have noted that my lot of Win231 appears to be slower than average, which lot variation has been noted by Ed Harris as characteristic of this powder. Therefore, I start with recommended data and then work it up over the chronograph to vels similar to published velocities. Ed considers 700fps max for a 200g bullet in this gun.

CHRONO RESULTS (10-shot string): LO 624.4, HI 651.9, AVG 639.0, ES 27.54, SD 8.54.

PENETRATION OUTCOMES:

1. 4" bbl. chrono'ed for this shot at 662.7fps on this shot. Bullet tracked straight thru 2 jugs, then began curving down and left. Broke extreme bottom of 5th jug and did not impact 6th jug. Bullet not recovered.

2. 2" bbl. chrono'ed for this shot at 624.2fps. Bullet tracked straight thru 2 jugs, began curving down & left. Came out extreme bottom left of jug #4 and failed to hit #5. Bullet not recovered.

I'll update tonight with photos of loaded 161g and 198g cartridges, as well as target patterning of chrono'ed strings. Also ME and free recoil calculations. Stay tuned! Times are tough for milk jugs. . .

[LouisianaMan]

See other .38S&W thread for further data on 200g testing from today, to include photos, muzzle energy, recoil calculations, etc.

[Merle]

See other .38S&W thread for further data on 200g testing from today, to include photos, muzzle energy, recoil calculations, etc.

Thanks for posting!

 

[LouisianaMan]

Merle,
You bet! Glad to pass along whatever I do in case it helps/interests anyone. Of course, my tastes are traditional & therefore somewhat eccentric these days. Oh well, I've been called worse!

BTW, if anyone has any contemporary 1920s-1950s sources, references, texts, etc. to share on the .380/200, .38 S&W Super Police (200g), I'd welcome them. I'm very interested in what they thought of them at the time. Ditto for the .38 SPL 200g loads, i.e. "Highway Patrol" load & others. The latter had a claimed 770fps, and is the general basis for my 750fps load. I realize these loads--esp. the lower-vel ones--have limited application for LEOs who must shoot at cars, etc., but for civilian SD/HD, I don't need to cut thru sheet steel or safety glass.

[Merle]

Merle,
You bet! Glad to pass along whatever I do in case it helps/interests anyone. Of course, my tastes are traditional & therefore somewhat eccentric these days. Oh well, I've been called worse!

BTW, if anyone has any contemporary 1920s-1950s sources, references, texts, etc. to share on the .380/200, .38 S&W Super Police (200g), I'd welcome them. I'm very interested in what they thought of them at the time. Ditto for the .38 SPL 200g loads, i.e. "Highway Patrol" load & others. The latter had a claimed 770fps, and is the general basis for my 750fps load. I realize these loads--esp. the lower-vel ones--have limited application for LEOs who must shoot at cars, etc., but for civilian SD/HD, I don't need to cut thru sheet steel or safety glass.

I'm especially interested as I have a British Enfield 380/200. Several years ago I found some Fiocchi 178 gr FMJ & noticed they had substantially more recoil. I "suspect" that means more power than the typical 146 gr 38 S&W loads, but I never saw the ballistics on them. I have wanted to crank up some loads that shoot to the sights, just for grins & giggles. Now I am even more interested, as this would take it out of the popgun class!

 

[LouisianaMan]

Take a look at my other thread on .38S&W penetration for some more results with heavy bullets!

[Dand]

LouisianaMan,  have you seen Ken Waters' pet loads article on "High Power Loads for the 38 S&W"?  Handloader Magazine May 1979.  He lists loads for cast bullets up to 200 gr and jacketed up to 158. Throughout the article he stresses THESE LOADS ARE NOT FOR WEAK BREAKOPEN GUNS, ONLY MODERN SOLID FRAME GUNS IN GOOD CONDITION.  You might want to track down a copy of it.

[LouisianaMan]

Dand,
Very sorry to reply so late--have just finished a big inspection at work today, and am trying to catch up :-) Thanks very much for the reference--I will see if that article is something I've gathered into the net already or not. You know how it is with rushed research--you grab what you can and really analyze it later!

[billy_56081]

Merle,
You bet! Glad to pass along whatever I do in case it helps/interests anyone. Of course, my tastes are traditional & therefore somewhat eccentric these days. Oh well, I've been called worse!

BTW, if anyone has any contemporary 1920s-1950s sources, references, texts, etc. to share on the .380/200, .38 S&W Super Police (200g), I'd welcome them. I'm very interested in what they thought of them at the time. Ditto for the .38 SPL 200g loads, i.e. "Highway Patrol" load & others. The latter had a claimed 770fps, and is the general basis for my 750fps load. I realize these loads--esp. the lower-vel ones--have limited application for LEOs who must shoot at cars, etc., but for civilian SD/HD, I don't need to cut thru sheet steel or safety glass.

I'm especially interested as I have a British Enfield 380/200. Several years ago I found some Fiocchi 178 gr FMJ & noticed they had substantially more recoil. I "suspect" that means more power than the typical 146 gr 38 S&W loads, but I never saw the ballistics on them. I have wanted to crank up some loads that shoot to the sights, just for grins & giggles. Now I am even more interested, as this would take it out of the popgun class!

 

The Brits found the 178 grain FMJ load terribly anemic compared to the older lead 200 grain loads. They claimed it was stopped by the heavy German greatcoats.

[LouisianaMan]

Billy,
I've seen the same story about the greatcoat, although I find it hard to believe unless something was defective. Has anyone seen any bullet that can't penetrate cloth?

But even with that said, I've never seen ANYTHING complimentary about the 178g jacketed round, and personally it has no interest for me at all (except purely historical interest). Best I can tell, it didn't really for the Brits either, but they felt they had to adopt it due to Hague Conventions and/or German reaction to the use of lead bullets. Just for clarity's sake, the 178g quote is not from me--I have no experience with it.

My "milk jug experiments" prove little, perhaps, except that heavy lead slugs bore thru lots and lots of H2O even at very modest velocities. My "tests" also indicate what others have often observed, i.e. that flat-noses & SWCs are likely to bore a straighter hole than LRNs. 200g lead bullets of any sort are likely to bore deeply into soft targets, and crush bone rather than glancing off of it.

[williamlayton]

LM
I agree.
Blessings

[Merle]

Merle,
You bet! Glad to pass along whatever I do in case it helps/interests anyone. Of course, my tastes are traditional & therefore somewhat eccentric these days. Oh well, I've been called worse!

BTW, if anyone has any contemporary 1920s-1950s sources, references, texts, etc. to share on the .380/200, .38 S&W Super Police (200g), I'd welcome them. I'm very interested in what they thought of them at the time. Ditto for the .38 SPL 200g loads, i.e. "Highway Patrol" load & others. The latter had a claimed 770fps, and is the general basis for my 750fps load. I realize these loads--esp. the lower-vel ones--have limited application for LEOs who must shoot at cars, etc., but for civilian SD/HD, I don't need to cut thru sheet steel or safety glass.

I'm especially interested as I have a British Enfield 380/200. Several years ago I found some Fiocchi 178 gr FMJ & noticed they had substantially more recoil. I "suspect" that means more power than the typical 146 gr 38 S&W loads, but I never saw the ballistics on them. I have wanted to crank up some loads that shoot to the sights, just for grins & giggles. Now I am even more interested, as this would take it out of the popgun class!

 

The Brits found the 178 grain FMJ load terribly anemic compared to the older lead 200 grain loads. They claimed it was stopped by the heavy German greatcoats.

I have shot a few of the recently discontinued Fiocchi 178gr loads, and would NOT count on an overcoat stopping them. That being said, from all accounts the 200gr lead RN seemed to be a better load.

 

[MikeP]

LouisianaMan, thanks for your Milk Jug Execution tests. They are very interesting.

I have been enthused about the heavy, slow-moving, 200-grain slug for the .38s since reading about them in a Gun Digest article, I think in 1972 or thereabouts. The article explained the British experiences with heavy-for-caliber .38s moving at relatively slow speeds, and postulated that perhaps a reason for its effectiveness is that the bullet tended to tumble after hitting the target. I think it was felt the long-and-heavy bullet moving at relatively slow speeds was at the edge of being unstable, and once it hit, it tended to become unstable and thus tumble. It appears to me that this property is a force-magnifier.

I use this concept in my personal defence concealed carry weapon, the Ruger SP 101 .357 magnum. I use .38 special cases with 200-grain bullets at about 700 fps. My perferred (convenient) testing medium, dry newspaper, shows the bullets penetrating a number of inches straight, then trending downwards a bit at the end of its run.

I love the looks of the rounds in the cylinder, like ICBM's in silos. Because of the long bullets, the cartridges extend the whole length of the cylinder and are very obvious when the gun is pointed at you. I have to believe this sight would cause a deterrent effect on any sane person, and thus offers a unique feature that only a revolver can possess: the picture of what will be flying your way if you misbehave, and the fact that the gun in definitely loaded and ready to execute, no kidding.

I believe the heavy 200-grain bullets offer an optimum combination of effectiveness and efficiency. They require a small amount of powder, create less noise and flash, are easily controllable and very accurate at the range intended for self-defence, and produce an amazing amount of striking power for the equasion.

The British were right.     

[bilmac]

You are making your bullets really hard. I would suspect that the old manstoppers were on the soft side.

I have a Lyman 200 gr  mold that I played around with for cowboy action shooting. They shot well, but I am too scotch to shoot 200 grains of lead when my little 105 gr Lees will accomplish the objective.

I have always had in the back of my mind to cast some of the 200s very hard and then turning a sharp point on them and shooting them fast in a 357.

[LouisianaMan]

MikeP,
Thanks for weighing in! One of your posts from several years ago played a role in getting me to re-think my view of this bullet weight in .38 caliber revolvers. Mikey's did likewise. I thank you both for that! Now, the .38/200 bug has stuck with me about 18 mos., with no sign of slacking off.

I've been posting these "tests" on several forums, with various responses leading the discussion in different directions, but I can sum it all up by saying that I think the .38 S&W cartridge has gotten a bum rap, no doubt due to weak factory loads provided on a lowest-common-demonimator basis: the weak break-tops. Additionally, the development of a police requirement to shoot through cars changed the equation in a way that left low-vel LRNs wanting. Another negative influence was the apparent weakness of the Brit service cartridge, the 178g FMJ bullet that allegedly failed to penetrate overcoats! See below for what a 200g LRN loaded to Brit military velocity specs does to a pine tree at 58 yards, and I think the overcoat story is an irrelevancy based probably on some instance of faulty wartime ammo, not the real potential of the 200g blunt lead bullet. On top of the that, the wartime DAO Enfields were so hard to shoot well that users weren't exactly enamored with the entire package.

Add to this mix the "magnumizing" trend, plus the rise of lighter-weight JHPs as the method chosen for development, and you have the 200g LRN, LFN or LSWC relegated to the proverbial dustbin of history. Unjustly, I believe!

There have been so many tales of the 200g LRN tumbling, that I find it very hard to discount. I doubt this reputation as a tumbler arose from thin air. But since the Winchester-Western pointy LRN and the Colt .38 New Police LFP/Brit service round differed so much in profile (see Brit diagram), I also suspect that the LFPs "drove straight through," as the British applauded, whereas the pointy LRNs may have curved or destabilized altogether, and often tumbled thru their targets. I suspect that whenever it tumbled, it tended to have the much-remarked "manstopper" effect, but when the pointy bullet simply curved, it probably had the same unreliable effects of the 158g LRN. Now, if the lead heavyweight hit bone, I think it was "all chirote" for the target.

Here are some additional results from today:
1. 200g results @ long range

Attached photos of 50-yard target fired off of sandbags, prone, with the 358430 bullet in .38 S&W (vel. c. 630) from S&W Mod. 33. Bullet weight was 197-98g, cast .360 from 50-50 WW-Pb + tin. See also "better" target with .38 SPL @ 725fps, 192-93g, cast from straight WW, sized .358, fired from S&W Mod. 67.

I've plinked with autos at 75 yds before, but this is the first time I've fired a 50-yd. target with revolvers. Although my marksmanship is nothing to brag about, it would not have been fun to stand in front of the targets, especially since there was no keyholing at all. :-) I presume the difference in accuracy was due primarily to better fit, sights, weight of M-67, esp. since Mod 33's sights are nickel--a bit of a strain in sunlight.

I also fired .38 SPL into a live pine tree at 56 yards and my probe touched the base of the slug 1" deep, so the nose of the bullet penetrated about 1.8" into the wood, plus 1/4 to 1/2" of bark.

When I fired the .38 S&W slug into a different live pine tree at 58 yards, my probe found the base 5/8" deep, so the nose penetrated about 1.5" into wood, plus 1/4 to 1/2" of bark.

So, the .38/200 supposedly bounced off of an overcoat? Anyone expecting his overcoat to stop this bullet had better be wearing blue tights with a big "S" on his chest! :-)

2. Water-filled milk jug penetration test with 150g LSWC

BULLET: Lyman Ideal 360271 LSWC, nominally 150g, but 157g as-cast with 50-50+tin, sized .361

LOAD: 2.5g Win231. COL = 1.086" Crimped in crimp groove.

REVOLVER: S&W Mod. 33, 4" bbl.

CHRONO: LO 694.6, HI 713.7, AVG 703.9, ES 19.08, SD 6.85

POI @ 60' approx. +2"

PENETRATION @ 10 FT." (with both 4" and 2" guns)
a. Mod 33, 4" bbl: Shot chrono'ed at 690.3 fps, drove straight line thru all 6 jugs, halfway-exited #6 and buried up to shoulder in 2x12 stop board. Note deformed bullet nose in photo.

b. Mod 32-1, 2" bbl" Shot chrono'ed at 581.2 fps. drove straight line thru 5 jugs, cracked hole barely in front of #6, and stuck horizontally between #5 and #6. Note undeformed bullet nose in photo.

PHOTOS:
#017: Mod 67 .38 SPL with 50-yd. target
#018: Mod 33 .38 S&W with 50-yd. target
#004: Mods. 33-1 and 32-1 used for water penetration test of 150g LSWC, with recovered bullets at respective muzzles. Other cartridges shown, with nominal bullet wts. (L-R): Lyman 360271 LSWC 150g; Lee LSWC-TL 158g; Lee GB of Lyman 358430 LRN 195g; flat-pointed Lee GB of Lyman 358430 LRN 195g; RCBS 35-200 LFP, 200g.

[LouisianaMan]

Bilmac,

I thought my 50-50 mix would be pretty soft, but clearly no deformation has occurred. Soon I'll cast some at 30:1 or 40:1 and see how they do. Any hints or tips?

[LouisianaMan]

200g flat-nose bullets in .38 S&W--penetration testing 7 MAR 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I used a die made by "BUCKSHOT" on another forum to flatten the noses of my 192g wheelweight 358430s, giving them a meplat approx. .275 in diameter, while reducing the LRN profile to something resembling a LWC without the sharp shoulder. Since the flattening process caused a bit of swelling, I ran them thru a .361 sizer to ensure a fit in my guns. I also reduced the charge from 2.7g Win231 to 2.6g, since diameter might have increased from as-cast .360 to .361. COL was reduced from 1.270 to 1.205" due to the bumping process; bullet seating depth was not altered from my earlier tests.

CHRONO RESULTS (10 shots, 4" bb. Mod. 33-1): LO 608.8 HI 643.0 AVG 629.8 ES 34.28 SD 9.43

PENETRATION RESULTS @ est. 10' vs. water-filled milk jugs:
1. 4" bbl, Mod. 33-1. Shot chrono'ed at 604.5fps. Bullet penetrated all 6 jugs in essentially straight line, barely exiting 6th jug, denting a stop board about 1/4" deep, then falling back into the jug (now very clean). I had placed cardboard between each jug, to see whether evidence of bullet tumbling existed. Neither the holes in the cardboard nor the holes in the jugs evidenced tumbling. Since the velocity was actually lower than the chronographed LRN 198g in my earlier testing, the LFP profile seems to account for increased penetration & straighter flight path vs. the LRN version of this bullet.

2. 2" bbl, S&W Mod. 32-1. This shot screamed over the chrono at 575.0 fps, penetrating in a straight line into the 6th jug, but failing to exit. This bullet was also recovered in a very clean condition :-) No evidence of tumbling.

3. Both recovered bullets miked at .360 and evidenced no weight loss or deformation.

ACCURACY RESULTS: 50' off sandbags, 2 1/2" group 10 rds, POI +5", L 1 1/2".

ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS:
1. Penetration in LFP profile is markedly deeper & straighter than LRN profile of same bullet, despite lower velocity of the shot. The bullet hole is clearly larger and rounder in both paper target and mik jug than the LRN; larger wound channel and greater tissue damage are therefore likely. If any benefit obtains when the bullet tumbles in LRN form, however, this would be lost in LFP form.

2. 192g LFP penetration is slightly less than 161g LSWC and 215g LFP (35-200). The meplat and bullet hole sizes of the 192g LFP and 161g LSWC are very similar; both are larger than the LRN, which is in turn larger than the 215g LFP.

Cartridge photos below are (L-R):

1. 215g LFP (RCBS 35-200). This is a .35 Remington fifle bullet. Loaded in .38 S&W, it resembles the British 178g FMJ in shape, and the tumble-lube almost makes it look jacketed.

2. 358430 "bumped" from LRN to LFP

3. 358430 in original LRN

4. 161g LSWC (Lee 358-158-SWC-TL)

[williamlayton]

Dang. Are there any pines left in La.? I am gonna buy me some milk jug stocks tomorrow.
You are having some serious fun.
AND, I am learning from the read.
You have me convinced.
Blessings

[Badnews Bob]

I just bought a S&W 15-3 .38 special and you now have convinced me I need a 200 gr mold prolly a LFN LBT style from Veral prolly have a gas check so I can use it in my rifles also.

I usually shoot 170gr gold dots out of my .38s but I like to use cast bullets. Thanks for the info.

[LouisianaMan]

Glad you all are enjoying the topic! I find it helps me think through the issues and results to write it out & see what others conclude about it.

William, I'm not sure what "milk jug futures" sell for, but maybe we can get them put onto the Farm Report?

Now what I need to do is line up a couple of jugs full of water at 25 and 50 yards, and then see how many jugs one of these 200g bullets can penetrate at extended range, and whether the LRN or LFN versions do better at a distance.

Or as one poster on another forum recommended, I can put overcoat-style material in front of some jugs & see what happens! Wish I still had that old Swiss military overcoat I bought as a souvenir back in the '80s :-) Anyone want to donate an old overcoat for "scientific purposes"? 

[LouisianaMan]

Badnews,

By the way, I imagine a 170g is a very, very nice bullet. I've got a few 173g LSWC-K loaded, that someone sent me. I certainly expect it will penetrate very well indeed.

I can't personally vouch that a 200g is any better or worse than 170g in any respect, but I think it's revealing that both 1920's British Army and 1990's USMC small-arms ammo testers concluded that there's something special about the 200g weight. They both seem to conclude that it's a threshold of sorts, and bullets above that weight tend to penetrate on a straight line & not get deflected. Personally, I have no idea how to square that idea with the concept of bullet tumbling, because I would suspect those phenomena are mutually exclusive. Also, I would imagine that the SWC-K bullet profile would tend to remain straight even in bullets lighter than 200g; the LSWC-K wasn't available to the Brits in the late 1920s, and I don't know if our 1990s testing used such a profile in testing military-style ammo.

Take a look at these links about the "magic 200g" threshold:
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/1904trial.html

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/terminal.html  (This one also states that bullet penetration in water is 2x more than in flesh. If correct, and NOT allowing for penetration through multiple layers of plastic jug sides, 40" in water = 20" in flesh. While "overkill" from frontal angles in SD/HD, it's what I want in aside shot or thru a raised arm, heavy clothing, or intervening upholstered furniture, etc.)

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/pigboard.html

[MikeP]

LouisianaMan, I’m proud to have played a little part in your interest in the heavy .38 caliber school-of-thought. As I noted before, my interest was begun in the early 1970s, and I’ve had the bug for all these years. I also enjoy getting reinforcement from fine folks like Mikey, who have a similar opinion of this concept.

As you noted, those of us who believe in this slow-but-heavy plain-lead-bullet-in-the-revolver concept are going against modern trends of faster-but-lighter high-tech-engineered bullets in modern mega-shot semi-automatic pistol concept. Humans are always working to improve things, and that is good. But there are benefits from old-school approaches too.

I like the old-school approach for self-defense for many reasons:

---Revolvers are as reliable and easy-to-operate when under stress as any firearm, and more so than the more modern semi-automatic pistol. It is not ammo sensitive, and any bullet nose will work as long as it fits the cylinder. No safeties, no slides, no worries. Just pull the trigger. If the thing doesn’t go off, pull it again. Even a dud doesn’t stop the action. It is easy to remember to point-and-pull under stress. And pull again as may be necessary. Now, if I were planning to get into a drawn-out street fight with a gang, the 18-round automatics with a couple of extra clips sound good. So would bullet-proof vests and helmets. But that’s not in my life’s plan at this point.

---Short-nose revolvers have the cylinder-barrel gap and the short barrel to worry about. Both of them bleed pressure. The higher the pressure, the faster the bleed. Also, more pressure equals more noise, more flash, more recoil. Who needs it? A low-pressure round in my defense revolver seems better for me. It is certainly easier to get used to for those who don’t practice a lot.    

---A heavy bullet seems more logical for a low-pressure revolver round. It takes a lot to get it going, but with a relatively fast powder, a lot of it will burn before the bullet clears the cylinder and opens the gap, and probably all of the powder is burned by the time the bullet clears the end of the stubby barrel (in my case, 2.25 inches from the SP101). So, there’s not the extra flash-and-bang from a high-pressure round that may eject some of its powder out the barrel. I think this fast-powder, heavy-bullet combination takes best advantage of the short-barrel revolver’s characteristics.

--- The simple lead bullet does not depend upon anything but its weight and velocity to get the job done.  With a weight that is 30% to 60% heavier than the conventional .38 bullet. This characteristic stays with the bullet for the full course of its travel. It does not depend upon the nose flattening out in any planned way, which is good, because at most pistol velocities this is problematic anyway…especially after hitting various and sundry types of clothing prior to getting to the cookies.

Your results with Buckshot’s nose-flattening device is most interesting. It demonstrates a theory I’ve heard many times that a flat-nose bullet kind of cuts through the target and creates a more effective wound channel compared with a push-it-aside approach of the round-nose bullet. An adjunct to this characteristic is that a flat-nose is able to cut through in a straight line and is less prone to deviate from its original course.

In fact, based on this theory, I also have altered my 200-grain bullets that are in my revolver. I did it with a file, taking the tips off the round noses and creating a .25 inch meplat, which is about 70% of the .357 inch bullet diameter. I don’t bother to do this with practice rounds.

I have demonstrated the effectiveness of this to myself by flattening the noses of my .22 rimfire squirrel rounds, using an arbor press in a commercial die. I can’t use the flat-tips in my semi-automatic rifles because they tend to hang up, but they can be used in my single-shot Contender rifle. When a squirrel is hit, there is a distinctive “plop” from the flat nose hitting. It creates a wound channel which is obviously more destructive than a round-nose bullet…a kind of “squirrel stopper” if placed right.

Anyway, I’ve mused much too long here. Thanks again for your reports. Enthusiasm for one’s hobby, especially when it is a potentially life-saving pursuit, is always a good thing.     

[LouisianaMan]

MikeP,

Will write more tomorrow, but wanted to leave you this link: http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php/topic,67446.0.html

That's one you were involved in back in '05, and I've bookmarked it to read & re-read over the last 18 mos. or so. I'm neither expert ballistician nor experienced pistol fighter, but just have to believe that the modern emphasis on JHPs--to the exclusion of any other type of ammo--simply flies in the face of too much history to be accepted wholly & uncritically. If Fackler's anywhere near correct, and if Hornady's on-target with marketing "Critical Defense" ammo, then it follows that penetration is crucial & that expansion is not a given, in any event. If it were, no need for Hornady's new product.

More soon,
Dana

[MikeP]

Louisianal (LouisianaMan?), aka Dana, did you change your screen name, or am I going crazy (even more)?

Anyway, thanks for the reference from five years ago. They say that if you always tell the truth, you don't need a good memory to be consistent. Well, after reading that thread, I can testify this don't always work. Two things that corrected what I wrote earlier: I was thinking that my little SP101 and its 200-grain load produced a velocity of around 700 fps. Actually, as the old thread states, it's closer to 600 fps. Also, I thought I had tested penetration in dry newspaper. Actually, it was wet. So, shame on me.

Those tests were with roundish-nose bullets. I need to redo them with the flattened-nose bullets I keep for "live fire" to see if they tumble  less.

I do currently use dry newspaper, but its mostly for catching my spent rounds so I can melt them again. I learned that trick from buffalo hunters, who sometimes would dig out the .45 and .50 Sharps rounds from the dead buffalo so they could remelt and remold them into brand-new bullets. (I wonder if that's the truth, or if I just saw it in a movie?)

In any case, best of luck in your pursuit of happiness, no matter how many grains your bullets may possess.

[LouisianaMan2]

MikeP and all,

Yes, it's LouisianaMan here, writing under the nom de guerre of "LouisianaMan2," so I can post from work :-)

I wrote a detailed missive last night, only to lose it all when I tried to post it & received an error message on photo type. . .so here goes again. I'll post photos from home tonight.

Hypothesis:     a. Brits chose .380/200 for its deep penetration and blunt-nosed smashing effect when it hit bone, plus it "pushed right through" when it hit target. (NOTE: at this time, I don't know the barrel twist rate of Enfield/Webley revolvers, so cannot account for this factor yet.)

   b. American police, etc., using the Colt New Police (.38S&W/200, with flat nose), probably had the same results. Ditto for those using the Winchester factory cartidge, with its very blunt nose.

   c. American police, etc., using the "pointier" Remington .38S&W/200, probably were more likely to experience tumbling, as the pointier, even longer, perhaps less stable bullet tumbled when it hit the target, as it was only marginally stabilized.

    d. Tumbling may also have partially resulted from use of S&W revolvers, with their slow twist of 1:18 3/4". Possibly the faster-twist Colts stabilized the bullets more fully, reducing likelihood of tumbling with any .38S&W/200 ammo. Likewise, faster-velocity 200g loads, such as the .38 SPL "Highway Patrol" load of c. 730-770 fps, may have been more stable & therefore less likely to tumble.

    e. Possibly, changing barrel lengths from longer to shorter (i.e. to snubbies) may reduce velocity and stability of one or more loads to the marginal stability point, and cause a load to tumble in a snubbie that doesn't normally tumble in a 4" or longer barrel. Additionally, it is imaginable that a gun/load/bullet combination that is stable at close range, could become unstable as its velocity decays to a critical point over longer ranges.

    f. Based on (a) thru (e) above, I hypothesize that the famous "tumbling" effect was more likely with "pointy" bullets at low vels (c. 600 or lower) when fired from S&W snub-nosed revolvers, whether in caliber .38S&W or .38SPL, and at relatively longer ranges. Conversely, that blunt bullets were unlikely to tumble in general, and even less likely at close range, when fired from Colts, 4" S&W's, or in higher-vel loads such as the "Highway Patrol" loading.

PROPOSED EXPERIMENTAL METHOD: attempt to obtain an adequate supply of both "pointier" bullets and blunt designs. Develop loads of c. 600, 700, and 750 fps with both bullet styles, to approximate .38S&W, .38 Colt New Police or .380/200 British, and .38 SPL "Highway Patrol" loads. Test each load from Colt, S&W and even Enfield/Webley revolvers against water jugs and wet newspaper, to determine which factor, or combination of factors, is more likely to give a tumbling effect. Test at close (7 yds), medium (25 yds) and long (50 yds.) range.

If we can succeed in identifying any real trends, we may have some decent answers even before we get our hands on British 1920s testing results and analysis. Accordingly, a modern-day shooter can optimize loads for his gun, because he can more reliably anticipate the effects associated with any of the popular loads/vels, bullet profiles, and revolver/barrel choices. For instance, one might learn to use a pointy bullet at low vel with an S&W snubbie if he wants the "tumbling" effect, whereas someone with a Colt may determine that "tumbling" is unlikely anyway, so he should load blunt bullets at the highest attainable velocities. If someone has only blunt bullets, he may forget tumbling completely.

Now, I'm no ballistician and no scientist, so please shoot holes in these concepts wherever possible.

If we can confirm my hypotheses, then it's time for more testing. Who out there has a Colt revolver in this caliber & would like to do some testing? How about Enfield or Webley?

[LouisianaMan]

. . .And who has an S&W .38SPL snubbie in which to fire 700 and 750fps (chrono'ed from 4" bbl) loads? Any old, "pointy" Remington 200s available?

Some relevant photos:

[LouisianaMan]

Several developments:

1. Ordered the Skennerton book on the Enfield No. 2 today. Will advise when/if it provides good info on the cartridge.

2. Bought the only box of factory .38 S&W I've seen in 3 months, some Remington LRN. Will use it for "control" over chrono & vs. the long-suffering milk jugs :-)

3. Received two packets of British .380 Mk 2Z ammo from a kind donor in the Lone Star State. Will chrono, penetration test & publish.

4. Will cast pure lead 200g slugs tomorrow & test later in the week. Ditto for a new 140g LSWC Lee mold I bought--may have to "beagle" it to get it to cast .360ish.

5. Possibly on Sunday, a fellow enthusiast will bring up his 4" Police Positive, in caliber .38 Colt New Police, to provide some comparison results in penetration versus the slower-twist S&W's I'm shooting. He also scared up a 1946 NRA book on pistols & revolvers, with detailed data on this cartridge, to include published vels (and the bbl. length used in testing). I'll post that info soon with these other updates.

6. Will mail some 200g slugs tomorrow to another "researcher" in TX to shoot thru his 2" Colt and Webley, to see if differing rates of twist impact the penetration/tumbling issue.

7. Will call Remington & Winchester tomorrow and request historical information. Wish me luck!

[Badnews Bob]

Great info I am looking at using this info to load for a new Ruger LCR.

[Merle]

Several developments:

1. Ordered the Skennerton book on the Enfield No. 2 today. Will advise when/if it provides good info on the cartridge.

2. Bought the only box of factory .38 S&W I've seen in 3 months, some Remington LRN. Will use it for "control" over chrono & vs. the long-suffering milk jugs :-)

3. Received two packets of British .380 Mk 2Z ammo from a kind donor in the Lone Star State. Will chrono, penetration test & publish.

4. Will cast pure lead 200g slugs tomorrow & test later in the week. Ditto for a new 140g LSWC Lee mold I bought--may have to "beagle" it to get it to cast .360ish.

5. Possibly on Sunday, a fellow enthusiast will bring up his 4" Police Positive, in caliber .38 Colt New Police, to provide some comparison results in penetration versus the slower-twist S&W's I'm shooting. He also scared up a 1946 NRA book on pistols & revolvers, with detailed data on this cartridge, to include published vels (and the bbl. length used in testing). I'll post that info soon with these other updates.

6. Will mail some 200g slugs tomorrow to another "researcher" in TX to shoot thru his 2" Colt and Webley, to see if differing rates of twist impact the penetration/tumbling issue.

7. Will call Remington & Winchester tomorrow and request historical information. Wish me luck!

FWIW

Years ago I used regular 38 HBWC swaged bullets in my Enfield No 2.
I hoped that they would "bump up" to the larger bore, and they seemed to work OK.
I worked with several powders, but finally settled on Bullseye, once I found a load that shot close to the sights.
As a plus, they made nice clean holes in the paper.

 

[LouisianaMan]

The "German Greatcoat Story" debunked!

Many of you have heard of the report attributed to a British sergeant, who stated that the weak .380/200 FMJ ammo wouldn't even penetrate a German greatcoat. Well, after thinking briefly about that claim, I concluded it was either an exaggeration or a case of a near-squib load. Who ever heard of any service bullet that can't penetrate a coat?

Today I shot some CIS-manufactured 178g Mk. 2Z ball ammo from my Mod. 33-1 S&W 4", and it zipped thru three layers of an overcoat, a gallon jug of water, and hammered into the pine tree from which the coat & milk jug were suspended. On the first try, the water caused the bullet to tumble, but it still embedded itself about an inch into the tree--sideways, undistorted.

An additional test saw the bullet drill straight through 3x coat layers, the jug, and drive straight into the tree, much deeper; since the wood closed in behind the bullet, I couldn't measure the depth of penetration. My steel probe couldn't find it. A Colt Police Positive Special 4" bbl. in caliber .38 S&W had the same results. Ditto for another bullet fired from the 33-1 thru three layers of overcoat, w/o a water jug--straight into the trunk, too deep to find. Tomorrow I'll try to find them with a drill.  :-)

I've seen a report elsewhere by a former member of the Royal Hong Kong Police, who stated that he shot much of the Mk. 2Z ammo in the 1960s, and many bullets barely made it out of the barrel. (I'll find the link & include it in my upcoming range report.) Clearly, that's a manufacturing flaw in the ammo and is not any true reflection of the caliber's inherent capability. I believe that the "German greatcoat" story stems from the same cause: bad manufacturing, not bad design per se.

More follows soon about a variety of other .38 S&W tests conducted today, as well as photos of today's "Greatcoat Test." I'll also chronograph the 2Z ammo I'm shooting, to compare to British Army specs.