Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
.380 Mk2z
31 January 2017, 04:50,
#1
.380 Mk2z
I would like to correspond with anyone who has first-hand, personal combat experience with the .380 Mk2z revolver cartridge and either No.2 Enfield, Albion or Webley & Scott Mk4 revolver, in comparison with either 9mm NATO FMJ or .455 Mk6 FMJ. Folklore and barracks conjecture not needed. Personal observation as medical personnel most appreciated.

73 de KE4SKY
In
"Almost Heaven" West Virginia
USA
Reply
31 January 2017, 19:11,
#2
RE: .380 Mk2z
Unless one of the members was in service before 1963 chances for field reports will be slim.

You would be just as well off using the results of incidents using .38spl ammo here in the U.S. Results from a .38 spl w/two inch barrel would also be comparable. The velocity of a .38 from 2" barrel and MK2z from a 4" barrel would be about the same at 800 fps for the standard 158/165 grain bullet in both cases.

Or compare the results, if you can find them, with incidents involving the .38S&W round, which is identical within 7 grains weight to the Mk2z. The 38/200 and the MK2z were parented off the .38 S&W case and they were all issued interchangeably during the War.

I have met only one person that specified that they were shot with the .38 S&W round and that shot was in the leg. He drove himself to the hospital and back home after treatment. His only real comment was that treatment hurt more than being shot.

I do have some experience from years ago with the Webley & Scott revolvers in both 38 and .455. Compared to American revolvers of the S&W and Colt varieties they were brutes to handle and shoot and I always suspected the internals were fabricated from rail road track, especially the mainsprings.

Single action pulls were usually good but accurate double action shooting near impossible. I would only contemplate the use of one as a plinker or as a field gun were single action shooting was the norm. Or where self defense ranges were point blank when using the DA pull.

If you do the background work you will probably discover that there were as many S&W revolvers chambered for the British round as there were W&S and Enfield brands. We even shipped many H&R and Iver Johnson revolvers, cambered for 38S&W, to GB during the War.

Many of the S&W Victory models came back as surplus, had a .38 spl reamer run into their chambers, and were sold for as little as $15 on the U.S. surplus market. Many of the British guns met the same fate. I bought my first .38 Enfield for $12.95 from the back page of an American Rifleman magazine. Those modified models will shoot either 38 S&W, MK2z or .38 special.
__________
Every person should view freedom of speech as an essential right.
Without it you can not tell who the idiots are.
Reply
31 January 2017, 21:58,
#3
RE: .380 Mk2z
From testing done at AFIP for NIJ the 158-grain LRN .38 Special typically flips 180 degrees after about 8" penetration in gelatin and continues base-first, stopping in 20-24". The .22 LR 40-grain solid, 73-grain FMJ in the .32 ACP and 95-grain FMJ in the .380 ACP all exhibit similar behavior, with less penetration.

I would expect the long ogival nose of the Mk2 bullet and its greater overturning moment would shorten the "neck" of the permanent cavity and cause the "flip" to initiate earlier during initial soft-target penetration. I plan to do some water-jug penetration testing of .38 S&W, .380 Mk2z, .455, and .45 ACP, but it would be nice to have some contemporary accounts.

Come hog-killing time there might be an opportunity to test an FN Mk2 round from my Webley & Scott...

73 de KE4SKY
In
"Almost Heaven" West Virginia
USA
Reply
1 February 2017, 02:53,
#4
RE: .380 Mk2z
I doubt that two different rounds with the same performance charismatics, fired from two different but similar pistols, will show much difference in behavior on target.

I had a 200 grain .357 bullet mold and worked with it for several years but never felt I was getting any superior performance over the standard 150-158 grain loads. The only real difference I noticed was the 200 grain bullet did not have the same point of impact on target as my standard loads.

I have not been able to improve on the performance of my standard cast 158 grain SWC at 850 FPS.

You can go to a lighter bullet and increase velocity, go to a heavier bullet and decrease velocity, but performance will be about equal no matter what you do.

There is no magic .38 cartridge. They have been trying to invent one for 120 years. The British tried to improve on the load. So have the American manufacturers. They made +P, +P+, +P++...all in vain. They still have not elevated the performance of the .38 special or the .38 S&W to fill the gap between any of the common .38 cartridges and the ,357 magnum without exceeding the pressure standards that limit the .38 loads.

So now we have guns made for the standard ,38 and another class made for the +P loadings, then the firearms made for the .357 magnum.

Personally, I prefer to make all my reloads to a standard level of performance and reach for the .357, or something bigger, if I need heavier firepower.
__________
Every person should view freedom of speech as an essential right.
Without it you can not tell who the idiots are.
Reply
1 February 2017, 13:55,
#5
RE: .380 Mk2z
I love 38spl with lead bullets , tis my staple bullet for future scenario's , it does have its power limitations but it is so cheap and easy to reload , easy to cast , not tough on cases , reliable , soft shooting , comparatively quiet from long guns , love it love love it! And as for the mythical middle ground between .38spl and .357mag then just download the Magnus case , I have a load worked up that gives 594 ft/lb and 1299 f/p/s for quite a small charge of zip powder , and a near 400ft/lb subsonic round that is whisper quiet out of the moderated 77/357
Nothing is fool proof for a sufficiently talented fool!!!!
Reply
2 February 2017, 18:58,
#6
RE: .380 Mk2z
Grab a handful Mo, there's plenty lying about. .38spl s one of my "stand by rounds" and always will be and for the same reason you state. Easy to cast from scrap lead, easy to reload and the cases last for a long time. I once reloaded a group of six cartridges to failure and I got 35 uses of the case on average before burn out and split cases were declared useless.

That would indicate that 100 cases and the proper components reloaded 30 times would equal having 3,000 rounds on hand in a SHTF situation.

[Image: 001_zpsb1a63bae.jpg]

We should also remember that the 38/200/MK2z was a military adaptation and military organizations, especially the British ones, are extremely conservative in thought.

The British establishment between the Wars was "experimenting" with a round that had been developed in 1877 for use in hide out belly guns, loaded with black powder and eclipsed by the .38 special as soon as the latter was invented in the late 1890s. While the police and military agencies of the U.S. were considering the .38 special as a secondary issue arm (the 45 acp was primary) the British military was looking at the less powerful round it replaced as a new and modern design.

The U.S. had tried a 38 of the same performance level, the .38 Long Colt, and found it inadequate. The .38 spl had been developed to replace that weak round and it was also rejected in favor of the .45acp in the 1911 automatic pistol.

Add to that the fact that most of the modern European agencies were rushing to embrace the 9mm Luger and and a host of modern pistol designs holding 8-15 rounds in their magazines and the adaptation of the 38/200 could be considered a double setback.
__________
Every person should view freedom of speech as an essential right.
Without it you can not tell who the idiots are.
Reply
3 February 2017, 02:35,
#7
RE: .380 Mk2z
I would agree that if I were limited to one handgun it would be a .38 Special. My interest in the .38 S&W cartridge is mostly academic, because I obtained a few revolvers opf this caliber from an estate.

It appears based on pressure and velocity testing to date that in the Webley & Scott Mark IV and strong, model double-actions such as the S&W, can match standard-pressure .38 Special ballistics handloading the smaller case and improve upon factory ballistics for the cartridge, without exceed the pressure design limits of modern revolvers. Factory loads are loaded to modest pressures in deference to the many small-frame, top-break pocket revolvers out there.

The British military Webleys, Enfields, Albions, and the S&W Victory Model or Colt Police Positive chambered for the .38 Colt New Police, having heat-treated frames and cylinders, being manufactured after about 1926-27, can safely be handloaded to approach 800 fps with 146-155 grain cast lead bullets and approach 700 fps with lubricated lead cast bullets approximating the 178-grain weight of the Mk2 ball bullet.

I have not figured out how to post photos, but have the data summaries firing in an Oehler 43 system with piezo-electric test barrel.

73 de KE4SKY
In
"Almost Heaven" West Virginia
USA
Reply
3 February 2017, 20:06,
#8
RE: .380 Mk2z
Looking at the suggested load data for both cartridges, and looking at the firearm designs available for the 38S&W/380 I would have to place design restrictions on the use of "overloaded" .38 S&W rounds.

An "overload", meaning a .38 S&W round loaded to .38 spl standards, might be tolerable in a S&W model 10, or a Colt New Police revolver made during or after WW2. Both of those designs were manufactured to the same strength in both rounds as a matter of normal production. Both of those designs were routinely rechambered for .38spl by surplus dealers by the simple act of running a reamer into the cylinder. They continued to function flawlessly right up til today with the only normal complaint being that they swell the cases a bit on firing.

It would be different for the many Webley, Enfield, S&W top break, Iver Johnson and H&R revolvers. None of them are made to the same strength levels as the solid frame, side swing cylinder, Colt and S&W designs.

It is the weak hinge at the front and the potential for excess wear on the top latch that would concern me. I have seen many of the old top break revolvers that were worn to uselessness using standard loads, so an overload would be unacceptable in those designs.
__________
Every person should view freedom of speech as an essential right.
Without it you can not tell who the idiots are.
Reply
4 February 2017, 00:45,
#9
RE: .380 Mk2z
MB, you are absolutely correct.

Small, pocket-sized, top-break revolvers pre-1940 should not be loaded over the US SAAMI specifications for the .38 S&W, meaning a sample maximum average pressure of 13,700 psi. CIP standards permit an X-bar+3 Sigma limit of 1200 Bar, or 17,400 psi, which is close to US limits for standard pressure, (not +P) .38 Special.

The WW2-era Enfields and Webley & Scott are much more substantially built than the tiny old pocket guns.

73 de KE4SKY
In
"Almost Heaven" West Virginia
USA
Reply
4 February 2017, 20:14,
#10
RE: .380 Mk2z
I have owned both and realize the differences between the builds.

The break tops are still relics of the 1870s and still suffer from the maladies that led to their replacement by solid frame revolvers in the 1890s.

So we are comparing 140 year old technology to 120 year old technology, both being replaced by various semi-auto designs 100 years ago, and those original semi-auto designs are now obsolete two or three design phases past.
__________
Every person should view freedom of speech as an essential right.
Without it you can not tell who the idiots are.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)