.38SPL HBWC for revolver

I load .38SPL HBWC for a S&W Model 52-2, and am considering developing a different load for a Dan Wesson .357, 6" revolver using 38SPL.
Any historical advantage to developing a SWC load for the Wesson, or will the existing HBWC shoot just as accurate as a SWC?
2.8g of WST, 148g HBWC from Precision Delta, Starline brass and CCI SPP.

This depends on many factors, but before you spend all that time and money, I’d experiment with getting your WC load working.  Most of the records set in PPC were made with 148 HBWC factory loads.

Regardless of everything else I would advise against using Starline brass for 38 HBWC based ammo, and using CCI SPP for revolver ammo.  That's IMO!

AP

AP- Could you elaborate on your comments?
Thanks!

My experience with Starline brass is that its cases have sidewalls that are thick a lot further up the case walls, so that if you size then expand down into the case to the depth the HBWC case will go, you get a sidewall bulge.  If you full length size but do not expand the case, then the thick sidewalls will size your bullet hollow base down to a smaller diameter, which causes fliers for me.  

Starline makes great brass, but it works for RN and SWC bullets, not the HBWC bullets we use in .38 Special and .32 S&W-L.

NuJudge wrote:My experience with Starline brass is that its cases have sidewalls that are thick a lot further up the case walls, so that if you size then expand down into the case to the depth the HBWC case will go, you get a sidewall bulge.  If you full length size but do not expand the case, then the thick sidewalls will size your bullet hollow base down to a smaller diameter, which causes fliers for me.  

Starline makes great brass, but it works for RN and SWC bullets, not the HBWC bullets we use in .38 Special and .32 S&W-L.

I would not be able to provide better answer than one above as it pertains to using Starline brass for 38 HBWC.

As for using CCI primers - limitation is specific to revolver loads, but fine for semi-auto ones.  CCI SPPs have thicker caps, and ignition isn't consistent with revolvers firing pins.  Federal SPP is the best choice for revolver loads.  I understand that "beggars can not be choosers" in current situation.  Yet ......

AP

Sorry AP. Just realized I am duplicating you post. Whoops.

CCI primers are well known to be amongst the "hardest". Usually not a problem with a semi-auto. But with a revolver, especially if you double action, much more likely to suffer from "light strikes". Federal are said to be the softest. YMMV.

RN or SWC loads are slightly more easily to load in a revolver than HBWC. Outside of potential rule book concerns, that is the biggest difference (NRA DR requires 158 RN or 158 SWC).

In general revolvers, especially with action work, are prone to light strikes. Federal primers are preferred for revolver ammo as they tend to be softer.

In regard's to the starline brass for HBWC, I would recommend you test (a blind test is best) starline vs other makes of brass to see if it makes a difference with your loading process and most importantly results on target. Anecdotally people have had issues with starline brass with HBWCs but sufficient quality data is lacking to confirm/deny any claims one way or another.

Chiz.
Try some pin gauges in Starline and other brass. Or ask fc60. Starline is, in general, possibly the "best" brass, but not for HBWC. IMHO. YMMV.

RoyDean wrote:Chiz.
Try some pin gauges in Starline and other brass. Or ask fc60. Starline is, in general, possibly the "best" brass, but not for HBWC. IMHO. YMMV.

Have any test targets from multiple guns and loads to prove it? A pin gauge shows nothing about the result on target. So yes, brass can be different, but more importantly so can other aspects of the loading process.

One thing people often overlook is that reloading processes and procedures all are different. For example, a given charge weight/volume as loaded in my process and environment can produce a significantly different result from someone else’s process and environment. Same thing can be said for dies, mine are different from others and they will be effected by wear with extensive use. I would also argue that the majority don’t have calibrated measuring equipment or for even use the measuring equipment correctly and when they record their loading procedure.

The saying still holds, “In God we trust, all others bring data” in this case solid statistical data is not existent, which I why I encouraged testing the theory.

Well. Pin gauges do indeed offer relevant data. Several folks much smarter than I, suggest that the tapered walls of Starline are not optimum for HBWC. That is data. Yes, a comprehensive, multi gun, multi bullet brand, multi load recipe, multi ambient conditions, day of the week, etc., might conclusively prove many things.

I, on the other hand, follow the KISS approach. If multiple sources suggest that Starline is not optimum for HBWC, I offer that heresay to others with the usual caveats. In my case, it happens that I have been shooting a lot of relatively inexpensive factory Magtech 148WC and therefore have a stash of that brass, it has a cannelure at about mid-height and is therefore easy to identify. AFAIK, the walls are fairly uniform down to just below that cannelure. It is, therefore, ideal for HBWC.

My suggestion to the OP is, therefore, buy some Magtech 148WC ammo, shoot it in match or practice, then keep the brass for reloading 148WC. YMMV.

The article below used Starline brass for HBWCs. They comment on skirt shrinkage in sized cases, and to avoid skirt shrinking they sized with a 38 Super sizing die.

https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/new-38special-wadcutter-powder/498967

This forum is always a great source of information!
Will load Winchester brass and compare.
Thanks all!
John

chiz1180 wrote: “In God we trust, all others bring data” in this case solid statistical data is not existent, which I why I encouraged testing the theory.

Chris raised several fair questions that deserve the answers.  I'm going to try answering, although I can't claim the data I'm going to present is "solid statistical" one.  Nevertheless it is data, and my interpretation of it.  While this data pertains to caliber in question, I use this data and concepts derived from it for reloading of all calibers.  However continuous testing is SOP, and I totally agree with Chris' suggestion.  Sorry, this will be a long post.

About five years ago, when I got involved in precision shooting, I asked FC60 to test my 38 WC reloads.  That consisted both HBWC and DEWC.  FC60 agreed and asked about guns I plan on using, so testing would be more specific and closer to real use.  Thus, if you find this data useful, please be cognizant that majority of the credit for it goes to FC60!

Please note, that FC60's testing protocol included not only testing my ammo, but also testing it against his own and commercially available at various times.

With this preface........ 

1.  Commercial ammo.  Tested older Remington Target Master 213M and newer Remington Wadcutter Match RTG38S3 (lot #Y14B)






I want to draw your attention to the fact that loading parameters (Standard Deviation / SD , Extreme Spread / ES and Average Velocity / AV) are better for WC Match then for TM.  And yet former is a garbage, while latter is excellent.  Both use "Holy Grail" Remington 148gr HBWC bullets.  The only discernible difference I could identify was brass cases used.  This is where 0.355+ pin gauge becomes an important tool - internal tapering in cases used for TM starts below 0.625" mark, which is length of the bullet.  Internal tapering in cases used for WC Match doesn't, hence leading to swaging of the bullet's bottom portion.   

That is my interpretation.  I understand that there might be arguments about bullets batches, and other variables.  Yet, the conclusion I derived from the above, became my de-facto standard, and it never failed me in reloading of the caliber since.

To be continued....

AP

2.  HBWC testing.



Here are the 30 rounds of my ammo loaded with Remington 148gr HBWC.  All 30 loaded with same parameters / components.  Yet, you can see that one of the shots printed outside of 10 ring while seven others were in X and two more in 10 on the same target.  All other shots on two other targets were in 10 rind with more then 50% being in X.  However one of the targets shows much greater disbursement of shots than two others.  Once again, paradoxically the target with shot outside of 10 has best SE/ES/AV parameters.

My interpretation here is that disbursement is related to the quality of bullets base.  Yes, there might be other factors affecting, but once again, I concluded that 50Y ammo requires culling of the bullets, and that's my SOP.

To be continued...

AP

3.  DEWC testing.



Here are the 30 shots of my ammo loaded with two different DEWC bullets.  Parameters of the bullets were slightly different.  In particular Penn bullets were naked lead at 148gr, RT bullets were sized to 0.358 for those with "perfect" HTC and to 0.357" for ones that had pretty much no coating.  All bullets are hard cast.  Other then that all parameters / components were the same.  Also it is worth noting that I load DEWC ammo on Star press, while HBWC ammo is loaded on Dillon XL650 or RL1050.  For me this test had several objectives - bullets themselves, coated versus naked, difference in OD.  As you can see the worse target (with Penn bullets) has the best and most consistent SD/ES/AV parameters, and there are two out of 10 ring shots with bullets that had perfect coating, - I attribute these two to bullets base imperfections.

My interpretation here once again confirms the importance of culling bullets, especially for 50Y.  At the same time I also concluded that using HTC coated bullets is totally acceptable. 0.001" variation in OD doesn't significantly affects accuracy when shot from the same barrel.  However I would not mix bullets sized differently for 50Y ammo.  I also want to mention that FC60 did this test using two different barrels, - 38KIT (Colt semi-auto) and K38 (S&W revolver).  Results with K38 barrel were pretty much identical.

To be continued....

AP

4. Reloading technique and other variables.




These two targets represent 20 shots with ammo loaded by FC60 and 10 shots with my own ammo.  With exception of the fact that all loaded with Remington 148gr HBWC and shot presumably from the same barrel there is nothing else in common, - different cases, different primers, different powder and charges.  And loaded on different platforms, I know FC60 uses Star and mine was loaded on Dillon XL650.  Needless to say we use different dies, although I can assume that some of the parameters (i.e. sizing, crimping) are very close, and different processes.  Yet, results are very similar (I really want to think, that my reloads do measure up to FC60's).  I believe, the underlying reasons come from similar approach to reloading, - attention to details, testing, analyzing, adjusting, testing again.... I know several folks on this forum who adhere to the same approach, and load excellent ammo.  Hence it is just a matter of learning the process and be consistent in execution.

Yes, I can admit that I am better reloader than a precision shooter.  I already spent my 10000 hours (and then some) on perfecting my reloading technique.  I am way too short of the same amount on my shooting.  However I am diligently working on the latter.

Needless to say, everything I posted is IMHO.  As I stated, kudos to FC60, - I learned a LOT from him!

AP

AP

Thanks for posting this.

One interesting measurement to know would be the groove diameter of the barrel used for shooting the bullets of different diameter.

Oh, and yeah, the consistent velocity and accuracy thing has been tested and they found the same result. Consistent speed does not mean better accuracy.

https://americanhandgunner.com/handguns/exclusive-consistent-velocity-accuracy/

Great attention to detail; thanks Alex. Regarding point 1 commercial Remington ammo, new bullets may not be the same quality as the old RP hbwc bullets.

I see one tightwad load but are all the others 2.7 BE?

I gauge pin'd a bunch of random 38 cases from the 60's to 'modern' times. Didn't see any significant difference.

Not sure, but I think there was a box or 2 of Starline included in that.

bruce martindale wrote:Great attention to detail; thanks Alex. Regarding point 1 commercial Remington ammo, new bullets may not be the same quality as the old RP hbwc bullets.

I see one tightwad load but are all the others 2.7 BE?

Yes, all ammo loaded by me for this test had 2.7gr BE powder charge from the same lot.  Charge variations +/-0.04gr.

AP

The only thing "match" about that Remington Wadcutter Match  ammo is the beautiful concentricity of the holes cut by the bullets. Remington should be humiliated by those results.

Thanks Al (and Dave FC60) for the great research and data.

PS I am not opposed to the concept of tight skirts, when in the proper context.

The Minority Report... there always has to be one dissent vote in a group. HBWC, SWC or XTP? My vote is for Hornady 110gr XTP. Easier to get in cylinder, totally forgiving on case used, bullets have perfect formed bases, accuracy is superb,  readily available and often on sale, compatible with a wide range of powders and actually have a usable cannelure. I like them a little hot for my S&W 18:75 to 1 twist rates so I use 4.2gr Bullseye. I'm sorry I don't have 15 test targets to display but I'm sure if you load some of these you will be impressed. My .02

LenV wrote:My vote is for Hornady 110gr XTP.

Len,

Leaving aside the accuracy and other pros, can this bullet be legally used for any competition, whether in CMP or NRA matches?

AP

PhotoEscape wrote:

LenV wrote:My vote is for Hornady 110gr XTP.

Len,

Leaving aside the accuracy and other pros, can this bullet be legally used for any competition, whether in CMP or NRA matches?

AP

CMP, yes, any cartridge 9mm to .45
NRA, still say 158 grain only

For distinguished events anyway