Berry's 148gr HBWC in S&W52?

I'm still trying to solve the leading problem in my S&W 52. I usually shoot Zero and Precision Delta bullets, my load is 2.7gr BE, and as long as I do my part, it stays well within 10 ring at 50 yards. The only problem is that after each match I find a lot of lead in the first 1/2" of the rifling, in the grooves, and I have a really hard time cleaning it all up. So I'm wondering if anyone had any success with plated or coated bullets? Berry's has plated 148gr HBWC, does anyone know if they work out of S&W 52? And if yes, should I start with the same load or bump it up to 3.0gr?

javaduke wrote:I'm still trying to solve the leading problem in my S&W 52. I usually shoot Zero and Precision Delta bullets, my load is 2.7gr BE, and as long as I do my part, it stays well within 10 ring at 50 yards. The only problem is that after each match I find a lot of lead in the first 1/2" of the rifling, in the grooves, and I have a really hard time cleaning it all up. So I'm wondering if anyone had any success with plated or coated bullets? Berry's has plated 148gr HBWC, does anyone know if they work out of S&W 52? And if yes, should I start with the same load or bump it up to 3.0gr?

Instead of changing bullets, examine your reloading setup first.
Excessive lead in the first few inches too me is the skirt is not sealing to the bore/rifling which causes the melting lead to adhere.
Measure the bullet skirt and load a dummy round, pull the bullet and remeasure, is it smaller ?
Also push a slug through the barrel and measure.

Let's take it one step at a time.

There are shooters here of the M52 and I am sure we can help.

Clarence

You might try Remington 148 hbwc , don't know about m52 but the berry didn't work in my m14-3 and Remington worked best

TRY THIS.. YOU ALREADY HAVE THE BULLETS . A COAT OF THIS LUBE ELIMINATED THE PROBLEM WHEN I SHOT A 52 WITH STAR BULLETS AND ZERO'S.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/746916/rooster-jacket-waterproof-bullet-film-lube-and-paper-patch-lube-16-oz

JIMPGOV wrote:TRY THIS.. YOU ALREADY HAVE THE BULLETS . A COAT OF THIS LUBE ELIMINATED THE PROBLEM WHEN I SHOT A 52 WITH STAR BULLETS AND ZERO'S.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/746916/rooster-jacket-waterproof-bullet-film-lube-and-paper-patch-lube-16-oz

Since the lube solved your problem with leading in the M52, could you state where the leading was in your barrel so I can enter it in my note book?
Leading toward the breech, toward the muzzle or the full length ?

Thanks;
Clarence

MY LEADING WAS JUST IN FRONT OF THE CHAMBER. , JUST AS THE RIFLING STARTED. STAR SPECIAL MATCH WERE NO PROBLEM, REGULAR STAR AND ZERO'S DID THIS. A COAT OF THE ROOSTER LUBE ELIMINATED IT. THE ROOSTER JACKET DRIES AND LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO THE OLD STAR SPECIAL MATCH LUBE. JP

JIMPGOV wrote:MY LEADING WAS JUST IN FRONT OF THE CHAMBER. , JUST AS THE RIFLING STARTED. STAR SPECIAL MATCH WERE NO PROBLEM, REGULAR STAR AND ZERO'S DID THIS. A COAT OF THE ROOSTER LUBE ELIMINATED IT. THE ROOSTER JACKET DRIES AND LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO THE OLD STAR SPECIAL MATCH LUBE. JP

Thanks for the feedback JIMPGOV;

Put it in my notes as;

Lead at breech end = bullet fit / too small / lube ?
I question marked it only because my notes say lube issue is more of a leading issue toward the muzzle.
Notes are notes and not disputing your personal fix of your leading issue.

So many variables that documenting is the only way to keep track and decipher.

Clarence

Some random thoughts.

My M-52 would also lead bad just in front of the chamber for about an inch or so. This happened with as little as 30 rounds through a clean gun. Accuracy always seemed okay but I couldn't get nice tight groups, round patterns were the norm. Not that the round patterns were bad but I never had anything that could have been called a double, always paper in between holes. For the longest time I thought it was my shooting and form, after all how many times have we heard that the M-52 is a hard gun to shoot? Remington HBWC's were the best and Magnus swaged were the worst, HBWC or any WC double ended or flat base, they all leaded my barrel.  After a 900 the barrel looked more like a sewer pipe and accuracy was terrible towards the end.

Just out of curiosity I did some experimenting. , I had sizing dies for .357 , .358 and .359 and had tried all of these with various WC's and HBWC's but always had leading . Slugged my barrel and got a reading of .3546 but had no sizing die that small so I got a Lee sizing die in .356 and ran a bunch of HBWC's through in skirt first.  loaded the .356 HBWC's up with my usual load of 2.7 of BE in Remington cases w/ a Remington SP primer. Accuracy was much better than anything else I had tried before but I did have FTE on several rounds. I ended up bumping up my charge of BE to 3.0. With that load I got great accuracy (at 25 yards) with nice tight groups with bullets landing on top of each other, good function with no FTE or FTF problems and best of all no leading of any kind without resorting to using any lube other than what originally was on the bullets to begin with. I tried this with all the WC and HBWC I had and never got any more leading in the barrel

I'm not saying that I know more than anybody else or that my techniques are any different but by dropping down to a bullet sized a bit more than the .357 or .358 that I had been using in my M-52 solved a bunch of problems I had with accuracy and leading in that particular M-52. 

YMMV

Virgil

BTW if Mr Keefer was to make those barrels for the M-52 available to the public I would be one of the first ones in line to purchase it. But alas it's not to be.

Thanks, everyone, I'll try the lube and see if my barrel has a different size. I forgot to mention that my barrel is not the stock S&W, I bought the gun used, it was already set up for bullseye, and the barrel looks like a custom made one, but there are no markings at all.

But back to the original question, are there any coated or plated bullets that would work in S&W 52?

I shoot an M52 using Zero HBWC and 2.8 gr BE and get leading in the half inch after the chamber.  I tried some 148 gr cast double ended wad cutters, both coated and uncoated, but could not get either to group as well as the Zero bullets.  The coated bullets didn't lead the barrel, but did not produce good groups.  I may try the cast 148's again with 2.9 and 3.0 of bullseye.  As for the leading, I soak the barrel overnight in Hoppes #9 and use the Lewis lead removal system for initial cleaning. Usually takes 3-4 passes with the Lewis screen to remove lead after a 900 match.

At least two areas to fault.. The barrel, is less than stellar.. If you bore scope a 52 barrel, the leade in every one I have is rough..I have two new unfired/ unfitted S&W 52 barrels, and several used barrels to gauge from.. Tool marks are prominent..These ridges left by the cutter shave lead which is then deposited to the bore interior.
The soft lead used by many bullet makers, contributes further to the problem..One, barrel has skip spots where the rifling tool did not cut.. Hard cast bullets resist abrasion and shearing  better than swaged.. Zero swaged bullets tend to be a little harder than others..but not harder than cast..  Good interior barrel finish, with low angle leades, and quality bullets/lube well go a long way to alleviate the problem.

Not trying to hijack the thread but since we're on the subject, anyone have experience with the Hornady 148gr HBWC?

For those that shoot the 52 and would like to upgrade their barrel, what real options are there?

Guess I am one of the lucky ones, never had leading issues in my M52 but always shot Remingtons HBWC.

Since I cannot seem to find any more and am down to about 800 ish of them left have been using the Speer and Hornady HBWC's that I happened upon a few years ago.

Have not cleaned my barrel since sighting in and shooting a match about a month ago, just looked and no leading.

I know Remingtons skirts are larger than Speer or Hornady, Remington measures .362 and the Speer and Hornady at .357(the ones I have anyway).

What is the skirt measurments on your PD and Zeros ? (just curious for my notes).
Could you post a pic of this aftermarket barrel ?

The Speer and Hornady shoot just fine at 25 yrds, have not taken them to 50 yet.

My M52-1 is from 1968 just for information.

I do have a bunch of Moly coated cast 148gr DEWC if anyone wants to try a sample.
Have not used them in a long time, but worked good out of a revolver at 25yrds.

Clarence

Jerry,
Would you suggest perhaps a light touchup on the leade angle (throating), and perhaps some light bore lapping to help with these issues? I don't have an M52, but throating seems especially popular with the 1911 cast bullet crowd. The issue of leading in the throat area sound so...familiar.

Bob

Virgil Kane wrote: WC's and HBWC's but always had leading . Slugged my barrel and got a reading of .3546 but had no sizing die that small so I got a Lee sizing die in .356 and ran a bunch of HBWC's through in skirt first.  loaded the .356 HBWC's up with my usual load of 2.7 of BE in Remington cases w/ a Remington SP primer. Accuracy was much better than anything else I had tried before but I did have FTE on several rounds.

YMMV

Virgil

I missed this.. I didn't read back far enough, but this is excellent advice.. I also failed to mention it in my later post.. It's my pet peeve with S&W... S&W is noted for tight bore diameters.  As if a tight bore is a remedy for all ills, and the secret to accuracy.. It is not..It increases projectile distortion, chamber pressure, and has no added benefit to accuracy.. IF, this were not true, Douglas, Shilen, Kreiger, Lilja and others would be producing tight bores in the world's best match blanks..The 52 concept was great on paper, but the bean counters destroyed it before it got to the firing line..
I know of no source of after market barrels for the 52.. At one time Bar Sto offered them..and they were much better than factory.  Different twist, and land to groove ratio, but still tight.. I don't know if they still offer them or not... Not in the loop there..

358156hp wrote:Jerry,
Would you suggest perhaps a light touchup on the leade angle (throating), and perhaps some light bore lapping to help with these issues? I don't have an M52, but throating seems especially popular with the 1911 cast bullet crowd. The issue of leading in the throat area sound so...familiar.

Bob

Yes, it helps. Lead does respond well to free bore, and very gentle leade angles..

I will be at Perry this year with the gun, maybe someone can take a look? Aside from obvious accuracy issues caused by leading, I'm trying to avoid any unnecessary exposure to lead particles when cleaning the barrel. So I would really like to fix the problem or find a reasonable workaround.

The Remington HBWC is .360 for the three rear driving bands and then drops in diameter to under .357
I asked Remington about this many years ago, but didn't get much of and answer..
It seems to be beneficial as an alternative to gentle leades, The .360 is a bit tight in my opinion, and I avoid them except for match barrels in PPC revolvers where they did shoot better than most anything else.. But leading was still a problem.
The ones I have tested recently are 6 on the BN scale, which is very soft..Penn Cast run around BN18 to give a comparison. Soft bullet myth/syndrome..  If you dump a box of Rem 148s on a piece of news paper, it becomes pretty evident how dirty they really are..Some leading can be mitigated by washing them off in solvent to remove the coating and the  millions of lead chips and flacks that come from the manufacturing process..If you examine closely, the skirt edge is rolled over slightly from tumbling in the lube/coating, I assume..  Replace coating with liquid Alox or 45-45-10

"Replace coating with liquid Alox or 45-45-10"

I do this to all my 38 HBWC these days... not hard to clean the bullets in a jar of ordorless mineral spirits.. Also easy to hand tumble the bullets in the 45-45-10...

I use the Precision Delta HBWC with the "match lube". I don't know what the lube is, but they are dry. Could be powder coat or moly....

I have no leading in my 52 with this bullet, you might order or borrow some to try.

KenO wrote:I use the Precision Delta HBWC with the "match lube". I don't know what the lube is, but they are dry. Could be powder coat or moly....

I have no leading in my 52 with this bullet, you might order or borrow some to try.

Yes, as I mentioned in my original post, that's what I use, and that's what causes the leading. Good bullet otherwise, I get a very good accuracy, it's just that lead in the barrel that I have to clean is bothering me.

OK, I didn't see that you bought the "M" lubed ones, I thought you got their regular lubed ones.

Good luck, I sure like my 52.

Leading: usually, if you get leading at beginning at the lede/rifling, the bullet is either too small or too hard or both. I have never had any leading in the the four M52s I have.
I worked very hard to get my reloads to be as accurate in my M52s as factory ammo. I'll probably forget something, but off the top of my head:
1) Bullet: of all the bullets I tried, the Remington is hands-down the BEST--by an order of magnitude in terms of group size and consistently of grouping. If I believed that Zero of Magnus could be better, I might try them. But, when you get groups better than factory with bullets are the cheapest you can find, there is little incentive to look elsewhere.
Hornady and Speer bullets were a total waste of money in all four guns. If bullets shot as well as they look, Hornady would be the BEST and Remington would be shooting 12" groups at 15 yards; however, you can't judge a bullet by appearance.
Cast WCs were a total waste of money. They are really a revolver-only bullet.
2) ANY, and I mean ANY reduction in diameter of the bullet hurt accuracy. This led me to find that best accuracy came by:
3) NOT sizing the cases. The low pressure barely expands the case any way and the slides/recoil springs have enough momentum to close the slide every time. That alone knocked about 1" off the group size at 25 yards. Other changes may have been as significant, but this was the first major variable I tried that WORKED to reduce group size. 
Have to watch for bullet tension, however, and sometimes I have to "size" the cases using a Lee FCD (but NOT a regular sizing die). For revolvers, you have to at least use the FCD to get the case to chamber, if not a regular sizing die. In this case, you really want a Lyman M-die that will open up the case ID to 0.358-0.359" for the Remington bullets.
4) Over flaring the case mouth. I tried various flares and found the BIGGER the flare, the smaller the groups. Pulled bullets showed that the larger flares were not swaging the bullets down as much as less flare. Also, it becomes easier and easier to sit the bullet on the case mouth, and have it stay straight, as more of the bullet is in the case. I used to lose about 1-2 cases every few hundred rounds. Using the SUPER case mouth flare, I now lose about 1-2 cases every few hundred rounds. I am convinced that, no matter what cartridge is being loaded, the use of minimal flare destroys accuracy faster than too much flare destroys cases.
5) I tried various combinations of all the dies I could locate. The Hornady New Dimension seating die, with a seating plug that was flat and had a "hole" in the center for the nub/button nose to not be flattened works great. The Lee seating die with a similar seating plug performs as well, but I have a prejudice for the sliding sleeve to keep the bullet aligned better—no groups to prove it and I wouldn't fight any one over it being better, but it just seems to remove a possible variable. Believe it or not, but my RCBS, Redding, and Pacific seating dies were not as accurate and I have no idea why (note: all shooting was done with me taking a random plastic bag of rounds representing one variable and, while NOT looking at the label, shooting them as carefully as I could. This was to try and eliminate as much subconscious bias as possible)
6) As part of the die investigation, I bought all the .38 roll crimp dies I could find at gun shows (along with as many seating dies with "wadcutter" seating plugs as I could find) and found that the roll crimp (everything else being equal and basing "best" on the smallest average group size from five groups) using a Redding Profile Crimp Die was the BEST. It's combination of roll and taper crimp just worked great. Next best, believe it or not, was the Lee FCD with the carbide ring removed. Excellent roll crimp for the cost of the die.
7) Powder? Once the other things were taken care of, re-running powder tests showed a long string of small groups very independent from what FAST powder was used or what the charge weight was (as long as velocity was under 800fps).
The only powder issues I had were N310, Clays, and TiteGroup would, using carefully weighed charges, throw out random high velocity/high recoil rounds that make me think there were pressure spikes being thrown. I mean, when you load one at time and weight, pour in powder, inspect powder in case, and seat the bullet one at a time, it is hard to believe that the charge weights varied.
So, with Remington 148gn L-HBWC, some of the "better" powders were:
231/HP38: 2.8-3.4gn, with 3.2gn seeming to be "best"
AA2: 2.8-3.2gn
N310: 2.3-2.6gn
Red Dot: 2.3-2.5gn
Trail Boss: 2.3-2.4gn
Unique: 2.7gn
231/HP38 and AA2 seemed to have the smallest groups over the widest range of charge weights. During all this time (about a 10 year period), I did not have any Bullseye, but plan on testing it now that I have some.
True Blue did OK at 3.5-3.8gn. It seems to be extraordinarily versatile from very light target loads of max loadings in all handgun cartridges I have used it in and could be a great replacement for Unique as a universal powder. Don't think it will sweep Bullseye competition, but for someone who wants to go down the "one powder for all" path...
Bar-Sto made a great barrel if you need a replacement. Took me about 3 years wait before they were ready to make a few, though.
Note: if "8 )" comes out as a smiley face emoji, it's not my fault.

Noyli, have you tried WST yet ?


Never mind.....