Lyman 358430 in .38 Special and .357 Magnum -- Favorite Loads?

[Thomas Traddles]

I have read quite a few threads here about the pros and cons of the Lyman 358430 in .38 Special and .357 and have decided to give it a try in my own guns. I would be interested in hearing what loads folks have been using. Also, I would appreciate references to reloading manuals that publish loads for this round. My Lyman 49th and the recent Cast Bullet manuals, which are the only two I have, stop at 170/180 grain bullets. Thanks!

[gwpercle]

Most of my reloading has been for 38/357 over the past 40+ years , fired in Ruger Blackhawk and several S&W revolvers . I experimented with heavy boolits in the 180 grain range, in the Blackhawk and did not find them that successful in my revolver . Not enough velocity or sight adjustment in the blackhawks factory sights . I Didn't try the super heavyweight 358430 , which is listed at 195 or 200 grains . Just seemed too heavy. The 170 grain boolit 358429 , seemed to be the best balance of weight to available powder capacity, for a decent velocity, in a handgun .

Out of a rifle , this may be a whole different ball game , but I don't have one....yet. I would like to have one !

A surprising sleeper of a 38/357 boolit is Lyman #358432 in the 160 grain wadcutter guise. Nice weight to velocity can be had , full wadcutter hits hard and , the MOST accurate out of all of my guns ! If you ever come across one , grab it and give it a try.

Sorry I don't have any data for the 358430 . This afternoon , when I get home, I'll check my manuals and see what I can find.
What powders do you have or can get ?

Gary

[Thomas Traddles]

Gary, thank you for the reply. I've looked at the 358432, but have two other full wadcutters in 140 and 148 grain. I had pretty well convinced myself to stay with 158 grain bullets (RNFP and SWC) because they are so accurate in my Blackhawk and LCR. However, reading on the "Super Police" load gave me the itch to give the 358430 a try.

I have some Red Dot, Blue Dot, Unique, Universal, and Titegroup on hand.

[gwpercle]

Nothing wrong with trying things , that's why we reload and cast boolits.
Now that I think about it , I was trying Speer 180 grain J-word , flat point , designed for the 35 Remington. Had half a box and thought I would try them . Now I know that those J-word 35 Remington bullets were designed for rifle velocities....not handgun... I was young then, now I know better !
The cast 358430 could be a different situation. I remember the "super Police" and the 38 S&W 200 grain British Service revolver load. Maybe you on to something.
Will check data for your powders.

Gary

[45-70 Chevroner]

Thomas, I sent you a PM so that I can send you some info from a Lyman 44th edition loading manual.

Check your inbox.

[Thomas Traddles]

45-70 Chevroner, I've replied to your pm. Thanks!

[Thomas Traddles]

I was reading a thread over on The High Road about the 200 grain bullet and the 38 Special. A commenter remarked that 200 grain loadings for the 38 were dropped from loading manuals because loads were not sufficient to keep one from sticking a bullet in the barrel. Is this true? Certainly, one could do this with a squib of any bullet weight, but this particular person spoke as if it was a regular occurrence with this bullet.

[gwpercle]

Sorry Thomas , I can find no data on 200 grain cast in 357 magnum or 38 Special. The Lyman Cast bullet Handbook #3 goes up to 170 grain and #4 Edition goes to 180 and the RCBS Cast Bullet Manual #1 goes to 180 grains also.

I did find the data I used with the 180 grain Speer Flat Point J-words, it's in Speer #9 under 357 magnum rifle ! At least I was using published data...and the Blackhawk was hell for stout !
Gary

[35remington]

A cast lead bullet has little problem with sticking bullets in revolver barrels unless velocities get quite low. Less frictional resistance in the barrel. Jacketed, yes, cast, not nearly so much. What you heard/read was incorrect unless somehow taken out of context.

The 358430 has been used with good success in the .38, keeping in mind the reduction in powder weight needed because of its comparatively heavy weight. Much more than 700 fps or so gets into the Plus P category, this from 4 inch barrels.

[Bigslug]

Thomas,

My experience with the 358430 was minimal, but noteworthy - at least when viewed from the perspective of the relatively newbie caster I was at the time.

I wanted to play with the concept of the British .380/200 .38 S&W load in the .38/.357 platform, so I loaded them with 3.2 and 3.6 grains of Unique for 560 and 635 fps out of .357 cases and shot them into FBI gelatin provided by an industry contact. The available 18" of the stuff was not enough to stop them. My notes don't properly say what the alloy was, but it was hard stuff - I dimly recollect repurposed shot with some added tin, but no way to know at this point.

I kind of regard that bullet - if cast hard - as the .357 Magnum's equivalent of the .375 H&H's 300 grain solid. If you need to punch through a lot of something in a straight line, you could do a whole lot worse.

[rwadley]

There's also data in Lyman cast bullet handbook #2 and Lyman #45.

FYI, Lyman #44 can be viewed here: http://www.castpics.net/LoadData/OM/ (p. 117 & p. 120)

[Thomas Traddles]

gwpercle, 35remington, Bigslug, and rwadley: Thank you for your help. I appreciate it very much.

35remington, the poster at THR could have been talking about the jacketed lubaloy 200 grain super police load and not cast. If so, then the misrepresentation of context is on me.

Bigslug, your experiences are precisely the kind of reports that piqued my interest in this bullet. I'm going to try them in my .38 LCR to see how they would do. I imagine they would work well at SD distances. I'm also going to work up a load for my Blackhawk that will keep the bullet subsonic @ around 1050 fps. My other bullets seem to fly straight and true at such velocities.

rwadley, thank for the link. Having examined the relevant pages, I wish I had some 2400 on hand. It seems that powder would work well in both .38 special and .357 applications.

[45-70 Chevroner]

Thomas. I don't know how to send stuff by e-mail I will need your home address to send it through the US mail. No charge. It will only cost me one stamp no problem.

[Thomas Traddles]

45-70 Chevroner, I sent you a pm.

[rwadley]

Be careful using old data. Some powders have changed over time (ex. 2400, Nitro 100). Also, some old loads have proved to be overpressure using modern pressure equipment. FYI, 2400 is listed as a powder for this bullet for 38 Special in Lyman #45 (1970...no pressure values given), but not in Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook #2 (1973...pressure values given). This, in addition to 2400's powder being faster now than previously, might make me choose Unique over 2400 for this bullet in 38 Special. I guess it would depend on the firearm (old 38 Special revolver vs 357 Handi-Rifle on SB2 receiver).

[reddog81]

I purchased that mold recently. I have had problems with the loaded rounds fully entering the chamber. Sized at .358 the front band on the bullet appears to be too long for my throats. I can use 38 brass and it fits fine in a .357 Magnum chamber.
The only load I have tried is 11.1 grains of IMR 4227 from what I could infer this would be a lower end .357 load. Unfortunately the only way I could get the round to work was using 38 special brass. Fortunately the round wouldn't fully chamber in any of my 38's so there is minimal risk of this being fired in a 38.
This load was very accurate in my GP100. The recoil pulse wasn't too bad and was like a long push rather than the typical short punch of .357.

[beagle]

The 358430 (195 grain version)(there are 150 grain versions as well) is kind of a love/hate deal. Mike Venturino wrote an article several years back on it. Supposedly, it goes unstable and tends to tumble when it hits a target. This has given it quite a reputation as a man stopper.

I have had the opportunity to fire several boxes of the old 200 grain "Police Load" in a Model 19 .357 and was quite pleased with the accuracy.

I have tested the 358430 in the .38 Special, a Ruger Blackhawk .357 and a M1894 Marlin. Testing was done from a sandbag rest at a 100 yard berm and pop cans where I was able to see the hits.

The .38 Special is a bummer in my opinion with published data and all loads shot high as you're not able to push them fast enough to stabilize and the low velocity gives them a long barrel time. Flyers all over the place at 100 yards but it was fairly accurate at 50 yards.

In the .357 Blackhawk, things improved due to initial velocity increase allowed by the .357. Maybe 1 in 10 would go unstable at 100 yards.

The Marlin digested the loads and gave fair accuracy at 100 yards. Nothing to write home about but useable.

I was impressed by the impact on the berm of that big slug. Definitely retained energy out to 100 yards.

I also tried the 35875 and obtained similar results. Just too heavy for the caliber.

Saying this, you can put up loads for the .38 that would make good defense loads with the 200 grainer.

Anyone interested in the data I used, PM me and I'll provide it but for obvious reasons, I don't want to publish it without a severe precautionary warning./beagle

[Thomas Traddles]

I got my Lyman 2 cav 358430 yesterday from Mid-South. I casted about 150 of them today. They look good and avg 195.1 grains with my mystery alloy, which must be pretty close to Lyman #2. I'm looking forward to loading some up and testing them in my Blackhawk and LCR.

[Bigslug]

The 358430 (195 grain version)(there are 150 grain versions as well) is kind of a love/hate deal. Mike Venturino wrote an article several years back on it. Supposedly, it goes unstable and tends to tumble when it hits a target. This has given it quite a reputation as a man stopper.


I'd be very curious to see that article, and admit to being quite dubious on this whole tumbling pistol bullet thing. My Jell-O shots with this bullet were total straight-line augers; my MP Molds .455 Webley MKII bullet appears to be a straight-line auger in milk jugs; my NOE .364-200 RN - which should be less stable than any of the above - appears to be a straight-line auger in milk jugs. i keep trying to get these handgun bullets to swap ends, and they keep not doing it.

[str8shot426]

I've been shooting the 150 grain version of the 358430 since I started casting. It was my first mold and shot thousands through various 38s and 357s. Hard to find a load that didn't shoot good.
I wish they still made it, mine is not in the best shape.

Group buy Al?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[beagle]

Got a DC that's not gainfully employed. PM me and maybe we can come to an arrangement./beagle


I've been shooting the 150 grain version of the 358430 since I started casting. It was my first mold and shot thousands through various 38s and 357s. Hard to find a load that didn't shoot good.
I wish they still made it, mine is not in the best shape.

Group buy Al?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[beagle]

I'll see if I can find it and PM you. If I still have it, I'll scan and we'll arrange an e-mail transfer./beagle


I'd be very curious to see that article, and admit to being quite dubious on this whole tumbling pistol bullet thing. My Jell-O shots with this bullet were total straight-line augers; my MP Molds .455 Webley MKII bullet appears to be a straight-line auger in milk jugs; my NOE .364-200 RN - which should be less stable than any of the above - appears to be a straight-line auger in milk jugs. i keep trying to get these handgun bullets to swap ends, and they keep not doing it.

[beagle]

I looked for the article today but believe it's in a notebook with #2 son in NC. I will try and retrieve it but don't wait as he's not reliable on most of my requests.

I believe the gist of the argument was that the 195 grain 358430 being long and nearly a cylinder with a rounded end was at the lower edge of the envelope on going unstable. Any impact would cause it to do so...even an impact on a clothing covered body. This cause it immediately to tumble. Never tested it in any type of media but I know that it really throws mud on a wet backstop./beagle


I'd be very curious to see that article, and admit to being quite dubious on this whole tumbling pistol bullet thing. My Jell-O shots with this bullet were total straight-line augers; my MP Molds .455 Webley MKII bullet appears to be a straight-line auger in milk jugs; my NOE .364-200 RN - which should be less stable than any of the above - appears to be a straight-line auger in milk jugs. i keep trying to get these handgun bullets to swap ends, and they keep not doing it.

[Bigslug]

I looked for the article today but believe it's in a notebook with #2 son in NC. I will try and retrieve it but don't wait as he's not reliable on most of my requests.

I believe the gist of the argument was that the 195 grain 358430 being long and nearly a cylinder with a rounded end was at the lower edge of the envelope on going unstable. Any impact would cause it to do so...even an impact on a clothing covered body. This cause it immediately to tumble. Never tested it in any type of media but I know that it really throws mud on a wet backstop./beagle

Yep. It's one of those things I've been hearing from many corners, but have not been able to create in practice - we had a long discussion of the phenomenon over in the Wheelguns sub-forum in a chat about the .38/200 Webley load.

You can definitely get tumbling with a spitzer-shaped rifle bullet. The nose is lighter than the base, and on impact the base, being where the most momentum is, wants to take the lead. I do not think the 358430 is weight-backward enough for this to happen - especially at the piddly speeds we tend to launch it at. But when you stop and think about it, it's shaped like a dangerous game express solid - which is designed to punch through things like elephant and Cape buff without deviation, and specifically NOT swap ends when the velocity starts to rapidly drop on impact.

My conclusion with the longer, somewhat pointier NOE 364-200RN was that it was basically more of the same - not enough deviation from a perfectly balanced pure soup can cylinder to flip.

The hollow base .455 Webley 265 grainer? It's shaped like a badminton birdie and would actually have a balance point pretty close to the middle of its shape should you figure out how to try to balance it. If that one even CAN flip, I doubt it will happen within the depth of a human torso, and probably not at the 600-700 fps they normally travel at.

Such are my observations anyway, and why I've quite looking for "magic" performance at pistol levels. Placement and penetration - that's the thang!

[smkummer]

Here is a pic of Lyman's 358430 195 grain in a Colt Official police 38 which has shorter cylinders than the Colt .357 models or Police positive special. They do clear the barrel but just barely and the gun is noticeably heavier. In this strong gun, I loaded a 2400 load from the 45th167378 Lyman manual that states close to 900 FPS out of a 6" smith, so I may get close to 850 out of the 4" Colt. Its been so long since I shot it but I don't recall being impressed with it over the 358429 168 Keith bullet. The Colt is a medium frame and handles it well but I don't believe I would shoot it out of a police positive special and 2400 out of a 2" barrel is probably a waist of powder.

[Thomas Traddles]

I had a chance to shoot about 100 rounds of the 358430 that I loaded a couple of weeks ago. I don't have a chrony, so I can't say anything about muzzle velocity. But I was pleased with the accuracy, especially at 30 ft where I was able to keep most shots within a 4" circle at that distance. I had loaded 50 rounds of 4.1 grains of Unique and 50 rounds of 5.3 grains of Blue Dot in Federal .38 special cases and sparked by CCI 500 SPP.. I shot a few of each out of my Ruger Blackhawk and felt recoil was mild, like shooting 3 grains of BE under 148 grain wadcutters. I did not really shoot enough rounds out of the Blackhawk to make any judgments about accuracy. I did note that the rounds printed about 3" high at 10 yds.

My main interest was to see how they would do in the .38 +P rated LCR. I was pleased that they shot pretty much to point of aim. Felt recoil was like shooting +p ammo. I was hoping for a bit less recoil. Follow-up shots took longer because of recoil and my need to adjust my support hand after each shot. I must work on the grip! The Unique load had slightly less recoil than the Blue Dot load, but the Blue Dot load, in my estimation, was the most consistently accurate. Bullets were sized to .359 and powder coated. I had no leading in the barrels of my guns, although quite a bit of unburnt powder was evident when ejecting spent cases. I need to find a load that burns powder more efficiently. Overall, I was pleased with the results.

Cheers!

[Beerd]

exact bullet is not specified, but here is some oldish IMR data for a 200gr RN:
168437
..

[str8shot426]

Got a DC that's not gainfully employed. PM me and maybe we can come to an arrangement./beagle

I might take you up on that if said mold is in good ( better than mine) condition.

[tucumcari_kid]

Yep. It's one of those things I've been hearing from many corners, but have not been able to create in practice - we had a long discussion of the phenomenon over in the Wheelguns sub-forum in a chat about the .38/200 Webley load.

You can definitely get tumbling with a spitzer-shaped rifle bullet. The nose is lighter than the base, and on impact the base, being where the most momentum is, wants to take the lead. I do not think the 358430 is weight-backward enough for this to happen - especially at the piddly speeds we tend to launch it at. But when you stop and think about it, it's shaped like a dangerous game express solid - which is designed to punch through things like elephant and Cape buff without deviation, and specifically NOT swap ends when the velocity starts to rapidly drop on impact.

My conclusion with the longer, somewhat pointier NOE 364-200RN was that it was basically more of the same - not enough deviation from a perfectly balanced pure soup can cylinder to flip.

The hollow base .455 Webley 265 grainer? It's shaped like a badminton birdie and would actually have a balance point pretty close to the middle of its shape should you figure out how to try to balance it. If that one even CAN flip, I doubt it will happen within the depth of a human torso, and probably not at the 600-700 fps they normally travel at.

Such are my observations anyway, and why I've quite looking for "magic" performance at pistol levels. Placement and penetration - that's the thang!

I know this thread is old, but maybe we can suffer through a bit more of this topic. ... First, the 358430 looks like a dead solid, stable bullet. I wouldn't put it in the manstopper category because I doubt you could really get it tumble. I think you are looking for something that has the bearing bands at least 50% or more back from the center of gravity such as the 173: 200915 You can see the manstoppers in this picture, the Super Police loads are obviously very top heavy with a minimal bearing surface 200916. These need to go relatively slow, as I understand it, to keep them unstable. Higher velocity may tend to keep the bullet going in the original path or stabilize to some extent. Plus these are 3 feet to 15 feet loads. Beyond that you should have a different weapon, or reevaluate the circumstances...

38 Special Super Police loads, as of Sharpe in 1937 were: 173 grain bullet - 2.0 to 3.3 grains of Bullseye tops out at 820 fps. Or 3.0 to 5.0 grains of Unique topping out at 925. 200 grain bullet loads were Bullseye 1.5 to 2.7 grains. 1.5 puts the velocity at an interesting 480 fps. 2.7 is rated at 720 fps. Unique on the 200 grain was loaded between 2.0 and 4.1 grains which topped out at 810 fps. Not bad for a 200 grain bullet. Some examples might be the H&G 512 www.westernbullet.com_hg512 (http://www.westernbullet.com/hg512br170gr.html) But I think the Lyman 35864 150 grain has similar manstopping properties westernbullet.com_3150 (http://westernbullet.com/ly3150gr.html) I hope that is helpful to someone...

Oh - disclaimer is: These loads were intended as 38 Special loads, not 38 S&W...

[Alferd Packer]

I grew up in E. St. Louis, ILL. where the Police used to fire a warning shot straight up in the air followed by "stop or I'll shoot." Then they shot that 200 grain 'police load' at the fleeing man's lower back and dropped him with a broken hip. Police were all excellent shots and any crook who tried to shoot it out was killed every time. Any businessman who was friends with the cops was given a cylinder full of 'police' 200 grainers to load in the .38 special they kept under the counter to thwart holdups.
The businessmen and bar owners would sometimes brag on this when reading the local paper about a stickup.
In basic training in early 60's, the kids from Chicago talked about guns and the E St Louis Police load that the Chicago Cops all carried. They knew where everybody was from and they asked me about E St Louis.
That was when i learned E St Louis had a not so nice reputation. It was only in that part close to the downtown area, the stockyards and packing houses and the Miss. River that was red light district, but to learn that the 200 gr .38 special load was THE police load in Chicago and later i heard Detroit also.
A dubious distinction.
Nevertheless, the load was used to down a man by breaking the pelvis and that did happen according to the stories if you can believe them. Why shoot for the legs? Because many crooks wore a bullet proof vests that consisted of a leather harness with steel plates hanging, one front, one back 12x12 inches to cover front and 12x16 for back.
As a Boy Scout we all toured the Police Station and saw the cells and Drunk tank and the confiscated weapons display at the St Louis, Mo. Downtown Precinct. We saw the bulletproof vests and machine guns and zip guns .
The St Louis Police also carried the E St Louis Police load too.
We asked them.
Now that's all history, and i moved from E. St. Louis in the 1970's because the dangers of the downtown area spread to the suburbs and the policing and fire protection disappeared along with the police load.