Why do wadcutters generally group the best?

[Triggernosis]

...as compared to RN, RNFP, etc? It seems like everyone's "accurate" load for many calibers consist of a wadcutter.

[ascast]

here's a guess- most barrel contact for given caliber/weight.

[reddog81]

Usually the charge is a light load of fast powder. I find light loads of fast power easier to shoot regardless of the bullet type. The long bearing surface probably helps align the bullet as it transitions out of the cylinder and into he forcing cone and rifling.

[RogerDat]

People shoot competition with the WC and being it is designed for paper punching targets for accuracy that is how people use them. Practice with a round and your skills shooting that round will be likely to increase. Reload for that practice and you will over time tend to refine your reloading process for that round to make incremental improvements.

Between design and people doing what works (and sharing those refinements here) you end up with good information on very accurate WC target rounds.

[M-Tecs]

They don't but they are easier to score since they cut a fully size hole. Light recoil helps the shooter also.

[Petrol & Powder]

There are a lot of factors involved. The long bearing surface probably helps. The real advantage to a WC is the clean hole it cuts in a paper target which gives a scoring advantage due to the rules. A bullet hole that even touches the next higher scoring ring on the target is counted at that higher score, therefore there's a real advantage to making that hole as well defined as possible. On top of that, because there's such an enormous body of knowledge surrounding decades of wadcutter use, the loads have been incredibly refined.

Some people claim the round nose profile is the most accurate shape because it helps align the cylinder as the bullet transitions from the cylinder to the forcing cone. Not sure if that's really true across the board.

[tazman]

A lot of the grouping ability of a particular boolit depends on the distance of the target and velocity of the boolit.
Wadcutters with light charges tend to be used at close distances. They tend to fail to perform at longer distances. Roundnose, RNFP, WFN, and SWC boolits tend to do better at longer distances. Some designs more-so than others. The further the distance, the faster the boolit is generally pushed.
I find that in my guns, any accurate load works as well as any other at short distances. The difference being, the light loads are easier to shoot well over longer periods of time. The light loads tend to fail at longer distances.
At longer distances, the faster, round nose and WFN designs work better for me.

[gwpercle]

The 38 special , different moulds, designs and cast boolits have been something I've been fooling around with for years. I like to try as many different designs as possible just to see what's the most accurate. By and large what I've been seeing , from an accuracy standpoint only, the Lyman 358432 160 grain button nosed WC (and the NOE clone) and the NOE 358-124-Truncated Cone keep showing the best accuracy. I have shot RN that did well, but don't care for RN boolits . hard to score those raggedy holes . Whatever the RN does to make it accurate I think the TC does also.
Being a student of Elmer Keith, I was somewhat disappointed in the famed Lyman Keith design 358429, 170 gr. SWC . It's accuracy was good but not the best.
Maybe that 160 grain WC has a lot of bearing surface and the button nose lines it up in the chamber. The TC just shoots well , I don't know why. 2.8 grains of Bullseye under either seems to be the magic number.
Gary

[fecmech]

My experience has shown the 120-124 truncated cone design to be more accurate than any wadcutter I've ever tried. I use them for Hunters Pistol Silhouette to 75 yds for everything except the rams due to their light weight. I have shot them to 200 yds out of leverguns with accuracy in the 3-4 moa range. As others have said the WC's main claim to fame is a clean caliber size hole in paper, which is important to Bullseye pistol shooters for scoring. As far as accuracy is concerned, rnfp's,tc's and rn's can and do out shoot wadcutters. There is no accuracy magic in the WC design.

[Scharfschuetze]

They don't but they are easier to score since they cut a fully size hole. Light recoil helps the shooter also.

Spot on.

After 50 yards though, the SWCs and RNs will maintain accuracy better. The HBWCs out of the S&W 1 in 18 3/4 rifling twist will often show signs of instability at 50 yards (slightly oval holes) and it only gets worse with distance. That said, they still held the 10 ring and often the X ring on the B27 target if one held the revolver steady.

The Colt's faster twist rifling will hold them accurately to longer ranges. I used a Colt Python for several years on the department pistol team as its performance at 50 yards was slightly better than my 6" Model 14 (K38) in the service revolver class. My open class PPC revolver has a 1 in 16" twist and like the Python, no oblong bullet holes were noted at 50 yards compared to the stock S&Ws. Some good PPC shooters used a twist as fast as 1 in 14 with wadcutters.

[Outpost75]

Simple answer is that a right-cylinder of length which contains bullet base in cylinder throat as front band begins to engrave in barrel will maintain better cylinder-bore alignment during initial shot-start than a shorter bearing length bullet which doesn't....

[Scharfschuetze]

Simple answer is that a right-cylinder of length which contains bullet base in cylinder throat as front band begins to engrave in barrel will maintain better cylinder-bore alignment during initial shot-start than a shorter bearing length bullet which doesn't....

That certainly makes sense, but like much in firearms, it sometimes isn't always so.

Example: A few of our shooting team members had their open class PPC cylinders shaved to the overall length of the 38 Special flush seated wadcutter rounds and a heavy bull barrel installed that extended back through the frame to where the forcing cone was about .003" to .004" off of the cylinder face. This was a really extreme example as the HBWC was past the forcing cone and into the rifling within about .015" of travel.

The gunsmith that did the work was Fred Schmidt of Virginia. He built a couple of really good 1911s and PPC revolvers for us in the early 80s.

The end result was that there was no increase or loss in accuracy compared to our more conventional PPC revolvers when fired from a rest at 50 yards with handloads or factory loads.

Go figure. It should have worked and have been the cat's meow or the bee's knees, but... well, it didn't work out as well as anticipated.

By the way Outpost, where is that US Army Demo Knife avatar that you used to use. I still have my Demo Knife somewhere in the War Room.

[dubber123]

They don't but they are easier to score since they cut a fully size hole. Light recoil helps the shooter also.

Fully agree, and as noted by others, are usually lacking compared to other designs when the range is increased. I tried many WC designs, and none matched a RF mold BRP cut, or the ages old 358311 for that matter once I got to 50 yards. I still like wadcutters, but they really aren't as good as some think.

[Lloyd Smale]

another one that wadcutters never impressed. Ive had better luck with round nose and round flat bullets in the 38s myself.

[6bg6ga]

I have a wadcutter Magma mold that stays unused. I made some but was totally unimpressed with their accuracy. I have a 125RN bullet that shoots great in my 357 and 9mm's.

[Triggernosis]

I don't like wadcutters because they're a PIA to load into the cylinder. SWC or RNFP are my favorites.

[44man]

All true, Like a semi wad cutter, the shoulder can get wiped trying to align a cylinder.
But accuracy at range is always a case of twist match by velocity. If you have perfect cylinder alignment and spin right, there is no reason a wad cutter should not shoot farther.
The same claim is made about a WFN that falls flat as I shot them to 500 meters with accuracy. I find no difference between a RNFP, WLN, WFN or truncated cone.
The worst for distance are light loads with a WC and SWC. Both have shoulders ruined at the cone unless you have perfect alignment with the bore. The ogive on the others will steer the cylinder. I shoot mostly WLN and WFN and my shooting starts at 100 yards. 50 is to sight in.

[w30wcf]

They don't at 50 +yards. In two different guns, the RNFP produce tighter groups.
w30wcf

[Petrol & Powder]

Scharfschuetze, you brought up a topic that I'd like to explore bit more. For years I've heard people claim that Colt barrels produced better accuracy than other makes and I've heard just every possible explanation as to why. Some people claim the Colt barrels, particularly the Python barrels, had slightly tapered bores that were smaller diameter near the muzzle. I've heard than the direction of the rifling was important (never could figure that one out). I've always felt that the faster twist rate was the dominate factor.

People even went so far as to install Python barrels on other makers frames. I'm a pretty good shot but I know I'm not good enough to wring out any potential benefit of installing a Colt barrel on a S&W or Ruger frame. Are those people spending money to do that because there is an edge or are they just looking for that edge?

Can you shed some light on this topic?

Thanks.

[Char-Gar]

...as compared to RN, RNFP, etc? It seems like everyone's "accurate" load for many calibers consist of a wadcutter.

Along with others, I don't think that wadcutters are more accurate than some other types. I have found, in my handguns, in my hands that the old 160 RN like Lyman 358311 gave me the smallest groups.

[Outpost75]

...A few of our shooting team members had their open class PPC cylinders shaved to the overall length of the 38 Special flush seated wadcutter rounds and a heavy bull barrel installed that extended back through the frame to where the forcing cone was about .003" to .004" off of the cylinder face. This was a really extreme example as the HBWC was past the forcing cone and into the rifling within about .015" of travel. The gunsmith that did the work was Fred Schmidt of Virginia. He built a couple of really good 1911s and PPC revolvers for us in the early 80s. The end result was that there was no increase or loss in accuracy compared to our more conventional PPC revolvers when fired from a rest at 50 yards with handloads or factory loads... but... well, it didn't work out as well as anticipated.

By the way Outpost, where is that US Army Demo Knife avatar that you used to use. I still have my Demo Knife somewhere in the War Room.

I use that avatar still on some other forums, and I still have my Camillus 1967 issue and this one

185387

[Scharfschuetze]

I use that avatar still on some other forums, and I still have my Camillus 1967 issue and this one

Ha, ha! What a hoot.

I dug a few of my old memorabilia items out on seeing your last photo. Apparently, we were in similar places at different times together. I wish I still had my military watch, but a collector talked me out of it. I still have my old self-winding Seko watch that I bought in Japan on one of my trips to SE Asia.

[gwpercle]

My experience has shown the 120-124 truncated cone design to be more accurate than any wadcutter I've ever tried. I use them for Hunters Pistol Silhouette to 75 yds for everything except the rams due to their light weight. I have shot them to 200 yds out of leverguns with accuracy in the 3-4 moa range. As others have said the WC's main claim to fame is a clean caliber size hole in paper, which is important to Bullseye pistol shooters for scoring. As far as accuracy is concerned, rnfp's,tc's and rn's can and do out shoot wadcutters. There is no accuracy magic in the WC design.
So you've noticed it also ! I bought the NOE 358-124-TC to shoot in my 9 mm, they drop .358 , very easy to size and lube in the .358 die. for use in 38 and 357 mag. Loaded some up just on a whim...wasn't expecting anything. Used 9 mm taper crimp die to hold them. the groups keep looking good with every powder tried . Bullseye, HP-38 , Red Dot , AA#5 and even Unique. I got the mould with a GC so I can use it in that 357 rifle I'm going to get (one day).
Very interesting !
Gary

[Scharfschuetze]

Scharfschuetze, you brought up a topic that I'd like to explore bit more. For years I've heard people claim that Colt barrels produced better accuracy than other makes and I've heard just every possible explanation as to why. Some people claim the Colt barrels, particularly the Python barrels, had slightly tapered bores that were smaller diameter near the muzzle. I've heard than the direction of the rifling was important (never could figure that one out). I've always felt that the faster twist rate was the dominate factor.

People even went so far as to install Python barrels on other makers frames. I'm a pretty good shot but I know I'm not good enough to wring out any potential benefit of installing a Colt barrel on a S&W or Ruger frame. Are those people spending money to do that because there is an edge or are they just looking for that edge?

Can you shed some light on this topic? Thanks.

Petrol and Powder,

Well it's all about as clear as mud to me, but I believe (as 44Man points out) that matching the rifling twist to the bullet is pretty important. Those long HBWCs really benefited from the faster Colt rifling, although I don't think that the left hand twist has anything to do with it. The S&W's slower twist is really just perfect for the SWC and service ammo where the bullet is fairly short in comparison to the HBWCs. I also think that at some point, that big flat meplat on the WCs is probably failing in aerodynamic properties as the bullet slows down past its usable range.

A lot of the older Colt barrels, including my Police Positive (PP), had smaller bores than the S&W revolvers. My PP goes about .356" or so. Whether that contributed anything or not, I don't know, but it's hard not to argue that the Colt revolvers kept those long HBWCs stabilized better and to longer ranges than the S&Ws.

The HBWCs are a very weight forward design given their large hollow base. They're much like the older rifled slugs for shotguns that used their weight forward design to shoot well with smooth bores. That probably helps the S&Ws keep them well nose forward to 50 yards.


I don't like wadcutters because they're a PIA to load into the cylinder. SWC or RNFP are my favorites.

Many of the match revolvers had their charge holes beveled to allow fast loading of the wadcutters. Mine did and with practice they loaded just as fast as service ammo in the modified cylinders using the various speed loaders. In the 50 yard phase of the PPC course of fire, you need to fire 24 rounds (strong side barricade, weak side barricade, sitting and prone) in a fairly short time. Speed of reloading was essential in making time and still having enough time to fire each shot while applying all the fundamentals of marksmanship to each shot.

I once almost bought a S&W Model 52 match semi-auto for the 38 flush seated wadcutter so that I'd have more time shooting and less time reloading. It was extremely accurate, but it only had 5 round magazines so it would't have worked out in the PPC game where everything is based on 12, 18 or 24 shot strings.

Service ammo never needed the beveled chamber modification given their bullet designs.

[44man]

One thing I should mention is most WC's are dead soft, skid and bashed at the cone. leading the whole gun, inside and out can be bad news.
I shoot an RCBS SWC for fun at few times and have worked it hard. I experimented with alloys and hardness to the extreme.
I found as soon as I got to 28 BHN, accuracy improved 3 fold and 30 BHN was better. I shoot smaller groups at 50 then I do at 25 with soft.
Why hasn't work been done with a WC?
I don't have a WC mold so someone should test alloys. There might be a surprise there. Why does a WC need to be pure lead? Fit, spin and no skid should let them shoot well past 100.
The only thing I see with a WFN is a little more drop at range. Round holes at 500 yards. Hit steel every shot at 500 meters (547 yards.) Why not a WC?
For me to toss a WC on the trash heap will not happen. It is purely what happens in the gun.

[Lloyd Smale]

yup you know I agree with you that for the most part in a handgun more velocity=better accuracy. Ive never fooled with hard wadcutters either and have gotten rid of all my wadcutter molds and would be curious too if they could be made to shoot substantially better with a harder alloy. I don't remember ever casting them any harder then air cooled ww.

[44man]

Lloyd, AC WW is still a large improvement over the swaged ones.
The only way I got hard was adding antimony and tin to WW metal. Then water dropped.
The funny part is I did not shoot them fast and used Unique and 231 loads but there was instant group tightening at every level.
I have shot the RCBS with 24 gr of 296 but don't remember what I got. They were just plain WW. I ran out of the real hard lead, it is a pain to make. Have to maintain 600° and flux just right.

[dubber123]

I shot a bunch of the Horandy HBWC's, right around 35,000 of them in a year or so in the period after I got seriously into shooting. The Hornady WC's are a good bit harder than many, and the load I shot was well faster than suggested. It shot REALLY well, out to 100 yards or so, as far as I recall testing it. The bases on the Hornady WC's are pretty thick, and combined with their harder nature I got away with running hotter loads. That said, I can tell you the range where the skirt blows off and makes 2 holes in the target with each shot. ;)

Speed seems to extend the range a bit, but they just aren't that great compared to other designs. They do make the biggest hole of any given caliber without depending on expansion. I still shoot a good bit of .38 WC's, mostly because I got the BEST wadcutter mold LEE ever cut.. 6 at exactly .358" with each cast, and round.. :) It shoots just as good as any other I have tried, and I get decent speeds with less than 4 grains of powder. That said, if I want a good group at 50 yards+, I look elsewhere.

[44man]

Interesting dubber, been thinking though so DANGER! FB with a gas check. Hey, why not? :Fire:

[MT Gianni]

I believe that wadcutters occasionally score higher because the full front cuts a line edge on the target getting a higher score. IME, they do not always group as well.

[Good Cheer]

NEI made a very nice WC with a GC base.
Awesome in the 357 with 296. :)

[Doggonekid]

My wad cutters seem to group well because I can measure a group. My RN just tear big holes in the target and it is hard to figure out the grouping.

[44man]

I see no reason a WC can't shoot far. My WFN are about 83% meplat. I said I could shoot 90% but with fit and alignment, why not 100%?
I still think it is Silly Putty boolits.