Dilemma on .380 load data

[sirgknight]

I am very surprised at the variances in load data for this caliber. The starting load for one data exceeds the max load in another data, and this seems very suspect for such a small caliber that has tendencies for case head expansion if loads are not fairly precise.
I question the authenticity of such data and it creates a dilemma on which data should really be used. I've listed data from the books that I have which state the beginning load and the max load. The dashes indicate that there is no data listed. I would greatly appreciate any input/experience, if any, that YOU have had with this data:

95 grain bullet: Unique W231 Bullseye GD RD

SPEER #11: 3.6 - 4.0 3.3 - 3.7 3.1 - 3.4 ----- -----
HORNADY 3RD: ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
LYMAN 49TH: 2.3 - 3.1 2.1 - 2.9 2.0 - 2.8 ----- 2.0 - 2.7
LEE 2ND: 4.2 - 4.2 3.2 - 3.2 ----- 3.5 - 3.5 3.1 - 3.1

100 grain bullet:

SPEER #11: 3.5 - 3.7 3.1 - 3.3 2.6 - 2.8 3.0 - 3.2 -----
HORNADY 3RD: 3.4 - 4.4 2.8 - 3.7 2.6 - 3.6 2.8 - 3.6 2.5 - 3.0
LYMAN 49TH: ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
LEE 2ND: 4.2 - 4.3 ----- 3.1 - 3.3 2.0 - 3.1 2.7 - 2.8

115 grain bullet:

SPEER #1: 3.8 - 4.0 3.6 - 3.8 3.0 - 3.2 3.6 - 3.8 3.1 - 3.3
HORNADY 3RD: ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
LYMAN 49TH: ----- 2.0 - 3.1 2.0 - 2.9 ----- 1.8 - 2.8
LEE 2ND: ----- ----- ----- ----- -----



DISCLAIMER: I am not responsible for errors in my typing. This graph is for discussion only and not intended to be used for loading your ammo. It is highly recommended that you use your own load data for that purpose.

[MtGun44]

Start low and work up. The chrono is your friend. When you reach the velocity of factory, stop.

Bill

[62chevy]

My Lyman Reloading Handbook 49 Edition has the Speer 95 gr bullet with in 100 CUP of each type of powder for max loads. Not sure what you are getting at?

[seaboltm]

Huge variation among manuals is not uncommon. Old manuals are often much higher than new ones. Also, powder variation from lot to lot and from decade to decade changes, sometimes a lot. Then we ask, which 95 grain bullet? Shape, jacket hardness, etc all change pressures. Of course which primer did they suggest? That matters. As well as case OAL, that matters. Start low and work your way up. I always load 5 of each charge. I shoot the first one (over a chrony) and check it for pressure signs. If it is OK, I shoot the other 4 and then note my observations. I would not shoot a 115 grain bullet in a 380 ACP for a variety of reasons. Remember, reloading is certainly a science, but it is a science with a lot of variables and variation. That is why skill, experience, and prudence come into play.

[OuchHot!]

I have cast for a couple of 380 and found some variation in groove diameter and degree of case support. Back in the late 60's and early 70's there was one of those magnumizing movements and some pretty wild data was published. My Manhurin ppk tolerates most of it but I sure would be nervous about using hot loads in my 1903 Colt. I think that you have to slug the bore and work up. Take each pistol as an individual. When I chrono several stepwise loads, I back off when the velocity increase doesn't jive with load increases.

[lonewolf5347]

I load Missouri bullet 95 grain with 2.7 bulleye powder runs great in my WaltersPPK/S and my Ruger LCP

[Doc_Stihl]

Different bullets will require different charges as well.
A RN takes up less space in the case as a same weight HP in most instances.
Even brand to brand things change. Don't assume that all 100gr bullets are going to be the same.

[sirgknight]

For years I have used one of Ken Water's pet loads for my 9MM, so I'm looking very closely at his .380 Auto data. He states that "reloading manuals give overall length of .380 Auto cartridges as 0.984, but with the Super-SM I found .975 to be about maximum with round-nose bullets, while Super Vel hollow-points have to be seated to .965 maximum overall, and Sierra JHC's to .935." He shows no data for the 88 gr bullet (and I will be loading the Speer 88 gr HP), but the 90 grain is ballpark for sure. He shows data for the 90 gr Sierra JHC (jacketed hollow cavity) to be 2.9 grains of Bullseye which gives 938 fps and overall length at .935. I've seen quite a few responders to my threads saying that they load 88-95 grain bullets over 2.7 grains of bullseye. My Speer data manual has load data for their 88 gr HP bullet with a starting load of 3.0 grains of bullseye. This will be my starting powder charge, but I am somewhat uncertain about the overall length because the Speer manual does not provide this info. Since Ken Waters used an OAL of .935 for a 90 grain, would it be too assumptive to use that same length for the 88 grain bullet? Like he advised, my other manuals state that the overall length for the .380 auto cartridge should be .984. That's quite a difference in length.

Casing: Federal
Bullet: Speer 88 gr HP (.355)
Powder: Bullseye (start 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 max; from Speer's manual)
Primer: WSP
OAL: uncertain, but am considering Ken Water's .935
Misc: chronograph

I need your feedback on this analysis.....thanks.

[OuchHot!]

Of all the old school reload specialist who didn't have direct access to pressure testing equipment, my greatest respect is for Ken Waters. I think that you would be ok but I would still work up and look for elongated firing pin indents or bulged cases or velocity anomalies. The oal he specs might be due to the shape of the super-vel hollow point and the need for a tight bullet pull. I do not recall ever loading super-vel jhp so I really am not sure why they needed to be 50thou shorter.

[4570guy]

I used the data from the Lyman book. For a 90 gr LRN bullet, it lists max PW = 3.0 for Bullseye. I too have seen max charge weights for Bullseye in the 3.1-3.2 range for the same bullet weight. I load 2.9 gr Bullseye under a 92 gr LRN from Missouri Bullet company with Winchester small pistol primers. COL is 0.980. These work very well in my wife's Bersa .380.

[sirgknight]

Of all the old school reload specialist who didn't have direct access to pressure testing equipment, my greatest respect is for Ken Waters. I think that you would be ok but I would still work up and look for elongated firing pin indents or bulged cases or velocity anomalies. The oal he specs might be due to the shape of the super-vel hollow point and the need for a tight bullet pull. I do not recall ever loading super-vel jhp so I really am not sure why they needed to be 50thou shorter.

Absolutely on the work-up, but the data I'm referring to isn't with the super-vel but with the Sierra 90 grain JHC, which is just another name for hollow point, so he used an overall length of .935 for the Sierra 90 grain JHC. The bullet I will be using is the Speer 88 grain HP, or HC, if you will. Not a heck of a lot of difference, but my question is whether it is ENOUGH difference to discard his data. Like you stated: 50thou is a good bit shorter.

[sirgknight]

I used the data from the Lyman book. For a 90 gr LRN bullet, it lists max PW = 3.0 for Bullseye. I too have seen max charge weights for Bullseye in the 3.1-3.2 range for the same bullet weight. I load 2.9 gr Bullseye under a 92 gr LRN from Missouri Bullet company with Winchester small pistol primers. COL is 0.980. These work very well in my wife's Bersa .380.

I placed an order with Dardas Cast Bullets for 500 of their 98 grain RN bullets with a bevel base for $29 + $14 shipping. It was a tough choice between them and Missouri, but I thought I would give them a try. I'll also be using load data from my Lyman Cast manual for this bullet, but I may start out with Unique powder for the cast bullet.

[sirgknight]

I used the data from the Lyman book. For a 90 gr LRN bullet, it lists max PW = 3.0 for Bullseye. I too have seen max charge weights for Bullseye in the 3.1-3.2 range for the same bullet weight. I load 2.9 gr Bullseye under a 92 gr LRN from Missouri Bullet company with Winchester small pistol primers. COL is 0.980. These work very well in my wife's Bersa .380.

Lyman's manual shows the OAL for a 90 grain jacketed bullet to be .925. go figure....

[fcvan]

Glen, I couldn't tell you what the OAL was with the Lee 356-102 1R but I set my dies with a factory round and then checked dummy rounds in the chamber. I hope those Dardas boolits work for you. I've really liked my Taurus TCP 738 which is very similar in size to the LCP, my nephew has one. I was really surprised I could hit soda cans at 25 yards considering the tiny sights. Take care!

[sirgknight]

For years I have used one of Ken Water's pet loads for my 9MM, so I'm looking very closely at his .380 Auto data. He states that "reloading manuals give overall length of .380 Auto cartridges as 0.984, but with the Super-SM I found .975 to be about maximum with round-nose bullets, while Super Vel hollow-points have to be seated to .965 maximum overall, and Sierra JHC's to .935." He shows no data for the 88 gr bullet (and I will be loading the Speer 88 gr HP), but the 90 grain is ballpark for sure. He shows data for the 90 gr Sierra JHC (jacketed hollow cavity) to be 2.9 grains of Bullseye which gives 938 fps and overall length at .935. I've seen quite a few responders to my threads saying that they load 88-95 grain bullets over 2.7 grains of bullseye. My Speer data manual has load data for their 88 gr HP bullet with a starting load of 3.0 grains of bullseye. This will be my starting powder charge, but I am somewhat uncertain about the overall length because the Speer manual does not provide this info. Since Ken Waters used an OAL of .935 for a 90 grain, would it be too assumptive to use that same length for the 88 grain bullet? Like he advised, my other manuals state that the overall length for the .380 auto cartridge should be .984. That's quite a difference in length.

Casing: Federal
Bullet: Speer 88 gr HP (.355)
Powder: Bullseye (start 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 max; from Speer's manual)
Primer: WSP
OAL: uncertain, but am considering Ken Water's .935
Misc: chronograph

I need your feedback on this analysis.....thanks.

Since my dies arrived yesterday I decided to go ahead and work up a load for my new Ruger. All of the components above were used except I substituted the Win SP primer with the Wolf SP primer. I started out by making dummy loads to find the proper fit for the clip (uh....magazine) and barrel and my testing determined that the clip (uh...magazine) would not accept a cartridge any longer than about .970'ish. I kept making the plunk test and the clip (uh....magazine) test. The cartridge passed both tests very satisfactorily with a length of .960. So I started my load data by using .960 as my OAL. The following is the data that will be my go-to load for the Speer 88 gr HP bullet: 3.0 grains of Bullseye, .960 OAL, which gives an average of 850 fps. The casings with this load showed no signs of bulge and worked flawlessly in the firearm. It is amazing how accurate this little jewel is at 25 yards. I placed most of my shots within a 12" circle shooting off-hand through my chronograph. For me, that's very acceptable. This was a lot of fun.

[MtGun44]

Using the chrono like you did is perfect, this verifies that you are not getting
something you didn't expect. Suppose you found on the first shot that it
had 1125 fps!! Then you know right away to not do that any more, since
the only way to get that vel would be overpressure. Good process all the
way - testing LOA in chamber and magazine, then verifying with the chrono.

I'm going to be a PITA here for a second. Magazine, not clip. Here we
operate at a pretty advanced level of firearms work, and due to the nature
of the medium (text) it is difficult sometimes to understand one another.
Precision in terminology is a good habit to help with communication in
this imperfect medium.

Bill

[sirgknight]

Using the chrono like you did is perfect, this verifies that you are not getting
something you didn't expect. Suppose you found on the first shot that it
had 1125 fps!! Then you know right away to not do that any more, since
the only way to get that vel would be overpressure. Good process all the
way - testing LOA in chamber and magazine, then verifying with the chrono.

I'm going to be a PITA here for a second. Magazine, not clip. Here we
operate at a pretty advanced level of firearms work, and due to the nature
of the medium (text) it is difficult sometimes to understand one another.
Precision in terminology is a good habit to help with communication in
this imperfect medium.

Bill

Bill, you are not being a PITA. I definitely stand corrected, and I encourage constructive criticism. My brain has a lot of "old terminology" and sometimes it slips out onto the keyboard. Thanks for the feedback.

[Blackwater]

All .380's I'm familiar with are autos, and one way to guage a good load for them is how they eject the spent brass. If it throws the brass out further than factory loads do, then you're most likely stressing your gun, and possibly asking for trouble down the line, no matter what kind of accuracy & velocity you're getting. When loading autos, many forget to watch that factor when loading for these pistols. FWIW.

[62chevy]

I don't use factory ammo so $80 bucks for a crony is good insurance. But then I think a thermometer is worth its weight in gold but that's just me.

[sirgknight]

All .380's I'm familiar with are autos, and one way to guage a good load for them is how they eject the spent brass. If it throws the brass out further than factory loads do, then you're most likely stressing your gun, and possibly asking for trouble down the line, no matter what kind of accuracy & velocity you're getting. When loading autos, many forget to watch that factor when loading for these pistols. FWIW.

I don't know about your .380 but mine throws factory casings in every possible direction including straight ahead of the shooter and the distances vary from four feet in front to four feet behind and as much as eight feet or so to the right. It's like watching popcorn coming out of a popcorn machine; you never know where those darn things are going. I could never "gauge a load" using that criteria with my firearm.