.38 special wadcutter warning

[Good Cheer]

Way back when in the days of yore the Speer HBWC's had a short spherical segment on the nose.


A sharp blabe would trim off that short spherical segment and then the little shoulder was exactly the right geometry for seating a gas check, sizing and lubing. Then all kinds of interesting things could be done with them.

[delftshooter]

Just a curious question... if loading a hollow base wadcutter to "to much chamber pressure", is such a well KNOWN danger for the user...

Why are the LOADING MANUALS being stupid by NOT seperating the load data between hollow based wad cutters, and double ended wadcutters?

My first time through a loading manual for 38 special HBWC loads was a really confusing time for me because unless the manual showed a PICTURE or a mold number of said bullet, a person has no idea. I am only thankful that i have a 357 magnum because i KNOW i used "DEWC" data for HBWC.

[rintinglen]

@Delftshooter, Welcome to the circus!

Speer and Hornady manuals did show different load levels when they sold both types of wadcutters. Now Speer only gives data for the HBWC, because they have discontinued their swaged, button-nosed wadcutters. The issue stems from manufacturers creating data only for their own products. If you were using data from Lyman for a 358-63 DEWC from a Lyman Manual, the reason there was no HBWC data is that Lyman hasn't made an HBWC mold in over 40 years. They haven't the incentive nor the resources to research and create data for every other product produced by other producer. Especially since wadcutters in general have fallen by the wayside as U.S. shooters have moved away from the 38/357 revolvers to 9 mm semiautos. In general, most shooters now have moved from primarily target applications with defensive usage very much a secondary consideration, to the reverse, with the weapon aspect of the firearm the predominant focus.

However, the internet is a goldmine if you use it well. Here on this website there are many who have information on just about any aspect of reloading, not only cast boolits, but case forming, primer manufacture, tool modification as well as a wealth of load data from real-life users.

[96wa6]

You can load them backwards, but you don't need to if you're loading "midrange" (target-velocity) loads or for defense/protection. They don't have to expand because they're already full-caliber and the flat nose is pretty devastating. The old guys at our LGSs recommended them for snubbies. I have seen their effect on small game. My younger brother used one of my target reloads on a jack rabbit at 40 yards (out of a scoped TC Contender) and the photo he sent me showed two large piece of jack rabbit with a bit of it missing. I shot a large water snake heading towards our boat at about 20 feet and it ended up as two ragged pieces of dead snake. My buddy (whose boat it was) was amazed, saying his hot JHPs only punched .38-caliber holes and the snakes never died quickly.

[delftshooter]

@Delftshooter, Welcome to the circus!

Speer and Hornady manuals did show different load levels when they sold both types of wadcutters. Now Speer only gives data for the HBWC, because they have discontinued their swaged, button-nosed wadcutters. The issue stems from manufacturers creating data only for their own products. If you were using data from Lyman for a 358-63 DEWC from a Lyman Manual, the reason there was no HBWC data is that Lyman hasn't made an HBWC mold in over 40 years. They haven't the incentive nor the resources to research and create data for every other product produced by other product. Especially since wadcutters in general have fallen by the wayside as U.S. shooters have moved away from the 38/357 revolvers to 9 mm semiautos. In general, most shooters now have moved from primarily target applications with defensive usage very much a secondary consideration, to the reverse, with the weapon aspect of the firearm the predominant focus.

However, the internet is a goldmine if you use it well. Here on this website there are many who have information on just about any aspect of reloading, not only cast boolits, but case forming, primer manufacture, tool modification as well as a wealth of load data from real-life users.

The hodgdon annual makes no difference, the Lee book has no difference whatsoever between HBWC and DEWC.

It also makes no sense on alot of the loads for lead bullets either in the LEE book, but thats life and why older manuals from alliant are good things.

[rintinglen]

The 2019 Hodgdon manual only lists loads for the LHBWC. The on-line load data center has the same data, plus Accurate and Ramshot Powder data for the 148 grain LC BBWC, and the mysterious LC WCDBB. The mystery being that "WCDBB" is not listed in their glossary. In their terminology, "LHBWC" is a Lead Hollow base wadcutter, "LC BBWC" is a lead, bevel-based wad cutter, and your guess is as good as mine on the "LC WCDBB."

The lee manual is not trustworthy in my observation. LEE did none of the testing of the loads there in, they merely collated and re-printed data from other sources. You therefore have the possibility of error not only from the original authors/ editors, but LEE gets a shot at the brass ring as well. In addition, some of the powders have changed over time and you don't know if the AA#2 data you are seeing is for slow IMI manufactured powder, faster Czechoslovakian powder, or whoever is making it now at whatever burning rate it is currently. If you do elect to use data from the LEE manual, verify the load listing with the Component or Powder manufacturer's current data.

[country gent]

The problem wasnt when loading them backwards. Back wards you get a large hollow point similar to the cup point in some speer bullets. The early federal hydro shocks were the hollow base with a post added.

When load normally to higher pressure the added pressure will blow the skirt off leaving it in the barrel. Over charged minies lost accuracy due to skirt deformation from the added pressure.

The old bullseye pistol load was 2.7 grns bullseye std primer and hollow based wadcutter seated slightly above flush or flush. This was a very accurate low pressure loading. The guns would run a long time on it before repairs were needed. In my 1911 38 spl wadcutter gun this load will shoot quarter sized groups at 25 yds.

As to the HBWC loaded backwards I think swaging a round nose profile leaving just a 3/16" opening with th big hollow inside would do better this would allow the nose to flow in keeping the hollow from plugging. The pure lead hollow base should expand at very low velocities but I suspect that the big hollow point affects aerodynamics and the long for caliber bullet is on the edge of stability creating the lower accuracy

[USSR]

FWIW, the original .38 Special Hydra-Shok load (pre-Federal, as made by Hydra-Shok Corp in Watkins Glen, NY) consisted of 3.3gr of 231 powder. The reason I know is, I bought up a lot of the company's leftovers after they sold off the rights to Federal.

Don

[BD]

In my opinion there is no reason to ever load a HBWC unless you are shooting indoor bullseye, which is what they were designed for. They are quite accurate at short range loaded very light. The .38s used to be loaded over 1.5 - 2 grains of Bullseye. You don't get any benefit from loading them hotter, whether you seat them forwards or backwards, all you achieve is the risk of a KB when loaded forward, and poor penetration when loaded backward. A regular WC or DEWC works much better in that role, and can be driven much faster without worry.

[Thom_44]

Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading 3rd edition, 1980 has some disagreement with that article.

Using hornady hollow base SWAGED wadcutters #3582 and an overall length of 1.165 inches. So they were seated a hair out of the case mouth. Anyways,, they used some interesting powder charges to get interesting velocities.
4.2 grains W231; 3.7 grains of Bulls Eye, that some consider "service powder charge for LRN"; to achieve 950 fps in a Smith and Wesson Model 15 with 4" barrel. That would be considered +p velocity in most modern manuals.

[2TM101]

My hollow base wadcutters are only for 38 special loaded in my 1858 Remington Conversion, ands that's because the barrel is actually .375. And I have only been loading them with "Crimson" powder discussed elsewhere on this board, though now I have an improved formula.

I have solid base wadcutters I load to full power with real smokeless but the whole point if the hollow base bullet was light power loads. Hollow base are expensive to buy and a pain to cast so I don't use them unless I have to.

[Kai]

The 2019 Hodgdon manual only lists loads for the LHBWC. The on-line load data center has the same data, plus Accurate and Ramshot Powder data for the 148 grain LC BBWC, and the mysterious LC WCDBB. The mystery being that "WCDBB" is not listed in their glossary. In their terminology, "LHBWC" is a Lead Hollow base wadcutter, "LC BBWC" is a lead, bevel-based wad cutter, and your guess is as good as mine on the "LC WCDBB."

The lee manual is not trustworthy in my observation. LEE did none of the testing of the loads there in, they merely collated and re-printed data from other sources. You therefore have the possibility of error not only from the original authors/ editors, but LEE gets a shot at the brass ring as well. In addition, some of the powders have changed over time and you don't know if the AA#2 data you are seeing is for slow IMI manufactured powder, faster Czechoslovakian powder, or whoever is making it now at whatever burning rate it is currently. If you do elect to use data from the LEE manual, verify the load listing with the Component or Powder manufacturer's current data.

Wcdbb is wadcutter double bevel base

[2TM101]

Using the wrong bullet, trying to make it into something it was not intended to do, gee, what could go wrong. Maybe next time he will load 22 Hornet bullets in the 22 High Power and go after tigers. After all, Jim Corbett did it

Decades ago I loaded 22 hornet bullets in a 220 Swift. I got a blue streak from the muzzle out to about 50 yards. Nothing hit the target.