Hensley & Gibbs #50

[PBSmith]

An NRA reloading manual from the early 1960's has an article listing what guns, bullets and loads the expert bullseye shooters of the day were using.

In .38 caliber, practically all of the shooters were casting their wadcutters with H&G #50.

What made that mould so special? Or was it the only thing going in those days? I might have thought that good HBWC were available at that time and those would have given better accuracy.

[Le Loup Solitaire]

I never got to see or use a #50 until the nineties. It was the subject of an article/investigation in the NRA Loading book by Col. E Harrison on the development and comparison of 38 Spl target ammo. It, for all general purposes, duplicated/was at least close to the match ammo put out by Remington.(at that time) IIRC the load was 2.7 grains of Bullseye and the old Alox/Beeswax lube was used in only one groove. I managed to locate a 4 cav and have used it successfully. Wadcutters were around way back then; I don't know the date when #50 came into use, but it has always been a popular design. HBWC's were also popular back in the day. For use in the S & W model 52 the 50 could not be crimped in the forward groove as the entire bullet had to be seated flush with the case mouth in order to achieve proper feeding. It was listed as being 148 grains and the design suggested a well balanced and flexible bullet that was also attributed to the excellent quality of the H&G molds. It was not the only thing going in those days but it seemed to be "the thing" and became everyone's first choice for Bullseye Comp. Many 38 shooter still think that it is. LLS

[Petrol & Powder]

I not going to profess a lot of knowledge here but my GUESS would be it was a combination of a good design AND availability at the time. One flying soup can is probably not that much different from another but when you have a good design that is widely adopted it gains a good reputation. That reputation goes a long way and can even suppress the sales of other similar products. The volume of sales creates a standard and it is often perceived safer to go with a proven design than to risk purchasing an unknown. Because the H&G #50 was a good design there was never a need to look further. Therefore it became the accepted wad cutter mold.

As for hollow based bullets, those are generally slower to produce than a solid WC. The hollow base WC has its place and the design has some very good attributes. However, for someone needing a large number of inexpensive cast bullets for practice and competition, a solid WC is quicker to produce. As Joseph Stalin said, "Quantity has a Quality all to it's own"

[Piedmont]

If you were a serious target shooter back then you were casting your own or buying from a commercial caster. Commercial casters then were hand casting, not machine casting. Who made quality gang molds for popular target bullets? H&G.

[dubber123]

If you were a serious target shooter back then you were casting your own or buying from a commercial caster. Commercial casters then were hand casting, not machine casting. Who made quality gang molds for popular target bullets? H&G.

I agree. It's popularity probably had as much to do with the quality of the H&G molds as it did with any perceived design superiority. I did a fair bit of 50 yard testing with many different wadcutter designs, from Lyman, RCBS, H&G and LEE. All were virtually identical, and the 6 cavity LEE standard lube design runs right there with them all. Incidentally, all the WC designs were out shot by a 150 gr. RF from BRP, and even the Ideal/Lyman 358311 at 50 yds.

[tazman]

Incidentally, all the WC designs were out shot by a 150 gr. RF from BRP, and even the Ideal/Lyman 358311 at 50 yds.

That explains the accuracy I am getting with the 358311 then. I like the hole punching capability of the wadcutter but the 358311 just hits where I point it.

[Dale53]

I have a four cavity H&G #50 BB and that is my "go to" bullet for the .38 Special. I shoot LOTS of them:

http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj80/Dale53/HG50BB-1402_900x1200.jpg (http://s269.photobucket.com/user/Dale53/media/HG50BB-1402_900x1200.jpg.html)

They are no better than Lyman's version, but the H&G moulds were considered the absolute best in their day. That, no doubt, had something to do with the popularity of H&G's version. I also have a six cavity (H&G made moulds up to and including a ten cavity) mould for the double ended wadcutter #251:

http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj80/Dale53/251.jpg (http://s269.photobucket.com/user/Dale53/media/251.jpg.html)

It was designed for the S&W Model 52 and was shot flush seated. It shoots as well as the #50. However, the six cavity iron mould weighs nearly five pounds and is very tiring for this "Certified Old Fart". In the revolver, I seat it out one band. I use only one lube groove as per Harrison's tests for best accuracy. Ed Harris (former NRA Tech and Development Engineer at Ruger) did extensive Ransom Rest tests with solid wadcutters and determined that best accuracy was with a bit more powder. They shot better compared to the load used with hollow base wadcutters (2.7 grs of Bullseye). 3.2 grs of Bullseye is my present load with the solid base WC which agrees with Ed's findings.

The double ended w/c makes and excellent defense load when loaded to full charge. It is also an excellent edible small game load - none better.

FWIW
Dale53

[pbcaster45]

I've got an old article by John Zemenek in which he found the bevel based version of the H&G #50 was slightly more accurate (at least in his gun). All this talk about wadcutters has got me on pins and needles for my Clark PPC Revolver (in work).

[captaint]

I read an article a couple of years ago where the author tested 4 or 5 of the popular wadcutters. The H&G 50, the Lyman 35891?, the Lee standard lube groove, the RCBS and the Saeco. All about 150 grs, give or take. The most accurate - at least in their guns?? The Lee......... Heresy, I know.
Do I have the Lee mold ?? No. The H&G 50 ? Oh, hell yes.. Mike

[GREENCOUNTYPETE]

some one on here might have been 44man posted some time ago that part of the reason a rf often out shoots a wc or swc is because the bullet aligns the cylinder better before the driving bands enter the lands

it makes some sense

in a non revolver we know that the bullet that fills the chamber and has the shortest jump and best allignment to the bore will often out shoot others

but those nice clean edged holes make for easier more accurate scoring , and being able to score a 10 a 10 and not a 9 very close to a 10 can improve score

[tazman]

some one on here might have been 44man posted some time ago that part of the reason a rf often out shoots a wc or swc is because the bullet aligns the cylinder better before the driving bands enter the lands

it makes some sense

in a non revolver we know that the bullet that fills the chamber and has the shortest jump and best allignment to the bore will often out shoot others

but those nice clean edged holes make for easier more accurate scoring , and being able to score a 10 a 10 and not a 9 very close to a 10 can improve score

This line of reasoning is why I shoot a lot of Lyman 358432 wadcutters. They have a long(for a wadcutter) nose that gets the boolit closer to the throat starting out and still cuts a clean hole in the paper.

[GREENCOUNTYPETE]

tazman , do you shoot them from wad cutter brass or just mixed brass?

I am just getting started loading 38 dies arrived yesterday

I don't know about WC i have loaded SWC , RF and TC but never done anything with full WC

[tazman]

tazman , do you shoot them from wad cutter brass or just mixed brass?

I am just getting started loading 38 dies arrived yesterday

I don't know about WC i have loaded SWC , RF and TC but never done anything with full WC

I am not a good enough shot to worry about the brass being match(wadcutter) or not. I load my brass with no regard to headstamp or color(nickel or brass). I also load my wadcutters to longer a oal than comes factory standard. I normally crimp in one of the lube grooves instead of the crimp groove.
Part of the reason I tend to load wadcutters long is so I don't have to worry about the wall thickness of my 38 special brass swaging the base of the boolit down too small. Another reason is so I can use powder charges for normally seated boolits of approximately the same weight and oal. And lastly, the distance the boolit needs to jump to reach my cylinder throat is shorter this way.
It works well for me. I get the same accuracy this way as I do shooting factory wadcutters.