38 Mid range WC loads, use Filler?

[HeavyMetal]

I have a Smith model 52 38 mid range auto loader chambered for 38 Special.

I have collected the molds and such to build the right loads now I'm asking questions about the use of a filler in the case.

I realize that 2.8 grains of Bullseye has been the "standard" target load for almost a century! However we have all heard of the detenation of said load ( I always figured double load or case obstruction). I also have 10#'s of Bullseye so this load make a lot of sense to me.

Has anybody thought of or used a filler in these type target loads? A lot has been written about this light load and all kinds of explanations have been offered for the cause of said explosions most claim to much air space in the load is the cause.

I am currently considering using Thumblers shotgun buffer as a filler. It won't attract moisture if I store for long periods of time and it is very light. My experiment so far shows that 3.0 grains of this stuff fills the air space between the DE wadcutter and the powder charge.

So far I like this idea and I have read about the use of Winchesters old Super Grex buffer used in a similar load of HP-38 with excellent results!

I wanted to get some input from other 52 user's and see what had been tried if anything.

[oso]

I usually use HP38, W231 or Scot 453 in my S&W 52, never used fillers in any 38 Special. A wad cutter seated flush reduces air space enough for me. (I've gotten away from fillers in general because of the hassle.) It may be of interest that I have many old 38 Spec. target cases that take large pistol primers. I do think that for me there may be an accuracy advantage with a tad less powder but perhaps more uniform ignition.

[oldhickory]

O.k...Shame on me, but I've always used Remington swaged factory hollow base WCs in my .38, I buy em bulk cheap enough and they work. No, I've never used any filler of any kind for .38 spl, even when using 2.8gr of Bullseye and have never ran into a problem.

[35remington]

The "detonation" theory of fast powders and supposed airspace has been rather thoroughly refuted. Some continue to blame unreproducible events when simple carelessness is to blame.

We use many light loads here on this forum in association with cast bullets; if they were inherently dangerous, we would have proven so long ago, especially at the round counts some of us fire. In aggregate, there's too many rounds fired successfully to give credence to "detonation fast powder."

Standard bullets of wheelweights or similar hardness are bumped up and collapse unfilled lube grooves with grex/buffer and fast powder.

Quite considerable base distortion can occur on standard bullets using fast powder, turning the bullets into concave based ones with a small mound of buffer attached. This does nothing for accuracy.

I would be delighted to show you pictures of this bumping effect. I have personally an aversion to grex or granulated plastic buffer and fast powder from long experience. Other problems arise, especially at low pressures, as the buffer is often not completely cleared of the barrel or chamber, often remaining in the case in caked form. This can cause obstruction problems.

Never use plastic buffer where the buffer occupies the majority of the case volume and combine with fast powders. Combined with low wadcutter pressure this is asking for trouble.

On edit: Incidentally, I measured out your 3 grain experimental buffer to see the volume occupied. I must emphasize that the buffer must be settled over the powder by slight tapping, then compressed by the bullet upon seating when used properly. Buffer will settle slightly with handling and when rattling around in cartridge boxes, and if not pre settled and then compressed by the bullet it will combine with the powder.

In addition, compressed loads of plastic buffer do not have indefinite shelf life when when added to a load. Count on firing these within a few months of loading. Reports indicate the buffer tends to cake in a solid plug, raising pressures in some cases. Yes, I know no moisture is present, but apparently it tends to cake anyway. Dacron may be a better solution.

[Ricochet]

I always figured double load or case obstruction.Exactly.

[eveready]

Get some Trail Boss for your 38 loads. Takes up a lot more room in the case, burns cleaner and smokes less than Bullseye.

[Le Loup Solitaire]

Hi, I have been shooting my own reloads in a S&W M52 for a long time. One of the original loads I used was the Bullseye 2.8 grains, no filler and it worked well. It was touted as the loading that everyone used. At one point ( I was working in Europe at the time) I could no longer get BE and I had access only to 700X. I was forced to develop a load for it and found that 2.6 grains was ideal for running the action and giving me good accuracy. I was successful in competition with the powder. I would always hand-weigh each charge in setting up for a match. I never used a filler with either loading and never heard of any problem with detonation. I was always aware that detonation was a phenomenon that possibly could occur with reduced loadings of slow powders particularly in rifles. The use of hollow base wadcutters was an accepted and advocated practice in 38 midrange and popular with shooters of the M52. The idea was that the skirt expanded and this was considered ideal and contributed to accuracy. I did not like the problems encountered in the casting of them. It was a one cavity affair-not only slow,but the keeping the temperature up on the hollow base core was a nuisance which if not dealt with resulted in wrinkled skirts etc. Determined to find an alternate boolit, I invested in a 4 cavity Hensley & Gibbs #251. Even back in the day the price was high, but the mold blocks were of fantastic quality. The rejection rate in casting was 1%-2% at the most and the weight variance was unbelievably close using straight WW. Finding 50 within .5 grain was easy. Using the 2.6 gr loading and as cast boolits with NRA 50/50 Alox in one groove only, the grouping was extraordinary at 25 yards and very good at 50 yards. No filler was used and there was no leading of any kind. I used commercial cases either Remington or Winchester. I (had access to and) experimented with once fired military cases RA and WRA headstamps and got the same good results. The milspec brass was a little thicker and when using that stuff I had to size to .356 to avoid slight bulging. The quality and reputation of the M52 makes it worth it to go the extra mile in all ways particularly if one is into getting serious results. Without doubt there are many other newer powders beside BE & 700X that will work well in the 38 Special midrange. The possible combinations are simply overwhelming. If the bullseye works well for you then continue to use it; you say that you have a substantial quantity. Otherwise if you feel that it is not giving you the best groups then try for example Red Dot or one of the many other powders now available. I don't believe that a filler is necessary as the function of a filler is primarily to hold the powder to the rear of the case. This can be accomplished as well by simply raising the muzzle before each shot...which is what I have done. But to be sure, I would recommend preparing loads with fillers and loads without, raising the muzzle and not raising the muzzle and comparing the results. The proof is always (in the pudding) on the target. Hensley & Gibbs molds are no longer in production, but the entire line of molds were taken over by Ballisticast which still produces the same molds under a slightly different numbering system putting a 6 before any number used by H&G. The molds are still custom cut, are of the same super quality and are still super expensive. They are on the Web. I hope that all this is of some help to you for getting the max out of your M52. It is one heck of a competition pistol and they, IMHO. don't make em like that any more. Good shooting, LLS

[HeavyMetal]

I have a decnet supply of both De wadcutters and another flush seated booit I think 35863. Both these molds generated a bunch of boolits when I was cast over the forth.

I will load these without the filler and see what happens.

As I mentioned I had seen an article in print and was wondering if this guy was a one off or if others were also using a filler.

Guess I got my answer!

[twotrees]

I have been shooting wadcutters from 115 gr to 148 gr (All cast) in 38 special since the 60's.

Charge of 2 gr of BE with the 115's is my 50 ft load and 2.5- 2.8 gr for the others.

I have even used the 2 gr load in my Rossi 357 rifle for squirrels and a miss results in a clack, clack sound as it bounces off the branches. It's slow but VERY accurate.

As for fillers, never!!! Why the fast powder isn't position sensitive so why bother.

Good shooting,

TwoTrees

[cajun shooter]

I'm a retired Range Officer in Br La. and we loaded 100,000 every few months on a Camdex which consisted of Speer 148 HBWC and 2.7 grs of BE. Not only is this load great out to 50yds but never would have thought of using filler. Sometimes it makes you think that some of these people with these ideas just want to see the article printed. Not one time have I ever seen a problem with this load on the range training or shooting PPC matches

[Scrounger]

Right on, Cajun Shooter. I know some will disagree with me but in my opinion, the only time a filler is needed is when the powder charge is too light to generate enough chamber pressure to sustain consistent ignition. I have found that simply increasing the powder charge negates the need for the filler. But some people love the complication of the filler, so there you are... Sometimes filler material will serve a function of protecting a plain base bullet or preventing the powder gas from bypassing the bullet and causing leading, but in those cases the filler material would be better described as a "soft gas check".

[Echo]

+1 for CS from Red Stick - 2.7 grs. BE was THE load for years. Maybe the reason it was bumped up to 2.8 was that the Pacific Pistol Powder Measure didn't have a bushing for 2.7 grs - just 2.6 or 2.8, and some folks were averse to modifying the bushings. It is the load I use for my match .38's I shoot in my Clark conversion. The 52 is a SWEET gun, maybe sweeter than my Clark, but the Clark shoots possibles whenever I let it, which isn't very often these days. The Clark is an unforgining b!!!ch - a little mistake that would drop a nine with a .45 will throw a seven with the Clark, and I suspecct with other .38 Autos (due to barrel time).
The 148/2.7 load is accurate out to 50 yards, but one would have a difficult time keeping them on the paper @ 100 yards - they typically are starting to yaw @ 50, and their performance beyond is random. And I am speaking of HBWC's, not DEWC's. Doan no about the DEWC's...

[fecmech]

Back about 30 yrs ago the NRA commissioned the HP white labs to test Bullseye for detonation. The conclusion was that the blown up guns were probably a combination of a double charge with a slightly deeper seated wadcutter. The deeper seating due mainly to buildup of lube in the seat die on progressive presses. I have the article and have posted it in the past here at cast boolits , I'll post the graphic showing the pressure rise with loads and seat depths. BTW the testing of Bullseye showed a smooth predictable pressure increase with load increase.

[Echo]

And double charges were easy to get with a Star progressive loader, when lackadaisical practice was involved. Some users would use a .38 case to catch the first dropped powder charge that would otherwise go all over the place - then use that case as a reload, without first tossing the caught load back into the hopper. Otherwise - no detonation.