.38 HBWC Question

[Snobal]

I get great groups with bullets from my RCBS .38 148 Gr, BBWC mould. They come out about 143 grains and sized at .358 group well enough from my old K-38 to suit me.

But I'm wanting to cheat a little and use store-bought HBWC bullets.

Hornady says to seat their HBWC bullets flush with the case mouth --- but when I do this they hit slightly sideways at 25 and 50 yards (but still group ok).

Seems to me that I read somewhere that if you don't seat them flush, but rather let them stick out a bit, they will hit properly and give a round rather than oval hole.

So I tried it today with my well used, 6" K-38 that I bought new in about '66, 3.1 Grains of Bullseye, Hornady 148 Grain HBWC, and an overall length of 1.350"

WOW! They grouped great at 25 yards and made nice round holes!

(please note, "they grouped great at 25 yards" means I put 18 of 18 into < 2" at 25 yards, with 11 of 18 through a .9" hole --- hand held, off a sandbag.

So, has anyone experimented with this? What OAL for .38 Special HBWC and what load worked the best from a revolver for you?:-D

[Ben]

If you could get access to Ken Water's book, Pet Loads, he has a lot to say about the 38 Spec. with all kinds of W/C loads including HB W/C's.

Ben

[JMax]

When I was shooting PPC we would let the bullet protrude about .010" - .015" for best accuracy at 50 yards. I used 3.1 gr WW231 for my HBWC loads. Seating the bullets flush with the case mouth was required for the old Model 52 Smith to get them to feed.

[NHlever]

When I was shooting PPC we would let the bullet protrude about .010" - .015" for best accuracy at 50 yards. I used 3.1 gr WW231 for my HBWC loads. Seating the bullets flush with the case mouth was required for the old Model 52 Smith to get them to feed.

+1 on both the load, and the seating, though sometimes I've seated them further out to engage the throats in the revolver chambers.

[Snobal]

When I was shooting PPC we would let the bullet protrude about .010" - .015" for best accuracy at 50 yards. I used 3.1 gr WW231 for my HBWC loads. Seating the bullets flush with the case mouth was required for the old Model 52 Smith to get them to feed.

JMax --

Thanks for the response.:-D

Question #1. Could it have been .10" to .15" rather than .010" to .015"?

I ask this because .010" is not much different than flush with the case mouth.

Yesterday, when I tried the .38 Special rounds with an OAL of 1.350", the bullet protruded about .2" and well past the throats in the cylinder chambers.

Since the HBWC's are a straight-sided cylinder, I wanted to seat them as deep as I could to protect as much of the dry lube as possible --- but still let them stick out far enough to engage & align with the restricted portion of the cylinder.

Question #2. How much do you crimp the HBWC's? I'm crimping just a little more than enough to straighten out the cases.

Question #3. Is there really much difference between the target accuracy of Bullseye versus WW231 (other than which powder flows the best in the individual's powder drop)?

My goal in all this is a cheap, light load that shoots well out to 50 yards with minimal leading.

[biggome]

Snobal, how's about giving you proven accurate load a try with the hollow end forward to see if they still group well? As long as it doesn't exceed 800 fps it would be a great defense load for someone who is using a lightweight revolver or is recoil sensitive as well as providing overpenetration protection for indoor use.

The inverted swaged-lead HBWC has been proven to have stopping power well out of proportion to it's kinetic energy as long as it doesn't go too fast and disintegrate.

I have wondered how much accuracy would suffer by inverting a proven load and testing it under the same conditions.

Paul

[fecmech]

"Question #3. Is there really much difference between the target accuracy of Bullseye versus WW231 (other than which powder flows the best in the individual's powder drop)?"

That would be something you will have to find out with your gun. In my particular K38 after much machine rest testing Bullseye won out over 231 but not by much. Both powders work well in the .38 and I doubt that using iron sights you will be able to tell the difference between them at 50 yds.

[Snobal]

Snobal, how's about giving you proven accurate load a try with the hollow end forward to see if they still group well? As long as it doesn't exceed 800 fps it would be a great defense load for someone who is using a lightweight revolver or is recoil sensitive as well as providing overpenetration protection for indoor use.

The inverted swaged-lead HBWC has been proven to have stopping power well out of proportion to it's kinetic energy as long as it doesn't go too fast and disintegrate.

I have wondered how much accuracy would suffer by inverting a proven load and testing it under the same conditions.

Paul

I did that a lot in the 60's.:-D

Used Speer HBWC and gas checks. Seated the bullets with the hollow base forward and well out of the case. I'd have to dig some out and measure them for OAL --- don't remember.

With the gas check, you could load them up real snappy and they worked GOOD at close range but started tumbling at about 25 yards as I remember.

[Echo]

My experience with factory HBWC ammo in my Clark .38 was that they would minimally keyhole @ 25 yds, maybe a little more @ 50 yds, but still group about 2.75 @ 50. Those HBWC's are great for target work up to 50 yds, but you can't keep them on the paper @ 100 yds - IIME.
And I have heard of folks reversing them for defense loads. Dangerous unless a GC is attached to the heel of the bullet, since it is easy to have a load strong enough to blow the center out of the bullet.

[HeavyMetal]

Actually the danger of having the center blown out of a 38HBWC boolit is great no matter which way it's seated!

In Ken Waters Pet Loads is a section on wadcutter boolits and the HBWC in particular. At the end of one of his articles he explains he finds the back half of a 38 HBWC still lodged in the forcing cone are of his K 38!

He was real glad it was the last round he fired and not the first!

Ken also suggested that the 38 HBWC, seperating like this, might have been the culprit of all those SEE blow ups that we read about in the early 70's instead of an actual SEE!

I belive he was correct and that the swaged HBWC's are just a bit to fragile for the intended use!

I have looked at old drawing of Lymans 38 HBWEC mold and found that the hollow base is no where near as deep as the ones we find in the swaged version!

I'm talking 358395 designed by Ed McGivern Tyhe cross sectioned photo I have in a 1960's Lyman reloading manual show a Hollow base that ends just about at the start of the second driving band from the base! Many of the swaged ones will get all the way to the third dring band!

I think this can, AND DOES, make a huge difference in how these boolits handle the loads put under them!

[9.3X62AL]

I've never been really fond of HBWC boolits/bullets. They are very limited in scope and application, and as stated above they take a nose-dive or cart-wheel after 60 yards or so.

I only have 2 wadcutter-design moulds--#313492 and #358432. Both are button-end designs, with a short "bore-rider" portion leading the way downbore. IIRC, the 32 boolit weighs around 97 grains and the 38 runs about 160 grains. Both shot very well, but SWCs shoot at least as well and range a whole lot better. I can't recall whether these de-stabilize like the HBWCs do, but they lose elevation pretty rapidly. I haven't cast with either one for over 15 years.

To me, the Keith/Thompson/SWC is a better general-purpose design for cast revolver work.

[flounderman]

I am wondering if the bullet separation you mentioned was due to casting with a high antimony content and the bullet was brittle. I have about 1500 of the hollow base, wad cutter bullets, but I believe they are swaged, they are surplus police bullets from when they used .38 specials. I am going to try to trade them for some round nosed .357 bullets. I loaded some with what should have been a safe load of red dot and got excessive pressure. I am wondering if the hollow base raises pressures

[HeavyMetal]

The bullet seperation I mention was with factory swaged HBWC not cast!

As such I belive very deep hollow base in cunjuction with a very soft alloy ( pure lead) allows very minimal pressure to "pop" the HBWC in the middle!

I also recall one of our members in Australia (?) mentioning the same issue with HBWC's loaded in factory 32 S&W long cartidges. As I recall a very expensive brand of auto pistol was experiencing bulged barrels because the HBWC's were seperating when fired!

I have no experinece with this ammo but can't imagine any Factory ammo using cast boolits in a production line so I'll bet they were swaged soft lead!

[Reloader06]

Well, it seems that you either love them or really dislike(hate) them. I fall in the former catagory. In all the 38-357's I've had, they have been very good target preformers. My current favorite load is 3.0 Grns of Tightgroup, a Federal primer, A Remington bullet flush seated and strangely enough a medium heavy crimp. In my Mdl 15 Smith, that BTW HATES condom bullets, just loves this load. Change the primer and in my gun the groups at least double. YMMV

Matt

[HeavyMetal]

Never knocked the abilty of the HBWC to perform. They have been used by thousands of match shooters for years.

During that time have turned in great performance.

However the fact remains that swaged HBWC's have been found to seperate under some low pressure conditions and no less a respected researcher and writer than the late Ken Waters actually experienced it in his personnel reloads in his own gun!

Thus the report printed in his pet loads book.

I brought this up as food for thought and a word to the wise for those planning on using the HBWC no matter which way they loaded it!

[Heavy lead]

Never knocked the abilty of the HBWC to perform. They have been used by thousands of match shooters for years.

During that time have turned in great performance.

However the fact remains that swaged HBWC's have been found to seperate under some low pressure conditions and no less a respected researcher and writer than the late Ken Waters actually experienced it in his personnel reloads in his own gun!

Thus the report printed in his pet loads book.

I brought this up as food for thought and a word to the wise for those planning on using the HBWC no matter which way they loaded it!

Has Ken Waters passed on? I missed this.

[biggome]

Yikes! I never heard of them seperating though it seems like it would be less likely when inverted than when loaded as intended as well as producing lower pressures without the wedge effect caused by the hollow base being down.

Jim (Swagerman) sent me some HBWCs that he managed to seat 44 cal. gas checks on the top of. I wondered why the gas check since the boolit will disintegrate when it hits something above 850 fps and become less effective than if it were not inverted.

I now know that it is to insure that the center doesn't blow out if I were to get a little overly liberal with the powdercharge. Thanks for the "fair warning" guys!

Paul

[Snobal]

Yikes! I never heard of them seperating though it seems like it would be less likely when inverted than when loaded as intended as well as producing lower pressures without the wedge effect caused by the hollow base being down.

Jim (Swagerman) sent me some HBWCs that he managed to seat 44 cal. gas checks on the top of. I wondered why the gas check since the boolit will disintegrate when it hits something above 850 fps and become less effective than if it were not inverted.

I now know that it is to insure that the center doesn't blow out if I were to get a little overly liberal with the powdercharge. Thanks for the "fair warning" guys!

Paul

In the "gun nut magazines" of the 60's/70's, there were several references to using gas checks on the nose of HBWC bullets when seating them backwards.

Most folks just ran up the powder charge until the cases got sticky, then backed off a little. It was not supposed to be a "target load," just a carry load.

All this talk about HBWC's blowing apart is news to me.:holysheep

I can't help but wonder how many millions and millions of .38 HBWC bullets were loaded with about 2.7 grains of Bullseye. Guess all those folks had no idea what a risk they were taking every time they pulled the trigger.....:shock::kidding:

[9.3X62AL]

The skirt/nose seperation anomaly hasn't happened to me, but I never ran the HBWC with more than 2.7 grains of Bullseye or 3.0 grains of WW-231. They shot very well, as did the factory WC loads my agency used for training prior to the onset of the Autopistol Era. They just weren't a lot better than the SWC loads that could be run at full-potential safely--and I was all about keeping things uncomplicated, capable, and accurate at the same time. #358477 at 950 FPS shot flatter, hit harder, and ranged better than any WC load, and was just about as accurate. End of story for yours truly.

[HeavyMetal]

O.K. I just dug out my copy of Ken Waters pet loads.

Thinking I'd give the exact article Ken had mentioned the HBWC seperation in.

Went to the 38 special wadcutter article and no luck????

At that point I realized I had been researching loads for the 38 S&W when I found the comment.

Sure enough Kens article printed in May of 1979 says that he found HBWC "skirts" lying on the range floor! Checking the Ruger he had been using he found a "skirt" lodged in the forcing cone. The article Has a photo of this "predicament" printed on the first page of the article.

The load was 2.4 grains bullseye on a 146 grain HBWC with a very light crimp. He did not mention a seating depth. Ken did mention that the boolits were from a maker that was no longer in business.

If nothing else the photo is really food for thought!

[Snobal]

If you have a Speer #9 reloading manual, on page 378 you will see a picture of a 38 S&W with a 148 Gr. Bevel Base Wadcutter bullet "seated out."

I wonder if you "seated out" a 148 grain HBWC and crimped it real hard, if you could induce this occurrence of HBWC's blowing apart....

Perhaps that is why Hornady and Speer say to seat their bullets flush with the case mouth????

[EDK]

Someone, somewhere, theorized that the hollow base wadcutter coming apart and leaving the hollow base in the bore or forcing cone could be the real cause of the horror stories of pressure excursions and gun blow-ups during the 60s/70s. 2.7 BULLSEYE was THE popular load, IIRC, and caught a lot of the blame or suspicion. A crimp in the WRONG place could stress the bullet enough to come apart or ?

Another theory is that your accuracy improves by seating the boolit out farther. I'm playing with the 200 grain 44 full wadcutter group buy mould...love it, but it shoots low in my VAQUEROS...in 44 Special and Magnum brass to see if I can find out what is true. I'm on BLAMMER'S group buy for the 4 cavity 250 grain clone of LYMAN 429352...longer nose and heavier boolit to solve my problems with the VAQUEROS...maybe.

:cbpour::redneck::Fire:

PS Wish me luck. St Louis is supposed to get the cruddy weather tonight!

[Snobal]

Had some nice weather yesterday so I thought I would experiment some more with HBWC seating depth.

Same basic components as last time:

- wore out old K-38
- WW match brass reloaded who knows how many times
- CCI 500 primers (new, I finally used up my supply from 1991:roll:)
- 3.1 grains of Bullseye
- Hornady 148 Grain HBWC

Just wanted to see how far out I would have to seat the bullets to get them to hit straight (no oblong keyhole) at 50 yards.

Based on the suggestion from JMAX, I made a few bullets with the bullets protruding about .015' which gave a COAL of @ 1.170".

Also made up some at: 1.2", 1.25", 1.3".

The last time I tried this, I was shooting at 25 yards with a COAL of 1.35" of which all the bullets fired (18) made round rather than oblong holes.

This time I was hoping to see what protrusion length is required to keep bullets hitting straight at 50 yards.

Bottom line is that I still don't know.

The results were:
- With a COAL of 1.170 and 1.200", very few hit straight at 50 yards, and about half of the bullets made oblong holes with "skid" marks of .018"

- With a COAL of 1.250", 5 of 6 shots had "skid" marks of .009"

- With a COAL of 1.300", 2 of 6 shots had "skid" marks of @ .009"

Six-shot groups with COAL's of 1.250" and 1.300" went into 3 1/8" at 50 yards. Later, I'll shoot at least 18 shot groups to see what kind of "real world" group to expect.

BTW, my home-cast 148 gr. BBWC bullets made from wheel weights shoot much better so far at 50 yards. I'm just trying to see how well I can get these "store-bought bullets" to shoot.

So today I'll load up some larger lots of HBWC's with COAL's of 1.250" to 1.350" and see if I can find the "magic" length.

Obviously, I screwed up yesterday when I did not load some at 1.350" for testing at 50 yards. I figured that 1.300" would engage the restricted portion of the cylinder enough to stop the wobble --- wrong!:-?

[StrawHat]

Snobal,

I shot PPC for years and used 2.8 grains (thrown with a Lee measure) of B'eye as my standard load. To the best of my knowledge I never had a bullet impact the target other than nose first. I loaded the 148 HBWC to protrude a little from the case, perhaps 1/16". I will have to find some ammo to check the protrusion.

Perhaps you need to cut back on the powder charge?

Most of the group I shot with used B'eye or 231. Cutting a good hole was important to scoring so if there was a problem I am sure I would have heard of it.

Good luck.

[Snobal]

StrawHat --

The bullets hit nose first but "cocked" slightly. They cut a round hole with the nose. But being cocked instead of straight, they leave a "skid" mark in the paper.

I am using 3.1 grains of Bullseye because of the increased internal volume due to seating the bullets out a bit.

When I figure out how far out to seat the bullets, I'll play with the powder charge to see if I can tighten up the groups. I hope to get about 750 fps.

[Larry Gibson]

2.7 gr Bullseye is the standard target load for HBWCs when seated flush in the .38 Speacial. The 3.1 gr load may have been a bit much for that bullet blowing the skirt on exit from the muzzle. When the bullet is seated farther out case capacity is increased and pressure is lowered. The 3 gr load is a standard one for such HBWCs loaded flush in .357 Magnum cases. They give the same velocity and accuracy as the same bullet loaded flush in .38s over the 2.7 gr load. That answers the "why" to the improved accuracy question Snobal got when seating the bullets out farther.

Never heard of the skirt seperation other than that written about in Water's article. That that bullets is no longer available makes the problem moot. I was an advanced firearms instructor for the Oregon Board of Police Standards and Training and spent many a hour on police ranges watching a gajillion rounds of .38 Special HBWCs go down range. Loads were mostly commercial reloads using 2.7 gr Bullseye or 3 gr 231. Never saw a single seperated skirt or ever heard of one except for reading it in Water's articel years ago and now in this thread. The issue of SEE/detonation theory from light Bullseye loads in such .38 loads was put to rest in the '70s. It was caused by faulting progressive reloading machines (mostly CHs) that produced cartridges with and tripple charges. I've also loaded commercial and my own cast HBWCs backwards numerous times over the years and never found anything to suggest a GC was required to prevent "blow through". I have consistantly found them to be inaccurate at anything resembling velocity when loaded as such.

I am a fan of the HBWC for such light target loads. They are very accurate for target shooting and also are excellent fro small game hunting, especialy if the small game is edible.

Larry Gibson

[fecmech]

Here is a composite of 4 six shot 50 yd groups off the bench using Remington bulk 148 gr HBWC. I slide a paper behind the target to capture individual groups. The gun is a K-38 using a dot sight and the load is 3.1 Bullseye with the bullet approx 1/16 out of the case and taper crimped. As you can see the average 6 shot group size was 2". The best I can do with cast wadcutters (H&G #50) is a 2 1/4" average.

[Snobal]

Thanks to all for your suggestions.

fecmech -

Good groups and nice round holes!

Sounds like I need to try a taper crimper.


Larry Wilson -

I have already tried 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 3.1, & 3.2 grains of bullseye and had the tilted holes with each load.

It may be that my K-38 simply needs a trip to the S&W Repair facility --- but the last time I sent a gun to them, they screwed up as much as they fixed.

[Heavy lead]

You guys have me scared half to death, I have a K-38 I'm quite fond of, only thing I've ever shot out of it was Speer or Remington 148 grain HBWC, still have 500 or so loaded up with 3 grains of Red Dot, never had a problem, but I'm starting to wonder whether I should pull them. I don't want to lose that K-38.

[Dale53]

Heavy lead;
I don't understand your comments. Why should you pull your bullets? 3.0 grs of Red Dot should NOT be a problem with HBWC's. The only problem that will result if someone tries to make a magnum out of a .38. You can blow the skirts off a HBWC (I have been present twice when this occurred) if you overload. They are only designed for low velocity target loads. Don't try to make a defense load out of them. I have seen two pistols damaged (auto pistols on the 1911 platform) by trying to drive the bullet too fast.

However, there have been MILLIONS of rounds shot using HBWC with nary a problem. Just don't overload them.

Dale53

[Heavy lead]

Some of the comments in this thread indicate that maybe the skirt problem was with regular target loads, maybe I read them wrong. It would seem that as long as you don't drive these too fast they should be fine. I don't get fancy with them, just load them the way they are supposed to be.