I picked up nearly 500 of these at the last gun show I went to and was looking around for good load data for them. I went to the Hodgdon reloading data center and found some really ODD load data. From their data for W231/HP38, 38 specials get loaded with more powder and to a higher velocity than 357 magnums. See the two screen prints for the 38 and 357 data from the load guide below.

What is up with THAT? Is the data for the two cartridges flip-flopped or something? Frankly I'm a little spooked by this. Makes me question the reliability of the data in their online load guide...

Attached Files

	38Data.pdf (145.8 KB, 253 views)
	357Data.pdf (145.6 KB, 179 views)

Wow. That is a pretty big screw up! You might want to let them know.

it seems the use of a magnum primer might be the difference in pressure and velocity. Other than that can't figure out why.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

Yeah, good suggestion. I just sent them an email about it.

I can't see a magnum primer making up most of the difference for a 20% lower powder charge in a larger case (3.4gr in the 357 vs. 4.0gr in the 38), giving only a 5%-6% lower velocity (906fps for the 357 vs. 956fps for the 38).

It is just flat out backwards for the powder charge to be larger and the velocity higher for the 38. Especially since the hotter magnum primer is being used for the 357.

The whole thing is just wonky...

I thought you were asking why the velocities were so close even though the magnum load had a lot less powder. The magnum load was also tested in a 10" barrel over a 7.7" barrel for the .38 Special further reducing the gap.

I do know the main reason for the low pressures is the bullet. The bullets they used are swagged and the HB could be a problem too.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

I have seen 100fps difference in velocity with 125g cast in 38Spl, changing nothing but the primer.
Same powder, projectile, brass, crimp, all the same (even loaded the same daY), but a CCI #550 SPM instead of CCI #500 SPP gave me +100fps.

As for the load - I have loaded a bunch of that Hornady LHBWC (shot some yesterday with Mrs DumpStick). I recommend slowing that thing down. 850fps is FAR to fast for a HBWC, you run the risk of blowing the skirt off and leaving it in the barrel.

I run these at 650-750 fps, excellent accuracy at 10 yds, and I even shoot them to 25yds with good results.

The old standard load for bullseye shooting for many many years was 2.8 gr. Bullseye or 3.2 gr. 231 with the HBWC and just about any 38, including the Mod 52.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

Haven't reloaded for some years and always used 2.7 Bullseye for .38 WC. so I like your 2.8. Recall that I used 4.6 for 185 grain SWC for 45 ACP. Does that seem correct. Intend to start shooting again this winter after about a 6-8 year leave..... Shoot the ACP's in a 625-3 and only once in a while in a Gold Cup - it is too particular.

850 is about the limit on a swagged lead hbwc. For a dewc that will work. The 3 1/2 grain will be fine if you let them stick out 1/8 inch. I cant think of any reason to push a 148 hbwc over 850 fps. There are better bullets after that speed.

+1 on post 7 & 10.

The soft skirt at 850fps is pushing the envelope.

The 148 HB out of my 2" J frame at 775fps has 197 ft/lbs of energy.

The 135gr has 222 ft/lbs of ratings.

Maybe they left a (*) out about the HBwc design ?
Later.

FWIW, the one's I'm loading aren't swagged HBWCs. They aren't DEWCs either. They have no skirt and a "button" nose on only one end.

I would describe them as flat base, cast lead, wad cutters. FBCLWC?

I can see why the larger case with the lower powder charge would be slower. That makes perfect sense.

What doesn't make sense to me is specifying that the 357 should have a LOWER powder charge range than the 38.

I have never seen that with ANY other bullet/powder combination that I have looked up so far. Anywhere. Ever.

I was going by the 2 charts you posted--they say LHBWC. lYMANS data is less confusing. These bullets are great. This is the bullet you described. #1 is 38--#2 is .357

Attached Images

	DSC05630.jpg (72.3 KB, 62 views)
	DSC05627.jpg (62.1 KB, 54 views)

Yeah - I wasn't correcting anybody, just clarifying what I'm loading.

The LHBWC was the closest thing they had in their load data to what I'm trying to load.

Naturally the plan is to start at or near the bottom of the range and work up.....

Hollowbase, button-nose, double-ended, it all doesn't matter. It's a 148-grain lead bullet. Use the crimping groove and presume that the diemaker didn't put the crimp groove someplace stupid.

The data's probably screwy for .357/.38 because they reached the limit of the bullet, not the gun or the cartridge. It's pretty clear from the pressure data.

Found you some data in post #13.

I did some gunsmithing for a local ammo maker when they were still producing ammo in So. Nevada. They wanted a couple of rifle barrels for rifle calibers that would be for 'switch barrel' actions. They then wanted six different calibers in pistol barrel for the same 'switch barrel' actions. They were going to test their pistol bullets in 10" barrel with no revolver cylinder to barrel gaps. I thought that was edging towards cheating, but never voiced my opinion. I don't think that they ever did, because they folded shortly after that. I barely got paid before they were shutting the doors.

The reason for the story is that most of the big time ammo manufacturers play all sorts of games of one-up-man-ship in a marketing effort to maximize performance of calibers. Sometimes the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing even in the same commercial operation. Sometimes mix-ups occur and while the test data was taken from one test gun situation, another test data would be taken from another. Some ammo makers are more reputable than others and will take great pains to document exactly what the physical nature of the test apparatus was used in documenting such and such data. ...

It is quite possible that one set of reloading data was taken with a 'no-gap' long test barrel never intending to be used as the Reloading Manual data. But, error, press of time or something entirely else got in the way here and the 'to be used data' from a 'normal' handgun was never developed, lost or whatever and the error was never spotted in editing.

THANKS MAN! That looks like the exact bullet!
That data makes a lot more sense to me. Loading with Unique the powder charges are larger and the velocities are higher for the 357 than for the 38. Just what you'd expect, and consistent with what seems to be the norm for every other powder/bullet combo I've ever looked at.

The only thing confusing about the data sheets you posted is the fact that the chart for 38 special shows different charges and velocities for W231 and HP38. I know they are the same nowadays - so is this an older version of the Lyman's manual? And were they different powders at the time it was published?

Makes sense. Mistakes happen. I just got to be the lucky guy who was the first to spot it I guess.

Think that Hodgdon's will give me anything for helping them out (maybe saving them a lawsuit for damaging someone's gun - or worse)?

Nah, they probably won't even respond to my email. That would amount to admitting to publishing a mistake - with all the liability that would come with it.

I think it's more likely they'll just pull or correct the data and pretend it never happened. At the same time they'll all have their fingers crossed that nobody has anything bad happen from using the erroneous data...

That's quite common, actually. Just another oddity resulting from ammunition being tested at different times, by different people, and likely on different equipment.

I doubt it.

So then are they just leaving the mistake uncorrected - when it would take a Web master about 10 minutes to correct it? That would really be surprising...

..the same thing. The skirts on the HBWC are fragile compared to a solid bullet which typically can be pushed a bit faster. Some of the limitations on loading swaged bullets are accounted for by the soft lead used in these bullets.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

After looking at the .357 Hodgdon chart again it makes sense--like Wise a & rwsmith said--That was the speed limit of that bullet. Most publishers do not have a .357 load for a HBWC because it wont go faster without self destruction. Most wad cutters are softer lead so the skirt can seal off at a lower speed. The Hodgdon 38 special chart with a HBWC is too hot for a model 52 but will work in a wheel gun. The BNWC is one of my favorite bullets and fun to play with.

So fired from a 357 the "speed limit" for the HBWC bullet is ~900 fps - but when fired from a 38 the "speed limit" goes up to ~950 fps? I realize the increase in velocity is largely due to the ~25% longer barrel, but wouldn't the speed LIMIT be pretty much the same regardless? If you can't push it above ~900 fps before it disintegrates, then it shouldn't make much difference what you use to get it to that speed, the result would be the same if you push it faster. Why would the "limit" be higher for the "hotter" 38? I'm not trying to argue, because this explanation makes more sense than any other that has been postulated, but I am trying to understand...

Lee gives 38 special 148 hbwc--2.9 [email protected] high--@770fps--with 16100 psi---------------.357 mag--3.4 low--@ 880fps--3.4 high--@880 fps--with 19500 psi---both with Winchester 231. I would forget the other chart & buy a Lee or Lyman manual

This is a good advertisement for cross-referencing your anticipated load across multiple manuals and on-line sources. When I first started reloading, I also noticed some anomalies in the data and just learned to live with it. I don't load any maximum looking charges unless confirmed with multiple sources. The old adage to start low and work up is actually a law

__________________
Some collect art; I shoot it!

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking too - this is pretty much a textbook example of why it is so important to cross-reference data AND to start at the low end of the range....

That's not a lot. Different gun, different lot of bullets, different lot of powder, different people doing the testing, different test equipment, etc...

O-K then!

The data must be right. Even though it is counter-intuitive and runs opposite to what holds true for the loading data for other bullet & powder combinations.

After all, since it is PUBLISHED data it must be correct, so all is well.

Sorry I bothered...

If it was logical they would have loaded the .357 up to Magnum pressures. After all, HP-38/WW-231 goes all the way up to 42k+ CUP with jacketed bullets in their own data.

If it was logical, the 4.0 grains in .38 Special would develop more pressure than than the 3.4 grains in .357 Magnum.

EXACTLY!

But now you have me confused as to your position/opinion on the question.

Previously you seemed to be trying to offer a logical explanation of why the data might actually be right (different gun, different lot of powder, different bullet lot, different tester, etc.) - but now you seem to me agreeing with me that the data can't be right - because it isn't logically consistent.

LOL, you seem to be taking both sides on this question! Or are you just playing devil's advocate (for both sides)?

Or are you saying that logic can't be applied to reloading data?