|
|
03-09-2011, 11:24 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Lead roundnose v. Lead semiwadcutter for range ammo
I was looking at acquiring some range ammo, and Georgia Arms has .38 special lead roundnose and lead semiwadcutter, both in 158 gr., for about the same price. I've never understood what bullet type is best for what particular purpose. As to these two, any real difference for use as range/practice ammo in my 642?
Thanks,
|
03-09-2011, 11:28 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 982
Likes: 1
Liked 44 Times in 11 Posts
|
|
Well the SWC makes a nice round hole in paper and are a bit easier to load in the gun than WC, but I like LRN myself because that is what I cast and handload at the moment and they slip in pretty fast with a speed loader for practice..
__________________
Dom
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
03-09-2011, 11:58 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 6,629
Likes: 3,726
Liked 7,235 Times in 3,015 Posts
|
|
I like roundnose for plinking ammo in my guns because they give better
accuracy for me. I usually load hard cast RN bullets a bit below full
standard pressure for most of my casual shooting.
|
03-09-2011, 12:12 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
I prefer SWC at the range because it is easier to score paper targets. If you ever have to employ them for hunting or defense, SWC is preferrable over round nose ammo (the local PD's take on it, back when S&W Model 10s were "in") If I had a choice, I'd go for SWC.
|
03-09-2011, 12:40 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 684
Likes: 59
Liked 374 Times in 121 Posts
|
|
I concur with some of the previous posts.
SWC punches cleaner, easier to see, easier to score holes in paper targets and may be better for self-defense use.
RNL is easier to load, especially from speedloaders and seem to have a slight edge in accuracy. Maybe due to better, more stable aerodynamics.
I shoot a lot of both.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
03-09-2011, 12:55 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
A few years ago .38 cast bullets were kinda scarce in my area. The only thing I could find was a 500 count box of 158 gr LRN so gave 'em a try. While they didn't cut the nice clean holes in paper they were very accurate.
|
03-09-2011, 01:28 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: up-state SC
Posts: 759
Likes: 134
Liked 90 Times in 49 Posts
|
|
I've cast, loaded and fired a blue millon lead bullets and can honestly say that LRN bullets have never shown any accuracy edge over SWC or WC bullets. As a matter of a fact, just the opposite has been my experience. I'm gonna pay closer attention next time.
To answer the OP's question, I believe if practice results are important the SWC will give better visual results on the target.
|
03-09-2011, 03:32 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Thanks for the input. Sounds like a toss-up, at best.
I really appreciate your time and thoughts.
Regards,
Russell
|
03-09-2011, 03:48 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,202
Likes: 9,079
Liked 1,921 Times in 1,043 Posts
|
|
I would say there are more positive reasons for SWC than for RN. You could even have some kind of small game load with the SWC where RN wouldn’t work as well so another point for SWC.
|
03-09-2011, 04:03 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Liked 30 Times in 17 Posts
|
|
volgunner - get a couple hundred of each, try both and then order a couple thousand of what you like best.
Your 642 is most likely regulated for 158gr LRN, as is my 637 and I find the POA/POI is about the same for both out well past SD practice distances, so it boils down to whether you prefer clean holes in your targets or slightly easier reloads. (Added - Plus what the other said in favor of SWC)
If you are planning on getting into reloading, the ammo with "NEW" in the description is loaded in new Starline brass, otherwise it is in a mixture of headstamps, but will shoot just as well.
I bought 1k of each a couple years ago, but reload them mostly with LSWC because I like nice round holes.
__________________
Age + Treachery = JohnnieB
Last edited by JohnnieB; 03-09-2011 at 04:05 PM.
Reason: Added comment
|
03-10-2011, 01:28 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 17,832
Likes: 7,857
Liked 25,770 Times in 8,708 Posts
|
|
I switched back to 158 grain RNL bullets years ago. I find that they are more accurate and tend to leave less leading behind then the SWC's do. My belief is that because they do not have the sharp shoulder they will make their way into the forcing cone with less leading, making a better and tighter fit in the barrel. They do not make as clean a hole, but for punching holes in paper and cans, I do not really need clean holes. An added plus is that they fall into the chambers easier than the SWC's do, plus they have that nostalgic look I tend to like when shooting them out of an old revolver.
Chief38
|
03-10-2011, 01:42 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sheboygan WI
Posts: 347
Likes: 35
Liked 205 Times in 60 Posts
|
|
If SWC was good enough for the likes of Elmer Keith and Skeeter Skelton who am I to argue. I have cast and shot nothing but lswc over the last 40 plus years.
Ted
|
03-16-2011, 07:17 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 6 Posts
|
|
another vote for SWC.....they always work and are very accurate.
__________________
Semper Paratus
|
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|