light load for s&w 642
- Thread starter rp85
- Start date
djml66
Member
soft loads for little guns
I've ordered a few Berry plated 158 HP to try with various charges. Still on the search for something that I can stand to shoot to practice with and use the same rounds for effective SD. Starting around 700 or so. It's got to be better than so-called "softer recoil Hydroshock 110's", which are'nt soft at all in a 14oz gun, and have not so great penetration, to boot.
The 40S&W for my compacts that fit this bill is a full power 180 at slightly over 1000 fps (in a 4" bbl). It's a creampuff, yet rated a very effective load by the LE community.
Another tough nut to crack is 380 load for my P3AT. I am currently using a 90gr XTP at 1000 fps. It's very uncomfortable in that 7oz gun. I've started with 100 gr @900, and going down from there. I don't think it is realistic to expect to get both penetration and good expansion for that little gun, unless you use Buffalo Bore, or similar that will know your hand off.
dave.
I've ordered a few Berry plated 158 HP to try with various charges. Still on the search for something that I can stand to shoot to practice with and use the same rounds for effective SD. Starting around 700 or so. It's got to be better than so-called "softer recoil Hydroshock 110's", which are'nt soft at all in a 14oz gun, and have not so great penetration, to boot.
The 40S&W for my compacts that fit this bill is a full power 180 at slightly over 1000 fps (in a 4" bbl). It's a creampuff, yet rated a very effective load by the LE community.
Another tough nut to crack is 380 load for my P3AT. I am currently using a 90gr XTP at 1000 fps. It's very uncomfortable in that 7oz gun. I've started with 100 gr @900, and going down from there. I don't think it is realistic to expect to get both penetration and good expansion for that little gun, unless you use Buffalo Bore, or similar that will know your hand off.
dave.
rodcraft
Member
Instead of lowering the recoil i changed the grips. Made all the difference. http://www.hoguestore.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=569_2_22_35_87_189&products_id=1756
good luck.
good luck.
rodcraft has just reminded us that Jeff Cooper's statement that the handgun is the most personal of all firearms is rock-solid truth. Because human hands are so varied in size and proportions, grips/stocks must fit the user's hand as well as possible. Having a shooter try various grips/stocks, both in the shop and on the range, is a long process, but it's the only reliable way to get a perfect fit. The Herrett folks claim to be able to get a pretty good fit with just a hand outline and the details on the handgun to be used. Herrett has been in business for a generation, so that firm must be doing something as least close to usefully correct. Try their web site for details.
djml66
Member
fitting the hand
S&W38, you have struck a chord, sir.
You reminded that while a very light, hot-loaded round hurts my trigger finger badly in a Glock 22, the same round is comfortable in a similar weight H&K. There are many variables.
dave
S&W38, you have struck a chord, sir.
You reminded that while a very light, hot-loaded round hurts my trigger finger badly in a Glock 22, the same round is comfortable in a similar weight H&K. There are many variables.
dave
Mule88
Member
Magtech makes a 38 CBL Short load with 125 grn bullet. It looks like the 38 S&W cartridge but its for the 38 special. That may do the trick for your wife. The number on the box is BG0712 L-47 . Hope this helps.
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
A lot of good info here.
I was perusing my older manuals the other day and came across some interesting information. I had this thread in mind to be honest. Most folks, when I mention the older manuals, get all freaked out and immediately go to the Speer #8 in their thought process.
Well, this isn't from that manual at all. It is from the Lyman #44. If the Speer #8 is the "MAGNUM, MAGNUM" 38spl manual, then the Lyman #44 is the "teeny weeny" manual then!
I am not espousing this data. I am simply putting it out there as once good data. A bunch of folks used to load all of their ammo with this data.
Like all data, use at your own risk. The thing that caught my eye though was the minimum weight of Bullseye for almost all of the cast bullets there is data for.
Check it out:
Again, use at your own risk.
I was perusing my older manuals the other day and came across some interesting information. I had this thread in mind to be honest. Most folks, when I mention the older manuals, get all freaked out and immediately go to the Speer #8 in their thought process.
Well, this isn't from that manual at all. It is from the Lyman #44. If the Speer #8 is the "MAGNUM, MAGNUM" 38spl manual, then the Lyman #44 is the "teeny weeny" manual then!
I am not espousing this data. I am simply putting it out there as once good data. A bunch of folks used to load all of their ammo with this data.
Like all data, use at your own risk. The thing that caught my eye though was the minimum weight of Bullseye for almost all of the cast bullets there is data for.
Check it out:
Again, use at your own risk.
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
Not all that smart!
Well, In an effort to be of help to get your wife to the shooting line, I shot some loads that were under suggested weight loads.
I took my H&G #7, 125gr LTC, and HP-38 and headed to the laboratory. Looking at the current data, I went well below what was suggested and gave it a try. I was "UNDER IMPRESSED" to say the least. I am not recommending these loads.
I'm not trying to be mean or snotty or anything like that but, if she can't handle these loads, maybe you should look to another caliber. Nothing wrong with that. Folks have defended themselves with 22LR successfully for many years. Not quite as easy to do but, doable none the less. Practice is where it is at then. We even had a cop killed here a while ago with a 22LR. The perp stuck a small auto in the area on the side where the bulletproof vest had no protection. It was a sad story for sure.
At any rate, I used less than 3gr and more than 2.7gr with this bullet with a very firm crimp. I was surprised with the velocity from my M637. I don't think I have ever shot something with so little recoil or velocity from any of my reloads.
Low 398.4fps
High 465.6fps
Avg 447.7fps
ES 67.2fps
SD 28fps
The numbers are pitiful, the load was as accurate at 10 yards as the 1 7/8" would allow, I'm sure. Recoil was somewhere in the neighborhood of what a 22Mag would be I suppose. Very light recoil.
The slower burning powder, compared to Bullseye, is going to act more erratically if used at these lower pressures. The velocity comes up quite a bit when shot out of one of the 6" barrel revolvers. In the 550fps range. Still quite erratic but functional just the same.
If you want the exact load, send me a pm.
Well, In an effort to be of help to get your wife to the shooting line, I shot some loads that were under suggested weight loads.
I took my H&G #7, 125gr LTC, and HP-38 and headed to the laboratory. Looking at the current data, I went well below what was suggested and gave it a try. I was "UNDER IMPRESSED" to say the least. I am not recommending these loads.
I'm not trying to be mean or snotty or anything like that but, if she can't handle these loads, maybe you should look to another caliber. Nothing wrong with that. Folks have defended themselves with 22LR successfully for many years. Not quite as easy to do but, doable none the less. Practice is where it is at then. We even had a cop killed here a while ago with a 22LR. The perp stuck a small auto in the area on the side where the bulletproof vest had no protection. It was a sad story for sure.
At any rate, I used less than 3gr and more than 2.7gr with this bullet with a very firm crimp. I was surprised with the velocity from my M637. I don't think I have ever shot something with so little recoil or velocity from any of my reloads.
Low 398.4fps
High 465.6fps
Avg 447.7fps
ES 67.2fps
SD 28fps
The numbers are pitiful, the load was as accurate at 10 yards as the 1 7/8" would allow, I'm sure. Recoil was somewhere in the neighborhood of what a 22Mag would be I suppose. Very light recoil.
The slower burning powder, compared to Bullseye, is going to act more erratically if used at these lower pressures. The velocity comes up quite a bit when shot out of one of the 6" barrel revolvers. In the 550fps range. Still quite erratic but functional just the same.
If you want the exact load, send me a pm.
I was perusing my older manuals the other day and came across some interesting information. I had this thread in mind to be honest. Most folks, when I mention the older manuals, get all freaked out and immediately go to the Speer #8 in their thought process.
Well, this isn't from that manual at all. It is from the Lyman #44. If the Speer #8 is the "MAGNUM, MAGNUM" 38spl manual, then the Lyman #44 is the "teeny weeny" manual then!
I am not espousing this data. I am simply putting it out there as once good data. A bunch of folks used to load all of their ammo with this data.
Like all data, use at your own risk. The thing that caught my eye though was the minimum weight of Bullseye for almost all of the cast bullets there is data for.
Check it out:
Again, use at your own risk.
8 to 11 grs of 2400 for a 158gr bullet in a 38 special????
Holy KB Batman!
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
Only in today's wimp loads!
Well, these loads were used since 1967. I'm sure there were some firearms that were blown up. I couldn't recommend a steady diet of these bullets in any firearm. I am sure of one thing though, they were used by some for years and years without incident. Put them in a pot metal wonder and you are on your own. There may be some alloy revolvers I wouldn't shoot them in either. My M637 and an M12 would definitely be off limits.
An "L" or "N" frame, I wouldn't hesitate one second though. That's just me though.
8 to 11 grs of 2400 for a 158gr bullet in a 38 special????
Holy KB Batman!
Well, these loads were used since 1967. I'm sure there were some firearms that were blown up. I couldn't recommend a steady diet of these bullets in any firearm. I am sure of one thing though, they were used by some for years and years without incident. Put them in a pot metal wonder and you are on your own. There may be some alloy revolvers I wouldn't shoot them in either. My M637 and an M12 would definitely be off limits.
An "L" or "N" frame, I wouldn't hesitate one second though. That's just me though.
Well, these loads were used since 1967. I'm sure there were some firearms that were blown up. I couldn't recommend a steady diet of these bullets in any firearm. I am sure of one thing though, they were used by some for years and years without incident. Put them in a pot metal wonder and you are on your own. There may be some alloy revolvers I wouldn't shoot them in either. My M637 and an M12 would definitely be off limits.
An "L" or "N" frame, I wouldn't hesitate one second though. That's just me though.
So by todays standards would this be a +Q load??
djml66
Member
to the OP
I sympathize with your wife's dilemma. I have arthritis in my hands, and though I have a 642 with Crimson Trace laser on it, I DON'T practice with it anymore, except dry firing. I have a suggestion though. The 380 is a much maligned round, but nearly all of the commercial ammo is limited to 15k psi, rather than the 21,500 psi SAAMI spec that the newer guns are capable of handling. I have a Bersa Thunder 380 that is a real pussycat to shoot, with either my handloaded 1000 fps 90 XTPs or even with the really hot 1150 fps 90 Golddots from Buffalo Bore. The lighter rounds in 38spl, such as Federal's premium low recoil self defense round have about the same or less muzzle energy as/than the hot 380's. Even tho the guns are similar in weight, the Bersa is very comfortable with these rounds and the 642 hurts like the dickens with the lightest SD rounds I've fired. I loaded up test rounds with 100gr PRN and goofed and made some up with 4.6gr of Unique rather than the intended 4.6gr of Power Pistol. They came out in the mid 1100's, obviously overcharged and probably unsafe, but they were very comfortable to shoot.
This reinforces the idea already stated that the ergonomics of the gun is a major factor. The 3 finger hold J-frame is not comfortable, but I have heard from others that putting banana grips on them helps quite a bit. Unfortunately, I already have too much money in the standard Crimson Trace grips.
dave
I sympathize with your wife's dilemma. I have arthritis in my hands, and though I have a 642 with Crimson Trace laser on it, I DON'T practice with it anymore, except dry firing. I have a suggestion though. The 380 is a much maligned round, but nearly all of the commercial ammo is limited to 15k psi, rather than the 21,500 psi SAAMI spec that the newer guns are capable of handling. I have a Bersa Thunder 380 that is a real pussycat to shoot, with either my handloaded 1000 fps 90 XTPs or even with the really hot 1150 fps 90 Golddots from Buffalo Bore. The lighter rounds in 38spl, such as Federal's premium low recoil self defense round have about the same or less muzzle energy as/than the hot 380's. Even tho the guns are similar in weight, the Bersa is very comfortable with these rounds and the 642 hurts like the dickens with the lightest SD rounds I've fired. I loaded up test rounds with 100gr PRN and goofed and made some up with 4.6gr of Unique rather than the intended 4.6gr of Power Pistol. They came out in the mid 1100's, obviously overcharged and probably unsafe, but they were very comfortable to shoot.
This reinforces the idea already stated that the ergonomics of the gun is a major factor. The 3 finger hold J-frame is not comfortable, but I have heard from others that putting banana grips on them helps quite a bit. Unfortunately, I already have too much money in the standard Crimson Trace grips.
dave
LazarusLong
Member
8 to 11 grs of 2400 for a 158gr bullet in a 38 special????
Holy KB Batman!
What? Elmer used 13.5 under a heavier bullet than a 158 in heavy framed .38's. I don't know what it is, people are scared of loads that were normal for everyone to use back in the day and now all of a sudden they'll make guns into grenades. It's not that the loads back then were hotter, it's that today's manuals are full of dumbed down "lawyer loads".
Good for Elmer. I am not him and neither are you. Call me a wimp if you want, but I tend to use the current published load data. especially since this thread is for "light 642 loads". You of course, are free to load whatever you want.
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
You said to do it sooooo.......
You are a wimp!
I wouldn't have done it if you hadn't said to!
One thing though, and this isn't the thread to do it in as you noted but, we did have a 39 page thread dealing with heavy 38spl loads!
Do you want to start one of those again? I'm game. Only one problem with that though, it almost caused a forum split!
I enjoy running things from time to time at the upper ends of the historical loadings per caliber. While I know I'm not Elmer, I do enjoy covering some of the territory he has. I don't idolize him either. He was instrumental in developing some of the best handgun calibers available today.
Call me silly, literally, but I like going where those folks have gone before.
To each his own!
You are a wimp!
I wouldn't have done it if you hadn't said to!
One thing though, and this isn't the thread to do it in as you noted but, we did have a 39 page thread dealing with heavy 38spl loads!
Do you want to start one of those again? I'm game. Only one problem with that though, it almost caused a forum split!
I enjoy running things from time to time at the upper ends of the historical loadings per caliber. While I know I'm not Elmer, I do enjoy covering some of the territory he has. I don't idolize him either. He was instrumental in developing some of the best handgun calibers available today.
Call me silly, literally, but I like going where those folks have gone before.
To each his own!
You are a wimp!
I wouldn't have done it if you hadn't said to!
One thing though, and this isn't the thread to do it in as you noted but, we did have a 39 page thread dealing with heavy 38spl loads!
Do you want to start one of those again? I'm game. Only one problem with that though, it almost caused a forum split!
I enjoy running things from time to time at the upper ends of the historical loadings per caliber. While I know I'm not Elmer, I do enjoy covering some of the territory he has. I don't idolize him either. He was instrumental in developing some of the best handgun calibers available today.
Call me silly, literally, but I like going where those folks have gone before.
To each his own!
Lets see, you called me "Dude" and now a "Wimp". You want a picture of what the last guy who did that looks like??
Besides I do not think Elmer ever did get the Dang Wabbit.
My point is much like you "preach" I do not want to see folks get in trouble with "hot" loads. Maybe you or some of the other long time reloaders who may or may not know what they are doing can make these loads safely. I personally do not think one needs anything more that a factory load such as one of the Speer short barrel loads. Get hit with one of those or some super over spec load and will the bad gun really notice??
Kinda like shooting a 357 mag out of a 1-7/8" barrel. What's the point?
Last edited:
Getting back on topic I shoot 4.2 grains of 231 with a 125gr JHP and I find that load to be fairly mild in my 642. I don't like cleaning lead out of barrels that's why I use JHP's instead of lead bullets. I know my cost per round is more using JHP's but I don't have to deal with lead messing up the barrel. I'm just lazy that way. Im using the same load in a .357 case without any problems in my .357's.
