2 Wad Cutter styles 1 load receipe

[geeollie]

If I find a Hollow Base WC load that I want to try, can I substitute a Bevel Base WC or a Double End WC in its place.

Is a 10% or so reduction in powder charge a good place to begin?
Any tips you want to suggest are welcome.
I buy all by bullets at this time and am limited by what is for sale.

 

[WR Moore]

In my limited experience with this type of bullet decades ago, the typical powder charges don't require any adjustment. If you've got a chronograph, the HBWC will need a teensy bit more powder than the solid to reach the same velocity. However, if you're not driving them at target velocities (~700 f/s +/-) you might experiment a bit. Once you settle on a HBWC load, the solid will just go wee bit faster.

DO be aware that driving HBWCs at high velocities and pressures might cause separation of the bullet, leaving the skirt in the barrel. I've never actually seen this & don't recall what powder charges I was using, but it is/was generally mentioned in loading manuals. Stick with data from your load manuals.

 

[gwpercle]

Generally speaking a HBWC load can be used with a BBWC or DEWC bullet if the weights of the bullets are the same ... 148 gr. HBWC and 148 gr, BBWC / DEWC .

Load Safe,
Gary

 

[geeollie]

Thank you. I might be an over thinker as least as far as reloading goes.

Appreciate the help.

 

[Alk8944]

Assuming that you seat both bullets seated the same, that is with the bullet nose flush to the case mouth, they will take the same charge. The reason is that since the two styles are the same weight then they both displace the same volume in the cartridge case. The length of the bullet doesn't change anything, they both have the same effective seating depth!


This doesn't mean performance of both bullets will be the same, just pressure with the same load. You may still have to adjust the charge slightly to get the best accuracy.

 

[geeollie]

I had wondered about the length of the hollow base. Thank you.

 

[USBP SW]

You might experience more issues with any wadcutter bullet, depending on the brass that you load. Some of the internal dimensions of the brass vary considerably, military brass and some others seems to be designed for a bullet that is not seated as deep as a wadcutter and can bulge the brass.

 

[Autonomous]

It seems to me a reversed HBWC set to the same COAL as a non-reversed bullet will have as much less volume in the loaded cartridge as the volume of the new hollow point-old hollow base.

 

[geeollie]

I have found several HBWC loads but only have a good source for BBWC.
That is for one of the cartridges I want to learn to reload.

For 38 special, I have hundreds of HBWC and HBWC load recipes. I've read about reversing them.

And since I'm typing: I once read a book once that claimed a couple of Outdoor Life or Field and Stream (that style of magazine) writers were harrased by a rogue elephant and only had a .270 with silver tops. So they pulled the bullets and reloaded them base 1st for a wad cutter affect. I believe it was a Capstick story in one of his books.

 

[reddog81]

It seems to me a reversed HBWC set to the same COAL as a non-reversed bullet will have as much less volume in the loaded cartridge as the volume of the new hollow point-old hollow base.

A reversed hollow base seated flush will have less case capacity. You always hear about the old school loads with reversed bullets but I wonder how or if they adjusted the powder charge to accommodate reduced case capacity or if WC loads are so light to begin with that is not a big enough deal to matter.

 

[Autonomous]

Yes, quite a few anecdotes written but I've never seen a reversed HBWC bullet load with revised pressure published.

 

[WR Moore]

Waaay back when, I did some of the reversed HBWC loads, I think with Speer bullets. I didn't worry about pressures, no real memory about estimated velocities. I didn't notice a significant difference in accuracy. UNTIL I noticed a change in the cavity/skirt design. The revised version didn't shoot well backwards. I moved on from there.

I had a friend working in the ballistics lab at APG at the time. They did some work with them (our tax dollars at work) and were duly impressed with the expansion at moderate velocities. There's better choices now.

 

[Model19man]

I find that if the weight is the same, the same starting load of powder applies.

 

[SGT ROCK 11B]

If I find a Hollow Base WC load that I want to try, can I substitute a Bevel Base WC or a Double End WC in its place.

No.

In 38 Special the classic 148 HBWC load is 2.8 grains of Bullseye. With a 148 BBWC you need a starting load of 3.9 grains of Bullseye to 4.5 grains.

If you load the 148 BBWC with 2.8 you bullet will shoot poor groups if any at 50 Yards (150 feet)

Source: RCBS Reloading Manual #12 (1994).

 

[38SPL HV]

My target shooting days are long behind me, but when I was shooting in our club competitions I used the time honored 2.7 grs Bullseye under a Speer or Remington 148 gr HBWC. Remington 38 Spl cases and 1 1/2 primers. I used 3.5 grs Bullseye under 148 gr DEWC for outdoors work…NEVER use the HBWC in this load…the skirt may very well blow.

Today, I rely on 3.3 grs W231 under a cast 148 DEWC for plinking and informal target work. I’ve been experimenting with 4.0 grs W231 for a field use level load using same bullet

 

[glenwolde]

It depends somewhat on where you're getting your data. In general I'll say you can use the HBWC data with the other two, but not the other way around.

For example, in Lyman #3 they show loads for the 148gr 35891 cast button nose wadcutter with Bullseye starting at 2.8 gr (a famous load for the HBWC) but ranging all the way up to 4.4gr at 900+ FPS. That would be a risk with the HBWC, as it might separate the skirt and leave it in your barrel. That would cause what is often called a "catastrophic failure".

So stick with the HBWC data, If that works for you with the cast wadcutters then you're good. It never did for me. I could not get the accuracy I wanted with light loads and cast wadcutters. Many others will disagree.

 

[geeollie]

Thank you the further information.

By the by, Bullseye is no longer being made. It seems that every book, reloading website and discussion board all tout loads made with Bullseye.
Seems it was VERY good over a wide range. I am about a year too late.

Hopefully the logjam that keeps Bullseye, Unique and Universal off the shelves will break up some day before long.

 

[Model19man]

Thank you the further information.

By the by, Bullseye is no longer being made. It seems that every book, reloading website and discussion board all tout loads made with Bullseye.

I keep asking but no one has ever pointed me to any evidence that is true.

 

[glenwolde]

I keep asking but no one has ever pointed me to any evidence that is true.

Alliant Powders Suspended Shipments Of Smokeless Powders For Reloading

 

[Autonomous]

No.

In 38 Special the classic 148 HBWC load is 2.8 grains of Bullseye. With a 148 BBWC you need a starting load of 3.9 grains of Bullseye to 4.5 grains.

If you load the 148 BBWC with 2.8 you bullet will shoot poor groups if any at 50 Yards (150 feet)

Source: RCBS Reloading Manual #12 (1994).

Interesting. This leads me to wonder if 2.8 gr of BE or equivalent will not provide obturation with a solid base bullet.