.38 Special 100 grain DEWC

[AJ]

Is anybody loading a 100 Grain DEWC for the .38 Special? A friend has a mold for that bullet and he cast some up. He loaded some with 3.0 Grains of Bullseye and tried them in his S&W 52. No joy as they would not operate the slide.

Have a program called QUICKLOAD and you can run just about anything through it and get your data for that particular loading. For a 100 grain bullet with 3.0 grains of Bullseye you get 645 FPS, for 3.5 grains of Bullseye you get 734 FPS and for 4. grains of Bullseye you get 822 FPS.

Has anyone that has used it got any thoughts/opinions on this?

[.38SuperMan]

I just started experimenting with light bullets in my revolvers. I bought some 105gr 38’s conical flat point polymer coated cast lead bullets from Acme. I did a lot of research and didn’t find much data for the powders I have. I do have some Bullseye and Unique and found loads for them but wanted to use either Nitro 100NF or Accurate 2. I found absolutely no data in Nitro 100 and a limited amount in Accurate 2.

What I wound up doing was to take the closest data fora cast bullet that was heavier and use that as a starting point. I had used a lot of #2 with Berrys 125gr plated flat nose and really liked the results so I upped my basic recipe a little and wound up with 4.4 grains of #2 with the 105’s.

I loaded up 12 and took them out yesterday to see if they’d make it to the target and they did pretty accurately and had mild recoil as expected. I didn’t chrono them but will this week. No stuck bullets in the barrel and all made it to the target.

Disclaimer: I do not recommend using this load. This was for my personal testing and is not recommended.

[AJ]

Originally Posted by .38SuperMan

I just started experimenting with light bullets in my revolvers. I bought some 105gr 38’s conical flat point polymer coated cast lead bullets from Acme. I did a lot of research and didn’t find much data for the powders I have. I do have some Bullseye and Unique and found loads for them but wanted to use either Nitro 100NF or Accurate 2. I found absolutely no data in Nitro 100 and a limited amount in Accurate 2.

What I wound up doing was to take the closest data fora cast bullet that was heavier and use that as a starting point. I had used a lot of #2 with Berrys 125gr plated flat nose and really liked the results so I upped my basic recipe a little and wound up with 4.4 grains of #2 with the 105’s.

I loaded up 12 and took them out yesterday to see if they’d make it to the target and they did pretty accurately and had mild recoil as expected. I didn’t chrono them but will this week. No stuck bullets in the barrel and all made it to the target.

Disclaimer: I do not recommend using this load. This was for my personal testing and is not recommended.

With the 3.0 of BE the accuracy was decent. Just would not operate the slide on a 52.

Thanks for the info.

A#2 4.4 grains with a 102 gr bullet in a 5 inch barrel give 783 FPS. According to the Quickload rogram this is a very safe load.

[Model19man]

My opinion, Bullseye is a unnecessarily dirty powder. There are much better choices out there. W231, Unique, AA#5, AA#2 - lots of them. OK Bullseye is available and it has been around forever - so what.

[Forrest r]

Left to right:
h&g #41 110gr button nosed wc
h&g #50 148gr button nosed wc
MiHec 148gr hbwc
lyman 148gr hbwc



At the end of the day I found no real advantage using the lighter 110gr wc. Loaded the 110gr wc with anything from mild 38spl loads to hot 357mag loads. The longer/heavier bullets were not only easier to find accurate loads with. The lighter 110gr wc had more fliers even with an accurate load. I believe this was caused by the larger case volume and less case neck tension.

I used all 4 of the bullets pictured above in a ppc revolver and several other revolvers.

[AJ]

Originally Posted by Model19man

My opinion, Bullseye is a unnecessarily dirty powder. There are much better choices out there. W231, Unique, AA#5, AA#2 - lots of them. OK Bullseye is available and it has been around forever - so what.

Yes, you are correct that Bullseye is a dirty powder. But is is still pretty popular. I have been using it since 1973. Works well for the applications that I use it for. Just means I have to clean my guns after I shoot them. Also means I get to fondle them more!!!

I see a lot of guns that come into a friends shop that need repair, but also a good cleaning. Doubt if they were using Bullseye.

I have the other powders you mentioned - so what?

[tom2]

IF the idea is going bang and making holes in paper, range time, I guess 100 gr. uses less lead and Bullseye can give you a huge number of loads per pound of powder just for the economics of it, and saving resources that are seeming to be harder to get sometimes. Those loads also stretch your brass life without stretching the brass, and the only catch is primers are still way too expensive. I bought bulk cast bullets at gunshows back in the day and still have quite alot that were cheap and tons of brass. But I recently paid 100$ to have a cushion of 1000 primers assuming that they will not ever get appreciably cheaper now or may get to be scarce again.

[AJ]

We were thinking of using less lead since we cast our own bullets. Powder and primers are not a problem as we probably have enough to last until we no longer shoot. If we have to use more powder than lead, this endeavor is a waste of time. At this point do use use less lead vs powder or more lead vs powder. Probably going to use the old standby of 2.8 grains of Bullseye with either a 148 grain HBWC for the 52's or a 148 grain DEWC for revolvers. The 100 grain DEWC's were just a thought.

[STORMINORMAN]

I have bought (and shot) a 105gr conical coated lead bullet in 38 Special and found them to be plenty accurate, but...

Even the inexpen$ive (foreign) primers I bought during the last "shortage" are the most expen$ive part of reloading these, although they are close to shooting a 22lr out of my S&Ws afa recoil is concerned. I was using my "normal" BULLSEYE 9mm load of 4.6gr (use this for 115 to 125gr) which also happens to be the approximate volume of the LEE #0.5 Scoop. This produced plenty of velocity so no possible squib exposure. I even experimented with loading the 105gr conicals very short (i.e., as deep as a 148gr WC in the brass and using the ol' 2.8gr BULLSEYE load: case volume being the same or very close). They shot just fine, but sure looked weird!

Actually, the 148gr WCs using 2.8 - 3.0gr were more fun, IMHO.

Doubtful I will ever need to buy more...

[AJ]

Originally Posted by STORMINORMAN

I have bought (and shot) a 105gr conical coated lead bullet in 38 Special and found them to be plenty accurate, but...

Even the inexpen$ive (foreign) primers I bought during the last "shortage" are the most expen$ive part of reloading these, although they are close to shooting a 22lr out of my S&Ws afa recoil is concerned. I was using my "normal" BULLSEYE 9mm load of 4.6gr (use this for 115 to 125gr) which also happens to be the approximate volume of the LEE #0.5 Scoop. This produced plenty of velocity so no possible squib exposure. I even experimented with loading the 105gr conicals very short (i.e., as deep as a 148gr WC in the brass and using the ol' 2.8gr BULLSEYE load: case volume being the same or very close). They shot just fine, but sure looked weird!

Actually, the 148gr WCs using 2.8 - 3.0gr were more fun, IMHO.

Doubtful I will ever need to buy more...

Norman,

Our problem was getting the slide to cycle on a S&W Model 52. The 2.8/3.0 bullseye was not enough. Now just for giggles I will load up some with 3.5 and 4.0 of Bullseye and see if they will operate the slide properly. This is just a game to us. Our favorite load is a HBWC over 2.8 of Bullseye.

Primers and powder are not a problem for me or the gentleman that I shoot with.

[STORMINORMAN]

AJ : Please note that my 4.6gr was loading the conicals at an AOL of probably like 1.440, or so...

4gr of BULLSEYE will definitely get even a short, lil' 100gr wadcutter movin' right along!

Cheers!

[.38SuperMan]

Originally Posted by AJ

With the 3.0 of BE the accuracy was decent. Just would not operate the slide on a 52.

Thanks for the info.

A#2 4.4 grains with a 102 gr bullet in a 5 inch barrel give 783 FPS. According to the Quickload rogram this is a very safe load.

I know it’s not a good indicator but my primers were still rounded at the edges and showed no signs of high pressure. Just observing the primers, I’d say pressure was low.

If I have time this week I’m going to load another 18 and chrome 6 and see how accurate the others are.

I like BE and have gotten some really soft 9mm loads with 124’s clocking roughly at 1,000fps and had reliable function in my Springfield 1911. They’re some of the softest loads I’ve shot.

I tried comparable loads with Nitro100NF which is similar to BE but not had any success trying to get reliable function in my1911’s. I got spring weights down to the point the slide wouldn’t strip a round from the magazine. I even ran my loads up to maximum with no success. I’ve not figured out why but will continue to work on it. I like N100NF and have quite a bit of it and would like to figure out a workable load.

In 38spl I really like Accurate 2 for 125 Berrys and like Nitro100NF with 158’s.

[Jaco1234]

Does any one have experience with Matt's bullets 125 grain wadcutter?

[teletech]

Originally Posted by Model19man

My opinion, Bullseye is a unnecessarily dirty powder. There are much better choices out there. W231, Unique, AA#5, AA#2 - lots of them. OK Bullseye is available and it has been around forever - so what.

Yes, it's dirty, but despite a lot of load development there are some calibers and bullets that simply give me the best accuracy with Bullseye. So much so that despite having a dozen other powders on the shelf, some in quantity, after trying to avoid it for a year I wound up buying more Bullseye.