hello;

got the wife a 642. no way she can handle normal 38spl. loads to practice. can someone suggest a reduce load using a 100gr cast bullet, with ww231 or bullseye powder. thanks for any input.

rp

My email address is in my public profile. Send me one and I will give you my thoughts on this. The loads I will suggest are under starting loads and I want to give you some cautions with the data. Not just for everyone.

RP85, You are not alone I bought my wife a 638 almost like your 642. The .38's are too much for her to practice with. She liked my Walther PP in .32 auto but can't work the slide. I will be watching for replies.

My favorite load for practice with the 642 (any .38, really but especially the small "J" frames) is the .38 Wadcutter target load. It is distinctive in shape (you'll never mistake it for another load) and shoots EXTREMELY well and is the lightest load imaginable regarding recoil.

I cast my own bullets and reload so I ALWAYS have a ready supply.

They are also VERY useful for edible small game.

Dale53

hello;

loaded several different loads. started with 125 cast lead bullet and 3.3gr. of bullseye. she could not handle this load. if fairness to the pistol and load, she has a medical condition with her hands.

after 7 shots she had to stop. had 5 other loads, with increased powder and bullet weight. never even tried them.

rp

Light .38 loads?

Look for something using Trail Boss.

I shoot 158gr LSWC or LRN over 3.5gr of TrailBoss and it's a creampuff load.

Hodgdon's site actually says 2.7gr is the starting load, and gives about 660fps from their test barrel.

I haven't chrono'd my loads, but they're accurate enough and quite pleasant to shoot boxes of.

think about a model 30 0r 31.
32 S&W long

The "factory load" duplicate of a .38 Short Colt usually works wonderfully.

Buy a box of .38 Short Colt and you'll think you are shooting a .22!

__________________
Lost it all in a boat accident

Guess I am a wimp but I don't like to shoot
a snubbie with factory loads. It's just not fun!
I load down for my model 19, but I don't like
to shoot them in my 36 either. I am going to
load some at minimum. Don

__________________
"Don't worry be happy"

I shoot 158gr LSWC or LRN over 3.5gr of TrailBoss and it's a creampuff load.

+1.
I started at 3.0 gr, but the 3.5's seemed to have an edge in accuracy.

I think you are the right track considering the lighter bullet. Recoil is generally in direct proportion to bullet weight.

For the 100 grain cast lead bullet I would try Bullseye powder at a starting load of 3.3 grains, which should be around 700 FPS or so in the 2-inch revolver. Bullseye usually ignites easily in low-density loadings.

Note that with the light bullet bullet impact will probably be low, compared with point of aim. Unless this is understood she may be discouraged by her practice scores.

__________________
Life of the party until 8:00PM

This is very contraversial. But as a retired EE, I of course had to explore the subject analytically and theoretically.

I keep reading that to soften the recoil, use a lighter bullet. This didn't make sense to me, and was inconsistent with my own experience. What really drove it home to me was when I bought a bunch (too many) of cheap A-Merc/IMI 105gr frangible, no lead, ammo in 40 S&W. After about 200 rounds of this stuff, through a Glock 22, I found that the first digit of my trigger finger had no feeling in it. It took about 5 weeks for the feeling to come back. That's when I started to look into the issue in earnest. I found that firing 180gr at 1000 fps was very comfortable to me through the same gun, but that the 105 stuff at 1600+ fps was what was hurting. Now I am 67 yrs old with arthritis and cant grip the gun as well as most of you guys. I'm sure that has something to do with my experience, as well.

Anyway, I went to work with what math and mechanics I could remember, and arrived at the following: The peak force applied to the gun, in reaction, is much higher for the lighter bullet going at the higher velocity than a heavier bullet going at the much lower velocity. This is in spite of the 180 having a higher power factor--equivalent to momentum. The result of this was a vicious hammering of my trigger finger by the lower part of the trigger guard as the barrel hopped.

I have quit firing the 105s in light guns, using nothing lighter than a 165 at 1060, which is very comfortable in the Glock 22. The 155 @ 1150 is not bad either.

Note that this analysis/observation is really only valid for a relatively light gun, like the OP has mentioned. I can fire the 105gr **** all day thru a 4006 without discomfort. Same for 357mag--I can fire full house (125 @ 1450)thru an N frame or Ruger GP100 4'', no problem, but a K frame is becoming unpleasant. The heavier 147 at mag velocities is more comfortable through the K frame. Unfortunately I have a generous stock of 125grain HP,LOL. So I mostly use the K frames for 38's.

With the aforementioned in mind, I humbly suggest for you to consider the previous poster's recommendation to try 158's, or the heaviest bullet you can get, loaded to similar power factors to the load you plan for her to use in SD situation. For the same power factor, the larger bullet takes much longer to get out of the barrel, and thus has a smaller force applied over this longer time to reach the same momentum (power factor). This translates to a more comfortable shoot, especially a weak (meaning not strong, not left) hand. Power factor is just mV, or momentum, expressed in strange units of milligrains-feet per second, to get the three digit PF. Some folks, I've noticed, don't divide by 1000, so you see something like 165,000 for power factor. I believe it is most commonly expressed as,e.g., 165, for a 165 grain bullet travelling at 1000 ft/sec.

I have the same problem with my 642. I cant practice it with a 110 or 125 full-up load. 147's are some better, but I bet the 158 would be the better way to go. I may even load it that way for SD, if I can find some good bullets.

dave

PS. I mentioned that this is a contraversial subject.

__________________
djml66

Here is one of my favs.....I am loading some more this weekend.

148gr. Wadcutter
3.0gr of Unique
CCI SP primer

very easy on the hand with the snubbies....my Taurus and all my Smiths shoot this load very well.

AZ DesertRat, have you chronied this load?

dave

__________________
djml66

I would suggest either a 148gr DEWC over 3.2gr W231 or a 125gr LRN over 3.5gr W231. Both are light loads which are accurate.

I would prefer a 158gr LSWC bullet but the heavier bullet will add to the felt recoil so you are better off with the first 2 loads I posted.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

I believe my load was 760 FPS.....that was after shooting about ten rounds and averaging.

djml66 - Thank you! I've been wondering this for months, and even posted this very question on another forum (forget which) asking why people start talking about heavier bullets when defining a "light load". So, you have to consider peak force, not just total force. I get it. Thanks!

cant find any 100 grain info but there is some 90 grain stuff on this page, but no 231 powder;

http://www.reloadammo.com/38loads.htm

this company sells 100 grain bullets and says for cowboy action velocities
http://www.missouribullet.com/detail...=89&category=9

my Lyman #46 manual

shows a 92 gr #358242 1.456" OAL (Linotype)
231 sugg start 3.5 grains/ FPS 667/ Pressure CUP 8,500
231 max 4.9 grains/ FPS 1001/ Pressure CUP 16,800

firearm used for test
universal receiver with vented 4" barrel

good luck

__________________
if you're gonna be a bear...

Tommy610,

Yeah, I was confused the other way when people start talking about lighter bullets for softer loads. That can be true but only if the Power Factor goes down at the same rate as the weight of the bullet. E.g., I made up a batch of 135 Berries at 1000 fps for the 40s&w, and they are truly creampuffs. However, they won't cycle correctly in many of my 40's, especially the short barrel ones like my Sig 229 (100% fail to cycle), but just fine in the Glock 22.

If the Power Factor doesn't go down at the same rate as the weight of bullet, it may or may not have the desired effect--may even be worse. What really interests me is the possibility of fabricating a snubbie load that has a high enough PF to be sufficiently effective as a SD round, yet has a soft enough peak force to be able to practice with my SD load in the 642. I'm thinking maybe a 158gr SWC or JSWC, perhaps HP, at around 700 fps. The lead would have to be pretty soft, I guess, to open at that velocity, but it may be more effective than a 110JHP that opens but doesn't penetrate -- and hurts like hurt in that little gun.

dave

__________________
djml66

Starting reloading again since the early 70s.I liked your topic so, will be using 158grain jhp and also using the W231.So my question is how many grains.


My first loads were for my Model 19-4 158 jhp and 4.0 grains of the W231.
Many thanks

I'd stick with a bullet 130 grains or lighter and about 2.5 gr of Bullseye to start with.

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.

__________________
djml66

Instead of lowering the recoil i changed the grips. Made all the difference. http://www.hoguestore.com/index.php?...oducts_id=1756

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.

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

__________________
djml66

Wadcutter is my answer.
If you reload [146 grain]
2.7 grains of Bullseye
3.0 grains of Winchester 231
A factory loading or either of these loads are very mild and controlable.

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.

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.

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.

8 to 11 grs of 2400 for a 158gr bullet in a 38 special????
Holy KB Batman!

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

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??

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

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

__________________
djml66

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.

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

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?

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

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.