125 JHP's for a 38 plinking load...

I have yet to stick a bullet in my J, k or l frame revolvers, since I have the
use of a chrony.

Some loading data is plain scary at how low the fps is with some powders in a
snub nose 38 special, is, with a starting load.

If you do use a starting load make sure you see a bullet hole in the target or dust fly
before pulling the trigger, again !!

However I did keep this one picture for my files as a reminder.

 
If you're looking for a good .38 Special plinking load with that 125gr JHP bullet I suggest 4.5gr W231/HP-38. I think ou will enjoy shooting that load.
y,
If you're looking for a lighter .357 Magnum load H110/W296 is not a good choice of powder. That powder does not download well. I would use 2400, AA#9, HS-6, W572, Longshot or similar powder. With 2400 you might try 15.5gr under that 125gr JHP bullet.

I have been wanting to try W572 but haven't had the chance yet.

Looking forward to your test with that W572 powder in a 38/357 load.
A 9mm test showed a 124 Gold Dot at 1336fps with a 5" barrel.
 
I happened to have my LYMAN book in front of me. All of my reload buddy's have 231 = hp38 =bullseye-and unique. I was using a S&W 681 with the inked in load.
 

Attachments

  • DSC01929.jpg
    DSC01929.jpg
    71.8 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:
While I practice using 158gr lead and plated bullets, I have always used Remington SJHP 125gr bullets in my competition loads at about 1000 fps. Great accuracy. The point of impact differences between the two bullet weights was negligible at the distance I practiced at in the indoor range.

Slight thread drift for a funny story. In the '90s I had started to load using Winchester 452 with the 125 SJHP, and it made for an excellent load. However, it turns out that 452 has an inverted temperature reaction, meaning that the warmer the temperature is, the burn rate of the powder changed and the loads slowed down. So I go to The Bianchi Cup match in May and it's super hot outside. I end up getting DQ'ed because my loads wouldn't make the minimum power factor because they had slowed down about 100fps in the heat.
 
I shoot that bullet all the time out of my 6" Python.
.38 brass and 5.5 of HP38 averaged 958fps .
 
A inexpensive bullet......

...is a good bullet. I'd buy them and shoot the dog mess out of them. No big deal that it's a little light for the caliber. Especially for plinking.

And most of the problems with cones cracking was with the model 19s that had a cutout that weakened the cone.
 
I never heard that forcing cone fact, nor experience anything near. But, in hot loaded 357 125 gr JHP loads I have seen top strap erosion. I have a bucket load of different manufacturers' 124/125 JHPs and load a lot in my 38 Special/357 Magnum snubbies, mostly Universal, W231, CFE P, and BR-5. Forcing cons appear OK.

That "forcing cone" story goes back to the 1970s. Just like people still say if you load your AR magazine to full capacity you will get jams. That story goes back 50+ years ago to Viet Nam but it is still quoted.
 
I would guess they would work ok, I don't recommend loading hot loads, they have a reputation for cracking forcing cones.
SWCA 892
PS, For those who haven't seen cracked forcing cones on a 38 special revolver, I personally have seen 2, first one was a 5 screw M 15 I bought at a gunshow, first 4 rounds and it locked up (forcing cone cracked in 2 places) 2nd one was a local gunsmith asked if I knew where he could get a barrel for a M 15, he was repairing one and couldn't find a barrel ( forcing cone cracked at bottom)
SWCA 892

Cracked forcing cones are not caused by 125 gr bullets. That's a persistent myth, but a myth none the less.

The working theory that accompanies that myth is that the shorter 125 gr bullets allow gas to reach the forcing cone before they do, where the gas heats up the forcing cone and makes it prone to damage by the bullet. No one who puts that forward ever took a thermodynamics class.



In the real world, forcing cone cracks are caused by forcing cone erosion, which creates V shaped cuts that are stress risers that lead to cracks.

Comparatively slow burning colloidal ball powders cause significantly more forcing cone erosion than medium burn rate flake powders. These powders include H110 and Win 296, and as a flattened spherical powder 2400 isn't much better.

These powders cause erosion because of their large charge weights 2 to almost 3 times more weight than a medium speed powder) and because there is a large amount of course, unburned and partially burned powder flowing through the forcing cone.

The only place where bullet weight comes into the equation is that lighter bullets use heavier charges of powder, which increases the mass of powder going through the forcing cone, which increases erosion.

Unfortunately for the 125 gr bullet in the .357 Mag, three things happened at more or less the same time:

- ammunition companies started using colloidal ball powders (cheap and fast to make and could be made from WWII surplus cannon powder);

- the 125 gr JHP became popular in law enforcement; and

- law enforcement agencies got sued for "under training officers and switched to practicing with .357 Mag ammo, something that K frame .357s like the Model 19 and Model 13 were not designed for. They were instead designed to use .38 Special for practice and .357 Magnum only for duty use. Even then forcing cone cracks were rare.


What people often miss, or fail to ask is "why aren't forcing cone cracks associated with the even shorter 110 gr bullets?" After all if it's hot gasses getting past a short bullet, even more gas would get past a shorter bullet.

The reason cracks are not associated with 110 gr bullets is that slower burning colloidal ball and flattened spherical ball powders are not efficient with the lighter bullets and are rarely used with them, which again points to the powder as the cause, not the bullet weight.


As for the .38 Special, forcing cone cracks occur for the same reason - the use of heavy charges of colloidal ball and spherical ball powders, but the bullet weight is different.

Even though they are too slow for efficient use in a .38 Special and results in excessive muzzle flash and inconsistent velocities I none the less have seen published loads for H110/Win 296 in RCBS, Lyman and Sierra loading manuals, although usually with heavier bullets in the 158-180 gr range.

The charge weights involved are in the 10.6 to 12.1 gr range for a colloidal ball powder for 158 grs in one of the Sierra manuals. That compares to medium speed powder charge weights of 4.5 to 6.5 grains for similar .38+ P loads. That's 2-3 times the powder mass going through the forcing cone with those colloidal ball powders.

Then there were some loads like Skeeter Skelton's load for the 358156 cast bullet using 13.5 grs of 2400. He'd crimp into the lower crimp groove to get .357 magnum case capacity in a .38 special case. But he recommended it only be fired in N frame .357s and did not recommend it for K frame .357 revolvers as a steady diet and cautioned against using it in a .38 special at all.

Then of course we have .38-44 loads at near .357 Mag pressure and velocity that were also intended only for N frame revolvers.


——

In summary, I won't question your claim of frame cracks in .38 Special revolvers as I never underestimate the potential for stupid people to do stupid things.

But I will point out that it's the powder that causes the erosion that leads to the cracks, not the bullet. Specifically in the .38 Special, those colloidal ball and flattened spherical ball powders that use large charges and cause the most erosion are used with heavy 158-180 gr bullets in the .38 Special, not 125 gr bullets.
 
DO NOT load below any starting load you find for a 125 JHP bullet. Jacketed bullets have a much higher coefficient of friction than lead bullets, and trying to load jacketed bullets at target-load levels can result in a bullet stuck in the bore.

Let's do some more myth busting today.

The "jacketed bullets have a much higher coefficient of friction than lead bullets" comment isn't actually true, or at least it's a bit more complicated than just jacketed versus cast.

Jacketed bullets in general use a softer lead core to get better expansion, and because the jacket protects the base and the bearing surface of the bullet from gas cutting. Consequently they can use a softer lead core.

Way too many cast bullet shooters think you need a harder bullet for faster velocities and that's not the case, or at least not the full story.

A cast bullet needs to be able to obturate to seal the bore and needs to do it quickly to avoid gasses flowing past it in the throat and causing gas cutting, with that cut lead being deposited further down the bore.

The "harder bullets are needed for faster velocities" folks end up using a bullet that is too hard to obturate quickly with the available chamber pressure and then get leading. So of course the use an even harder alloy and make the problem worse. They end up using a gas check to manage the gas cutting, but still use an alloy that is too hard to perform well at the target. If you are just shooting paper or plates it's no big deal. However, a bullet that doesn't expand in a game animal, or worse shatters and under penetrates isn't a good thing.

A lead alloy is too soft only when the pressure behind it causes it to skid in the rifling and that can be complicated by a long throat or forcing cone where the bullet picks up more speed before it engages the rifling.

The fit of the bullet to the throat is also critical. If a bullet is around .001" under size for the throat, it will bump up to full diameter pretty easily and you can actually use a harder alloy without getting gas cutting. However if the bullet is under sized by .003 or so, you need a much softer alloy to get the necessary obturation. But it still must be hard enough to not skid when it enters the rifling and leave lead in the beginning of the rifling.



Some cartridges are less cast bullet friendly than others. For example, if you've got a large throat that is significantly above bore diameter, like the .375 Win, where the chamber and throat are oversized (to ensure a .380" .38-55 bullet can be cleanly released) but with a .375" bore, you have a potential pressure issue.

The shooter might choose a a bullet cast very hard for the 52,000 psi pressure of the cartridge and the fast 1-12" rifling (compared to 1-15" or 1-18" for the .38-55 parent cartridge) and sized around .379" for the large throat. That large and hard combination will cause excessive pressure when that hard bullet has to be sized from .379" to .375" in the throat to fit the bore, even though the .375 Win has a long tapered throat for that purpose.

A .375" jacketed bullet works fine in the large throat as it isn't affected by gas cutting. Similarly a modern .3775" diameter .38-55 jacketed bullet does fine in the .375 Win chamber as it's again not impacted by gas cutting and the bullet has a soft core that is easily sized to .375" in the tapered throat.

But, the .375 Win's combination of large throat, small bore, high pressure, fast rifling twist, and 2200 fps velocities with a 200 gr bullet and 2000 fps with a 250 gr bullet make it a serious challenge for safe and accurate cast bullet shooting. I left out "fast" here because something has to give and it has to be pressure and velocity if you want accuracy and minimal leading with a cast bullet. That's why I ended up going with a .38-55 in the end. It's much better suited to cast bullets in terms of pressure rifling twist and throat versus bore diameter.

Another example of a difficult nonjacketed lead bullet load is the FBI's old 158 gr LSWCHP .38 +P load. The bullet had to be soft enough to expand at what were still comparatively slow velocities, but hard enough to not cause leading issues that might affect accuracy over a 50 round course of fire. There's a very narrow sweet spot, and while Winchester and Remington found it fairly quickly, Federal struggled with it.

——

You may have noticed that at no point have I talked about coefficient of friction. If ballisticians talk about it at all, the teen to use terms like "stickiness" and that refers to the friction of the bullet under pressure due to the combination of jacket alloy, core hardness and bearing surface. It's not all that relevant to a jacketed bullet versus cost bullet comparison where cast bullet peak pressure issues occur when a "hard cast" bullet has to size to bore diameter.

——

A large part of the problem is that the definition of "hard cast" has changed over the years with many cast bullet shooters just referring to all cast bullets as "hard cast", with a few of those maybe thinking that cast bullets with BHNs of 10 or less being reserved for black powder firearms and the rest "hard cast" for smokeless powder use.

The sad fact is most of the cast bullet shooters have been influenced by commercial cast bullets that are often marketed along the lines of "hard is good, and harder is even better". Unfortunately that's not the case for all the reasons outlined above.

Swaged lead bullets are generally "soft" in the 8-10 BHN range as are bullets cast from alloys like 1:40 and 1:20 lead to tin ratio alloys.

Old school clip on wheel weights that were slow cooled were about 12 BHN and Lyman No. 2 alloy has a BHN of 15. Those alloys used to be considered "hard cast".

I use 1:40 (BHN 8) alloy in my .45-70 and .38-55 rifles up to about 1500 fps and use 1:20 (BHN 10) alloy up to about 1800 fps. These are plain based bullets with a poly fiber wad at the higher velocities.

The hardest alloy I normally use is Lyman No. 2 and that's normally on .357 magnum pistol and rifle loads.


Unfortunately, the "harder is better" crowd will be using those Lyman No. 2 and slow cooled WW alloys in "soft cast" applications and water quenched WW (BHN 18), Linotype (19 BHN) or oven treated WW (30-32 BHN) for hard cast bullet applications.

All they are usually getting with the overly hard alloys is excessive pressure and increase leading.
 
Have an opportunity to get a pile of 125 JHP's for a good price. Lighter than what I normally use, but thinking they might make a good plinking load. Thoughts, load recommendations?

Most .38 Special revolvers are regulated to shoot to point of aim with a standard pressure 158 gr bullet.

A lighter 125 gr bullet will have a bit more velocity at comparable pressures, which will cause it to exit the bore a little sooner compared to a 158 gr bullet and impact the target a couple inches lower at 10 yards or so.

At longer ranges it starts to be a big deal and adjustable sights will be important if your plinking will be longer range plate shooting.

There's nothing "wrong" with using 125 gr JHPs for plinking with a .38 Special, but it's a bit of a waste, when a cast or plated 158 gr bullet could be found for minimal cost.

I'd save them for use in a .357, or trade the, for a more appropriate bullet for your intended use.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top