.38 Special - 148gr HWC Conflicting Load Data

[TheTinMan]

I want a a formula for .38 Special using Win 231 and Hornady's 148 grain HBWC.

Hornady manual shows starting load of 2.2 grains (550 fps) to max 3.5 grains (800 fps).

Hodgdon site shows starting load of 3.5 grains (869 fps) to max 4.0 grains (956).

Barrel length explains the difference in muzzle velocity for Hornady vs. Hodgdon (4" vs. 7.7"). However, I've never come across "official" data for exactly the same powder & same bullet where one's max is the other's starting load. Usually there's a good portion of overlap even if the upper and/or lower endpoints don't agree.

Ideally, I'd like one load for practicing with a S&W Model 66-2 w/ 3" barrel, Model 642 w/ 2" barrel, and Colt Officers Model .38 w/ 6" barrel.

The Hornady manual shows 3.0 grains at 700 fps. That seems like a reasonable starting point for working up a load but I'd sure appeciate any & all suggestions.

BTW I already use Win 231 for several other pistol calibers so don't want to change the powder. It looks like the HBWC aren't always reliable beyond 25 yards but that's fine for me at this point.

 

[GyMac]

Offhand, it appears that the heavier load data would be for a (solid) bevel base wadcutter. The HBWC's should be held to lower velocities to prevent "blowing the skirt" off the bullet.

 

[GyMac]

I just checked the Hodgdon website and see your problem - the bullet is listed as a LHBWC. I would stick with lower velocity loads when using this type of bullet.

 

[TheTinMan]

Offhand, it appears that the heavier load data would be for a (solid) bevel base wadcutter. The HBWC's should be held to lower velocities to prevent "blowing the skirt" off the bullet.

Thanks. I understand your point perfectly. 900+ fps is potentially too fast for a HBWC based on my research but I haven't worked with this type of bullet before. However, the Hodgdon data specifies Hornady's lead HBWC as you can see in the attached file.

This may be an example of even "official" load data being unreliable.

Do you see any problem starting with 3.0 grains of Win 231, or should I start a bit lower? My concern with a really light load is the slow muzzle velocity with the 2" snubby.

 

[Alk8944]

The 148 gr. HBWC is intended to be for so-called mid-range loads. The velocity standard for these is 770 FPS which you should see in the range of 3.2-3.5 gr of 231. If you wish to load to higher velocity the solid base or DEWC should be selected.

Trying to load the hollow-base bullet to a higher velocity is imprudent at the least. Over many years there has been a great deal of anecdotal evidence that at best loading to higher pressure/velocity can result in skirt separation and erratic accuracy, and, at worst, damaged barrels, particularly split barrel shanks. There were warnings of this at one time in the loading manuals. It is beyond me why Hodgdon lists loads approaching 1000 FPS for this bullet!

At one time there were also full-power wadcutter loads which were a 158 gr. WC at a nominal 850 FPS. Frequently shooters would use the mid-range loads for the 25 yd. stage, and the full power load at 50 yds. Frequently the revolver would shoot very close to point of aim at both ranges by using both cartridges. This would obviate the necessity of adjusting sighte between the two distances.

There is nothing "unreliable" about the 148 HBWC beyond 25 yards. Since the bullet has less "form stability" than other bullet shapes a round nose or semi wad cutter may be a better choice for 50 yards and beyond as they often provide better accuracy.

 

[TheTinMan]

Guys - thanks so much for the fast and excellent responses!

"No Hodgdon data for you!" (soup guy voice)

 

[Steve in Vermont]

Offhand, it appears that the heavier load data would be for a (solid) bevel base wadcutter. The HBWC's should be held to lower velocities to prevent "blowing the skirt" off the bullet.

I believe GyMac is right on. I use exactly the same powder and bullet as you are describing. With W231 I run 3.0g. This is for my snubbies and 4" revolvers. For DEWC/SWC I bump it up a couple of grains. I like to keep all my loads in the "middle range" in case I stray a grain or two up or down. I don't experiment with minimum and maximum loads, what would be the point?

 

[Alk8944]

TinMan,

Just an aside. There is no way in He!! you will ever see the velocity Hodgdon shows in a revolver.

This doesn't change anything previously said. Hodgdon's published velocities tend to be exceptionally optimistic when actually tested in the real world.

 

[cochise]

I go along with what has already been stated. For 231 with a 148 grn WC, I found 3.2 grns to be just right in my .38 revolvers. 4 grns was a bit snappy and I think too hard on the J frames.

 

[TheTinMan]

TinMan,

Just an aside. There is no way in He!! you will ever see the velocity Hodgdon shows in a revolver.

This doesn't change anything previously said. Hodgdon's published velocities tend to be exceptionally optimistic when actually tested in the real world.

Hodgdon does specify a 7.7" barrel for this load I've never seen a .38 revolver with a barrel that long but there must be one somewhere.

Have you experimented with other loads and seen Hodgdon's velocities too high for equivalent barrel lengths? It would be very helpful to know whether or not I can rely on that data, partly because it's a fairly comprehensive data source.

Hodgdon's data for H-4895 under a 168 grain .308 Winchester bullet is consistent with my real world experience. I'd really appreciate it if others have noted discrepancies with Hodgdon's velocity projections.

 

[fredj338]

All data conflict as it is tested under diff condition using diff platforms & components. Giving bbl length diff, that is actually pretty darn close.