38spl load recipes for 180gr Lead

[Joel C]

I came across a mould for 38/357 that casts a FN 180gr pill. Do any of you folks have loading info for such pill? I currently have Unique and Bullseye, but willing to acquire others if need be. Thanks for your time and hope you're enjoying your weekend. Later.

 

[Joel C]

I came across a mould for 38/357 that casts a FN 180gr pill. Do any of you folks have loading info for such pill? I currently have Unique and Bullseye, but willing to acquire others if need be. Thanks for your time and hope you're enjoying your weekend. Later.

 

[Dale53]

Hodgdon powder company has loads for a 170 gr Jacketed bullet on their web site. Normally, depending on remaining powder space between designs, jacketed bullets create higher pressures than cast bullets. So, "Logic", keeping in mind that "logic doesn't always apply) would say you could use 170 gr jacketed data for 180 gr cast.

A quick call to Hodgdon will give you a REAL answer.

Dale53

 

[Skip Sackett]

Brother Joel,
Dale has given good advice. I have used similar methods before and had things come out OK. That being said, remember to start low and work up your loads. Also, try to compare bullet types to see how much of each is going to end up in the case. That is a determining factor or using this kind of data substitution.

 

[Erich]

Bro. Joel, I've played with the 180-gr FPs in .357s (and have decided that I really like it in front of Lil' Gun in my 92 short rifle and have found it okay in front of Blue Dot in my handguns), but never yet in the .38 Spl. FWIW, I have played a bit with some 195-grain RNs in .38 and was not able to get decent velocities within recommended charge levels with Unique, BE or Blue Dot. 2400 (and load levels from an old manual) got me going (840 fps from a snub . . .).

Please feel free to email me if you want specifics on the 2400 load, but I fear that my thoughts are that Bullseye and Unique are not going to be of much use in .38 Special with the 180-grainers.

 

[Joel C]

Thanks for the insight guys. I loaded a dozen using 3.5gr of Unique. They felt very soft and extremely easy to shoot. The primers were round and appeared normal, so no excessive pressure to speak of. They also impacted about 2.5" higher than the 158gr. LSCW-HP. I didn't chrono them, but might next time around. Again, thanks for the insight guys. Bro. Erich, I'll email you later with some of my recent stories from work. Boy! I never thought being a LEO would be so much fun. Later Bro.

 

[Stillwater788]

I've had very good success with either 3.1 grains of Clays or 3.4 grains of Tightgroup under a 180 grain TCFP lead bullet from Mastercast. Both of these loads gave me about 730 fps out of a couple of 4 inch K-frames. I was looking for an IDPA SSR load and they would have worked like a champ except flat points don't speedload too well. The Clays load is a little softer and less smokey, but both are very accurate.

 

[Erich]

Can't wait for the work stories, hermano!

Oooo - that reminds me that I'd intended to send a police report to a friend, but - what did I do with it?

 

[Hoptob]

That's one l-o-o-ong load, Joel.

I have some old .38 spl 200 gr. Western Lubaloy Super Police loads. Don't know the ballistics yet or what powder they used at the time. But I can tell that the bullet is seated much deeper; exposed part is about as long as 158 grainer in your picture.

I'll chronograph this load when the weather gets warmer (and dryer) around here. Will be interesting to see what kind of ballistics was considered "Super Police" in the 50's.

Mike

 

[Skip Sackett]

Mike, I have a catalog with that information in it. I will try to get it here in the morning. Not sure of the powder either but the ballistics are in the book.

 

[Hoptob]

Nice!

Thank you, Skip.

Mike

 

[Paul5388]

In the 1972 Handloader's Digest, they were listed at 730 fps for the 200 gr bullet.

 

[Hoptob]

Thank you, Paul. This slow, heavy load reminded me of a colorfull quote from "Shooting to Live" classics:

"Shooting to Live" by Fairbairn & Sykes, p.72, 1942:
We were brought up in the belief that a heavy bullet of soft lead, traveling in the leisure manner of bygone days, could not be improved upon if it was desired to dispose of one's human foes in a decisive and clean-cut manner.

Mike

 

[Paul5388]

Good quote Mike!

However, they didn't wear body armor back then.

We had a shooting incident at the Smith County Courthouse a couple of years ago where the CCW that engaged the shooter had a .45 ACP. The shooter had body armor and an AK47 or SKS. The CCW died valiantly, but never did get through the armor.

 

[Hoptob]

That's a sad story, Paul.

As you know, Fairbairn & Sykes practical experiences departed from their early beliefs. Here is more complete quote:

"Shooting to Live" by Fairbairn & Sykes, p.72-73, 1942:
We were brought up in the belief that a heavy bullet of soft lead, traveling in the leisure manner of bygone days, could not be improved upon if it was desired to dispose of one's human foes in a decisive and clean-cut manner.
[...]
We are not so sure now of these beliefs...

For those who are interested in the subject but have not had a chance to read this book yet, I posted "Stopping Power" chapter - link. Surprisingly, conclusion at the end of the chapter is relevant to the Courthouse story you posted.

Mike

 

[Skip Sackett]

Mike,
Sorry this isn't a scanned image.

The book in question was published in 1952. It is the 17th edition. It has a lot of neat information in it.

Here is the cover:

The data page for their handgun looks like this:

I hope this is enough. Email me if it isn't and I'll get it scanned.

About the middle of the page is the data that you are looking for. 745fps, 247ft/lbs from a 6" barrel. They used their 1/2" pine board test. It went through 7.5 of them!

(K1345T)
Again, sorry for the quality.

 

[Hoptob]

Thank you, Skip. Quality is just fine, I can read the data easily.

Frankly, I expected higher energy levels especially from a 6-incher... It would seem that average service round today (I am thinking .40 in a compact or full size automatic) has twice the energy of a service round from 1950's. Any thoughts on that?

Mike

 

[Skip Sackett]

Well, yes, I have at least one thought on that subject.

We have had discussions about the conspiracy about replacing perfectly good revolvers with those horrible bottom feeding autos for law enforcement. Some have even stated that the evidence was fabricated to make the switch seem more sensible.

If I were a cop and my life depended on my firearm and ammunition combination, I sure wouldn't want this stuff that is called "Super Police" and a 6 shot revolver, if I could have a nice 40S&W with 15 rounds that has twice the energy!

Would you?

 

[Hoptob]

Yes, I would.

I just wish I could carry my G23 as easily as I can carry my Ruger SpeedSix.

Mike

P.S. I re-read my own post and realized that I said exact opposite to what I was trying to say. I meant to say "Yes, I would want .40 in an automatic". Is that what you call a senior moment, Skip?

 

[Paul5388]

I don't find that 2X energy available in a .40 S&W. A .40 S&W 180 gr bullet at 1000 fps (looks average in Lyman 49th Edition) is only 400 ft lbs of ME. A 158 gr .38 Special at 1000 fps (commonly known as the FBI load) has 351 ft lbs of ME. That looks a lot closer to a 10% increase than 2X.

The bottom feeders are sensitive to ammunition, whereas a revolver doesn't really care if the ammunition is underpowered or not, as long as it makes it out of the barrel.

I wouldn't want a .40 S&W even if it had 40 rounds in the magazine, but would prefer something in the same pressure range that produces a respectable amount of energy, i.e. a 158 gr .357 at 1300 fps with 593 ft lbs of ME.

Come to think of it, I don't even own a .40 S&W.