Lead roundnose v. Lead semiwadcutter for range ammo

[volgunner]

I was looking at acquiring some range ammo, and Georgia Arms has .38 special lead roundnose and lead semiwadcutter, both in 158 gr., for about the same price. I've never understood what bullet type is best for what particular purpose. As to these two, any real difference for use as range/practice ammo in my 642?

Thanks,

 

[Hunt200]

Well the SWC makes a nice round hole in paper and are a bit easier to load in the gun than WC, but I like LRN myself because that is what I cast and handload at the moment and they slip in pretty fast with a speed loader for practice..

 

[alwslate]

I like roundnose for plinking ammo in my guns because they give better
accuracy for me. I usually load hard cast RN bullets a bit below full
standard pressure for most of my casual shooting.

 

[Hovnnes]

I prefer SWC at the range because it is easier to score paper targets. If you ever have to employ them for hunting or defense, SWC is preferrable over round nose ammo (the local PD's take on it, back when S&W Model 10s were "in") If I had a choice, I'd go for SWC.

 

[sjmjax]

I concur with some of the previous posts.

SWC punches cleaner, easier to see, easier to score holes in paper targets and may be better for self-defense use.

RNL is easier to load, especially from speedloaders and seem to have a slight edge in accuracy. Maybe due to better, more stable aerodynamics.

I shoot a lot of both.

 

[btruman]

A few years ago .38 cast bullets were kinda scarce in my area. The only thing I could find was a 500 count box of 158 gr LRN so gave 'em a try. While they didn't cut the nice clean holes in paper they were very accurate.

 

[Joe in SC]

I've cast, loaded and fired a blue millon lead bullets and can honestly say that LRN bullets have never shown any accuracy edge over SWC or WC bullets. As a matter of a fact, just the opposite has been my experience. I'm gonna pay closer attention next time.

To answer the OP's question, I believe if practice results are important the SWC will give better visual results on the target.

 

[volgunner]

Thanks for the input. Sounds like a toss-up, at best.

I really appreciate your time and thoughts.

Regards,
Russell

 

[Maximumbob54]

I would say there are more positive reasons for SWC than for RN. You could even have some kind of small game load with the SWC where RN wouldn't work as well so another point for SWC.

 

[JohnnieB]

volgunner - get a couple hundred of each, try both and then order a couple thousand of what you like best.

Your 642 is most likely regulated for 158gr LRN, as is my 637 and I find the POA/POI is about the same for both out well past SD practice distances, so it boils down to whether you prefer clean holes in your targets or slightly easier reloads. (Added - Plus what the other said in favor of SWC)

If you are planning on getting into reloading, the ammo with "NEW" in the description is loaded in new Starline brass, otherwise it is in a mixture of headstamps, but will shoot just as well.

I bought 1k of each a couple years ago, but reload them mostly with LSWC because I like nice round holes.

 

[chief38]

I switched back to 158 grain RNL bullets years ago. I find that they are more accurate and tend to leave less leading behind then the SWC's do. My belief is that because they do not have the sharp shoulder they will make their way into the forcing cone with less leading, making a better and tighter fit in the barrel. They do not make as clean a hole, but for punching holes in paper and cans, I do not really need clean holes. An added plus is that they fall into the chambers easier than the SWC's do, plus they have that nostalgic look I tend to like when shooting them out of an old revolver.

Chief38

 

[bloo]

If SWC was good enough for the likes of Elmer Keith and Skeeter Skelton who am I to argue. I have cast and shot nothing but lswc over the last 40 plus years.

Ted

 

[AZ Desertrat]

another vote for SWC.....they always work and are very accurate.