light load for s&w 642
- Thread starter rp85
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
Have some ideas!
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.
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.
pete-driver
Member
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.
Dale53
Member
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
I cast my own bullets and reload so I ALWAYS have a ready supply.
They are also VERY useful for edible small game.
Dale53
light load for s&w 642 - update
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
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.
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.
Andy Griffith
Member
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!
Buy a box of .38 Short Colt and you'll think you are shooting a .22!
HAWKEYE10
Member
Guess I am a wimp but I don't like to shoota 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
duckloads
Member
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.
+1.
I started at 3.0 gr, but the 3.5's seemed to have an edge in accuracy.
LoboGunLeather
US Veteran
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.
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.
djml66
Member
soft loads
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 crap 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.
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 crap 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.
AZ Desertrat
Member
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.
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.
djml66
Member
AZ DesertRat, have you chronied this load?
dave
dave
ArchAngelCD
Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
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.
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.
AZ Desertrat
Member
I believe my load was 760 FPS.....that was after shooting about ten rounds and averaging.
Finally explained
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!
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!
SW CQB 45
Member
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/details.php?prodId=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
djml66
Member
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
Retired in 2001
Member
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
