Model 52, loading RN or SWC bullets

[sjmjax]

It works!

Range test using Starline 38 S&W brass, a generic 158g LRN and 2.7g Bullseye and my well worn 52-1.

Mild shooting and in my hands actually slightly more accurate and consistent at 25 yards than my standard wadcutter load using Barry's plated 148g DEWC.

Not quite as good as my load with Zero brand HBWC. Which is very accurate but produces horrific leading. Which is why I've switched almost exclusively to Barry's plated for nearly all target loads. I'm not a competitive shooter and willing to sacrifice a bit of accuracy to avoid the nightmare of deleading the barrel after every session.

Only a couple of issues regarding failure to feed. And that was exclusively with a troublesome magazine. One that's tight even with.38 special cases. Absolutely no issues with my other magazines.

Would make this a standard practice if it weren't for brass recovery. It almost impossible to find the S&W brass in the sea of 9mm & .380 brass at our local range!

Otherwise, I'm very pleased with the results.

 

[Sevens]

I wondered about this many years ago and told myself when the day comes that I find and buy a beater 52, I will run lots of crazy bullets through it.

I still have not bought a beater 52. Maybe one day!

 

[sjmjax]

Final thoughts:

Other than with a particular magazine, I saw no functional issues.

I have noticed that the chamber on my 52-1 is "generous". An anomaly or deliberate to facilitate feeding the long straight walled 38 special cartridges.
Seems otherwise counter intuitive for a pistol designed for accuracy.

If I were to make this a more common loading for my 52 or had one with a tighter chamber, I'd consider buying some of Starlines 38 Colt short brass which is for all practical purposes the same length as the 38 S&W.

On the other hand, I wonder if the slightly snugger fitting case contributed to the good overall accuracy.

 

[Eddietruett]

First, I delight in shooting my Model 52 with HBWC bullets over WST powder. The gun is phenomenal; the shooter, not so much. I've often wondered how it would do with typical round nose or semi-wadcutter bullets. Of course, the magazine is too short to do this with .38 Special cases. It's a wadcutter gun, after all.

I thought about cutting down .38 Special cases to allow use of RN or SWC bullets and keep the required OAL. Case walls thicken toward to the base which may squeeze the bullet down too much. Then I thought of the .38 Short Colt. It looks short enough to allow seating of a "non-wadcutter" bullet within the specified .38 Special case length. .38 Short Colt loads "should" be safe in a Model 52. Whether the 52 will feed alternate bullets remains to be seen. Since it will feed wadcutters, one might think RNs or SWCs are easy-peasy. Starline conveniently makes .38 Short Colt cases.

Anybody tried this? What might I be overlooking in this (so far) thought experiment?

https://www.starlinebrass.com/38-short-colt-brass

Why?

 

[AJ]

Why?

Concur!

 

[rockquarry]

More of a stunt than anything useful. What's wrong with wadcutter bullets the gun was designed for?

 

[6string]

What is the objective?
Any true "experiment" must start with an objective.

Just an FYI, but the idea of trying SWCs and RNs in the Model 52 was done almost as soon as the Model 52 was introduced. The objective then was the pursuit of 50 yd X-ring accuracy.
Anyhow, the results were consistently bad. Bullets tumbled and keyholed, "groups" were on the order of feet rather than inches at 50 yds from a machine rest. And, this was amongst US military marksmanship teams such as the AMU, who had access to equipment and tooling outside of the access of the typical weekend reloader.

Why do these topics come up in regard to the Model 52?
So many folks say, "I always wanted a Model 52, and I finally splurged and got one!
And, the first thing they do is try to turn it into something it's not, nor was ever intended to be!

Here's a suggestion.
If you have a Model 52 and you are a handloader, go hunt down a Hensley & Gibbs .38 wadcutter mold cut for semiautos. They will be marked on the mold block somewhere with a specific cast diameter size number between .355"-.356". For a Model 52, it must be the flat nose version.
Then, channel your experimental urges into getting the most performance from the gun as intended, ie: a 38 wadcutter target pistol like the #50.
Here's a link to the Hensley & Gibbs mold chart.

Hensley & Gibbs Mold Chart

(PS: check out the image below to see how well the H&G #50 shoots out of a Giles 38 Wadcutter 1911 at 50 yards!

If you really want to go "hog wild", get a Star Universal reloading tool set up with the 38 Semiauto Wadcutter dies. This were made with carbide sizing dies and expanders cut to order in .001" increments. Star worked closely with H&G, so you could buy a package of a loading tool and gang mold to crank out target wadcutter ammo specifically for your gun, be it a Model 52, or a 38 Conversion by Giles, Clark, Dinan, Schockey…

It'll take research, but the 50s and 60s were the Golden Age of Bullseye. There's a wealth of information out there waiting to be found, and none of it is on the internet!

 

[rockquarry]

What is the objective?
Any true "experiment" must start with an objective.

Just an FYI, but the idea of trying SWCs and RNs in the Model 52 was done almost as soon as the Model 52 was introduced. The objective then was the pursuit of 50 yd X-ring accuracy.
Anyhow, the results were consistently bad. Bullets tumbled and keyholed, "groups" were on the order of feet rather than inches at 50 yds from a machine rest. And, this was amongst US military marksmanship teams such as the AMU, who had access to equipment and tooling outside of the access of the typical weekend reloader.

Why do these topics come up in regard to the Model 52?
So many folks say, "I always wanted a Model 52, and I finally splurged and got one!
And, the first thing they do is try to turn it into something it's not, nor was ever intended to be!

Here's a suggestion.
If you have a Model 52 and you are a handloader, go hunt down a Hensley & Gibbs .38 wadcutter mold cut for semiautos. They will be marked on the mold block somewhere with a specific cast diameter size number between .355"-.356". For a Model 52, it must be the flat nose version.
Then, channel your experimental urges into getting the most performance from the gun as intended, ie: a 38 wadcutter target pistol like the #50.
Here's a link to the Hensley & Gibbs mold chart.

Hensley & Gibbs Mold Chart

(PS: check out the image below to see how well the H&G #50 shoots out of a Giles 38 Wadcutter 1911 at 50 yards!

If you really want to go "hog wild", get a Star Universal reloading tool set up with the 38 Semiauto Wadcutter dies. This were made with carbide sizing dies and expanders cut to order in .001" increments. Star worked closely with H&G, so you could buy a package of a loading tool and gang mold to crank out target wadcutter ammo specifically for your gun, be it a Model 52, or a 38 Conversion by Giles, Clark, Dinan, Schockey…

It'll take research, but the 50s and 60s were the Golden Age of Bullseye. There's a wealth of information out there waiting to be found, and none of it is on the internet!


View attachment 793129

I've had a # 50 H&G 4-cavity mould for more than forty years, but seldom use it since selling my S&W 52-2 some years ago. I'd have to examine the mould to see which variation I have as I don't recall anything other than the bullets weighed around 148 grains cast of app. wheelweight alloy. I sized them through a .358" Redding / SAECO die, but actual diameter after sizing was .3575". Bullets sized smaller didn't shoot as accurately.

I can't imagine a bullet of a different design shooting better than the #50 but I suppose it's possible. Again, the idea would appear to be a not-so-well-thought-out stunt rather than something of practical value.

 

[Dan W. Cady]

What is the objective?
Any true "experiment" must start with an objective.

Just an FYI, but the idea of trying SWCs and RNs in the Model 52 was done almost as soon as the Model 52 was introduced. The objective then was the pursuit of 50 yd X-ring accuracy.
Anyhow, the results were consistently bad. Bullets tumbled and keyholed, "groups" were on the order of feet rather than inches at 50 yds from a machine rest. And, this was amongst US military marksmanship teams such as the AMU, who had access to equipment and tooling outside of the access of the typical weekend reloader.

Why do these topics come up in regard to the Model 52?
So many folks say, "I always wanted a Model 52, and I finally splurged and got one!
And, the first thing they do is try to turn it into something it's not, nor was ever intended to be!

Here's a suggestion.
If you have a Model 52 and you are a handloader, go hunt down a Hensley & Gibbs .38 wadcutter mold cut for semiautos. They will be marked on the mold block somewhere with a specific cast diameter size number between .355"-.356". For a Model 52, it must be the flat nose version.
Then, channel your experimental urges into getting the most performance from the gun as intended, ie: a 38 wadcutter target pistol like the #50.
Here's a link to the Hensley & Gibbs mold chart.

Hensley & Gibbs Mold Chart

(PS: check out the image below to see how well the H&G #50 shoots out of a Giles 38 Wadcutter 1911 at 50 yards!

If you really want to go "hog wild", get a Star Universal reloading tool set up with the 38 Semiauto Wadcutter dies. This were made with carbide sizing dies and expanders cut to order in .001" increments. Star worked closely with H&G, so you could buy a package of a loading tool and gang mold to crank out target wadcutter ammo specifically for your gun, be it a Model 52, or a 38 Conversion by Giles, Clark, Dinan, Schockey…

It'll take research, but the 50s and 60s were the Golden Age of Bullseye. There's a wealth of information out there waiting to be found, and none of it is on the internet!


View attachment 793129

Every day we get new handloaders and some think their experiments are cutting edge.

 

[sjmjax]

The OP was curious about using alternative cases and bullet designs.

So, I decided to run a few tests to answer his questions.

I guess it will also horrify some of you to know I like to tinker with classical food recipes as well.

I think some of you are wound a little too tight.

 

[AJ]

View attachment 793129

Had a chance to buy one of those about 30+ years ago for $250.00 IIRC. Passed on it and have kicked myself ever since!

 

[rockquarry]

The OP was curious about using alternative cases and bullet designs.

So, I decided to run a few tests to answer his questions.

I guess it will also horrify some of you to know I like to tinker with classical food recipes as well.

I think some of you are wound a little too tight.

What are the results of your testing?