Seeking advice for developing a 380 load

Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
4,322
Location
Southern NJ
This is cross posted on another forum by me. If this is not permitted, please remove post.

Greetings!

I am attempting to assemble a load for my 380 (a Glock42), but I am encountering a couple of stumbling blocks.

What I have available:
Sierra 90gr JHP-V
Hornady 90gr JHP
WW231
Alliant Bullseye

I had assembled about 40 of the Sierra 90gr JHP on top of 2.9gr of WW231. At about 10 yards I was able to put all 40 rounds in a 4" group, shooting POI/POA. The problem was, the load was not potent enough to cycle the action. My dilemma is, Sierra lists 3.1gr of WW231 as maximum, which gives me very little flexibility for charge variation. According to the Sierra manual, 3.1gr WW231 is a maximum load, generating 970 fps when loaded to a COL of 0.940". According to Hornady, their maximum load of WW231 (3.6gr) with their 90gr JHP loaded to a COL of 0.965 will produce a velocity of 950 fps. The 2 bullets APPEAR to be similar, the difference being the powder charge and the COL.

Based on the Sierra data, I have a 0.2gr window for getting my G42 to cycle. Considering that I am working with what I have, has anyone that has loaded for the G42 experienced problems if you have approached 3.2gr with the COL of 0.940", or have you had to increase the COL in order to avoid excessive pressure?

As always, thanks in advance for your help!
 
Register to hide this ad
The new (2021) Hornady Handbook lists 3.2 to 3.6 grains of Win 231 for their 90 gr XTP bullet in the 380 ACP. Hornady also has the overall length as 0.965” with this bullet.

Hodgdon shows 3.2 to 3.5 grains for the 90 gr Hornady in the 380 ACP.

Lyman and Sierra do show a max of 3.2 grains with the Sierra 90 gr bullet.
 
I think it does. My G42 took a good bit of shooting to be reliable. I wrote it up back then and it's findable on the forum I am sure, but it took a good bit of ball to initially get reliable, a couple hundred rounds of relatively hot Fiochhi HP, and even more before it would cycle the Black Hills Honey Badger (which is light for caliber). I was around 700 rounds total before the reliability was acceptable.
 
Being a Glock, I would not worry about shooting a full load in that pistol.

I would use the Hodgden data on the OAL to use and see if it feeds and ejects in your weapon.

The little 380 needs all the FPS that you can muster, to get it close to factory spec's with most bullets......... for best results.

Note;
The lucky gunner 380 test had the "V crown" bullet only going 861 fps in a Glock 42
to get 12" penetration and .52" dia.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Between those two bullets and their book oal, there's only about .005" difference in seating depth due to the Sierra bullet being about .030" shorter than the XTP. Where the difference matters is the XTP has roughly 20% less bearing surface and one reason why Hornady load data is that much higher.

As far as concern over a .1gn variation when increasing to a max charge of W231, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, especially through the G42.
 
Why the discussion about 231 in the thread when the OP has Bullseye on hand? Per the Hornady 11th edition, 3.4 gr of Bullseye gives 1000 FPS in a 3.9” barrel.

The 90 gr XTP will expand reliably in the .380 ACP but you need 1000 FPS to get near 100% reliability in ballistic gel.

In the 3.25” barrel Glock 42 you are not going to get that. You’ll get around 950 FPS and maybe 60% reliability in expansion. But it’ll be a lot better than what you’d get with a max load of 231.

When you can find it again someday, use Titegroup. A 3.4 gr (max load) of that will launch the 90 gr XTP at 1100 FPS in a 3.9” barrel, and roughly 1050 FPS in the Glock. It’ll give you reliable expansion and penetration that will meet the FBI 12” minimum.
 
....would be to try a powder like Power Pistol.

You may want to look into changing the spring.

Power pistol is too slow for efficiency the .380 ACP. Titegroup, Bullseye and Win 231/HP-38 are better. Power Pistol will give velocities similar to Bullseye but will burn about a grain and a quarter more powder to do it. That extra powder does generate a bit more recoil and might help cycle the Glock, but the effect will be pretty small and it’s not worth fretting over when Power Pistol isn’t available.
 
My load for 380 is almost exactly the same as the OP's. It cycles my LCPII just fine.
 
My G42 requires full, or near-full loads for reliable cycling. Here's a of couple loads that I've found to be pretty good:

3.1 gr. W-231 under 95 gr. Bayou RN (coated) set @ 0.950" OAL: 855FPS Avg. w/ 32FPS Std.Dev.

3.4 gr. W-231 under 100 gr. Berry's HBRN (plated) set @ 0.960" OAL: 795FPS Avg. w/ 15 FPS Std.Dev.

3.1 gr. W-231 under 105 gr. Bayou FP (coated) set @ 0.975" OAL: 820FPS Avg. w/ 18FPS Std.Dev.

The locked breach design of the G42 makes these full loads much more pleasant to shoot than reduced loads in fixed-barrel, blow back design guns like the SIG P230, even though the SIG is bigger and heavier. -S2
 
If you run into some Red Dot or Unique powder, by chance......

one of my old reloading books shows these two powders putting out over 1,000 fps with it's 380 loading data with a 90 gr bullet.

Otherwise I see no problem with w231 or Bullseye powder, for that little case.
 
Last edited:
This is cross posted on another forum by me. If this is not permitted, please remove post.

Greetings!

I am attempting to assemble a load for my 380 (a Glock42), but I am encountering a couple of stumbling blocks.

What I have available:
Sierra 90gr JHP-V
Hornady 90gr JHP
WW231
Alliant Bullseye

I had assembled about 40 of the Sierra 90gr JHP on top of 2.9gr of WW231. At about 10 yards I was able to put all 40 rounds in a 4" group, shooting POI/POA. The problem was, the load was not potent enough to cycle the action. My dilemma is, Sierra lists 3.1gr of WW231 as maximum, which gives me very little flexibility for charge variation. According to the Sierra manual, 3.1gr WW231 is a maximum load, generating 970 fps when loaded to a COL of 0.940". According to Hornady, their maximum load of WW231 (3.6gr) with their 90gr JHP loaded to a COL of 0.965 will produce a velocity of 950 fps. The 2 bullets APPEAR to be similar, the difference being the powder charge and the COL.

Based on the Sierra data, I have a 0.2gr window for getting my G42 to cycle. Considering that I am working with what I have, has anyone that has loaded for the G42 experienced problems if you have approached 3.2gr with the COL of 0.940", or have you had to increase the COL in order to avoid excessive pressure?

As always, thanks in advance for your help!

Let’s stop for a minute and talk about differences in data versus powder lots as well as differences in “stickiness” of the bullet in the bore.

First off, the charges listed in loading manuals are nominal charges with maximums based on pressure testing in a pressure barrel and or a piezoelectric strain gauge placed on a barrel.

The precise charge needed to generate a certain pressure or velocity will vary a bit based on the actual powder lot. Canister grade powders marketed for Handloading are much more consistent than the bulk powders used by commercial ammunition manufacturers, but there is still a fair bit of variation in some powders.

The data in the Hornady 11th edition for Winchester 231 and HP-38 are good examples. Win 231 data shows a max charge of 3.6 grains and a velocity of 950 FPS in the 3.88” Beretta 84F. In comparison HP-38 shows a max charge of 3.5 grains and a velocity of 1050 FPS in the same pistol. Obviously the specific lot of HP-38 used for load development for the manual was faster burning and developed more pressure than the specific lot of Win 231 used for load development in the same manual and in the same test pistol.

Here’s the rub. Hodgdon has confirmed that Win 231 and HP-38 are the same powder made in the same batches and just labeled differently.

For the slow kids in the class that means that the data for Win 231 and HP-38 and there relative performance would have been reversed in the manual had Hodgdon just labeled each of the powders used by Hornady differently when they were packaged.

Colloidal ball powders like Win 231/hP-38 are much faster (about 2 weeks start to finish versus 6-8 weeks for a flake powder) to produce and are less expansive to produce, but they tend to have a bit more variability in their burn rate traits. Basically, a ballistician takes different lots of ball powder made to the same general but still very broad range of characteristics and blends different lots to get burn traits that are closer to the target specifications.

The end result is that you still get a bit more variation with colloidal ball powders (even when they have been rolled and flattened like Win 231/HP-38) than you get with a flake powder like Bullseye.

You need to keep that variability in mind when you develop loads with a ball or flattened ball powder. I’m also a strong advocate for using a chronograph when developing loads to get a better feel for how your load compares to what’s in the book, and in turn to get a better feel for what should be a max load with a given lot of powder.

——-

My favorite examples of internet myths in this area are the folks who quote an exact change of powder to duplicate a military load. Consider someone who pulls down a few rounds from a single lot of M72 match ammo and weighs the charge to find it is exactly 46.5 grains. What does that really mean?

You can verify that M72 match ammo used IMR-4895 with the 173 gr FMJBT bullet and a number 34 military primer. However based on pull down information, you’ll also encounter someone claiming that the powder charge was exactly 46.5 grains. You might also find a government source listing a *nominal charge* of 46.5 grains. That confirms it right? Well...no.

You need to understand that *nominal* is more or less *ball park* in this context. The actual charge needed to get the specified average velocity at 75 ft may vary from around 46 to 47 grains. Using 46.5 grains with a faster burning lot of IMR 4895 where the actual charge needed to be around 46.0 grains will produce excessive pressure.

M193 ball loads and surplus powders are even more interesting. Originally M80 ball for the M14 and M60 used a nominal charge of WC846 powder. When an economic and mass producible load was being developed for M193 ball for use in the M16 they started with WC846. However they found that only specific lots of WC846 on the faster burning end of the specification would give the required velocity at an acceptable pressure.

The end result was a narrower specification for use in M193 ammo and naming that new subset of the wider WC846 specification WC844.

Fast forward a few years and you started seeing canister grade powders labeled BLC-2 and H335. Inevitably folks started calling them canister grade equivalents of WC846 and WC844 respectively.

And of course it follows theyyou will see people claiming you can use BLC-2 data for WC846 and H335 data for WC844. You’ll also see them quote exact powder chargers to duplicate M193 and M80 ball loads using H335 and BLC-2 based on pulling down of a few of those military loads that had WC846 and WC844 powder.

The whole process ignores the large variation in lots of WC844 and the HUGE variation in lots of WC846. They either forget or more likely were never aware that load data was adjusted for each 10,000 pound lot of those bulk powders received by the ammunition plant.

They also ignore the variation in canister grade BLC-2 and H335 that requires some adjustment in precise powder charge when you change lots.

Worst of all you’ll see people buying pull down WC844 or WC 846 powders. That only works if all the powder in that pull down lot came from the same lot of ammunition. Remember how the powder lots varied? Guess what happens when you start mixing pull down powder from rounds that were produced from two, or three or several lots of WC846. The random mix of powders in random percentages you end up with may not give you WC846 burn traits, and it may well not be mixed uniformly so it won’t be consistent.

I’m not opposed to buying surplus WC844 or WC846 powder but it need to be surplus in the manufacturer sealed keg or barrel before I’ll pay good money for it.

——-

Bullet wise how “sticky” a bullet is on the bore depends on a number off factors even when bullet weight is identical:

- the actual diameter of the bullet;
- the make up of the jacket alloy;
- the thickness of the jacket;
- the alloy and hardness of the core; and
- the bearing surface of the bullet.

There will also be variables related to your bore, land and groove dimensions.

In short, there is a lot more to it than just ,arching bullet weight and general appearance. Anytime you substitute a component, whether it is the bullet, the primer, the case, or even a different powder lot, you need to back off a bit and work back up to your target velocity.
 
Last edited:
Why the discussion about 231 in the thread when the OP has Bullseye on hand? Per the Hornady 11th edition, 3.4 gr of Bullseye gives 1000 FPS in a 3.9” barrel.

Sir,

While Bullseye may give me a slightly larger load window, I have about a pound and a third of Bullseye compared to about 5 pounds of WW231! I try to reserve my Bullseye for 38 Special wadcutter loads.

Also looking at the projectile inventory, 200 Hornady 90gr JHP versus 1500 of the Sierra 90gr JHP V Crown bullets.
 
Powders are more readily available now... And a pound of Bullseye loads a bunch of 380acp & 38 Special wadcutters. Thousands!

Give the Bullseye a try: you may be pleasantly surprised.

Cheers!
 
Just pay good attention to the OAL for the bullet you are using. The internal case capacity is small enough a minimal variation in the OAL can cause a spike in pressure, or too long will reduce pressure and cause cycling problems.
 
Sir,

While Bullseye may give me a slightly larger load window, I have about a pound and a third of Bullseye compared to about 5 pounds of WW231! I try to reserve my Bullseye for 38 Special wadcutter loads.

Also looking at the projectile inventory, 200 Hornady 90gr JHP versus 1500 of the Sierra 90gr JHP V Crown bullets.


Only 1,500 Sierra 90gr JHP V Crown bullets to play with ?
I think you better get loading and have some fun.
 
Like said above, your charge weight is too light for this round. Try at least 3.2gr W231 and you will be fine IMO.
 
The Hornady Manual shows data for this 90 grain bullet and
W231 powder for the 380 auto :
COL - 0.965"

start load - 3.2 grs. @ 850 fps
mid load - 3.4 grs. @ 900 fps
max load - 3.6 grs . @ 950 fps

Hornadady does a lot of testing with the bullets they make and has reliable data .
My experience has shown that for semi-auto pistol's the starting loads ( and below starting) seldom give adequate performance ...So I usually start with the middle load and work from there .
I would start with 3.4 grains of W231 .
Gary
 
I load 3.2 gr of W231 with a LRN for my practice ammo and it functions fine in several guns. It does not "seem hot" even in the tiny pocket guns. I use the same load for jacketed bullets. Same story.

I googled your issue and found several examples of people with the same issue, all followed by replies "I use XXX and it works fine". There were some comments about extended "break-in" periods with the same model you have....like hundreds of rounds.

The Hodgdon site shows a max of 3.8 gr W231 for the only lead bullet in the data. I'm not suggesting you use that for a jacketed bullet as they show 20,400 PSI and the SAMMI max is 21,500 PSI. Jacketed bullets have significantly more resistance.

If the gun was new and I thought it might need a break-in I'd get a box of LRN and work up to that max load of 3.8 and shoot them all up. It will save you some money breaking it in. Assuming you can find some online without waiting forever.

When there's a lot of conflicting data and the lightest listed loads aren't working I am fine going past them up into the higher listed data.
 
Back
Top