Shot my first batch of 52-2 reloads

[brian_a_mcmillen]

I'm with S.B. on this one. The standard for Bullseye shooting for many years was the 148 grn HBWC on top of 2.7 grains of Bullseye powder and a very slight crimp on the case. My dad shot many matches using this load (which he loaded on a Star reloader). He also shot on the Indiana State Police pistol team and won many awards as well as a couple of pistols including a Model 41! I believe that the model 52 was designed to use that load. Brian

 

[mstuhr]

difference between good and great for mine

Howdy,
I have tried numerous loads in my 52-2. Many shoot pretty good but 3.5gr of 231 really brings it to life. Makes it the 52 a person dreams about.
I worried about it at first, but it is an all steel pistol and 3.5 grn of 231 in a model 10 is nothing to sweat. Heck, 3.5 of 231 and a 147 grain bullet barely crack 900 fps out of a 9mm.
I did put a little more spring in it.
I'm not recommending the load. I don't think it is all that bad, but others will likely disagree.
Another benefit is the gun seems to be more trouble free. Ejection is crisp and there is nothing sluggish about feeding.
Not to be contrary to what others have said but guns are funny. Mine shows a preference for hotter than average loads.
Thanks and good luck.
Mike

 

[S.B.]

mstuhr, I found setting the bullet depth just long of the case mouth(to ease the bullet up the feed ramp), created the best of all worlds for me. Of course could of been just my pistol?
Steve

 

[M29since14]

Good luck trying to duplicate the best .38 wadcutter factory loads. I don't think anyone knows how to do that.

Over the years, I have tried all sorts of powders in my 52 and listened to and read what others had to say. There have been some interesting theories from time to time (like the one that held that 52s did better with slower burning powders) but none of them ever seem to catch on and the old standby loads with Bullseye, 700X and, to a lesser extent, 231, seem to prevail.

I believe the targets shown are just scratching the surface of what your 52 is really capable of, and would hazard the guess that ANY load which is successful in your 52 will also be just fine in your revolvers. That's always been the case for me.

I would at least try to keep the handloads close to the same velocity as factory ammunition, or just a bit slower - but not too much slower. I have seen shooters using loads in their 52s that would not even come close to cracking 700 FPS. Results always seem to suffer accordingly. In my view, that has to serve to compound follow through problems. Note though that that is a shooting problem, not an ammunition problem. There is a difference.

 

[pmclaine]

Thanks for all the replies. From the Bullseye shooters it seems that the 2.9grains of W231 should be comparable somewhat to the 2.7 grains of Bullseye that is the traditional load? I dont want a heavy load or to change springs. I'm thinking 3.5 may be too much though the steel gun should handle it.

I have no chrono to check numbers. I've fired about 200 rounds of this 2.9 W231 load through the 52 and it cycles nicely, not one hiccup.

The accuracy, for me, has been better than factory ammo (Sellier and Beliot not the preffered factory offerings). I'm only plinking around at 10 yards. I'll have to get a proper target and see what the gun can do at the 25 yard and 50 yard distances. I dont think I have the follow through and holding skills to take advantage of what the gun can do but it is fun to shoot.

I have 1000 cases of new brass that I will designate as my 52-2 ammo. I'm going to load some tonight and I will see how it does with the brass variable removed.

Thanks again.

 

[Jeff423]

Remingtom Factory 148 gr Wadcutter

FWIW: Here is a picture of a Remington Factory 148 gr. wadcutter. The OAL is 1.18". You will notice that it has a nice roll crimp and the lead protrudes a few thousands above the case.
I took one of these apart carefully and it appeared to hold 2.8 gr of Bullseye. I'm sure about the weight and the powder looked to me to be the same as the BE I had on hand, but I can't prove it was BE.
I posted this because in an older article I read about the 52 the author said he was never able to achieve the same accuracy with hand loads that he got with Remington factory loads.

Jeff

 

[Beerjman]

jeff423, this is an excellent observation . I also believe that the "Remington crimp" has a lot to do with the accuracy . IMHO it allows the pressure of the powder to build up just right before the bullet is released from the case.

 

[bobbyd]

231 works just rigt in my 52 at about 3.0 gr but each gun is an individual and a little bit of experimenting is probably in order.

I don't want to resurrect the "mixed brass vs sorting-by-headstamp" debate but my experience is that sorting and/or being selective in brand of brass used will minimize some of those mysterious fliers that spoil an otherwise perfect group.
You can definitely feel the difference in neck tension when seating the bullet and I can't help but this believe this can have an effect on consistency.

 

[pmclaine]

My Dillon crimp does a nice job in "capping" the lead. The brass just turns over the lead and mimics an old box of Western mid range I have. I thought feeding was going to be an issue but not one problem so far even with mixed brass.

Last load session I bumped up my charge slightly to +/- 3.0. Ive only fired one box of 50 and not under ideal conditions (after working a double)

I have another box of 50 with me now but alas it will be fired after working a double. I take the overtimes to fund my shooting but shooting tired is not the best for accuracy.

I've got a good supply of the W231 3.0 grn rounds loaded up in new brass with a consistent headstamp. I'll see how it works but I'm thinking 2.9 might be a good spot for my gun.

 

[S.B.]

My Dillon crimp does a nice job in "capping" the lead. The brass just turns over the lead and mimics an old box of Western mid range I have. I thought feeding was going to be an issue but not one problem so far even with mixed brass.

Last load session I bumped up my charge slightly to +/- 3.0. Ive only fired one box of 50 and not under ideal conditions (after working a double)

I have another box of 50 with me now but alas it will be fired after working a double. I take the overtimes to fund my shooting but shooting tired is not the best for accuracy.

I've got a good supply of the W231 3.0 grn rounds loaded up in new brass with a consistent headstamp. I'll see how it works but I'm thinking 2.9 might be a good spot for my gun.

As long as all your brass is the same length!
Steve

 

[pmclaine]

Update: 1135 pm EST - Just left range all fed fine. 1 - 7, 8 -8, other 41 9-10 with the x ring obliterted. This was with a W231 2.9 grn load. i think thats my number.

 

[M29since14]

Obsessing over a tenth of a grain is likely not the answer. I think your brass, the seating depth of the bullet, and the crimp are almost certainly the determining factors between what we are able to make and that "Remington accuracy" that everyone wants and no one seems to get, as Beerjman alludes to in his post. Of course the quality of all of your components is extremely important, too.

If you really want to get into this subject, you might get a copy of Gil Hebard's book, A Pistol Shooter's Treasury. It has some excellent information regarding the 52 and loading for it. The info is a bit old, but it is still current, and I have yet to see anyone do a more thorough job of getting into the matter. In my mind, it is the gold standard on this subject.

 

[pmclaine]

Obsessing over a tenth of a grain is likely not the answer. I think your brass, the seating depth of the bullet, and the crimp are almost certainly the determining factors between what we are able to make and that "Remington accuracy" that everyone wants and no one seems to get, as Beerjman alludes to in his post. Of course the quality of all of your components is extremely important, too.

If you really want to get into this subject, you might get a copy of Gil Hebard's book, A Pistol Shooter's Treasury. It has some excellent information regarding the 52 and loading for it. The info is a bit old, but it is still current, and I have yet to see anyone do a more thorough job of getting into the matter. In my mind, it is the gold standard on this subject.

Agreed on the .1 grain. My measure/scale (both Dillon) are probably only accurate to within a tenth so when I load for 2.9 I get as many 2.8's as I do 3.0. Likewise loading for 3.0 gives me a number of 2.9 and 3.1's.

I dont see much difference in the groups and didnt expect to. I do note with the heavier load my brass ends up in a circle perhaps two feet further away than the light. Alot of lights hit the bench beside me before falling on the floor.

I think these loads are as good as I am capable of holding and firing at my cadence - bang...bang...bang...bang...bang - bench the gun reload.

Part of my issue is I have no idea what the gun is capable of I havent seen a group shot by an experienced journeyman. Most guys dont shoot these at the short distances I do either

I've read an article by Mr Hebard - his review of the 52-2. I wish W231 had of been one of his powders used at the time.

This is a fun gun, all of my guns are. I'm not going to go to trimming brass to tune for this gun. I'll give it its own dedicated brass lot but thats it for now. I'm going to start playing at the 25 yard steel plate rack - that should be fun with this gun to work on speed.

Next time one of you 52-2 regulars is at the range snap a pic of your group please to motivate me into further testing.

 

[JayKay]

I have had excellent results with my model 52 and reloads consisting of Win 231 3.3 gr., Oregon Trail Laser Cast LBBWC. I also have tried Hodgdon Clays 2.5 gr. with the same bullet with equal or possibly even better results.

More recently, I have been experimenting with Hornady swaged LHBWC bullets which use a dry lubricant. Lubing these bullets with Alox seems to tighten the groups while simultaneously increasing the velocity by about 15 fps. I need to do more testing before I can say anything more definitive about the results.