When I was with the SO, we commonly used 158gr LSWC in our .38s &.357s. It was considered the minimum duty load. RN bullets were a thingof the past(and for good reason, apparently) Eventuallywe moved to 125gr SJHPs in .357 but .36 Spls still were 158 gr.LWCs---it was the ubiquitous .38 Spl load, even our reloads were 158 LSWCs.
I recently was looking at some catalogs and it seems like the.38 LSWC isn't as popular these days, I only found Magtech and Winchester Super-x (curously not WINUSA) listed as loading this bullet wieght---but lots of outfits are loading 150 gr LRN and even 130 gr FMC under the promo brand labels USA,UMC,American Eagle---even some eastern european marques!)
Whats with that?
Most.38 Spl revolvers are regulated for the 158 grain load, and if a 158 gr LRN is less than marginal, why load a 150 gr LRN? And 130 gr FMC? I could see the reason for Air Force using FMC ammo in Viet Nam with the Geneva Convention and all, but it simply dosen't make sense for civilians. Even the lead ammo enviremental arguement dosen't quite sound right since the lead base of the FMC would still be exposed.
So,where did all the 158gr.LWSC go? And why?
I recently was looking at some catalogs and it seems like the.38 LSWC isn't as popular these days, I only found Magtech and Winchester Super-x (curously not WINUSA) listed as loading this bullet wieght---but lots of outfits are loading 150 gr LRN and even 130 gr FMC under the promo brand labels USA,UMC,American Eagle---even some eastern european marques!)
Whats with that?
Most.38 Spl revolvers are regulated for the 158 grain load, and if a 158 gr LRN is less than marginal, why load a 150 gr LRN? And 130 gr FMC? I could see the reason for Air Force using FMC ammo in Viet Nam with the Geneva Convention and all, but it simply dosen't make sense for civilians. Even the lead ammo enviremental arguement dosen't quite sound right since the lead base of the FMC would still be exposed.
So,where did all the 158gr.LWSC go? And why?