Who Hand loads for the Top-breaks?

[My Eye!]

I'm interested in comparing notes with anyone who reloads for top-break Smiths, particularly 32's and 38's.

I've got a 38 DA forth model nickle, and a 32 ? model lemon squeezer blued.(#166371) Both guns are in excellent condition mechanically - even perfect - but as you might expect they have flawed finishes, especially the nickle 38.

I've been loading for and shooting the 38 quite a bit, lately with Trailboss and hollow base WC's. I haven't fired a shot yet with the little 32 as I'm having a hard time getting dies for it.

I realize these revolvers are actually black powder era guns, but I'm just not into the black powder hassles. I want to be gentle on them but still shoot them from time to time. I think I'm on the right track with Trailboss, but am interested in other opinions.

Jim

 

[Skip Sackett]

Hope you get the help you need.

I'm not going to be much help, Jim.
I load for a top break but it is from the "new manufacturing era" and is a 38Spl.

Thought I would welcome you to the forum though! Welcome aboard.

 

[My Eye!]

Gee Skip, I guess when I titled my original post, I completely forgot about the new manufacture Schofields and such; not to mention Webleys. I guess anyone who reads it will know what I'm talkin about though.

Thanks for the howdy. We'll be talkin.

Jim

 

[walnutred]

I load for both but the loads I use are slightly above BP levels. I might be able to piece together a 32 S&W dies set for you. I tend to buy lots of partial sets when I can find them cheap. As a result very few of the die sets I reload with have all pieces from the same manufacturer and I tend to end up with spare dies.

Right now with 38 S&W I am experimenting with two things. A 124gn SWC lubed with LLA and a shot ctg made from full length 38 Special cases.

Recently I found some old Western 38 S&W ctgs that felt noticeably different from my modern stuff. These all seemed to have the 146gn bullet so I was not sure what was up until I checked some of my older reference material. Modern 38 S&W is listed as 146gn, 685fps, 150 fp. The older stuff is listed as 146gn, 745fps, 173fp. After shooting old Westen and new Winchester side by side I can believe the stiffer ballistic claims of the old stuff

 

[My Eye!]

Hi, walnutred. This is just the kind of dialogue I was hoping to open.

I like the idea of the lighter bullets in the interest of keeping pressure down and velocity up, and in fact my best load in my 38 was with the 125 gr. Lasercast. My gun tends to shoot high, and the heavier the bullet the higher it gets. I was using 2.0 grains of Bullseye with those 125's, and accuracy was great even though the diameter is less than it's sposed to be.

I'd be interested in knowing what powders you've had good luck with. I've lately been messing with Trailboss, but don't really have any published data for my loads.

Also, I may be interested in dies for my 32 if you have spares of what I need. I currently have a set of Lee's on order (from Lee), but no idea on the shipping status and they don't even want any inquiries for 30 days.

I hope to be talking to you and hearing from ya.

Jim

 

[walnutred]

I have a homemade double cavity bullet mold I purchased at a yard sale. It throws a two lube groove, SWC bullet in the 124 range with an as cast diameter of .360. I've been using the Lee Liquid Alox because it's simple and works well at these lower velocities. So far I've only used Bullseye in charges between 2.0 and 2.5 gns so can't add much to what you already know.

I have an old Lyman 148gn wadcutter mold that has an as cast diameter of 361 which I plan on trying next. I'm sticking to the lighter bullet for now because of a comment another poster to this site made regarding top breaks. He siad his dad told him the stress on the top locking latch is not caused by the powder charge detonating in the chamber, but by the resistance of the bullet going down the bore. In thinking this over I believe that statement is mostly correct, except that the ultimate point of strain must be the bullet entering the forcing cone.

So for this reason I'm using the bullet in my collection that has the least amount of driving band surface on the theory that it may offer the least resistance entering the bore.

 

[My Eye!]

Hi again, walnutred. I just returned from my pursuit of the US dollar, and found your latest post.

Your home made bullet mold sounds very interesting and is probably just the ticket for the 38. I've got a Lee Microband 158 gr. mold that throws my wheel-weight metal at .160". I've been using them "as is" in our 357's, with Alox Lube and having very good success with them. I just don't want to go that heavy in my top-break. Actually they weigh more in the order of 160 gr. It seems to me that lower weight would equate to lower pressure, but I am certainly no expert.

The 125 gr. Laser Cast bullets I was using worked great, giving 2 to 3 inch groups at 25 yds. The diameter was only .358, but it didn't seem to be a problem. I'll probably be getting another box of 500 to use until I get a mold that throws lighter bullets. Oh yeah, I was using 2 gr. Bullseye for those loads. I have a data sheet from M.D. Smith's Reloading Pages where he lists separate data for top-breaks and solid frames. 2 grains of Bullseye was his max charge for all bullet weights from 145 gr. on down to 121.

As I said, I've tried Trailboss (1.6 gr.), but haven't seen any load data to make me believe that it is OK. It occurred to me that this was pretty stupid, so the Trailboss is on hold until I get more info. I've always been a big Bullseye fan anyway.

The theories you mention concerning the stress points interest me. The top strap right above the cylinder gap seems so incredibly small by today's standards that you would think they would simply snap at that location; but they don't. Both of my revolvers are so tight and solid mechanically that I don't know what parts wear when they do wear. (and I'd like to keep them that way)

I've shot my 38 around a thousand times now, and love it. The 32 has yet to be fired by me, (and hardly anyone from the looks of it) and it's driving me nuts. If my die order doesn't work out, I may be trying to beg a set of dies from you if we can make it worth your while. I also need some 32 load info. Catch ya later.

Jim

 

[Catshooter]

My,

Welcome to the forum. Great user name!

I too have an old .38 TB that I am starting to get set up for. I bought a Lee Loader off the net and discovered that Lee used the same sizer die as the .38 spl! Fer cryin' out loud. Why bother to sell it if you can't make it correctly? Idiots.

So far I've got most of what I need, except the bullet mould. I too want to be very gentle with mine and I agree, a lighter bullet is better than heavier. I've thought I may go the black powder route, but I hesitate to for the mess.

For smokeless, I was thinking of using a slower powder than is usually recomended. I mean if you attain the same velocity, using the slower powder would generate less pressure. We'll see.

I must disagree with Walnutred's idea of firing stress. Sorry, but it is the back-thrust of the cartridge that the latch resists. Part of the recoil forces one feels is caused by the force of the bullet resisting the twisting actions of the rifling, but that doesn't stress the latch.

I have a set of .32 S&W (long & short) dies you can borrow for a few months if you'd like. PM me your address if you're interested. What do you have for a bullet mould for the .32?


Cat

 

[walnutred]

OK Catshooter, you got me curious. I cannot see how the backthrust put stress on the latch, unless I'm misunderstanding how you are using the term. My understanding of back thrust is this.

At the point of ignition force inside the casing is exerted pretty much equally in all directions. At the point in the ignition that the bullet starts moving forward in the case, the case itself moves back against the recoil shield of the revolver. In a higher pressure revolver the sides of the case expand enough that the whole cylinder goes rearward. This is the theory on Brownings locking breach. I am not sure 38 or 32 S&W generate enough pressure to lock the case to the cylinder wall.

Right up to the point that the bullet hits the forcing cone all of the force being exerted against the components of the revolver is either against the chamber walls or against the recoil shield. When the bullet hits the forcing cone is when the first forward pressure is exerted on the top locking latch because the bullet tries to push the barrel forward, pivoting on the hinge screw.

At least that is how I understand it. What is wrong with my analysis?

Presently I use the 100gn Lee TL bullet mold for 32 S&W, 32 S&W Long and 32 ACP. Though I also use the old Lyman 115gn RNFP 32 WCF bullet for both 32 Long and 32 WCF.

 

[My Eye!]

Hey guys, I'm back to our pea-shooter posts; nerk, nerk, nerk.

I'm thinking that what we need for our stress test is VERRRY slow motion video of one of the revolvers being fired with a hot load; just not mine.

I find you guy's theories very interesting, but I'm gonna stay noncommittal for now at least; I'm just not qualified. My time will be better spent inventing the My Eye! Industries Pressure Sensing Cartridge.

Catshooter, I appreciate the die offer, and may be talkin to you if I have no luck with my order with Lee. I would prefer to buy a set rather than borrow however.

I've got a question for you guys concerning pressure. Do you think that there is any important difference in pressure due to the use of harder bullet alloys like wheel weights as opposed to pure lead. If walnutred's forcing cone scenario is valid, it seems that this might be a concern.

Jim

 

[Catshooter]

My,

No sweat on the dies, let me know if you need 'em.

Walnut,

Actuallly I like your analysis. Actually, I sorta of agree with it, I just failed to understand it. With your second post it is clear to me now; I think it is correct.

So there!


Cat

 

[walnutred]

My,

Walnut,

Actuallly I like your analysis. Actually, I sorta of agree with it, I just failed to understand it. With your second post it is clear to me now; I think it is correct.

So there!


Cat

Well that's no fun. Let me come up with another angle so we have something to discuss ;-)

I have some of the old 173gn British stuff from the 70's but do not shoot it in my lighter topbreaks. Next time I run a batch of the 124's I'd be happy to send you both a small lot as I really think the lighter bullets are the way to go in these old revolvers.

Obviously if we were talking Weblys or Victorys it would be a different matter.

 

[Catshooter]

I think the lighter boolits are the way to go also. I have a mould that throws a 105 grain wadcutter. In wheel weights they measure .365, kinda big. So I cast some up in pure lead knowing that they would be smaller as the more % lead the greater the shrinkage.

Yikes! They came out at .361! Too small, of course. I really wanted .363, so I'll have to experiment a bit. I would imagine one quarter ww to three quarters pure lead may do it.

I shot some of 'em today over 2.5 grains of HS-6 and got just about 450 fps, so I'll increase that a bit. Lots of un-burned powder, soot. Too small a charge.


Cat

 

[My Eye!]

I think that I mentioned higher up in this thread that I had been using 125 gr. Laser cast bullets in my 38 S&W. They are supposed to be #2 alloy. They mic out at .358". That's kind of small, but accuracy was great.

Wadayouguys think about using harder cast bullets like this as opposed to pure lead? Think that it could cause any harm? I've had guys tell me to definately NOT use jacketed bullets.

If we are to accept walnutred's hypothesis, (and it sounds pretty good to me), it would seem that a harder cast bullet might cause more stress as it squeezes through the forcing cone. Hmmmmm.

Jim

 

[Catshooter]

My,

The ordinary jacketed bullet is at least 10 times harder than virtually all cast ones.

I agree with Walnut's concept and myself would never use jacketed in my .38 S&W.

Are you having a hard time finding bullets? Don't you cast your own? If you aren't and can, you should. It's the only way to go, at least for me. I would expect that the Laser Cast bullets are quite hard, most commercially cast are. I doubt that a hard lead bullet will hurt your pistol, esp with the light loads you're using.


Cat

 

[My Eye!]

"Are you having a hard time finding bullets? Don't you cast your own? If you aren't and can, you should. It's the only way to go, at least for me. I would expect that the Laser Cast bullets are quite hard, most commercially cast are. I doubt that a hard lead bullet will hurt your pistol, esp with the light loads you're using."


No, I can get the Lasercasts right here in town pretty reasonably, and they did work great (all 500 of them). They don't seem to be any harder than my wheel weight bullets, but I don't have a hardness tester to know for sure. I tend to agree with ya that ANY cast bullet will be way better than a jacketed for what we are trying to accomplish.

I recently jumped back into casting with a Lee tumble-lube mold in 158 gr. swc for our 38/357's. I've been casting straight wheel weights and lubing with Alox, and we've been shooting the Hell out of them with great results in the 357's. I'm just reluctant to use them in my little peashooter.(the top-break) They're just too heavy, and shoot about a foot high at 25 yd.

I'm probably going to buy another 500 of the 125 gr. Lasercasts, but also am going to order another Lee mold; and I'm thinking of getting one that's actually for 9mm. It's a micro-band type of 125 gr., .356 diameter. That's a little small, but my wheel weights seem to cast a couple thou. larger, and with the magic of obturation, hopefully I'll be OK.

Later guys, Jim

 

[walnutred]

I was all excited this weekend because I discovered the new edition of Handloader had an article on loading for the 38 S&W. However after reading the article twice all I can say is don't bother buying the magazine if what you want is information on loading for 38 S&W. From a technical standpoint it was very poor writing, IMHO.

 

[My Eye!]

I was all excited this weekend because I discovered the new edition of Handloader had an article on loading for the 38 S&W. However after reading the article twice all I can say is don't bother buying the magazine if what you want is information on loading for 38 S&W. From a technical standpoint it was very poor writing, IMHO.

Well that's a bummer. So far I've learned more by doing what we're doing here, and talking to a few guys who are into the cowboy stuff around my area.

There are probably a lot of folks who would wonder why we are spending so much effort to shoot these old, obsolete, underpowered relics, which weren't even designed for smokeless powder. All I can say is that there is just something about them that strikes my fancy. The first one I ever had was given to me by a great guy that I used to work for. It had a broken main spring and a rusted away hand spring. It was a Smith 2nd or 3rd Model 38, DA, in nickle. In the process of making new springs for it, I learned that little devil inside and out, and was able to appreciate the quality of the internal parts. (kinda like a Swiss watch) I eventually got it functioning perfectly, and shooting well even with it's grungy, pitted barrel.

I had that gun from the age of 18 until I was 30 something; shot reloads that I now know were too hot, but never had a problem until my "Black Years" when I ran with a few folks who weren't adverse to stealing my guns. I lost that one and a few others, and count myself lucky at that.

For some reason, I missed that gun more than the others which most folks would put more value on, and a few years ago when I got the opportunity to replace it with a good shooter of the same type, I went for it; and again with a really nice 32 Lemon Squeezer. Geez would someone shut me up.

I just received my new dies for the 32, and ought to start a new thread.

Jim

 

[Catshooter]

I was all excited this weekend because I discovered the new edition of Handloader had an article on loading for the 38 S&W. However after reading the article twice all I can say is don't bother buying the magazine if what you want is information on loading for 38 S&W. From a technical standpoint it was very poor writing, IMHO.

Yea, there's good reason the gun mags are all dying. Between the internet, their editors and most of their writers, well, they hardly stand a chance.


Cat

 

[My Eye!]

Yea, there's good reason the gun mags are all dying. Between the internet, their editors and most of their writers, well, they hardly stand a chance.
Cat

Yeah, I'm looking across the room to a table where there is 8 or 10 magazines and catalogs that I haven't even paged through, let alone read yet. I'm starting to blame the computer; and work; and the Outdoor channels; and sleep.

Jim