Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Load suggestions


Drillbit

Recommended Posts

I have some Starline 38 short colts and 160gn Ibejiheads sized .357 I would like to try in a 929. I found a few loads here using N310 & 320, (which I don't have) and would like some more options.  I'm looking for starting loads and COAL.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First IMO toss the Starline.
Use Federal.
I bought 2k of Starline for 929 a waste of cash for me.
Starline were prone to sticking more than most other brand IMO.
There are loads for 929 if you search.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, oteroman said:

First IMO toss the Starline.
Use Federal.
I bought 2k of Starline for 929 a waste of cash for me.
Starline were prone to sticking more than most other brand IMO.
There are loads for 929 if you search.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Did you "clean" the new Starline brass before you loaded it? Next time, run it through the tumbler for an hour or so before the first loading. That may fix the sticking issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, 57K said:

 

Well, if you haven't committed to a powder yet, a couple of things come to mind. For those who may not be aware, Vectan Ba 9 1/2 is their lower priced version of N320 and shares the same data and it comes in 1.1# canisters that make it a pretty good deal.

 

If you have a Lyman manual you might want to look at their data for the .38 S&W. I can't remember the exact dimensions for the .38 Short Colt, but IIRC, they're not that much different than the S&W version that's very similar to the Colt .38 New Police. I mention this because the folks at Lyman typically don't get all excited about one single powder, but they plainly state that True Blue gave them the best results with all bullet weights. The only time I've seen them say anything like that is in the same manuals and data for the .45 GAP. Plus it works so well in so many different cartridges it makes Unique jealous while TB is very fine grained and dense. Powders really can't meter any better while it's pressure stability from low pressure .38s to the .454 Casull is really kind of hard to believe until you've used it.

 

I took a look at the .38 S&W, the velocity for a 160gn bullet are kinda low for my needs.

Edited by Drillbit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, 57K said:

 

That could be a blessing in disguise if you can correlate the cartridge length of the Short Colt to something between.38 S&W and .38 Sp. standard pressure loads. I can tell you that Western will help you out with load data, but with pressure being as low as it is, personally, I'd interpolate charge-weights between 38 S&W and 38 Sp. since the only real difference here is case length. I can probably even tell you how I'd go about it. Take cartridge length and multiply it by the .38 Sp. case-length. If the .38 S&W is slightly shorter, divide its case-length by the CL of the short Colt, then adjust chargeweights accordingly. Dividing those results for .38 S&W and multiplying with .38 Sp. Data.

 

If this interests you, give me the case-length for the Short Colt and I can help you with the numbers. I have some friends up at Western and I bet you can get very close. While you're waiting for an email reply, I can help you with charge-weights for comparison. Maximum Standard Pressure for the Short Colt would also help. I thought I had data in my Lyman 46th, but found out that it isn't listed.

 

57K thanks, lets give this a try.

The short colts are averaging  .757 in length. As far as maximum standard pressure I have no clue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, 57K said:

 

It would really help here to know what pressure Starline is making cases for, and they also do this with a few others.

 

Drillbit, case-length for the .38 S&W is .775" with trim length @ . 765" and still longer than the Short Colt. Depending on the brand of brass, it is not uncommon to get new cases that are no longer than trim-to-length dimension and sometimes a bit shorter.

 

The pressure Max is not listed, but Lyman didn't go over 13,000 CUP in their data for the .38 S&W, so, using the method I mentioned, you would be approximating a similar pressure in the .38 Short Colt. I'll list the multipliers in BOTH cases here since the Short Colt is the shorter of the 3. This would give a multiplier of .9767 to approximate the S&W loads, or just round of to .98 X .38 S&W Chargeweights.

 

With .38 Special data, the cartridge has a Max Average Pressure, MAP of 17,000 PSI while Lyman's data is rated in Copper Units of Pressure, CUP.  PSI and CUP measurements are rarely the same and there's generally a greater disparity at higher pressure . In cases like 9 x 19mm, PSI values are higher than CUP, and with magnum revolver loads like .357, .41 and .44 Magnum, CUP ratings are numerically higher than PSI. Going further still with Rifle cartridges, The highest pressure rating generally given by SAAMI is 65,000 PSI for rounds like the newer short magnums, Ultra Mags and such, but also some older rounds like .270 WIN where the previous pressure rating in CUP is 54,000. They are in fact the same pressure max, but using 2 different systems of measurement. SPecifically regarding handgun cartridges, the only thing I've found to possibly attribute this to is internal cartridge geometry where the magnum revolver internals are much longer in length in comparison to the cases internal diameter.

 

 

I'm only going into this because I've run into some coincidences that I wasn't expecting. Lyman did not exceed 17,000 CUP for the standard pressure loads. Anything given higher charge-weights and pressure ratings are designated +P. Since there is less disparity between PSI and CUP at low pressure, the numbers will look a bit more similar, follow? I'm trying not to make this too complicated, and there will be, hopefully better news in the conclusion. But, in regard to low pressure cartridges, the only one where I know both the CUP and PSI ratings is the .45 ACP, where 19,900 CUP becomes 21,000 PSI. We see here that like the 9 x 19mm, the PSI number becomes higher than the CUP value. It is not necessary that this must all be digested, I'm just going into it for those who may question my methodology. And I've done a bit of experimental geometry here, including graphically, because as you read in so many load manuals, "There IS NO Mathematical Correlation between PSI and CUP Measurements," nor either of them to PSI in the CIP testing system. That's another thread, but suffice to say, studying both CUP and PSI values I arrived at extremely close values, NOT Mathematically, but through Graphic Geomotry, trying to get a better handle on CIP/PSI that even while it's in PSI, it is a different measurement system than SAAMI uses. And, in Europe, the data will mostly be in SI units as well as BARS: which I may be  a bit more familiar with than most having worked with it in Hydraulic Pressure measurements. I also has the privilege of having some very good conversations with Western's former ballistician, Johan Loubser, a Norther European who was already with Accurate Powder Co. when Western acquired Accurate Powder Co. I've never since spoken to any ballistician I've been as impressed with. Johan retired some years ago.

 

 

So, running the same calculation, the multiplier for .38 Sp. Standard Pressure would become .6554, or say .66! Now for more coincidence and, unfortunately, I found only one cast bullet common to both calibers and I'm looking specifically at True Blue since it got the raves for .38 S&W. The Lyman #358311 Was used in both data sets, both charged with True Blue. The charge for .38 Sp. Standard Pressure is 4.8 grs. Using the multiplier .6554 that charge is reduced to 3.1 grs. which is, again coincidentally, the Max Charge for the same 160 gr. bullet in .38 S&W.

 

But, we know that the standard pressure used for .38 SP is higher than that for the .38 S&W, so the charges will be plenty safe for Short Colt that apparently has a higher MAP than the .38 S&W. Now, this is where I have to leave you with only my recommendation since I don't know the MAP for the Short Colt or the Pressure Level that Starline cases are designed for as jcc7x7 brought to our attention. For that higher pressure, I would have to have some pressure data to go any farther than here, but if, in fact, there is now a higher pressure for this 19th century cartridge, you might want to investigate that at the SAAMI website and any data provider that is listing it which I have not done. Maybe Hodgdon and I will check on that if they've finally got their data page fixed!

 

But since the multiplier we used for .38 Sp. to find a charge for Short Colt: if you want slightly higher charges you could apply the same multiplier to .38 Sp. +P load data where we saw an approximate 3000 CUP drop doing the same with .38 Sp data. Because of my confidence in the product, and I could probably write at least one good chapter on True Blue's pressure stability which I feel is the very best of any handgun powder you can buy today, I would suggest that you find some. As far as the pressure differences between the charge-weights, the incremental increases in pressure will be about as predictable as you'll find. Maybe not exactly linear, but close enough to approximate a very similar pressure level. Again though, that would require greater data info, i.e. specific pressure values. Since it wouldn't appear that this new higher pressure for the Short Colt would be anywhere near as low as the 20,000 PSI level (.38 Sp. +P) common to SAAMI guidelines currently used by the powder companies providing data for .38 +P. While using True Blue which is the only way I'll personally endorse this, I'd feel totally safe. If this "NEW" data wasn't significantly higher in pressure, there wouldn't be much need to build a structurally stronger modern case, so keep that in mind.

 

I do not know if originally the .38 Short Colt was a "Balloon" type case as the .45 Colt was, but obviously you'd only want to use modern cartridge brass just as you would for .45 Colt loads using modern smokeless powder data. One other point: when I use True Blue in .38 Sp. I have found an advantage in using magnum primers. Although True Blue isn't as powder position sensitive as most powders in the similar burn rate, there is still quite a bit of unused case capacity with .38 Sp. This should not be the case for .38 S&W or the Short Colt where a good bit more load density with a cartridge that's just barely longer than 9 x 19mm. And, whether standard pressure or +P loads, True Blue works just fine (really exceptionally) in 9 x 19mm with a standard primer and there is very little difference between a WSP and a CCI500, and I use both while there is very little change in velocity.

 

Sure hope this all helps, it's a fascinating subject dealing with historical cartridges like this!

 

All very interesting and informative, Thank you.

But I have to remind myself that these short colts will be fired in a 9mm revolver effectively making them a 9mm cartridge.  Well almost anyway.

 Looking at the picture you can see a short colt that I fire formed with the load data from jcc7x7.  The case is fully formed at about .050 to .055 beyond the .200 measurement.  Even if I attempted to use your multiplier, I don't think it would work here. 

IMG_1633.JPG


I was contemplating just using Western load data for 9mm ( I do have True Blue)  but 147gn is their heaviest bullet and I want to use 160gn.     

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OAL is 1.155

22 minutes ago, Drillbit said:

 

How did you arrive at the COAL 1.550?

if that is a fat finger fine but oal is 1.155

I arrived at that because its where it "looked" right and shot well.

I've loaded them out to 1.175 but the whole idea of of short colt is "short".

So I went back to 1.155 as that seems in my revolvers to have the best SD and ES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2017 at 1:11 PM, jcc7x7 said:

OAL is 1.155

if that is a fat finger fine but oal is 1.155

I arrived at that because its where it "looked" right and shot well.

I've loaded them out to 1.175 but the whole idea of of short colt is "short".

So I went back to 1.155 as that seems in my revolvers to have the best SD and ES

 

Yes, fat fingers.

What gun?  I'm using a 929.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my main load for 2 627's (38/357)

It is also used by one of my shooting buddies in his 929 with 627 Moon clips

we both use 38 special sizing dies, 9mm power drop/bell die

9mm seating die and 9mm FCD (lee) set just to get the bell out and put about .002 crimp on the Bayou 160gr bullet.

you should look up 38 short colt in 929 on this site I think TY shoots them our of his 929's and has done a fairly extensive write up about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, jcc7x7 said:

This is my main load for 2 627's (38/357)

It is also used by one of my shooting buddies in his 929 with 627 Moon clips

we both use 38 special sizing dies, 9mm power drop/bell die

9mm seating die and 9mm FCD (lee) set just to get the bell out and put about .002 crimp on the Bayou 160gr bullet.

you should look up 38 short colt in 929 on this site I think TY shoots them our of his 929's and has done a fairly extensive write up about it

 

Thanks for that. I'm doing everything you are except for the 38spl. sizing die, I'm using a 9mm.

I have read Ty's post on this subject, it's where I got the idea.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, 57K said:

Really, there is a better case for this application, but since the round didn't catch on, you may not find any cases: the 9mm Federal. I also wonder a bit about what the purpose of such a load is. I get the part about being able to use moon clips, but as far as making Minor PF competition loads for the 929, and not to be critical, I'm not seeing the advantage of using them when the 9mm case is so short to begin with. Loading for the 627 chambered for .38/.357, the cases are much longer where the moon clip ensures that all the cases can be ejected simultaneously with little effort and using a Short Colt case there seems a bit more logical.

 

In trying to understand the logic in using Short Colt cases in 929 loads, maybe someone can explain the merits to me.

 

20 hours ago, thermobollocks said:

What is this supposed to accomplish?

 

Faster reloads.

The idea of using the Short Colts (Starline Brass) and moon clips for Short Colts is in the way the brass is held in the clip. There is very little movement because the clip is made just for that brass.  9mm brass has a taper cut at the extractor grove which allows the brass to sit in the clip loosely, Short Colt brass has no taper, ( see photo above ) this all makes for a faster, fumble free reload. Coupled with heavy bullets it's quit a difference.

    

 

Edited by Drillbit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Pardon my ignorance, buddy, but moon clips are req'd for 9mm loads as well? I've just began looking at the 929 and it seems impressive. But if all loads require the moon clips, think I'd just stick with 9 x 19mm. Data for 160 gr. Bullets is available as well. While Western doesn't show any for Accurate and Ramshot powders, you can bet they have data for 160s.


Only if you want to eject them, you can drop them in and fire them without a clip but then you will need to push them out with a pencil or something

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So get moon clips cut for specific 9mm brass, and stick to that headstamp of brass...just like you have to do with Short Colt. No need to horse around with putting the wrong thing in the wrong chamber.

 

Ninja-edit: http://www.tkcustom.com/cart/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=42&cat=9mm Like these.

Edited by thermobollocks
New link.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, thermobollocks said:

So get moon clips cut for specific 9mm brass, and stick to that headstamp of brass...just like you have to do with Short Colt. No need to horse around with putting the wrong thing in the wrong chamber.

 

Ninja-edit: http://www.tkcustom.com/cart/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=42&cat=9mm Like these.

 

I know..... I just wanted to see for my self what it was all about.

I have TK clips, they work good, but this other setup works a little better.  In my original post all I wanted was some more load info other then what I had. I found some more, now I'm good.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

From when I was shooting revo.

 

Fed SPP

Starline 38 SColt Brass

3.3 grs E3

160 Bayou

1.155

132 PF

(6" 686)

 

FYI.  Starline .38 Short Colt brass is identical to their .38 Special brass except for trim length and head stamp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive been trying to develop some 38 Short Colt loads for my 627 with what I have on hand. I have a custom 5" barrel by Pinnacle Performance (Factory barrel wouldnt group with 38 short colt, Specials or magnums). In the last two days I've tried Berrys 158 Gr RN .357 diam., Berrys 130 Gr RN .356 diam, and powerbond 158 Gr HP .3575 to .358 diam. Powders used are Bullseye, Titegroup, and WSF. Thus far the accuracy has been dismal regardless of which bullet with all three powders with the 130 gr being the worst, I expected it to be with a .356 diam in a .357 bore, but it was worth a try for elimination sake. The Berrys 158 RN shot best with 3.3 gr Bullseye and 4.4 gr WSF getting 3" groups at 20 yards. The Powerbond with 4.4 WSF showed the most promise with a 2-1/2" group at 20 yards. But still both dismal. After all this I decided to try some 38 special cases to determine if its the Short colt cases or bullets that the gun despises. I loaded up my 38 special recipe I used to run in my old 686 for ICORE that shot very well, Berrys 158 gr RN over 4.0 gr of titegroup. At 20 yards it shot a 1" group. I also ran a 38 special load from 30 years ago that someone gave to me (tag says 150 gr cast 3.6 gr Unique) and again 1" group at twenty. Im starting to doubt that the short colt's long bullet jump in a 357 mag cylinder "doesn't hurt accuracy".  Any thoughts on this?    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...