DeerfieldCurly Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Anyone have recommendations on a .38 Special load for plinking with a SW 642 Snubnose. All I want to do is punch holes in paper comfortably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolverJockey Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I use a 148 DEWC seated flush with 2.0 gr bullseye. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Staying with the 148 DEWC theme, about 3.0-3.6 of ww231 works ok with that bullet, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felt Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 148 lwc with 2.0 grains of S1K or WST very little crimp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rather-B-Huntin Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I load 3.0 gr. of Clays under a 150 gr. RN that I cast from wheel weights in a Lee mould. Gives me about 625-650 fps from my 637 Powerport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom E Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 2.0 - 2.2 gr Solo 1000 with a 148 HBWC seated flush is pretty tame even in the ti airlites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71Commander Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I use a 148 DEWC seated flush with 2.0 gr bullseye. Lee Will that even punch a hole in the target at impact? Do you have to lob them in? I use 2.6 Bullseye W/ 148 HBWC, seated flush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolverJockey Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I use a 148 DEWC seated flush with 2.0 gr bullseye. Lee Will that even punch a hole in the target at impact? Do you have to lob them in? I use 2.6 Bullseye W/ 148 HBWC, seated flush. There is a lot less airspace in a DEWC than there is in a HB. That load makes 670 out of my snubnose. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom E Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 There is a lot less airspace in a DEWC than there is in a HB. Lee If they're both seated to the same oal, there's exactly the same "airspace" with a 148 DEWC as a 148 HBWC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71Commander Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 There is a lot less airspace in a DEWC than there is in a HB. Lee If they're both seated to the same oal, there's exactly the same "airspace" with a 148 DEWC as a 148 HBWC. Hey Tom! How you doing? Correct as the HBWC is longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom E Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Hangin' in there. Missed ya at Wheelgunner's revenge last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolverJockey Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 There is a lot less airspace in a DEWC than there is in a HB. Lee If they're both seated to the same oal, there's exactly the same "airspace" with a 148 DEWC as a 148 HBWC. Curious, why is one called a hollow base? Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71Commander Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 There is a lot less airspace in a DEWC than there is in a HB. Lee If they're both seated to the same oal, there's exactly the same "airspace" with a 148 DEWC as a 148 HBWC. Curious, why is one called a hollow base? Lee Because it is a cavity. Because both weigh the same, the displaced lead has to go somewhere when the cavity is created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolverJockey Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) There is a lot less airspace in a DEWC than there is in a HB. Lee If they're both seated to the same oal, there's exactly the same "airspace" with a 148 DEWC as a 148 HBWC. Curious, why is one called a hollow base? Lee Because it is a cavity. Because both weigh the same, the displaced lead has to go somewhere when the cavity is created. I didn't mean to sound overly dense. Pressure is equal Force divided Area. Perhaps with a fixed volume of space and a common charge, the decreased surface area of the under side of a DEWC causes the pressure to act differently on the bullet. I am achieving velocities in most powders using the OAL of HBWC while loading DEWC but with only 80% the charge. There are not a whole lot of loads posted for DEWC and powders could have changed since the data i have was posted but that is mould I have and with free bullets it's hard to look elsewhere. Lee Edited January 18, 2012 by Mitch_Rapp.45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71Commander Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 There is a lot less airspace in a DEWC than there is in a HB. Lee If they're both seated to the same oal, there's exactly the same "airspace" with a 148 DEWC as a 148 HBWC. Curious, why is one called a hollow base? Lee Because it is a cavity. Because both weigh the same, the displaced lead has to go somewhere when the cavity is created. I didn't mean to sound overly dense. Pressure is equal Force divided Area. Perhaps with a fixed volume of space and a common charge, the decreased surface area of the under side of a DEWC causes the pressure to act differently on the bullet. I am achieving velocities in most powders using the OAL of HBWC while loading DEWC but with only 80% the charge. There are not a whole lot of loads posted for DEWC and powders could have changed since the data i have was posted but that is mould I have and with free bullets it's hard to look elsewhere. Lee I didn't mean to sound condescending. If I did, I apologize. It wasn't my intent. Have you loaded a DEWC and a HBWC with the same charge at the same COL? If so, were there any difference in velocities? I'm thinking that the HBWC would have a higher velocity as the thinner walls of the cavity would expand into the rifling easier, creating a tighter seal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71Commander Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) Double tap. Edited January 18, 2012 by 71Commander Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolverJockey Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) I have never seen HBWC for sale and cast way before I got into .38. Perhaps someone with more experience (and age) has come across when these bullets were the rave and has more insight to share. All I know is I remember thinking I would aim way low and chrono and the results were surprising enough I got a second chrono out to verify. I experienced something similar loading 10mm 135 NOS HP with 800-X. I started 2.5 gr below max load and was getting velocities 12% above max load. Turns out the 800-X recipe had changed since people had been loading these 1,600+fps loads and was making way more (and dangerous) velocity with the currently posted data. Results 255 PF and obviously not safe. Lee Edited January 18, 2012 by Mitch_Rapp.45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodownzero Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) My new load is 3.5 of Solo 1000 and a 158 moly round nose. Not sure on the COAL, somewhere in the 1.4" range. 680 FPS out of my 642. Edited January 18, 2012 by twodownzero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RePete Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I have never seen HBWC for sale and cast way before I got into .38. Perhaps someone with more experience (and age) has come across when these bullets were the rave and has more insight to share. All I know is I remember thinking I would aim way low and chrono and the results were surprising enough I got a second chrono out to verify. I experienced something similar loading 10mm 135 NOS HP with 800-X. I started 2.5 gr below max load and was getting velocities 12% above max load. Turns out the 800-X recipe had changed since people had been loading these 1,600+fps loads and was making way more (and dangerous) velocity with the currently posted data. Results 255 PF and obviously not safe. Lee Here's a148gr HBWC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom E Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Remington, Speer, Hornady all make a swaged 148 HBWC. The bullet design with it's soft alloy and deep hollow base, obdurates and seals at low pressure making it a very accurate low pressure, low velocity rd. Load them up and you can actually get bullet seperation sending the bullet "head" down the barrel and leaving the cylindrical "hollow base" in the barrel but this takes a considerable over pressure load. Berry makes a plated 148 HBWC that is harder and requires more pressure (and velocity) to get it to obdurate and function properly. I've shot a bunch of the Remington HBWC's and they are VERY accurate in all my .38/.357's but they're definitely sub-minor loads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyT Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Anyone have recommendations on a .38 Special load for plinking with a SW 642 Snubnose. All I want to do is punch holes in paper comfortably. Two choices for light loads. The 147 gr. LSWC with 2.7 gr Bullseye at ca 780 fps or a my personnal preference for a 158 grr. cast lead bullet with 2.8 gr. Trail Boss at ca 650 fps. Trail Boss produces some very mild loads with lead bullets and the Hodgdon website has lots of load data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now