.38 special load question???

[74camaroman]

I loaded some .38 special wad cutter cases with Berry's (125 grain) flat point bullets and Vihtavouri N320 powder (5.8 gn & 6.1 gn) with a COL of 1.496 according to the Vihtavouri load data. Is it OK to load wad cutter cases with Flat Point Bullets? Seems that the bullet is only inside the case about 3/16". I looked at the data in my Speer Manual, nothing about the 125 gn FP, Hodgdon also nothing and 125 Lswc listed the COL at around 1.440. Will they be safe to shoot with just a very light taper crimp?? I will be shooting them out of two stubbies, one a Charter Arms and the other is a hammerless S&W revolver, both 5 shot cylinders.

[jetinteriorguy]

Since they don’t have a cannelure, load them to the length you want, then work your load up from there watching for excessive pressure. As much case volume that a .38sp has you should be fine within loading data. You’ll never find an easier more forgiving caliber to load than .38sp. I usually load these bullets so most of the bearing surface is in the case and have never had an issue using several different powders, although I’ve never tried the one you’re listing so take what I’m saying with a grain of salt and follow normal safety practices when working up a load.

[Unclenick]

74cameroman,

Small (less than one caliber) seating depths are not at all uncommon in handgun calibers. The only problem I foresee is with the light taper crimp. The snubbies are light guns, so recoil in them has the cylinder and ejector pushing back more sharply on the case rims than a K38 or other heavier revolver would. While that happens, the bullet's inertia tries to keep it from moving back with the case, so you can end up with the bullet tips protruding from the cylinder face if they haven't just fallen completely out by then. It's sort of like the recoil does the "pantsing" practical joke on the bullet, except it's the case rather than trousers being pulled down. This jams operation of the gun. You would do better to use a roll crimp and let it dig into the bullet a little bit.

38 Wadcutter brass just avoids having any brass wall thickening far enough forward of the head to start squeezing the bottom end of a hollow base wadcutter into narrower form. This makes the brass a little weak for +P loads, or for use in a 357 Magnum revolver at full Magnum pressures, though, even then, a loose primer pocket that ruins the brass for further reloading is likely the worst consequence of trying it.

As always, your first loads should be with the lower starting load listed by VV and you should work up to the maximum in about 6 even steps, watching for signs of excess pressure, especially sticky ejection of the cases. For me, the workup steps would be 5.4, 5.6, 5.8, 6.0, 6.2, 6.3 grains. In some guns, a published maximum can still be overpressured, so the workup is needed. I note that in this case, both QuickLOAD and GRT think the VV maximum load is overpressure. They are computer models that can be wrong for several reasons, but I add this as a caution to work the load up in steps, especially with the wadcutter brass.

[reddog81]

Vihtavouri lists 1.496 as the OAL they used with 125 Grain Berrys flat point bullet. Their starting load is 5.4 and max is 6.3. With velocity of 1040 and 1230 respectively. Their .38 Special loads are kind of hot... I probably wouldn't advise starting with a load of 6.1 grains, but I'd be surprised if any issues arose.

Which S&W are we talking about and what is the cylinder made of? The generic description of 5 shot hammerless covers a very wide range of guns.

Using wadcutter brass won't change the OAL used.

I've never used a taper crimp die on .38 Special, but assuming it was used correctly I'd have no worries.

[Unclenick]

Again, always start with the bottom load in the data. The test guns and conditions have too many variables to be sure they are covering your particular gun and case and primer and lot of powder. Again, two interior ballistics calculators think the top load is too warm. They may be wrong but always err on the safe side with reloading. There's no penalty for staying safe beyond the cost of six rounds to make sure you aren't beating the gun up for no reason.

I disagree about the taper crimp. It works fine in self-loaders where the recoil bangs the front of the magazine into the bullet noses and the impact of a bullet nose starting up the feed ramp both tend to push bullets deeper into the case. But with revolvers, you are fighting bullet pulling, not bullet pushing, and where the taper crimp plants a good, sharp edge against a bullet being pushed deeper into the case, it presents only a long, smooth, shallow taper to bullets being pulled, making it much easier to force open in that direction. The roll crimp actually hooks the bullet to resist it moving in either direction. Its main drawback is just shorter case life (mouth splits show up sooner).

[74A95]

Originally Posted by Unclenick

Again, two interior ballistics calculators think the top load is too warm. They may be wrong but always err on the safe side with reloading.

Some details would be nice here.

What is the pressure they predict at VV's maximum charge weight?

What is the pressure they predict at the OP's charge weight of 6.1 grains?

What is their maximum charge weight that is still under max pressure limit?

What parameter are you using for bullet length? Is that measured bullet length or just using the computer's default?

[Unclenick]

In QuickLOAD I use Berry's bullet data, but VV's COL of 1.495" (Berry's recommends 1.445" COL for this bullet; I don't know why VV went long), and 1160 psi start pressure. I used 24.1 grains case water overflow capacity (QL default is one grain lower, but I find the program's default values for quite a number of handgun cases are about a grain low). With VV's 6.5" barrel length, VV claims 6.3 grains of N320 will produce 1230 fps, while QL predicts 1238 fps, so it is very close. The predicted peak pressure in QL is 23,415 psi, or about 138% of SAAMI MAP for the 38 Special.

Gordons, with those same numbers, gives 1210.6 fps and 20,275 psi, or 119% of SAAMI MAP (CIP MAP is 17400 psi, so the ratio is a little lower there).

[74A95]

Thank you.

It should be pointed out that QuickLOAD states: "WARNING! The data predicted by QuickLOAD CANNOT be used as a substitute for information gained from standard handloading manual references; . . . "

In other words, QL is no substitute for actual pressure tested load data, which VV has.

Which source would I trust? The VV manual.

[Nick_C_S]

Seems that the bullet is only inside the case about 3/16".

That doesn't surprise me. 1.496" is way too long. I don't know why Vihtavuori loaded them so long. Berry's recommends 1.445" and that's where I load mine (have loaded many Berry's 125's). Mine are definitely more than 3/16" into the case.

Addition: I just went to Vihtavuori's site. It's really odd that they have the Berry's 125 at 1.496". All the other bullets show "normal" OAL's. I think it's some sort of mis-print.

[reddog81]

Originally Posted by Unclenick

There's no penalty for staying safe beyond the cost of six rounds to make sure you aren't beating the gun up for no reason.

I disagree about the taper crimp.

How exactly do you know if the load is at 20,000 to 23,000 range PSI and beating up the gun. I’m not aware of any high pressure signs that’ll show up in at that level.

A taper crimp isn’t much different from a light roll crimp. Bullets with crimp grooves and and cannelures can take a moderate or heavy roll crimp, plated bullets not so much. Many people just remove the flare and use minimal to no crimp with plated bullets. I’ve done it without issue on loads hotter than that.

[jetinteriorguy]

Mine are 1.433” OAL with 5.1gr of HP38. Very pleasant to shoot and very accurate in my Smith model 67.

[Unclenick]

Originally Posted by 74A95

It should be pointed out that QuickLOAD states: "WARNING! The data predicted by QuickLOAD CANNOT be used as a substitute for information gained from standard handloading manual references; . . . "

In other words, QL is no substitute for actual pressure tested load data, which VV has.

Which source would I trust? The VV manual.

Why did you ask me to take the time to put up the QL and GRT data if all you intended to do was dismiss it? I am puzzled by that. If you had bothered to read my original post #3, what I said was:

Originally Posted by Unclenick

I note that in this case, both QuickLOAD and GRT think the VV maximum load is overpressure. They are computer models that can be wrong for several reasons, but I add this as a caution to work the load up in steps…

So, I presented the simulator output as one additional clue that the load should be worked up from minimum. I've been using QL for twenty years and made many, many comparisons of its output to published data that included both pressure and velocity and found that when the velocity is a match, the predicted pressure is virtually always equal or lower than the measured pressure due to modeling limitations. In this case, the pressure was high for the reported velocity, which I took as unusual enough to consider it a caution to work the loads up from the bottom.

So, the question is, do you actually disagree with the advice to work loads up from minimum? Every loading instruction manual I can recall reading, including those from the bullet and powder makers and distributors, has said to do this if you want to be sure to stay safe. And numerous folks, as the OP appears to have done, ignore it. And while one usually has no trouble starting higher, every once in a while, it causes a problem. It is rare, but it's not zero probability, and expending half a dozen rounds coming up from the bottom eliminates the chance of it, so it seems to me to be a prudent thing to do.

We had a member a while back who was working up through 243 Win load data in the Speer manual, and a little over halfway to the top, his Handi-rifle was popping its action open on every shot, and the velocity he was getting was more than 200 fps above the published one. He knew the trick about checking the Handi-rifle catch for dirt and debris and had none, and he had no problem like this with commercial loads. So, he called Speer to report the problem. Their response was to tell him they had a ballistic technician's signed pressure test document showing the top load was within SAAMI limits. Period. Apparently, the lawyers have Speer's backside covered, whether it was covered by an error by the ballistic technician or not. Indeed, the lawyers might tell them that checking it out would be an admission of uncertainty which would leave them vulnerable to a lawsuit.

And it may not have been a ballistic tech error. Their lot of powder may have been slow compared to what is current. They may have used a higher capacity case, a milder primer, or all of the above. The SAAMI standard P&V test barrels use a nominal bore diameter, while the Handi-rifle may have had a tight bore. I've even seen a couple of guns with tight chambers and short "throats" because only the roughing reamer had been run into them at the factory and the finishing reamer step had been omitted, and those, if you can close the chamber on a live round in one at all, can jam bullets pretty hard in their "throats" and give you high pressures. Whatever the reason, and here is the point, the test was showing there was no safe way to get to the published charge maximum in that gun without the risk of gun damage or primer blowout or possibly even a cased blowout.

So, again, it makes sense to always work up from the bottom. It only takes one round at each step for a total of half a dozen rounds to have that safety assurance.


Reddog81,

We also don't "know" what the OP's guns are. If his Smith is an old aluminum frame Airweight, I would be very concerned about frame stretching on a steady diet at those pressures, as +P ammo is known to do it to them at just 20,000 psi max. If his Charter is the aluminum frame Boxer model, it's not rated for +P as their thicker aluminum frame 5-shot models are, so, again, I would be concerned about frame stretching in the long term if those pressures are right.

Regarding the crimp, what you advised the OP to use was a "light" taper crimp. I don't know if you have ever owned a light snub-nosed revolver, but with full-house loads, the lighter they are and the warmer the load, the more smartly they recoil, which means they try to pull the cases off the bullets. Heavy magnum loads can do this in heavier revolvers. As an extreme example, a friend of mine with a titanium cylinder 5-shot snubbie in 45 Colt cannot use even roll-crimped commercial loads with 250-grain bullets because that gun recoils so sharply that the bullets are inertially pulled and end up sticking out of the cylinder and jamming its rotation. He had to stick to 200-grain bullet commercial loads to reduce recoil enough to prevent this until we got him a Redding Profile Crimp die and put really hard roll crimps into his bullets. A Lee Collet-style Crimp Die might have worked, too, but while it is available in 45 Colt, it isn't available in 38 Special, so I can't recommend it to the OP. In neither case is brass life as good as it is with a taper crimp, but if you really need to hang on to a bullet, they work.

Taper crimps were devised to extend case life and make the crimp adjustment in rimless auto pistol cases less critical. Before taper crimps were common, one had to adjust the more abrupt roll crimp shoulder of a standard die to take the flare out of rimless auto cartridge cases without making them too narrow to headspace on the case mouth so case length consistency was more of an issue. Their availability for revolver calibers was probably based on making the exact case length and die setup less critical. I have used taper crimps with wadcutter loads in 6" target revolvers with no problem. But those guns are heavy, and the loads are light.

There are several ways you can prove roll crimps are harder to break loose than taper crimps are. One is to apply both crimp types to dummies and see which ones your inertial bullet puller can pop out more easily. The old-time bull's-eye shooters always reported roll crimps on 45 ACP rounds produced higher and better velocity consistency and accuracy than taper crimps. They were shooting tuned 1911s, so they had to seat the bullets out to stop on the chamber throat for headspacing, rather than relying on the case mouth to do it, but it worked for them, and you can find posts by bull's-eye shooters still doing it for the better accuracy. It shortens case life, but it works.

Another proof is to load up some magnum loads with 296/H110 and go to the range and look at how they behave over the chronograph and on the target to see if you don't get the same difference in velocity consistency and accuracy (though I recommend loading the taper-crimped rounds one-at-a-time to prevent pulling). That powder needs as much start pressure as it can get. Load them using the Redding Profile Crimp Die, and the consistency gets still better, as Phillip Massaro mentions in this Gun Digest Article.

The Redding Profile Crimp is a funny combination of taper and roll crimp. It was observed long ago that there is a limit to how hard a standard roll crimp die can successfully crimp a case. This is because forcing the lip of the case mouth to turn its tight corner radius too far causes the sides of the case below it to be lifted outward, away from the sides of the bullet. This not only takes away from the grip case friction has on the bullet but, taken far enough, it can interfere with chambering. This happens because the die below the crimp shoulder has to be loose to accommodate different bullet and case tolerances. The Profile Crimp Die solves that problem by starting with a taper crimp that presses the brass against the bullet's sides before terminating in a roll crimp shoulder at the top of the taper. The tapered portion thus holds the sides of the case in place while the roll crimp is applied, preventing that outward lifting of the sides of the case away from the bullet.

I realize a roll crimp can crack and slightly distort the copper on a plated bullet, but it's better than jamming the cylinder and having to deal with safely getting it open when the protruding bullet is on the wrong side of the frame. The snubbie is not a target pistol, and any inaccuracy error introduced by that distortion will not be noticeable at practical snubbie ranges.

[reddog81]

Originally Posted by Unclenick

Reddog81,

We also don't "know" what the OP's guns are. If his Smith is an old aluminum frame Airweight, I would be very concerned about frame stretching on a steady diet at those pressures, as +P ammo is known to do it to them at just 20,000 psi max. If his Charter is the aluminum frame Boxer model, it's not rated for +P as their thicker aluminum frame 5-shot models are, so, again, I would be concerned about frame stretching in the long term if those pressures are right.

I concur. I did ask him what guns he was shooting in but hasn't responded yet. I'm kind of surprised VV doesn't list some of their max loads as +P loads...

[74A95]

Originally Posted by reddog81

I concur. I did ask him what guns he was shooting in but hasn't responded yet. I'm kind of surprised VV doesn't list some of their max loads as +P loads...

CIP does not recognize a 38 Special +P.

[Unclenick]

It's because they are European and follow CIP standards, which don't include the +P designation. They have four versions, which are

38 Special
38 Special (carb)
38 Special AMU
38 Special Wadcutter

The first is shown with a revolver chamber, not unlike our own. The second is a chamber drawing for carbine rifles that eliminates the freebore constituted by a revolver's cylinder throats. The last two are both wadcutter loads, but the exact COL is slightly different and the AMU version of the chamber has a longer taper into the freebore and a longer freebore.

I think the reason they have no +P is partly that the CIP countries never had the 38 Special as their standard law enforcement cartridge, so they never had need of a +P version that would retrofit existing LE revolvers to have more power. Those who want a more powerful 38 in a CIP country just go directly to 357 Magnum. The other reason is they had mandatory proof house testing laws for every individual gun, and allowing +P into their market would have meant re-proofing every gun chambered for 38 Special to the higher standard under their system. We solved this in the U.S. by requiring all new 38 Specials to handle the higher +P proof loads and just dropped the old standard for them. This still doesn't mean the non-+P-rated guns and old guns can hold up to a steady diet of +P over the long-term, of course.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by Unclenick

Why did you ask me to take the time to put up the QL and GRT data if all you intended to do was dismiss it?

The details matter. Twice you said the max load was overpressure according to your ballistics calculators. However, you never said how much overpressure they were. 1%? 20%? 45000%?

More important, it's completely irrelevant whether QL and/or Gordon's agree or disagree with VV's load data. I state the reason in my post #8. All that matters is VV's load data. They tested it. The data fell within the parameters in their test. It does not matter what those ballistics programs say. (And even they disagree by 3,000 psi.) If you think those programs are on to something, contact VV and let them know.

Originally Posted by Unclenick

So, the question is, do you actually disagree with the advice to work loads up from minimum?

I never said or implied anything of the sort. I don't know where you got that.

[stinkeypete]

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

What this means in this case- just because something is published by one company does not mean it is correct. All reloading should be checked against second INDEPENDENT sources, and perhaps even more.

The OP wants to load a 125 cast flat point.

I suggest looking at the data for the Lyman 146 g round nose and 155 g flat point

There isn’t much data in my manual for vv powder but the OP can look at the data and see that for jhp the COL is around 1.47” to 1.478” and 1.450 for a cast round nose.

A 141 wadcutter has a COL of 1.31 and a 146g Linotype round nose COL of 1.515. For the common fast powders, the increased volume in the chamber allows for only 0.1 g increase of powder as a max load. Sr-7625 is the outlier, allowing an extra .7g increase for max load.

That tells me I can use the wadcutter amount of powder with a much reduced COL and not lose much velocity.

Comparing the 125 round nose cast to a 141 g wadcutter I see I generally am safe by around .2 to .3 grains, sr-7625 again being an outlier.

By charting lots of bullets and lots of powders, you can put yourself in a position where your data tells you your recipe is safe.

There is no reason to push the maximum load, seek good accuracy.

If you know your gun is strong and in good mechanical condition, you know that the OLD .38 max formula is now called “+p”.

If you assemble a bullet and you look at it and say “that looks wrong”… trust your intuition and start doing some scientific careful testing and build up a load. Set the COL where it seems right to you. Adjust powder for a safe load given your lot of powder, primers, brass and gun.

With enough bullet engagement there is nothing wrong with taper crimping for less “fire breathing” loads.

Just because it’s published does not mean it’s correct or safe. Misinformation tends to propagate. There is a famous situation of M1 .30 Carbine velocity data being published incorrectly. This surprising result was quoted and recopied for decades… giving people the impression that the cartridge was much less powerful than reality. People wanted to believe the often quoted data rather than measuring for themselves.

Believe in science! Believe the data of many, not the many quoting one data point.

[Shadow9mm]

So I learned a few things, mainly what was cutter brass is, but back to the topic at hand.

I always try and reference the bullet makers COL when possible. Berrys recommended 1.445

With that said max col is 1.550 per my hornady manual so vv 1.496 is within spec if a bit long for the bullet.

Imho a light taper crimp is unwise. I would go medium to firm. I have used a firm taper crimp with x-treme plated with no issues in a lcr. Will they be safe, yes. Is it possible with light guns and stout loads you could pull a bullet and jam the cylinder, also yes, especially with a light crimp.

My vv app shows a start of 5.4 to a max of 6.3 with that load. My question woukd be what is the purpose of the load? Best guess it plinking, target practice, or defensive training. If it's the first 2 work up a couple low loads, 5.4, 5.6, 5.8 see what feels good and shoots well. If for training to duplicate defensive loads I would try a different powder.

As always, guns are individuals. Work your loads up from start.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by stinkeypete

The OP wants to load a 125 cast flat point.

Berry's bullets are plated, not cast.

[74A95]

There's a lot of screwball advice in this thread. There's a reason why forums are considered good sources of misinformation.

Unclenick has provided some good advice for load development (minus the overpressure comments) - start low, work your way up. That is a general rule for ALL load development.

Check for bullet creep if you're shooting it in light weight revolvers. That will tell you if your crimp is strong enough.

Let us know how it goes.

[reddog81]

Originally Posted by 74A95

There's a lot of screwball advice in this thread. There's a reason why forums are considered good sources of misinformation.

Unclenick has provided some good advice for load development (minus the overpressure comments) - start low, work your way up. That is a general rule for ALL load development.

What pressure signs will you run into in .38 Special at 23,000 PSI?

[Shadow9mm]

Originally Posted by reddog81

What pressure signs will you run into in .38 Special at 23,000 PSI?

None most likely. Its possible you could get flattened or flowed primers. But that can vary by brand and or lot, and primers are a poor way to judge pressure in general. I have seen one brand show no signs, another be flattened with the same load, both well under max. But if I see it I stop to evaluate.

Use published data, make sure your firearms are in good working order, work your loads up from start. Look for clues that things are not normal.

[reddog81]

Flatten or flowing primers ain't happening at 23,000 PSI.

[74A95]

Originally Posted by reddog81

What pressure signs will you run into in .38 Special at 23,000 PSI?

It's a conundrum, isn't it? The usual advice is to work up and look for pressure signs, but the max 38 special pressure limit is 17,000 psi, one of the lowest of all the calibers. Only a few are lower.

[reddog81]

For a lot of handgun rounds the advice to "work up a load" doesn't really mean anything and will only give you a false sense of security. You could work up a load into .357 pressure ranges and you still wouldn't have any pressure signs. The gun will be taking a beating it wasn't designed for but any signs of excess battering won't show up until it's too late.

Realistically all you have to go by is the reloading data. At some point you have to use some common sense. Do you really want to run a load through your gun that is pushing a 125 grain bullet 1,230 FPS? FWIW my Lee load manual also gives 6.3 grains of N320 as the max load with a 125 grain plated bullet. So with 2 published sources does that confirm the load is safe? Or does that just mean Lee copied the VV data? Most factory 125 grain regular (non +P) ammo is running about 900 FPS. Even the majority of +P ammo is claiming slower velocity than that with most loads claiming around 1,000 to 1,100 FPS. Only the hottest premium ammo is going near 1,230.