38spl hbwc thoughts?

[Jeff H]

I've never had a use for RNs or WCs, perceiving them to be strictly target stuff. I still feel that way about RNs.

I've read everything I can find written by @Outpost75 and kept coming back to one article in particular about WCs, maybe two if you count SD and "bunny gun" content. Still, I shunned them, even though both applications are dear to me.

Then @Tomme boy finds this great deal (STEAL) on LEE, 6C, 148 grain WC moulds at Midway - $26. I had no excuses left to not try them and see.

Well, loaded to 38 Special target-load-level in 357 cases, they really, really SHINE out of the carbine for "bunny-gun" chores and shoot well enough out of 3" revolvers to use for small game and furry, four-legged varmints/vermin.

I cast up nearly half a gallon of them and have been shooting them TL'd and unsized, but also PC'd a handful for suppressor use. I've been shooting a lot of them.

Next, I will try a stepped-up load and try them in the revolvers as potential SD loads. They do work just fine with speed strips, and this is how I charge the Contender carbine, with every other space in the strip holding a cartridge. For the five-shot revolvers, I use seven-shot strips with two cartridges, empty space, two cartridges, empty space,and then one cartridge. They load just fine and the PC'd ones slip in especially easily.

I'm having fun with them, if nothing else.

 

[358156 hp]

As an aside here...Starline 38 Special brass IS wadcutter brass.
From the mouth to about half way to the web it is straight sided and right at .010 thick

At least the two boxes I have bought are that way.
That doesn't mean it's ALWAYS that way though.
You need to check it.

Additionally, if you use a Dillon powder measure you can buy wadcutter specific powder funnels from Uniquetek: https://uniquetek.com/shop/ols/products/38-spl-wadcutter-powder-funnels There are two lengths available, HB wadcutter & solid wadcutter. These are especially useful when carbide case sizing dies are used because very few of them do not leave the case undersized for cast bullets. We've developed a lot of "work-arounds" for this situation but I like this solution enough to have both sizes. I'm also getting away from standard carbide sizes for straight case cartridges in favor of "Cowboy" dies, or even simply going back to using the old tapered steel sizing dies and case lube. So what if I have an extra case loading step? I normally process almost all cases way in advance of loading them anyway.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Additionally, if you use a Dillon powder measure you can buy wadcutter specific powder funnels from Uniquetek: https://uniquetek.com/shop/ols/products/38-spl-wadcutter-powder-funnels There are two lengths available, HB wadcutter & solid wadcutter. These are especially useful when carbide case sizing dies are used because very few of them do not leave the case undersized for cast bullets. We've developed a lot of "work-arounds" for this situation but I like this solution enough to have both sizes. I'm also getting away from standard carbide sizes for straight case cartridges in favor of "Cowboy" dies, or even simply going back to using the old tapered steel sizing dies and case lube. So what if I have an extra case loading step? I normally process almost all cases way in advance of loading them anyway.

As much as I like Dillion presses, the one place where Dillion fails is their powder funnel [AKA – powder through Expander]. The stock Dillion powder funnel does not expand the casing enough for cast bullets, it does not extend deep enough into the casing for wadcutters or semi-wadcutters and the Dillion expanders place a flare as opposed to a “step” on the case mouth. The Uniquetek powder funnels correct these issues.

I purchased custom powder funnels from a member on “that other forum” and those powder funnels were outstanding. (Lathesmith was his user name and he did excellent work)

Those custom powder funnels are GAME CHANGERS when using a Dillion 550 and loading 38 Special with cast bullets. I cannot overstate the improvement obtained by that one change.

The profile of these cast bullet friendly expanders are configured with the Lyman Type “M” flare that puts the “step” in the case mouth. Furthermore, they expand the casing to a depth compatible with the seating depth of a wadcutter and they expand the casing sufficiently for the bullet size I use.

Uniquetek also makes Dillion style powder funnels for 45 ACP and I use those on a Dillion 550 when loading 45 ACP. They work equally as well as the custom powder funnels from Lathesmith.

 

[RicinYakima]

Here, let me throw another stick on the fire. I have never, ever understood the theory that a wad cutter MUST be loaded so the case mouth and face of the bullet are at the same depth. I've loaded a lot of WC's out a good long ways and they were just as, if not more accurate than the traditional method.

Any thoughts?

I think the original idea was to improve combustion with minimal loads for Bullseye target shooting.

 

[david s]

For some reason Dillon offered a 32-caliber wad cutter (on the right) powder funnel, the SW funnel. The letter "S" is Dillon's designator for a 32-pistol caliber funnel, and I assume the "W" is for wad cutter. When loading wad cutters in 32 S&W or 32 H&R magnum it does help a fair bit. I don't believe that I've ever heard of a Dillon produced 38/357 or 44 wad cutter powder funnels though. I haven't used the Uniquetek funnels at all, if they had a step something like a Lyman "M" die I might have given one a try.

 

[TXTad]

Here, let me throw another stick on the fire. I have never, ever understood the theory that a wad cutter MUST be loaded so the case mouth and face of the bullet are at the same depth. I've loaded a lot of WC's out a good long ways and they were just as, if not more accurate than the traditional method.

Any thoughts?

@Petrol & Powder addresses this well in his response. I'll add that I generally load DEWCs, which tend to have a crimping groove 0.10" or so from each end. I seat to that and lightly crimp there. When I go deeper with the solid wadcutters, I've noticed they tend to make some cases bulge, giving me chambering issues in some of my guns. I suspect HBWCs would just swage down without such issues.

 

[358156 hp]

For some reason Dillon offered a 32-caliber wad cutter (on the right) powder funnel, the SW funnel. The letter "S" is Dillon's designator for a 32-pistol caliber funnel, and I assume the "W" is for wad cutter. When loading wad cutters in 32 S&W or 32 H&R magnum it does help a fair bit. I don't believe that I've ever heard of a Dillon produced 38/357 or 44 wad cutter powder funnels though. I haven't used the Uniquetek funnels at all, if they had a step something like a Lyman "M" die I might have given one a try.

They do offer "M" type powder funnels for other calibers, and some with other special features. Their funnels appear to be made by Photo Escape. I have a 9mm funnel with a deeper expander stem that normal for heavy bullets. It is also an "M" type expander as well.

 

[beagle]

Interesting thread all the way to the end. Shot a "bunch" of wad in my time and they make a nice load for practice, plinking or small game.
We once loaded a bunch of pulled Remington Targetmaster bullets backwards and tested them on some over ripe watermelons. Had about the affect that I anticipated with the factory charge. Good performance but not spectacular. (Unlike the .256 Win Mag factory we tested at the same time. Seeds fell for 3 minutes).
I was and am hesitant about loading HB wadcutters backwards. Just not much "meat" in the nose of the swaged WC. Cast has more.
I have shot the 358431, 358395 and 429422 quite extensively.
I found nothing in either one that cause me to get excited. A good solid base WC in the .38 or the 358429 or the 429421 will outdo any of the HB designs.
In shooting, be ruthless in looking for defects in the skirt of the HP cavity and I speak from experience,and you don't accomplish a thing by hot rodding a HB bullet. In fact they shoot better at factory velocities.
Give me a good solid base for self defense.
Just my experiences./beagle

 

[Bret4207]

I think the original idea was to improve combustion with minimal loads for Bullseye target shooting.

While using Bullseye powder, which is the easiest powder in the history of mankind to ignite uniformly. You may be right, but it's not 1930 anymore and my experience seating WC's out a ways has all been good. Just thought I'd see if others are as sacrilegious as I can be.

 

[Jeff H]

....my experience seating WC's out a ways has all been good. Just thought I'd see if others are as sacrilegious as I can be.

Good is..... GOOD, but is it better than seating them all the way in? Just asking, not challenging. I've been shooting a lot of them after a many-decades break, in revolver and carbine. "Common sense" would dictate to me that seating them long, to center up in revolver throats or to get close to the rifling in the carbine, would be "better," but they are shooting so well deeply-seated that I've dismissed the thought. In other words, I've not tried seating them long to see if it works better. I really can't argue with the accuracy I'm getting in either gun.

My untested hypothesis is that since the WC is pretty much all bearing surface, and no nose to get tilted, it would be difficult to get one started crooked even when not centered-up using methods we've applied to longer bullets with actual noses. Then again, I'm not shooting them at anything over 50 yards, and usually much less, so I don't have any experience to tell whether seating them deeply or seating them long makes a difference.

Given the opportunity to reduce air space in the case, I'll take it. I'm not using Bullseye, I'm using Unique. Not that Unique is at all hard to light, but I AM using it at its lower limits of usefulness. This also may or may not make a difference.

 

[beagle]

No reason not to seat wadcutters out unless you're shooting a Colt Midrange Match or M52. I normally lube only one or maybe two grooves anyway in wadcutters. All that's needed. May have to up the charge a grain or two to achieve the velocity you want due to increased case capacity. In fact with the decreased "cylinder jump" due to the long seating, may result in an increase in accuracy./beagle

 

[358156 hp]

There was an Ideal design that was intended to be a "soft target" bullet from the very start. They're rarely seen anymore. Ideal 360270 "Manstopper". A really large, but shallow cup type HP on what looks like a wadcutter design, but there are differences. The "nose" portion is actually undersized to the bore, but has ribs on it to bring it up to full diameter. Is this to facilitate expansion while limiting it as well? Lots of questions here, and the people who designed this bullet are long since gone.

 

[TXTad]

There was an Ideal design that was intended to be a "soft target" bullet from the very start. They're rarely seen anymore. Ideal 360270 "Manstopper". A really large, but shallow cup type HP on what looks like a wadcutter design, but there are differences. The "nose" portion is actually undersized to the bore, but has ribs on it to bring it up to full diameter. Is this to facilitate expansion while limiting it as well? Lots of questions here, and the people who designed this bullet are long since gone.
View attachment 37212

Jeez! Now I want one of these molds. A quick innerwebz search indicates they may not be easy to find. Are there any similar current designs out there?

 

[358156 hp]

Jeez! Now I want one of these molds. A quick innerwebz search indicates they may not be easy to find. Are there any similar current designs out there?

I've only seen two of these in my life, and I own one of them. I should have bought the second one when I had the chance but I tried to wait and see if the price went down a bit. It didn't. They appeared to have had very limited production.

 

[Bret4207]

Good is..... GOOD, but is it better than seating them all the way in? Just asking, not challenging. I've been shooting a lot of them after a many-decades break, in revolver and carbine. "Common sense" would dictate to me that seating them long, to center up in revolver throats or to get close to the rifling in the carbine, would be "better," but they are shooting so well deeply-seated that I've dismissed the thought. In other words, I've not tried seating them long to see if it works better. I really can't argue with the accuracy I'm getting in either gun.

My untested hypothesis is that since the WC is pretty much all bearing surface, and no nose to get tilted, it would be difficult to get one started crooked even when not centered-up using methods we've applied to longer bullets with actual noses. Then again, I'm not shooting them at anything over 50 yards, and usually much less, so I don't have any experience to tell whether seating them deeply or seating them long makes a difference.

Given the opportunity to reduce air space in the case, I'll take it. I'm not using Bullseye, I'm using Unique. Not that Unique is at all hard to light, but I AM using it at its lower limits of usefulness. This also may or may not make a difference.

I tried it because the WC in question would get "squished" (that's the accurate scientific term!) when seated normally in some of the brass I was using. I read up on it, seated out longer and longer and eventually ended up with it seated about halfway out of that brass. Yes, it was slower and I had to add something like .5 gr more powder but they actually shot better for me with that brass in my M19. I have an ancient Officers Model Colt that I hope to wring out, assuming I get the chance, and I will likely try long seating in that too, just to see if it works there too.