Report on my first reloads- .38 S&W

1
I'm going to call my first reloads a success.

The load used was in new Starline brass with CCI small pistol primers. The bullets were Hornady 148gr. HBWCs over 2.5 gains of Unique. This is well below the best estimated safety threshold I could establish for use in a top-break revolver. The bullets were seated so that they protruded approximately 3/16" from the loaded cartridge.

Recoil and muzzle-blast were comparable to factory ammunition, being mild and not overly loud or sharp. The first test was a single round fired from a 1-5/8" barrel at an oven-cured Douglas Fir 2x6 board. The round completely penetrated the board and made a 1/2" deep impression in the 2x6 a foot behind it before bouncing off. This result was very similar to the performance of factory ammunition in a previous test with the exception that the factory round-nosed lead bullet remained fully imbedded in the second board. The recovered bullet exhibited stria from the gun's rifling, shallow at the front of the bullet and deep on the skirt of the bullet where it had expanded into the rifling.

Forty rounds were fired through the test guns. The primary and secondary test guns are both S&W .38 Safety Hammerless Fourth Models with 1-5/8" barrels. The primary test gun shot to point-of-aim and the secondary test-gun shot low in the fashion that I had anticipated based on the very tall front sight. All shots struck squarely with no evidence of instability or key-holing. None of the fired cases showed any evidence of excessive pressure; no flattening of the headstamps or primers. Neither gun showed any sign of damage or excessive leading. Accuracy was within the limits I was capable of producing on the shooting day. I was able to produce decent but not exceptional groups at seven yards. I have no reason to attribute this to the ammunition rather than the shooter; I am recovering from a severe cold and am not at my best.

The group shown in the picture was fired in approximately 2 seconds at seven yards. Under the circumstances I'm pretty happy with the result.
Image


I'll be loading more of this load both for target shooting and as a defensive load.
Last edited by TinkerPearce on Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Aim for their foil beanies! It's the only way to be sure..."
https://tinkertalksguns.wordpress.com
https://www.facebook.com/michael.t.pearce.7

Re: Report on my first reloads

6
Marlene wrote:Very nice! I should load some too. I have a top break I've never shot.
I set my seating die to give an overall length of .970" No roll crimp but they are squeezed tight enough you'd need pliers to get them out! No issues with them 'walking out' under repeated recoil, either.

Only problem is after all that fuss to get the dies set up for .38 S&W I don't want to mess up my settings loading .38 Special! I guess I'll be picking up another set of dies... :laugh:
"Aim for their foil beanies! It's the only way to be sure..."
https://tinkertalksguns.wordpress.com
https://www.facebook.com/michael.t.pearce.7

Re: Report on my first reloads- .38 S&W

10
TinkerPearce wrote:None of the fired cases showed any evidence of excessive pressure; no flattening of the headstamps or primers.
I feel compelled to point out that, based on my limited understanding, looking for "pressure signs" on cartridges in this class is a fool's errand. Just because a lot of people talk about it doesn't mean it makes sense! The component metals don't know what cartridge name is roll-stamped on the side of the barrel or what SAAMI limit defines it. Imagining otherwise seems like magical thinking.

Just last week, I saw a claim on THR that any change in the headstamp indicated something like 80,000 PSI. That was in a rifle, but regardless, before that effect showed up on the brass in a top break revolver, you'd be missing the topstrap, half the cylinder and probably a couple of digits and an eye.

Primers are not much better. I've seen many people say how healthy their primers look in these old, low-pressure revolver cartridges. Well, duh. THE SAME PRIMERS ARE USED IN .357 MAGNUMS! If those primers distorted in any meaningful way in calibers of the pressure class of .38 Special or lower, they'd liquefy in >30,000 PSI 9 mm or magnum ammo! If a primer can be used in a magnum "starting load" without being bent, it can't be bent by anything close to a safe load in a black-powder-era caliber. I really doubt there is anything to be learned about pressure from the appearance of post-fired ammo in sub-20,000 PSI cartridges, except maybe sooting indicating very low pressure.

I stare at my primers, too, but I try not to put much stock in what I see. When I had sticky extraction from my Redhawk, that I believed. I pulled the rest of those! Otherwise: follow the published data; trust the published data.

Sorry to go off on you, but this has been building up each time I see this sort of thing online, which is not rarely!
I'll be loading more of this load both for target shooting and as a defensive load.
I can't argue with that! :clap2:
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Re: Report on my first reloads- .38 S&W

11
Buck13 wrote:
TinkerPearce wrote:None of the fired cases showed any evidence of excessive pressure; no flattening of the headstamps or primers.
I feel compelled to point out that, based on my limited understanding, looking for "pressure signs" on cartridges in this class is a fool's errand. Just because a lot of people talk about it doesn't mean it makes sense! The component metals don't know what cartridge name is roll-stamped on the side of the barrel or what SAAMI limit defines it. Imagining otherwise seems like magical thinking.
I'll be loading more of this load both for target shooting and as a defensive load.
I can't argue with that! :clap2:
Oh, I get it completely. I'd have been flabbergasted if I saw any evidence of excessive pressure on the headstamp or primers. But one looks anyway, even if you know the gun would have grenaded long before you saw any such thing. I will try not to irk you with this information in future reports! :D
"Aim for their foil beanies! It's the only way to be sure..."
https://tinkertalksguns.wordpress.com
https://www.facebook.com/michael.t.pearce.7

Re: Report on my first reloads- .38 S&W

12
TinkerPearce wrote: Oh, I get it completely. I'd have been flabbergasted if I saw any evidence of excessive pressure on the headstamp or primers. But one looks anyway, even if you know the gun would have grenaded long before you saw any such thing. I will try not to irk you with this information in future reports! :D
No, no, you're right. It has to be said, or someone will probably just ask about the primers anyway!

The whole time I was composing I was thinking "Tinker is certainly way too smart to make the mistake I am describing," but I couldn't resist addressing the subject. Better to have gone off to confront this idea on a THR thread written by someone in whom I did NOT have that confidence, but that's the bad judgement of late-night posting. I should bookmark this thread to copy/paste into such a thread later.
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests