Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Loading manuals with lighter bullets?


Go West

Recommended Posts

Just wondering if any of the newer reloading manuals have been updated with lighter lead bullets. 96 and 105 gr. bullets have been used for some time  now for example in .38 Special. Others use 78 gr. .32s or 160 gr. .45s. I think the days of 158 gr. .38s or 148 gr. wadcutters has long passed for many shooters.

I could have said that soft loads do not necessarily bang the target loud enough and may cause unnecessary misses. Do not misinterpret that I would pursue a load under the SASS limits, that would be wrong. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, it's been my experience that reliably running a light bullet slow is not entirely an easy task. 

 

I test over a chrony, look for decent Es/Sd and with powder forward/powder rearward consistency. At 700 fps it takes so little powder, most chrono data is at best described as erratic.

 

The trick is to minimize the combustion chamber. Loading a WC bullet flush with the case minimizes the internal volume, so does loading in a smaller case. When I went to the 38 LC case, I was able to run a 125 gr bullet and get good numbers and good shooting ammo. My ammo is around 700 fps and the numbers are decent, not real good, but good enough. 

 

Velocity Av

706/707.8

Es

28/37.7

Sd

10.9/17.2

Shots

5>/5<**

 

** > indicates powder forward, < indicates powder rearward.

 

I'd like to see more "Cowboy" data in all the calibers, with all weights of bullets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, in fact, Hodgdon has seemed to intentionally avoid publishing cowboy type loads recently, where in the past they did.   Alliant now publishes only standard-bullet-weight load data for cowboy pistol cartridges, and only shows maximum powder levels for those loads. 

 

The demand is small and the risks of publishing such loads is fairly high.   The amount of lab time needed to develop safe low-pressure loads is about the same as standard or high-performance loads. Except for Trail Boss, no powder has been explicitly designed to perform well in the cowboy arena, and it has some limitations when going to low chamber pressures.   Our types of loads used to be similar to what bullseye target shooters would be interested in.   Now, bullseye interest is approaching zero, and those few who are still shooting that sport choose jacketed bullets more often.  We seem to be the "last plinkers standing"  :lol:   (Or, to widen coverage of Go West's statement, "I think the days of lead bullet loads have long passed for many shooters.")

 

Letters and emails to the major loading data publishers MIGHT still generate action by their technicians to include light weight lead bullet loads in a future update.   Lyman, RCBS or Lee might be companies that could have some financial interest, so they could sell more light bullet molds. 

 

We have made one big step forward - and that is the ability to share light load data right here.  True, it's not tested anywhere near as well as professionally generated data, but it's what we've got.   "Trust but verify" is still a wise strategy.

 

 

 

Good luck, GJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly enough, I did see loads for 125 gr. bullets in a 2nd Edition Lee manual. It also posted 3 for a 90 gr. lead bullet and 11 for a 160 gr Colt. Speeds are not exactly low though. My older Lee, Lyman and Loadbooks were skimpy and do not post some of the newer powders. Reminder to self, check all sources before posting. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

38 Spl ... http://stevespages.com/357p_7.html

32 ... What caliber? There are many

45's - What caliber? There are many

If you post with specific calibers - you'll get answers not QUESTIONS !

You wrote caliber, but I wonder if you meant cartridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still use the data from the Hodgdon pamphlet that was included in the envelope with my badge and member’s certificate when I joined SASS in 1998, so I can’t help you with more recent references. But your question made me think— not trying to derail the thread.

 

Loads that recoil less than factory loads can reduce times up to a point, but there must be a point of diminishing returns, a point where less recoil is not the determining factor.   I recall seeing posts that said a little bit of recoil actually helped the competitor to shoot faster.  Counterintuitive, but it’s  kinda like the limit to reducing times by using lighter hammer springs.  At some point the slower hammer fall actually causes times to increase.  The critical points probably vary from one competitor to another, but there must be some ballpark numbers  about where those parameters become insignificant.

 

Rather than hijack this thread, if you have any data about limits on reduced recoil or lighter springs helping to reduce overall times, send me a PM.  Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wrote caliber, but I wonder if you meant cartridge. 

Roscoe -  for the good of the order, cartridge would have been a better choice of words even though there are many 32's and 45's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You wrote caliber, but I wonder if you meant cartridge. 

Roscoe -  for the good of the order, cartridge would have been a better choice of words even though there are many 32's and 45's

But each of those 32s and 45s are different cartridges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you ask for a specific caliber on the wire, you'll get load data.  Most of it will be below what the manufacturer's data is.  It will also be loads that have been shot thousands of times, so they will have a history of working well.   I've been shooting the same 357 magnum load for about 8 years now, and have not had a problem with it.  As J-Bar said, too light with the springs and too light with the loads will be counter productive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The demand is small and the risks of publishing such loads is fairly high.   The amount of lab time needed to develop safe low-pressure loads is about the same as standard or high-performance loads.

Except for Trail Boss, no powder has been explicitly designed to perform well in the cowboy arena, and it has some limitations when going to low chamber pressures. 


Sentence #1 is entirely lawyer-speak...
I fully understand why any business is afraid to innovate for fear of lawsuits.
Lawyers scare me, so I refuse to service medical computer systems because of the severe HIPPA liabilities.

I had Ringer Bullets make me a custom run of soft-cast (BHN=9) 105 grain LTCFP Hi-Tek in 0.358 expressly for low recoil loads.
Trail Boss and Clean Shot both gave pressures and velocities within CAS revolver limits.
Trail Boss fills the 38SP case more than Clean Shot.

Trail Boss is the most bulky of the powders.

VMD = 0.2172 Hodgdon Trail Boss
VMD = 0.1587 Accurate Royal Scot
VMD = 0.1543 VihtaVuori N32C
VMD = 0.1489 Alliant e3
VMD = 0.1462 Hodgdon Clays
VMD = 0.1446 IMR Green
VMD = 0.1423 IMR Red
VMD = 0.1413 Alliant Red Dot
VMD = 0.1390 Alliant Extra-Lite

VMD = 0.0997 Clean Shot (Lovex D032)

Error on my part:  Clean Shot is not N32C (Tin Star), it is rebranded Lovex D032

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Sentence #1 is entirely lawyer-speak...
I fully understand why any business is afraid to innovate for fear of lawsuits.
Lawyers scare me, so I refuse to service medical computer systems because of the severe HIPPA liabilities.

I had Ringer Bullets make me a custom run of soft-cast (BHN=9) 105 grain LTCFP Hi-Tek in 0.358 expressly for low recoil loads.
Trail Boss and CleanShot (N32C) both gave pressures and velocities within CAS revolver limits.
Trail Boss fills the 38SP case more than Clean Shot.

Trail Boss is the most bulky of the powders.

VMD = 0.2172 Hodgdon Trail Boss
VMD = 0.1587 Accurate Royal Scot
VMD = 0.1543 VihtaVuori N32C (Clean Shot)
VMD = 0.1489 Alliant e3
VMD = 0.1462 Hodgdon Clays
VMD = 0.1446 IMR Green
VMD = 0.1423 IMR Red
VMD = 0.1413 Alliant Red Dot
VMD = 0.1390 Alliant Extra-Lite
 

 

 

I know Vihtavuori N32C as Tin Star, which takes a heavier load than Trailboss and winds up about the same amount of case fill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.