Factory .38 148gr HBWC experiences

[BenEnglishTX]

I tend to randomly pick up samples of factory 148-grain .38 wadcutter ammo. I never had a specific application for such ammunition but the packrat in me always said the same thing - "You've got a couple of .38s and .357s. It couldn't hurt to buy a box or two." After a box here and a case there over the course of a few decades, I find I have thousands of rounds - Blazer aluminum, Federal Match of various vintages, Fiocchi, and cases of very old Western Cartridge Co. Super Match in the yellow boxes with the big red X on them left to me by an uncle.

Recently, I decided to start shooting all that ammo. The problem is, none of my guns (thus far) has liked it. I've used a 3" PPC revolver (this one, actually: http://www.targettalk.org/viewtopic.php?t=31270 ), as well as a 4" M19, a 3" M60, and a M638. On average, more than half the bullets go through the targets sideways. The custom revolver with newer Federal ammo stabilized about 80% of the time. The M19 with Fiocchi ammo did marginally OK; about 1/3 of the shots went sideways. The 638 was a joke, putting every round sideways into about a 6 to 8 inch group at 5 yards. I didn't realize bullets could be so unstable that they could be going sideways within just 5 yards!

Later this week I'll try a 6" Dan Wesson and a 6" M14. If those don't work, I'll borrow a Performance Center 627. I'm determined to find a revolver that shoots this stuff.

So here's my question - What does it take to shoot these loads accurately? Traditionally, in what twist and length of barrel did the 148 HBWC earn its reputation for accuracy?

I'm just wondering because I sure haven't seen it, yet.

[David M]

Revolver - 6" model 14 or 686, Manurhin Match MR96
Auto - S&W model 52, Colt Mid range or Hammerli P240

[Misny]

I've fired thousands of rounds of factory match wadcutter ammo out of S&W model 66, 52-1, and 14. I've shot Remington, Federal and Winchester. I never had a bullet go in sideways. I have had them "tip" where I could tell that the bullet didn't go in completely square to the target, but I never found this to be a problem with accuracy.

I'm not sure what would cause your problem, but you should make sure that your barrel(s) is completely cleaned of lead fowling before each shooting session. Maybe the ammo's powder is contaminated. I've seen match ammo that didn't have much "punch" apparently because the ammo was old and improperly stored.

[Rover]

I have seen this problem due to a "limp" grip.

[JamesH]

I doubt they'd work in such a short barrel.

I've had a Colt Trooper, S+W K38 and Model 19 and they all worked fine.
All were 6" barrels, Colt and K38 1:14 barrels I think, M19 1:18 3/4

All worked fine with factory and handload 148WC.

[Spencer]

I doubt they'd work in such a short barrel.

I've had a Colt Trooper, S+W K38 and Model 19 and they all worked fine.
All were 6" barrels, Colt and K38 1:14 barrels I think, M19 1:18 3/4

All worked fine with factory and handload 148WC.

on the other hand, the best results for .38Special out of a Ransom Rest I have had has been with a 4" S&W Model 15-2 and a 5" J-frame.

Back in the 60's a test was carried with .38Special mid-range wadcutter ammunition where a barrel was progressively shortened, re-crowned and more groups fired - the optimum was about 3" - too short for a reasonable sight radius, but...

I am fairly sure that the .38Spl mid-range wadcutter was loaded a fair bit faster back in the 50s-60s (closer to 880fps at the muzzle?)

[Misny]

A large portion of the factory match wadcutters I shot were out of a 4" model 66. I also shot a fair amount out of a 2 1/2" S&W model 66. I've never had one even come close to keyholing...yes there is a term for this. I've seen the skirts come apart of 148 gr. hollow base wadcutter bullets and leave extra holes in a target when the shooter reloaded the rounds with too much powder. That can really be dangerous.

[BenEnglishTX]

I also shot a fair amount out of a 2 1/2" S&W model 66. I've never had one even come close to keyholing...yes there is a term for this.

I hesitate to refer to the problems I cited in my original post as "keyholing". I'm not using Edelmann targets so I'm not getting perfectly cut pictures of the bullet profiles as they pass through the paper.

What I am seeing is this - When the bullets stabilize, they cut perfectly round holes, exactly as expected, even considering the inexpensive, rather thin "bought at the range" targets I'm using. When the bullets don't (I am assuming) stabilize, the target perforations look nothing like circles. They are ragged bug splats, with long tears following the grain of the paper, exactly as I would expect an unstabilized, keyholing projectile to appear.

Having worked extensively with heavyweight subsonic .30 cal projectiles in marginal twist rate barrels, I've seen lots of keyholing in my days, though back when I was doing such work, the targets were of better quality and the evidence they provided was clearer.

I'll grab a couple of competition-grade targets as well as some range targets on my next excursion. I'll be in possession of a 6" S&W M14 at that time and I'll give it a try. If I can remember, I'll also take along a camera and post some pictures here to show what I'm talking about.

It will be a few days before I can post back.

[Rover]

Considering the variety of ammo and guns referred to I can only think this is a shooter problem.

As I stated in an earlier post, I have seen this from a "limp wrist" or lack of a firm grip with good follow through.

[Shooting Kiwi]

There's something funny about .38 HBWC and some S&W revolvers. When I got my (used) model 19, 6" barrel, I found that Lapua projectiles with 'target' loads behind them produced huge groups, the outer prints showing tipping. I was then offered some locally-swaged HBWC projectiles which produced decent groups, with no tipping, with similar loads.

A friend with decades of revolver shooting and loading experience never had any problem with tipping from his .38 Smith, 6" barrel, including with his loads using the locally-swaged projectiles that I had been using. Then, with a new batch of these projectiles loaded as before, hopeless groups and tipping. Meanwhile, the new batch was performing flawlessly for me and ammunition loaded by me performed flawlessly in my friend's revolver.

It now transpires that we have been using projectiles in which the hollow base has not been swaged as deeply as is usual. The two batches looked identical side-by-side, although detailed measurements haven't been done because the last of the first batch was used up (doh!). So both batches of these projectiles weigh 148 Gr, but are shorter than those with a deeply-hollowed base and their centre of mass will be relatively aft.

I therefore surmise that these projectiles may be marginally stable at the spin speeds achieved by 'target' loads. Hotter loads, for instance used in 'killing' ammunition, would achieve faster spins. I assume that these revolvers were designed for ammunition other than slow target HBWC.

[GOVTMODEL]

Gil Hebard noted and discussed this in his book in the section on Model 52 S&W's. He eventually decided the bullets were yawing in flight and that it did not affect grouping.

[BenEnglishTX]

I had time to do a bit of testing today, so I headed off to the range. I took three boxes of ammo: 130-grain generic ball loads from PMC (standard range-bought practice stuff), a brand-new box of Fiocchi 148-grain HBWC, and a box of Western Super X 148-grain HBWC that dates back to the 1960s. I'm not sure of the age of the old ammo but the point is that it is several decades old.

Back in those days, as we all (should) know, 148-grain HBWC ammo was loaded hotter, in the 850 to 900fps range. Currently, I believe the last chronograph results I saw for Federal ammo had it at barely over 700fps. Elsewhere on this board, for example, a poster is talking about his Model 52-1 and he says that new Fiocchi won't cycle the slide. The Western ammo I used was produced back when .38 wadcutters would make that pistol work.

To simplify matters, I used only two firearms: the M638 that gave me the most trouble previously as well as a S&W M14 single action. (Nice, nice revolver, that M14. I really like it.)

I was unable to find any premium targets to shoot. I shot the writing-paper thin targets available at my local range as well as a couple of D1(T) targets out of a fresh box I had at home. Neither source of targets should have spent so much time exposed to the local high humidity for that to be much of a factor.

All testing was at 7 yards. I paid no attention to trying to shoot small groups; I just wanted to see bullet holes.

The first picture is just a baseline. It was shot with the snubbie and the PMC ammo. It's only included to show that, yes, I can hit the target if you put it close enough.

[BenEnglishTX]

This first picture shows what happens when I attempted to put shots at 3, 6, 9, and 12 o'clock around the black as well as one in the center of a range target, using a new box of Fiocchi and the short-barreled revolver. Clearly, in a defensive shooting practice scenario where 20 or more shots will be put on one target, the long tears shown here would make the final target look nothing like a target with bullet holes. The result would be a shredded bull without a distinct pattern. This would also appear to the shooter as very bad accuracy.

Note also that the two “round” holes at 3 and 12 aren't exactly round.

As an aside - the accuracy, here, is not good but it's better than I expected. However, I contend that my original accuracy complaints are valid. For example, the range session that led to my original post had included one heartbreaker of a group at 25 yards, using a 3-inch pistol. In a 5-shot group, 3 shots cut perfectly round bullet holes as close together as any three shots I've fired in my life at that distance while 2 more landed a foot high and tore long strips from the target. Bullets that tumble so much that “tipping” is evident at a mere 7 yards are, I think we can agree, anathema to good accuracy.

The second picture is the same gun and same type of target but using the old, faster Western loads. Note the perfectly round bullet holes, just like we expect from wadcutter ammo.

The third picture is two groups on the same D1 target using each brand of ammo. These are slightly higher quality targets so the tearing is slightly less evident in the Fiocchi group. However, the difference between the two is still obvious. The old ammo works in this gun and the new stuff doesn't.

I did not chronograph the 2 loads used. However, by this point in testing the difference between them was painfully obvious. The older ammo was clearly hotter, recoiling noticeably more and more sharply. This was not a small difference. The felt difference in my hand was easy to discern.

[BenEnglishTX]

Here I went straight to a D1 target and fired two groups using the M14 as shown in the picture, below.

Clearly, the longer barrel of the M14 allows for enough additional bullet velocity (and, thus, rotational speed) to very nearly stabilize the bullets when using the Fiocchi ammo. Note the slight elongation of 2 of the bullet holes – the 1 on the far left and the 1 in the center of the line of 3 at the bottom of the group.

The old Western ammo, though, provides perfectly round holes, as expected.

[BenEnglishTX]

We know that the selection of twist rates to adequately stabilize bullets isn't simple. We also know that for the absolute best accuracy, it's always desirable to come as close as possible to unstable; i.e., the most accurate setup will be the one that's just barely stabilizing bullets without spinning them any faster than necessary. (Benchresters tear their hair out over this stuff, spec'ing barrel twists from cut-rifling barrelmakers to quarter-inch tolerances because match-winning performance requires it. It's also pretty funny to watch those guys run back to their portable reloading benches to increase powder charges when the temperature drops during a match. That's the level of finicky those guys are willing to deal with.)

We also know that tolerances always seem to stack in the wrong direction, don't they?

It's clear that with newer, slower loads and short barrels that sacrifice yet more velocity, bullets can become so unstable that their instability is clearly evident in just 7 yards. That's not good. I don't think it's an unreasonable theory that obvious tipping at 7 yards likely translates into full keyholing and lousy accuracy at 25 yards.

However, if you push all the variables in the other direction the results can be satisfying. With faster ammo and a longer barrel to get higher velocities and rotational speeds (i.e., better stability) accuracy improves and no evidence of tipping will appear on the target.

Conclusion – It's generally a good idea to use ammunition in the particular types of firearms for which it was designed. Just because a particular combination will go “bang” when you pull the trigger doesn't mean the system, as a whole, will perform in an acceptable manner.

Thanks -

To DavidM - for answering my question and providing me with a solid idea of which firearms are best for these loads.

To JamesH - for answering the question I asked with the specific twist rate numbers I was seeking.

To Spencer - for pointing out what is obvious only in retrospect, that 148-grain HBWC loads earned their reputation for stellar accuracy back in the day when they were waltzing downrange with considerably more exuberance than is evident in factory loads today.

To everybody - for chiming in. All thoughts are welcome and help me learn.

Sincerely,

Ben in TX

PS – I almost forgot that in the subject line I promised an addendum. Here 'tis:

Rover - I find utterly fascinating your observation that it's possible to alter bullet stability by how one grips the firearm. While this seems impossible to me, you say you've observed the phenomena and I certainly have no reason to doubt you. If you could provide me, either here in this thread or via PM, some instructions on how I can hold a revolver to make a normally stable load become unstable, I'd love to have that knowledge and will be happy to experiment with it at the range. Try as I might (though I only dedicated two cylinders-full to the task), today I was unable to find any “limp” grip on the M14 that converted the old Western ammo bullet holes from round to any other shape. I'd love to be able to do something like that on demand; it would be a great party trick.

[JamesH]

To be honest it looks like poor quality targets combined with low velocity bullets.
The same thing happens with cheap targets and low power air pistols.
Try a piece of cardboard behind your targets, I'll bet you get nice neat holes then.

For reference Winchester .38 148WC load gives me 700 fps from a 6" barrel.

[BenEnglishTX]

To be honest it looks like poor quality targets combined with low velocity bullets.

Are you saying that even if a bullet is perfectly stabilized, shooting it through a target of poor enough quality will produce tears like this?

In this case, my initial reaction is to reject that conclusion. When I first ran into this problem I was doing quite a bit of shooting at 25 yards. I was getting round holes where they should be, in groups. I was also getting wild flyers with tears.

This was consistent - all the bullets landing at point of aim were producing round holes on the D1 targets at 25 yards. All the wild flyers showed tearing.

That scenario was consistently produced by Federal factory ammo and a 3" M10 built for PPC "backup" matches. That was what caused me to assume from the beginning that the tears were due to insufficient stability.

If what you're saying is that even perfectly stabilized bullets will produce such massive tearing if they are traveling slow enough, then both scenarios could be correct - keyholing could be happening in some cases with some combinations while at the same time the snubbie shown in the tests above could be doing a perfectly fine job of shooting accurately and perfectly stabilizing the bullets but looking awful just because of the cheap targets.

I cannot, then, reject your explanation without further testing.

I need to repeat this test and add in some serious accuracy testing at 25 yards, all using only the best quality targets. For a basic check, I could put backers behind the cheap targets (as you suggest) and look for any evidence of out-of-round holes.

I've ordered some Edelmann pistol targets from Pilkguns. When they arrive, I'll repeat the tests above. I'll also add 25-yard testing. In the meantime, I'll partially repeat the tests above using stiff cardboard backers with the targets I have now.

Thanks for the insight. I think. :-)

[David M]

If you have access to a chronograph, the velocities of each batch would greatly help opinion.

[Misny]

To be honest it looks like poor quality targets combined with low velocity bullets.
The same thing happens with cheap targets and low power air pistols.
Try a piece of cardboard behind your targets, I'll bet you get nice neat holes then.

For reference Winchester .38 148WC load gives me 700 fps from a 6" barrel.

I agree completely. Those are tears in the target paper, not the bullet going in sideways. As stated the ammo that produced the tears was obviously of a lower velocity.

[JamesH]

This was consistent - all the bullets landing at point of aim were producing round holes on the D1 targets at 25 yards. All the wild flyers showed tearing.

Tearing like that has nothing to do with flyers, I'm confident its low velocity and or/poor quality targets.
If its yawing slightly that might make it worse, which could be due to a poor load producing flyers, limp-wristing or just that short barrel->more muzzle flip and more yawing that way.

148WC Match loads are just not intended for snubbies, and snubbies aren't intended for 148WC match loads.
They're usually marginal on stability in a 6" 1:14 barrel, a 3" 1:18 barrel is unlikely to be good.

I'll bet the barrel which was progressively shortened to 3" had a faster twist than 1:18.