TargetTalk

I have been using 98gn HBWC, mainly in a Walther and recently in a Manhurin and now have the opportunity to buy either 85 or 90gn HBWC. Do others have experiences using these weights and can some valid comparisions be made?

I haven't tried either 85 or 90gn but the big question is, are you happy that your 98gn load is doing it's job, i.e. is it consistant and accurate.

If you are happy then why go through all the hassle of working up another load.

The situation is different when you are shooting factory loads. You just buy a box of each bullet weight and see which you prefer. We all know though that reloading isn't quite that simple.

If you reload, try 10 -15 w/each bullet weight and same charge. Keep a log of how they group, cycle, recoil, etc. If you are shooting indoor (50') you probably won't go wrong with either. 25m is a different story, as is the barrel on the Walther at that distance. I use 98gr HBWC for indoor BE and they group tight. I've used the 90gr Hornady also and at that distance they work fine also.

I used both the Hornady 90 gr. LHBWC and Speer 98 gr. LHBWC in my Walther OSP and Pardini HP. The 90 gr. bullet was excellent for 50 ft indoor ranges but overall i prefereed the 98 gr. Speer.

The 85g HBWC may have to be driven too hard to make your Walther cycle reliably. All you can do is try some of each and see.

The best .32 result I have ever achieved was with a Manurhin revolver using a cast 90grain bevel base button nose projectile.
The revolver allowed me to roll crimp into the crimp groove which tightened up the velocity deviations and the group (approx. 22mm outside to outside at 25m).

I am shooting a Manurhin now in .32, have measured the barrel at .311 and am using Bullzi 98 HBWC ( these are tapered, measuring .3125 at the top of the bullet and .311 at the base) with a slight crimp. These seem to work OK.
The absence of a crimp groove on HBWC projectiles has always concerned me though, by crimping, wont this 'strip' or size down the projectile?
David M - can you remember where you got you flat based BNWC?
Are flat or bevel based bullets more 'stable' than HBWC? There seems to be some discussion in the archives but not much.
A bit more discussion than 'just by a bunch and see what works for you' would be appreciated.

I am shooting a Manurhin now in .32, have measured the barrel at .311 and am using Bullzi 98 HBWC ( these are tapered, measuring .3125 at the top of the bullet and .311 at the base) with a slight crimp. These seem to work OK.
The absence of a crimp groove on HBWC projectiles has always concerned me though, by crimping, wont this 'strip' or size down the projectile?
David M - can you remember where you got you flat based BNWC?
Are flat or bevel based bullets more 'stable' than HBWC? There seems to be some discussion in the archives but not much.
A bit more discussion than 'just by a bunch and see what works for you' would be appreciated.

The bullet I am using is a 90gn Button nose wadcutter, single lube groove (with crimp groove) and bevel base.
They are home cast in a CBE mould, see web sight

http://www.users.bigpond.com/JIM.CBE.htm

Many years ago Jim made two cutters for moulds based on an old ballistic theory of the bearing surface of a projectile being 1 1/2 the bullet diameter.
I ended up with a 90g .32 projectile and a 134g .38 projectile. I believe Jim is still making these moulds.
Although I am no longer shooting a .32, I am still casting and shooting the 134g .38 and using it for ISSF and Service.
Both projectiles shoot very well, but the .38 proved to be better.