Looking for .38 Special Reloading Data

[drinksgin (deceased)]

I am 100% with you on the issue revolver,( DA,), for self defense.
If you need to shoot, you DO NOT need to have to worry about safetys, slide locks or any thing other than stopping the threat.
Recently there was  a multiple cop shootout in Houston, after it was over, one officer went to reload and found the  magazine still full.
He had spent the whole thing pulling on a locked trigger.

[gitano]

Here are all of the .357 bullets I currently have in hand to use for reloading the .38 Special. I have a box of Hornady factory ammo loaded with their 125-grain XTPs.

The bullet on the left is the one I mentioned earlier that comes out of the brass mold. At 162 grains with wheel weight alloy (WW), it's not as light weight as I remembered. I'll check its penetration capabilities, but I don't particularly "like" this bullet. For one, it's a cast bullet that doesn't have a GC heel. I doubt that there will be a lot of leading in 2", but I don't have enough experience with cast bullets in 2" barrels to know if leading is an issue or not.

To it's right is a semi-wadcutter hollow point gas check (GC) that weighs in 149 with WW. Most GCs in this general caliber area weigh about 3 grains, making the finished bullet weigh 152-ish. I do like this GC HPWC. It might turn out to be a "good" bullet. I know I have the mold for it because I cast that bullet, but I don't recall if it is a LEE mold or not.

I don't THINK I have any other .357 molds.

To it's right is a Speer #4012 Gold Dot that weighs 125 grains. This has a moderately hollow base.

On the right is another Speer #4007 "Jacketed" that  weighs 110 grains. This also has a moderately hollow base. I like both of the Speer bullets. Either is fine with me depending on penetration. I don't mind paying for bullets, in fact ammo, for the purpose we are discussing here.

The Hornady box says its 125s are doing 900 f/s at the muzzle, but they don't say how long the barrel was from which that figure was derived. I'd guess at least 4" and maybe 6.

Paul

[gitano]

Things change when you get down to reality. (Or quasi-reality of mathematical models anyway.)

I measured all the necessary values for firearm-specific input for QuickLOAD: Case length, case capacity, CORRECT bullet dimensions and weights, proper seating depth to cannelure, etc.

By the way, the SAAMI max pressure for the .38 Special PLUS P is 51,488 PSI. That's WAY higher than I thought it would be.

Paul

PS-That's because it IS too high! Actual max pressure value should be either 18,500 PSI or 20,000 PSI.

Paul

[recoil junky]

9.8 grains of BUllseye sounds like WAY too much for a 38 special!!! Heck I'm getting 950 fps with 5.5 and a 250 grain 429421 in the 44's. I'd research that load more if it was me. If memory serves, Lyman say a max load for the 38 is maybe 4??

RJ

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

I'd be concerned with that bullseye load as well.

[gitano]

Yeah, sumpin's up with all of those loads to me. They seem like .357 Mag loads. I think it is the pressure. I've got to check that Max Pressure value.

Paul

Here are some sources that suggest that 51,488 PSI is WACKO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_Special

http://www.lasc.us/SAAMIMaxPressure.htm

http://www.handloads.com/misc/saami.htm

I see the problem. When I create a new cartridge in QuickLOAD I start with another cartridge of the same caliber. When I made ".38 Spl CMS", I started with a rifle cartridge of .35 caliber and didn't change the max pressure. Operator error.

There is conflicting information on the SAAMI Max Pressure value for the .38 Special +P. I THINK the "true" SAAMI value MIGHT be 20,000 PSI, but I see other places where it's listed as 18,500 PSI. I'll stick to the 18,500 PSI for this cartridge. There's no reason to 'power up' on a gun with a 2" barrel.

That should change the above figures a little, eh?

Paul

[drinksgin (deceased)]

To me,they appear to be +P loads.

[gitano]

And we're back to "Ain't no free lunches".

After correcting the Max Pressure value in QuickLOAD to 18,500 PSI, I ran the numbers for the 110 grain Speer bullet. Hmm... Sorting the output of potential powders by the muzzle velocity they produced, Bullseye was pretty far down the list.

The list of suitable loads sorted by Muzzle Velocity:

While it doesn't make it near the top in MV, it's only about 16 f/s slower than the top load. That is of NO concern to me.

HOWEVER, the bigger negative is what percentage of the available case capacity the charge fills up. (Load/Capacity Ratio: "LCR") Bullseye uses LESS THAN 50% of case capacity. I don't like that in a rifle OR a handgun charge because it leaves open the possibility of a double charge. Double charges blow guns up. So, sorting the charges by how much they fill the case gives the following:


Looking at LCR values AND considering MV suggests that L'il Gun, I4227, and H4198 are good choices. However... Look at the amount of powder burnt IN THE BARREL (PBB) on those slower powders. (It's the fifth column.) The numbers for those powders respectively are: 27.3%, 26.9%, and 22.9%. That's pathetic.  

If the loads are sorted by the percentage of PBB you get the following order:


Few of the powders that give the best LCR appear in this PBB list. At a quick glance it looks like Herco gives a good compromise between MV, LCR and the PBB. I'll have a closer look at the numbers and pick 'something'.

It isn't that I don't "like" Bullseye, but  a LCR of less than 50 is a pretty big deal to me. Also, there have been a lot of powders introduced since Bulleye was the "go to" handgun cartridge powder. It is possible that one of those "new" powders - "only" 30 or 40 years old - COULD be a "good" powder too.

The bottom line is that I really don't want to spend much more time on "load development" for this gun. IT'S A FRIGGIN HANDGUN! WHO CARES "HOW" IT SHOOTS?! Cheap is important. RELATIVELY "efficient" (MV per grain of powder used) is sort of important. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. So... I won't spend much more time on this. It just needs to be cheap to shoot, go 'bang' every time the trigger is pulled, not come apart, and deliver an acceptable amount of energy to about 10 feet from the muzzle. That's not a very demanding list of criteria for a handloaded cartridge.

Paul

[gitano]

The BATFE measures a rifle barrel's length from the face of the bolt to the muzzle because most rifle's breeches are at the breech of the muzzle. As a result, QuickLOAD (QL) does it's calculating on that assumption even for pistols, in which the length of the barrel is that part AHEAD of the cylinder of a revolver.

I was noticing on the QL output graph of pressure vs bullet travel, and velocity vs bullet travel, that if the barrel length is set at 2" for example, the muzzle distance (distance the bullet has to travel to get to the muzzle), is 2" MINUS the length of the loaded cartridge. That's wrong. I have to adjust the bbl length setting on QL to account for the OAL of the loaded cartridge in order to get the proper bullet travel.

Paul

[gitano]

After crunching a bunch of numbers, these are the loads that produce the highest velocities (at a max pressure of ~16,200 PSI), in each bullet weight.

110 Speer - 16.3 grains of L'il Gun - 916 f/s, 205 ft-lb, 0.447 sf/s.
125 Speer - 15.0 grains of L'il Gun - 863 f/s, 207 ft-lb, 0.479 sf/s.
153 SWHP - 11.9 grains of H110. . - 761 f/s, 197 ft-lb, 0.517 sf/s.
162 Cast RN - 12.8 grains  Win296 - 762 f/s, 209 ft-lb, 0.547 sf/s.

The third column of numbers is the momentum. If one is interested in penetration, then delivered energy (ft-lb, half the mass times the velocity squared) isn't the best indicator; momentum (sf/s, (slug-feet per second) mass times velocity) is. Note how similar the kinetic energies are. The max spread is only 12 units. However, the max spread in the momentum values is 100 units. Of course this particular parameter does not consider the "type" of bullet, i.e. hollow point, wad cutter, jacketed, etc. So it is not a MEASURE of penetration, rather it is an indicator.

Your thoughts?

Paul

The attached chart shows the "Coefficient of Variation" of velocity, kinetic energy, and momentum. The CV is calculated as the standard deviation divided by the average. Technically, it's the 'normalization' (a number relative to another COMMON number, in this case the average), of the variability of the data to the data's average. You'll note that the scale of the data is different by 6 orders of magnitude: Hundreds of units of velocity and KE, (100), and thousandths of units of momentum, (0.001). The CV is a way to "normalize" the data so that the results from analysis of dissimilar data sets can be compared. The CV is reported in percentages: The percentage of the mean that is represented by the standard deviation.

So what does someone that isn't interested in statistics take away from this?

Because the CV of momentum is so much larger than the CV of KE, AND because momentum is more important to predicting penetration than KE is, we can say that among these four bullet choices if penetration is the primary goal, the difference between the various bullets is significant. Conversely, the difference in KEs is not so much. In other words, I think it's fair to say that if one compares the differences in KE between bullets there's no reason to pick a particular bullet. All the KEs are close enough not to matter. However, if one considers the momentum, then there IS a good reason to pick the 162 grain bullet. Of course, there are other factors to consider, but when penetration is one of the important factors, this analysis is worth while.

Paul

PPS - By the way, the reason the heavier (162g) bullet can be made to go as fast as the lighter (153g) bullet is revealed if you go back and look at their pictures. The cannelure groove on the SWHP makes its seating depth significantly deeper: 0.350 for the 162, 0.427 for the 153. Seating deeper means less room for powder. Of course I could seat the 153 out a bit farther; probably another 0.077 at least. But I'm not interested in doing that UNLESS, there turns out to be something "wrong" with 162s or something REALLY "right" about seating the 153 out.

Paul

[gitano]

Did I mention that I like to 'analyse' things? :D

I did mention somewhere above that "efficiency" was relatively important. Usually for a rifle cartridge I define efficiency as the number of ft-lbs of energy delivered to the target per grain of powder used. Since I care more about the penetration (indirectly, momentum) of this bullet than I do KE, AND since ranges are essentially point-blank, I am defining efficiency for this cartridge as the number of units of momentum (slug-feet per second) divided by ("normalized") the charge in grains. The units are therefore slug-feet per second per grain - sf/s/g.

I have added the efficiency numbers to the above chart and added some annotation. So in the "efficiency" category, the 162 "wins" again. Notice the size of the CV of efficiency; 50%. Therefore, if efficiency is important, then choosing the load with the best efficiency will matter.

Paul

PPS - I should note that the values for CV in these tables are the MAX SPREAD divided by the average, not the StDev divided by the average. The StDev divided by the averages are 8,8% and 21% respectively. Wouldn't want to be accused of pulling a Bryce Towsley.

Paul

[Brithunter]

Just been reading Ken Waters Pet Loads on the 38spl and there was a 200 grain lead bullet load that came to be known as the 200Grn Super Police Load as it offered superior penetration and good one shot stop results and performed well from 2" snubby revolvers. The bullet had a very blunt nose delivering 623 fps from a 2" barrel. This was designed to deliver increased short range shocking power specifically fro Police use.

Penetration in wood was rated less than that of the standard .38 Special round nose loading but impact effect was decidely greater leadign to it's adoption by several Police departments. It seems Waters was Captain of his local aux Police and got these loads issued to his men based upon reports of their effectivness in actual use on the streets. Ons shot stops with severe bone and/or tissue damage. The velocity in 6" barrels was then raised from 671fps to 730fps. Pet Loads by Wolfe page 558. Article written September 66

Hodgdons 2009 book gives 38+P pressures as 19,800CUP and suggets the followign powdrs for 38+P laods with teh Hornady 125 XTP bullet:-

LOngshot
SR 4756
SR 7625
PB
700-X
HS6
Universal
AutoComp
HP-38
Titegroup

Universal looks good with 5.4grn giving 1072fps at 18,900CUP Hmm odd they only give that load and not a start load in .38+P loadings.

Normal 38 Spl loads are shown giving 16,100-17,000 CUP

HS-6 and Titegroup seem to give th best velocities at reasonable pressure here.

HS-6 = 6.5grn-7.2 grn
Titegroup = 4.3grn-4.6grn


Hope that is of some use.

[gitano]

That was an interesting read, BH. Thanks! It's interesting to me that none of the loads that "look good" on QL are among those in Water's Pet Loads.

So I went looking for the .38 Special "200 grain Super Police" cartridge. Among the articles I found was this one: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/rebirth-200-grain-38-special-super-police-cartridge/ It's also an interesting read, and gives me plenty of food for thought.

At this point I don't know why, given the scenarios I described as most likely, I wouldn't load a pure .358" cylinder. The author and some of the commenters in the above article think they have "figured out" why those blunt-nosed bullet "hit harder". They think it is because of the "tumbling". That's not correct. While a bullet that "tumbles" will certainly cause more tissue damage than one that doesn't, that's not the reason for the "hammer effect" of flat-nosed bullets. AND, it's not just the flat nose, it's also the impact velocity. The reason flat-nosed bullets have a more dramatic effect on a living target is that they have more POWER. They have more POWER, (in the physics sense of the word), because they STOP faster.

POWER is the rate of doing WORK. It is the equivalent of energy consumed per unit time. KE divided by TIME.
WORK is defined as FORCE times DISTANCE.
FORCE is defined as MASS times ACCELERATION.
ACCELERATION is the rate of change of VELOCITY.
Therefore:
POWER = (1/2*mass*velocity^2)/time, and
Power = mass*acceleration*distance)/time.

Here's the bottom line: The POWER of the bullet is the amount of energy (KE) the bullet has at impact, divided by the time it takes the bullet to come to a complete stop IN THE TARGET. The faster the bullet stops, the more POWER it exerts on the target. Bullets with flat noses stop faster than bullets with pointy noses. It is important to keep in mind that the higher the KE, the more POWER the bullet exerts on the target and therefore the bigger the "hammer effect". (The "hard" part is getting that time value, but I have a very good way of estimating the time whether the bullet stays in the target or not.) The more energy the bullet has, and the faster the bullet STOPS MOVING, the bigger the "hammer effect". THAT is the reason flat-nosed bullets hit "like a hammer", not because they "tumble". (For a more complete treatment of this topic, see this thread: http://thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=566&highlight=POWER+work)

So, the question becomes (for me), how do I get a cylinder .358" in diameter going 6 to 7 hundred feet per second out of a .38 Special with a 2" barrel? I think that's doable, and I don't think I need a 200 grain cylinder to get an effective amount of POWER. I'll crunch some more numbers and see where that analysis leads.

Thanks, BH.

Paul

[gitano]

So, using a formula I developed for determining the length of lead cores for swaging bullets, I get the following lengths of cylinders of pure lead 0.358" in diameter:

200 grain cylinder = 0.693"
190 grain cylinder = 0.658"
180 grain cylinder = 0.624"

I can use those values as "bullet length" in QuickLOAD and do some more paper-whipping.

So, loading the 200 g Cylinder out to the Max Length of the .38 Special OAL of 1.55" and using 12.4 grains of L'il Gun, I can get the bullet going 704 f/s yielding a KE of 220 ft-lb (or 298 joules). Let's say for the sake of these calculations that the "target" is 9" "thick" and the bullet stops against the skin on the far side. If the impact velocity is 700 f/s at impact and bullet travels 9" to "zero velocity" then the "average velocity is 350 f/s over that 9" distance. At 350 f/s for .75 feet, (9/12), we have 0.75/350 seconds (about 0.0021 seconds). The amount of POWER that the "target" needs to dissipate is 139,067 watts, or 139.067 kilowatts. If the "target" weighs 180 lbs, then each pound of "target" has to absorb ~772 watts of energy.

Here's the "deal": Since we divide the joules of energy by the time it takes to stop to get the power, it would appear at first that any projectile with an impact energy of 298 joules would have exert the same power on the "target". However, the impact VELOCITY has to be taken into account. The above example was using a 200 grain projectile going 700 f/s at impact. If we use a 110 grain projectile, it has to be going 950 f/s to have 220 ft-lb (298 joules) of KE. If it's going 950 f/s, then it's average velocity over 9 inches is 475 f/s. That's 125 f/s faster than the 200 grain bullet. The time it takes the 110-grain bullet to stop is (9/12)/475 or ~0.0016 sec. Therefore, the POWER exerted on the "target" by the 110-grain bullet is 298/(.75/475), or 188.733 kilowatts. That's ~50 more kilowatts of power than the 200-grain bullet exerted. If the 110-grain bullet stops faster than the 200-grain bullet, it will exert even more power. If the 200 passes through, it will exert even less.

So, using the above numbers in the chart, I get the following power levels for each bullet:

110-grain: 169.570 kw
125-grain: 161.093 kw
153-grain: 135.458 kw
162-grain: 143.764 kw
200-grain: 139.861 kw (theoretical cylindrical "bullet")

Hmm... NOW, the 162-grain bullet ISN'T the "top" choice. When it comes to momentum, the 162 "wins". When it comes to power dissipated, the 162 comes in 3rd out of 4. Furthermore, the more a given bullet penetrates, the longer it takes to stop. The longer it takes to stop, the less power it has to dissipate. Conversely, the faster it stops, like with an HP, the higher the power dissipated. Penetration vs power. Hmm... The theoretical 200-grain cylinder MIGHT stop faster than "under the skin on the far side". But then so is it likely that the 110 and 125 will stop shorter than 9" too. I wonder if a good idea would be to load the cylinder with alternating bullet types: one 110-grain, then one 162-grain. "If the right one don't getcha, then the left one will". (Reference to Tennesse Ernie Ford's 16 Tons.) However, that alternating bullet load violates the guiding principle of KEEP IT SIMPLE.

Hmm... food for thought.

Paul

[Brithunter]

Gitano your welcome and although I have never used it in anger so to speak I did do a lot of loading and shooting of 38 Spl before thery were all outlowed here .

Should never have trown away the reloading records for it .............................. but I did.