148 Bevel base vs. Hollow Base Wadcutters?

[Peter M. Eick]

I decided to try some 148s for curiosity over my 158 SWC's that I normally shoot. My goal is to tighten up my groups a bit more over 158 lasercasts. I have read several times that 148's are more accurate then 158 SWC's.

I have not shot a 148 in over 25 years so I am not up on the current thinking. Reading in Handloader, I always note that there is a strong disdain for bevel base bullets particularly from Pierce et. al..

So, what's your experience with Bevel over Hollow base wadcutters for 38 special target loads? I am mostly thinking about 15 to 25 yard target practice with 38/44's and 38 Specials.

Also while I am asking, as a non-caster, does bevel base vs. flat base really matter?

 

[ReloaderFred]

Peter,

When I was shooting PPC for our department pistol team back in the late 1970's, I shot about 1,500 rounds of 148 grain HBWC bullets a week in practice, and then 360 per weekend in matches. We experimented with bevel base bullets, but could never get the level of accuracy at 25 and 50 yards with them that we could get with HBWC bullets. I used to have a target from my K-38, fired from a Ransom Rest, with 148 grain HBWC's, that was 10 rounds in 1 7/8" at 50 yards. I don't have it anymore, since I lost it in a divorce, along with every other worldly possession in 1984.....

Solid wadcutters have never been as accurate at target velocities as hollow base wadcutters, in my experience. The hollow base bullet has such a long bearing surface, and obturates so well with the light powder charges, that it's hard to beat for barrel fit.

The bevel base bullet was invented to facilitate loading in automatic loading machines. The bevel just slips into the cases easier, but isn't as accurate. Flat base pistol bullets will almost always produce better accuracy, but the average shooter, who is shooting minute of pop can, will never notice the difference. It's only when you put them on paper that you see the difference.

One of the most accurate HBWC bullets for loading is the Remington 148 grain. It's a pretty ugly bullet, but it shoots really well with the proper load of bullseye under it. Just seat them flush with the case mouth and give them a medium roll crimp, and they'll punch nice round holes in the target where you point them all day long.

In matches, I used to use either bevel base or flat base solid wadcutters for the 7 yard line, since you're just cutting one hole at that distance anyway. At that distance, it didn't really matter what bullet we used, but when you went back to the 25 yard line it did make a difference. When you got back to the 50 yard line, it really made a difference, and there was no matching the HBWC for accuracy.

I was never in the Governor's 20 when shooting, but I was in the top 100 in the state. My best on the team target was 300 - 54X, and I couldn't have done it without HBWC bullets. My best individual score was 595 - 42X, but I was a lot younger then and my eyes were a lot sharper.

The bottom line is, if you really want to wring the best accuracy out of the .38 special, then 148 grain HBWC bullets are what you want. Right after that would be flat base solid wadcutters, and then bevel base solid wadcutters.

You can get good accuracy from all three, but the HBWC will give you the best.

Hope this helps.

Fred

 

[cdrt]

I use the Remington HBWC out of my Clark Heavy Slide 1911 .38 Special. As Fred says, it's a dirty bullet to load because of the dry lube that Remington uses, but it is accurate. I use 3.0 grains of Bullseye, since I'm cycling that slide with the Bo-Mar tuner rib attached. In a revolver you could get by with 2.7 grains of Bullseye.

I had much better luck out my Clark with HBWCs. The bevel base will shoot okay, but for the 50 yard SF, I much prefer either the Remington or Hornady HBWC bullet.

 

[loadedround]

I have had some exprience shooting both solid and hollow base 148 gr wad cutters in my S&W 38 Spl Model 52 Master. I found that the HB wad cutters would shoot more accurately with less powder(back then the only powder used was Bullseye). The hollow base used to seal the bore when fired and therefore incresed the operating pressure with lighter charges of powder with almost no leading and cleaner burning. I was always told the the Smith 52 should only be shot with HB wadcutters and that was what I used. BTW the older Speer Manuals always had a separate loading section for 38 Spl wadcutters especially for K38's and Model 52's only.

 

[ReloaderFred]

loadedround,

I always wanted a Model 52, but when I found one, I didn't have the money, and when I had the money, I couldn't find one. The only one I ever shot was exceedingly accurate and a real pleasure to shoot. Too bad they stopped making them.

I had the pleasure of spending two days with the gentleman who designed it back in 1978. S&W brought him back out of retirement to fix some problems with the Model 59, which he also designed, along with the Model 39. I can't for the life of me remember his name, but he was a wealth of knowledge and a fine gentleman. I was rangemaster for our department at the time and we had about 400 Model 59's that I had to update with the new parts he designed for them. He helped me the first two days and then I did the rest of them by myself.

Fred

 

[Bad Flynch]

After extensive Ransom Rest testing, I found that sometimes revolvers have preferences. However, in general, the Remington 148 grain HBWC is the most consistent perfomer that I have ever tested. Both of my Pythons, both .38 & .357, shoot it over 2.6 grains of Bullseye and somebody's soft primer like Remington 1&1/2 or Federal. There seem to be two sweet spots with Bullseye: the first is at 2.7 grains and the second is at 3.0 grains, so try them both.

I found that some S&Ws that I tested actually preferred the Hornady 148 grain HBWC over PB powder. I always wondered why, but the Pythons have a tighter twist and the Remingtons are a little longer, so that may be the reason.

BBWCs are not as good, but are acceptable for short range work as previously noted.

You mention .38-44 loadings. HBWCs are not suited to heavy loadings; they can spread your barrel's forcing cone when shot at higher levels. Use BBWCs for those loads.

The Remington bullet will not lead in some guns that lead with nearly any BBWC. The Remington bullets are large and whatever they use for lube is effective.

 

[Snapping Twig]

+1 to the previous posts!

Added bonus for HBWC's, insert them into the case backwards for some bodacious plinking work! I did that some years back and tested them on a 2X4 by first shooting them normally loaded into the board - nice hole, then I reversed them and shot the board - it dissappeared - no lie, removed the wood at the POI.

Try that on some water jugs, should be fun and no extra powder needed, just the regular target load.

 

[Black_Talon]

For all the people in this thread that are using the REMINGTON 148HBWC:

I just got a few hundred from Midway to try (my supply of Star HBWCs is rapidly dwindling). I miked them and they are all running between .362" and .363". Every other 148HBWC that I've tried lately (Star, Precision Delta, Hornady and Speer) mikes out at around .3580" to .3585". *** is up with these Remingtons being .004" to .005" larger in diameter than all the other HBWCs? Can you guys mike your Remingtons and see what size they are?

Is it even safe to shoot these .362+" bullets in my K-38s?

Thanks!

(and sorry to go a bit OT from the original post, although I will add, that I have never had good accuracy out of BB WCs. HBWC has always been the way to go for me)

 

[Jim Watson]

Ken Waters was the only experienced reloader/writer I ever saw to prefer the solid wadcutter. He said it was because the ones he had were of larger diameter than the hollowbases and did not have to expand like a Minie ball to seal the bore.

Maybe that is why the Remingtons work so well.

 

[cdrt]

Black Talon

I just got an order from Midway, as well. Went out and checked them. They're running .358 with little variation. None hit .360.

 

[nitesite]

The only BBDEWCs that I load these days is for shooting in an Airweight Centennial as a walkaround/CCW gun. I can drive them a lot faster than I can a HBWC, plus they are quite a bit harder as well so they penetrate better.



Shooting them beyond 15-yards is not something I often strive to do.

 

[vanilla_gorilla]

I like the HBWC since they tend to group slightly better, though it probably doesn't matter since I can't shoot well enough tot ake advantage of them.

I also like the HBWC since I can seat them backwards and drive them to 800fps and have an awesome varmint bullet for dogs and similarly-sized animals.

 

[ReloaderFred]

Black Talon,

The Remington HBWC's are tumble lubed, so you may be getting those measurements due to a little excess lube. They're a really soft bullet and you can shoot them just fine. After all, target loads are way down on the power scale and unless you double charge the powder, there's no problem with them being a little on the large size.

Hope this helps.

Fred

 

[RON in PA]

For precision shooting I'd do as everyone else has suggested and use a HBWC over either Bullseye or 231. However you can load BBWC over heavier loads of powder, I use the same powder charge as I do with 158 grain SWC bullets, ie., 4.4 grains of 231. Good small game load.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Reloaderfred,

Thanks for the very detailed information. It was exactly what I wanted to know. I was considering laying in some Remington 148's but boy are they one ugly looking bullet! I had my doubts about them since I shoot almost exclusively Lasercast 158's SWC's for 38's. I even have 700 of them sitting on the desk here loaded up that needed to be logged in.

Based upon your information I will order up a 1000 of them and see how they do. I realize 1000 is too few to really work a decent load, but I have 231 and bullseye around and as I remember 2.7 grns of bullseye used to be the "classic" 148 load back when I competed.

I was at one time an S&W 52 shooter (many years ago), but I don't remember using Remington's back then. I think it was speer bullets. Great guns, and I regret selling them to get through college.

Anyway, thanks again. Your hit the nail on the head on that post!

 

[Black_Talon]

Black Talon,

The Remington HBWC's are tumble lubed, so you may be getting those measurements due to a little excess lube.

I too thought that might be contributing to the large size so I cleaned off as much of the black lube as I could. This made virtually no difference in the O.D. measurement.

FWIW, the do measure around .3575" to .3580" for about .100" up at the nose and down at the base. It's only the middle .400" section that mikes .362"

They're a really soft bullet and you can shoot them just fine. After all, target loads are way down on the power scale and unless you double charge the powder, there's no problem with them being a little on the large size.

Hope this helps.

I'm sure no expert in cast bullets, but are you sure it's OK to shoot .003"-.004" oversize bullets through a barrel, even if they are dead-soft swaged bullets? If nothing else, it seems like this would be a surefire recipe for pretty bad leading.

Thanks for your input, I appreciate it!

 

[Bad Flynch]

Well, the Remington bullets have always run large. At least 20 years ago, I noted that feature and even tried removing the lube to see what happened. My results were not substantially different than yours.

The Remingtons will always mike 0.360+ or ++ and are best loaded so that the bullet suffers the least deformation from being squeezed in the case. I do not size my cases initially, but rather simply deprime, flare, reprime, charge, seat the bullet and thenI size by crimping in a Lee Carbide Factory Crimp Die. The case is sized a little on entry, the crimp is formed and both the case and the bullet are sized on the way back out of the die. It is the best way that I have found and produces very little bullet deformation.
Be sure to use a good, solid roll crimp.

As far as pressures go, it will not hurt a thing. You can use the soft lead slug to slug your bore with a minimum of mallet pressure or number of blows, so how is it going to raise load pressure? Well, it doesn't. In addition, the cylinder throats have sized it down some before it hits the barrel, which sizes the bullet just a little more, so it is a two step process, anyway. If one were to apply a gauge to this process and use a simgle effort, I can't imagine the total pressure exceeding 100 pounds or so.

 

[brickeyee]

"I'm sure no expert in cast bullets, but are you sure it's OK to shoot .003"-.004" oversize bullets through a barrel, even if they are dead-soft swaged bullets?"

At the pressures being use it would not amount to a hill of beans.

"If nothing else, it seems like this would be a surefire recipe for pretty bad leading."

Not a problem at target velocity with almost any decent lube.
I used to make up practice loads using swaged 148 HBWC tumble lubed in liquid alox by the thousands.
After a while I built a lubber that would roll them down a plate so only the sides got lubed, then set then out to harden overnight, dust with motor mica and box them up till needed.

I have a Python that is just about worn silver from 20+ years of use and cleaning.

 

[Walkalong]

Trust the guys here Black Talon, shoot em.

 

[ReloaderFred]

Black Talon,

For your own peace of mind, go ahead and just load a few of them and give them a try. That way you'll know firsthand. I can assure you that those Remington HBWC bullets are going to shoot well through your .38 Revolver. I don't normally post loading data, but the advice on the Bullseye load that Peter Eick posted as the "classic" target load is correct. I've yet to find a .38 that won't shoot that load well.

Hope this helps.

Fred

 

[Sunray]

"... I didn't have the money, and when I had the money, I couldn't find one..." Naturally. That Murphy is such a rectal orifice.
Bevel based WC's are usually cast. HBWC's are swaged. Swaged bullets are more accurate. 2.0 to 3.6 grains of Bullseye is your friend with either type. 2.5 to 2.8 is normal accuracy load though. Works just fine in .357 cases too if you have a .357 revolver. Eliminates the lube gunk ring in the cylinders.

 

[loadedround]

ReloaderFred: I too share your feelings about the Smith 52 Master and stiill have mine after all these years. It is a crying shame that this pistol is so specialized that it can only be used for bullseye shooting or super accurate plinking. I still will hang on to mine in case some youngster wants to challange the old man. LOL

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Another S&W collector I shoot with brought his 52 out to the range recently and we compared my 38/44 Outdoorsman's to his 52. He did better!

I have been watching for a good 52 to come available one of these days. It is sort of on my "watch for" list.

 

[ReloaderFred]

Peter,

My very first duty gun was a S&W 38/44 Heavy Duty, that had seen a lot of use. I sold it in 1971 to buy a 6" Model 19 that I still have. I often wish I'd been able to keep that Heavy Duty, but I really needed the $65.00 I got for it to buy that Model 19, since the 19 was a whopping $97.50, police price. That was a lot of money at the time, especially since I was making $700.00 a month as a rookie, and had a family to support.

Fred

 

[cdrt]

2.0 to 3.6 grains of Bullseye is your friend with either type.

The max load for Speer's 148 HBWC is 3.1 grains of Bullseye according to my Speer #12 manual. I use 3.0 for it and Hornady's HBWC.