38 special DEWC and LRN Dummy Loads

[webrx]

Hi,

Me again, got my .38 dies and some cast bullets (SNS) and put together some dummy rounds prior to loading them with primer and powder.

The DEWC measure out at 1.23 and the LRN measures out at 1.45. That is with crimping them in the groove.



I found some Bullseye, and I also have titegroup and Trail boss.

Thought I would use bullseye as this seems to be a good .38 powder.

Alliant shows a max load of 3.1 for a 148 gr HBWC with bullseye, and 3.5 for a 158 gr LSWC

Hogden shows 2.7 to 3.3 for a 148 gr HBWC and 3.2 to 3.8 for a 158 gr LSWC with titegroup

From reading my Lyman manual, and searching online, I think I should be able to use the same numbers for the DEWC and the LRN respectivley, as the HBWC and LSWC on the powder websites, assuming I start at the low end and work up, but I want to be sure.

I have come up with a range of loads using bullseye for these bullets

Range between 2.2 (a web reloader stating this was super light but did not squib - lead only) 2.5 to 2.8 for bullseye as good working loads for the DEWC

Range 2.6 to 3.6 bullseye for a good load in the 158 grn LRN

Assuming I am not an idiot, I don't double charge anything, and I start at teh low end, do these ranges fit with the experience of those who have loaded a lot more rounds than me?

Thanks

d

 

[ljnowell]

2.7-2.9 is usually the sweet spot for bullseye and a 148 wadcutter. Works well with HBWC or DEWC.

If you would like some advice I will offer it. Don't put a roll crimp on those DEWC. Seat the crimp groove just below the case mouth and apply just enough crimp to close the flare on the case. A roll crimp is detrimental to accuracy when loading light loads with fast powders.

I would say the same about your other load too. I load SWC the same way. Just sear the groove below the case mouth and remove the flare.

 

[joneb]

I haven't loaded LRN, as for swaged 148gr hollow base WC I've loaded to 3.1gr of Bullseye. For 148gr swaged plain base WC I've loaded to 3.4gr of Be with good results in a S&W 36.
For a cast 148 DEWC BHN of 12 I load up to 3.6gr of Be.

 

[TimSr]

From reading my Lyman manual, and searching online, I think I should be able to use the same numbers for the DEWC and the LRN respectivley, as the HBWC and LSWC on the powder websites, assuming I start at the low end and work up, but I want to be sure.

Had to read this a couple of times to understand it.

You can interchange the LSWC and LRN data in the manner you suggested. Same with using HBWC data for DEWC. (DEWC can be loaded hotter than HBWC)

You cannot count use LRN or LRWC data for a wadcutter as the seating depth is very different.

 

[Sunray]

"...the same numbers for the DEWC and the LRN..." As long as they weigh the same yes. However, 2.2 of Bullseye is below the minimum of 2.7 for a 148. 3.2 for a 158.
"... 2.7-2.9 is usually the sweet spot for Bullseye..." 2.5 to 2.8, but close enough. 2.7 of Bullseye with a 148 grain HBWC has been the .38 Special target load for eons. Absolutely no need for any crimp on either bullet.

 

[340PD]

2.7-2.9 is usually the sweet spot for bullseye and a 148 wadcutter. Works well with HBWC or DEWC.

If you would like some advice I will offer it. Don't put a roll crimp on those DEWC. Seat the crimp groove just below the case mouth and apply just enough crimp to close the flare on the case. A roll crimp is detrimental to accuracy when loading light loads with fast powders.

I would say the same about your other load too. I load SWC the same way. Just sear the groove below the case mouth and remove the flare.

Your light crimp advice is greatly appreciated. I have dedicated seating dies so this is very easy to try.

Thank you.

 

[webrx]

Thanks for the info, and I should have been more clear

For 148 gr DEWC I can use the 148 GR HBWC load data

For 158 GR LRN I can use the 158 GR LSWC load data

was what I meant so say.

I thought my crimp might have been a little heavy on my DEWC Rounds, but I was worrying about it being a light weight revolver (Ruger LCRX) and the recoil causing the bullet to move. I can lighten it up a bit, I do have a LEE FCD I can use for crimp instead of doing seating and crimp in one step.

Thanks again.

d

 

[ljnowell]

"...the same numbers for the DEWC and the LRN..." As long as they weigh the same yes. However, 2.2 of Bullseye is below the minimum of 2.7 for a 148. 3.2 for a 158.

"... 2.7-2.9 is usually the sweet spot for Bullseye..." 2.5 to 2.8, but close enough. 2.7 of Bullseye with a 148 grain HBWC has been the .38 Special target load for eons. Absolutely no need for any crimp on either bullet.

Do you frequent NRA Bullseye matches? I can tell you with certainty that many people load 2.9 grains.

 

[murf]

a light load in a light gun may jump crimp, but i doubt it. only one way to find out. load em up and try em.

murf

 

[dwstone1227]

I have had good accuracy using Berry's DEWC 148 gr plated bullets using 3.1 gr of Bullseye. I started using less powder, but I ended up with a squib using 2.8 gr of Bullseye. Three days latter the squib was out. I do not see any indication of over pressure on the cartridges. This has now become my favorite load for this bullet and my firearms.

 

[stu1ritter]

I was just doing some accuracy testing for several of my snub nosed revolvers at 50 ft. with a 148 DEWC (Accurate 36-148T) and pretty much went right down the Hogdon list of powders for 148HBWC at start load weights. I haven't chrono'd the loads yet, and will, but let me tell you, some of the recoils were mighty stout for a start load. I think there is more volume in the case due to the hollow base which is not there with the DEWC and it is raising the pressures. Some of the primers showed some pressure, nothing excessive at all, but some. I should get to chrono them next week.
Stu

 

[webrx]

Thanks again everyone, going to load some up this week, as soon as i get a free hour or so.

only 6 more years to retirement, then I will have more time for the fun stuff.

d

 

[ljnowell]

I was just doing some accuracy testing for several of my snub nosed revolvers at 50 ft. with a 148 DEWC (Accurate 36-148T) and pretty much went right down the Hogdon list of powders for 148HBWC at start load weights. I haven't chrono'd the loads yet, and will, but let me tell you, some of the recoils were mighty stout for a start load. I think there is more volume in the case due to the hollow base which is not there with the DEWC and it is raising the pressures. Some of the primers showed some pressure, nothing excessive at all, but some. I should get to chrono them next week.
Stu

If there were pressure signs in the primers than something is mighty wrong. HBWC loads are usually in the lower range even for 38 special. You need about two times that amount if pressure before you should start seeing primer pressure signs.

 

[stu1ritter]

Indeed, usually in the very low end for HBWC. Hodgdon has several loads (5) starting at 14,200 psi for the hollow base. Remove the space with a solid DEWC (which is the above discussion) and I think you'll find pressures are going up? Remember this discussion IS about using HBWC loadings for DEWC.
Stu

 

[TimSr]

Remove the space with a solid DEWC (which is the above discussion) and I think you'll find pressures are going up?

Yes. Less unused case volume, more pressure with fast powder 38 loads. Published HBWC loads should be very low on the .38 non+P range of pressures.

 

[ljnowell]

Indeed, usually in the very low end for HBWC. Hodgdon has several loads (5) starting at 14,200 psi for the hollow base. Remove the space with a solid DEWC (which is the above discussion) and I think you'll find pressures are going up? Remember this discussion IS about using HBWC loadings for DEWC.
Stu

You are removing the space of the hollow cavity but you are using a shorter bullet. Cast DEWC will usually have data if a higher charge than a HBWC.

Pressure signs in primers are nowhere best this type of loading. If there are pressure signs on the primers something is majorly wrong.

 

[stu1ritter]

I don't think a 148DEWC is all that much shorter than a HBWC in overall length. You might just try some of the Hodgdon starting loads listed for 148HBWC under a 148 WC. THAT is exactly what I am saying, I don't think load data for the HBWC is interchangeable with the 148 WC due to the loss of volume. I had thought it would be but I will not repeat my experience. My loads are very accurate powder weight wise. I've been at this too long to make that kind of mistake. I'm 74 and have been loading since high school.
Stu

 

[ljnowell]

I don't think a 148DEWC is all that much shorter than a HBWC in overall length. You might just try some of the Hodgdon starting loads listed for 148HBWC under a 148 WC. THAT is exactly what I am saying, I don't think load data for the HBWC is interchangeable with the 148 WC due to the loss of volume. I had thought it would be but I will not repeat my experience. My loads are very accurate powder weight wise. I've been at this too long to make that kind of mistake. I'm 74 and have been loading since high school.
Stu

People have been substituting it for a long time. Cast DEWC will almost always have a higher charge weight than HBWC. What manual are you seeing higher charge weights with HBWC than cast DEWC?

 

[stu1ritter]

I never said I was seeing higher charge weights for HBWC than DEWC. I said I substituted DEWC for HBWC using Hodgdon's on line manual for the HBWC at the starting load level and they were STOUT and I won't be doing that again.
Stu

 

[ljnowell]

I never said I was seeing higher charge weights for HBWC than DEWC. I said I substituted DEWC for HBWC using Hodgdon's on line manual for the HBWC at the starting load level and they were STOUT and I won't be doing that again.
Stu

HBWC loads are lower charge weight than a DEWC. I'll say it again, if you were substituting a DEWC into a HBWC load and seeing high pressure signs on primers, you have something seriously wrong.

Think about it. DEWC use a higher charge weight. You are using a low end load of a HBWC, which is lower than that of a DEWC. You say you are seeing pressure signs in a primer. SPP shouldn't be showing pressure signs anywhere near 38 special pressures.

There is something else seriously wrong and it's not your substitution of bullets.

 

[webrx]

"HBWC loads are lower charge weight than a DEWC"

This is what I read in multiple posts which is why it was concluded (and posted many places on line) that for lead DEWC you could safely use HBWC load data and work your way up.

Seems to also make sense to me that there would be more open space (hollow body) with HBWC then there would be for DEWC (solid body) seated to the same depth. That open space would (in my mind) mean more volume so therefore less pressure buildup.

Of course, what makes sense in my mind may not always be true

d

 

[ljnowell]

"HBWC loads are lower charge weight than a DEWC"



This is what I read in multiple posts which is why it was concluded (and posted many places on line) that for lead DEWC you could safely use HBWC load data and work your way up.



Seems to also make sense to me that there would be more open space (hollow body) with HBWC then there would be for DEWC (solid body) seated to the same depth. That open space would (in my mind) mean more volume so therefore less pressure buildup.



Of course, what makes sense in my mind may not always be true



d

You are correct. It's also the makeup of the projectile. A DEWC is usually a cast bullet and will take more pressure. When you load a HBWC to higher pressure you run the risk of skirt separation.

I'll take a picture tonight if I get the chance of a HBWC and a DEWC side by side. While the HBWC does have the open cavity making space inside the case, it's also longer than a DEWC. It simply has to be, otherwise it couldn't be the same weight and have the hollow cavity, that lead went somewhere.

 

[webrx]

follow-up:
Got some free time finally so I loaded up 148 GR cast DEWC with 2.7 gr Bullseye and I also loaded some 158 cast LRN with 3.5 Bullseye, both seated in the crimping groove with a light roll crimp.

I have an LCRX with 1.875 barrel and (my wife is a keeper) a new nickel plated Pietta 1873 clone in .357 with a 4 3/4 inch barrel that I can test out of. Hopefully this weekend I can go shoot a little.

Dave

 

[X-Ring]

You did good, just a little lighter than my preferred loads. I load my button nose WC (Lee mould) with 3.0g BE, and my 150g SWC (RCBS mould) or my 158g RN with 3.6g BE. All shoot superbly from my S&W mod 15 and 64.

 

[murf]

let us know how it goes.

murf