.380 powder choice

Status
Not open for further replies.

KYregular

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
760
Starting to load some Berry's 100 grain FBRN for my daughter's little Ruger .380. It seems like some powders according to load info only vary slightly between low and high, so I am looking for info on what experienced loaders of the caliber have used, and any tips on .380. The powders I have on hand are:
CFE Pistol
W231
AA#5
Unique
Powerpistol
Titegroup
Bullseye

Thanks
 
Of those you list, I have used Power Pistol and like it. Burns clean, and reduced loads work very well in everything I've tried it in. If I were to try others on the list, I would probably go with AA#5 and W231.

One not on the list that I like is BE86.
 
Of those you list, I have used Power Pistol and like it. Burns clean, and reduced loads work very well in everything I've tried it in. If I were to try others on the list, I would probably go with AA#5 and W231.

One not on the list that I like is BE86.
Really like Power Pistol, I have yet to run it thru my Hornady chargemaster. Curious to how well it will meter thru it. Thanks
 
Of those, W-231, Bullseye, or Titegroup. People use Unique, but the others are better suited as far as burn rate goes (IMHO) and meter better. AA #5 will also work and meter great, but like Unique is a bit slow. Power Pistol is too slow as well IMHO. AA #2 is a great choice, but not on the list. With all the blow back pistols out there I would rather have a short quick punch from the powder charge.
 
Of those, W-231, Bullseye, or Titegroup
+1. 380Auto is a small case volume cartridge requiring small powder charges and many powder measures have trouble metering powder charges that small.

You want best metering powders as often start/max range is less than .5 gr. I would suggest powders that you can consistently meter within .1 gr variance as small changes affect accuracy for this small case volume caliber.

For 380Auto, I modified my Pro Auto Disk with this $1 mod to meter below what the smallest disk hole would meter - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/working-diy-micro-auto-disk.741988/

Now I can meter these powders consistently within .1 gr:

- Bullseye down to 1.8 gr
- W231/HP-38 down to 2.0 gr
- Titegroup down to 2.6 gr

These are W231/HP-38 powder work up shot groups from TCP 738 at 7 yards - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/380auto-x-treme-100-gr-rnfp-range-test.748320/

index.php


I am sure other powders work but these are powders I have used with success for 380Auto and depending on your ability to meter powders, your accuracy results may vary.
 
Last edited:
.380 is more tolerant of medium speed powders than .32 ACP, IMHO, but I would still rather use fast, excellent metering, powders for all around .380, which is what it sounds like the OP wants, just plinking loads for the range.
 
I use, and like, 700-X on my 380ACP reloads but many folks get their shorts up in a wad over the metering off 700-X. Besides, it is not on the OP's list.

I agree with Walkalong.
 
You want best metering powders as often start/max range is less than .5 gr.
Keep in mind that start/max charges for W231/HP-38 is 2.9 - 3.1 gr (.2 gr range) and Titegroup is 2.6 - 3.0 gr (.4 gr range) - http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/pistol

.2 gr range is very tight.

Not much room for consistency if you factor stacking of powder measure and OAL/COL tolerances.
 
I use, and like, 700-X on my 380ACP reloads but many folks get their shorts up in a wad over the metering off 700-X.
I have found certain powders can produce accuracy despite larger metering variance.

For 9mm 115/124 gr general purpose range practice/plinking loads, I use Red Dot/Promo with .2 gr+ variance yet they produce very acceptable level of accuracy (50 yard 2" 10 shot groups with 16" carbines).

BTW, how's accuracy with your 700-X loads?
 
I use Power Pistol for the full strength loads that my g42 seems to require. I use Berry's hollow base bullets. I like that load a lot. But I also tried it in some milder 380 loads for a Bersa, and was not impressed.
 
I have found certain powders can produce accuracy despite larger metering variance.

For 9mm 115/124 gr general purpose range practice/plinking loads, I use Red Dot/Promo with .2 gr+ variance yet they produce very acceptable level of accuracy (50 yard 2" 10 shot groups with 16" carbines).

BTW, how's accuracy with your 700-X loads?

For 9mm my goto practice round is Berry's 124 RN over 5.2 grains of CFEP loaded to 1.4 OAL. Very accurate for what it is, and zero signs of pressure.
 
HP-38/W231 and Titegroup has worked well for my LCP as target ammo. I have worked up some loads with CFE-P that definitely let you know how small a frame the LCP is. I suppose the slower powders would be okay for defensive rounds, but not for target/plinking rounds. As least IMO.
 
I use Bullseye for 380. I can throw charges light enough with my AutoDisk without having to buy the adjustable charge bar or modify the factory disks.
 
+1.

I found powders slower burning than Unique/Universal/BE-86 tend to burn more efficiently at near max/max charges to produce greater accuracy and tend to not burn efficiently at lower charges to produce accuracy. Powders that showed charge flexibility for me have been WSF and BE-86 where lower charges still produced good accuracy.

Slower burning powders like CFE Pistol/Auto Comp tend to produce better accuracy at higher powder charges and I do not use them for lighter target loads.
Berry's 100 grain FBRN for my daughter's little Ruger .380
380 pistols tend to produce very snappy recoil. I figured you wanted lighter recoil target loads?

Besides, I use lead load data for regular plated bullets as using higher than mid-range jacketed load data tends to decrease accuracy. With 100 gr Berry's plated bullet, you may want to consider testing 2.6 gr W231/HP-38 and work up to 2.8 and 3.0 gr.
 
Last edited:
+1.

I found powders slower burning than Unique/Universal/BE-86 tend to burn more efficiently at near max/max charges to produce greater accuracy and tend to not burn efficiently at lower charges to produce accuracy. Powders that showed charge flexibility for me have been WSF and BE-86 where lower charges still produced good accuracy.

Slower burning powders like CFE Pistol/Auto Comp tend to produce better accuracy at higher powder charges and I do not use them for lighter target loads.

OP, wasn't this for your "daughter's little Ruger .380" and I figured you wanted lighter recoil target loads? Besides, I use lead load data for regular plated bullets as using higher than mid-range jacketed load data tends to decrease accuracy. With 100 gr Berry's plated bullet, 2.6 gr W231/HP-38 should produce good accuracy with lighter recoil.

Not necessarily lighter, she can handle the recoil. As far as using lead data for plated, you NEVER want to start with low lead loads or you WILL end up with a squid load sooner than later. I always start with low jacketed loads and work my way up with chrono results. Even light load data from FMJ data have failed to lock back on occasion.
 
you NEVER want to start with low lead loads or you WILL end up with a squid load
Talk to bullseye match shooters and they will tell you to reduce powder charge until slide won't cycle and they will start reducing recoil spring rate to cycle the slide. ;) They will conduct load development with published start charge and work DOWN with faster powders like Bullseye, W231/HP-38, etc. :D

Unlike revolver which leaks a lot of gas through cylinder gap and more likely to stick a bullet in the barrel, semi-auto will usually push the bullet out the muzzle even with low powder charge.

Since I am in pursuit of lighter target loads when conducting load development with new powders and bullets, I usually test powder charges .2 - .3 gr below published start charges and never failed to push the bullet out the muzzle. I have failed to reliably cycle the slide but never failed to push the bullet out of the barrel.

Here's a Guns and Ammo article where light 40S&W loads were tested for USPSA minor power factor and these were WAY below published start charges - http://www.handgunsmag.com/ammo/ammunition_40lite_091806/
 
Last edited:
Can't disagree with that bds, but KYregular makes a very valid point, if you use starting lead data with plated you can end up sticking a bullet, so we need to be aware and be looking for this so we don't get into trouble, something the BE guys are looking for when working down so low. As long as we are aware of the potential issue and are keeping an eye out for tuck bullets we can safely load very low with some powder sin some applications.
 
I bought a case of Unique so I use it whenever I can. I've tried Power Pistol. It's cleaner but I couldn't tell much of a difference between the two when shooting.
 
Talk to bullseye match shooters and they will tell you to reduce powder charge until slide won't cycle and they will start reducing recoil spring rate to cycle the slide. ;) They will conduct load development with published start charge and work DOWN with faster powders like Bullseye, W231/HP-38, etc. :D

Unlike revolver which leaks a lot of gas through cylinder gap and more likely to stick a bullet in the barrel, semi-auto will usually push the bullet out the muzzle even with low powder charge.

Since I am in pursuit of lighter target loads when conducting load development with new powders and bullets, I usually test powder charges .2 - .3 gr below published start charges and never failed to push the bullet out the muzzle. I have failed to reliably cycle the slide but never failed to push the bullet out of the barrel.

Here's a Guns and Ammo article where light 40S&W loads were tested for USPSA minor power factor and these were WAY below published start charges - http://www.handgunsmag.com/ammo/ammunition_40lite_091806/

All great points, but I hate to say this but I will. Be cautious of published starting loads (which I'm sure you know) because they vary from time to time. Certain manufacturers tend to "lawyer" up if you know what I mean. It is the fear of undercharging a load, which is easier to do than overcharge when you don't see the powder in the case (turret presses and progressives) which have led me the weigh EVERY charge (personal decision, nothing wrong with anyone else doing it differently). Just had some bad experiences with different powder drops.
 
Can't disagree with that bds, but KYregular makes a very valid point, if you use starting lead data with plated you can end up sticking a bullet, so we need to be aware and be looking for this so we don't get into trouble, something the BE guys are looking for when working down so low. As long as we are aware of the potential issue and are keeping an eye out for tuck bullets we can safely load very low with some powder sin some applications.

Squib loads are hard to catch during rapid fire, which scares me the most.
 
Squib loads are hard to catch during rapid fire, which scares me the most.
I got squib loads when I started reloading decades ago. And since I started reloading for USPSA matches that used fast double taps, I absolutely had to eliminate squib rounds.

So I developed a reloading checklist and incorporated Quality Control steps to prevent squibs whether I reloaded in single stage or progressive. Since then, I have not experienced any squib loads.

It is the fear of undercharging a load, which is easier to do than overcharge when you don't see the powder in the case
Part of my QC is to inspect every charge of powder inside the case. I have a small inspection mirror mounted on my press to easily visualize inside the case neck for powder charge level.

Be cautious of published starting loads (which I'm sure you know) because they vary from time to time. Certain manufacturers tend to "lawyer" up if you know what I mean.
Yes, compared to older "paper" published load data, newer online published load data tends to be more conservative. And my .2-.3 gr powder charge reduction is based on the more conservative powder manufacturers' load data, especially since I tend to use shorter OAL/COL for 9mm, particularly with 115 gr FMJ/RN bullets with shorter bullet base (to increase neck tension for more consistent chamber pressures).

But when I conduct load development, particularly for pistol loads, newer bullet types by brand have been included in recent years' updates to online load data by powder manufacturers which I reference to develop my loads.

But when Lyman #49 (which I have) still shows same powder charges for W231 and HP-38 for some loads (which has been the same for more than a decade), I wonder if they are using old test data and now I tend to favor newer online load data which seems to be updated more frequently with data from newer pressure testing methods.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top