HBWC Ammo: What for?
- Thread starter The Rabbi
- Start date
- Status
It's a target load designed to use a softer lead bullet driven at moderate velocity. The secret to the HBWC's success is the gas pressure (from burning powder) gets into the hollow base and really press the sides of the bullet into the rifling. This is the same rationale behind the hollow-base minnie rifle bullet of the civil war era. The reason it is pressed all the way into the case is to protect the bullet and to help insure complete powder ignition by reducing the case volume. 38 special target loads don't use much powder and getting more of it to the back near the primer hole helps make for consistent ignition and velocity.
Kor
Member
Hollow-Based WadCutter(HBWC) bullets are intended for use in very light-recoiling target ammo; the bullet is seated all the way flush with the case mouth so that the bullet takes up most of the internal volume inside the cartridge case, thus allowing the ammo manufacturer/reloader to safely get away with putting only a very small amount of powder inside the case. The flat bullet face(meplat) punches a very sharp, crisp hole in paper targets(i.e. wad-cutter) which makes scoring easier in bullseye competition. The hollow cavity in the base of the bullet is designed to expand upon firing and swell to better fit the bore for better accuracy and gas-sealing.
FYI, it used to be in vogue for savvy handloaders to load HBWC bullets upside-down, with the hollow base facing up - the idea was to make light-recoiling .38Spl hollowpoints that would expand readily due to the deep hollow cavity and soft lead.
Hope this helps!
FYI, it used to be in vogue for savvy handloaders to load HBWC bullets upside-down, with the hollow base facing up - the idea was to make light-recoiling .38Spl hollowpoints that would expand readily due to the deep hollow cavity and soft lead.
Hope this helps!
Amish_Bill
Member
Any current reasons not to reverse load them?
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Been done - and seemingly quite ''effective''.
The only thing that hasn't been explained is that the flat full-diameter nose (when the bullet is seated nose front) will cut a sharp, round hole in a paper target. A round nose bullet leaves a ragged small hole that looks like it was punched through the paper with a big pencil. In a shooting tournament it is far easier to score a shot made by a wadcutter bullet then any other kind.
As a rule wadcutter cartridges are intended to be used in revolvers. Some target pistols have been designed to use them, but feeding is problematic.
As a rule wadcutter cartridges are intended to be used in revolvers. Some target pistols have been designed to use them, but feeding is problematic.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
That's true; it's also the case that both Colt and Smith & Wesson made semi-automatic .38 special guns whose bullets had to be deeply seated in cartridge cases for the ammunition to be loaded into the magazines and chamber properly. Most still had feeding and reliability problems, but those may have been due largely to manufacturing tolerances—or the lack thereof—of the times.
No, although you'll get much better expansion from modern jacketed hollow points than reversed hollow-based wadcutters, which latter can't be driven to maximum velocity without badly leading bores.
The theory that the flat meplat was an aid to scoring is only half-right... the biggest reason for the flat meplat was that it cut a full diameter hole... in Bullseye competitions (as in most that came later), just cutting the line of the next highest scoring ring lets that round be scored at the higher number, even though 95% of the hole is in the lower ring!
That full diameter hole, vs the smaller hole of round nose bullets, can be very important, unless you always hit the X ring!
That full diameter hole, vs the smaller hole of round nose bullets, can be very important, unless you always hit the X ring!
Amish_Bill
Member
For someone who can't handle loads that drive a standard HP to full velocity, I'm thinking this might have some use yet.
Preacherman
Member
Reversed HBWC's are very popular among some folks as a defensive load. This is a pity, because they're one of the worst-performing loads (terminal-ballistics-wise) available for defense! They can only be driven at a relatively low velocity, and when they hit, if the hollow base expands, they penetrate only a few inches. If it doesn't expand, they perform like a solid, penetrating 8-10 inches but no further, because of their flat profile which acts like a speedbrake. Any modern hollowpoint design will have better terminal ballistics than reversed HBWC's.
BluesBear
member
Ammo has come a long way since 1988.
As I sit here responding to this thread I am reminded that my ability to do so was made possible by a 148gr CWBH (hollow base wadcutter loaded backwards) that was loaded in a .38 special case over a charge of 4756 that I cannot mention. It was fired from a 1973 vintage S&W Model 40 Centennial.
It entered just below the sternum it somehow managed to navigate itself between both lungs just barely missing the bottom of the heart. It had the diameter of a nickle when it hit the T6 vertibrae of the fool who had just pointed an RG 38S with a 4" barrel, loaded with 158gr round nosed lead (that shows you how close he was) at me. He dropped like a sack of potatoes. As he started his downward spin, the second round of the double tap hit the shoulder and shattered the socket.
Now if he wants to terrorize his ex-wife he'll do it from a wheelchair.
It was an effective snubby load. Be advised however that when pushed to a velocity to get that kind of expansion from a 2" don't expect it to go more than 25 FEET without keyholing. At 30' it'll hit sideways 33% of the time. At 50' it's not accurate enough to hit a man.
Lowering the velocity really improves the accuracy but the expansion isn't as dramatic. it's also not very effective against heavy clothing. It will usually still expand but the velocity lost in the clothing just ruins the penetration.
Remember that the original Hydra-Shok was just a CWBH with a post in the middle. It suffered the same problems with clothing penetration but the post did enhance expansion at reasonable velocities.
Now I ain't saying that I haven't carried CWBH ammo since then or that I'll never carry them again. But it's doubtful. Nowadays there are just so many better bullets available.
As I sit here responding to this thread I am reminded that my ability to do so was made possible by a 148gr CWBH (hollow base wadcutter loaded backwards) that was loaded in a .38 special case over a charge of 4756 that I cannot mention. It was fired from a 1973 vintage S&W Model 40 Centennial.
It entered just below the sternum it somehow managed to navigate itself between both lungs just barely missing the bottom of the heart. It had the diameter of a nickle when it hit the T6 vertibrae of the fool who had just pointed an RG 38S with a 4" barrel, loaded with 158gr round nosed lead (that shows you how close he was) at me. He dropped like a sack of potatoes. As he started his downward spin, the second round of the double tap hit the shoulder and shattered the socket.
Now if he wants to terrorize his ex-wife he'll do it from a wheelchair.
It was an effective snubby load. Be advised however that when pushed to a velocity to get that kind of expansion from a 2" don't expect it to go more than 25 FEET without keyholing. At 30' it'll hit sideways 33% of the time. At 50' it's not accurate enough to hit a man.
Lowering the velocity really improves the accuracy but the expansion isn't as dramatic. it's also not very effective against heavy clothing. It will usually still expand but the velocity lost in the clothing just ruins the penetration.
Remember that the original Hydra-Shok was just a CWBH with a post in the middle. It suffered the same problems with clothing penetration but the post did enhance expansion at reasonable velocities.
Now I ain't saying that I haven't carried CWBH ammo since then or that I'll never carry them again. But it's doubtful. Nowadays there are just so many better bullets available.
seeker_two
Member
BluesBear: Well, you just settled THAT arguement...
The HBWC load was good for its time; but, fortunately, the ammo companies brought us better loadings for SD.
But, for target shooting, HBWC's (esp if you cast & load your own) are hard to beat for accuracy. And, with a harder alloy & heavier powder charge, do pretty well as a hunting bullet.
Try 'em. You'll like 'em....
The HBWC load was good for its time; but, fortunately, the ammo companies brought us better loadings for SD.
But, for target shooting, HBWC's (esp if you cast & load your own) are hard to beat for accuracy. And, with a harder alloy & heavier powder charge, do pretty well as a hunting bullet.
Try 'em. You'll like 'em....
Quantrill
Member
I remember that, at the time that reversed HBWC were in vogue, that there was a saying (rumor, urban legend?) going around that they cracked, split forcing cones if loaded heavily. That did not happen to me when I tried it but I stopped that practice because of it. Quantrill
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
That full diameter meplat does make the bullet a super small game cartridge. IME, much better than a .22.
IME, much better than a .22.Shoot one at a target from 20 feet and the bullet will probably go through the target sideways! There was a fad a long time ago to load them inverted, it does look impressive, but the bullet is inherently unstable loaded like that, lots of keyholes and sideways hits.
I have shot over 30,000 HBWC bullets loaded the correct way in competition and practice for the competition, they are a terrific load, extremely accurate when loaded correctly.
Sam
Member
Pretty good fotr hunting small edibles too.
Smacks the snot out of 'em without ripping things up.
Waaaay better than a 22.
Sam
Smacks the snot out of 'em without ripping things up.
Waaaay better than a 22.
Sam
russlate
Member
Seating them upside down makes for tremendous changes in pressure by seating them just fractions of an inch deeper.
Also the original hydrashok was a 148 gr. ( IIRC ) inverted lead hollow based wadcutter with a small lead center rod - a W rather than a U shape.
Also the original hydrashok was a 148 gr. ( IIRC ) inverted lead hollow based wadcutter with a small lead center rod - a W rather than a U shape.
Stainz
Member
One reason not to have the HBWC-loaded .38 Spcl ammo around the house: Your TV remote control won't work... someone will probably mistake them for AAA cells! If they don't, you will have some decent target ammo.
As far as lower speed lead WC's vs lead HP's, I am always reminded of my choice for my 2" 10 and 3" 65 - the 158gr LHPSWC +P, aka 'FBI load'. They still have a one-shot-stop rating higher than 230gr .45 ACP ball ammo. Still perfect for snubbies, IMHO. Besides, I can't find the 135gr GD's locally.
Stainz
As far as lower speed lead WC's vs lead HP's, I am always reminded of my choice for my 2" 10 and 3" 65 - the 158gr LHPSWC +P, aka 'FBI load'. They still have a one-shot-stop rating higher than 230gr .45 ACP ball ammo. Still perfect for snubbies, IMHO. Besides, I can't find the 135gr GD's locally.
Stainz
BluesBear
member
2.2 grains of Bullseye behind a HBWC loaded in a .32 S&W Long is the BEST small rabbit & squirrel handgun load you'll ever find.
DRT and minimal meat damage.
HankB
Member
Hmmm . . . Preacherman replied to this thread before I did, but if I had gotten here first, my post might have read something like:
Like BluesBear, I've loaded HBWC's backwards over a hefty charge of SR4756, one I saw recommended in one of the gun rags some time back before lawyers got involved in writing reloading data. (This was using the older Hornady HBWCs . . . the new waffle-sided Hornady's didn't work so well.) No evidence of keyholes out to 50 feet, where hand-size groups were the norm. In test media like wetpack, performance was out of proportion to the relatively small caliber.
And I've seen the load used to administer the coup-de-grace to a wounded whitetail with eminently satisfactory results.
Now, if you're shooting a long-barreled .357, a reversed HBWC probably isn't your best choice. But if you're shooting a snubbie, it's definitely worth trying.
Like BluesBear, I've loaded HBWC's backwards over a hefty charge of SR4756, one I saw recommended in one of the gun rags some time back before lawyers got involved in writing reloading data. (This was using the older Hornady HBWCs . . . the new waffle-sided Hornady's didn't work so well.) No evidence of keyholes out to 50 feet, where hand-size groups were the norm. In test media like wetpack, performance was out of proportion to the relatively small caliber.
And I've seen the load used to administer the coup-de-grace to a wounded whitetail with eminently satisfactory results.
Now, if you're shooting a long-barreled .357, a reversed HBWC probably isn't your best choice. But if you're shooting a snubbie, it's definitely worth trying.
http://www.handgunsmag.com/ammunition/pocket_dynomite/index.html
Here's an article where someone tested various .38 snubby rounds, including backwards 148 grain HBWC's over 3.5 grains of powder. Bare gel shot no. 1 expanded to .602 and penetrated 10.2"; shot #2, .592" and 10.7". Clothed shots got minimal expansion and 19" penetration. No calibration data is given, but 19" for a non-expanding 148 grain WC is just about right.
The FBI load did respectably, but it definitely looks like the Remington FBI load is a better choice than Winchester (FBI data showed Winchester 158 gr LHP's underexpanded through denim through full-sized handguns too, while Remingtons did great).
From the looks of it, 125 gr +P Gold Dots are the best, since the new 135 grain stuff appears to expand to around .577" (smaller than 125), and penetrate 11" (shallower than 125). Weird, definitely warrants independent testing with calibrated jello, or water method.
http://le.atk.com/Interior.asp?section=2&page=pages/ccispeer/ccispeer_Home.asp (135 grain test data, PDF download near top of page)
Here's an article where someone tested various .38 snubby rounds, including backwards 148 grain HBWC's over 3.5 grains of powder. Bare gel shot no. 1 expanded to .602 and penetrated 10.2"; shot #2, .592" and 10.7". Clothed shots got minimal expansion and 19" penetration. No calibration data is given, but 19" for a non-expanding 148 grain WC is just about right.
The FBI load did respectably, but it definitely looks like the Remington FBI load is a better choice than Winchester (FBI data showed Winchester 158 gr LHP's underexpanded through denim through full-sized handguns too, while Remingtons did great).
From the looks of it, 125 gr +P Gold Dots are the best, since the new 135 grain stuff appears to expand to around .577" (smaller than 125), and penetrate 11" (shallower than 125). Weird, definitely warrants independent testing with calibrated jello, or water method.
http://le.atk.com/Interior.asp?section=2&page=pages/ccispeer/ccispeer_Home.asp (135 grain test data, PDF download near top of page)
The instability factor may show up and may not. Loaded to the mid 700s, I have had them prove stable shot after shot to at least 25 yards from a 3" J frame. With the slightly lower velocities of colt and s&w 2" revolvers, they would sometimes tip and tumble.
Some years ago, I shot a number of .38 loads through several snubs and into pork ribs backed by beef brisket and then wetpack. The hbwc expanded very evenly and stopped point formost. Shot through a k-pock insulated vest, they would fill up with the fiber but would still expand a fair amount. None of the other loads available to me at that time- including the Federal 125s and the WW version of the FBI/SPDload would expand at all after going through the vest.
At one time, we loaded some 160 grain HBWCS from a discontinued lyman mould over fairly heavy charges of 2400 They were accurate and would thoroughly blow up targets with high liquid content. Never have tried loading the soft swaged hbwcs to high velocity.
I tried the concept in a Bisley .32 magnum and every round keyholed before reaching the target.
Some years ago, I shot a number of .38 loads through several snubs and into pork ribs backed by beef brisket and then wetpack. The hbwc expanded very evenly and stopped point formost. Shot through a k-pock insulated vest, they would fill up with the fiber but would still expand a fair amount. None of the other loads available to me at that time- including the Federal 125s and the WW version of the FBI/SPDload would expand at all after going through the vest.
At one time, we loaded some 160 grain HBWCS from a discontinued lyman mould over fairly heavy charges of 2400 They were accurate and would thoroughly blow up targets with high liquid content. Never have tried loading the soft swaged hbwcs to high velocity.
I tried the concept in a Bisley .32 magnum and every round keyholed before reaching the target.
chief
Member
I used the inverted HBWC load for many years in a number of roles and have a little insight. To push them a little faster I would use the old Speer 148gr. HBWC and put a gascheck on the nose, or now the base, and seated them with the first driving band outside the case to increase the powder capacity. The new Hornady was indeed not happy to be loaded that way. The loads seemed to like the faster twist of a colt as opposed to a S&W, but at close range it was all moot. One of the reasons the original Hydroshocks had the post was to shift the balance further forward to negate the tendency to keyhole. I have an old keepsake here that the coroner returned to me, it expanded to .62 and retained full weight. I will try to enclose picture. My father the fisherman calls this load the "turtlebuster" evidently it is devastating to snapping turtle that was to fight over fishing rights.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I loaded up a few hundred .357s with reversed wadcutters in '66 and took them with me to Vietnam. I had no problems with keyholing, but they did lead pretty badly. A couple of cylinderfulls and you had a scrubbing chore on your hands.
I shot two men with this load, and both worked very well -- in one case, the bullet smashed the spine on the way out.
I shot two men with this load, and both worked very well -- in one case, the bullet smashed the spine on the way out.
BluesBear
member
Whole different animal.
A CWBH in a .357 case is entirely different. Especially if fired through a longer barrel.
My old 6" Blued 1976 Colt Python did very well with them. I attribute that to it's 6" barrel and .356" bore diameter.
Regarding the keyholeing from shorter barrels. I finally determined that it was the velocity that was causing it. It seems that as a bullet decellerates from supersonic to subsonic it experiences quite a bit of turbulance. Kind of like a reverse sonic boom. I was launching them from my snub right about that threshold and I feel that is why some when crazy and some did not.
All of the HBWC bullets I have ever encountered for sale were swaged. I know that Lyman and Lee have made molds for them but I have never seen any so casted for sale. Swaged bullets are by necessity, usually much softer than cast bullets and as such are much more prone to leading. The old style Speer HBWC had a small step at the "nose" that was nearly perfect for a gas check when loaded in reverse.
However I prefered the Hornady HBWC It seemed to expand just a little bigger at the same velocities. The dry lube they used also leaded less. the downside was that they expanded so radidly that the "mushroom" would split on one side.
I found that after they were loaded, (I seated them out to the first small lube groove) if i took my trusty RCBS case chambfer tool and gave it a quicj full spin, just barely removing the sharp corner of the bullet, that mushroom splitting was nearly eliminated.
It was a lot of work but as I said earlier there weren't that many good HP bullets available for handguns in the late 1970s/early 1980s.
The reason that those early Hydra-Shok Corporation Scorpion loads (I was a distributor for Scorpions back when H-S was still in Watkins Glen NY) worked so well was that they were very soft so they expanded well thanks to hydraulic pressure against the post, and the velocity was kept low to eliminate keyholing and leading.
I had some of the Scorpion component bullets and they behaved no better and sometimes worse than a standard HBWC when driven to excess velocity.
A CWBH in a .357 case is entirely different. Especially if fired through a longer barrel.
My old 6" Blued 1976 Colt Python did very well with them. I attribute that to it's 6" barrel and .356" bore diameter.
Regarding the keyholeing from shorter barrels. I finally determined that it was the velocity that was causing it. It seems that as a bullet decellerates from supersonic to subsonic it experiences quite a bit of turbulance. Kind of like a reverse sonic boom. I was launching them from my snub right about that threshold and I feel that is why some when crazy and some did not.
All of the HBWC bullets I have ever encountered for sale were swaged. I know that Lyman and Lee have made molds for them but I have never seen any so casted for sale. Swaged bullets are by necessity, usually much softer than cast bullets and as such are much more prone to leading. The old style Speer HBWC had a small step at the "nose" that was nearly perfect for a gas check when loaded in reverse.
However I prefered the Hornady HBWC It seemed to expand just a little bigger at the same velocities. The dry lube they used also leaded less. the downside was that they expanded so radidly that the "mushroom" would split on one side.
I found that after they were loaded, (I seated them out to the first small lube groove) if i took my trusty RCBS case chambfer tool and gave it a quicj full spin, just barely removing the sharp corner of the bullet, that mushroom splitting was nearly eliminated.
It was a lot of work but as I said earlier there weren't that many good HP bullets available for handguns in the late 1970s/early 1980s.
The reason that those early Hydra-Shok Corporation Scorpion loads (I was a distributor for Scorpions back when H-S was still in Watkins Glen NY) worked so well was that they were very soft so they expanded well thanks to hydraulic pressure against the post, and the velocity was kept low to eliminate keyholing and leading.
I had some of the Scorpion component bullets and they behaved no better and sometimes worse than a standard HBWC when driven to excess velocity.
- Status
