Double-Ended Wadcutter – The ExhaustNotes Blog

I recently tested several loads for accuracy in my Ruger .357 Magnum New Model Blackhawk.

The .357 Magnum Blackhawk is available with either a 4 5/8-inch or a 6 1/2-inch barrel; mine is the 6 1/2-inch version. I like a longer barrel when I have a choice.

In this test series, I fired four 5-shot groups at 50 feet and then calculated the average group size for each load. I did not use a machine rest (more on that later); I used a two-hand hold rested on the bench, with no support for the barrel or any other part of the gun.

The Loads

I tested with five bullets and three propellants:

- - The Hornady 158-grain XTP jacketed hollow point
  - The Speer 158-grain jacketed soft point
  - The Hornady 110-grain jacketed hollow point
  - A cast 158-grain truncated flat point
  - A cast 148-grain powder coated double-ended wadcutter
  - Unique
  - Bullseye
  - Winchester 296

From left to right, the Speer 158-grain jacketed soft point, the Hornady 158-grain jacketed hollow point (designated by Hornady as XTPs), the Hornady 110-grain jacketed hollow point, a cast 158-grain truncated flat point, and the Gardner 148-grain powder coated double ended wadcutter (the wadcutters are loaded in .38 Special brass).

All loads were prepared using my new Lee Deluxe 4-die .357 Magnum reloading dies, with the exception of the .38 Special wadcutter ammo. All loads were crimped. I recently did a blog on the Lee dies. I think they are the best dies I’ve ever used. If you’re considering a set of Lee dies, a good place to buy them is on Amazon.

Lee’s Deluxe 4-Die Set. These do a fantastic job.

You can also buy directly from Lee Precision.

The different load recipes are identified in the table below.

The Results

Here are the results:

The biggest variable in this test series is me. But, I’m what you get.

The most accurate load was 8.0 grains of Unique with the 158-grain Hornady jacketed hollow point bullet and a regular (non-magnum) primer. You won’t find this load in any modern reloading manual. It’s one that was in Lyman’s 45th edition manual (printed in 1970) as their accuracy load with a 158-grain jacketed bullet. Sometimes there are jewels hidden in those old reloading manuals. There are folks who say you shouldn’t use loads from old manuals. When I do, I work up to them, watching for pressure signs. Another one of my old reloading books goes up to 8.5 grains of Unique with a 158-grain jacketed bullet. I didn’t go there because I didn’t need to.

The Lyman 45th Edition Reloading Handbook. I still use it. These older books contain loads the newer reloading manuals do not.

Back in 1970, the good folks at Lyman identified 8.0 grains of Unique and a 158-grain jacketed bullet as their accuracy load. They were right!

Recoil with the Lyman accuracy load identified above was moderate, and there were no excess pressure indications (extraction was easy, and the primers were not flattened). I tried 7.0 grains of Unique first, and it was so calm I had no qualms about going to the Lyman-recommended 8.0-grain load. I was impressed with the 8.0 grains of Unique and 158-grain Hornady jacketed hollow point load. One of the groups was a one-holer (five shots clustered in a single ragged hole). Was that simply a fluke? I don’t think so. The other groups with this load were larger, but that was undoubtedly me.

I wish I could do this every time. This target was brought to you by 8.0 grains of Unique and the Hornady 158-grain jacketed hollow point bullet.

The second most accurate load (which is essentially as accurate as the load above) was the 158-grain Speer jacketed soft point bullet with 15.0 grains of Winchester 296 and a magnum primer. These bullets are still listed on the Speer website, but good luck finding them. No one has them in stock. The ones I used were from a stash I picked up from my good buddy Paul. Winchester 296 is a good powder for magnum handgun cartridges and it’s been one of my favorites for years. I was a bit surprised that 296 did not take the accuracy honors, but it was pretty close. 296 is a slower burning powder, and the reloading manuals show it gives the highest muzzle velocity. Recoil (and muzzle blast and flash) are significant with this powder.

Trust me on this: Bill Jordan’s No Second Place Winner is a good read.

The difference in average group size between the most accurate load and the next most accurate load was only 0.004 inches (the most accurate group average was 1.087 inches, the next most accurate group average was 1.o91 inches). That’s nothing, really. And I didn’t go higher or lower with the 296 charge with the second-place load; I only tried 15.0 grains. It’s likely that variations in the 296 charge would have shown a slighly different charge to be better. Maybe Bill Jordan (who carried a .357 Magnum) had it wrong: There is a second place winner.

Surprisingly, one of my previous accuracy loads (a near-max load of Unique with the Hornady 110-grain jacketed hollow point bullet) was not a good load in the Blackhawk. Accuracy was okay, but it was a fierce load and the cases would not extract (I had to take the cylinder out and drive the cases out with a rod). I only fired two groups with this load and then I stopped. This is a load that worked well in previous .357 Magnums, including a stainless steel Blackhawk, an earlier version of the Colt Python, a Smith and Wesson Model 27, and my current production Colt Python. I had the Python with me so I fired a couple of groups with it. It worked fine (it was accurate and extraction was easy). I proved, once again, that every gun is different with regard to what it likes.

What I thought would be a good load (a 158-grain cast bullet and 7.0 grains of Unique) was not. It was just okay accuracy-wise, but it leaded the bore big time and accuracy grew worse with each group fired as the leading increased. That wasn’t unique to the Blackhawk, either. It did the same thing in the Colt Python. These cast bullets are fairly hard, but the charge (7.0 grains of Unique) is driving the bullets to approximately 1200 feet per second, and it appears that’s enough to induce leading. The bullets are sized to .358 inches, so they should be sealing adequately.

The above observation led to a quest for a load using these cast bullets that wouldn’t lead the bore, and I tried a couple that kept velocity below 1000 feet per second (4.3 grains of Bullseye, and 5.0 grains of Unique). Neither produced appreciable leading, but the accuracy was mediocre.

Mild leading after the 4.3-grain Bullseye and 5.0-grain Unique cast bullet loads. These loads kept the velocity below 1000 feet per second.

After cleaning the bore, I tried the standard .38 Special target load: 2.7 grains of Bullseye and a 148-grain double ended wadcutter. I used Jim Gardner’s powder coated wadcutters and ammo I reloaded with my Star progressive machine. Accuracy was okay, but not exceptional.

Machine Rest versus Hand-Held Shooting

On the topic of machine rests, I don’t have one. In the past, keyboard commandos criticized me for that. I was recently was in the Colt plant in Connecticut. The Colt manager took us through the famed Colt Custom Shop and he showed me one of their custom gun test targets. It looked like my targets…four shots clusted into a cloverleaf with a single flyer. I asked my Colt buddy about the distance and if Colt used a machine rest. He told me the distance was 45 feet and said they do not use a machine rest. “A good shooter will outshoot a machine rest,” he said. I thought that was interesting and I liked hearing it. I never felt a need to use a machine rest and what the Colt guy said reinforced that.

A Note on Safety

This blog describes loads I developed for use in my revolver. Don’t simply run with them. They work for me; I make no conclusions (nor should you) about what they will do in your guns. Consult a reloading manual, start at the minimum load, gradually work up, and always watch for pressure signs.

What’s Next?

I have a blog in work that compares the Blackhawk to the Colt Python, and part of that is assessing how the Python groups with the same loads listed above. I think you’ll enjoy reading it. Stay tuned, folks.

Keep us in components…click on those popup ads!

Never miss an ExNotes blog!

More gun and reloading stuff? You bet!

I’m a lucky guy. One of the Holy Grail pieces in my collection is a Model 52 Smith and Wesson. These guns were discontinued nearly 30 years ago and a lot of folks (myself included) consider them to be the finest handguns ever manufactured. I had always wanted one, and finally, after pestering a good friend relentlessly, he agreed to sell me his.

An impressive target handgun: The Smith and Wesson Model 52-2. It has one of the best triggers I’ve ever experienced.

The Model 52 was built as a no-compromise bullseye target handgun chambered for mid-range .38 Special wadcutter ammunition. What that means is that it’s not a duty weapon or a concealed carry weapon. It’s a full-sized, 5-inch-barreled, adjustable sights, tightly-clearanced handgun with but one objective in mind: Shooting tiny groups with wadcutter ammo.

The .38 Special cartridge has been around forever, and the target variant uses a wadcutter bullet. One of my friends saw these and commented that it was odd-looking ammo, and I guess if you’re not a gun nut it probably is. The bullets fit flush with the case mouth, and because of the sharp shoulder at the front of the bullet, they cut a clean hole in the target (hence the “wadcutter” designation).

.38 Special wadcutter ammo, reloaded on a Star reloading machine. The secret sauce (not so secret, actually) is a 148 grain wadcutter bullet seated flush and 2.7 grains of Bullseye propellant.

I love reloading .38 Special wadcutter ammo, especially now that I am doing so on my resurrected Star reloader. You can read about that here.

You can see the clean holes cut by the wadcutter bullets in the target below, and that’s a typical target for me when I’m on the range with the Model 52. What you see below is a target with 25 shots at 25 yards shot from the standing position.

25 rounds at 25 yards from the Model 52, all in the bullseye. I’m a ham-and-eggs pistolero; guys who are good can shoot much tighter groups.

Yeah, I know, 2 of the 25 shots were a bit low in the orange bullseye. A gnat landed on my front sight twice during the string of 25. (That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.)

That’s a Hornady hollow-base wadcutter on the left, and the Missouri Bullets cast double-ended wadcutter on the right. The HBWC is orientation sensitive; the DEWC is not.

Reloaded HBWC and DEWC cartridges, with two of the double-ended wadcutter bullets that show the wadcutter end (which faces forward in the cartridge) and the hollow base end. These HBWC projectiles are Hornady bullets.

Next question: Which is more accurate in the Model 52, the hollow-base wadcutters or the double-ended wadcutters? The two I tried are the Missouri cast double-ended wadcutter, and the Hornady swaged hollow-base wadcutter. Here’s what they look liked (with me behind the gun) on a set of 50-ft targets:

50-ft targets used for comparing DEWC bullets versus HBWC bullets. These targets are about one-fourth the size of the silhouette target shown above.

And here’s the group size data from the 16 five-shot groups I fired a couple of days ago (all dimensions are in inches). It was all focused on answering the question: Which is more accurate? Hollow-base wadcutters, or double-ended wadcutters?

The load was 2.7 grains of Bullseye, a CCI 500 primer, and mixed brass for all of the above groups. They were all shot at 50 feet. So, to answer the accuracy question, to me the difference is trivial (it’s less than a 1% difference when comparing hollow-base to double-ended wadcutter average groups). The standard deviation (a measure of the variability in the group size) was a little bigger for the hollow-base wadcutters, but the difference was probably a statistcal anomaly and it was more due to me, I think, than anything else.

Folks often wonder how the Smith and Wesson wizards managed to get a semi-auto to feed wadcutter ammo. It’s partly in the magazine design and partly in the ramping (but mostly in the magazine). The Model 52 magazine is designed to only hold 5 rounds, and if the bullet protrudes beyond the case mouth, it won’t fit into the magazine. The magazine holds the the top cartridge nearly perfectly in alignment with the chamber, and when the slide pushes the round forward, it glides right in. It will even do so with an empty case, as the video below shows.

The Model 52 was first introduced by Smith and Wesson in 1961. It was based on Smith’s 9mm Model 39, but it had a steel frame (instead of an aluminum frame, although Smith also made a small number of Model 39s with steel frames), a 5-inch barrel (instead of the 39’s 4-inch barrel), and target-grade sights adjustable for windage and elevation (instead of the 39’s windage-adjustable-only sights). The original Model 52 had the Model 39’s double action first shot capability, although I’ve never seen a no-dash Model 52. In 1963 Smith incorporated a better single-action-only trigger and the 52 became the 52-1, and then in 1970 it became the 52-2 when Smith incorporated a better extractor. Mine is the 52-2.

I was lucky…when my friend sold the Model 52 to me, he had the complete package: The original blue Smith and Wesson box, the paperwork that came with the new gun, and all of the tools and accessories (including the barrel bushing wrench).

You might be wondering: Which is more accurate? The Model 52 Smith and Wesson, or the new Colt Python? They are both fine and accurate handguns, but in my hands and after coming back from good buddy TJ and TJ’s Custom Gunworks with a crisp single-action trigger, the Python gets top billing in the accuracy department. You can read about the Python’s accuracy with wadcutter .38 Special ammo here.

Never miss any of our ExNotes blogs on guns, bicycles, motorcycles, construction equipment, product reviews, and all the rest. Subscribe for free here!

More Tales of the Gun? You bet!

Click on those popup ads!