Loading 38 Super: Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zaydok Allen

Zaydok Allen

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2011
Messages
13,274
I recently acquired a Dan Wesson Pointman in 38 Super. I've decided to just load my own ammo for it rather than try to find decent factory ammo that isn't too expensive. I traded for the gun and spent no money on it, so I could afford to buy some dies and components.

My Dillon dies and components showed up Monday so last night I decided to get my dies set. I am planning to use a recipe that was mentioned by another forum member, and that I found reproduced in my 2017 edition of the Lee manual.

It calls for 124 gr jacketed bullets over 9.9 to 10.4 gr of N105, at an OAL of 1.26", and at max loading is supposed to produce 1501 fps from a 5" barrel. In another thread that has been denoted as optimistic velocities. Personally, I'll be happy to hit between 1425 and 1450 fps. I typically stop a tenth of a gr or two below max loads. I like my fast cartridges fast, but I don't feel the need to beat up my guns too much. I do however want to surpass hot loaded 9mm Luger velocities.

I got my seating die set perfectly to 1.26" and I applied, what I think is a pretty heavy taper crimp. After I rigged up a practice dummy round I tried chambering it. It fed fine, and seemed to headspace fine. I am a little concerned as I'm using Starline Super Comp Brass. It's rimless brass so I won't know how well it functions in my gun until I actually shoot it. I may need to adjust my extractor to make it fully functional.

After I chambered the cartridge it measured 1.259" OAL. So there was a touch of setback. However this is range ammo and will not be repeatedly chambered. One and done, so I'm not terribly concerned. Forum member fxvr5 also noted that since these are compressed loads, the powder will also help avoid setback.

After chamber checking I pulled the dummy round bullet to see how the crimp was impacting the jacket. This is what it looked like. It seems pretty adequate to me and the case mouth measured 0.378 after crimp. I'll post a picture after I've loaded a ladder ranging from 9.9 to 10.3 gr.

15A8D4C3-CBDF-43CC-961D-77B0AC4FC9A3.jpeg 78CB1D50-3234-4F89-824E-51CA4816B898.jpeg

I anticipate having more questions, so please feel free to discuss any and all insights you have on loading this cartridge.

I have a Labradar, and plan to share my velocity data also.

@fxvr5 We had a little technical glitch and the original thread on this topic was deleted. If you have the time, please share your measurements and insights again.
 
the hottest "legal" load I have ever shot out of my bhp went 1250 fps over the chrony.

what bullet are you using?

a taper crimp will not prevent setback, so I would use a normal (.002") crimp. push your dummy round on a table top to determine setback.

make sure your dummy round "plunks" in your barrel. I can't tell if you have done that already, but it is important that it is done.

luck,

murf
 
murf said:
the hottest "legal" load I have ever shot out of my bhp went 1250 fps over the chrony.

what bullet are you using?

a taper crimp will not prevent setback, so I would use a normal (.002") crimp. push your dummy round on a table top to determine setback.

make sure your dummy round "plunks" in your barrel. I can't tell if you have done that already, but it is important that it is done.

luck,

murf
Click to expand...

I knew I left a few things out. I'm using 124 gr RMR TC-Match Winners to start with.

Right, I know the crimp won't stop setback, I've just read in my manuals that a strong taper crimp was suggested for the cartridge. Though there was no discussion of rimless brass.

I did plunk test the dummy, and it dropped in perfectly.
 
Last edited:
you might as well tell us the case manufacturer. I assume you are using only one headstamp. if not, I suggest you do.

luck,

murf
 
I loaded up 15 rounds 10.0 Grs N-105, old nickle WSR primers, RMR 124 Gr TrFP-MW. bullets @ 1.275 to 1.280 OAL.

The Vihtavuori 2011 PDF shows 9.9 to 10.4 Grs N-105 @ 1.260 OAL with the Hornady 124 Gr FMJ-FP,

so 10.0 Grs with the RMR TrFP, (Same bullet style) at a longer OAL, seemed like a good place to start.

The powder is about 1/8" from the case mouth and is fairly well compressed, it would be even more so at 1.260 OAL.


10.0 Grs N-105, .38 Super Comp brass.
index.php




I loaded up 15 rounds 11.5 Grs AA #9, old nickle WSR primers, RMR 124 Gr TrFP-MW. bullets @ 1.273 to 1.282 OAL.

I did not touch the seater since it was not a micro top and it ended up with rounds from 1.273 to 1.282 OAL since the AA #9 resisted the seating process less.

An older Accurate PDF showed 11.3 to 12.5 Grs AA #9 with a 124 Gr FMJ @ 1.245 OAL.

Speer data shows 11.0 to 12.0 for four different 124 Gr bullets, but specifically with the 124 Gr TMJ-FN (Same bullet style) @ 1.260 OAL,

so 11.5 Grs at a shorter OAL seemed like a good place to start.


11.5 Grs AA #9, .38 Super Comp brass.
index.php



This pic is of the N-105 rounds. I marked the primers on the AA #9 rounds just in case I get them mixed up.
index.php



I should be able to shoot them today after work, although thunderstorms are 50% this evening.

I have the SA .38 Super in the range bag and I packed up my 586 and some light plinker loads as well.
 
Last edited:
One thing that did surprise me a bit was just how little bearing surface there is on these bullets even when loading at 1.26". I guess I'm just used to loading heavier bullets that it threw me off. Prior to this, 158 gr 357 magnums were the lightest bullets I'd loaded.
 
I got out and shot both loads this afternoon, it was 97 degrees and 36% humidity in the shade of the awning they have in the pistol pits.

AA #9.
Hi=1314
Lo=1267
Avg=1295
ES=47
SD=15


N-105
Hi=1359
Lo=1336
Avg1345
ES=23
SD=7

The primers on both loads showed zero signs of pressure or primer swipe. The primers were well rounded on the edges and the firing pin indent was nice and rounded as well. (Showed less pressure than my 3N37 load with 124 gr Zeros-same primers)

I did not shoot for accuracy in that I did not take my time and shot quickly. Despite that both loads showed they would shoot at least well, if not very well, and maybe even (N-105) excellent. The first four rounds of the N-105 load made one caliber and a half wallowed out hole before I made it a 3/4" group at 7 yards with the chrono set at 5 yards. The AA #9 went 1", but it was my fault getting sloppy on a couple of middle rounds. I shot 8 rounds on both targets.

If I were to pursue the AA #9 load I would shorten the OAL to around 1.260 to 1.265 and shoot 11.5 Grs again.

I could live with the N-105 just like it is, but it would be tempting to bump it up a tenth or two. I am not sure how well it would take shortening the OAL, and it ran just fine, so I would likely just stay at 1.275 to 1.280 OAL with this bullet and bump the powder. The rounds just do fit the mags, but they do fit, and ran fine.

ATLDave said:
Walk', if the N105 loads prove interesting, one additional test to run might be to see whether the powder compression is such that the rounds "grow" after you pull them off the press. As you likely know, there are highly-compressed 9mm major loads that some users have to shoot within 48 hours of making... because the compressed powder starts pushing the bullet back out and the OAL grows! Maybe save a few and measure them carefully off the press, and then a week or two later.
Click to expand...

Oh, they definitely are interesting. I like it! :)

When I load some more I will do the wait and see if they "grow" test. I don't need them getting longer than 1.280.

Oh, and recoil was very similar between the two loads in the comped 1911.
index.php
 
Pretty reasonable velocities on both.

I was questioning if I’d see some binding in the magazines at 1.26”. I’m using Wilson ETMs.

What magazines are you using @Walkalong?
 
460Shooter said:
It calls for 124 gr jacketed bullets over 9.9 to 10.4 gr of N105, at an OAL of 1.26", and at max loading is supposed to produce 1501 fps from a 5" barrel.
Click to expand...

Actually the 1501 fps is from a 5.5" barrel.

https://www.vihtavuori.com/reloading-data/handgun-reloading/?cartridge=42

The RMR 124 FMJ FP bullets that I have measured 0.553" long.

The Hornady 124 FMJ FP bullet measured 0.547" long.

To seat them to the same depth, the RMR would have to be seated to 1.266" OAL to match the VV data of 1.260".
 
fxvr5 said:
Actually the 1501 fps is from a 5.5" barrel.

https://www.vihtavuori.com/reloading-data/handgun-reloading/?cartridge=42

The RMR 124 FMJ FP bullets that I have measured 0.553" long.

The Hornady 124 FMJ FP bullet measured 0.547" long.

To seat them to the same depth, the RMR would have to be seated to 1.266" OAL to match the VV data of 1.260".
Click to expand...
Sure enough. My mistake.

So here’s an issue. I tried seating them shallower and they are binding in the Wilson magazine and DW magazine both.

Frustrated.

They work properly at 1.26 but I may not be able to push these too close to max if I have to run them that short.

I may actually go to 1.255 and stay at like 10.1 or 10.2 gr max. I’m going to try these and see how they do first.

Maybe different magazines.
 
Since 1.280 is the SAMMI max length for .38 Super, one would hope mags would run them, but the FP seems to be a bit more demanding in the mag than RN. My Colt .38 Super has, of course, a Colt mag, I'll check it when I have some more loaded.
 
Last edited:
Walkalong said:
Since 1.280 is the SAMMI max length for .38 Super, one would hope mags would run them, but the FP seems to be a bit more demanding in the mag than RN. My Colt .38 Super has, of course, a Colt mag, I'll check it when I have some more loaded.
Click to expand...

Most mags should fit a round nose bullet seated to 1.280". However, flat nose bullets have to be seated deeper.

Why? The cartridges lie in the magazine at an angle, so the measurement that counts is their diagonal length, not their perpendicular length.

A round nose bullet in the 38 Super loaded to 1.280" OAL has a diagonal length of ~ 1.295". It depends on the EXACT bullet.

A flat nose bullet seated to 1.280" OAL has a diagonal length of ~ 1.310". It depends on the EXACT bullet.

That's why a flat nose bullet has to be seated deeper (usually - it depends on the tolerances of the magazine). And the front of the magazine is curved, and that complicates the fit as well.
 
460Shooter said:
Sure enough. My mistake.

So here’s an issue. I tried seating them shallower and they are binding in the Wilson magazine and DW magazine both.

Frustrated.

They work properly at 1.26 but I may not be able to push these too close to max if I have to run them that short.

I may actually go to 1.255 and stay at like 10.1 or 10.2 gr max. I’m going to try these and see how they do first.

Maybe different magazines.
Click to expand...

The good news is that N105 is somewhat forgiving. At the same time, it is sensitive to OAL. But it compresses well and will take a surprising amount of compression and still produce speeds that appear to be linear. I don't know what happens to pressure in this situation.

So, set the OAL to whatever fits, make adjustments in the charge as you wish.
 
Usually the HPs and FPs get loaded shorter as a matter of course, at least that is how I do it, but in this situation where the powder filled so much of the case, and I wanted to minimize compression, it ended up at max for the cartridge (+0/-.005). I guess I am lucky my mags would work with it. Yes, I did check that, as well as do the plunk test, before I loaded more than one, since I knew it was pretty long for the bullet.
 
460Shooter said:
Curious if Super Comp brass users typically have to adjust their extractors?
Click to expand...

My Kimber won't extract SuperComp or ToddJarret cases consistently, despite trying several high-end extractors from Brownells. It is also picky about bullets with large meplats, such as the Berry 124gr Target Hollow Point.
 
Last night left me feeling pretty disappointed.

After discovering my magazine issue I started seating my bullets deeper. What I discovered was that even at 9.9 grains these particular bullets resist seating to 1.26" I seated them, crimped, and measured, and found them coming in at 1.268" even though the dummy rounds came in at 1.26" exactly. So I tried tapping charged cases to help the powder settle. That helped a bit, but only if I ran them through one at a time, and hit them with the seating die , crimp, and then seat and crimp again. So I probably have two ridges on the bullets now.

I did successfully load 15 rounds to test last night, but I'm going to measure them again tonight to see if they've crept forward. If so, this isn't going to work.

None of that even addresses the issue of pressure. If I need to seat these bullets at 1.266 to be at the same depth as the bullet used in the original load data, I'm already seating them 0.006 deeper, which means for my own safety protocols I need to back off of max loads. If I seat them at 1.255" OAL to ensure function in my magazines, I'm 0.011 deeper than I should be. This eliminates any wiggle room for load levels, and honestly I don't know how I'd get much more powder in there anyway. I'm also shortening the OAL up enough that it could impact reliable feeding.

Based on Walkalong's results, I may actually match or surpass the velocity he got since he was seating much shallower than I. But this isn't my idea of "working up a load". It's jamming as much powder as I can in a case to hit the minimum in the recipe, and then hoping it's safe. I don't mind working up a load and modifying a few things within reason, but this feels a little more "hope and pray" to me.

So what I've learned here is the importance of bullet nose profiles. I bought the wrong bullet to use for a few different reasons. Magazines and powder choice have both limited me here.

I have a CZ Shadow 2 on the way, so perhaps I will set these bullets aside, buy some 9mm dies, and use them in that capacity. Then order a FP bullet that is closer to what was used in the N105 recipe I'm trying to work with.

The other option is dig through my manuals, and look at AA#7 loads where I have a little room to use these bullets, and work up loads. AA#7 isn't going to use up as much case capacity.

Reevaluating what to do.
 
Time for an intervention. . . .

Here's the deal with N105. It will be compressed! If you've never dealt with a powder that requires compression, it might scare you. Obviously it has.

Don't be afraid. The load data from VihtaVuori was compressed. Using a full charge or near a full charge of N105 it will always be compressed. That's the nature of N105. It's okay with compression. Really. You might feel you are crushing the powder. You are, that's called a compressed load. You'll have to crush it to get the bullet to stay at your desired seating depth. That's normal with N105.

I've run pounds of N105 in my 38 Super with the full charge of 10.4 and 124 grain bullets at around that length or shorter. Other IPSC/USPSA shooters use N105 and do the same thing. They shoot tens of thousands of them every weekend. That's N105. It's one of the very best powders for the 38 Super. It provides high velocity and low pressure. If I had to pick a favorite powder for the 38 Super, N105 would win hands down. VihtaVuori 3N38 would probably get ranked #2. It's compressed, too.

The RMR FMJ FP is NOT the wrong bullet. It's a great bullet for the 38 Super. I've used 10.0 gr N105 with the RMR bullet seated to 1.240" and it's fine. Velocity was 1379 fps from a 5" Kart barrel. It produced a 15-shot group at 25 yards of 1.18".

Seat the bullet to the OAL you need to fit your magazine/chamber. Then go shoot the gun.

How do you know if it's going to affect feeding? Have you had feeding problems with this gun with shorter OALS?

While we're at it, I've run A#9 in the 38 Super as well. 12.0 grains and a 125 HAP bullet at 1.240 produced 1451 fps from a 5" barrel and a 10-shot group at 25 yards of 1.50" (the HAP is longer than the bullet Speer used for their data). You have to be a little careful with A#9 because it can be different from one lot # to the next.
 
fxvr5 said:
That's N105. It's one of the very best powders for the 38 Super. It provides high velocity and low pressure.
Click to expand...
The low pressure is what struck me after looking at the primers compared to my 3N37 load. I am going to play with N-105 a bit more. I am glad the .38 Super questions got me to test some as I have been ignoring/putting it off for too long. It's the main reason I bought the N-105, then it just sat there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
38 Super Load Data Help
Replies
3
Views
814
floydster
F
B
  • Locked
Bullet setback in .45ACP
Replies
13
Views
2K
WESHOOT2
W
A
  • Locked
How long can I load 40S&W (OAL)?
Replies
8
Views
2K
MikeRz
M
G
  • Locked
My first test load - Comments welcome!
Replies
9
Views
415
rfwobbly
rfwobbly
1911WB
  • Locked
.38 Super Resizing Issue
Replies
10
Views
2K
scalinghammer
S
Back
Top