Berry's plated DEWC loading

[V-fib]

well good news at this time. I contacted the gunsmith and he was able to remove all the stuck bullets and will test fire the gun later today or tomorrow. He did say there was a slight bulge in the barrel that he could see internally because of the shadow cast inside the barrel, nothing that would be noticeable on the outside of the gun. He also noted that it should not affect accuracy but he will check that when he test fires the gun.

He also told me that he checked his books and feels 2.5gr. of IMR 700x would give me the velocity enough so that the berrys 148gr. DEWC wouldn't stick in the barrel in the future. As previously stated I loaded these with 2.2gr of 700x and they shot well out of my snub but not the 6.5" bbl. In my book Imr shows for a LBBWC starting load of 2.6 for 710fps and a max of 3.5gr for 850 fps. So I'm thinking that keeping velocities over 700 fps should keep this prob from returning.

By the way, on Berrys site the LHBWC's 148 gr. they note that they should not be shot at velocities less than 800 fps. There is no note of this with the DEWC's????

Anyway what say you reloading pros?

v-fib

[David R]

I say 2.2 700x is below the minimum. I had a Dan Wesson with a bulged barrel. It shot nice little groups.

David

[TimSr]

He also told me that he checked his books and feels 2.5gr. of IMR 700x would give me the velocity enough so that the berrys 148gr. DEWC wouldn't stick in the barrel in the future. As previously stated I loaded these with 2.2gr of 700x and they shot well out of my snub but not the 6.5" bbl. In my book Imr shows for a LBBWC starting load of 2.6 for 710fps and a max of 3.5gr for 850 fps. So I'm thinking that keeping velocities over 700 fps should keep this prob from returning.

After getting bullets stuck for running plated bullets under the lead minimum, I can't understand the insistence on staying below the listed lead minimum. The entire premise here is that lead bullets can run at lower velocities than plated without getting stuck, so the logical course of action would be stay well ABOVE lead minimums to prevent it. Why not start at 3.0 or better and give yourself some safety margin?

By the way, you'll typically find that a lead bullet will travel at a higher velocity than the same plated or jacketed bullet over the same charge. You don't know if a 2.6 charge will actually produce 710 fps with a lead bullet in your gun, and if it does, my experience says your plated bullet over that charge would be traveling 25-100fps slower.

[briandg]

I noted a comment that may need clarification. I understood one of the remarks to be saying that hollow based and dewc must be loaded differently.
That isn't entirely the case. Both bullets, seated flush at 148 grains have exactly the Same amount of powder space. The only difference between the two is a slight Increase In bearing surface

Otoh, switching the back hollow capacity to the front reduces the available powder space, and will obviously affect the pressures. Not a good idea.

It also has to be kept in mind that loading 38 loads in a .357adds to the available powder space, and this can also cause problems. The idea for shooting loads calculAted for .38 is wrong, find loads that are written for .357 for the bullet weight and velocity you want.

It's interesting to hear the information about plated bullets. The only time I used them, I tweaked jacketed loads a bit. Started just below the min charge for jacketed data and found a load about in the middle of the rang that performed right.

I have thousands of cast dewc bullets, and I just decided last month to start using them. I need to go through this thing completely later today.

[Nick_C_S]

For DEWC, lead data is all we have.

Until we create our own.

That's what I do. As I already posted - and was subsequently chastised for it.

I start with lead data, of course. But then, I chronograph my lead rounds to find the charge that reaches 800 f/s. THEN put that charge under a plated DEWC (I prefer Rainier) - knowing that if it produces some 800 f/s with lead, it'll run about 725-ish with a plated - more than enough to not stick in the barrel.

From there, I work down to my desired velocity as applicable. So I don't "use lead data" per se'. More specifically, and not insignificantly, I use my real-world, chronographed data, using my gun. That's a big difference from published lead data.

[SHR970]

Realgun wrote: For DEWC, lead data is all we have.

That is not entirely true. Some years ago Accurate Powders developed loads SPECIFICALLY for Rainier Plated bullets and had it on their web site. Though that data is no longer with us in THAT format, it still lives on in LEE #2.

Second.. Nick and I have warned with low pressure rounds to not use STARTING load data for lead as you will very likely get stuck bullets. SEARCH is your friend.

TMD wrote:That's because the 30 carbine plated bullets have thicker plating and are rated for higher velocities than plated pistol bullets.

And in a VERY recent thread that 1200 FPS limit was quoted regarding 30-30 plated bullets. You are taking what I said out of context; context being "Too much generalization is applied to plated data without understanding the margins." That was the VERY next line.

[Dozermonkey]

I've been loading lead and plated dewc ( xtreme ) with 3.3 of 700x. Powder is meter from the Hornady auto scale for peace of mind.
None have reached 800fps thru the chrony. Shot thru 4 inch SW MOD 10-5. I don't have the numbers in front of me now , but do recall they ran mid to upper sixes to upper sevens. None under six or over seven. Nowhere near book numbers.

Flame away.
Ps ,
On a side note I found the 3.3 number in an older Hornady book. I don't plan on exceeding this number for fear of a compressed load.

[Real Gun]

That is not entirely true. Some years ago Accurate Powders developed loads SPECIFICALLY for Rainier Plated bullets and had it on their web site.

But the topic here is plated DEWC, for which I know of no data that directly applies. I know how to search, and your admonition is not applicable here. Maybe you could read the thread and stick to the part that is on topic. Thanks for the info, but it is off the mark.

[SHR970]

cognitive dissonance

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36302640/A...g-Guide#scribd

You'll find Rainier 148 Gr. DEWC listed v Pg. 111

[Real Gun]

cognitive dissonance

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36302640/A...g-Guide#scribd

You'll find Rainier 148 Gr. DEWC listed v Pg. 111

Pop psychology. Now I know of some data, thanks, but it's too bad it is confined to a single powder company, whose products are a challenge to source. I do have some though.

That link leads to a page wanting me to sign up for something I didn't know I needed. I will try Accurate Arms directly first.

Back to report that I don't find Rainer DEWC in any current data from Accurate Arms.

[SHR970]

Now that we have established that in fact there IS Plated Data (and this data is ALSO found in LEE #2 since they copied it verbatum) let's get to the margins.

In this data the AA#2 charges for the plated are slightly LESS than for the lead bullet and the AA#5 charges are the same. At face value that invalidates previous statements I made.

However if you compare the C.O.L. you will find that the plated bullet is seated .08" DEEPER* into the case...almost flush to the case mouth. That gives more neck tension and reduces volume internally which raises pressure and promotes proper combustion of the powder. It also raises the dwell time between initial combustion and the pressure drop that happens as the base of the bullet passes the cylinder gap.

With the additional friction the copper plating gives you in the barrel using starting lead load data as is in low pressure applications is a recipe for a stuck bullet. You are already working in the margin.

*If someone thinks .08" is insignificant, bear in mind that the difference in case length between a 357 and a 38 is .135"

[Real Gun]

Since I didn't use starting lead load data, my OP is consistent with what you are contributing. I didn't seek to explain why I stuck a bullet, but you do offer good ideas about how to adapt lead DEWC data to a plated version with no crimp groove.

[briandg]

hey, just to play devil's advocate,but do you have a compelling reason to use plated lead? Low velocity loads don't usually lead. There are polymer coated bullets available that resemble the old federal nyclad that have a good reputation. Look at mo bullet company. They state that their bullets perform as well as plated, without the hazards and would be accepted at most ranges.

For that matter, there was a good reason behind the old hollow base. It gave a slightly better ballistic coefficient,and a weight forward design that added to the stability. They required swaging, and couldn't be cast by the average person, so the dewc came to dominance.

[Real Gun]

I loaded up what plated DEWC I had and don't plan to buy more. I do have a couple thoughts on why to use plated. First they are smaller in diameter and perhaps a better choice for a tight cylinder. Secondly, some ranges do not allow lead. In the end, the bullets shoot really well for me. I am now onto a box of lead DEWC from Missouri (and a COL that crimps at the provided forward groove), again shooting well, thanks.

[briandg]

There is a reason for cast bullets being just a hair larger than bore. This allows the lead to upset and completely, positively fill the grooves. Low power loads should use softer lead to also aid that, high power loads need hard lead to avoid lead stripping. Just fyi.

Lead bullets were the default target loads for decades, especially when ball .45 was only available, and a shooter could handloads.

My only point here is that copper and coated are both good ideas and useful, but they aren't necessary, and plain lead is probably still the most commonly used product. Once you factor in the millions of lr rounds, that's pretty certain.

[Real Gun]

copper and coated are both good ideas and useful, but they aren't necessary

They aren't necessary if you customize your gun for lead bullets or if your range allows lead bullets. That's the corollary to what I just posted previously. Some guns are okay as-is, I gather, but mine have all been too tight, a couple of which I chose not to modify.