SW Model 52 w/ plated HBWC

[jbrown13]

I need you guys to check my thinking about a problem I'm having. I'm loading Berry's plated 148 HBWC over 2.9 grains of Bullseye powder (seated flush) and having difficulty getting 2 different SW Model 52s to cycle/function reliably. I'm getting a good number (30 to 40%) of failure to ejects. My brain tells me that at an equal powder charge the plated HBWC is not going to achieve the velocity of a swaged lead HBWC and that the pressure is going to peak higher because the projectile is in the barrel longer. With that thinking it is hard to figure out where to go next, as I'm thinking the higher pressure should make the pistol cycle better. If it was only happening in one pistol I would lean towards a mechanical issue, but since it is happening in 2 guns I'm leaning towards the ammo. I certainly don't want to beat the guns up. Am I thinking wrong? What do you think is going on? Where would you go from here? If I have to use a swaged HBWC in the 52s, so be it.

[TXGunNut]

How do they shoot w/ swaged lead HBWC's? 52's are pretty finicky with components they like, would hesitate to tamper w/ that. On the other hand I agree that it would be cool if it worked. A plated bullet in a 52 is an interesting idea that just might work.
My limited visits to the Outdoor Pistol (Bullseye) discipline didn't involve much exposure to the 52's but sometimes wonder if the 52 is the reason for the alibi rule. Those little jewels are awesome when they work, horrible when they don't.

[Bailey Boat]

Have you compared the velocity difference between the 2 loads?? You may find that even though the loads appear identical, the plated bullet may be moving slower and not providing the same recoil impulse as the lead bullet.
You may need to increase (slightly) the powder charge when using the plated bullet to achieve satisfactory results.

[jbrown13]

TxGunNut, they seem to work just fine with a swaged lead HBWC. I was just trying to get the Plated bullets to work since the lead bullets are messier to work with. If they don't work I'll put up with the mess.

Bailey Boat, I don't have a chronograph, but I don't think there is any doubt that they are going slower than a lead bullet at the same powder charge. That seems to be the norm for plated vs. lead. By the same token I would think the peak pressure would be higher with plated since the bullet is in the barrel longer and the gases can't vent to atmosphere as quickly. Alliant says 3.1 grains is max with 148 grain lead HBWC, but I don't know if the 52 can take that. I may try another tenth of a grain, but I don't want to beat the gun to pieces

[zippy13]

From Berry's site:

When loading for these bullets, you need to use data that will attain 800 fps as a minimum. Most of the data for this bullet weight was created using a dead soft lead projectile with velocities under the 800 fps and will not work for a this bullet at those lower velocities (sic).

Perusing my limited sources, the WC bullet makers' data indicate you'll need more than your 2.9 gr of Bullseye to obtain 800 fps.

[jbrown13]

zippy13, what you posted is true. However, the issue is complicated by the Model 52 being an auto-pistol designed to use light to mid-range wadcutters, seated flush with the case mouth, and I'm concerned I'll beat the gun to pieces at too heavy a load. Seated as little as 1/16" above the case mouth they will not fit in the magazine. This was an experiment to see if I could use the plated wadcutters in the 52 to avoid the mess of lubed lead bullets. So far it hasn't worked in the 52, but I'm not finished with the experiment.

I have loaded many Berry's plated wadcutters at velocities below 800 fps, and they work just fine in revolvers. I assumed, maybe wrongly, that the statement you referenced meant that the best accuracy was attained at 800 fps and above. I have found the accuracy below 800 fps to be better than I am, and I like the .22 LR recoil I feel.

[zippy13]

jbrown13-
No, I didn't mean to say that best accuracy is obtained above 800 fps. What I was trying to convey: To satisfy Berry's recommendation, you have to load faster than is typical for the M-52. From Berry's wording you can't tell what is meant by "will not work for this bullet." Is the data for lead bullets not valid below 800 fps when applied to Berry's bullets, or is performance in question? We're just guessing about the internal ballistics with the plated bullets vs. conventional swaged and cast WCs.

I don't blame you for not wanting to beat up your M-52. With the same concerns as yours, I load my M-52 with 2.7 or 2.8 gr of Bullseye under Remington swaged 148s or my home cast. I don't think I've ever seen anyone opine how hot a load you can reasonably use in a M-52. My old Speer data show a load of 3.0 gr of Bullseye at 790 fps as the max because of accuracy. Speer also shows 3.0 gr of Red Dot at 826 fps for the M-52.

Out of curiosity, I just checked Gil Hebard's The Pistol Shooter's Treasury section on the S&W Master. We all know the M-52 is designed for "Mid-Range" wadcutters; but, just what is Mid-Range? Hebard defines it as 600-900 fps; however, his M-52 loads seem to be below 800 fps. FYI: Remington 148 gr TragetMasters are advertised at 710 fps. Federal and Winchester match loads are the same 710. Perhaps you should query Berry for a recommendation specific to the M-52. I'd like to give Berry's bullets a try, but not based on the info now available.

[jbrown13]

zippy, I didn't mean imply that you suggested the best accuracy was over 800 fps, but that I assumed that from my reading of their statement in the web site. My assumption, not yours. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

You're right that the statement leaves a lot to the imagination as to what they mean. I'm going to try some more plated HBWCs with some W231 at the bottom of the range for lead and see if they will cycle. If they do I'll post it. If not I'm back to the swaged lead HBWCs, mess and all.

A friend of mine tried some factory stuff on his 52, and had this same ejection issue with the S&B or Magtech factory lead wadcutters. I wish my 66 year old memory was better, but I can't remember for certain which manufacturer it was. I sort of dismissed it from my mind since I was planning on loading what I knew would work.

I wish I knew what load Gil Hebard was using to get 900 fps with lead HBWCs. I would guess it would get over 800 fps with the plated stuff, and maybe cycle the pistol.

[zippy13]

I don't think Hebard was using 900 fps loads in a M-52; but, he referred to "Mid Range" as being from 600 to 900 fps.

[jbrown13]

In case any of you are interested, I emailed Berry's about the 800 fps statement on their web site. I also mentioned that I was trying to develop an M-52 load with plated wadcutters. Here is their reply.

"Jeff,

Possibly, our 800 FPS warning could be because of both accuracy & / or " stuck bullet ".

We have had customers use their old lubed lead powder charge ( 2.7 Gr. Bulleye ) and stick our plated version in their bore. The reason is that our copper plated HBWC has more friction drag than the lubed lead versions & may require more powder to clear the bore.

We have had other revolver shooters report that they did not get the best accuracy until about 830 FPS.

Note: unlike the soft lead versions of the HBWC, our copper plated version will hold up at much higher velocities - my memory is that the very low powder charges with the old swaged - soft lead versions used to have skirts blown off with increased powder charges.

For your M-52 project - you might want to try our 38-148 Gr. DEWC seated flush for good performance at lower velocities - have customer reports of good results using only 2.7Gr. - 2.8 Gr. Bullseye with our double ended wad cutters.

Good Shooting,

Bud Watson
Berry's Mfg Inc"

[transtech]

jbrown: I'm sure I'll be corrected about this if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am: the recoil energy of a round of ammo is a function of the bullet weight times the muzzle velocity, not the pressure developed in the cartridge, although there is, of course, a correlation between the pressure and the projectile velocity. But in the case of the 52, it's like Berry's said, the additional friction of a plated bullet reduces its muzzle velocity versus the swaged HBWC & there is therefore less recoil energy than the faster bullet. As far as the 52 not being able to take a hotter load, I wouldn't worry about that, it's an all-steel gun. 3 things I would & do worry about, however, are the facts that (1)it's real easy to exceed 38 Spl. SAAMI pressure specs., which is a concern because (2) IMHO, the 52 doesn't do as good a job at supporting the whole base of the cartridge at the web above the rim (check how much exposed brass there is outside the chamber) as a revolver would do & I see some fairly small bulges (not as bad as Glock 40's) in my 38 brass, & (3) since you can't get a new barrel for a 52 anywhere, I'm gonna shoot nothin' but the dead soft lead of swaged HBWC's in it. Again, IMHO, plated bullets will wear out a barrel faster than lead, although not as fast as jacketed. But add to the mix that you have to use a hotter load with the plated & that's more barrel wear also. If you went to the plated bullets instead of lead to reduce clean-up or to reduce your exposure to air-borne lead, there are solutions for those concerns also. I use the (now-defunct though I still have a lot of them) Star match-lubed 148 HBWC with 2.7 grs. of Titegroup, not Bullseye & a lead-free small pistol primer with the PMC brand on the that I was lucky to find, although CCI makes a lead-free primer too, but only sells them OEM to ammo manufacturers, but I hope that will change soon. Also, Wolff Gunsprings (find them on the web) makes reduced power recoil springs for the 52 & also makes probably the one & only replacement Mag spring for the 52 also. OK, so I shot a 90 round match in August with the 52 with a reduced power spring, the Star with the Titegroup & the lead-free primer & the new mag springs. NOT one single hiccup from the gun, absolutely NO lead in the barrel & almost no fouling on the rest of the gun (amazed), no noticable smoke to speak of & even recovered all 90 pieces of the R-P 38 brass. The only way it could have been better is if I could shoot better. Sorry for writing a book.

[Sid]

I would check with Barsto? (spelling) about a replacement barrel for the 52. Every few years after they have accumulated enough requests they manufacture a small run of these. You might want to put your name on the waiting list. Some years back I had a 52 and this is what they told me.

[transtech]

Sid: How long ago did you put your name on the Bar-Sto waiting list & what have you heard since then? It's too late in the day to check with them now, but I think Bar-Sto is probably a dead-end. I'll call them Thursday & see what they say.

[Sid]

I sold the 52 and bought a .38 Special Colt Officers Model Match. So I never put my name on the waiting list. I also remember calling S&W and spoke to their gunsmith. He said that there was no way to fit any other type barrel in the 52.

[jbrown13]

Transtech, I think you are dead on with recoil energy. After I wrote that OP I realized that although the peak pressure might be higher, that alone wasn't going help cycling. I have a 66 year old brain that sometimes gets ornery.

My issue with the mess of the lead had to do with the crap getting all over my bench and tools and me when reloading it. I'm not planning to push the envelope at all on the plated loads. If I can't get the DEWCs to run at reasonable loadings, I'm back to the mess and the swaged HBWCs..

[TXGunNut]

Delta Precision makes a swaged lead HBWC that's a dead ringer for the Star, IIRC. Very little leading in PPC revolvers, I quit cleaning my barrel about 3 yrs before I quit shooting. DEWC idea from Berrys has merit, less bearing surface could be a good thing.

[transtech]

jbrown: I'm going to assume that "crap" you wrote about is that awful black flaky lube that Remington puts on their HBWC's, it's just God-awful pits terrible, but they're the only one's who use that kind of stuff. Talkin' bout 148 gr. HBWC's here: Speer's are hard-coated black & don't get anything dirty, Hornady's are knurled outside & have a white powdery lube coating, don't get dirty with those, Zero's have lube rings with captured wax lube & the Star's & the Precision Delta's have a semi-hard whitish lube that's not messy. Too bad Winchester doesn't sell their bullet as a reloading component anymore, they just sell them as (wicked expensive) loaded ammo. A now-defunct company named Albert's used to make one that shot wicked good in my 686 revolvers. Other defunct companies that used to make HBWC's: Moore's, Bull-X & Silver State. Meister simply doesn't have them in their line anymore, but their's was a good one.
If you're shaving lead, bell the case mouth a little more. I use a seating punch made for round nose bullets that has the biggest diameter I could find, the bullets are .358 but the punch is .356 so it leaves a slight un-pressed ridge on the upper end of the softer bullets, but doesn't make a mess. Some of the bullets have a small recess on the side @ the top, so I use a very slight roll crimp for those after seating flush, for the others I use a taper crimp die that just barely puts a slight taper on after taking out the bell.
I really have nothing against Berry's 148 gr. plated HBWC, I've used thousands of them over the years for deadly accurate target loads in .357 Magnum cases for 686 revolvers with 3.8 grs. of American Select with the lead-free primers seated flush to minimize free space in the case with a slight roll crimp to make a load that is so clean to shoot that 60 rounds down the tube make the gun look like it's been shot maybe 5 rounds, wicked clean, no lead fumes given off, so non-toxically safe I would let a pregnant woman shoot them, my no-tox green load. And I did try them in the 52, they just never gave me any better accuracy than I had with the lower-wearing lead. Just not as much worried about the wear to the 686 barrels, albeit minimal, 686's are still in production, I've got 5 of them anyway & rotate them in use (no pun intended, or maybe it is). Is this the 2nd chapter to the book?

[jbrown13]

Transtech, the lube is the "crap" I was talking about. I just ordered some Magnus swaged HBWCs to see if they are cleaner to load.

Today I tried the Berry's 148 HBWC (seated flush) over 3.0 grains of Bullseye and the 2 - M-52s cycled 100%, although only 15 round test. Also tried the Berry's DEWC over 2.9 grains of Bullseye and still had two of 15 that failed to eject.

Also tried 3.5 grains W231 and that also cycled 100%, but only 15 rounds also. I also tried 3.7 grains and that really threw the brass out. I think 3.6 grains of W231/HP38 will work reliably with the plated HBWCs.

I'll test larger quantities at a later date.

[transtech]

Anybody else's but the Remingtons will be cleaner. The Magnus are either identical or very similar to the Zero's, they have waxy lube captured in grooves.

[Powderman]

I use the Hornady 148 gr swaged HBWC in my Model 52. Load on 3.2 of HP38, seated slightly below flush with a roll crimp over the front radius of the round. Chambers excellently in my M52, and absolutely no ejection issues.

[Berry's MfG]

Lot's of good input, the knowledge base is great. The 52 was and has been one of my very favorite S&W auto's behind the 41. I think it would be very hard to beat the performance of a swaged lead HBWC in the .38 guns. I prefer our DEWC over the HBWC, I think the longer length of the HBWC in a low velocity pistol round has too much bearing surface. The HB in a swaged lead bullet obtrudes and is one of the dynamics that makes it shoot so well at low velocities. We can't make the plated HB diameter big enough that the skirt would obtrude or we run the risk of having it separate and stay in the barrel. Having said that we have found with our .45 185GR HBRN is a very accurate bullet with the hollow base, but it has more to do with the increased bearing surface, it still does not obtrude much.

[transtech]

For jbrown & Sid:
Regarding Bar-Sto & a replacement barrel for the 52, the FAQ section of the Bar-Sto website says this: "We do not produce anything for the.....Smith and Wesson.....", so, as I wrote earlier post, Bar-Sto is a dead-end, there is nobody to my knowledge currently offering a replacement barrel for the 52, I'm gonna stick with the dead-soft lead swaged HBWC's.

[Berry's MfG]

TRANSTECH - I would love to sell you our bullets, but in all honesty I think that gun deserves the swaged lead.

[transtech]

For Jay Phillips from Berry's:
I do buy lots of the plated HBWC's 1K @ at time from either you guys in Ogden or from Cabela's when I have points from their credit card or a coupon. I use them for match target work in 686 revolvers very sucessfully in club-level competion NRA Bullseye matches. My non-toxic .357 Remington Magnum load:

Berry's 148 gr. plated 38 caliber HBWC seated flush with slight roll crimp
Alliant American Select 3.8 grs. thrown from a Redding 10X
Winchester or Norma .357 Remington Magnum cases (no difference,
limited supply of the Norma's)
CCI or PMC non-toxic, no heavy metal small pistol primer (no difference,
but limited supply of either)

After shooting 2 - 30 round matches, 60 rnds. total, gun looks like it's hardly been shot at all, of course no lead in the barrel, not much cleanup except for what can be removed by a little copper-cleaner solvent.

[Berry's MfG]

Sounds like a great time, I gave my wife an older K-38 Masterpiece with a matching K-22 for an anniversary present some years back. Had her convinced the 10 year anniversary was "Blued Steel" until one of her obtrusive little friends ratted me out.