TargetTalk

My experience loading 0.32, and it was in a S+W M16 in 0.32 H+R magnum which was not a great start, was HBWC loads are very difficult to get right.

BBWC by comparison were much more forgiving, but possibly not quite so accurate. Better to have a 40mm group than a 30mm group and a flyer.

For powder charge I suspect there is a sweet spot in terms of velocity/spin rate and how well the hollow base is blown into the rifling.
I'm not even sure the original reason for the hollow base, to let low pressure blackpowder force a projectile to engage in rifling, is valid any more. Maybe it give slightly more consistent velocity with smokeless loads.
I doubt also the theoretical extra stability from the hollow base really exists at all. Probably its actually less stable. Exterior ballistics are not my thing though.

Excess pressure as the projectile leaves the barrel may also be a factor, tipping a HBWC more than BBWC, but thats just a guess.
The bullet should I think be ~same dia as the barrel, at least as a starting point.

If you're reloading 0.32 bear in mind the resizing die will under-size the case, the expanding die will typically re-expand only to 0.311-0.312. When loading the soft 0.314 HBWC projectile the case then sizes it back down to 0.311. Those in the know have an expanding die made up to suit their barrel.

Anyone struggling with a Model 16, or any revolver capable of taking a semiwadcutter, could try the Lee 90gr tumble lube cast bullet.

David Levene wrote:

IPshooter wrote:It reminds me of a conversation I had some time ago about using jacketed bullets in a .32 pistol like the Pardini. The person I was talking with flipped out when I mentioned the possibility of using a jacketed bullet.

You might not want to use them in an ISSF match Stan.

Rule 8.4.6
All projectiles used must be made of lead or similar soft material only. Jacketed projectiles are not permitted. The Jury may take samples from the shooter’s ammunition for checking.

David,

I thought that was the case. It's curious, though, that the ISSF allows hard cast bullets but not copper plated bullets. My bet is, if they're concerned about damage, there's not a heck of a lot of difference between these two bullets. Of course, asking officials to differentiate between copper plated and copper jacketed bullets might be a stretch.

Stan

Slinger wrote:i finally tried a BBWC with great results, hence I know have my HBWC for sale. I shoot a 100 grain BBWC over 1.3 grains of V V N310. I am some what baffeled by the fact that the pistol simply will not shoot a HBWC without "tipping" as it does. I also want to mention that the BBWC I now use are slightly harder also. Regarding bullet diameter, I contacted Larry Carter and was told that .314 was the way to go. I am very interested to hear what kind of experiences others have had , that I may find that hidden secret.

Slinger,

In my former HP, I tried a hard cast DEWC, sized to .312, and it also keyholed in that HP which had a .311 bore.

What BBWC are you using and what diameter is it? Do you know your bore diameter?

Thanks,

Stan

It occurred to me that maybe there's an answer in looking at what experiences PPC shooters have with .38 Special HBWCs. My understanding, having not ever played that game, is HBWCs have long been the preferred solution in their revolvers. If so, it begs several questions:

1. Do the .38 HBWCs have any accuracy issues, e.g. tipping or keyholing?

2. What is the typical relationship of successful bore diameter to bullet diameter?

3. What twist rate do successful PPC barrels have?

I'm sure there are other issues to address, but these would be the first things I would look at. Maybe something will surface that we can apply to the .32s.

Do we have a PPC expert here?

Stan

Sorry to say , but I have not "slugged" my barrel to get a true bore dia. I took Larry Carter's word that a .314 dia bullet was the word for Pardini. I have used two different BBWC or DEWC if you will. One is a Magnus, and the better of the two would be from Penn bullet. His bullets fly GREAT, but he's so backed up with orders, you wait forever to get bullets from him( 8 weeks plus usually). So far I have not had one "tipper" . There was nothing more frustrating to me than to have a shot fly to the next zip code.

Howdy, I slugged my HP bore tonight, and it miked a .3112. I don't have any super loads to report as it is fairly new to me, and I have not had time to test extensively. I had been shooting the Hornadys with VV310 with OK results at 25 meters but in light of tonights test, I may have to try some different bullet diameters? Thanks for the excuse to slug my bore, I have been meaning to get to it, and now I have! I would love to find a super load for 50 yards, so I will be monitoring this thread with great interest. Someone out there has to have a good result?

Not an expert but from what I have seen at the ranges (in the dim past)

1. Do the .38 HBWCs have any accuracy issues, e.g. tipping or keyholing?
They certainly do. 0.32 is worse due to the geometry dia, length

2. What is the typical relationship of successful bore diameter to bullet diameter?
With HBWC bore=dia should be OK (tell me I'm wrong...)

3. What twist rate do successful PPC barrels have?
Anything from 1:12-1:16. Most factory magnums are ~1:18 (except Colt I think 1:14) 1:18 is too slow for target loads which is some of the reason they get rebarelled.

Just a couple of updates.

First, about what to use, one of the last e-mails I received from Don Nygord, God rest his good soul, was:

"Most .32 guns (including the HP) should use .312" bullets as the bores are about .311. Walther bores are about .313 and need .314" bullets."

Second, I have some inquiries into a couple of PPC sources to see if we can learn what they already know about life with a HBWC.

Stan

I have contacted 3 persons who have a bunch of experience with both .32 and .38 HBWCs. They come from both the PPC and BE worlds.

After talking with them via e-mail and over the phone, here is some feedback on the issues I raised:

1. They do *not* feel .32 HBWCs should be any more difficult to group well than .38 HBWCs.

2. Crimp is critical. The general consensus is a heavy roll crimp deforms the bullet which leads to poor accuracy and leading.

3. Twist rate is critical. Their thinking is the twist rate of typical European .32 barrels is too slow and that's why we see consistent tipping of bullets.

4. Based upon their feedback, it seems they are getting good groups with bullets of a larger diameter than I would have expected (.314).

In the interest of settling, at least in my own mind, what is the solution, I am going back to my previous load and making just one change at a time. I'm going to take out a good bit of the roll crimp. I will leave some because when I tried a light roll crimp previously, some of the rounds seemed hesitant to slide up the feed ramp when cycling the slide by hand. So, I think the flush-mounted HBWC requires at least some roll. I wish I could try a taper crimp, but I'm not sure it would be functionally reliable with this bullet design.

The other thing they suggested trying, without changing barrels, is to try a higher velocity load. In theory, it should increase the rate of spin and, perhaps, reduce tipping. Interestingly enough, Dillon also suggested a slightly hotter load to make sure the skirts are sealing the bore. I will try this separately from the crimp change.

I'll report back in the near future.

David Levene wrote:[
Rule 8.4.6
All projectiles used must be made of lead or similar soft material only. Jacketed projectiles are not permitted. The Jury may take samples from the shooter’s ammunition for checking.

These bullets are plated, not jacketed. Would ISSF recognize the difference?

A few suggestions.

A taper crimp should be better, barely more than required to remove the bell. I don't believe roll crimping is suitable for HBWC.

Seating and crimping as separate operations should work better, less bullet distortion, stripping of lead during the last few mm of travel.

Higher velocities may help, providing the skirt does not detach.
High velocitites in my S+W worked well. 100gn hardcast BBWC at 960fps was stunningly accurate (5.8 gns 2400 I think, not your normal target load).
I would not suggest anything like this for a semi-auto, beyond about 800fps could be risky unless you go to a lighter bullet.

Fred, that depends on what they plated with.

If they are plated with "lead or similar soft material" then they are fine. If they are not plated with "lead or similar soft material" (like copper) then you run the risk of being called out in violation.

Of course, the match directors/range officers would have to be made aware of the non-conformance of the bullets (person shooting next to you?) or would have to directly observe something suspicious.

Steve

On the subject of crimping for the 32 S&W-I use the Redding profile crimper.I use,for practice,Speer HBWC and sometimes Meister BBWC.I seat them flush with the case,and a slight taper/roll from the profile crimper does the trick.I use 1.4gr of N310 and at 25 yds get excellent accuracy.The Meister BBWC does leave a little leading in the throat area of the rifling (after about 100 rounds) and the Speers do leave a slight grease mark on 30% of the shots (starting to tip) but accuracy isn't affected.I haven't tried Lapau HBWC yet.Ernie