PDA

View Full Version : Best .38 Super factory load



JAD
12-02-2011, 07:58 AM
I was wondering if folks on the list -- particularly, of course, Doc Roberts -- might have suggestions for the best possible Super factory load. One of my more frequent EDCs is a LWC in that chambering, and I do not love the Silvertips that I currently carry. If I have to load my own, I have no problem doing it. I have not yet slugged the barrel to see if I can run 158s.

Tamara
12-02-2011, 10:27 AM
I used Georgia Arms 147gr when I carried it. The loading's been discontinued, however.

jetfire
12-02-2011, 01:14 PM
Double-Tap also has some loads for the .38 Super.

http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/index.php?cPath=21_72&osCsid=afneznoc

Tamara
12-02-2011, 01:30 PM
Wonder what bullets they're using? Regular 9mm stuff is going to want to blow up early at those velocities, but .357SIG-specific GDHPs should work well...

jetfire
12-02-2011, 01:41 PM
IIRC, Mike said they used Gold Dots but I don't know if they're the .355 Magnum rounds.

Wondering Beard
12-02-2011, 03:17 PM
Cor Bon has a 125gr DPX (Barnes bullet) load going at about 1350 fps from a 5" barrel.

JAD
12-02-2011, 05:45 PM
There're a lot of .355" fans on this forum, and if I get the Gestalt the 147 grain weight seems to be favored. This blends well with my own slow-heavy inclinations. I see three 147 grain loads out there for the Super: Cor-Bon's, DoubleTap's, and Buffalo Bore's. Cor-Bon is sending an unknown JHP at 900 fps, which seems like it should be discarded out of hand. DT is pushing a Barnes TAC-XP at a reported 1450 (so let's guess 1350 in my Commander, optimistically), and BB is pushing an unknown JHP at what should be slightly more than 1100. I don't know how well the TAC is going to hold up at that velocity, and based on my general experience with DT I would expect that load to be very near overpressure, scary in my non-ramped Colt. The BB load would be attractive if I knew what bullet it was, and how that bullet does at those velocities.

If I go with 124 grain bullets things open up quite a bit. There's my SilverTips, which probably aren't great. Cor-Bon has DPX at 1350, BB has an unknown at 1330, and Wilson has an XTP at 1330.

Tamara
12-03-2011, 12:42 PM
The problem with 147s, of course, is that they're almost all tuned to expand reliably at ~1000fps or even less, to make them useful out of a 9x19. Punch it up to 1200fps, and it could cost in the penetration department if it blows up too fast.

I dunno... Maybe something like the XTP or Speer Unicor, which aren't that enthusiastic of expanders in the first place? I'm feeling deja vu (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?311-9mm-1911&p=25106&viewfull=1#post25106)...

jetfire
12-03-2011, 01:39 PM
Isn't the most popular load in the .355 Magnum the 125 grain anyway? Wouldn't it then follow that a 125 would make more sense for a Super?

Tamara
12-03-2011, 01:50 PM
Caleb,

The .357SIG has that bitty case neck which makes heavier bullet loads problematic, so you've pretty much got to use flying dimes. All else being equal, I likes me some sectional density; I want to make sure that that bullet is going to get where it needs to go.

(It's one of the things that makes me sad about that S&W 296 I keep in my purse; the thing turns into a kinetic bullet puller with anything over 200gr loads. Of course, it'd probably be too much of a handful to practice with with anything heavier, but it's the principle of the thing. :D )

jetfire
12-03-2011, 01:52 PM
I guess what I meant was it seems like there'd be more bullets designed to hold up at extreme velocities in the 124-125 grain than 147.

Mind you, this is coming from the same guy that every time I pick up my Glock 21 I think "wouldn't it be cool if this was a .38 Super...."

Tamara
12-03-2011, 02:00 PM
"...every time I pick up my Glock 21 I think "wouldn't it be cool if this was a .38 Super...."

Especially if there were rockin' heavy bullet loads designed for the caliber: ~19rds of 147gr GDHP or HSTs tooling along at 1200fps? Dude, I would have a hard time not pitching practicality out the window and jumping on that with both feet, gun nerd flag flying. :o

jetfire
12-03-2011, 02:11 PM
That's because it'd be like a semi-auto .357 Magnum that you could actually carry! Which is to say if Guncrafter industries would quit dicking around with that .50 GI and make a .38 Super Glock...they'd sell at least 2. ;-)

Tamara
12-03-2011, 02:13 PM
Which is to say if Guncrafter industries would quit dicking around with that .50 GI and make a .38 Super Glock...
...and one that works, please. ;):D

Chuck Haggard
12-05-2011, 03:11 PM
I recall reading about a G20 converted to 9X23mm, I think it was Chuck Karwan that did so and was carrying it.

At any rate, if my G23 can be made into a reliable 9para with a barrel switch, then perhaps a G20 can be made into a .38Super?


Anyway, on the original question, I'd go with the Cor Bon DPX as a carry load in the Super.

Tamara
12-05-2011, 10:58 PM
At any rate, if my G23 can be made into a reliable 9para with a barrel switch, then perhaps a G20 can be made into a .38Super
Dunno. Never really looked at the ejector geometry...

Chuck Haggard
12-05-2011, 11:17 PM
Check this out;

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=50196&st=25

Scroll down to the G20/.38Super Open gun. Damn sexy looking.

lcarr
12-05-2011, 11:44 PM
I used to carry the Georgia Arms 147gr Gold Dot load. When they stopped making it, and other commercial sources seemed outrageously expensive, I loaded my own with the same bullet. I just ordered a batch from Buffalo Bore. It appears that they, too, use the Gold Dot bullet.

I tried the Cor-Bon 125gr DPX load, thinking it looked good on paper, but it would not feed reliably in my SVI single stack with a ramped barrel. About once per magazine, no matter what brand of magazine, the hollow point would catch on the lower edge of the ramp. Perhaps an unramped Colt, with its shallower feed angle, would handle them better.

Lincoln

P.S. I agree with the preference for high sectional density. One should note that a 147gr 9mm bullet has a slightly higher sectional density than a 230gr .45.

1slow
12-06-2011, 11:44 PM
What about GL20, 29 in 9x25 Dillon ?

Tamara
12-07-2011, 07:01 AM
What about GL20, 29 in 9x25 Dillon ?

I used to be a huge fangirl of 9x25, and when Mike started loading it commercially, I ordered a bunch, fully intending to convert my Colt DE.

As time's gone by, though, I realized that there just aren't any .355" bullets designed to work at those velocities. Unless I get pretty convincing evidence otherwise, I can't believe that a 115gr bullet driven at three or four hundred fps over its design velocity envelope isn't going to leave a wound profile that looks like the world's worst hickey.

TGS
12-10-2011, 10:48 AM
I used to carry the Georgia Arms 147gr Gold Dot load. When they stopped making it, and other commercial sources seemed outrageously expensive, I loaded my own with the same bullet. I just ordered a batch from Buffalo Bore. It appears that they, too, use the Gold Dot bullet.

I tried the Cor-Bon 125gr DPX load, thinking it looked good on paper, but it would not feed reliably in my SVI single stack with a ramped barrel. About once per magazine, no matter what brand of magazine, the hollow point would catch on the lower edge of the ramp. Perhaps an unramped Colt, with its shallower feed angle, would handle them better.

Lincoln

P.S. I agree with the preference for high sectional density. One should note that a 147gr 9mm bullet has a slightly higher sectional density than a 230gr .45.


Buffalo Bore hasn't used the Gold Dot for a while. Short of a year ago I ordered both their 115 and 124 +P+ loads....the 115 had Montana Golds, while the 124 had a Seirra JHP. I traded them off.

+1 on the sectional density thing. While the 147 and 124 HST's perform similarly in testing, I choose to go with a 147 because I like sectional density. I'm a huge fan of high sectional density 6.5-7mm rifle bullets, as well....like the 6.5 Grendel in AR's.

lcarr
12-10-2011, 12:05 PM
Buffalo Bore hasn't used the Gold Dot for a while. Short of a year ago I ordered both their 115 and 124 +P+ loads....the 115 had Montana Golds, while the 124 had a Seirra JHP. I traded them off.


The 147gr Buffalo Bore loads I got this week have Gold Dot bullets.

Lincoln

TGS
12-10-2011, 12:48 PM
The 147gr Buffalo Bore loads I got this week have Gold Dot bullets.

Lincoln

Really? OoOOooOO! Nice to see he started getting them again.

JAD
12-10-2011, 08:01 PM
Y'all can see why I was hoping doc Roberts would weigh in. The buffalo bore 147 is a 1100 fps load -- should be pretty reasonable for pressure and expansion and not quite as librarian as the double tap load. That said, I am real tempted to tool up the 550 and play with .357 158s. Ka-wham. Might crack that alloy frame, though...

Tamara
12-11-2011, 09:31 PM
Bear in mind that the Speer Unicor looks a lot like the Gold Dot, with the difference being that the Unicor doesn't have the pre-stressed cuts in the jacket and the hollow point cavity may not be as carefully-tuned to give a specific result v. barriers and whatnot. Most OEM loads from smaller houses use the Unicor because it has that sexy Gold Dot look without the price (or performance...)

JDM
12-11-2011, 09:37 PM
Bear in mind that the Speer Unicor looks a lot like the Gold Dot, with the difference being that the Unicor doesn't have the pre-stressed cuts in the jacket and the hollow point cavity may not be as carefully-tuned to give a specific result v. barriers and whatnot. Most OEM loads from smaller houses use the Unicor because it has that sexy Gold Dot look without the price (or performance...)

Do they still label it as GD, or do they use a clever work around like, "Loaded with the top quality Speer hollow points trusted around the world"?

lcarr
12-11-2011, 11:07 PM
Bear in mind that the Speer Unicor looks a lot like the Gold Dot, with the difference being that the Unicor doesn't have the pre-stressed cuts in the jacket and the hollow point cavity may not be as carefully-tuned to give a specific result v. barriers and whatnot. Most OEM loads from smaller houses use the Unicor because it has that sexy Gold Dot look without the price (or performance...)

Is there such a thing as a Speer Uni-Cor non-Gold Dot 9mm 147gr bullet? If so, do you have a reference?

Lincoln

JAD
12-17-2011, 01:21 PM
For what it's worth, I ran forty of the buffalo bore 147 grain load through my LWC Thursday. I had four nosedive failures and was displeased with the recoil signature. I think I'll go through the 125s from this point, possibly starting with the DPX.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.007911,-94.595787

Tamara
12-23-2011, 08:52 AM
Is there such a thing as a Speer Uni-Cor non-Gold Dot 9mm 147gr bullet? If so, do you have a reference?

I stumbled across this info on a couple of reloading fora some time back when trying to find my roommate some .38 Super for her Colt for Christmas and my Google-fu is not finding the pages again, which is frustrating the crap out of me.

Long story short, the allegation was that the non-Gold-Dot-labelled Uni-Cor bullets sold as reloading components differ in not having pre-stressed jackets. Going and rifling through what ammo I have on hand showed that the Gold Dot ammo I do have left lying about does have these cuts, at least all the .45, .40 and 9. There's the matter of the Blazer-branded .44 Spl 200gr GDHP which does not. None of the Georgia Arms ammo I have on hand features it and, come to think of it, none of it is explicitly labelled Gold Dot. There may be contractual reasons for this that have nothing to do with bullet construction, of course.

Alas, I am also completely out of GA Arms .38 Super, being out of the .38 Super biz, and thus my need to find some for my roomie which started all this, so I don't have any of that to examine.

Chuck Haggard
12-23-2011, 09:00 AM
I know a couple of the guys at CCI/Speer, I'll ask about the Gold Dot vs Unicore bullets.

I would think it inefficient to have to partially make a Gold Dot bullet then pull it from the assembly line to skip a process just so it comes out different.

Tamara
12-23-2011, 09:33 AM
I know a couple of the guys at CCI/Speer, I'll ask about the Gold Dot vs Unicore bullets.

I would think it inefficient to have to partially make a Gold Dot bullet then pull it from the assembly line to skip a process just so it comes out different.

I'd definitely be interested in the answer. (Wouldn't scoring the jacket be one of the final steps, if not the final one? Anyway, I'd imagine that you'd just set up the tooling to do a run of one or the other.)

lcarr
12-23-2011, 09:50 AM
I know a couple of the guys at CCI/Speer, I'll ask about the Gold Dot vs Unicore bullets.

I would think it inefficient to have to partially make a Gold Dot bullet then pull it from the assembly line to skip a process just so it comes out different.

I've never heard of or noticed this distinction with Speer bullets--and I could swear even my reloading components are labeled "Gold Dot"--but it is the case with Hornady XTP vs HAP. Competitive shooters discovered that the XTP was very accurate, but too expensive for high volume shooting. So, Hornady came out with the Hornady Action Pistol (HAP), an XTP without extra cuts that competition shooters don't care about anyway. However, in the case of the Hornady bullets, they are clearly labeled and there is no mystery about which is which.

Lincoln

JAD
12-28-2011, 07:52 AM
would think it inefficient to have to partially make a Gold Dot bullet then pull it from the assembly line to skip a process just so it comes out different.

Speaking as a manufacturer of precision stuff, I can offer that it is a common approach to delete a feature that may not have any impact on cost (or even a negative impact) so that you can sell that product to a different market at a lower price without devaluing the original product. A thing is worth what it is perceived to be worth.

lcarr
12-31-2011, 08:32 PM
I finally got a chance to test the Bufffalo Bore 147gr loads today. Previously, I've fired a 1,000 round case of Georgia Arms and maybe about 200 of my own reloads loaded with the 147gr Gold Dot bullet in the test gun with no failures to feed. Today, I had 3 failures to feed in 40 rounds, which is when I decided to give up on the Buffalo Bores. With every failure, the bullet caught on the bottom edge of the barrel's integral feed ramp.

Wondering what the problem was, I measured the rounds when I got home with digital calipers. Their OAL is only 1.220". When I loaded rounds with this bullet, I had them way out at 1.260". I don't have any Georgia Arms on hand to measure.

Perhaps they would work well in a 1911 with a traditional feed ramp, which provides a shallower feed angle.

Lincoln

JAD
01-02-2012, 12:28 PM
Nnnnnope. My LWC is unramped and it puked all over the BB. How did you find the recoil signature? I thought it was jarring and abrupt compared to even very hot 125s.

I am resurrecting a 550 that has been rusting in the basement for a few years. We will see what I can brew up.

lcarr
01-02-2012, 01:00 PM
How did you find the recoil signature? I thought it was jarring and abrupt compared to even very hot 125s.

I always liked these loads out of an all steel full size gun. A couple of years ago, I ran a controllability test using at least 9 different gun/load combinations. The full size Super with the 147gr Georgia Arms load beat everything else--by a large margin. That's why it's my preferred carry gun to this day.

When I had similar feeding issues with Cor-Bon DPX, I blamed the bullet shape. I now think I could get it to work if I loaded the Barnes bullet myself. The 125gr Gold Dot for .357 SIG may be a good bullet to try, too, since it is designed to work at the higher velocities, though in the long run I'll probably stick with the 147gr for its sectional density.

Lincoln