That rolled case mouth should make reloading a bit quicker.
I'd love to see that bullet as a straight WC nose profile, no need to put an ogive on it.
That rolled case mouth should make reloading a bit quicker.
I'd love to see that bullet as a straight WC nose profile, no need to put an ogive on it.
I am the owner of Agile/Training and Consulting
www.agiletactical.com
Lots of J-framers keep wadcutters in the gun and reload with something else.Originally Posted by Jeep
I'm interested in this round, but before I swap out the wad cutters in my 642, I'll wait to hear from Doc Roberts and read his review.
I'm curious about how this load stacks up recoil wise to the 135gr GDHPs. The GDHPs are pretty much the limit of what I can control out of an Airweight, and I've not yet gotten around to getting a lighter version but I can't imagine they'd be any easier out of a 340. I'm also curious how it's going to do on velocity. As I understand, the Speer load is right there on the edge of reliable expansion, and even temperature shifts can cause a failure there.
I have a bunch of different J frames in .38 Special and .357 Magnum.
Most hit at POA with .38 Special Remington 158gr+P LSWCHP, and a couple of the titanium alloy-framed examples hit at POA with .38 Special Gold Dot 135gr+P "short barrel" JHP.
(FWIW, none of the J-frames which I own which are rated for .357 Magnum actually hit at POA with ANY .357 Magnum loads, as personally tested with all available premium commercial loads, from 110gr to 158gr bullet weights, more's the pity.)
Anyway, I'll be interested in Federal's new HST .38 Special load if it actually hits to POA in my guns, not otherwise.
I already use Federal's HST loads in semiautomatic pistols, both .45 Auto and 9mm, with excellent accuracy and high precision, so I have high hopes for this new revolver load, even though I haven't actually seen it for sale yet.
"Therefore, since the world has still... Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure, Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
I'd face it as a wise man would, And train for ill and not for good." -- A.E. Housman
The WC profile would be the best imo too.
Probably work better in various circumstances than on ogive bullet.
Of course there can be. Define "reliable expansion"... On me. On YOU. On your neighbor teen-ager. It's all guess work... ALL guess work. Which is why lots of us have realized that, for our close-up defense, it just doesn't matter THAT MUCH, what kind of a load we use out of a frigging J frame.
The day I begin using a J as a primary... THEN I will look at carry ammo a bit closer. Until then... Whatever I have handy will work for a BUG... IMO. I was always working hard to keep the 135gr +P Gold Dot in place. I still do it... But not as importantly. :-)
.
Having been stuck with a 642 in a Kramer for the past six months as the best solution to a weekday gun, I'm in a position of wanting something that provides me ballistics as close to a service pistol as possible.
I get what you are saying, but to me, a J-frame is a secondary weapon only if you grab something else first. If you primary malfs, gets taken, runs dry, or is not readily accessible when you need it and you have your J-frame in your hand, it now becomes primary, and I want the best ammo I can get for it. Same for its reload.
My 642 is typically a BUG. I keep WCs in it now because I can generally get faster shots and tighter groups to my POA with them more readily than I can with my 135gr GDs. If I was to carry my 642 tomorrow as my only gun, I would still load it with WCs, and for the same reasons.
I hope these HSTs offer improved performance over WCs and GDs. If they do - great. If not - oh well.
Last edited by Moonshot; 01-25-2017 at 01:20 AM.
PPPI'm with you. Keep in mind, however, that I have been looking at pistol/revolver wounds/kills for a very long time. The one thing that remains common on those is... Nothing is common.
.
Reply With Quote
