Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 146

Thread: Ed Harris--Revisiting the Full Charge Wadcutter

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Inspector71 View Post
    There was an article in there about two locals who exclusively hunted snowshoe hares with six inch K-38 revolvers and mid-range wadcutter ammo.
    If I had to choose to hunt only one animal for the rest of my life, I'd have a hard time deciding between this and kudu.


    Okie John
    “The reliability of the 30-06 on most of the world’s non-dangerous game is so well established as to be beyond intelligent dispute.” Finn Aagaard
    "Don't fuck with it" seems to prevent the vast majority of reported issues." BehindBlueI's

  2. #22
    Site Supporter Jamie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by SCCY Marshal View Post

    The difference between a "full charge" and target wadcutter may seem pedantic on paper but they have decidedly different internal, external, and terminal ballistics in practice. Edit: Anyone wanting to really go down the hunting/fighting wadcutter rabbit hole should read Cirillo's book - Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights. Beautiful man went so far as to crenelate meplats, have cast plastic caps made to allow feeding in autoloaders, and more.
    Excellent book and an innovative thinker. As many here may know, Mr. Cirillo collaborated with "Fuzzy" Fletcher, of then the Village Metalworks, iirc. Fuzzy produced the .38 spl "Safe Stop" round using a plated DEWC. My chrono date from 2005 showed these rounds at an average of 720 fps from my 1992 era J fame S&W model 640. I got these rounds from Gomez and still have a couple of hundred.
    I corresponded with Fuzzy way back then, great guy. And very helpful.

    I would imagine the 850 fps Buffalo Bore would be quite snappy in a J frame or my LCR. In a K frame or L frame sized gun? Should be nice.

    I've considered working something like this (Plated DEWC) up in .357 for my 686. Might dig out the books and the chrono and see what shakes.
    I've seen data using Unique, Red Dot, Green Dot, and Bullseye for these. No harm in trying.

  3. #23
    Site Supporter entropy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Far Upper Midwest. Lower Midwest When I Absolutely Have To
    Quote Originally Posted by 358156hp View Post

    Lots of nostalgia right there!

    Thanks!
    Working diligently to enlarge my group size.

  4. #24
    Site Supporter LtDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central AZ
    Choice Ammunition used to sell a copper plated double ended wadcutter load. I just checked and it is no longer listed on their site. They do show a hard cast hi-tek coated wadcutter that I believe is double ended. It is available for backorder. Pricing has certainly gone up a bit since I last purchased some in December of 2018.
    The first indication a bad guy should have that I'm dangerous is when his
    disembodied soul is looking down at his own corpse wondering what happened.

  5. #25
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    NE Ohio
    X-Treme Bullets has a copper-plated DEWC, I've loaded about 500 rounds with it.

  6. #26
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    I picked up 3k of the Rainier plated DEWCs when Midway was blowing them out. Should have gotten more.
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

  7. #27
    Site Supporter Hambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Behind the Photonic Curtain
    Quote Originally Posted by willie View Post
    To me full charge wadcutter was 3.5 grains of Bullseye and a 148 bullet.
    Were you loading in the 1980s? Because Lyman data for Bullseye from that era did not show 3.5gr as the max. To me, "full charge" is an obsolete term for data we wouldn't use today.
    "Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA

  8. #28
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Full charge is a new term for me. I should have put it in quotation marks. The term is imprecise. Best practice dictates that we discuss loads in terms of acceptable pressure which is defined.

    I began reloading in the 1960's. Since then, manuals over time have presented much more conservative data. Hercules manufactured the dot powders and others like Unique and Bulleye for decades. Then in the not too distant past Alliant bought Hercules. My batch is a Hercules product. I have never used an Alliant powder.

    I never should have posted the 3.5 Bullseye load for the same reason that I don't post other favorites which violate today's best practices. You see, truth changes. It changes because data change, and their interpretation changes. Said another way, what was "true" in 1969 may not have been "true" in 2019.

  9. #29
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    South Louisiana
    Quote Originally Posted by Hambo View Post
    Were you loading in the 1980s? Because Lyman data for Bullseye from that era did not show 3.5gr as the max. To me, "full charge" is an obsolete term for data we wouldn't use today.
    My copy of Lyman's Pistol and Revolver Handbook (copyright '78) shows 4.1 grains of Bullseye as a max standard pressure load for #358495, which is a plain base wadcutter. You can blow the skirt off an HBWC with that charge, and current data assumes that you're loading HBWCs for liability purposes. 3.5 grains wouldn't be a problem with plain base WCs; Speer's #14 shows 3.1 grains of Bullseye as a max for their HWBC.

  10. #30
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    Quote Originally Posted by willie View Post
    You see, truth changes. It changes because data change, and their interpretation changes. Said another way, what was "true" in 1969 may not have been "true" in 2019.
    No, truth doesn't change. We just get better information. "The best we knew in 1969" is still "the best we knew in 1969" just like it was then. But we have better measuring equipment, so we know better now.

    Maybe my point is that it's best to take the approach of, "This is the best we know now," rather than, "This is The Truth!"
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •