100 Yd pistol load
- Thread starter Nick_C_S
- Start date
serf 'rett
New member
Lighter, faster if you just want to ring the plate and don't have to worry with power factor.
Although afterwards I'd be tempted to set up paper at 100 yards just to see if the wadcutters would still be stable, would hold some type of group and how much they would drop at that distance.
Although afterwards I'd be tempted to set up paper at 100 yards just to see if the wadcutters would still be stable, would hold some type of group and how much they would drop at that distance.
kilimanjaro
New member
Faster is flatter, as a general rule. But with a short sight radius and large target, the ability to shoot consistently is the real key. With practice, you can ring the gong out to 400 yards or more, with your .38 Special.
I would have no problem with warmish 125 grain .357 magnum loads out of a 2.5" snubby 686. Or .40 S&W (Or 10mm!) out of my S&W 610, but they are full size platforms, full power ammo, and good sights.
Pretty much anything would work, (Except wadcutters and/or guns with primitive sights.)
I would prolly have opted for the 130 grain FMJ white box, but the 158 grain widowmakers would have worked as well, with a bit more holdover.
Pretty much anything would work, (Except wadcutters and/or guns with primitive sights.)
I would prolly have opted for the 130 grain FMJ white box, but the 158 grain widowmakers would have worked as well, with a bit more holdover.
I've hit a lot of paper plates at 100 yards with ordinary .45 hardball from a 1911. Once you learn the holdover, it's not a big deal.
Flatter shooting happens with lighter bullets, but they also raise the muzzle less by the time they finish traveling down the barrel, so, in a handgun, where barrel whip isn't an issue, they tend to impact lower with the same sight setting to begin with, even at close range. Their shorter time of flight is no guarantee of less wind deflection. The drag component that pulls the bullet away from the wind accelerates a light bullet faster, so it can still end up going just as far to the side or further in that shorter TOF. What really ends up mattering to wind deflection is just the ballistic coefficient of the bullet.
If you are going to change loads for shooting at a longer range, you may want to consider beefing up the velocity of the same bullet or finding a higher ballistic coefficient shape in another bullet nearly the same weight, to avoid creating a short range sight setting difference.
I can think of no reason a wadcutter should become unstable at long range if it was actually stable at short range. Because rotation of a bullet slows down more gradually than forward velocity does, bullets tend to become more stable with range, not less. Only if the bullet is unstable to begin with, does its group spread out with range until it tumbles. If you are seeing bullets become unstable at long range, your barrel is either not spinning them fast enough or you have some other issue (uneven rifling depth at opposite sides of the bore diameter, muzzle crown defect, etc.).
Your wadcutters, at 750 fps, should impact about 2 feet low at 100 yards. For 700 fps, add another 5". It's about twice what my .45 hardball was doing, but neither has anything like the high angled trajectory arc experienced by the guys shooting .45 Colt pistols out to 600 yards or so, trying to hit 8 foot wood target squares. But they do it. Keep an open mind and hold over.
Flatter shooting happens with lighter bullets, but they also raise the muzzle less by the time they finish traveling down the barrel, so, in a handgun, where barrel whip isn't an issue, they tend to impact lower with the same sight setting to begin with, even at close range. Their shorter time of flight is no guarantee of less wind deflection. The drag component that pulls the bullet away from the wind accelerates a light bullet faster, so it can still end up going just as far to the side or further in that shorter TOF. What really ends up mattering to wind deflection is just the ballistic coefficient of the bullet.
If you are going to change loads for shooting at a longer range, you may want to consider beefing up the velocity of the same bullet or finding a higher ballistic coefficient shape in another bullet nearly the same weight, to avoid creating a short range sight setting difference.
I can think of no reason a wadcutter should become unstable at long range if it was actually stable at short range. Because rotation of a bullet slows down more gradually than forward velocity does, bullets tend to become more stable with range, not less. Only if the bullet is unstable to begin with, does its group spread out with range until it tumbles. If you are seeing bullets become unstable at long range, your barrel is either not spinning them fast enough or you have some other issue (uneven rifling depth at opposite sides of the bore diameter, muzzle crown defect, etc.).
Your wadcutters, at 750 fps, should impact about 2 feet low at 100 yards. For 700 fps, add another 5". It's about twice what my .45 hardball was doing, but neither has anything like the high angled trajectory arc experienced by the guys shooting .45 Colt pistols out to 600 yards or so, trying to hit 8 foot wood target squares. But they do it. Keep an open mind and hold over.
Hammerhead
New member
For IHMSA field pistol, I prefer 158 grainers for the 100 yard stage. The trajectory isn't that different.
I shot some 158 plated flat points over 5.5 Unique (~.38 spl load) yesterday at 100 yards from my .357, very happy with the results.
I shot some 158 plated flat points over 5.5 Unique (~.38 spl load) yesterday at 100 yards from my .357, very happy with the results.
From Speer #14, pg 873: "Wadcutters are popular for target shooting and are also very effective small-game bullets if the ranges do not exceed 50 yards. At greater distances, semi-wadcutters are better due to their superior downrange stability."
I just looked that up. I last read it some years ago. Over time, my mind managed to morph it into "wadcutters will start to tumble after about 50 yards for so." I suppose it is there via inference. At any rate, a wadcutter is not designed for long shots. And that's where my head was during the shoot last month.
My IDPA wadcutter round (actually a soft cast DEWC) averages 720 fps - just above power floor (708 fps). Tumbling or not, I'm sure there's a lot of drop over 100 yards ;-)
Hammerhead
New member
Some commercial 148 grain hollow base wadcutter rounds will be 45º sideways at 50 yards, by 100 they are tumbling and very inaccurate. OTOH the Hornady 140 grain LFP 'cowboy' bullet will fly true to 100 yards at the same velocity.
That's the length of the bullet causing the issue, and guns that don't stabilize HBWC's well often do just fine with shorter DE or BB wadcutters, if they have the slow S&W barrel twist. I shot some Federal Match ammo loaded with HBWC's out of my then-new K-38, just to see how it would do, and at 25 yards they printed about 6" off bags. Not impressive. I'd also loaded some cast Lee Tumble Lube WC's at the time, and they cut the group size by just over half from the same bag setup. That probably was about all the gun was capable of at that time. It was before I reamed chambers and tweaked the timing and whatnot.
The main disadvantage of the solid WC's as compared to the SWC shape is the low ballistic coefficient makes it more vulnerable to wind and vertical stringing due to irregular velocity. The old revolver shooters often liked the S&W action best for tuning, but would put Colt barrels on them, both to get a faster 14" twist and because the S&W bores tended to be straight while the Colts would taper down very slightly toward the muzzle, which helps prevent a bullet from rubbing to a loose fit on the way down the tube. But those barrels would shoot even HBWC's well if you didn't drive them so fast that the bases blew out into skirts under muzzle blast. A lot of old timers said the Colt barrels would hold near an inch at 50 yards, when the Smith's would not come close. That's mainly the length of bullet being too great for the Smith's 18¾" SAAMI twist.
The main disadvantage of the solid WC's as compared to the SWC shape is the low ballistic coefficient makes it more vulnerable to wind and vertical stringing due to irregular velocity. The old revolver shooters often liked the S&W action best for tuning, but would put Colt barrels on them, both to get a faster 14" twist and because the S&W bores tended to be straight while the Colts would taper down very slightly toward the muzzle, which helps prevent a bullet from rubbing to a loose fit on the way down the tube. But those barrels would shoot even HBWC's well if you didn't drive them so fast that the bases blew out into skirts under muzzle blast. A lot of old timers said the Colt barrels would hold near an inch at 50 yards, when the Smith's would not come close. That's mainly the length of bullet being too great for the Smith's 18¾" SAAMI twist.
I learned a lot there Unclenick. Thanks.
"vertical stringing" ??
For my steel shoots and IDPA, I shoot Missouri Bullet Co's "PPC#2" BNH-12 148 DEWC. For practice, I shoot a hardcast version.
Both are extremely accurate - they go right where I point them, every time. At least at "normal" ranges - as opposed to my OP. I'm very pleased with the recipe. I'm getting SD's in the 5-6 fps neighborhood repeatedly, with 10-round samples.
"vertical stringing" ??
For my steel shoots and IDPA, I shoot Missouri Bullet Co's "PPC#2" BNH-12 148 DEWC. For practice, I shoot a hardcast version.
Both are extremely accurate - they go right where I point them, every time. At least at "normal" ranges - as opposed to my OP. I'm very pleased with the recipe. I'm getting SD's in the 5-6 fps neighborhood repeatedly, with 10-round samples.
It will happen with handguns, too, but at a closer ranges than with rifles. It just means the bullet holes tend to print a group that's a string of holes dispersed mainly on a vertical line. Get really far away, like shooting at plank squares six hundred yards off with a revolver, and that will turn into a line along the ground fore and aft of the target between hits. Not exactly precision grouping, but fun to try to do. Sort of like I imagine English long bowmen must have felt estimating range of fall with arrows from three or four hundred yards.