Safe 38 special load

[akinswi]

Load:

125grain FP xtreme plated bullet
Starline 38 special brass
COL 1.440
Primer CCI 400
Powder: 4.2 grains of bulleyes

is this load safe to shoot in my Rock Island armory M206 its not rated too shoot plus p “all the time”.

This load works great out of my 586 just making sure its safe to shoot i

 

[Jim Watson]

Alliant and Lyman think it is OK.

 

[Shadow9mm]

According to speer, same bullet weight and col your max for a standard 38spl is 5.0g of bullseye. Your well within safe range.

 

[Nick_C_S]

+2

Yeah, you're good to go.

Couple questions however:

1. There's lots of load data available, so I'm curious why you're asking us (not that we mind at all)? Is it because it's a plated bullet and there's little (or no) plated specific data? In this case, you could use about any 125 HP of SP jacketed bullet data. Speer's 125 data for +P runs Bullseye 4.5 to 4.8 grains; Hornady runs 4.5 to 5.3 grains; Sierra has it 4.6 to 5.1.

2. I find the "CCI 400" curious. Is that a typo? Supposed to be CCI 500?

 

[Shadow9mm]

+2

Yeah, you're good to go.

Couple questions however:

1. There's lots of load data available, so I'm curious why you're asking us (not that we mind at all)? Is it because it's a plated bullet and there's little (or no) plated specific data? In this case, you could use about any 125 HP of SP jacketed bullet data. Speer's 125 data for +P runs Bullseye 4.5 to 4.8 grains; Hornady runs 4.5 to 5.3 grains; Sierra has it 4.6 to 5.1.

2. I find the "CCI 400" curious. Is that a typo? Supposed to be CCI 500?

400 are small rifle. I know i have been using small rifle for a while now for 9mm, 38spl, and 357 mag, as small pistol seem to be made of unobtatium. My guns all set them off fine, and velocities are almost identical. And they set off h110 cleanly.

 

[44 AMP]

A word about "safe"...

Guns survive proof test load firing. The proof load pressures are much higher than anything you will find listed in the loading manuals.

IF your powder & charge and bullet weight are within what's given in the manuals, I would expect it to be "safe". Safe, meaning the gun does not come apart and you are not injured.

"Safe" and "Suitable" are different. Suitable is always safe but the reverse is not true. LOTS of combinations will be safe (as I defined it above) but will not be suitable for your gun.

like your pistol not rated for +p "all the time". +p is safe, but not very suitable.

 

[akinswi]

400 are small rifle. I know i have been using small rifle for a while now for 9mm, 38spl, and 357 mag, as small pistol seem to be made of unobtatium. My guns all set them off fine, and velocities are almost identical. And they set off h110 cleanly.

Shadow,

They work great for Max H110 loads in 357 magnum, 20.5 (which is about.5 grains below max) behind a 125 grain jacketed HP bullet is really humming in my 586, they explode milk jugs so much fun.

 

[akinswi]

+2

Yeah, you're good to go.

Couple questions however:

1. There's lots of load data available, so I'm curious why you're asking us (not that we mind at all)? Is it because it's a plated bullet and there's little (or no) plated specific data? In this case, you could use about any 125 HP of SP jacketed bullet data. Speer's 125 data for +P runs Bullseye 4.5 to 4.8 grains; Hornady runs 4.5 to 5.3 grains; Sierra has it 4.6 to 5.1.

2. I find the "CCI 400" curious. Is that a typo? Supposed to be CCI 500?

Nick,

Xtreme actually has load data now for their projectiles. They show loads for titegroup but no bullseye, so I just substituted bullseye for the titegroup data since there burn rates are similar. wanted to ask the forum because the vast amount of knowledge thats out there that you cant get out of a reloading manual

 

[Unclenick]

QuickLOAD thinks the Titegroup pressures will be about 23%-24% higher than Bullseye. GRT thinks 27%-28% higher. This means that if someone substitutes Titegroup for a maximum Bullseye load with this bullet and cartridge, it could come right up close to the CIP proof value. It's a good illustration of just how limited relative burn rate chart information is. It's fine for deciding which powder to try for similar performance after a load has been determined for it, but is not enough to determine what the new powder's charge weight should be.

 

[akinswi]

Unclenick,

Exactly why I dont start at maximum. Some lessons are learned the hard way

 

[Nick_C_S]

so I just substituted bullseye for the titegroup data

Unclenick already addressed this. But I feel compelled to stress how much you should not do this. Propellant data cannot be "substituted" from one to another. Load data is not interchangeable from one powder to another. Similar burn rates do not tell enough of the story to do this - ever.

It turned out okay this time. But it's a practice a handloader should never do.

 

[Shadow9mm]

Unclenick already addressed this. But I feel compelled to stress how much you should not do this. Propellant data cannot be "substituted" from one to another. Load data is not interchangeable from one powder to another. Similar burn rates do not tell enough of the story to do this - ever.

It turned out okay this time. But it's a practice a handloader should never do.

Agreed

 

[Nick_C_S]

To our OP: I hope I didn't come off as scolding in my last post (#11). I certainly didn't mean to. I was just putting emphasis on the point. Everybody here on TFL wants our fellow loaders to do so safely.

Unclenick has probably saved me from firearm damage (or worse) at least one time that I remember - probably more. Sometimes, we take a wrong turn and need our friends to keep us moving straight. It happens.

Shadow9mm: I am aware of CCI 400 (I have some). But sometimes I forget that we are in the midst of a component shortage - especially primers. An adverse side-effect of having stocked up during the last administration, I guess. That said, I am getting a bit low on SPP's myself. Hope this situation gets better within the next two years or so .

 

[akinswi]

To our OP: I hope I didn't come off as scolding in my last post (#11). I certainly didn't mean to. I was just putting emphasis on the point. Everybody here on TFL wants our fellow loaders to do so safely.

Unclenick has probably saved me from firearm damage (or worse) at least one time that I remember - probably more. Sometimes, we take a wrong turn and need our friends to keep us moving straight. It happens.

Shadow9mm: I am aware of CCI 400 (I have some). But sometimes I forget that we are in the midst of a component shortage - especially primers. An adverse side-effect of having stocked up during the last administration, I guess. That said, I am getting a bit low on SPP's myself. Hope this situation gets better within the next two years or so .

Did not take it that way at all. Exactly why I asked the question.

 

[Nick_C_S]

I looked up my load records to see if I have put together this combination in the past (X-treme's 125 FP is one of my more used bullets). No such luck. So I mocked up your load recipe in QuickLoad, using a Hornady XTP Flat Point bullet. So it's jacketed, not plated, but should put us in the neighborhood.

It shows peak pressure at 12.25 Kpsi which is modest. If it was me, I'd likely bump it up a little more just to ensure a cleaner, more consistent burn. 4.5 grains goes to 13.8 Kpsi, and that's more of the pressure I'd be looking for in this application (basic 38 Special range shooters).

After composing the above, I ran the QL using Speer's 125gn TMJ bullet - which is a thick plated offering. At 4.2, it shows a peak pressure of only 11.4 Kpsi. That's pretty low. So I looked at Speer's load data regarding Bullseye (in my original post [#4], I quoted only the +P data) and with the "non+P" data, it shows 4.5 grains max and "DNR" as the minimum. DNR means Do Not Reduce. So Speer thinks you're underloaded. At that point, I mocked up QL at 4.5 grains, and it yields 12.9 Kpsi - still fairly modest.

Pressure is good. Pressure must be respected. But pressure is good.