Am I doing what's best, or am I stuck in a rut?

Quite a few years ago, after asking about different powder choices here, I switched from Bullseye to Winchester WST.  This was for 38 rounds shot from my Model 52, and 45 rounds.  I have my notes here somewhere, but as I recall I used slightly more WST than Bullseye.  My current load for Magnus #514 bullets is 2.8 grains.

Results - I can't say it made me any more precise, but I know it didn't hurt.
In my RCBS Pro2000 press, the WST metered more smoothly, and I think slightly more accurately.  
My guns stay cleaner with WST.
I've never measured velocity or done the other tests.

Because it was convenient, I used the same loaded ammo in my S&W Model 52, Model 14, and for that matter, all my guns that shoot 38 or 357.
My Model 14 seems to shoot well with this ammo, as does my old Python, but I'm mostly concerned with the Model 52.


I'm posting this here, because someone suggested I might want to consider a different powder for my revolvers.  Any opinions?

Nothing wrong with WST for 38 full wads. If anything sink that bullet a bit deeper.

If it's the suggestion in another recent thread, that was for 9mm vs 38spl. Same caliber but meaningfully different cartridge for powder choice

I chronographed 2.7 Bullseye and 2.8 452AA (for your purposes similar to WST).  The velocities were identical. Accuracy was substantially similar.

zanemoseley wrote:........If anything sink that bullet a bit deeper.

I was told to not allow the wadcutter to protrude even the slightest amount beyond the case, and to use a roll crimp.
When I asked others about my finished rounds, they thought they were good.
As I see things, what you wrote makes sense, as then the case could "roll" over the end of the bullet, rather than into it.

I don't have any old 38 ammo to compare to, but here's a photo of a randomly chosen Magtech round (left) and one of my rounds (right).
Are you sure I should go deeper?



.......interesting - I was way too sleepy when I posted the thread, but I thought I used a different title.  What I see for the title now is better.  :-)

Yours does not look “flush”

First pic anyway.

Unless there is a reason not to do so, I can adjust my seater die to go a tiny amount further.  
The round in the first photo "felt" flush, but my photo makes it look funny.  I haven't touched those dies in well over a year.

Please correct me if I've mis-understood, but I was under the impression that as long as the round would feed in my Model 52, all was well, and I've read here that rounds that protruded the tiniest amount beyond the case would not.

My gut feeling (which is irrelevant) is that a roll crimp would work better if there was some room above the round for the case to "roll" into.  

...irrelevant information - I love your profile photo.  I've been finding that it is far more enjoyable for me to shoot my revolvers than to shoot any of my pistols.  I shoot these rounds with both my 52, and my revolvers, and there's something "magical" about a revolver that is lost with my other guns.  I can shoot my Model 14 target gun as well as my 52, but shooting the 14 is different.  So is my Python.  And I just bought a target model 17-3 with original box, and I should have it this coming Thursday.  I very well remember all your revolver photos, but I've lost track of them.  I used to enjoy looking through them.  Maybe you can post a link to them again?

This is a picture of a “factory” 38 WC showing the seating and crimping.  I use it as a guide.

Thanks, 'Wobbley', that looks very logical.  
I'll save this image for future reference.

I thought of this thread while loading 38 special today. Trying 6.1 of 231 and 110 XTP's. I bet it's accurate. Plus P load for 14-8.