Wadcutter ammo?

[TX69]

Dumb question (never shot wadcutters) what is it that makes them so accurate?

 

[karlac]

Dumb question (never shot wadcutters) what is it that makes them so accurate?

Probably says it well enough:

"Obviously, one of the principal design features of the wadcutter is to cut full diameter holes in the target for easier and more precise scoring in bullseye competition. However, there are also several other aspects of the wadcutter that are commonly overlooked. Wadcutters are generally designed to be deeply seated in the cartridge case to eat up case capacity, to produce better uniformity with the light powder charges used for target loads. The wadcutter also generally has extensive bearing surface that provides better alignment in the throat and forcing cone of a revolver, thereby favoring concentric engraving, and better short range accuracy (before the lousy aerodynamics of the "flying trash can" destabilize the bullet and ruin flight stability)."


By: Glen E. Fryxell & Robert L. Applegate

 

[benenglish]

Colt made a .38 mid-range wadcutter gun for years. Because of the rimmed .38 case, the mag only holds 5.
I want one.

I'd love one, myself. However, they were never the top of the mark for accuracy; they needed custom work to achieve their potential. A S&W 52 or a Sig P240, out of the box, is a much better .38 wadcutter pistol. Once the Colts were worked over, they were then (arguably) better. That point is partly moot, though, since the P240, iirc, didn't even come along until the Colts were out of production. When they were being simultaneously produced, there was a "Smith vs. Colt" debate (So what else is new?) and, frankly, I think the Colt got used by military teams simply because they were accustomed to working on them and not because the pistol, ultimately, was demonstrably better. Of course, 1911 pattern pistols are much easier to shoot consistently than Smith 52s...but now I've gone so far afield I should just stop.

Except for one more thing.

As an aside, the Army Marksmanship Unit used them and had so much trouble with tuning to feed the rimmed cases that they developed the .38 AMU, a semi-rimmed .38 Special. I have a box of them that I bought just because I think it's neat to own something that was assembled in small numbers by a skilled reloader inside the AMU. Owning anything that I know came from inside that shop is, to me, very high on the cool scale.

Perhaps I'm being silly but that's just me. BTW, I've never actually seen a pistol chambered in .38 AMU. I'd sure love to.

 

[benenglish]

Probably says it well enough:

"... better short range accuracy (before the lousy aerodynamics of the "flying trash can" destabilize the bullet and ruin flight stability)."

By: Glen E. Fryxell & Robert L. Applegate

I wouldn't contradict any of that. Those are the basics. I would, however, add a couple of points.

First and oddly enough, we now know that the blunt front end of the wadcutter isn't what causes the problems with destabilization. Yes, at some range the traditional 148 grain hollow base wadcutter just veers randomly and dramatically off course. We've known that for a long time. Experiments with subsonic suppressed rifles, however, has shown us that it's not the point of the bullet that kills accuracy; it's the base. A proper rebated boattail base on a subsonic bullet combined with a fairly blunt round nose can be amazingly accurate at extended ranges (as long as you don't mind the rainbow trajectory). I firmly believe that however convenient the double-ended wadcutter is during automated loading processes, it's an accuracy dead end. I'd love to see someone bring out a long wadcutter with some sort of boattail. Unfortunately, that bullet would be too heavy (if the boattail was simply tacked onto the end of a bullet the same length as the 148 gr HBWC) and raise recoil too much for Conventional Pistol.

Still, I can't help but think that there's a middle ground to be found here. About 30 years ago, I experimented with loading flat-base, round-nose, heavy .30 caliber projectiles backwards for subsonic use. I got amazingly good results out to 200 yards but gave it up because of the high-arcing trajectory. Since the bullets were showing an incredibly low rate of velocity loss (one of the benefits of working in the subsonic range), wind drift was reduced to ridiculously small numbers. There's something to this and I sure hope I have time before I shuffle off this mortal coil to return to those experiments. They were some of the most satisfying work I ever did with firearms.

Second, the range at which wadcutter accuracy goes to Hades is somewhat adjustable. If the rifling is fast enough and the velocity high enough, accuracy can be stretched to longer ranges. Increasing velocity, however, increases recoil and leading. As a result, Conventional Pistol shooters try to cut it close. They care about accuracy at 50 yards. If the bullets would miss the target completely at 55 yards, they don't care as long as they can get their 1-inch 50-yard groups from their Ransom Rests.

Since they're cutting it close on velocity, sometimes they cut it too close. Sometimes the day is a little cold and velocities drop just a little. Then you start seeing bullets "tipping" or starting to fly sideways. The bullet holes in the paper become oblong. Sometimes, when things go really wrong, the bullets are flying sideways. Oddly enough, though, even flying sideways the accuracy doesn't go away completely. I've seen some relatively small groups (6 inches or so) at 50 yards from keyholing bullets. I wouldn't have believed it possible and I remain convinced that I was seeing the first tumble of each of those bullets, i.e. they lost all stability perhaps 40 or more yards downrange. I feel sure that if they were tested at 100 yards, it would be difficult to keep them on the berm.

I said all that to say this - Keeping wadcutters stable out to the target is a tricky business. For a very long time, European shooters have used .32 S&W Long wadcutters in autopistols because they shoot at a maximum of 25 meters. When Conventional Pistol shooters in the U.S. have tried to stretch that to 50 yards, results have been mixed. Some people have gone down a rathole of excessive loads that blow the skirts off bullets and custom barrels with odd rifling and non-SAAMI-spec bores. Some had great success but my impression is that most simply gave up in disgust.

.38 Special wadcutters are easy to make work at 50 yards but the reduced recoil of the .32 for the rapid fire stages is a very seductive idea. Remember, in Conventional Pistol you win matches at 50 yards but lose them at 25. That's why I find the .32ACP target pistols that Pardini is turning out to be such a fascinating idea. Round-nose bullets are harder to score (That's why the officials have plugs, though.) but easy (or at least easier) to keep accurate at 50 yards.

If I ever graduate from just shooting .22s in Conventional Pistol, I really think I'll add a .32.

 

[OLDVET]

I have put over 25,000 rounds of Oregon Trail Laser Cast 200 gr. lead semi wad cutter .45 ACP ammo through my Springfield "Loaded". The pistol loves it and barrel wear has been minimal (according to Springfield) when it was in for some warranty work earlier this year. A 1911 was never designed to shoot full wad cutter ammo, so some guns may not feed the round. Wad cutter ammo was designed for competition Bullseye target shooters who wanted a clean hole for scoring purposes.

 

[ShootingTheBull]

From what I can tell, it's that they track straighter through tissue than round nose (which can veer way off line) when traveling through tissue.

Fackler and MacPherson both did tests on the damage caused by different profile bullets, and found that a flat-nose cylinder was the most effective (of the non-expanding bullets). When a bullet traverses flesh there's a cavitation effect where the flesh is pushed around the side of the bullet -- with a roundnose (FMJ) or truncated cone or sphere (buckshot ball) that flesh just gets literally pushed around the bullet. But with a wadcutter, it has a sharp edge on it, so it rips its way through. The net result is about 50% more tissue directly shredded by a (true) wadcutter, as compared to other types of non-expanding bullets.

 

[rushthezeppelin]

I've never seen wad cutters for an auto... Seems like it wouldn't want to feed. SWC, yeah. But some guns might not feed right.

With a shallow enough angle on the feed ramp and a loose enough chamber some guns can feed empty cases (which if it can feed empty cases it has an easier time feeding WCs especially if they stick out of the case at least a little). My CZ clone will feed them a little under half the time and I'm sure would feed them better if I tried resizing them first. Granted this probably works better with slightly tapered cases like 9mm.

 

[karlac]

I wouldn't contradict any of that. Those are the basics. I would, however, add a couple of points.

Excellent! Answered a lot of my lingering questions.

 

[AustinN4]

I reloaded 38 special and 357 mag wadcutters as my practice ammo my Model 19 wheel gun, but have never used them in SA pistol.

 

[Army 1911]

I have three Colt 45s that feed empty cases more reliably than some new guns feed period. The test is to load the empty 3 or 4 down in a may and see what happens.

 

[M. Sage]

Ahh yeah. I forgot about the funky target guns.