Note: Before anyone gets their pantaloonie in a bunch, the loads I mention are at or above suggesting starting loads in Lyman's 49 Edition for a 120-grain cast bullet.
My daily shooting is a practice session of 72 rounds (minimum) of .38 Special, double-action at steel targets set at fifty feet using an older model K38 with a six-inch barrel. That gun and the loads I use in it are only for the purpose of shooting steel targets...nothing else. The focus of my practice is to increase the speed at which I can knock over the targets. Therefore, in seeking any and every advantage possible, I use a very light bullet (Lee, home cast, 121 grain 2R), combined with the smallest/lightest powder charge possible while still getting reliable ignition.
Over the years I have found that if I use 1.8 of Bullseye under that Lee 121 grain bullet and a Federal primer, I get exactly what I am looking for...minimal recoil but 100% uniform ignition. However, because of the relative scarcity of Federal primers, I have been looking for an equivalent load using Winchester primers. Therein lies the problem. I have found that 2.8 of Bullseye is not reliably ignited by Winchester primers. I tried 3.0, 3.2 and still experienced squibs (they leave the barrel, but very light reports on a few in inch batch of 72 rounds). I tried Winchester 231 with 3.4, and 3.6 grains and the Winchester primers and still experienced squibs. Reasoning that I need a still bulkier powder to take up more room in the .38 Special cases, I tried Unique. 4.0 grains of Unique (Winchester primers, still), produced some squibs. In each case, increasing the powder charge beyond what I have already tried, began to increase the recoil of the rounds that did seem to ignite the powder completely so it was beginning to be counterproductive for my purpose.
I was quite happy with my standard load of 2.8 and the Lee 121 cast bullet and Federal primers, but the seemingly chronic scarcity of Federal primers will likely be an ongoing problem. I was hoping to find a comparable load using Winchester primers, but that does not seem to be going to happen. I have considered using Winchester Magnum Small Pistol primers, but although they are a cataloged item, I have never seen any on the gun store shelves. Likewise, I have no interest in trying CCI primers inasmuch as my K38 is highly tuned with a very light trigger pull. CCI primers have a reputation for needing more force to ignite, so I have ruled them out.
This was just an observation...make of it what you will. My purpose in posting it is that while I have frequently seen posts about using magnum primers to ignite specific difficult-to-ignite powders in magnum loads, I have never seen any posts about using a "hot" (magnum) primer to ignite relatively "easy" to ignite powders in a very low density load and was surprised at the difference between Federal and Winchester standard small pistol primers.
Addendum: I also tried Titegoup at one point and had similar results (squibs), so Winchester primers do not ignite that powder when in low-density loadings either.
My daily shooting is a practice session of 72 rounds (minimum) of .38 Special, double-action at steel targets set at fifty feet using an older model K38 with a six-inch barrel. That gun and the loads I use in it are only for the purpose of shooting steel targets...nothing else. The focus of my practice is to increase the speed at which I can knock over the targets. Therefore, in seeking any and every advantage possible, I use a very light bullet (Lee, home cast, 121 grain 2R), combined with the smallest/lightest powder charge possible while still getting reliable ignition.
Over the years I have found that if I use 1.8 of Bullseye under that Lee 121 grain bullet and a Federal primer, I get exactly what I am looking for...minimal recoil but 100% uniform ignition. However, because of the relative scarcity of Federal primers, I have been looking for an equivalent load using Winchester primers. Therein lies the problem. I have found that 2.8 of Bullseye is not reliably ignited by Winchester primers. I tried 3.0, 3.2 and still experienced squibs (they leave the barrel, but very light reports on a few in inch batch of 72 rounds). I tried Winchester 231 with 3.4, and 3.6 grains and the Winchester primers and still experienced squibs. Reasoning that I need a still bulkier powder to take up more room in the .38 Special cases, I tried Unique. 4.0 grains of Unique (Winchester primers, still), produced some squibs. In each case, increasing the powder charge beyond what I have already tried, began to increase the recoil of the rounds that did seem to ignite the powder completely so it was beginning to be counterproductive for my purpose.
I was quite happy with my standard load of 2.8 and the Lee 121 cast bullet and Federal primers, but the seemingly chronic scarcity of Federal primers will likely be an ongoing problem. I was hoping to find a comparable load using Winchester primers, but that does not seem to be going to happen. I have considered using Winchester Magnum Small Pistol primers, but although they are a cataloged item, I have never seen any on the gun store shelves. Likewise, I have no interest in trying CCI primers inasmuch as my K38 is highly tuned with a very light trigger pull. CCI primers have a reputation for needing more force to ignite, so I have ruled them out.
This was just an observation...make of it what you will. My purpose in posting it is that while I have frequently seen posts about using magnum primers to ignite specific difficult-to-ignite powders in magnum loads, I have never seen any posts about using a "hot" (magnum) primer to ignite relatively "easy" to ignite powders in a very low density load and was surprised at the difference between Federal and Winchester standard small pistol primers.
Addendum: I also tried Titegoup at one point and had similar results (squibs), so Winchester primers do not ignite that powder when in low-density loadings either.
Last edited: