1911Forum banner

.380 Reloading

5K views 44 replies 11 participants last post by  Nitro.45 
#1 ·
I’ve been reloading .380 using 100gr Copper Plated bullets from Xtreme and Berry’s…I favor Springfield’s 911, Kimber Micro, Sig P238, and Ruger LCP II….loading 2.7gr Bullseye, or 3.3gr Unique..absolutely no issues with feeding, ejecting, or accuracy. My question is what charges are others using for these powder/bullet combinations? My reason is that I tried these loads with a new Glock 42 and immediate failure to feed, eject. Seems that the load is too light for the Glock. I’ve read the manuals and whats been posted on other forums. Successful loads seem anywhere from 2.5 to 3.4 for Bullseye. Thinking about upping my charge to 2.9/3.0 for Bullseye. Not really interested in Max loads but one that’ll work in the Glock..any one else using the Glock 42 and what loads are you using. opinions/suggestions?
 
#2 ·
I use 2.7 BE for pretty much everything for.380. Never shot them in a Glock but have run them thru my Walther PPK, a prehistoric Remington, an FN, a Ruger and a SIG 238. Not a hickup in the bunch. I don't carry any of them as a serious defense weapon, just paper punching and can killing.
 
#4 ·
#11 ·
The 2018 and 2020 Alliant manuals (pdf) only shows a 90gr Gold dot with Bullseye (3.4gr. max) with a vel of 981fps.

They show a compressed charge of Unique doing slightly better, but no 100gr projo data. Maybe time to try another powder...

Lots of .380 with 100gr data in the Western Powders/Accurate manual.
My old Lyman Pistol and Revolver Handbook 3rd Edition (Dec 2004) shows a Bullseye load 2.0-3.1 100gr FMJ…Unique 2.6-3.6….I’m in the upper end with loads…probably time to up the charge a bit…
 
#6 ·
First, if your Glock is new, perhaps the recoil spring is a bit stout. It is not uncommon for mag springs to come pretty stiff, then loosen up after loading the mags fully and leaving them to sit for a couple of weeks. Maybe lock the side back on the Glock and let it set.

I tend to load my .380 and 9mm to the lower end of the range. If I note that I have an occasional FTE or FTF, I simply up the charge .1 gr until it runs reliably. I tend to use Accurate #2 for all my 9mm reloading and recently changed from 4.2 gr to 4.3 gr to make it run reliably in all my pistols.
 
#7 ·
First, if your Glock is new, perhaps the recoil spring is a bit stout. It is not uncommon for mag springs to come pretty stiff, then loosen up after loading the mags fully and leaving them to sit
It is also common for newbs to disregard the instructions from the manufacturers and fail to clean the weapon prior to blasting away. That packing gunk makes for some tough sledding for the slide. 5/10 times that’s the cause I see at the range. The other 5 is crap ammo.
 
#13 ·
Thanks, looks like the data hasn’t changed…what gets me is that I’m .4gr from max. I would think the 2.7 would be a good load. I’ll move to 2.8 which is 10% below max..hopefully that’ll work. I just got my Win244 so plan to see if that works better..I do have some 700x which is another possibility..
 
#16 ·
That's the hard part with such a small round... normally 10% below max is considered the start load. But when a single tenth is several percent, it is tough to split hairs!

Bullseye is just a little too fast to be optimum in that round... Unique shows very well on paper, so if you had any left, that would likely be a worthwhile effort. I looked at Hogdon's data and Unique appears to have more potential than 244.

Interested to see how this plays out for you.
I like bullseye for my 45ACP loads. Have settled on 4.7gr/4.8gr for 230/200 respectively for CPRN bullets. That works very well on all my hand guns…I like Unique but I’ve pretty much run out of that powder. I managed to order 8lbs of Win244, so for the long term I need to switch to Win244 for my loads. It’s new and some data is available but very limited. When I work up some loads using it I’ll post then here.
 
#18 ·
Lar,

It doesn't matter what works for other guns.
It only matters what works in YOURS.

When you find the sweet spot (for YOUR gun) use that load.
Make lots of those.

Ladders for 380 are tough because the difference in load for each step is so small.
Say half a grain per step? Or a quarter grain? .1 grain???
You almost have to trickle on a beam scale to do that.

But when you find that sweet spot, you will be very happy with those rounds.
 
#19 ·
I have not loaded .380 in a long time, but the one powder that worked better than anything else was Alcan AL-120; that got discontinued when Hercules bought out Alcan. Unique was okay, but not optimal in the small capacity of the case, and both my brother and I sold our .380's soon after that. Having said that, I think there are a lot of powders today that should work admirably in the .380 - perhaps N310 or N320, maybe AA#2, or something along that line.
 
#20 ·
I think I'd CAREFULLY work upward on charge weight, using Unique, or BE-86 if you can obtain any. I suggest 0.1 gr. increments, trickler-weighed. Given the structure of individual grains of Unique, this may be a tedious and annoying proposition. Using BE-86, essentially a cleaner-burning, better metering, flash-suppressed analog of Unique, may make things a bit easier. In all calibers in which I've used the two, the loading data is very close, if not interchangeable. But CHECK THE RELOADING DATA BEFORE making ANY ASSUMPTIONS!!!
I think the slightly slower-burning rate of Unique (vs. Bullseye), plus its remarkably predictable behaviour in the .380's pressure range (21.5 kpsi) will give you a slightly greater margin of safety in work-up. I don't know if the Glock .380 has a locking breech, but if yes, this may also add to the safety margin (and be part of the reason for lower charge weights not cycling).
I don't think primer flattening, at typical .380 pressures, will be predictive of over pressure (if you DO see signs of flattening, back WAY off the charge weight!). Slide velocity, as indicated by the distance your brass is ejected, may be a much better indicator. Fire 10 rounds of factory 95 gr. FMJ in a place where you can easily see where they land. Measure the distance from firing point to where MOST (6 or more out of 10) of the cases land (modal ejection distance). Make note of the size of the "circle" in which they fell. If your reloads eject into a similar-sized circle the edge of which is more than 25% further, back the charge off. This method is not fool-proof and will never replace a universal receiver with pressure sensor. But it can serve as AN indicator that you are too far above spec.
 
#21 ·
One of the current problems with loading is the dearth of powders…I have some 700x, Bullseye, Win244, CFE. As much as I like Bullseye, as mentioned, it is difficult to work with in these tiny loads.. .I think I’ll concentrate on developing loads using Win244 since that is my most plentiful powder. It’s a little faster than Unique but not like Bullseye…thanks for the suggestions and comments…you’ve convinced me it’s better to work with a slower powder making it easier to adjust the loads…
 
#22 ·
I'm not at all acquainted with CFE-PISTOL's burning characteristics (except that it appears to burn more slowly than Unique), but the Hodgdon online data says you have 7 increments from start to max, vs. 5 increments with W244. It might mean some extra steps on the way to getting the Glock .380s to function reliably, but in the interest of safety...
 
#23 ·
Assuming 244 doesn’t work well I’ll try CFE next. WIN244 is really close to Win231 which I understand is an ideal powder for most handgun loads. Hoping it cycles well with Glock as well as all my other 380s as I have much more Win244 than my other powders. I need one standard load that functions in all my 380s.
 
#24 ·
231and HP38 are ideally suited for that cartridge. You have a full grain of charge weight to mess with. You can always use that same powder in a gazillion other loads as well. It’s not worth the time to spend exhaustive hours trying to perfect that little guy. A middle of the road load should cycle that Glock. If not, the gun is broken.
 
#25 ·
A middle of the road load should cycle that Glock. If not, the gun is broken.
If your definition of "broken" includes an over-stiff slide spring in a fairly new pistol, I don't disagree.
Otherwise...
Glocks were (and perhaps still are) known for sometimes not fully actuating with reloads using very fast propellants, which were fully capable of running through other 9mm platforms. Slightly higher charges, or velocity-equivalent loads with slower burning powders (Unique, AA#5, Herco, HS-6, SR-4756) usually fixed this. This is one of the reasons I suggested some of the powders listed in the parentheses above.
W231/HP38 is a very versatile and excellent performing propellant, but "ideal" is in the eye of the beholder. Its burning rate puts it on the edge of the "too fast/fast enough" threshold, so it may work in a less-than-ideal fashion in the Glock. While Unique is NOT what I'd NORMALLY call "ideal" for .380, its burning characteristics may sufficiently in the "non-ideal" direction to offset the "non-ideal" tension of the Glock's recoil spring.
If Unique is unavailable, CFE-Pistol may be the best bet.
 
#26 ·
I am a bit shocked. I’m just not used to Glock owners admitting that they don’t run 100%, all the time, with anything you shove in the mag.
Thank you for the honesty!
Now, drop in a lighter spring and enjoy the superior accuracy of a light load of 231! 🙂
 
#27 ·
It’s my only Glock…I bought it in a “I wonder how glocks work?” moment…but I also have a Springfield EMP 911 Champion Concealed Carry model that gives me fits…about every 40 rds it fails to eject leaving the case stuck in the chamber…I’ve written to Springfield and got no response..as a matter of fact the with the first magazine ever fired it happened! This is with all factory ammo, it doesn’t matter which brand as I’ve tried all brands I can find…still working on it. When it comes to firearms honesty is important…
 
#32 ·
I loaded lots of .380 acp loads using N320, Titegroup, and W231. Most charge weights are very small so easy metering powders are the best ones to work with. Of the three powders listed I've found acceptable results with all three. The whole process would be a whole lot easier if my fingers were not so fat!

Grumpy
 
#35 ·
Just thought I’d update this thread, I finally had a chance to get to the range with some loads. I tried 2.9 Bullseye (up from 2.7) 100gr Berry‘s RNHB…this did not work the Glock 42…the Glock would not cycle even though my Sig P238, Spring 911 worked great. New powder Win244 3.1gr and 3.3gr 100gr Berry’s RNHB cycled the Glock easily and worked well in my other two .380s. My wife mentioned that the Win244 was “snappy” compared to the 2.8/2.9 Bullseye in the Sig.

I also tried 9mm loads for my new Kimber Micro 9 ESV and Colt Commander in 9mm as well as loads for the 45ACP using Win244…very pleased with this new powder from Winchester…time to go reload!
 
#36 ·
Your wife's observation is unexpected, but probably right on, some how. I would expect that Bullseye would be more "snappy" than W244, but perhaps the charge weights you used for Bullseye were nor sufficient to get into the "pressure band" at which W244 started operating the slide. I would expect faster-burning propellants to act more "snappy" and "less fast" ones to be less so. Then again, I've heard people characterize reloads using power pistol as being "snappy", also. Perhaps it is the product of pressure that increases through the burn and is released as the projectile leaves the barrel. <shrug>
 
#37 ·
I fired some 9mm loads using Win244……4.2, 4.3, 4.4 Xtreme 115gr RN. They also felt a bit different from the Bullseye loads I’d been using…Winchester lists 4.5 as being max…each load tried seemed “snappy”…going to back off to 4.0 or 4.1.

As an additional, Win 244 5.1gr for 230 Xtreme RN and 5.3gr Xtreme 200gr RN felt fine on my Colt 1911 Series 70 (new model).

All in all, Win244 worked the Glock42 even using the recommended starting load by Winchester…
 
#38 ·
You were at about the top of the recommended load for Bullseye for the 380. Those loads should easily work unless the gun is brand new and full of packing grease.
Clearly, the gun is the issue. Especially since the others worked fine. Don’t be so quick to blame a powder that a gazillion of us use, and have for decades.
244 is great, but you shouldn’t have to go to extremes to batter the gun to make it function.
You already have a 238......why the worry??
 
#39 ·
Not worried, but it would be nice to have a load that works in all my .380s and not have to assign ammunition based on powder. 2.9 Bullseye is as high as I want to go. The Lyman 3rd Edition Pistol and Revolver Handbook lists 3.1 Bullseye as max while the latest Lee Manual lists 3.3 gr of Bullseye.

The Glock42 is new, but I’ve fired factory ammo through it and have stripped and cleaned it thoroughly. The 238 is my wife’s..it works fine at 2.8 of Bullseye…2.7 tends to be a little soft ejecting the case (her comments). I’ve been a big fan of Bullseye since I started reloading in the early 70s….It is interesting though that the recommended starting point for Win244 cycles the Glock. I may just switch to Win244 since Bullseye is unavailable at this point in time. Unfortunately the only load data available for Win244 is on the Winchester/Hodgdon site.
 
#43 ·
I kind of look at the 244 in a couple ways. The WinClean stuff may be all gimmickry, or not, but availability may be subject to how the wind blows. On the other hand, some say it is there to replace 231?? If that happens....there WILL be a riot! But hey, if this stuff works and you are satisfied, my best advice is to pile that stuff high and deep so you don’t have to worry about it.........right after you corner the market on small pistol primers.🙂
 
#44 ·
Win244 and Win231 are right next to each other in terms of burn rates. Who knows if it will replace 231. It was available so I purchased a large quantity of it. I’ve not seen any of my other favorites available in quite some time…Bullseye, Unique, 700x, Win231 are all “unavailable”. That said, I’ll be using 244 for quite some time..as for SPP…those are like the “chupacabra” people say they exist but no one has seen them..at least not lately! 😂
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top