New to reloading 45 acp

[Lumber_Jack]

So you can use it as a chamber gauge? I'm guessing the gauge is minimum spec. I have three .45's. Which barrel should I use? Did I mention it's 20 bucks? I've spent more on a cigar.

Yeah I've just used my barrel but will be purchasing the case gauge soon. You shouldn't have to field strip a gun to test a couple loads.

[mikegideon]

I loaded 404 rounds this weekend. All were checked with the chamber gauge. Four failed that test due to seating issues. I don't know if they're bad enough to jam up one of my guns, but I'll know who they are when I shoot them.

BTW... for something that's a little on the cheesey side, the Lee turret press rocks for loading pistol ammo. I would have to shoot a lot more to justify a progressive.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I'm just getting started with .45 (and pistol) too. I arrived at my powder choice in a back assward fashion. Since I use a lot of Alliant powder on the rifle side, I jumped into Quickload and hunted thru the Alliant pile to find what was best for my 3 1/2" barrel. It wound up being a tossup between Bullseye and Unique. Then I went to the Interwebz and looked for a concensus. Most folks, in the places I landed are using Bullseye for .45. Since I will be using an automated powder drop, I didn't need any funky metering characteristics either. So, I got a bottle of Bullseye, and will start out with that.

When it comes to die setup (I also have the Lee 4 die set), I dropped 20 bucks on one of these. Money well spent...

http://www.midwayusa...-acp?cm_vc=S014

Briefly surveying load data on .45 gives the impression that .45 auto is a very "tolerant" round to load for? One can find load data for about any pistol powder + bullet in 9mm but there are many combinations that won't work too great. Tend to find fast powders used on light bullets and slower powders used on heavier bullets, except for powder puff rounds that might not operate all pistols reliably. If you want a full-tilt-boogie 9mm load with a heavier bullet it probably ain't gonna happen with fast powders. Seems similar on .357 mag, if you want to push a heavy bullet fairly fast, some of the slower powders look better.

But with .45 auto there seem quite a few fast powder/heavy bullet combinations that appear to give performance about as good as slow powder/heavy bullet combos? Though it looks like somebody wanting a full-tilt-boogie 230 gn load might be looking for something in the ballpark of VV N340?

It is just interesting that the .45 auto appears tolerant of such a wide range of powders. Reckon why? Big case volume combined with big diameter short bullet? A heavy bullet has relatively small bullet bearing surface against the barrel, because of cube-square relationship of mass vs surface area? Curious if there are "standard explanations" why .45 seems so tolerant of drastically different load params?

[mikegideon]

I think it's a combination of plenty of case volume and relatively low pressure. I haven't played with anything other than 230 grain bullets so far. Since I have the luxury of using Quickload, I can play with loads using the short barrels on two of my guns. Some of the loads that work well with a 5" barrel will most likely just increase muzzle blast with short barrels. I haven't played with it in Quickload yet. My poweder selection WAS based a lot on percentage of powder burned. That's going to be a function of burn rate and time in the barrel (I think).

I didn't chrony anything, but know that my loads were a little faster than factory because of the difference in recoil. There were no pressure signs on the brass, so I think i have them in the pocket. With my loads, slight differences in OAL made big differences in peak pressure (in Quickload). So, they're all loaded very close to max OAL.

I may play with different powders down the road, but will rely heavily on Quickload to tell me if I'm screwing up with my short barrels.

[BigK]

BTW... for something that's a little on the cheesey side, the Lee turret press rocks for loading pistol ammo. I would have to shoot a lot more to justify a progressive.

I love my Lee turret press. It does a fine job and is super easy to swap calibers. I don't think it's cheesey at all. However, I shoot a ton of 9mm and could never keep pace with my addiction without my Dillon 650.

I may play with different powders down the road, but will rely heavily on Quickload to tell me if I'm screwing up with my short barrels.

I wish Quickload was available for iPad. I watched some tutorials online and almost bought a laptop just to try it.

[BigK]

Here's the results of my first attempt at loading lead bullets:

I'd love to afford a Ransom rest to conduct better tests, but this is the best I could do resting on an upside down 5-gallon bucket. Think I have any keepers?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I think it's a combination of plenty of case volume and relatively low pressure. I haven't played with anything other than 230 grain bullets so far. Since I have the luxury of using Quickload, I can play with loads using the short barrels on two of my guns. Some of the loads that work well with a 5" barrel will most likely just increase muzzle blast with short barrels. I haven't played with it in Quickload yet. My poweder selection WAS based a lot on percentage of powder burned. That's going to be a function of burn rate and time in the barrel (I think).

I didn't chrony anything, but know that my loads were a little faster than factory because of the difference in recoil. There were no pressure signs on the brass, so I think i have them in the pocket. With my loads, slight differences in OAL made big differences in peak pressure (in Quickload). So, they're all loaded very close to max OAL.

I may play with different powders down the road, but will rely heavily on Quickload to tell me if I'm screwing up with my short barrels.

Thanks for the good ideas, Mike

Quickload sounds fun. Am ignorant though a fast powder would seem sensible in a short barrel, in additon to a bullet heavy enough to "keep a cork in it" long enough for the fast powder to fully combust? Your choice seems sensible for a short barrel but dunno nothin about it.

Perhaps no better than numerology, but was comparing three caliber-bullet weight combos at handloads.com. Maybe no valid conclusions can be made sorting on velocity because few of the loads specify a barrel length and perhaps the reports are too error prone. But if one were to posit that barrel length and measurement error might be spread fairly flat across the different powders, perhaps it could be somewhat meaningful--

http://www.handloads...Velocity=

http://www.handloads...Velocity=

http://www.handloads...Velocity=

Comparing 158gn .357 mag, 124gn 9mm, and 230 gn .45ACP. Slow, medium or fast powder is perhaps too ambiguous but am naming anything much slower than VV N350 "slow" and anything much faster than Green Dot or VV N330 "fast". Perhaps the location of demarcators could be improved, dunno.

There are 63 loads listing velocity for .357 Mag 158 gn. The top 12 or 13 would be the highest-velocity 20 percent. It appears that ALL of the high-vel loads use "slow" powders with the fastest among them blue dot.

There are only 28 loads listing velocity for 9mm 124 gn. That may be too sparse for valid comparison because the top 20 percent would only be 6 loads. I count 3 loads using "slow powder", 2 loads using "medium powder", and 1 load using "fast powder". Expanding the count to the highest-vel 14, the "top half" of the distribution, I get 4 "fast powder", 6 "medium powder" and 4 "slow powder"..

There are 74 loads listing velocity for .45 ACP 230 gn. The top 14 or 15 would be the highest-velocity 20 percent. I count 6 "fast powder", 4 "medium powder", and 5 "slow powder".

So if this exercise in numerology has any remote validity, seems feasible to make a fairly hot .45 ACP with about any speed of pistol powder? OTOH a fast 124 gn 9mm seems to slightly prefer medium to slow powders, and the .357 Mag 158 gn seems to definitely prefer slow powders?

Double-checked 9mm against 147gn bullet, whose high-vel loads also appear to favor medium-speed powders. Being as the 9mm is nearly identical diameter to .357 and pressures are about the same for both rounds, possibly the 9mm is biased toward medium-speed powders because of people's expectations wheras .357 Mag may be biased toward slower powders due to reloader expectations? Or perhaps there is something about the relatively larger case capacity of .357 which tends to favor slower powders?

Did some googling and found references that will need some thought to digest. Apparently some people use the ratio of bullet cross section vs case capacity in order to select a powder speed. Another interesting concept is bullet cross-section vs pressure. If pounds per square inch were held constant between two rounds, but one round has a bigger bullet cross-section then the bigger-cross-section bullet would receive a bigger "push" from the same pressure, because the pressure is applied to more square inches of bullet which accelerates the wider bullet faster. Interesting stuff.

[mikegideon]

Here's the results of my first attempt at loading lead bullets:

I'd love to afford a Ransom rest to conduct better tests, but this is the best I could do resting on an upside down 5-gallon bucket. Think I have any keepers?

I have a pistol rest. I'll bring it if we manage to hook up at the range.

[mikegideon]

Thanks for the good ideas, Mike

Quickload sounds fun. Am ignorant though a fast powder would seem sensible in a short barrel, in additon to a bullet heavy enough to "keep a cork in it" long enough for the fast powder to fully combust? Your choice seems sensible for a short barrel but dunno nothin about it.

Perhaps no better than numerology, but was comparing three caliber-bullet weight combos at handloads.com. Maybe no valid conclusions can be made sorting on velocity because few of the loads specify a barrel length and perhaps the reports are too error prone. But if one were to posit that barrel length and measurement error might be spread fairly flat across the different powders, perhaps it could be somewhat meaningful--

http://www.handloads...Velocity=

http://www.handloads...Velocity=

http://www.handloads...Velocity=

Comparing 158gn .357 mag, 124gn 9mm, and 230 gn .45ACP. Slow, medium or fast powder is perhaps too ambiguous but am naming anything much slower than VV N350 "slow" and anything much faster than Green Dot or VV N330 "fast". Perhaps the location of demarcators could be improved, dunno.

There are 63 loads listing velocity for .357 Mag 158 gn. The top 12 or 13 would be the highest-velocity 20 percent. It appears that ALL of the high-vel loads use "slow" powders with the fastest among them blue dot.

There are only 28 loads listing velocity for 9mm 124 gn. That may be too sparse for valid comparison because the top 20 percent would only be 6 loads. I count 3 loads using "slow powder", 2 loads using "medium powder", and 1 load using "fast powder". Expanding the count to the highest-vel 14, the "top half" of the distribution, I get 4 "fast powder", 6 "medium powder" and 4 "slow powder"..

There are 74 loads listing velocity for .45 ACP 230 gn. The top 14 or 15 would be the highest-velocity 20 percent. I count 6 "fast powder", 4 "medium powder", and 5 "slow powder".

So if this exercise in numerology has any remote validity, seems feasible to make a fairly hot .45 ACP with about any speed of pistol powder? OTOH a fast 124 gn 9mm seems to slightly prefer medium to slow powders, and the .357 Mag 158 gn seems to definitely prefer slow powders?

Double-checked 9mm against 147gn bullet, whose high-vel loads also appear to favor medium-speed powders. Being as the 9mm is nearly identical diameter to .357 and pressures are about the same for both rounds, possibly the 9mm is biased toward medium-speed powders because of people's expectations wheras .357 Mag may be biased toward slower powders due to reloader expectations? Or perhaps there is something about the relatively larger case capacity of .357 which tends to favor slower powders?

Did some googling and found references that will need some thought to digest. Apparently some people use the ratio of bullet cross section vs case capacity in order to select a powder speed. Another interesting concept is bullet cross-section vs pressure. If pounds per square inch were held constant between two rounds, but one round has a bigger bullet cross-section then the bigger-cross-section bullet would receive a bigger "push" from the same pressure, because the pressure is applied to more square inches of bullet which accelerates the wider bullet faster. Interesting stuff.

Handloads.com makes me wanna pull my hair out. Even though Quickload is seldom dead accurate, it does let you vary things and see their effects. I would much rather use real pressure tested data. I need to play with barrel length in .45 and see how much difference it makes.

[Guest Kamikaze]

I load a lot of .45 and 9mm. Unique will work well in both. I have used it in 10mm as well. When going hot with the 10 I got some unreliable pressure spikes. Seemed to be hit or miss. I use titegroup for 9mm and 45 now. It seems to burn cleaner and the powder goes a lot further. I run power pistol in my 10mm and .357sig loads now. It's a lot easier to push hotter loads with. Doesn't seem to spike as bad. With the 10mm I am running 11.5g of power pistol with a 165g bullet and cronographing at 1350-1375fps out of my 3.5" barrel glock 29 with no bad signs on the brass. If I try to get anywhere near those numbers with unique it smiley faces the brass around 1200fps.

[Jonnin]

the first group (A?) and #10 look decent, given your bucket test. How far away was that? 6 and 7 also look good. Is 6 the same number of shots in 3 holes?? If so, it could be the best one! 12 as well if none went off paper and that flyer is human error.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Jonnin

[Jonnin]

Handloads.com makes me wanna pull my hair out. Even though Quickload is seldom dead accurate, it does let you vary things and see their effects. I would much rather use real pressure tested data. I need to play with barrel length in .45 and see how much difference it makes.

Have you checked out ballistics by the inch? They tested .45 from 2 to 20 inches or thereabouts. Could be useful data for you, and they seem to be better than average scientists.

[BigK]

the first group (A?) and #10 look decent, given your bucket test. How far away was that? 6 and 7 also look good. Is 6 the same number of shots in 3 holes?? If so, it could be the best one! 12 as well if none went off paper and that flyer is human error.

I had all the ammo lined up in perfect groups of equal number with tiny paper labels on them. Unfortunately, the box came open in transit and some spilled out, thus the unequal number of rounds per group and the extra groups of mixed swc and rn on the last paper.

I called a couple of those flyers, but didn't mention it. I figured with nothing but an upside-down bucket that's to be expected even at only 5 yards. When I get my hands on a real rest, I'll post some more scientific-like results at 15 yrds or 50'.

Edited May 15, 2012 by BigK

[BigK]

I have a pistol rest. I'll bring it if we manage to hook up at the range.

That'd be awesome, thanks.

[mikegideon]

Have you checked out ballistics by the inch? They tested .45 from 2 to 20 inches or thereabouts. Could be useful data for you, and they seem to be better than average scientists.

Looks like a good resource. Those curves will most likely vary by powder type. I get pretty tweaky with rifle stuff. I usually just shoot them over a chrony. Not sure I'll do that with pistol loads.

[Jonnin]

I had all the ammo lined up in perfect groups of equal number with tiny paper labels on them. Unfortunately, the box came open in transit and some spilled out, thus the unequal number of rounds per group and the extra groups of mixed swc and rn on the last paper.

I called a couple of those flyers, but didn't mention it. I figured with nothing but an upside-down bucket that's to be expected even at only 5 yards. When I get my hands on a real rest, I'll post some more scientific-like results at 15 yrds or 50'.

The farther away you can get, with a controlled test, the more it will be clear which loads were the best. Locked in a rest, at 5 or even 10 yards, almost anything you do will go into the same hole so long as the load is stabalized and the powder charges are within 1/2 a grain or so. I think if you repeated the above test at 5 yards with the rest, you would not be able to tell anything at all.... I would discard these results, unfortunately.

[gregintenn]

If you were concerned about a powder being dirty, what did you think of the cast bullets?

[mikegideon]

No cast boolits for me. I'm getting a pretty decent price on jacketed and plated now.

[mikegideon]

The farther away you can get, with a controlled test, the more it will be clear which loads were the best. Locked in a rest, at 5 or even 10 yards, almost anything you do will go into the same hole so long as the load is stabalized and the powder charges are within 1/2 a grain or so. I think if you repeated the above test at 5 yards with the rest, you would not be able to tell anything at all.... I would discard these results, unfortunately.

I'm not gonna optimize my loads for anything but maximum thump. As long as they're minute of thug, I'm much more concerned with them making it thru the thug in question.

[Jonnin]

still applies ---- just about anything you do that is stable will hit min-o-thug at combat range (under 15 yards). I have limited experience with unstable rounds, but the ones I have inadvertently created all hit min-o-thug as well, just not X ring type accuracy. That said, you might consider intentionally keyholing if you stumble across an unstable load <evil grin>. I would prefer that to expansion, actually (?).

I think you should break out the chrony for your testing, since you have one anyway...

[mikegideon]

still applies ---- just about anything you do that is stable will hit min-o-thug at combat range (under 15 yards). I have limited experience with unstable rounds, but the ones I have inadvertently created all hit min-o-thug as well, just not X ring type accuracy. That said, you might consider intentionally keyholing if you stumble across an unstable load <evil grin>. I would prefer that to expansion, actually (?).

I think you should break out the chrony for your testing, since you have one anyway...

At this point, it's basic basic. 230 grain bullet with 5.4 grains of Bullseye. My powder measure (auto disk pro) is pretty awesome when it comes to consistency. I was seeing .1 grain variation, and that could have just been a threshold thing in the scale. Anything better would be like putting a fine polish job on a framing hammer. I would guess there's more inconsistency in pressure due to small variations in bullet length. Still insignificant with a rock thrower like a .45.

Edited May 15, 2012 by mikegideon

[Caster]

If you were concerned about a powder being dirty, what did you think of the cast bullets?

Tell me, what in the world are you people doing? Cast ≠ dirty. Improperly loaded cast = dirty. I have a certain load of 9x19 that is nasty as all get out. Problem lies in the lube and the manner in which it was applied as it relates to a new barrel that this load was not intended for. On the other hand, I have a load I specifically worked up for this particular barrel [aftermarket Glock] and I can shoot all day with little to no crud, and zero lead.

...oh cråp, I'm lecturing again.....sorry.

[gregintenn]

I don't cast, and the lead bullets I've fired left the gun nasty. I'm sure it was the lube. I don't have a problem with that. I was curious how the OP felt about it. I often read on forums where people are asking for a "clean powder". I've yet to fire anything in a gun that didn't leave some trace of something on/in the gun.

[BigK]

I've only ever tried 2 powders: Bullseye and Win 231. I read threads where people mention how clean a certain powder is. I'm curious to try something new and see if I can tell a difference. If I can't tell a difference, no harm, no foul. If I can see enough difference to warrant the extra cost, why not switch?

I did notice quite a bit of smoke and way more than average clean up after the lead bullets. I had the same issue with the Ruger SP101 I used to have when I was using a proven recipe of Speer 148 gr HBWC over 2.8-3.0 gr of Bullseye.

However, Caster seems like a dyed-in-the-wool lead boolit guy. If he and countless others says it can be done cleanly, it's probably something I'm not doing right. If that learning curve is too steep, I'll just spend the extra $30/1000 and switch back to plated bullets. Shooting them was fun, albeit not very scientific, so if I can get the load right, saving $30 is a huge win for me.

[BigK]

The farther away you can get, with a controlled test, the more it will be clear which loads were the best. Locked in a rest, at 5 or even 10 yards, almost anything you do will go into the same hole so long as the load is stabalized and the powder charges are within 1/2 a grain or so. I think if you repeated the above test at 5 yards with the rest, you would not be able to tell anything at all.... I would discard these results, unfortunately.

Thanks for the candid advice, Jonnin. What you said is pretty much what I expected to hear, honestly. In retrospect, I wish I hadn't wasted the bullets. It's just that I worked so hard getting 'em loaded up so precisely that I couldn't help myself, LOL.

I'm down to about 100 rounds of plated bullets left and I willl NOT buy factory ammo. So I have to do something. I can't bring myself to only order a small qty to retry later with shipping being so expensive. What I may do is settle on 1000 of the 200 gr LSWC and keep researching and asking questions til I get it right or run out of bullets. Not sure what I'll do really. Depends on how cheap/adventurous I feel when I'm ready to place an order.

Edited May 16, 2012 by BigK