cast boolits in 45ACP

[Brick]

This is a very good answer to my questions. Thank you for the info. I will be shooting IDPA and making a PF with my loads, and from what I can guess, 200gr SWC over Bullseye or my powders will be my direction. I will have to test some loads and see how they work. I will not use Unique in 45ACP it'just burns dirty as hell and I don't like it, but I don't think Titegroup is the right powder either, that's why I'll try HP38 and get some Bullseye.

I hope your testing regimen includes a chronograph, and btw be sure you have an adequate light source because low light conditions can cause low readings. For a 200 gr. bullet you have to hit 825 fps with 67% of your test cartridges. Last never expect to equal the published velocities, most certainly you will be somewhat lower.

Titegroup will give you adequate velocity to hit the 165,000 PF for IDPA, so will Accurate #5. HP-38 and W231 (basically the same powder) will not reliably do so. I found that as the W231 ages its' potency drops off. I never tested Bullseye for the purpose of hitting IDPA power factor, but I don't think it will get the velocity needed even at maximum charge weight.

[Guns N'at]

Bullseye can reliably, (and safely) hit and exceed the 165k/825 fps number with 200 grain lead bullets in a 5" 1911. Lot-to-lot variation has to be considered, and you might get a slow lot that makes it a bit more work. When I was at AA ballistics lab, +/- 3% of target speed was the std for their propellant; other makers will be similar or better. This is where WW231/HP38 comes in to positively ensure plenty-o-safe velocity at reasonable charge weights.

WW231/HP38 are the exact same propellant with data used interchangeably, and I think actual experience will show its behavior to fall between Bullseye and Unique, favoring Unique. WW231/HP38 is an absolutely fine propellant for the task at hand to meet criteria, and would probably be my #1 choice. Tons of propellants out there can easily do what is needed, and only time at the bench, chronograph, and target stand will sort it out.

Curious Brick, what WW231 charges are you using with 200 lead bullets, and velocity gotten? Can't say I have ever experienced WW231 slowing with age, and now I'm going to have to break out my 1994 vintage WW231, and run it over the chrono and compare.

[Brick]

OK Guns, I'll try to answer some of your questions.

Many years ago I gave up on Bullseye for my Bullseye competition loads because the stuff was so sooty. I tried and liked W231 and settled on a load of 4.5 grs. for my 200 gr. target load. That was literally all I used and I was only interested in accuracy for NRA competition.

But, after a number of years of not competing because there is virtually no bullseye shooting in this area, the club I belong to started IDPA so I wanted to give it a try.

Just for grins & giggles I chronoed some of my target loads:

July 2005
My Heavyslide (Nowlin Barrel) gave me an avg of 730 fps

My Hardballer (Colt Barrel) gave me an avg. of 743 fps
both guns were 5" bbls.

In August 2006 I did another quick test using only the Hardballer but with a 5.0 gr charge (from the same 4 lb. keg) my avg. came out to 695.5 fps.

Must of my other testing has been to develop IDPA suitable loads for .38 Spec. since I decided to concentrate on competing with revolvers. But I observed the same thing. Loads tested in Aug would be fine, the same charge would be marginal in Sep and fail the requirement in Oct.

Just this past year I started competing in the ESR division with a 4" barreled Model 25-2. So far I tested Acc#2, Titegroup, and Acc#5 (if you search back in this section of the forum you'll find threads I started covering my results). To date only Acc#5 meets the requirement and that with a charge of 8.3 grs. yielding 833 fps avg. (Note the same charge from my Hardballer yields 896 fps)

[Guns N'at]

Hmm, can't say I can explain how a 1/2 grain increase in charge weight, lost significant velocity with all other components the same/same OAL, etc. As I'm sure you know temp can play havoc, and perhaps this somewhat explains the results?

I wonder if the propellant was perhaps in some form of degradation, and that last year really put a whammy on it? These Olin/St Marks propellants seem extremely shelf stable (easily +25 years w/o degradation in good storage). With several year old WW231, H&G 68 clones and my P220, I got: 825 826 801 842 815 fps. Forgot to write the damn temp, so this is FWIW data.

As for AA#5 and 200 gr LSWC's, I dug through my log, and my 5" 1911 recorded an avg of 953 fps w/9 grains, temp was 55. This data was shot in 93, and I still have just a smidge of this same lot. Nice stuff, but to be truthful, Power Pistol is really taking over for a lot of calibers for me.

[*Klutch*]

I just got home from King's and talking with Roger and buying some 200gr SWC, 2x 1lb containers of WST(Roger's recommendation) and some primers and new bore snake. He said he used to use Clay's then he got 150lbs of WST and started using it when he couldn't sell it and has not used anything else in 45ACP for 15 years;that was good enough endorsement for me.He said his standard load for any 45 bullet lead of FMJ is 5.1gr of WST, I got 2 containers of it now so we'll see how it shoots, I also have HP38 and I'll get a good load for that too and compare them both.

[Old Shooter]

The Rogers 200 gr. bullet is based on the H&G #68 a classic bullet except Rogers uses a bevel base. Shot 1000's thru 1911's they love em.

[Brick]

Hmm, can't say I can explain how a 1/2 grain increase in charge weight, lost significant velocity... snipped

I wonder if the propellant was perhaps in some form of degradation... snipped

As for AA#5 and 200 gr LSWC's, I dug through my log, and my 5" 1911 recorded an avg of 953 fps w/9 grains, temp was 55. This data was shot in 93, and I still have just a smidge of this same lot. Nice stuff, but to be truthful, Power Pistol is really taking over for a lot of calibers for me.

I can't speak as to how the powder was degrading only that it was, or at least that was what my testing showed me. Part of the problem might be attributed to buying 4lb or 8lb kegs. Since the stuff sits unused longer. But, the stores in this area don't carry a good selection of powder and I haven't even seen a 1lb can of w231 on a shelf in a couple or three years.

9 grains of Acc#5? Might be a good idea to update your data. Here's what Accurate publishes now:

No.5 200 LC SWC 7.8 902 8.7 1,025 19,400 1.190

See:

http://www.accuratepowder.com/wp-con...d_data_3.4.pdf

[Guns N'at]

9 grains of Acc#5? Might be a good idea to update your data. Here's what Accurate publishes now:

No.5 200 LC SWC 7.8 902 8.7 1,025 19,400 1.190

No need for me to update, that max charge of AA#5 has been the same since I was there 19 years ago, when the ballistics lab in Bucksnort TN was a single wide trailer, and ladies in a metal shed hand packed AA #5 and their other propellants into plastic bottles via a scoop, a pan, and a mechanical scale; dipping from paper master barrels. Kinda surprised this recipe is the same after all these years.

What I can mention here however, is there was +P data published in Guide #2 (probably #1 too as I recall) which has a max charge of 10 grains for a Hornady 200 gr XTP, and my safe load is an extrapolated split with propellant of the period (I noted it was 93, 1993). Here are the technicals from AA guide #2:

No.5 10.0 grains 1081 fps 22,600 psi

Not in this case specifically, but many times the propellant maker will have max published data below that of other valid labs; some have starts higher/nearly higher than some max, and vice versa, with propellant lot variance being a big reason amongst others as I mentioned in another recent thread. It is always good to be cautious, review many sources of valid data, and fully understand the process of making and developing safe ammo.

I'm sure your post is in the spirit of this, but it is a reminder of why I am so cautious about posting my results even with disclaimers/use at your own risk warnings, and exactly why I removed my data yesterday... I guess after it happening so many times, I developed a 6th sense. Regardless, I am enjoying my new membership here at PAFOA, hope to be able to contribute usefully, and learn a lot from others.

[Brick]

I know most of the reloading manuals will not push the data right up to the pressure limit. And to a point it makes sense since they cannot account for all the other variables possible.

What makes things tough for us (afaic) is we don't have a convienent way of testing our loads for pressure. As close as we can get is velocity and when our test velocities run almost 20% below the published data it would be very easy to get into trouble by chasing the published velocity.

[Guns N'at]

I know most of the reloading manuals will not push the data right up to the pressure limit. And to a point it makes sense since they cannot account for all the other variables possible.

Agreed, and it is really amazing to the variability of what one company finds 'max' from another. One glaring example I like to use as an example, is Hercules and Alliant Unique data for 9mm, spanning the time shown. All loads use 125 jacketed bullets, and pressure is actual psi, not C.U.P.'s or an extrapolation:

1995 manual: 6.2 grains 1170 fps 31,300 psi
1996 manual: Same
2007 manual: 4.9 grains 1077 fps 31,745 psi

1.3 grains less of Unique in today's world has higher pressure??? This is a very substantial charge weight difference that lot-to-lot variation can not come close to explaining, and Alliant steadfastly proclaims that Unique used then (always) to today is exactly the same with regard to burn rate and energy content. Ironic, but the velocity they report very nearly mirrors my own from testing... A big HMMM for this one.

What makes things tough for us (afaic) is we don't have a convienent way of testing our loads for pressure. As close as we can get is velocity and when our test velocities run almost 20% below the published data it would be very easy to get into trouble by chasing the published velocity.

In my experience, older WW data was joke with regard to velocity, and domestic tested Hodgdon data is very generous with regard to velocity. Hodgdon data gotten from their Australian propellant supplier (Mulwex/ADI/Thales) is better. Speer #10 correlates well with me, as does the newer Alliant and Speer data. It would be neat to be able to purchase an inexpensive, accurate pressure tester that is not of the external strain gauge Oehler type.

Happy reloading and shooting!