Leo, I think the jacketed hollow point bullets are more stable in flight and result in the increased accuracy. I don't really think that 15 grains makes that much difference in recoil to be considered a major factor in recoil. Probably the friction of the copper jacket vs. lead alloy would be more of a factor than the weight, but I don't have empirical data to back up that opinion. I do think that 230 grains vs. 185 grains in a jacketed bullet is noticeable. I've never shot the teflon coated bullets. How do you like them? Do they seem accurate? Do you load them the same as say cast lead bullets? I've shot a few of the old S&W nylon hollow point swc jacketed bullets HP in .38 SPL. They were supposed to allow the firing of a very soft bullet without lead fowling and allow the bullet to expand at lower velocities than JHP bullets, which seemed (back in the day) to required a minimum velocity of 1,000 fps to semi-reliably expand. Bullet designs are so much better nowadays.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Looking to Start Loading .45 ACP
- Thread starter Doublehelix
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
The 200 teflon bullets are soft swaged with no traditional lube groove. They are also slightly hollow based. This lets them expand all the way out to ride the rifling. The slippery teflon makes the velocity very consistent. I use a cast bullet load of WW231 or Clays powder with large primer brass. I'll bet bullseye is fast enough to do well also. The manufacturer does not recommend Titegroup as the higher flame temperature punctures the teflon shell. They also recommend a minimal taper crimp for the same reason.
I had never thought about jhp bullets for bullseye loads. With the hollow center I'll bet the bearing area is about the same as a 200. I had tried some cast 155gr loads in the .45. They had almost no bearing area, and hard alloy or soft, I could not make them group well, so I just stuck with the 200's.
http://precisionbullets.com/
I had never thought about jhp bullets for bullseye loads. With the hollow center I'll bet the bearing area is about the same as a 200. I had tried some cast 155gr loads in the .45. They had almost no bearing area, and hard alloy or soft, I could not make them group well, so I just stuck with the 200's.
http://precisionbullets.com/
Last edited:
Back in the 90's the Marine Corps bullseye pistol team started using their own loads. They used the Nosler 185 gr. JHP and VV 310. It became very popular as Brian Zins (12 times National Champion) was using the load and winning while on the Marine Corps Shooting Team. The load was actually developed by a former Marine bullseye shooter (Al Doorman) and his buddy (Dave Salyer). After they had worked it up they gave the recipe to the Marine Corps.
I might add, only if you have a good and cheap supply of bullet material. That is harder to come by since lead wheel weights have been contaminated with zinc.
Completely agree with you. Lead is getting a little more difficult to get. I have several 5 gallon buckets of wheel weights. I have to sort for zinc, but i only paid .20 cents a pound. I can still buy all i want for $1 a pound, thats still pretty good. Alot of good options for bullets. In my opinion, this is just one more...
I have a DW Pointman 7 I use for bowling pins and lately reload with CFE pistol and 230 gr Berry's or Delta plated bullets. I used to load with AA #5 but during the big shortage a couple years ago I was forced to switch to Titegroup as it was the only powder I could find. It was OK, but not my favorite. CFE appeared on the scene and I have had very good luck with it. I bought some AA #5 recently and will probably switch back as I use up the currently open cans of CFE and Titegroup. For pins I have no complaints on the CFE but definitely prefer AA #5. These loads are not for highly accurate paper hole punching, but are combat accurate, 'pin-stopping' loads. As some have said, lead bullets may be better for other specific shooting.
I just loaded up a ladder test series using HP-38 with RMR 230 Gr. FMJ RN bullets. The Hodgden web site shows a range of 4.2 - 5.3 gr. of HP-38.
These bullets seem to plunk well at 1.250-1.260. I am starting at 1.250, but might try some COAL variations once I narrow down the powder load.
I hope to be testing these today or tomorrow, and then I want to try some Titegroup next, and then I have to buy some Bullseye (although I have been hearing that it is dirty) and some AA#5 to try out as well.
These bullets seem to plunk well at 1.250-1.260. I am starting at 1.250, but might try some COAL variations once I narrow down the powder load.
I hope to be testing these today or tomorrow, and then I want to try some Titegroup next, and then I have to buy some Bullseye (although I have been hearing that it is dirty) and some AA#5 to try out as well.
HP-38 and Winchester 231 are the same gun powder. It is a good powder. If you mean that Bullseye leaves soot, then yes it is dirty. That soot is easy to clean though. It doesn't harden. I would bet that there have been more rounds loaded with Bullseye over the years than any other pistol gunpowder. I never considered cleanliness a factor in gun powders, but some nowadays seem to think that it is important.
We all have our own priorities.
Yes, I remember when powders were judged on two things: accuracy and velocity.
I shot 5.0gn of Unique and my own cast 200gn L-SWC in Bullseye and PPC and 6.0gn of Unique and the same 200gn L-SWC in IPSC matches and cleaned my gun once a year, if I thought about it. Dirty? It's soot. Now, with all the "stuff" they put in gun powder, I can imagine some residue causing problems, but it isn't the SOOT that is a problem. That gun is still my most accurate 1911, and it has a LOT of rounds through it. I was very glad back then to have one of the first Hornady progressive presses.
Yes, I remember when powders were judged on two things: accuracy and velocity.
I shot 5.0gn of Unique and my own cast 200gn L-SWC in Bullseye and PPC and 6.0gn of Unique and the same 200gn L-SWC in IPSC matches and cleaned my gun once a year, if I thought about it. Dirty? It's soot. Now, with all the "stuff" they put in gun powder, I can imagine some residue causing problems, but it isn't the SOOT that is a problem. That gun is still my most accurate 1911, and it has a LOT of rounds through it. I was very glad back then to have one of the first Hornady progressive presses.
To be clear, I didn't say I wouldn't try Bullseye, in fact, just the opposite. If it proves to be a superior powder in my gun, I will not hesitate to use it on a permanent basis. I was just mentioning that I had heard it was dirty, and if all else is equal, I will opt for the cleaner powder.
The ultimate criteria in my decision as @noylj mentions is accuracy and velocity.
And yes, I was aware the HP-38 and W231 are the same, I have some of both actually.
The ultimate criteria in my decision as @noylj mentions is accuracy and velocity.
And yes, I was aware the HP-38 and W231 are the same, I have some of both actually.
LOL! I'll leave some on the shelf for you too!
In that case load a 200 grain H&G#68 lead semiwadcutter with 4.8 gr of Bullseye with an COAL of 1.25". You can thank me later. This is the "Wilson Load" that was used to test my gun. I tried several other powders, charge weights, etc and this was the load that proved most consistent across the chronograph. It makes right at 175 power factor and will cycle a gun with 17 lb recoil spring and 25 lb main spring. You can bump it up to 4.9 grains and it will get you to 180 PF in a 5" gun if that is how you want to roll.
Last edited:
That's awesome, thank you. I actually have 500 of those bullets (coated though...), and once Kimball (Bobcat) gets back from their vacation, I am going to pick up a pound or two of Bullseye. I will try that load.
I shot my ladder test today, and had some interesting results. These were made with mixed brass (LPP), 230 gr. FMJ RN (RMR), CCI 300 primers and HP-38 powder at 1.250" all through my DW Silverback. These were all shot at 30 feet indoors from a bench rest.
8-Shot Groups:
4.2 = Good
4.5 = Good
4.7 = GREAT!
4.8 = Fair
4.9 = HORRIBLE
5.0 = MORE HORRIBLE
5.1 = Bad
5.2 = Good
5.3 = GREAT!
There is this weird little group centered around 4.9 gr. that just shot horribly. The groups opened up and moved off the bulls eye. The interesting thing was that the lower charges were pretty decent, which I did not expect. The 4.2 and 4.5 were actually pretty decent groups, and the 4.7 was almost as good as the 5.3gr.
I know that 8-shots at 30-feet are not the end-all, be-all finalized testing criteria, but I use this initial data to hone in on an area to focus on for a second round of testing (more rounds, longer range target). I did not see this weird shift in the middle of the range when I was working up my 9mm loads (I have several loads that I worked up for different bullets/powders).
Is this normal behavior, or does it look like user error? I even took a break between tests to allow the barrel to cool, and in fact, after the 4.8 and 4.9 strings, I actually put the gun down for a while (10 minutes or more) to make sure it was back to room temp.
8-Shot Groups:
4.2 = Good
4.5 = Good
4.7 = GREAT!
4.8 = Fair
4.9 = HORRIBLE
5.0 = MORE HORRIBLE
5.1 = Bad
5.2 = Good
5.3 = GREAT!
There is this weird little group centered around 4.9 gr. that just shot horribly. The groups opened up and moved off the bulls eye. The interesting thing was that the lower charges were pretty decent, which I did not expect. The 4.2 and 4.5 were actually pretty decent groups, and the 4.7 was almost as good as the 5.3gr.
I know that 8-shots at 30-feet are not the end-all, be-all finalized testing criteria, but I use this initial data to hone in on an area to focus on for a second round of testing (more rounds, longer range target). I did not see this weird shift in the middle of the range when I was working up my 9mm loads (I have several loads that I worked up for different bullets/powders).
Is this normal behavior, or does it look like user error? I even took a break between tests to allow the barrel to cool, and in fact, after the 4.8 and 4.9 strings, I actually put the gun down for a while (10 minutes or more) to make sure it was back to room temp.
I found over the years that your tests are typical even with different powders when loading for the .45 ACP. Most of my testing of .45 ACP loads in the past was for bullseye pistol shooting and I tested at 50 yards with a Ransom machine rest. Bullseye pistol shooters will tell you that talcum powder and bubble gum will group at 25 yds. The real test is at 50 yds. Bullseye pistol shooters who reload (nearly all of them, except military teams) look for 2", ten shot groups at 50 yards. That being said, I understand that most folks don't want or need to test at that distance or to that standard of accuracy. Good pistols and ammo will group very well at longer distances. Your pistol may be able to get close to the 2"-3" groups at 50 yds. Many folks say that mixed brass will group as good as brass from the same manufacturer. One huge factor regarding accuracy with the .45 ACP is choosing the right bullet.
AmmoManAaron
Master
I don't think it was user error. The trend looks logical to me. I've had similar things happen with some powders and essentially not at all with others. This looks like one of those times when you won't be able to identify exactly what was happening other than knowing it was somehow related to the powder charge...you readily observed the consequences during your shooting, documented a trend, and identified how it related to one factor in your loads - good job!
If this was a rifle, I would say it was related to barrel harmonics/barrel whip which was producing accuracy and inaccuracy nodes...perhaps it happens in pistols too? Your Dan Wesson is a nice enough piece it might have enough of the other accuracy factors controlled for such that the nodes are the dominant factor in accuracy/inaccuracy - at least with this load. Any 50-yard bullseye shooters out there know anything about this?
I've used Bullseye since the dinosaurs roamed the earth, but I'm really starting to like American Select for both pistol and shotgun. My Dillon powder measure really throws consistent charges with American Select. It is clean burning, if that's a concern.
