200gr SWC .45acp COL

uncle.45

New member
I really enjoy and appreciate this forum and it's members.
I look forward to the day when I can give someone some helpful input.

But in the meantime, I just need to ask an easy question for comparison.

Those of you who use 200gr SWCs in .45acp semi-autos---
To what COL are you seating?

I see that Hodgdon's data is based on a COL of 1.225".
Mine feed in the magazines and pistols at 1.255".
Isn't it better to load as close to the lands as possible without sacrificing feeding?

THANK YOU!
 
Last edited:
I seat my H&G #68 type SWC's to an OAL of 1.250". While it will vary from one bullet to the next, common knowledge says to seat them to a depth where 1/16" of the bullet shoulder shows above the case mouth.

Don
 
I have never used published data to determine the overall length of my .45 ACP cartridges. I determine the O.A.L. by using the "plunk test"...that way I am assured of proper functioning.
 
45 acp col 200gr swc

This works for me. COL is 1.263" LYMAN 200 gr bevel base.
Case head to shoulder is .947"
 
Last edited:
Uncle.45 - the primary issue with using COL from somewhere other than the bullet manufacturer is that the number you are reading is not specific enough to measure in thousandths. I like and have used the 200SWC from many manufacturers. About the only thing consistent is the weight and "overall" shape. But, the weight is determined by the material of the bullet, not the shape. So, if your material is less dense, your bullet will be larger. It also depends on the shape of the conical which forms the point. I've seen them longer/thinner as well as shorter/squattier [mind you these are not huge difference]

As has been mentioned, load a round and 1) see if it will fit in your magazine, 2) drop one down the chamber of your barrel and see if the case headspace on the case mouth properly.

Theoretically, the closer the bullet comes to the lands of the barrel, the more accurate, as there is less free-flight of the bullet before hitting the lands. But, for semi autos, there tends to be more emphasis put on feeding and function than MOA accuracy.
 
I go for somewhere in-between 1.24 and 1.25. If my Lee seating stem starts to back out and the rounds get close to 1.26 I have some magazines that will start to cause problems.
 
There are too many variations in nose form for one answer to fit them all. I seat mine to headspace on the bullet, as that reduces leading and reduces group size by about a third for me. The only problem is that in some guns with some longer SWC shapes, there can be a feed problem. In that instance, it is necessary to seat shorter until feeding is reliable. But that's unusual.

Headspacing on the bullet in the 1911 is determined as in the third image from the left, below.

attachment.php
 
Uncklenick, I think your terminology is incorrect. The .45ACP headspaces on the case mouth, not the bullet... or are you actually saying the bullet jamming into the rifling is the actual headspace dimension?
 
Yes. That's what happens. The bullet jams the lands before the case mouth reaches the step at the end of the case space in the chamber. Headspacing a cartridge is a somewhat technically loose but common piece of jargon referring to whatever surface stops the cartridge going further forward into the chamber, regardless of whether it's the chamber headspace determinate or not. Even though the .45 Auto chamber headspace is from the breech to the step at the end of the case-holding portion of the chamber, a good many production 1911's in the past have been loose enough that their cartridges actually stop against the extractor hook before they reach that step. These are said to be headspacing on the extractor.

Extractor headspacing doesn't seem to bother jacketed bullets much, but lead bullets are scraped and swaged a little of out shape on the right side by it, unbalancing them and opening groups up. Since lead is soft, there's no particular pressure problem caused by doing what the image shows, so it's a good way to make start pressure more consistent as well as to avoid deforming the bullet.
 
Just note - If your bullet is headspacing on the bullet, not the case, you've crimped too much, or your bore is oversized/dies are undersized. Chamber pressures/velocities will be different than those listed in manuals. I know of no manuals that test loads seating bullets on the lands. Keep an eye out for pressure signs if loading near max.
 
45acp

The plunk test will tell you a lot about how your reloads are being supported in the chamber.

A simple method to check is to load up a few reloaded rounds and place them in a magazine to see if they fit and also to see if they feed without issue in the breech.
 
Northof50,

When my bullets headspace on the bullet, it's because I seated them out far enough to do that, as the illustration shows. No relation to my crimping technique (light taper crimp). Lead bullets are too soft to cause a pressure problem in this regard. Indeed, one of the reasons the technique reduces group size is that lubricated lead bullets in this cartridge, due to the small powder space, are frequently unseated by their primers before the powder burn gets fully underway, and this means some bullets are in the lands as pressure builds, anyway, and some are only part way to the lands when the powder really gets burning. This variation in starting powder space causes ignition and velocity irregularity. Headspacing on the bullet intentionally clears it right up.

My first experiment with this was back around 1983 or '84. Using a fit up Goldcup, I was working on a gallery load using 185 grain swaged Star SWC's that someone in our bull's eye pistol league had made a bulk purchase of. Swaged bullets, being extra soft, are particularly prone to being swaged into a bore slightly off-axis. Running about 3.8 grains of Bullseye under these lit with a Federal 150 primer, at 25 yards they grouped around 2.5" off sandbags. After I started seating them out to headspace on the bullet's contact with the throat, the groups dropped to about 1.5". The same gun would shoot 200 grain hard cast SWC's into just under 1" when loaded this way and fired off bags.

The other bonus was the leading reduction. I've had my school gun (S.A. A1, fit up with a Clark barrel) shoot 3000 rounds of cast 200 grain SWC's with about 4.8 grains of Bullseye over 4 days with no cleaning and no sign of more than a few streaks of lead immediately adjacent to the lands over the first half inch of the bore ever building up. The only thing that stopped it was caking up of the powder fouling and graphite that Bullseye sprays around.

I worked this out on my own, but reading various authors over time, of course I found that others had been there before me. A number of the old bullseye shooters did this without pressure problems. (They also did things like applying heavy roll crimps below the bullet shoulder to help make this happen, but I value my brass too much to do that.)



Ammo.crafter,

The plunk of lead on a throat is slightly muted as compared to a brass case hitting the end of the chamber, but in the instance of my photo, it's on purpose. All rounds drop in freely of course. The plunk test's one shortcoming is its failure to tell you whether or not a cartridge will end up headspacing on the extractor hook. You have to look at the level of the head below the plunk to ascertain that. Since .45 Auto brass typically shortens about half a thousandth every load cycle, there will come a point where that is happening, even if it doesn't happen initially. This is another advantage of headspacing on the bullet; the length of the case isn't an issue.
 
Unclenick - cool - We may be on different pages. I was referring to cast bullets. I cannot remember the last time I use lead. FYI - I still have my '85 Gold Cup - probably my favorite pistol. Never thought about seating bullets out far enough to touch the lands. Never had an issue and the GC, with 200 cast SWC is extremely accurate [even 30+ years later].

Thanks.
 
I count cast bullets as lead, because they are still far softer than copper jackets and the lube will still let a primer unseat them. The first pistol rest group below was from 1985 from my Goldcup right after I'd fit the barrel up, and a year later for the cast bullet group. Both off bags. The cast bullets tighten up a bit further if I use a bullet spinner to sort them. The masking tape on the first target covers a .22 hole. To save money, we used to shoot targets with a .22 first, then move to the .45's.

attachment.php
 
Thank you, everyone!

That's pretty much the intel I needed.
unclenick, my ammo headspace exactly as shown in the third image on your graphic even though they are headspacing on the case mouth. Could I make some dummies longer until either they won't go in the magazines, or the case head is past the barrel hood?
 
Very cool Unclenick. No question, the 200gr is a winner in a Gold Cup. There was a time, when I used to weigh bullets, cases, etc [not all - just those for serious accuracy work]. Years ago, I made a pistol stand which supported the barrel, butt and had a spring loaded side support. I believe I saw it first in ShootingTimes magazine. it worked great. But, over the years, my shooting has changed. It's more "tactical" unfortunately. Still fun. But, I used to love going out with a packed lunch, chronograph, sorted and loaded cartridges of various recipes... I think it was all the component shortages that helped end it as well.

Thanks for all the info.
 
I was referring to cast bullets. I cannot remember the last time I use lead.

What are your cast bullets cast out of, if not lead / lead alloy???

Swaged, cast, or hard cast, they're all lead, and different from jacketed bullets.

Swaged (soft) and cast (soft or hard) are different from each other, but are all still lead or lead alloys.
 
VOILA!

Without the recoil buffer my 1911s ran 100%, and shot to just over the front sight with a load of 3.8gr Clays and a COL of 1.255".
I am going to leave the COL as is. Going shorter to Hodgdon's published data wouldn't improve accuracy, and going longer probably wouldn't work in the magazines.
I think this load is good-to-go in these pistols.
My 625 revolver shoots well with this load, too. It hits a little higher, but with a 4.0gr load it hits right on top of the front sight.
I will start loading separately for semi-autos and revolvers. Then they will print the same.
All is well! Thank you everyone!
 
Northof50
referring to hard cast. Which are harder than most jacketed bullets
Are you saying that hard cast lead alloy is harder than jacketed bullets? I doubt that. Do you have any data or a reference for that? Rod
 
Back
Top