200gr SWC .45acp COL

dahermit---first in for the win with the plunk test.

I used to shoot a lot of .45 ACP 200 grain semi-wadcutter target loads and the plunk test served me well...never used a caliper.

But I loaded before the internet age. I read 'ABC's of Reloading' and one reloading manual, and talked to a few folk in the pistol league. I found a process that worked and my reloading education stopped right there. I never thought to expand my knowledge.

Unclenick---not only gives great information but he explains WHY the information is great and gives you a ton of extra information for you to think about. Plus he can write clearly and often posts illustrations to show what he is talking about.

44 AMP---thanks for keeping the terminology straight and giving good explanations. FYI I almost always used Hornady swaged 200 grain SWC with just enough Bullseye powder to cycle the action of my 1911 style pistol. That's what most of the folk in my pistol league used so that's what I used too.

This site has really opened my eyes to a LOT of reloading stuff I never thought of before.
 
Rodfac - absolutely. That's why big game hunters use hard-cast or solids - not "jacketed" bullets. Jacketed bullets are simply soft lead wrapped in a jacket. They can have some exposed lead [soft point] some exposed lead can have hole [JHP] or some with complete jackets [FMJ]. While there are degrees of thickness and harness of the jacket, they are not "solids" like some of the Barnes bullets.

Pick up some recovered bullets from a range. Most of the hard cast bullets are still in tact. Some look like you could load them again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2aQpVKiCN8
 
Northof50,

Lead, hard cast or otherwise, is not harder than copper jacketed bullets. You are confusing hardness with the ability of a particular bullet to hold together on target. The copper jacket which makes contact with the bore is much harder than lead, that is why there is separate load data for lead and copper jacketed bullets.

Don
 
That's why big game hunters use hard-cast or solids - not "jacketed" bullets. Jacketed bullets are simply soft lead wrapped in a jacket. They can have some exposed lead [soft point] some exposed lead can have hole [JHP] or some with complete jackets [FMJ]. While there are degrees of thickness and harness of the jacket, they are not "solids" like some of the Barnes bullets.
Click to expand...

Big game hunters (including Africa's Big 5) absolutely use "jacketed bullets" and have, since they first came on the market over a century ago.

The problem is your definition of "jacketed bullets" vs. "solids" isn't quite the same as traditional use. Yes, some jacketed bullets are nothing more than "soft lead wrapped in a jacket". Others are more complex. Ivory Hunters and those taking Cape Buffalo used "solids" that were lead core bullets. The "solid" name came from the fact that they were "solid" jackets, (aka FMJ) with no exposed lead at the tip, and were not designed to be expanding bullets.

The 500gr FMJ .458 Win Mag load is a "solid", the 510gr SP is not, it's intended to expand, and is often referred to as the "lion load", BECAUSE it is intended to expand, and while one wants a solid for elephant and buffalo, one wants an expanding bullet for lion.

I think it was A-Square, a few decades ago, who came up the term "monolithic solid" to describe their "solid" bullet made entirely of copper alloy. It is entirely correct to refer to the solid copper, bronze etc., bullet made these days as "solids", but it also correct to refer to traditional cup and core bullets, not designed for expansion as "solids" as well.
 
Respectfully Don, I would disagree. Though copper [itself] is harder than the casting material of the typical hard cast bullet, the jacketed bullet is not all copper. The copper is simply a thin shell, supported primarily by the soft lead inside. If you are comparing solid copper bullets to hard cast, I would concur.

Yes, there are loading differences for lead, hard cast, and jacketed bullets, just as there are different loading instructions for solid copper bullets. The differences have to do with bearing surface, friction of the exterior material, as well as it's ability to compress.

But, that's simply been my experience picking up fired rounds from ranges.
 
unclenick,
I put in a little time, and found the sweet spot for COL in my SW1911s.
I backed out the seating die til I got 1.275", and turned it in 1/6th turn at a time until the case heads were absolutely flush with the barrel hood.
(I used the corners of the die hex against a mark on the press to ensure similar adjustments. Hence 1/6th)
I wound up with a COL of 1.268" instead of the previous 1.255". I know .013" isn't much, but it should make for more consistent, if not more accurate shooting.
The finished rounds feed in/out of the magazines, and hand-cycle through the pistols great.
Now I will load the same three batches as before,(3.8, 4.0, 4.2gr Clays) and see how they shoot. It should be better.
Thanks for the help!
 
Last edited:
44amp

For the record, the 500gr FMJ .458 Win Mag load is a generic term to describe a cartridge of a specific caliber with a specific bullet weight. It is not a solid. The bullet may be a solid or may be jacketed. Hornady puts out both a monolithic and bonded version of the 500gr for dangerous game.

The intent of my original post is correct. Hard cast bullets are harder than most jacketed bullets. Are there some exception? Yes. But, the OP is about the 45acp. This thread has veered into the abyss :-)
 
Northof50,
You got that right! This thread took a hard left turn several posts back.
Thankfully, I was able to accomplish what I needed.
Now I just have to decide on the best powder drop again, and I'll be all set.
Thanks again, guys!
 
Yes, there are loading differences for lead, hard cast, and jacketed bullets...
Click to expand...

Northof50,

You are woefully misinformed. There is no separate loading data for lead and hard cast. How would that be done, since there is no defined definition for what is hard cast and what is not? When I cast bullets with a BHN of 10, 11, 12, and 13, at what point does the term "hard cast" kick in? Sorry, but I have cast bullets for nearly 40 years, and I put the term "hard cast" in the same category as the term "tactical". Nothing but a sales term to hopefully increase sales with no science behind it.

Don
 
USSR - respectfully, this thread is full of people taking single lines out of context and running with them to prove their point.

Yes - you can find information on jacketed bullets - check any loading manual
Yes - you can find information on swaged lead bullets [i.e. 38cal wadcutters]
Yes - you can find information on hard cast bullets [i.e. 454 Casull chambering]

No, your years of experience in casting bullets is not germane to the thread.

I mean absolutely no disrespect by this reply. It is simply that, as stated, the thread is simply being beaten to death by trivial off-topic information. Welcome to forum life.
 
Tomorrow is Test Day

Hi, Guys!
Since 1.268" is the absolute maximum COL for my 1911s as determined by unclenick's drawings, I chose to reduce the COL by just a couple thousandths to compensate for variations in COL.
I went to 1.266", and measured every one of the test rounds I loaded.
They vary from 1.2655" to 1.2665'. That should keep me at least one or two thousandths below maximum, and promote reliable function without sacrificing accuracy/consistency.
I will post results tomorrow(Monday)afternoon.
Shalom!
 
Great Range Trip!!

The test batches I made ran 100% in my 1911s!
There were no failures in either gun.
Both function and accuracy were great. The guns cycled fully, and locked-up properly, too!
Both shot to just over the front sight with 3.8 or 4.0gr of Clays.
Listed minimum is 3.6gr, and function was so good at 3.8 that I am going to load a few at 3.6, 3.4, 3.2 and 3.0 grains to see how/if it will run on lower charges. I'm thinking of going lower til it malfunctions, and then going up .2 or .3 grains, and calling that my pet 200gr Clays load.
My revolver shot nicely also, so after I choose a final powder charge I will have a good-to-go Clays Target Load.
 
Good deal! Not unexpected, through. I've been preaching this loading method for years and never heard any feedback other than improvement. Continued good luck and happy experimenting.


Northof50,

Jacketed bullets are actually hard enough to require around two to three times the pressure to engrave with the rifling that cast bullets do. This may be counter-intuitive, but once the gilding metal (actually a form of brass, called low brass or red brass because of its low zinc content of only about 5% as compared to yellow brasses with 20-40%) is drawn, it's hardness is around BHN 70, compared to hard cast bullets of usually around 12-21, and its shear modulus is over 6300 kpsi, compared to 700-1500 kpsi. So engraving it with the rifling takes about six times more effort than engraving lead to the same depth. That the jacket is thin is why the effort isn't six times higher until you get to a gilding metal solid, but it is around 2 to 3 times higher with most jackets.

You do find more intact hard cast bullets at the range, but when a bullet is stopped suddenly, you get a lot of force applied, and that can exceed the yield of a jacket, rupturing it. However, there is also the statistical fact that more jacketed bullets are fired having hollow points and at higher velocities than many hard cast bullets, so that biases the examples we see.

I've seen an intact 500-grain FMJ (Hornady) pulled from a cape buffalo that had hit its skull and bent the bullet at a right angle. That's the soft core allowing the bend. This was fired from a 460 G&A and at just tens of yards. The jacket was intact, however, despite the immense forces at work.
 
Thanks unclenick! I will let you know the results, and try to include some target photos.

Jim,
Yes. These are coated cast lead H&G #68 SWCs. They function and shoot great at this col, and there is absolutely no leading.
 
Jim and USSR,
If you read unclenick's posts about head spacing on the bullet in 1911s, and my post about how I arrived at this COL, you will see why this works in MY pistols.
This length may not work in YOUR pistols, but this method of determining the optimum COL will work for you, too! ENJOY!

PS-- 1.266" - 1.250" = 0.011".
That isn't very much, but can be the difference between head spacing on the case mouth, or on the bullet shoulder.
 
Last edited:
Unclenick, with respect, the Brinell hardness of brass [or any other exterior jacket] is almost irrelevant without stating the thickness of the jacket. Standard aluminum foil can have a brinell hardness between 30-90, yet it folds effortlessly.

Once again, the topic at hand is the .45ACP round. My statement was that [generally speaking] hard cast bullets [those purchased, boxed, as "hard cast"] are harder than jacketed bullets [those jacketed bullets within the context of the discussion].

Yes, can you get a jacketed bullet with an extremely thick jacket or even solid? Yes. Will these be harder than cast? Perhaps. But, this is not indicative of 95%+ of the jacketed bullets available-nor are they indicative of most jacketed bullets.

With a typical jacketed bullet, "engraving" is not taking place as much as "molding" is. A typical jacketed bullet is either .001 or .0005 larger than the bore. The bullet is not "engraved" to the correct size - it is "molded" [compressed and folded] more appropriately.
 
Jim and USSR,
If you read unclenick's posts about head spacing on the bullet in 1911s, and my post about how I arrived at this COL, you will see why this works in MY pistols.
This length may not work in YOUR pistols, but this method of determining the optimum COL will work for you, too! ENJOY!

PS-- 1.266" - 1.250" = 0.011".
That isn't very much, but can be the difference between head spacing on the case mouth, or on the bullet shoulder.
Click to expand...

uncle.45,

The proper OAL for a H&G #68 bullet was determined eons ago by the very best Bullseye shooters of this country, and it involves having the shoulder of the bullet protruding 1/16" above the case mouth. In my case, that translates to a 1.250" OAL. Thanks.

Don
 
Uncle,
I learned to headspace Lyman 452460 on the shoulder about 40 years ago. When I lost my source of those, I went to #68 types seated the same way. I have no idea what the OAL was. Accuracy was excellent.

I now seat #68 types shorter because I have more than one .45 and am more concerned with feeding than optimum headspace control. I took my present adjustments off of Black Hills commercial reload semiwadcutters. They have to work in any customer's gun so they have a shorter OAL and more crimp than is usually recommended on the Internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top