45 auto bullet weight

What bullet weight do you prefer for 45 Auto?

  • 230g

    Votes: 62 66.7%

  • 200g

    Votes: 22 23.7%

  • 185g

    Votes: 8 8.6%

  • Other (please comment below)

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Total voters
    93
  • Poll closed .
Shane Tuttle said:
230 for me. Been so happy finding a simple load recipe for that bullet that I haven't experimented with 200 or 185. I should, though.

Surprised you're going to .45ACP. I thought you were strictly a 9mm guy.
Click to expand...
Yes, 9mm is my go to for defensive use 100%. I feel it is an effective cartridge and its relatively high capacity and low recoil allow you to get accurate shots on target rapidly. But i wouldn't say strictly 9mm, just the most efficient imho. 357 mag is probably my favorite handgun cartridge. And i love 1911s in 45, hoping to get one again next year.

I would say I'm adding 45, not going to 45.

Co-worker made me a deal i couldn't refuse on a G30. Got the gun, 3x 13rnd mags, 100rnds of ball, and 13rnds of Win pdx1 for $300.
 
Last edited:
I've shot more 200s than all other weights combined, but for carry or nightstand duty, I prefer 230s for full-sized guns, and 185s for compacts.
I don't buy into the need for lighter bullets in short guns, higher velocities often considered better for terminal ballistics, but the lighter weight of a stack of 185s is easier for fast-cycling guns to run reliably.
 
My favorite bullet is the Lyman #452460 200 gr. SWC , it has proved most accurate
Click to expand...
My experience as well as 200 gr LSWC's offer less recoil and are measurably more accurate than the 230 gr FMJ. I'd estimate that 90% or more of my reloads use one or the other of two LSWC's.

The Lyman 200 gr., LSWC, mold # 452460, was designed to replicate the 230 gr FMJ hard ball's feeding characteristics. Hensley & Gibbs made one as well, (# 68), which in my guns has always been a bit better feeding and also allows better accuracy. It's sports a nose section that's just a bit longer than Lyman's version. While I do cast and use both, the H&G #68 works better for me.

Casting either is about as easy as it gets...I use straight wheel weight alloy, adding only a pinch of tin when necessary to facilitate mold fill out, & size to 0.452" for all of my guns, and use 50-50 (alox to beeswax) lube.

On the rare occasions when I've bought commercial 200 gr LSWC's, I've had great success with Missouri Bullet Co.'s version, but re-lube with either Lee Liquid Alox thinned 30% with paint thinner. This prevents leading which the hard lube used by all commercial casters, is ineffective in preventing.

Loading the above for accuracy and 100% feeding is no real mystery. My practice, is to seat the bullet's top driving band almost but not quite even with the case mouth, leaving just a bit of lead exposed...(about the width of a thumbnail thickness, say 1/32"). This helps feeding as it does not allow the brass case mouth to hang up on the barrel hood/chamber mouth etc. Any more than the 1/32" of lead band however may result in a misfeed. A simple plunk test with the round in the barrel will tell if you've left too much lead showing at the case mouth. BTW, I use 231 or Bullseye for my loads: ~750 fps for target and 850+ for anything else.

Given one choice for target or defensive use, I'd pick one of the two previously mentioned LSWC's or their commercial equivalent...they're accurate, feed well and cut a full .45 cal. hole in paper or game/attacker.

Best Regards, Rod
 
Last edited:
Shadow9mm said:
So I'm getting back into 45 auto after a little over 10 years. I hand load and was researching some load data in my speer manual and found a cool side note. Apparently Browning originaly designed the cartridge with a 200g bullet.

Got me thinking about bullet weight. I always defaulted to the 230g because that was what it was designed for and what the military thought best. I know not the best though process, but im trying to fix that.

What weight do you shoot and why. 230, 200, and 185 seem to be the most common, but if you like something else feel free to chime in.
Click to expand...

"Other, explain below"

I shoot all these weights. All work well. 4.8 grains Bullseye for any of them.
 
What is interesting in this thread is that the poll favors 230 over 200 by a margin of 2 to 1. But when you read the explanations, it becomes evident that the 200 is a better choice than the 230. Just goes to show, following the crowd leads to repetition. Following the facts leads to a road less traveled.
 
"Better", in what way?
In general, I think of 200 as a compromise bullet weight, not too heavy, not too slow, which smacks of the thought process behind the popularity of .40 S&W, which turned out to not be the best anything.
 
My thinking was in the terms of defensive use of ball ammo. A lighter bullet going faster will have more energy, and decelerate faster transferring more of the energy due to the reduced momentum. 230g ball ammo penetration is sometimes like 29in. Which if you figure the fbi standard of a max of 18in thats 11in of over penetration and wasted energy/liability.
 
I shoot pure lead 210gr hollow points. They start out looking like this.
F7piZQL.jpg

Then end up looking like this.
HWvPiGc.jpg
 
Hollow points are expensive, even cast ones. And in my limited experience of casting my own jollow points, they are tricky and frustrating things to get to drop cleanly from the mold/pins and are not something i would want to cast in bulk. I prefer plated, and powder coated lead is a great 2nd choice.
 
"Better", in what way?
In general, I think of 200 as a compromise bullet weight, not too heavy, not too slow, which smacks of the thought process behind the popularity of .40 S&W, which turned out to not be the best anything.
Click to expand...
Okay, never thought I would ever find myself running to the defense of the .40 S&W but...

"The Best" still has never been found... not round, not weight, not load, not gun, not gunmaker, so let's toss out this superlative.

Back circa 1994, when you needed Grandfathered magazines to go beyond 10 rounds, .40cal was a pretty damn solid choice for a lot of folks.

I went through a long period where I loathed the .40cal but it has a place and I get fine use from it. When it comes to slapping steel plates, I see a noticeable upgrade in how it tosses steel when directly compared to 9mm on exactly the same array of plates which vary in size, shape and weight.

Sure, "but I have never been attacked by steel plates!" and yeah, great argument, doesn't do much for me cause I also don't carry .40cal, 9mm works for me, but it seems like gun forum sport to just slag cartridges left and right for no real purpose beyond, well, gun forum sport.
 
I cast 230 gr and it shoots plenty well in a Sig P220 and all of my 1911's. At one point, I cast 200 gr SWC plated ammo and it was a nightmare to get it to run in the Sig. It was before I had the 1911's so it was my only .45. I may still have some that are not loaded up so I may try it again for the 1911's.

The 230 is my go to for the time being just because I can shoot it. For SD, I use Black Talons that I still have from way back when. And no, I haven't had to use it in a SD setting thankfully.

--Wag--
 
My thinking was in the terms of defensive use of ball ammo. A lighter bullet going faster will have more energy, and decelerate faster transferring more of the energy due to the reduced momentum. 230g ball ammo penetration is sometimes like 29in. Which if you figure the fbi standard of a max of 18in thats 11in of over penetration and wasted energy/liability.
Click to expand...

The classic measures of "stopping power", both for hunting and self-defense, are based on momentum, beyond the most important factor, penetration.
I'd be happy to get two holes per shot (since I'm aware of my target and what's behind it).
I find it interesting that it's rare to hear about overpenetration and misses in LEO involved shootings? I watched a long car chase video, and cops fired at least 80 rounds at the perp (in his car), some at no more than 8-10 feet, but the perp was able to crawl out of his vehicle and beg the cops to stop shooting at him; if I'm going to miss 70+ times, why should I be concerned about overpenetration?
 
I agrew having an extrance and an exit is ideal. However too much exit it wasted energy. 29 in is a lot, i would prefer to have 18 to 20in and dump the exta 9in or so of energy into the target.
 
Mr Browning thought 200 grains was about right. I think the only reason it ended up 230 is that the Army could not cram the 1873 era 250 into a short automatic's case.
 
Hollow points are expensive, even cast ones. And in my limited experience of casting my own jollow points, they are tricky and frustrating things to get to drop cleanly from the mold/pins and are not something i would want to cast in bulk. I prefer plated, and powder coated lead is a great 2nd choice.
Click to expand...

Hollow points are easy to cast if you know how.

Use mould release on the pins.

I use Frankford Arsenal stuff.
https://www.amazon.com/Frankford-Arsenal-Aerosol-Release-Reloading/dp/B00EVNSFKY

Crank your pot up as high as it can go and leave it there. Hotter the better. pure lead will not frost.

The cost is only as much as you get your lead for. Even if you buy it at market price it's way cheaper than any store bought hollow points in any caliber.
 
I always did 200xtp with unique, but as I am getting further away from my targets, I am liking the lighter weight bullets moving faster because they drop less. 230 grain bullets would require some adjustment at 100 yards, whereas the 185 grain bullets moving 175 fps faster still hit at the original aiming point.

I don't really have much use for any pistol round under 1000 fps for this reason.
 
I don't think I've ever used anything for 45 acp except 230 grain. Mostly FMJ but for a while I reloaded some 230 RNL "Zero" bullets with my Lee-Loader. That was a long time ago though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top