.45ACP and Titegroup

[Brutus]

Thumbing through past issues of Handloader I've noticed Titegroup often comes up in the most accurate category. Never used it before always stuck with 231/HP38 but I bought a can just to try it out.
Will be using it with some 200gr. Extreme plated flat points and a starting load of 5.0 grains. Feedback would be appreciated.

 

[Nick_C_S]

Will be using it (Titeroup) with some 200gr. Extreme plated flat points and a starting load of 5.0 grains. Feedback would be appreciated.

I have a lot of experience with this combination. I settled on 4.8 grains (1.170" OAL); yields 840 f/s through a full-size 1911. It's a good, consistent, accurate round. The only issue I have is with the bullet itself. I've run into feeding issues with it in all three of my 1911's. The feeding issues seem to lessen with a lighter recoil spring (anecdotal). After buying 1000 of these bullets, I decided to give up on them. Still have about 250 of them loaded. X-treme's 230 JHP's feed with much much more reliability (pretty much prefect); so I made that change. I'm a heavy bullet guy anyway.

To get back to your situation: I will say that in general, TiteGroup is a fine running propellant for 45 ACP plated or jacketed bullets; all weights.

I discourage the use of lead bullets because TG runs hot and that doesn't bode well for lead.

But with plated bullets, you'll be quite pleased with the results.

TiteGroup is really energetic stuff. It ignites easily and burns consistently. But this spunky characteristic isn't without its drawbacks. It's unforgiving, so pay attention (as always, of course) with your load work ups - especially if you plan on loading heavies. The window between minimum and maximum load tends to be narrow. You mentioned a starting load of 5.0 grains. I recommend starting your work up at something less than that.

Load safe.

 

[Brutus]

Thanks for the feedback Nick but it's to late finished loading 50 rounds while you were typing.
By the way I've been using both Extreme and Rainier 200 gr. plated flat points for years without a problem might want to try an overall length of 1.200 which works for me in 4 guns.

 

[Nick_C_S]

it's too late finished loading 50 rounds while you were typing.

That's okay. BTW, my 4.8 grain recipe is to emulate the performance of my "pet" 200gn LSWC loading (5.0gn W231). It was not loaded up to pressure signs. Point is, I'm sure you have wiggle room, so your 5.0 doesn't concern me. Go shoot 'em and tell us how they did. (Do you chronograph?)

By the way I've been using both Extreme and Rainier 200 gr. plated flat points for years without a problem might want to try an overall length of 1.200 which works for me in 4 guns.

1.170" is the max OAL per plunk test in my Kimber. Anything much more than that, and it can fail to go into battery. I made the decision to not bother bird dogging the issue. I just changed bullets and moved on.

What did you think of how TiteGroup loads? Meters really well doesn't it? It's fine and dense, so it drops with exceptional consistently. Low fill rates though. In 38 Special, it's a bit nerving - at target charge weights, you can fit five charges in the case .

 

[Brutus]

The 5gr. load is one I got from Handloader, after reviewing some load manuals it seems a safe bet. Will probably take them out to the range next week and yes I chronograph, have several loads worked up over the winter I need to try out. Of primary interest I want to see the difference in velocity between my 5" Kimber and my 4-1/4 Valor. Likewise loaded up several varieties of .357 mag. loads and I intend to gather data on all 3 barrel length's of my Dan Wesson.

One thing that caught my eye on your last reply was the plunk test on your Kimber mine works fine at that length. The only short chamber 45's I've owned are a P220 Sig and a CZ97. Got rid of the CZ but still have the Sig.
Doesn't surprise me though both Kimbers I own have been problematic. Mostly due to MIM parts breaking and bad magazines in the 10mm.
Had to discover their crappy customer service the hard way.
Will never buy another, will stick to Colt and Dan Wesson in the future, unless of course I win the lottery.

 

[Nick_C_S]

If I had it to do over again, I would have bought a Springfield instead of the Kimber. I've got it running good now and it delivers fun days at the range. So good enough is good enough. But you won't hear me endorsing them. My Springfield - bottom of the line "mil spec" (I think that's what it's called) - on the other hand, is a real gem. Love that gun. Ran flawless right out of the box. It's my nightstand gun - and this, coming from a revolver guy.

Anyway, the Kimber has the shortest chamber of any of my 1911's. But I think it's mostly a case of the lands and grooves are just closer to the headspace edge - just a guess. As far as the 1.170 OAL, I don't recall my plunking it. I just recorded the dimension at 1.170". I might have put in a little fudge factor or just missed the exact interference point. I don't remember. I know I loaded them long one time (before plunk testing) and had battery problems.

Hope your ammo runs great. BTW, I'd figure only about a 20-30 f/s loss in velocity between 5" and 4-1/4". TG is fast and does most its work early on; besides, 3/4" isn't much difference.

 

[Brutus]

Yeah that's about what I expect. It will be interesting to see as I've loaded up rounds using HP-38, universal clays and some Hornady 200gr. XTP's with Power Pistol. This is all in an effort to find the most accurate load for my fixed sight Valor. Hate to say it but the Kimber Super Match is the most accurate .45 I own next to my 45 year old Colt Gold Cup, that is to say if you can keep the adjustable sight from breaking.
Mostly I'm interested in the velocity and accuracy difference between the 4,6 and 8 inch barrels in the .357 Dan Wesson.

 

[Nick_C_S]

Hornady 200gr. XTP's with Power Pistol.

Roger that!

All my guns digest Hornady's XTP's (200 & 230) just fine. And Power Pistol is a great choice for both. I haven't done work ups with them using Power Pistol yet, but it's on the docket. I've been using up my HS-6 (gone now) and Unique to purge them from my inventory. Both these bullets are good applications for both these propellants.

I'm in the process of reducing the number of propellants I hold. Trying to simplify things.

Once the Unique is gone (have just over a #), work ups with PP is a given. I love PP. Fantastic stuff. Makes bullets go fast. Energetic. I "see it" (literally - more on that in a bit) as Bullseye's slower younger brother. Has all the same characteristics, other than it burns slower. And I say "see it" because they are absolutely identical looking.

 

[tranders]

Titegroup does burn hot,but I loaded 185 LSWC from Missouri Bullet Company with 4.5 grains of Titegroup and got zero leading in my Sig 1911.Was a mild shooter.

Can't say the same when using Titegroup with lead projectiles in 9mm. No matter what I tried it still leaded the barrel. I gave up and went to Berry's plated projectiles and haven't looked back.

 

[Brutus]

thought about getting some Missouri Bullet Company SWC's use them a lot in .45 Colt .44 mag. and .357 for target loads not so much in .45ACP anymore since I started using plated. Go to powder for lead SWC's in .45ACP is Bullseye although I've also had good luck with Unique and my replacement for Unique Universal Clays ( meters better).

 

[Brutus]

Never made it to the outdoor range this weekend but I did make it to the local indoor range. While I couldn't chorno anything there I have to tell you that I'm really impressed with Tightgroup. The 5gr. loads were very accurate in both pistols I tried them in and yes, I love the way the stuff meters.

 

[Nick_C_S]

All my guns digest Hornady's XTP's (200 & 230) just fine. And Power Pistol is a great choice for both. I haven't done work ups with them using Power Pistol yet, but it's on the docket.

It's more than on the docket now - probably inspired by this thread. Just loaded a batch of 10 of the 200 XTP's at 7.4 grains Power Pistol (1.240" OAL per plunk). Seemed like a good starting point. Once I verify that they run nominally (reasonably close to Hornady's results), I'll start an actual ladder test.