Help me Work up .45 ACP Load

Some pistols do not offer as much case support as others. Certain Glocks are noted for creating the bulge and it was named the "Glock Bulge".

I don't shoot Glocks. All my 1911s are manufactured by Colt and I have never had bulges on the cases.

If by chance you are shooting your loads out of one of those mentioned Glocks, that is why you have the bulges.

The method I normally use to determine if I am out of bounds with my loads is the manner in which the case is ejected. Sometimes I had a load that would smack me right between the eyes (or in that territory) and I changed the load. Sometimes the ejected cases are thrown at maybe 8-10 feet from me. I back those down to get them 4-6 feet from me. And, the methodology goes on.

I am sure others have different methods to speak about when they think about them. This is just what I go by. It works for me, and that is what matters most.
 
I suggest you stick to published loads......per Hornady in your case. By the time the cases show high pressure it may be a kaboom. Primers are unreliable too as for pressure signs.
 
My gun is an SW1911.

Here is what I got with 6.2 grains:

908
906
910
905
888

The cases look fine.

I guess if I go to 6.1, I'll be where I want to be.

The consistency is really impressive. I guess it pays to clean your powder measure.

I love the new chronograph. It puts all this stuff in PDF files.
 
Watch your cases and beware of Kabooms. My brother's G20 blew up in my hand and I thought my fingers were shredded because it was so painful. My hand and finger were ok.
 
Swifty, did you ever say what powder you are using?

I don't load .45 ACP, but I would probably use just over 5 grains of Bullseye or Green Dot, or about 6 grains of Unique. It's an old cartridge, you should use an old powder. :D 231 is probably a good one too, but I don't have a feel for how much.
 
It's Unique. I am using data from Handloader's Ammunition Reloading Journal.

Basically, it's 1.205", 230 grain XTP, 6.0 grains @ 789 fps, 6.8 grains @ 949 fps.

The OAL is much shorter than Hornady's, which is 1.230".
 
The OAL is much shorter than Hornady's, which is 1.230
Click to expand...

Which can explain some of your increased pressure and velocity. When you shove the bullet deeper into the csse, the case volume goes down and pressure spike goes up. 30 thousandths may not seem like much, but volume increases cubic and length is linear. With a 45 acp being a large diameter, increases and decreases in length make a big difference in volume.
 
Is the Handloader data developed with the Hornady bullet?

Given,the bullet weighs 230 gr. Bullets vary in the shapes of their ogives.

What is important to loading handgun ammo regarding pressure is not length overall,but the depth the bullet base is seated to. That controls combustion chamber volume,which has an effect on pressure.

LOA may be important to magazines and feeding

Its good to consider Hornady data with Hornady bullets.
 
Last edited:
If so, how does anyone ever work up a .45 ACP load?

Look in any reloading manual and pick a load.

For me, I load 230gr bullets w/ 6.0gr. Unique.
 
The OAL is much shorter than Hornady's, which is 1.230".
Click to expand...

Which is considerably shorter than the max COL I have in my books for the .45ACP which is 1.275"

You are entirely correct that changes in the seating depth of the bullet makes a change in the voiume of the case and has an effect on the pressure.

What is being left out are several factors that can make the difference between a measurable effect and a significant effect.

Using a chronograph will show you changes in velocity in YOUR gun. Something good to know, but not essential. Using your chrono data and comparing it against someone else's data is only good for really rough comparisons and useless for specific details.

Different guns can register differences of as much as 100fps with the same barrel length, shooting the same ammunition. USUALLY the difference is less, but not always, and because of that simple fact everyone else's data is a guideline, a general thing, and not a specific rule that apples to your gun and ammo combination.

Most of the time, results are similar, and that's why they can be useful, but its not guaranteed, your gun & ammo combination can be quite different from theirs and still be within "normal" range.

IN other words, if "the book" says they got 877fps and your chrono says you got 837fps, it means nothing, other than both guns are within the usual range of difference.

Lyman Manual 1970, 230gr bullet 6.5gr Unique, 877fps (Factory duplication load). Been working for me since 1970, I see no point in changing.
 
I got 70 more fps plus bulged cases with .01 grains more powder than the recipe's middle value, and I was still 0.3 below the published max. That's some difference. I wonder what the maximum charge would have done. It would have been a mess.
 
44 AMP said:
The OAL is much shorter than Hornady's, which is 1.230".
Click to expand...
Which is considerably shorter than the max COL I have in my books for the .45ACP which is 1.275"
Click to expand...
But 1.275" is for round nose, ball ammo. The XTP is a jacketed hollow point. If you seated the XTP to anything close to 1.275" the would be inadequate seating depth.
 
My gun is an SW1911.

Here is what I got with 6.2 grains (of Unique):

908
906
910
905
888
Click to expand...

Okay, that's an average velocity of 903.4 with a Standard Deviation of 8.82. Those are great numbers - especially the SD (only five rounds however). Which BTW, drops to 2.21 if you throw out the 888 (of course, you can't because that's was SD is all about :p)

Well your numbers totally jive with mine. Through my Kimber 1911, I got an average velocity of 903.8 with a SD of 16.20. 6.2 grains of Unique is the charge weight I decided on and considered "set." I did test at 6.4 (932 f/s) and chose to stop - my notes state the primers were starting to show some flattening. Book max is 6.6 grains - I had no desire to go there.

If I was in your position (and I was :p ), I'd leave it at 6.2 and call it good (which I did :p ). Seriously, you are where you said you wanted to be. Remember the old adage: "Just because a little is good, does not mean that more is better." ;) It may be prudent to run a few more at 6.2 over the chrono, but other than that, I think this load work up is pretty much complete.
 
Unique and Hornady 230 XTP's with RP 2 1/2 primers and RP cases at an overall length of 1.230" in my G 21 and Colt 1911 without chrono data shows violent ejection and harder than factory recoil with 6.5 grains of Unique. At 6.1 grains it seems normal. I would be hesitant to load above 6.3 grains and definitely would not start at 6.5 and go up.
 
It seems that what I'm hearing is that if the chronograph reading is low enough, the load is okay. That doesn't make sense to me, because I've seen loads with certain powders limited at lower speeds than other powders. It must be possible to have unacceptably high pressure without excessive speed.
Click to expand...

The above is what we've been trying to explain. Powders react differently to pressure, where Bullseye can get higher pressure with lower velocities because it is fast burning, where Unique is slower.

That said as mentioned above by others, seating depth also plays a role and can increase pressure on even a lower end load. This can also be a product of a loose crimp which allows setback inadvertently. It could result in 3-4 rounds firing fine and the 5th going to a high pressure level.

I can't say for certain that it has resulted in damage but I can't rule it out either. Some might call it a double charge, might be, hard to tell after the fact. I do know that some brass is thinner than other and I personally have had to adjust the crimp to accommodate that. Had I just loaded it up and found out later things could have been an issue.

I load a LOT of 4ish grain loads of Bullseye and about the same using Unique, and AA2. They all work well for the cast target stuff i practice with. I also use a lot of AA5 and 7 in my autos to match factory loads with jacketed. They all work fine but you have to maintain length within a range for the bullets your shooting. That's a perfect reason to start low and work up. Even a shorter COAL can be used IF the charge is worked up to and not just assumed it'll work.
 
The above is what we've been trying to explain.
Click to expand...

"We" have not been in agreement, which is why I posted what I did. Some of the material posted suggests everything is fine if the chronograph gives the right reading, and that appears to be untrue.

The advice about relying on the chronograph has to be wrong, because a load that chronographs at 900 can have too much pressure. I will discard the notion that speed tells me whether loads are safe.
 
If I was in your position (and I was ), I'd leave it at 6.2 and call it good (which I did ). Seriously, you are where you said you wanted to be. Remember the old adage: "Just because a little is good, does not mean that more is better."
Click to expand...

Thanks for the help. There is no way I'm adding more powder. I'm considering going DOWN, not up. My best guess is that this load is fine, but I don't want to have a problem if my powder measure drops a little more than it should in a round.
 
Swifty my 45acp of choice is a Tanfoglio Witness and it has little to no leade in the barrel throat. I tried loading cast SWC in it and that was a no go. with the shoulder on the bullet bearing surface I couldn't get it short enough to fully chamber reliably so I gave up on that bullet.

The next attempt was with a Lee 200gr cast RNFP and once again I had to load this very short to get these to plunk into the barrel. Though once I found a length that worked I was so far under standard lengths that I was just guessing on a powder charge. So I took the Starting load for a 200gr plated bullet I'd been using and reduced it by .2 gr thinking that should be a safe bet.

Now I don't have a chrono to test with so there I am in the dark. When I finally got around to testing these I was mostly happy because the cycled and chambered like they should with no mishaps. Only real thing I took notice of was that even with the reduced starting load because of the reduced length that these were still very stout loads. I would guess near max. Well at least MAX for me. I loaded up 20 more with a reduced load down .3gr but I still haven't been able to get to the range to test these.

My point is that I found the seating depth played a bigger part than I thought it would in pressures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top