I know that you asked about Trailboss, but since you mentioned the possibility of going back to Unique if that didn't work, may I suggest Titegroup. I just did my very first load testing with that powder, trying to overcome the extreme position sensitivity of Unique that I'd been experiencing. My test firearm was a Ruger Blackhawk with 4 5/8 barrel using 6.2 grains Titegroup under a 255 gr. LSWC. This is a mild load, leaving copious amounts of free space in the cartridge. I made it even more spacious by crimping in the crimp groove of the keith bullet instead of over the first driving band like I usually do. Velocities were low: First five rounds--777...777...773...769...757. But as you can see, the velocity spread was excellent--far better than I get with Unique which, with a maximum safe charge, varied from a high of 950 to a low of the low 700's depending on powder position in my tests. I also annealed the case necks with these low Titegroup charges and experienced absolutely no blowby.
Trail boss load in .45 LC not sealing the chamber, Uberti 1866
- Thread starter ketland
- Start date
Got out back for some testing this afternoon. Short story is the annealing worked, and worked so well that I had no blowback or sooting on my cases or back in the action.
Just as a note of interest, I loaded up test cases from my starting load of 5.5gr trail boss, all the way up to a full 8.0 gr of trail boss just to see how this powder does at various levels. Projo was a 200 gr RNFP, crimped at the groove using a lee taper crimper. 5.5gr is a really light popper load. 6.0gr is a nice light load with just a bit more edge than 5.5gr. from there I jumped up to 7.0 gr, and I must say this load was snappier and more fitting to the cartridge in my opinion than the lighter loads. From 7.0gr I jumped straight up to 8.0gr and found this load to be just a bit hot for what I am looking for (I know that a full grain is a big jump, but were talking trail boss here). Interesting is though that the 8.0gr loading was the most accurate, followed by the 7.0 gr, etc. so the more powder, the tighter the group. my initial testing was at 25 yards just to see what was what, then 50, then 100 yds. At the end of the day, I shot my 200 yard plate, using the 7.0 grain loads, and drilled it repeatedly with ease.
In summary, Annealing is in my opinion a good idea with new brass in the .45 colt if you plan on shooting light loads.
By the way, what do you guys recommend as the best crimper for 45colt? I would like something more like the "collet" crimper I use on 44-40. Does anybody make this?
Added: I do not recommend using over book load of 6.5 gr of trail boss with the 200 gr lead RNFP as my testing showed pressure sign at my high end loadings. Safety first!
Another thought is if you do anneal your brass, do not attempt to use that brass for hot loads.
Just as a note of interest, I loaded up test cases from my starting load of 5.5gr trail boss, all the way up to a full 8.0 gr of trail boss just to see how this powder does at various levels. Projo was a 200 gr RNFP, crimped at the groove using a lee taper crimper. 5.5gr is a really light popper load. 6.0gr is a nice light load with just a bit more edge than 5.5gr. from there I jumped up to 7.0 gr, and I must say this load was snappier and more fitting to the cartridge in my opinion than the lighter loads. From 7.0gr I jumped straight up to 8.0gr and found this load to be just a bit hot for what I am looking for (I know that a full grain is a big jump, but were talking trail boss here). Interesting is though that the 8.0gr loading was the most accurate, followed by the 7.0 gr, etc. so the more powder, the tighter the group. my initial testing was at 25 yards just to see what was what, then 50, then 100 yds. At the end of the day, I shot my 200 yard plate, using the 7.0 grain loads, and drilled it repeatedly with ease.
In summary, Annealing is in my opinion a good idea with new brass in the .45 colt if you plan on shooting light loads.
By the way, what do you guys recommend as the best crimper for 45colt? I would like something more like the "collet" crimper I use on 44-40. Does anybody make this?
Added: I do not recommend using over book load of 6.5 gr of trail boss with the 200 gr lead RNFP as my testing showed pressure sign at my high end loadings. Safety first!
Another thought is if you do anneal your brass, do not attempt to use that brass for hot loads.
Last edited:
Rebel Dave
New member
I use the Lee Factory crimp die,on my .45 Colt, and also on my .44-40 Win. It works good,and i have no complaints. They are also resonably priced.
Rebel Dave
Rebel Dave
AssaultTortoise
New member
From what I have read and been told a tight roll crimp in a cannelure is whats best for heavy revolver bullets. The 200gn bullets I use don't have a cannelure but do have a sharp shoulder so I load them flush with the shoulder and slightly roll crimp over. I was told on rnfp bullets to roll crimp just at the start of the ogive. 7.0 and 8.0 grains of trailboss are over the 6.5gn max loads for 200gn bullets and you are probably compressing the powder. Be extremely careful with such things as trailboss was not meant to be compressed and your running the risk of a catastrophic pressure spike by doing so.
8.0 grains of trail boss does not touch the projo. The powder at 8.0 leaves about 1/2" from case mouth to powder, and the bullet seat depth is about .25 which leaves about .25 space. This being said, at the higher loadings there is pressure sign, and I would have to agree that it is better to stay at about 6.5 gr or lower with the trail boss.
Last edited:
Bone Charcoal
Inactive
Just a comment on terminology.
.45 Long Colt was the correct name in the 19th century.
That is because the S&W Scofield came out in a .45 caliber, but it was a shorter cartridge than what Colt used (made it real fun getting the right ammo to the cavalry out west)
So .45LC distinguished the Colt cartridge from the shorter one used in S&W
Years later they came out with the .45 Automatic Colt Pistol cartridge, .45ACP
.45 Long Colt was the correct name in the 19th century.
That is because the S&W Scofield came out in a .45 caliber, but it was a shorter cartridge than what Colt used (made it real fun getting the right ammo to the cavalry out west)
So .45LC distinguished the Colt cartridge from the shorter one used in S&W
Years later they came out with the .45 Automatic Colt Pistol cartridge, .45ACP
Umm no. It is and always has been .45 Colt. You won't find a .45 Colt cartridge from then or now stamped .45 Long Colt. You are correct in the reasoning behind the popular renaming of the cartridge but correct terminology is .45 Colt. For there to have been a .45 LC Colt would have had to make a .45 Short Colt or at least two different lengths of cases which they never did until the .45 ACP.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Howdy
Some cartridges in my collection.
First, a whole slew of 45 Colts of various ages. Modern round on the left. Yes, all the old rounds, except the one on the far right had tiny rims, not suitable for a rifle extractor. The round all the way on the right was for the Model 1909 Colt and had a large rim for the extractor of the revolver.
Frankford Arsenal Benet primed 45 Colts. No they are not rim fire, they are internally primed. The dents near the bottom hold the internal priming in place. These are copper cased, folded rim rounds and a rifle extractor would have ripped right through them.
It ain't the 'extractor groove' that makes a round suitable for a rifle. Notice the 44-40 and 38-40 at the right in this photo. Guess what? No 'extractor groove'. The 44-40 and 38-40 were designed specifically as rifle rounds, and had larger rims for the rifle extractor to get a grip on. No 'extractor groove' was necessary. The 44 Mag and 44 Special on the left have grooves that are artifacts of the machining processes used to make the brass. They are not really 'extractor grooves', although they will help with extraction in a rifle. No extractor groove on the 44 Russian in the middle, but it is a revolver round anyway.
P.S. The cylinders of the old Colts were the same diameter as the cylinders of a modern Colt. Modern 45 Colt ammo has a rim diameter of .512, plenty for a rifle extractor to grab. The rims on most of those old 45s in my photo are running around .505, not enough for an extractor to grab. And modern 45 Colt ammo will chamber just fine in a 1st Gen Colt. The old rounds had tiny rims because there was no need for a large rim. The Single Action Army (the gun the round was designed for) had an ejector rod that poked the empties out from the inside. No need for a large rim for an extractor, it just was not even considered. All the rim had to do was prevent the round from being shoved forward by the firing pin, you don't need much rim for that.
Regarding the business about 45 Long Colt, when the Schofield round was developed in 1875 it's military designation was Revolver Ball Cartridge, Caliber .45 M1875. It was not refered to as the 'Schofield' cartridge until years later. There may well have been some 45s labeled 45 Long Colt, but I have never seen any. You can see the military designation of the 45 Colt right on my antique box of ammo. According to Kuhnhausen, the 45 Colt 'was not referred to as the 45 Long Colt until some time after the short M1896 ordinance and commercial cartridges were introduced.' The M1896 round had a OAL of 1.42, whereas the earlier M1875 round had an OAL of 1.438.
Regarding mixups of the wrong cartridges showing up for the wrong revolvers, modern gunwriters like to speculate about that, but there are no documented cases of it happening. We can talk about why S&W developed the shorter round another time.
Today, the name 45 Long Colt seems to be pretty much of a modern phenomenon, started by clerks in gun shops. You walk up to the counter and ask for a box of 45 Colt, the clerk says 'You mean 45 Long Colt? He just wants to make sure you don't want a box of 45 ACP. I have heard this exchange many times. He has probably never heard of the 45 Schofield round.
Finally, regarding soot on the case of a 45 in a rifle, with low powered loads you are going to get soot on the outside of the case. Period. You do not develop enough pressure with a low powered load to fully expand the case to seal the chamber, so you get blow by. Increase pressure and the soot will go away. But frankly, a little bit of soot on the case means nothing. It certainly is not going to affect the performance of the rifle. I have been seeing soot on 45s for many years now in CAS. If you want clean shiny brass, up the pressure. If you want light loads, don't worry about a little bit of soot.
Some cartridges in my collection.
First, a whole slew of 45 Colts of various ages. Modern round on the left. Yes, all the old rounds, except the one on the far right had tiny rims, not suitable for a rifle extractor. The round all the way on the right was for the Model 1909 Colt and had a large rim for the extractor of the revolver.
Frankford Arsenal Benet primed 45 Colts. No they are not rim fire, they are internally primed. The dents near the bottom hold the internal priming in place. These are copper cased, folded rim rounds and a rifle extractor would have ripped right through them.
It ain't the 'extractor groove' that makes a round suitable for a rifle. Notice the 44-40 and 38-40 at the right in this photo. Guess what? No 'extractor groove'. The 44-40 and 38-40 were designed specifically as rifle rounds, and had larger rims for the rifle extractor to get a grip on. No 'extractor groove' was necessary. The 44 Mag and 44 Special on the left have grooves that are artifacts of the machining processes used to make the brass. They are not really 'extractor grooves', although they will help with extraction in a rifle. No extractor groove on the 44 Russian in the middle, but it is a revolver round anyway.
P.S. The cylinders of the old Colts were the same diameter as the cylinders of a modern Colt. Modern 45 Colt ammo has a rim diameter of .512, plenty for a rifle extractor to grab. The rims on most of those old 45s in my photo are running around .505, not enough for an extractor to grab. And modern 45 Colt ammo will chamber just fine in a 1st Gen Colt. The old rounds had tiny rims because there was no need for a large rim. The Single Action Army (the gun the round was designed for) had an ejector rod that poked the empties out from the inside. No need for a large rim for an extractor, it just was not even considered. All the rim had to do was prevent the round from being shoved forward by the firing pin, you don't need much rim for that.
Regarding the business about 45 Long Colt, when the Schofield round was developed in 1875 it's military designation was Revolver Ball Cartridge, Caliber .45 M1875. It was not refered to as the 'Schofield' cartridge until years later. There may well have been some 45s labeled 45 Long Colt, but I have never seen any. You can see the military designation of the 45 Colt right on my antique box of ammo. According to Kuhnhausen, the 45 Colt 'was not referred to as the 45 Long Colt until some time after the short M1896 ordinance and commercial cartridges were introduced.' The M1896 round had a OAL of 1.42, whereas the earlier M1875 round had an OAL of 1.438.
Regarding mixups of the wrong cartridges showing up for the wrong revolvers, modern gunwriters like to speculate about that, but there are no documented cases of it happening. We can talk about why S&W developed the shorter round another time.
Today, the name 45 Long Colt seems to be pretty much of a modern phenomenon, started by clerks in gun shops. You walk up to the counter and ask for a box of 45 Colt, the clerk says 'You mean 45 Long Colt? He just wants to make sure you don't want a box of 45 ACP. I have heard this exchange many times. He has probably never heard of the 45 Schofield round.
Finally, regarding soot on the case of a 45 in a rifle, with low powered loads you are going to get soot on the outside of the case. Period. You do not develop enough pressure with a low powered load to fully expand the case to seal the chamber, so you get blow by. Increase pressure and the soot will go away. But frankly, a little bit of soot on the case means nothing. It certainly is not going to affect the performance of the rifle. I have been seeing soot on 45s for many years now in CAS. If you want clean shiny brass, up the pressure. If you want light loads, don't worry about a little bit of soot.
Last edited:
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Howdy
Yup, contrary to popular opinion, the bottleneck shape has nothing to do with 44-40 or 38-40 preventing soot from blowing by in the chamber of a rifle. 44-40 and 38-40 brass tends to run around .007 thick at the case mouth, 45 Colt tends to run around .012 thick and the case mouth. The thinness of the brass is what allows it to seal well at relatively low pressure. Hot gas has no problem going around corners.
Yup, contrary to popular opinion, the bottleneck shape has nothing to do with 44-40 or 38-40 preventing soot from blowing by in the chamber of a rifle. 44-40 and 38-40 brass tends to run around .007 thick at the case mouth, 45 Colt tends to run around .012 thick and the case mouth. The thinness of the brass is what allows it to seal well at relatively low pressure. Hot gas has no problem going around corners.