Confused as usual....

[smmassociates]

Being out of powder and ball, I stopped by my local gun pusher, who usually has something laying around.

Scored 200 Hornaday #12108 .45 Cal (.452") bullets, 200gr Lead SWC

and

a pound of Winchester "WST" "Super Target" ball powder.

The powder seems to be a 1:1 with Win 231, which is what I was using (4.7gr), but the pressure figures on the web site are a lot higher. Modern guns in good shape, etc., but I think I'd be fine with closer to about 4 grains, which is a smidge lower than their low-end suggestion. Easy enough to test....

However, I note that a lot of .45 ball is .451". Do I care? That's probably the big question, since the bullets may be a hair bigger and the powder a bit hotter, too.

Keeping the powder down a bit should take care of any pressure issues if the bullet diameter isn't going to be a risk. They're coated with what appears to be Moly powder, btw.

Any thoughts? I got started in reloading by asking my supplier for "his load" - Mastercast used to make "factory" reloads - and while I've got a good picture of the whole process, I'm not quite sure where to go with this detail.

Thanks!

[bornfree]

Stu, glad you found some materals for your reloading. The chart shows 4.4 to 5.1 gr. of WST for 200 gr. LSWC.
I don't think I would go below the suggested starting load. Wouldn't want a stuck bullet. The .001 dia isn't going to add too much pressure to the 45.
I have been using HP38 in the mid-upper range with 200 gr. lead that is .352 dia.

[nrainstructor]

I would just load a few at the minimum charge listed and work up from there if needed.

[rogerd]

maybe give 'em an extra tumble-lube

[smmassociates]

bornfree, Joel, RogerD:

Thanks for the responses....

The only thing I'm really concerned about is that the WST pressure figures are a tad high v.s. 231.

"Walking up" to a load is always the way to go unless somebody hands you a proven number .... In the case of 231, Mastercast uses 4.7gr behind their 200gr LSWC, and it worked fine for me, as well as being close to the chart's minimum. I still checked them for pressure anyway ....

I loaded five or six of the bullets last night, just for the heck of it, with some of the little bit of 231 I have left. Really strange, in that a good eighth of an inch of shoulder protrudes out of the case when the OAL is about what it's always been, v.s. about 0.015 for the Mastercast rounds. Both are 200gr, so the same powder setting should be safe enough. The longer shoulder's going to whack the rifled area of the chamber a bit sooner, and Lord knows what the pressures will be, but it's inside the safety limits from Hornady's chart with 231.

Something tells me that the bullets are supposed to be seated further back - like in a .45LC case - instead of a .45ACP. Can't do that with the .45ACP 'cause the shorter OAL probably wouldn't cooperate....

I'll give those few a try tonight....

Regards,

[hedgelj]

Stu,

I do think .452 is the 45 LC bullet vs the .451 for the 45ACP.

If you were closer I'd offer you some of my stash since I'm still not up and loading as of yet (and won't be until we move).

[smmassociates]

Hedgelj:

I'm kind of inclined to think that, too....

I did shoot four of them, using some of the little bit of 231 I still have, Wednesday night (it's 0418 on Thursday now), and they worked fine, fed properly, and show no signs of pressure issues using the same powder load (4.7gr) as the "real" LSWC's I've been using. Accuracy seemed OK, too, but I was more interested in function, and my daughter was along heckling me ....

The next step is to work up a load with the WST powder and see how that works, but first I want to run a couple dozen through with 231 while it lasts. I'm still a little concerned about the pressure levels in the "book", but only slightly. I need to further evaluate accuracy and function - those four were "how big a kaboom" :mrgreen: ....

I'm going to keep trying to get the "standard" LSWC's from somebody - for some reason Mike at Mastercast hasn't e-mailed me back since I asked him. It's really a "mom & pop" operation (with some more folks working in the "factory"), so they can get busy enough to ignore the phone, but Mike does look at e-mail. Might be a medical problem, too - Kate just had some not-quite-minor repairs last October, and who knows.... It's a good half-hour drive, and they close at 1700, or I'd just run down there. Problem is that I tend to not leave the house until about 1600 ....

Meantime, someday, I'm going to pick up a .45LC of some sort, just for fun, and I think all I need to "convert" the Dillon for that is a die set and maybe a shell plate. Wouldn't hurt to have the bullets laying around .... Normally, a caliber conversion for a Dillon 650 can run up to $200 (without the shell plate for the automatic case feeder, which I cheaped out and didn't get), but this'd be pretty close to the minimum.

I might just start casting again. WTH, it's only been 40 years .... (No idea where the furnace and such went - I don't remember selling it, but....)

(Yeah, breakfast is a mystery, too, at my age :mrgreen: .)

Guess I should go to the Trading Post on here and see who'll swap what. But if they'll work, why bother - it's just for killing paper anyway if accuracy's acceptable.

Next week....

Moving.... AARGH.... The wife and I moved four years ago. I'm still trying to find stuff. We had a "helper" (paid him a pile) who did some of the moving for us, but didn't understand the concept of "keep things separate". I ended up with a bunch of unlabeled boxes with mixed content, and no time to sort it. Nothing special, and nothing I need very often, but I've already ended up buying some stuff 'cause I couldn't find it.

The funny part is that we moved into mom's house, which was my house when my parents built the place in 1960, and there's stuff still here from when I moved out in 1972, but not things like that furnace.

Three of us got together about 40 years ago, and started buying. I had the furnace & such - molds, etc., and was actually casting .38 wadcutters. There are a few samples here someplace if I could find them .... The rest of the reloading gear (press, dies, etc.) was at somebody's house, and just before we started producing, other than a few dummy's with a Lee Loader, somebody's mom or wife decided that they didn't want gunpowder in the basement. One guy's deceased, one's now living in Cleveland, and I'm here.... Single stage press - maybe $50 for everything but the furnace, and not much more for that.

Regards,

[rogerd]

sorry about my confused input above, I should have read your post better. I was under the impression that you'd want to slug your barrel, and that if you're using lead, go a couple thousanths over. The general concensus on castboolits and other sites is that most 1911 barrels are perfect for a .452 but if you want to make absolutely sure, slug it. I slugged my 9mm's not too long ago when I decided to start backordering 9mm reloading hardware. Wanna make absolutely sure I was getting exactly what I needed in case I have to wait 6 months for the stuff!

when I re-read your post, I realized that you acquired .452's, not .451's, so that's why I suggested an extra lube. I'm not even sure what you're loading for but again I assumed a 1911

[smmassociates]

Roger:

I just checked Mastercast's web site. Mike's recovering from a triple bypass.... Something told me that he'd mention planning this last time I was there, but my memory's going ....

I just checked his web site. It shows "out of stock" for the 200gr lead SWC I've been buying, but that they're .452"! (This is for a .45ACP target round.)

They look like: .

From the web site, I think he's raised his prices, too ....

The Hornady's are also .452", but instead of a chubby base with the lubricating groove (the blue stuff), the base section is knurled, and the whole thing's coated with a Moly (I think) powder. It's their #12108, looks like .

I think Mike's cheaper, too ....

A good eighth of an inch of that knurled area ends up outside of the case when seated for the same overall length as I was getting....

It looks like they'll feed and function fine, though. I'm going to load up some more for next week. The WST powder looks to have about the same loading data, but the pressure figures on the web are somewhat higher than 231, so I need to work up a load there instead of just using the same quantity. I've been using 4.7gr of 231, which works with both Mike's bullets and these Hornady's with no indications of pressure, but I think I need to back the WST off somewhat.

Hedgelj's comment that they're for the .45LC is probably accurate - I'm not sure why you'd want to load a .45ACP with that much of the bearing surface outside the case - but they should work OK. Hornady calls them "Frontier" or something like that, too .... Better than nothing for now.

Regards,

[willbird]

Most important thing first, you do not want 1/8" of bullet hanging out of the case. You can pull the barrel out of the gun and use it as a seating gauge :-). drop the rounds in and see where they end up, on a 1911 you can actually measure from the barrel hood to the end of the round...with some bullet hanging out you will end up head spacing on the bullet not the end of the case, which is fine, more on that in next sentence.

So....you have a range of seating depths that can be used, ranging from flush with the case mouth, until the end of the round comes flush (in a 1911) with the end of the barrel hood, usually in between will be a length that give you the best function (non picky guns may gobble up anything not too long).

I doubt the bullet coating is moly...moly on plain lead bullets really does not perform nearly as well as many other fairly dry lubricants used over the years....the old Alberts bullets may have used Moly but not sure, but many makers had swaged pistol bullets with some kind of dry lube that was not moly.

Another important thing, make sure you are NOT shaving any lead...once you shave even a tiny sliver accuracy is bye bye (maybe you already now that hehe).

On to the powder and the pressure...most "45's" are VERY strong guns, and even the normal brass is "good to go" with +p loadings...caution is always the byword in reloading, but published loads with a lead bullet of the same weight will net you close enough to the same pressure with a different lead bullet of the same weight that you should not lose sleep.

The Lyman manual is my "go to" source for data, it is always within reach of where I type.

Here are the data points
Start load 231, 5.4 grains 769fps 12,700 cup
max load 231, 6.1 grains 885fps 16,300 cup

Start load WST, 4.4 grains 735fps 11,100 cup
max load WST, 4.9 grains 840fps 16,300 cup


Saami maximum for 45 auto is 21,000psi, and the saami maximum for +p is 23,000psi so you have a LOT of breathing room there :-).

Not that we ever want to tread into dangerous territory, but on any semi auto if you can fire a test round with the magazine OUT, do so.....the magwell would allow pressure from a case blown down the feed ramp to vent with less chance of other damage.

[smmassociates]

Bill:

Thanks for the info!

I'm going to try seating that bullet back a ways and see how it feeds in the two GM clones I have here. One's a Para (ramped barrel) and the other is a Rock Island (standard barrel). It'll be quite a ways shorter than what I've been using, but if it feeds, so what?

I'm not sure what the lubricant is. Looks like Moly powder, but.... I had a lot of experience with that and a bunch of other exotic lubricants way back when at the former day job. I did a lot of odd stuff before I got into computers, and one of them was a project to find a lubricant for industrial/commercial weatherstripping. We'd come up with some great stuff, in terms of air infiltration and other things, but there are standards for the operating force of the windows (the standards for a home window is much "lighter"), and we needed to lubricate the weatherstripping. Guess 'cause I could spell "Moly".... I'm not sure how efficient the powder effect would be, but it's possible. IAC, the folks at Hornady seem to like it ....

I think your table is wrong, or you copied it wrong - the starting figure I have for 231 is 4.4gr. (Using Hogdon's table.) IAC, last weeks tests with 4.7gr of 231 worked fine with those bullets, and likely weren't even close to any pressure issues. Seating them back into the case a bit might really want a slightly smaller charge, but I don't think that'll matter.

(I do think that the bullet sticking out like it did isn't a good idea.)

I'm going to use what 231 I have left to establish useful OAL's, since I have no problems with pressure issues with 231, I don't have to worry about that. (Gotta shoot something, too, since I'm out of everything else .)

Once I've got the OAL issues set, it's time to play with the powder. I think Hogdon's table is wrong for the starting weight for WST's pressure figures - I need to check some other sources. My overall feel is that if I can trust their charge weight figures, WST and 231 ought to be pretty close, but the pressure numbers make that scary.

(I know about the "leave out the magazine" trick .... Makes feeding tests a little iffy, though :mrgreen: .)

I'm going to load up a bunch over the weekend.... I tested the new bullets last Wednesday - just a few - but then Becka and I shot off every bit of other .45's I had, and the rest of my .22's, too. Probably two or three rounds here someplace, but that's it. Range loads, that is. There's some SD stuff here, but not as much as I'd like.

Regards,

[ken45]

Stu,

Cast bullets are generally sized a bit larger. .452 is the standard diameter for cast .45ACP.

There are many variations as to shape and you really have to fool around with what works right in your gun.

Oh, BTW, typically cast bullet pressures are lower than jacketed bullets so overpressure is less of a concern. Usually you get too high of velocity before you have to worry about pressure issues. (Of course, note that I did say "generally" :roll: )

Good luck, I hope you find something that works well for you without leading issues. I've used WST in the past, I still have a bit of it left. If you want some 231, stop by some time and I can spare some....I'm just down the road a ways..... :mrgreen:

Ken

[willbird]

Bill:

Thanks for the info!

I'm going to try seating that bullet back a ways and see how it feeds in the two GM clones I have here. One's a Para (ramped barrel) and the other is a Rock Island (standard barrel). It'll be quite a ways shorter than what I've been using, but if it feeds, so what?

I'm not sure what the lubricant is. Looks like Moly powder, but.... I had a lot of experience with that and a bunch of other exotic lubricants way back when at the former day job. I did a lot of odd stuff before I got into computers, and one of them was a project to find a lubricant for industrial/commercial weatherstripping. We'd come up with some great stuff, in terms of air infiltration and other things, but there are standards for the operating force of the windows (the standards for a home window is much "lighter"), and we needed to lubricate the weatherstripping. Guess 'cause I could spell "Moly".... I'm not sure how efficient the powder effect would be, but it's possible. IAC, the folks at Hornady seem to like it ....

I think your table is wrong, or you copied it wrong - the starting figure I have for 231 is 4.4gr. (Using Hogdon's table.) IAC, last weeks tests with 4.7gr of 231 worked fine with those bullets, and likely weren't even close to any pressure issues. Seating them back into the case a bit might really want a slightly smaller charge, but I don't think that'll matter.

(I do think that the bullet sticking out like it did isn't a good idea.)

I'm going to use what 231 I have left to establish useful OAL's, since I have no problems with pressure issues with 231, I don't have to worry about that. (Gotta shoot something, too, since I'm out of everything else .)

Once I've got the OAL issues set, it's time to play with the powder. I think Hogdon's table is wrong for the starting weight for WST's pressure figures - I need to check some other sources. My overall feel is that if I can trust their charge weight figures, WST and 231 ought to be pretty close, but the pressure numbers make that scary.

(I know about the "leave out the magazine" trick .... Makes feeding tests a little iffy, though :mrgreen: .)

I'm going to load up a bunch over the weekend.... I tested the new bullets last Wednesday - just a few - but then Becka and I shot off every bit of other .45's I had, and the rest of my .22's, too. Probably two or three rounds here someplace, but that's it. Range loads, that is. There's some SD stuff here, but not as much as I'd like.

Regards,

Stu, looked again, it says 5.4-6.1 for 231 with a 200 grain cast bullet 452630...they also show 452460 at 4.0-6.0. The former bullet is a Truncated cone with a bevel base, the latter is more of a target bullet, just guessing but my guess is they think most people will want to shoot the TC a bit more energetically, say to make "major" ?? Or another guess, the 546460 is for sure a far "older" bullet and it may be older data, using a copper crusher and the newer data is Piezo.


http://images2.opticsplanet.com/365-...uto-452630.jpg

The front band on the 452460 is a bore ride, at least the mold I have casts that way.
http://images1.opticsplanet.com/180-...uto-452460.jpg


Here is the pressures Lyman has for 231 and WST

WST and 452630
4.4 735fps 11,100
4.9 840fps 16,300

231 and 452630
5.4 769fps 12,700
6.1 885fps 16,300

231 and 452460 (NO WST listed)
4.0 694 fps 9,200
6.0 987fps 18,000

Cast bullets typically give a higher pressure and velocity for a given charge weight with a given bullet weight than with a jacketed bullet, but 180 vs 200 in 45 can be weird, it might take MORE powder to get a cast 180 to the same velocity as a cast 200

[willbird]

This is all Hodgon data............

When I see strange stuff I dig a bit deeper......OK I FOUND it...love it when I do that :-).....the WST data for 200 grain is for PSI, the 231 data is for CUP....did not see it until I started cut/copying it in here.........I had intended to copy/past the data for bullet weights on either side of the 200 to show that the trends were not making sense when that PSI jumped out at me. I will still copy it in here to show how you can if you need to try to interpolate date on either side of a bullet weight to get an idea at what you would use in the middle.

They have inserted a FEW powders/bullets with PSI data into that table of probably far older data in CUP...there is no direct correlation between CUP and PSI but PSI for a given load will generally be higher.




180 GR. LFP
180 GR. LFP Winchester 231 .452" 1.140" 5.0 778 11,300 CUP 6.0 950 16,800 CUP
180 GR. LFP Winchester WST .452" 1.140" 4.4 846 13,300 CUP 4.9 912 16,100 CUP

200 GR. CAST LSWC
200 GR. CAST LSWC Winchester 231 .451" 1.225" 4.4 771 11,000 CUP 5.6 914 16,900 CUP
200 GR. CAST LSWC Winchester WST .451" 1.225" 4.4 830 15,400 PSI 5.1 910 19,900 PSI

230 grain LRN
230 GR. LRN Winchester 231 .452" 1.200" 4.3 699 12,200 CUP 5.3 834 16,900 CUP
230 GR. LRN Winchester WST .452" 1.200" 4.0 776 14,300 CUP 4.3 812 16,400 CUP

[ken45]

When I see strange stuff I dig a bit deeper......

I do that too....and it usually just gets deeper in confusion I think I spend more time checking loads and comparing data than actually reloading! The more sources I check, the deeper the disagreements.

Lyman has some data where one 230gr LSWC has a higher starting charge than another one has a max load! Of course, they are slightly different profile bullets. Of course, none of their bullets match what I'm trying to load anyway.... As I said, more confusion.

Ken