100 grs, .45 ACP, 2000 fps?
On another forum, I saw a claim that a guy can use 13 grs of Bullseye to get a 100 gr cast swc to 2000 fps, from a Govt Model's 5" barrel. The mold used was the 155 gr Lee swc, and the alloy was 95% tin, 5% antimony, known as "lead free" solder, available at plumbing supply outlets. the guy said that 9 grs of Bullseye did not work the slide with this bullet, when a 20 lb recoil spring was used.
Guys, does that sound real to you? That's right at 900 ft lbs, from a regular 1911! Since energy is "the capacity to do work", and since this bullet would of course be very hard, it should indeed do what the guy claims it will, which is match the 250 gr swc .44 mag load, from a 4" barreled revolver, in that it completely penetrates the chest of large animals, as long as you avoid the shoulder bones. I find this intriquing, to say the least. It is claimed that the recoil is no worse than that of the Plus P 230 gr .45 ACP jhp's, too.
Guys, does that sound real to you? That's right at 900 ft lbs, from a regular 1911! Since energy is "the capacity to do work", and since this bullet would of course be very hard, it should indeed do what the guy claims it will, which is match the 250 gr swc .44 mag load, from a 4" barreled revolver, in that it completely penetrates the chest of large animals, as long as you avoid the shoulder bones. I find this intriquing, to say the least. It is claimed that the recoil is no worse than that of the Plus P 230 gr .45 ACP jhp's, too.
0
-
i have serious doubts this can be done without being over the standard 45 acp pressure limits, but i have little experience with such light bullets. what i do know is if you have that much velocity with that bullet you will have some recoil involved its not going to be a wimp load. just because the bullet is light doesn't mean the gun will not have recoil. as velocity with a given bullet increases so will the recoil so what you lose with the light bullet you gain with the speed. 0 -
I would be very sceptical.
______________________
Your life is not my fault.0 -
Recoil is simply momentum in the opposite direction. It takes about 7.5 grs of Unique to get a 230 gr bullet to 950+ fps. Multipy the bullet wt in grs, by the velocity, in fps, and drop the meaningless zeros. What you get is 21.8 recoil-momentum "factor". When calculating recoil, you have to consider ALL the "ejecta" which includes at least SOME of the powder. Ok, the guy is using 13 grs of Bullseye, so in reality, he's pushing 105.5 grs out of the bore. 105.5grs, x 2000 fps, which comes to 21.1 recoil-momentum "factor". The guy claims that the short bullet has little bore-contact, and it's so light that it gets moving really easily, so the pressures are never very high at all. He advocates the use of heavy recoil springs and a fully-supported barrel, but he says that the .460 Rowland case gets this same bullet to 2200 fps, with about 2 more grs of Bullseye. BTW, he said he used CCI mag pistol primers for these .45 ACP loads. 0 -
Acyman;
Sounds dubious at beat, B***S**t at worst.
When considering the action of the Gov model, this flies
in the face of the design. If would be gravely concerned about pressure levels and Slide accelaration rates. Both can be devestating to both gun and, in worst case situations, the shooter and by-standers. The use of overly stiff recoil springs to control slide accelaration rates would only make an overpressure situation worse. I can't think of a reason to subject a 1911 type action to this sort of EXTREME abuse. Unless this is being done with a CUSTOM, heavily fortified 1911, I doubt such volocities can be obtained. And certainly not in the 5" standard type barrel. I think this would distroy the standard type pistol in short order. Frankly, These voloscities and M.E. levels, strike me as fanciful. The .45 ACP mag, which is longer than the standard version, MIGHT be able to match these levels in carefully assembled hand loads. BTW,Acyman, You must also consider the evergy required to start reward movement of the slide. It is considerably heavier than the bullet, therefore, requirering much more energy,AND, partial recoil is gerenerated by the slide striking the stop. Slide accelaration rates therefore can become critical.Too high an accelaration rate and the stop and/or barrel link can be sheared allowing the slide to exit the rear of the frame. Not a good thing.
Kill all the lawyers and the world will be much better for it.0 -
I just explained to you why such loads aren't that big a deal, really. They are nothing at all like the 230 gr, 1350 fps of the top 460 Rowland load, which has a SAAMI max pressure of 40,000 CUP. That level of performance is achieved with a regular 5" barrel, and a regular slide, but Clark Custom Guns recommends that for recoil-control, you add 1.5", and 4 ozs of compensator. Noone said you had to practice a lot with this load. It's for hunting, or for defense against large animals.
It would offer about twice the hit-rate of the DA .44 Mag, and 3x the hit rate of an SA revolver. Since 30-06 softpoints and 12 ga slugs routinely let chest hit deer run 20-50m, there's no reason to expect a 454 Casul or .500 Smit mag to the body to stop a big bear. Since only head shots are likely to offer you any chance at all, I'd say being able to get such hits 2-3x as fast would be an advantage.
Furthermore, it would offer a big game handgun for no extra cost, or only that of a fully-supported barrel (ie, $150or so) You wont be finding any used M29 smiths for that price, and if you already reload for the .45, you dont have to buy new dies, brass,powder, holster, learn a different trigger pull, etc.0 -
13 gr of Bullseye is at least double the maximum loading for any .45 ACP loading that I've ever heard of. I am looking (any ONLY LOOKING) at a .45 ACP case filled with 13 gr of Bulleye at this moment. The case is 90% filled and any type of bullet seated would cause a compressed charge and would no doubt be a disaster waiting to happen if the over charged round were fired. Back in 1914 the Army investigated a number of .45 cal service revolvers which burst when firing suspected over loadings (the standard service loading was 5.91 grs. of Bullseye No. 2). The revolvers would with stand an extra 4 gr charge but at 5 grs over the test revolvers burst on the fourth shot. At 6 grs. over (11.91 grs total powder weight) the test pieces burst on the third shot. Ballistic experiments of this type are very dangerous and I would advise that you simply forget all about this sort of thing.
Mark T. Christian0 -
SEX is more dangerous, actually. The bullet weighs less than half as much as the 230 gr bullet you are talking-about, ya know. As the bullet moves down the bore, the effective size of the "chamber" rapidly increases, and pressure drops like a stone. I myself have made 60 gr bullets, by melting the lead cores out of Sierra 185 gr jhp's, and replacing them with "liquid steel" epoxy. 10grs of Bullseye would not cycle the slide. 13.5 grs of Bullseye got the bullet to nearly 1900 fps. This is an experiment that anyone can do. The Lee swc mold is no longer made. It was only offered in 6 cavity,and was $50. The Saeco version is more like $150, alas. A quite heavy taper crimp was necessary to get this velocity. I went all the way to 14.5 grs of Bullseye, with no pressure signs, in a fully supported barrel, but the velocity seemed to be a bit less. I went up .5 grs at a time, while having the stocks off, welders glove on, "hugging" a tree, wearing glasses, etc, but I've seen much worse pressure signs on 200 gr swc's, at 1050 fps. The greater bore friction, and increased weight of the tin cast bullet seem to be an advantage. My epoxy-jhps seemed to be squirting out of the barrel before the powder could burn very well. 0 -
I can see where this post is going; We started out "Guy's does this sound real to you"? So far four people have given you a negative opinion of this supposed loading. I have right in front of me a Remington Peters .45 ACP case which contains 14.5 grains of Bullseye powder. The case is filled to near capacity (almost up to the very top). Your 14.5 gr loading would not allow a bullet to be seated into the case at any suitable depth what so ever. You can't fit a quart of water into a 1 pint can. No one on this borad is going on record to support this type of hand loading; a load far beyond any recommended loadings given by reputable sources.
Mark T. Christian0 -
if you try it, you will see that seating a 185 gr jhp on 14.5 grs of Bullseye is quite "doable", I used R-P cases. There are ZERO "recommended loads" for such lightweight bullets. So you are just out of your league, that's all. Do a net search for RBCD ammo, and check out their "tactical" .45 ACP, 90 grs at 2300 fps. I don't care what others "think" about what I've DONE, (and they HAVEN'T.) At one time, everyone on earth "knew' that the sun revolved around the earth, you know? :-) The 60 gr bullet never really got the pressures up at all, cause it was out of the muzzle before much of the powder could burn. That's why adding more powder(than the optimal 13 grs) didn't increase velocity any. 0 -
quote:My epoxy-jhps seemed to be squirting out of the barrel before the powder could burn very well.
Why waste powder? Except for a nice "light show".
quote:I went all the way to 14.5 grs of Bullseye
Would be interesting to know how you stuffed that 185 into the case, to get a correct Overall Cartridge Length of 1.185 using a Sierra 185, or 1.230 with a Hornady?
Being as my Hornady manual shows 6.5 gn. of Bullseye at MAX., and the older Sierra manual 5.6 at MAX. for a 185 JHP bullet, I would not subject my Colt to the pressure you are talking about.
quote:Guys, does that sound real to you?
Nope.
"Don't send flowers when I die. Send money now so I can buy more guns and ammo."0 -
Acy, I don't know whether you are a troll or simply having an out of body experience. The M1911 type pistols are made to operate within certain bullet weight / velocity & pressure level ranges. With its burning rate and pressure curve, 14.5 grains of Bullseye is far too much. You cannot fit that amount of powder in the .45 ACP casing without compressing the powder rather severely, which only serves to exacerbate the problem. I cannot think of any cartridge I would load with so much of this particular powder, much less compressed. I don't care if the bullet is 60gr, it is not safe.
As Mark noted, the Government had a serious problem with overcharged rounds in the early days. In fact, there were experiments using other powders well into the 1920s (I have a box of this ammo on the shelf at the moment) in an effort to find a powder which would perform as well as Bullseye in the .45, but overflow the case if a double charge occurred. They didn't find one, so they concentrated on improving the process.
And if you think $1500 won't buy a used M29, I have one I'd love to sell you for that price! In fact, I'm sure I can find as many as you could load in a freight car if you were paying $1500 each.
Bottom line: if you are *really* doing this, stop. If you won't stop, at least make sure you have life, disablility and liability insurance to cover the inevitable result. But, frankly, I would take your comments with a large quantity of sodium chloride.0 -
I guess you just can't read, eh? I said $150, plain as day, so the $1500 is just a figment of your imagination. Ditto the "problem" seating the bullet on 14.5 grs of Bullseye. Anyone who will TRY it will see that the press does this job with ease. Anyone who will TRY it, will see that 9 grs of Bullseye, with such a SIXTY GRAIN,(can you READ THAT) epoxy cored bullet, wont cycle the slide, with regular 16 lb springs in a GM, and 10 grs wont do so with a 20 lb recoil spring in the gun. There fore, a 50% increase in powder is nothing. It's NOT high pressure. If you would take the trouble to READ, you'd SEE why I used the 60 gr bullet. I dont HAVE the 155 gr mold, with which to cast the 100 gr swc's (out of nearly pure tin). Just because you "think" something is such and such, does not make it so. 0 -
Acy, I did read your posts. I admit I did misread the "$150o" as $1500, not as a typo . . . in any case, I do stand by the observations I made and agree with the others who consider this a bad idea. Being able to compress 14.5 grains of Bullseye in a .45 ACP case doesn't mean it is safe - consider that double and triple charge errors were the reason for the military powder experiments in this cartridge the first 15 or so years after its introduction. Yes, I understand the projectile weight is 25% of the norm, but I will stick with published data from reputable firms rather than something " On another forum, I saw a claim . . . ." The individuals making such claims can say anything they want without the risk of liability.
You asked for opinions, you have them. Where you go from there is up to you.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
13 comments