[wolfe28]

I keep hearing that people who shoot bullseye always load a 200 grain bullet in their bullseye loads. Why is that? I realize that the DCM matches require a 230, but it seems that everyone uses 200's for everything else.
Thanks,
D

[cdrt]

When I first started shooting Bullseye in the 70's, I would shoot 200 grain SWCs for the 50 yard slow fire and 185s for the 25 yard timed and rapid. After a while, I switched to just the 185 grain SWC. It does fine at 50 yards and I really don't notice a difference. My slow fire scores fluctuate between the high 80's and low 90's unless I really have a twitchy day. I shot a 95-2X on one slow fire in Wichita Falls last Saturday and it was mildly windy.

Some guys will say the 200 is better if it's windy, but if it's that windy, both bullets would get pushed around.

I think down our way, it's probably evenly split; some guys use the 200 and some the 185. I did get some 180s from American Precision bullets in Oklahoma and they shoot as well as the 185s.

I'm sure you'll get some other responses, but it all boils down to personal preference and whether or not they work in your pistol. There is no hard and fast rule about what bullet to use.

[Jim Watson]

Supposedly the 200 gr SWC was developed by taking a 230 gr roundnose and cutting away all the lead possible while leaving the bearing surface at full length and enough of a nose to feed.

There were a lot of different SWC moulds with actual bullet weights of 195 to 207 gr, as well as 185s as they figured out how to make such stubby bullets feed reasonably well.

[cdrt]

My bullet guy makes both the stubby version of the 185 and a longer nose version. I was using the stubbies, but have switched to the longer nose version. It seems to feed better out of my various wad guns, so I don't need to feed my Gold Cup one thing and my Clark gun something different.

[eflatminor]

I tried several different bullet types and weights before settling on 200g Oregon Trail SWC. It was simply more accurate in my gun than 185 Sierras, 200 Hornadys, and several other loads known for accuracy. Lucky me, the Oregon Trail bullets are much cheaper than most.

[Master Blaster]

Because JMB wanted it that way.

John Moses Browning, father of the 1911 originally developed the .45 acp round as a 200 grain bullet at 950 fps.

The Bullseye gods smile upon this bullet, and it produces better scores than any other.;)

[bofe954]

While we're on the subject-

Why not the 230 gr?

I am a fairly new reloader and bought a lot of 230gr because it seemed like it was the cheapest and easiest to find. I am shooting USPSA so I don't need the accuracy a bullseye guy needs but was wondering...

To make major power factor I only need to push them to 725fps or so. Will I lose a lot of accuracy having them slower vs a lighter bullet faster like 200 at 825-850?

[cdrt]

To make major power factor I only need to push them to 725fps or so. Will I lose a lot of accuracy having them slower vs a lighter bullet faster like 200 at 825-850?

Let me say again, there are no absolutes in reloading with any particular bullet. What works well for one guy, may not work at all for another.

The 230 grain bullet will produce good accuracy as long as you load it close to the 800 fps mark; at least that's what I've been told and my own experience seems to back it up. I tried loading the 230 grain FMJ lighter than usual for the 25 yard line at Leg Matches. The recoil was acceptable, but I didn't think the bullet was doing as well as it could. I bumped it back up so I'm getting just at 800 fps and it does just fine. (28 Leg points; only two to go)

For a practice load, since FMJs are pricey, I load 4.0 grains of BE with a cast 230 RN lead bullet. It had the same accuracy, fps, drop at 50 yards and apparent recoil as my "hardball" load in the same pistol. Using that load, I shot a 814 out of 900 at a Bullseye match a couple months ago.

Also, you're using the bullet designed for the 1911; a round nose bullet will feed whereas some SWCs have problems in the 1911 unless you have the pistol tuned up. You might want to experiment with some SWCs once you run low on 230 RN, but you have should work just fine for the competition you're shooting.

[BigG]

I think Jim Watson is on to something. The 200 grain SWC has perfect exterior points to mimic the feeding of hard ball. I've never had a bit of trouble feeding and firing the 200 grain through any unmodified Colt, old or new.

[bdutton]

Best accuracy I have seen in my gun has been with 185 grain bullets. 4.4 VVN310 with a Nosler 185 JHP and 4.3g WST Star 185g Lead SWCHP (no longer in production).

[cdrt]

I think Jim Watson is on to something. The 200 grain SWC has perfect exterior points to mimic the feeding of hard ball. I've never had a bit of trouble feeding and firing the 200 grain through any unmodified Colt, old or new.

Okay, here's both the 200 and 185 grain SWC...which is which? And why would one cycle better than the other?

[BigG]

They would work the same with the same nose as far as feeding. The weight must be shaved off the base on the lighter bullet. I would check for accuracy with both and choose the better of the two. I bought the 200 grainers to start and stuck with them as I can't outshoot em. YMMV

[Jim Watson]

Careful, there cdrt, you are falling into the common trap of "THE semiwadcutter" and "Load THE semiwadcutter to 1.250000" OAL."

There have been a lot of different semiwadcutters over the past 75 years.

You illustrate what is probably a machine cast copy of the Hensley & Gibbs #68 long nosed 200 gr semiwadcutter and a copy of the #68S long nosed 185 gr semiwadcutter. The 68S was meant for reduced recoil and as good feeding as the #68 but at sacrifice of bearing surface which can hurt accuracy. Most bullseye shooters use (Or at least did use, back when you cast your own bullets if you wanted anything but hardball.) SWCs with shorter noses and longer bearing surfaces. The guns were throated out heavily to feed the short noses.

[wolfe28]

But now I have another question. So far, I, and my gun, seem to really like Berry's 230gr plated LRN. Assuming they are accurate enough (I currently have a 6-8 inch gun, which won't work for bullseye, but I'm going to get it accurized), can they be used in a DCM match, or does it have to be true FMJ ammunition?

Thanks again,

D

[cdrt]

Per CMP rules, the bullet has to be a true 230 Grain FMJ; plated bullets do not qualify.
Rule 6.6.2, Pistol Ammunition.

[cdrt]

Careful, there cdrt, you are falling into the common trap of "THE semiwadcutter" and "Load THE semiwadcutter to 1.250000" OAL."

Okay, that just confuses the heck out of me. I don't measure OAL when loading this type of bullet. I load it so the reveal on the straight part of the bullet is roughly half way between the top of the leading edge and the grease lube ring, and so that they will load in the magazine.

I know all about the stubby 185 SWCs...if you would read my earlier post, but that's not what we've been talking about.

AND, like I have said in just about every post about reloading that I've done, there are no absolutes in reloading; what works for one guy may not work for another.

[saltydog452]

The 185 H&G # 130 and 3.5 BE was used on the short line because it had lower recoil. That helps in sustained fire.

The 200 H&G # 68 and 3.8 BE was used on the long line because, supposedly, the heavier bullet was still stabilized at the longer range and was less resistent to wind movement. The pistol ranges at Camp Perry were open, no berms to slow the wind.

I doubt that most shooters below the level of Master could tell the difference.

At that time, shooters cast their own bulets. A single 4 cavity H&G mould when it started to 'run' soon got too hot to dump consistent bullets, so most of us used two moulds. It only made sense to buy the 130 and 68 moulds from H&G. Some competitors use the H&G # 78 200 rather than the # 68 200.

Since most of the guns came from folks like Jim Clark, Bob Chow, Bob Day or MTU armorers, reliability wasn't an issue with any H&G bullet. Poor casting technique did make a difference though. Don't know about seating depth or OAL. I used a Star Universal Progressive for all 45 loading chores and did not find the need to alter the seating die for different bullet weights of the H&G bullets.

Like current Cowboy loads, all that was needed was enough powder to provide reliable function and to impart enough velocity to stabilize a given bullet at a given distance with as little recoil as possible. The 3.5 BE/185 and 3.8 BE/200 did just that.

I don't know of anyone who loaded the 230 RN...surplus ball was too easy to come by. Reliable JHPs hadn't made it on the scene yet so, Unique and the H&G 68 was pretty much the default SD and Hardball equivelent load cranked out on the single stage press. Felt recoil was about the same.

Competitors who used the Clark Long Heavy Slide generally loaded the same bullets as mentioned above but with slightly stiffer charges of 700X or BE.

The Long Heavy Slides with the full length Bomar rib from Clark had a bit of an advantage regarding sight radius and heft but were more demanding of the shooters skill.

At the DCM matches, we were issued GI hardball. Thats since changed and reloads are now allowed.

Thats considerably more than you asked and some of the information is dated by about 30 years, but I hope that helps.

salty.

[wolfe28]

Hey there all,
Thanks again for all the info. I really appreciate it.
D