In looking over this discussion, it seems to me that
there are two / three subtopics / assumptions as well as the OP's primary question.
The primary question is, "How long does .45 ACP brass last?"
Several of us answered that question, with lesser or greater detail. At the risk of oversimplifying it, most of us responding said something like "we lose it before it wears out."
The first subtopic that we got was the data set. That data set includes the revelation that, according to current published standards, it was an overpressure load.
And, in varying ways, some of us responded with our concerns about overpressure loads. These responses follow the implicit ethos of these people--perhaps simply said, that is the willingness to offer guidance to promote safe reloading practices and to avoid unnecessary danger.
But, buried in this subtopic was the poster's comments on techniques for considering these overpressure issues through brass measurement. And that was where a few of us jumped: because our study of overpressure load topics has revealed that with low pressure handgun cartridges, physical measurement of cases before and after shooting, as well as "reading" primers has been shown to have NO correlation with safe operating pressures.
I, for one, jumped on that. Tactfully perceived, I hope, but with an attempt on my part to suggest doing so was not wise.
The second subtopic was found in the poster's revelation that he's been a 'casual' reloader, and seeking an answer to his measurement observations.So, we chimed in with various answers, including the well-known one that handgun brass doesn't stretch in OAL, it shrinks with repeated use.
It would appear now that we are heading into the secondary discussions.
Grey Morel has responded twice now with reasonable defense of his assumptions about this recipe, and his variances in loading it.
I'm going to suggest that, pending gaining further experience in reloading in a broader range of recipes and possibly calibers, he treat the recipes less as guidelines and more as specifications.
Here, you are varying only one component (disregarding fine-tuned case specifcations)--the bullet. But: that one component not only changed in weight, but also in type. The changes appear 'reasonable,' I guess--but I suspect that most of us responding here treat recipes as quite specific--with specific components, and with specific procedures we use for (re)developing loads. Without going on forever, I suggest that Grey Morel may want to study load development topics and how they relate to a suitable workflow when varying recipes.
The reason I say that is because, by manipulating that one component--in two ways, type and weight--you are in fact adjusting and changing parameters that make this a potentially-dangerous load. IMO.
Grey Morel, what load books do you have? I am sure the posters in this thread may own the same ones, and we will be happy to offer a reference for study.
Finally, since we know nothing about the firearm used for these loads--is it a 1911? modified / how modified? Does it have a fully-supported barrel? etc., etc.--I suspect most of us are at least subconsciously being more reticent with this factor in mind.
OK, I've said enough now. I'll probably come back and edit this later, too, so if it's worth reading to all of us, re-read it later--edits don't get notifications.
Jim H.
