RMR .45 230gr. FMJ RN test results

vaalpens · Sep 28, 2018

A few weeks ago RMR had a 10% discount coupon and I decided to try these 230gr. bullets from RMR. This week RMR had another 10% discount on these bullets, so I purchased a few more of these bullets. It seems that I am going to like these 230gr. bullets, even though I have mostly been loading 200gr bullets in .45.

Yesterday I was finally able to test my first loads in 230gr, and I think I am impressed with how well it performs with Bullseye. I have read a lot about how these two were made for each other and the Bullseye 5.0gr load is the standard. The best grouping I was able to get did not beat my best with a 200gr bullet, but this was the first try, with no tweaking, and the grouping were consistent throughout the range I loaded. I will probably be able to squeeze out some better groupings out of this combination, but for now I am happy with the results.

Following are my Bullseye loads and results:

Please note that these were tested at 15 yards, using a rest, and a scope that wasn't zeroed.

45acp, P220, 4.4"
Case: Geco
COL: 1.255"
RMR, 230gr, FMJRN, Bullseye, 4.6gr, CCI300
Average: 724
ES: 24
SD: 9.8
Force: 268
PF: 166
Velocities: 707, 729, 729, 731, 724
Grouping @ 15yd: 1.73"
Test Date: 09/27/2018

45acp, P220, 4.4"
Case: Geco
COL: 1.255"
RMR, 230gr, FMJRN, Bullseye, 4.7gr, CCI300
Average: 729
ES: 20
SD: 9.4
Force: 271
PF: 167
Velocities: 739, 740, 720, 724, 724
Grouping @ 15yd: 1.35"
Test Date: 09/27/2018

45acp, P220, 4.4"
Case: Geco
COL: 1.255"
RMR, 230gr, FMJRN, Bullseye, 4.8gr, CCI300
Average: 741
ES: 11
SD: 4.8
Force: 280
PF: 170
Velocities: 747, 742, 736, 738, 746
Grouping @ 15yd: 0.87"
Test Date: 09/27/2018

45acp, P220, 4.4"
Case: Geco
COL: 1.255"
RMR, 230gr, FMJRN, Bullseye, 4.9gr, CCI300
Average: 762
ES: 21
SD: 8.4
Force: 296
PF: 175
Velocities: 776, 759, 766, 758, 755
Grouping @ 15yd: 0.87"
Test Date: 09/27/2018

45acp, P220, 4.4"
Case: Geco
COL: 1.255"
RMR, 230gr, FMJRN, Bullseye, 5gr, CCI300
Average: 787
ES: 38
SD: 18.1
Force: 316
PF: 181
Velocities: 806, 801, 792, 768, 768
Grouping @ 15yd: 1.41"
Test Date: 09/27/2018

45acp, P220, 4.4"
Case: Geco
COL: 1.255"
RMR, 230gr, FMJRN, Bullseye, 5.1gr, CCI300
Average: 792
ES: 33
SD: 13.5
Force: 320
PF: 182
Velocities: 814, 797, 790, 781, 782
Grouping @ 15yd: 0.65"
Test Date: 09/27/2018

mdi · Sep 28, 2018

My "just in case ammo" for my 45 ACP is a RMR 230 gr, FMJ over 5.0 Bullseye. This operates quite well in both my 45s and I'm sure it will work in nearly every 45 ACP out there. It isn't foo "hot" and recoil is "normal". I also have a "standard" load of a 200 gr. SWC, that my 1911 really, but for general shooting and my go bag, the RMR RN over Bullseye is great...

longdayjake · Sep 28, 2018

Our supplier for these things has been so weird. They drop the price by like 15% one week then raise it by 20% the next. Once these 45s are out I don't know what price they will be at. It's annoying.

Walkalong · Sep 28, 2018

longdayjake said:
It's annoying.

No doubt.

vaalpens · Sep 28, 2018

longdayjake said:
Our supplier for these things has been so weird. They drop the price by like 15% one week then raise it by 20% the next. Once these 45s are out I don't know what price they will be at. It's annoying.

Jake, thanks for taking the time to respond to this thread. I actually just picked up the bullets I ordered on Monday. Excellent shipping and handling time as always, and I am not complaining about the 10% discount while it lasted.

vaalpens · Sep 28, 2018

I also tested some Sport Pistol loads yesterday. The groupings I saw were not as good as with Bullseye, but it could be me since these were the first loads I tested after nearly 2 months of not shooting. It took a bit of time to get comfortable again, which could have contributed some to the flyers I saw. I will probably do some more testing with Sports Pistol after I testing some BE-86 and other loads.

Please note that these were tested at 15 yards, using a rest, and a scope that wasn't zeroed.

45acp, P220, 4.4"
Case: Winchester
COL: 1.255"
RMR, 230gr, FMJRN, SportPistol, 4.9gr, CCI300
Average: 739
ES: 34
SD: 12.8
Force: 279
PF: 169
Velocities: 747, 721, 755, 739, 735
Grouping @ 15yd: 1.05"
Test Date: 09/27/2018

45acp, P220, 4.4"
Case: Winchester
COL: 1.255"
RMR, 230gr, FMJRN, SportPistol, 5gr, CCI300
Average: 748
ES: 39
SD: 15.7
Force: 286
PF: 172
Velocities: 738, 759, 729, 768, 748
Grouping @ 15yd: 1.61"
Test Date: 09/27/2018

45acp, P220, 4.4"
Case: Winchester
COL: 1.255"
RMR, 230gr, FMJRN, SportPistol, 5.1gr, CCI300
Average: 764
ES: 23
SD: 8.4
Force: 298
PF: 175
Velocities: 754, 777, 765, 761, 767
Grouping @ 15yd: 1.26"
Test Date: 09/27/2018

45acp, P220, 4.4"
Case: Winchester
COL: 1.255"
RMR, 230gr, FMJRN, SportPistol, 5.2gr, CCI300
Average: 778
ES: 62
SD: 23.5
Force: 309
PF: 178
Velocities: 748, 765, 810, 784, 787
Grouping @ 15yd: 1.04"
Test Date: 09/27/2018

45acp, P220, 4.4"
Case: Winchester
COL: 1.255"
RMR, 230gr, FMJRN, SportPistol, 5.3gr, CCI300
Average: 801
ES: 48
SD: 20.7
Force: 328
PF: 184
Velocities: 814, 830, 797, 783, 782
Grouping @ 15yd: 1.58"
Test Date: 09/27/2018

45acp, P220, 4.4"
Case: Winchester
COL: 1.255"
RMR, 230gr, FMJRN, SportPistol, 5.4gr, CCI300
Average: 813
ES: 30
SD: 12.6
Force: 338
PF: 186
Velocities: 814, 823, 827, 804, 797
Grouping @ 15yd: 1.38"
Test Date: 09/27/2018

Galil5.56 · Sep 28, 2018

Nice results, and my P220 gets similar results. It's nice to see 5 grains of BE and a 230 grain FMJ... Same data as I recall printed on the box of some WWI ammo, with an 800 +/- 25 fps spec from a 1911. Looking at your Sport Pistol data, it seems it runs just a smidge 'faster'' than WW231, and seemingly plenty accurate too. Good shootin.

Dudedog · Sep 28, 2018

Hi vaalpens!
Nice shooting.
Welcome back, missed your posts.
Nice write up as always!

How are you liking the .45?

Slamfire · Sep 28, 2018

In Clawson's book of the 1911, Colt.45 Service Pistols : Models of 1911 and 1911A1, the specification for the 1910 ammunition used in the 1911 final acceptance was a 230 FMJ and 5.0 grains of Bullseye. The desired velocity was 800 fps.

This is not a drawing of a ball cartridge, but you can see in this WW2 drawing, they are using Bullseye powder for the 1911.

It is hard to beat Bullseye in the 1911 as the cartridge and the pistol were designed and tuned with this powder. In fact, claims of a better powder are pretty hard to prove, if what you want is a target load, or a load that equals ball ammunition.

These match boxes show 820 fps. But mind you, this is in a five inch barrel, the shorter barrel of a P220 cuts the velocity by about fifty fps.

vaalpens · Sep 28, 2018

mdi said:
My "just in case ammo" for my 45 ACP is a RMR 230 gr, FMJ over 5.0 Bullseye. This operates quite well in both my 45s and I'm sure it will work in nearly every 45 ACP out there. It isn't foo "hot" and recoil is "normal". I also have a "standard" load of a 200 gr. SWC, that my 1911 really, but for general shooting and my go bag, the RMR RN over Bullseye is great...

Thanks for the information. There was a difference between the feel of the Bullseye and Sport Pistol loads. It seems that the Bullseye felt a bit sharper, but the ejection distances for both were about the same.

vaalpens · Sep 28, 2018

Galil5.56 said:
Nice results, and my P220 gets similar results. It's nice to see 5 grains of BE and a 230 grain FMJ... Same data as I recall printed on the box of some WWI ammo, with an 800 +/- 25 fps spec from a 1911. Looking at your Sport Pistol data, it seems it runs just a smidge 'faster'' than WW231, and seemingly plenty accurate too. Good shootin.

Thanks for the nice comments. I don't use Bullseye a lot, but I have seen in other testing that is is not always the best grouping, but it shows consistent good groupings through the range I tested. I have a feeling taht i will probably be using more Bullseye in the future, especially with 230gr FMJ RN bullets.

vaalpens · Sep 28, 2018

Dudedog said:
Hi vaalpens!
Nice shooting.
Welcome back, missed your posts.
Nice write up as always!

How are you liking the .45?

Thanks Dudedog!

I had a lot of stuff going on, plus the temperatures were on the high side over the last couple of months. From now on I should be able to get back to working up some loads again.

Lately I have been reloading mostly .45, .40 and some 9mm. It is probably time again to work up some loads in 38spl, 357mag and 357sig again. Just need to find more time and money.

vaalpens · Sep 29, 2018

Slamfire said:
In Clawson's book of the 1911, Colt.45 Service Pistols : Models of 1911 and 1911A1, the specification for the 1910 ammunition used in the 1911 final acceptance was a 230 FMJ and 5.0 grains of Bullseye. The desired velocity was 800 fps.

This is not a drawing of a ball cartridge, but you can see in this WW2 drawing, they are using Bullseye powder for the 1911.

It is hard to beat Bullseye in the 1911 as the cartridge and the pistol were designed and tuned with this powder. In fact, claims of a better powder are pretty hard to prove, if what you want is a target load, or a load that equals ball ammunition.

These match boxes show 820 fps. But mind you, this is in a five inch barrel, the shorter barrel of a P220 cuts the velocity by about fifty fps.

Slamfire, thanks for sharing the 1911/.45 information. I did not expect to match the 820fps velocity with the shorter barrel, but I was hoping to see decent/good accuracy around the 5.gr magic number. Looks like I should be loading at 5gr with both 4.9gr and 5.1gr loads showing the best accuracy. What I will probably do is test 4 more loads from 4.9gr to 5.2gr to see if I can duplicate or better the accuracy.

1KPerDay · Sep 29, 2018

You have a scope on your 220? Can you post a pic?

Slamfire · Sep 29, 2018

I don't use Bullseye a lot, but I have seen in other testing that is is not always the best grouping, but it shows consistent good groupings through the range I tested.

It is not the fault of the powder. Bullseye powder has been a staple of the target shooting community for over a century. When Bullseye got hard to find, a number walked over to Titegroup. When I ask them their loads, it is either the same Bullseye charge I am using, or a tenth of a grain different.

Slamfire, thanks for sharing the 1911/.45 information. I did not expect to match the 820fps velocity with the shorter barrel, but I was hoping to see decent/good accuracy around the 5.gr magic number. Looks like I should be loading at 5gr with both 4.9gr and 5.1gr loads showing the best accuracy. What I will probably do is test 4 more loads from 4.9gr to 5.2gr to see if I can duplicate or better the accuracy.

You know, lots vary. I am currently using a 2005 lot of Bullseye that is a bit slow. The other lots of Bullseye I used gave 740 fps with a 200 LSWC and 4.0 grains. The 2005 lot is consistently giving my 715 fps with 4.0 grains of Bullseye, so I am going to have to bump up the charge. A chronograph is a wonderful thing to have.

Incidentally, these should give you an idea of the difference in velocity out of a SIG P220 and a standard 5.0 inch barrel:

SIG SAUER P220
200 LSWC 4.0 grs Bullseye Mixed cases CCI300
23-Apr-11 T = 75 °F

Ave Vel = 689.1
Std Dev = 19.13
ES = 73.13
High = 717.9
Low = 644.8
N = 15

Kimber Custom Classic 5 inch barrel
200 LSWC 4.0 grs Bullseye Mixed cases CCI300
11-Sep-05 T = 88 °F

Ave Vel = 738.9
Std Dev = 10.34
ES = 37.98
High = 755.8
Low = 717.8
N = 32

SIG SAUER P220
230 LRN 5.5 grs W231 lot 68UB (80's) Mixed brass WLP OAL 1.25" taper crimp .469
23-Apr-11 T = 72 °F

Ave Vel = 800.1
Std Dev = 14
ES = 51.34
High = 826.1
Low = 774.7
N = 17

Kimber Custom Classic 5 inch barrel
230 LRN 5.5 grs W231 Mixed brass WLP OAL 1.245" taper crimp 0.469"
27-Feb-10 T = 48 °F

Ave Vel =832.4
Std Dev =25.07
ES =106.1
High = 859.6
Low = 753.4
N = 16

SIG SAUER P220
230 LRN 4.5 grs Bullseye (98&05) mixed lot brass WLP OAL 1.25" taper crimp 0.469"
23-Apr-11 T = 72 °F

Ave Vel = 749.6
Std Dev = 15
ES = 48.15
High = 776.7
Low = 728.6
N = 16

Kimber Custom Classic 5 inch barrel
230 gr LRN 4.5 grs Bullseye 98' & 2005 mfgr mixed lot Mixed Brass WLP OAL 1.250" taper crimp 0.469"
16-May-09 high 83 °F

Ave Vel = 805.2
Std Dev = 38.07
ES = 136.9
High = 912.4
Low = 775.5
N = 24

SIG SAUER P220
230 LRN 5.5 grs Unique Lot UN331 1989 mfgr mixed brass WLP OAL 1.25" taper crimp 0.469"
23-Apr-11 T = 75 °F

Ave Vel = 790.6
Std Dev = 17.14
ES = 57.3
High = = 815.6
Low = 758.3
N = 10

Kimber Custom Classic 5 inch barrel
230 LRN 5.5 grs Unique lot UN331 1989 Mixed brass WLP OAL 1.250" taper crimped 0.469"
16-May-09 high 83 °F

Ave Vel = 827.4
Std Dev = 17.63
ES = 85.68
High = 871.6
Low = 785.9
N = 31

I also don't mix lots of powder, which I did before I found out that powder has an unpredictable shelf life. The mixed lot of Bullseye I used worked fine, and I blew it all down range before anything funny happened. At the time I was consolidating two kegs, and thought nothing about it, because, I knew nothing about it. And that was not by accident. Now I know about Agnotology. Now I am self educated on this topic, but not before accidentally running into someone who knew about Insensitive Munitions, which lead me down the path to enlightenment. Without that chance experience, I would still be believing that gunpowder lasts forever, because some in print gun writer told me so.

murf · Sep 29, 2018

i take it that "tweaking" would be changing the c.o.l.?

thanks for the info. i shoot a lot of 230 gn round nose with bullseye powder in my g30.

murf

vaalpens · Sep 29, 2018

Slamfire said:
It is not the fault of the powder. Bullseye powder has been a staple of the target shooting community for over a century. When Bullseye got hard to find, a number walked over to Titegroup. When I ask them their loads, it is either the same Bullseye charge I am using, or a tenth of a grain different.

I am not blaming Bulleye, just made an observation of what I have experienced so far. I don't do any bullseye or target shooting, but purely use my grouping test to evaluate my loads. When I say it is not my best grouping loading, it is purely technical, the difference between .539" and .650". There are so many things contributing to a grouping result. I have a feeling that with my next test I should be able to improve the grouping, if I can do my part..

Slamfire said:
You know, lots vary. I am currently using a 2005 lot of Bullseye that is a bit slow. The other lots of Bullseye I used gave 740 fps with a 200 LSWC and 4.0 grains. The 2005 lot is consistently giving my 715 fps with 4.0 grains of Bullseye, so I am going to have to bump up the charge. A chronograph is a wonderful thing to have.

Incidentally, these should give you an idea of the difference in velocity out of a SIG P220 and a standard 5.0 inch barrel:

Thanks for sharing your load results. I did not know there is such a difference between the velocities reached with 4.4" vs 5" barrels, but your results definitely highlighted the difference.

vaalpens · Sep 29, 2018

murf said:
i take it that "tweaking" would be changing the c.o.l.?

thanks for the info. i shoot a lot of 230 gn round nose with bullseye powder in my g30.

murf

I normally don't change the COL unless I have some unreliable feeding. Changing the COL would probably change the accuracy, but I don't know if I will be able to determine if the difference is me or the COL. What I also will do once in a while is try and find/select consistent brass and bullets, and take extra care when I weigh the charges. When I actually seat the bullet on my single stage I would group them base on seating feel, to hopefully get a consistent neck tension. Then finally I would take a bit more time to concentrate when I test the load.

My feeling is that when I get to a grouping of around .4" to .6", that the difference is probably me and some luck.

vaalpens · Sep 29, 2018

1KPerDay said:
You have a scope on your 220? Can you post a pic?

I use a scope mount and a cheap BSA scope. I don't know how good the combination is, but it is definitely better than just using the regular sights. My problem is that if the sights are in focus, then the target is so out of focus that I cannot aim at a consistent aiming point. The scope helps me a lot. I normally just put the mount on the gun, and if it is on the paper then, I'm good to go. That is why POI is most of the time not POA. This is what it looks like. It is a tight fit on my SIG's since it is for a picatinny rail, but a better fit on my SIG SP2022 since it comes with a picatinny rail.

Walkalong · Sep 29, 2018

That IMI Defense mount works great. It may have been vaalpens that turned me onto it after a similar mount failed me miserably.

Works great.

XDM with Ultra Dot LT Red Dot on IMI Mount @ 50%.JPG

Failed miserably.

XDM with Sightmark Red Dot on Mako Mount.JPG

Slamfire · Sep 29, 2018

vaalpens said:
I normally don't change the COL unless I have some unreliable feeding. Changing the COL would probably change the accuracy, but I don't know if I will be able to determine if the difference is me or the COL.

These are handguns, not rifles. The ten ring is four inches in diameter at 50 yards. I have seen some Bullseye shooters shoot 98's, maybe a 99, have not seen a 100, that is ten shots fired offhand, one handed, in the ten ring. Based on my experience and talks with others, the choice of bullet is the most important factor for accuracy, then powder and charge. Everything else is in the noise.

I set COL based on what feeds and extracts most reliably. Too long of a cartridge length and the the thing jams the slide going forward, and then becomes difficult to extract if the slide won't close. Because you can't fire it out.

Walkalong · Sep 29, 2018

Slamfire said:
I set COL based on what feeds and extracts most reliably.

Same here, then work up the load.

Dudedog · Sep 29, 2018

Yes IMI mount works well and is a reasonable price.
Only issue is my sights on my Sig are to high to go underneath it so I need to pull the mount to get the slide off.
vaalpens suggested it to me and I am happy with it.
My eyesight isn't what it used to be so having the mount a the scope helps for accuracy testing.
Still test without it because those tests tell me what I can do with the load and that really what the matters.

vaalpens · Sep 29, 2018

Slamfire said:
These are handguns, not rifles. The ten ring is four inches in diameter at 50 yards. I have seen some Bullseye shooters shoot 98's, maybe a 99, have not seen a 100, that is ten shots fired offhand, one handed, in the ten ring. Based on my experience and talks with others, the choice of bullet is the most important factor for accuracy, then powder and charge. Everything else is in the noise.

I set COL based on what feeds and extracts most reliably. Too long of a cartridge length and the the thing jams the slide going forward, and then becomes difficult to extract if the slide won't close. Because you can't fire it out.

I normally stick with what is reliable, but with every new bullet I calculate and decide a COL based on the seating depth and ogive. After doing a plunk test and manual cycle I could adjust the COL, but then normallt I would just stick with the COL I decided on with my initial loads. From that point on reliability will dictate if I change the COL or not.

vaalpens · Sep 29, 2018

Dudedog said:
Yes IMI mount works well and is a reasonable price.
Only issue is my sights on my Sig are to high to go underneath it so I need to pull the mount to get the slide off.
vaalpens suggested it to me and I am happy with it.
My eyesight isn't what it used to be so having the mount a the scope helps for accuracy testing.
Still test without it because those tests tell me what I can do with the load and that really what the matters.

Glad the IMI works for you. There are probably better scope mounts, but I am happy with it. I only use it for testing, so there is no need to remove the slide while the mount is on, unless there is an issue to be resolved.

All other shooting I do is without the mount/scope to really get a feel of the load. Lately I have been using the Dot Torture target at 5 or 7 yards to test POA/POI and practice my trigger control. I only do 10 rounds and just try and go as quickly as possible. This target is from the same shoot when I tested the last loads, with my .40S&W. I haven't timed myself, but I think I should probably start using the timer to push myself a bit.

RMR .45 230gr. FMJ RN test results

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Contributing Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Contributing Member

Member

Member

Similar threads