.45ACP 185 gr XTP OAL Discrepancy

concern, sure - how much concern is the question. what are the charges? what powder? the OAL from my understanding will bring up the pressure some as the bullet is seated a bit deeper, but - if that is risky or not is a question again just from my understanding depends on what the respective charge looks like. I don't load .45 ACP, someone else can chime in on the specifics, but - .032 would get my attention and I'd be doing what you're doing and sanity checking myself, so - good call.

Saluki91 said:

Is the .032” discrepancy a cause for concern?

Click to expand...

That's not a discrepancy (a lack of compatibility between two or more facts), it's a difference between two data sets. Data sets are different.

Further, you should not use either published COAL. Instead you should perform a plunk test, set a test COAL about 0.020 short of plunk or magazine limit, and shoot a function test to see if it feeds.

Saluki91 said:

My copy of The Complete Reloading Manual has data from Hornady that lists OAL for this bullet at 1.213”.

Click to expand...

Saluki91 said:

I have since found the most recent Hornady data, and it lists the OAL for this bullet at 1.245”.

Click to expand...

One set of data is just as valid as the other... they were certainly generated with care and process. You didn't specify what edition Hornady manual you used to work those loads up, maybe check and let us know. There is very likely differences in the load data specifics that led them to what they published.

FWIW, the Lyman 51st edition lists the 185 XTP OAL @ 1.225"

I think you'd be correct adhering to the bullet manufacturers suggestions however, since many people don't own a Hornady manual (I'm one of them) and there are definitely discrepancies of data between various sources, it's likely that we would have never, otherwise, known about their suggested OAL, leading me to believe that there is a certain amount of leeway in that regard.

I'm just some guy on the internet but, in my opinion, if you're not at a maximum load it's reasonable to consider that you are still within the margins of safety.

Again, that's my opinion but that's also how I would approach it if I were in your situation.

Of course, if you're at or near a published max load, all bets are off and proceed at your own risk.

Finally, if you're still uncomfortable with that OAL, breaking down 15 rounds is hardly "work"

Saluki91 said:

Both sets list the same powders and charges. The only thing that appears to be different is the OAL.

Click to expand...

Is there a "FPS" listed for both with the respected data .....?

Did you read the note below the “Complete…” table? The OAL listed is for minimum specifications chambers. Does the more recent table say the same thing?

Saluki, what is your load data? What powder charge weights did you loaded?

Saluki91 said:

Yes - Same disclaimer.

Click to expand...

In that case, unless you’re at the maximum load, I would consider both sets of data perfectly safe and chronograph it to make sure it really is what the table lists. If you are at maximum, take them apart and start at the longer loads minimum.

Saluki91 said:

The ladder I loaded was Bullseye - 5.5gr, 5.8gr, 6.1gr

Click to expand...

Do you have a chronograph?

I hate to break it to you, but coming out of my Hornady 7th... I have completely different data than either of those two...

You are well below maximum... you'll be fine.

I would see how your particular handloads perform... with an eye to extending the OAL a smidge.

Saluki91 said:

The first set is photocopied Hornady data published in The Complete Reloading Manual.

Click to expand...

I was a bit surprised to see the 6.6 bullseye load was not “blacked out” as a maximum load. Not that I’d count on that for anything, it could be just another copy/paste error.
Just to confuse things a bit more, the Hornady 10th edition lists the 185gr XTP at 1.245”, with 6.6 bullseye max at 950 fps.
I do have Bullseye on the list to buy when it becomes available since it seems it’s independent of seating depth.

If it were me, I wouldn’t have a problem firing the loaded rounds starting with the mins given you’re not near max, however if that’s not the COL you intend to settle on, why waste the components?

GeoDudeFlorida said:

In that case, unless you’re at the maximum load, I would consider both sets of data perfectly safe and chronograph it to make sure it really is what the table lists. If you are at maximum, take them apart and start at the longer loads minimum.

Click to expand...

^^^ My opinion also. Tested published loads are just that.....tested, to be safe in modern firearms that are functioning properly. Period. While I would do a plunk test with the longer COL ammo to make sure it fits in the chamber(something I do with all of my autoloader ammo and make sure the shorter ammo feeds properly from the mags, I would not have issues with shooting either in my guns. Many of us alter the OAL of our autofeeding ammo. Mos of the time, when you see ammo with shorter OALs in manuals, they also have a lesser max load. The adjustment made for the shorter OAL. This is no different than factory loaded ammo. They too have varying OALs, yet are safe to shoot in modern firearms, regardless of make or model.

Every data set you see is just a test. There are no guarantees in Reloading. Some manuals don't even give an oal at all. We are supposed to have faith in a process of working up from a start load in the boolit slinger in question. As you load repeatedly for the same bullet slinger you can characterize how it behaves based on previous experience. If you found a load that exactly matches one in a manual the prevailing opinion is its safe. If you found a different or revised load in another manual your seeing more of the picture of why I call this a science not just an assembly procedure. Look at #9 in 5 different manuals for 357 and you will find 5 different loads all different oals and powder maximums.
***** final answer, start at start and work up*****

The dimensions listed are what the test tech used at the time of the tesitng, not hard and fast formula. Personally I would start with Hornady manual load data and plunk test the handloads...

AJC1 said:

There are no guarantees in Reloading.

Click to expand...

.....Yes there is. If you follow the recipe in a published manual, using the same components, the load will be safe to shoot in your gun(as long as it is a modern firearm in good condition). I have been reloading for over 3 decades and belong to many various gun and reloading forums. Never have I see anything mentioned about a published load resulting in a Kaboom. While I do recommend starting below max and moving up in small increments, it's not about the published data, but about the reloader themselves, their equipment, their guns. Published loads will always be below SAAMI max pressure, just like factory ammo. For good reason. Now, if one is substituting components, or has a gun with known quirks, all bets are off. But those folks that publish manuals know what they are doing, know the risks and their liabilities. They will not steer you wrong.

AJC1 said:

Some manuals don't even give an oal at all.

Click to expand...

Never have seen that in any manual I have ever seen. Some times it's hard to find, but it will be listed if it is a reputable manual,

AJC1 said:

Look at #9 in 5 different manuals for 357 and you will find 5 different loads all different oals and powder maximums.

Click to expand...

Again, just what worked well for the tester. different loads for different OALs. In .357 tho, OALs are determined by the crimp grove when there is one and the case length. Not really as issue, unless one is using bullets without a crimp groove(such as cheap plated).

But, this is all my opinion based on my experience, YMMV.

Saluki91 said:

The ladder I loaded was Bullseye - 5.5gr, 5.8gr, 6.1gr

Click to expand...

GeoDudeFlorida said:

Do you have a chronograph?

Click to expand...

Did you get a chance to test 'em out yet.....?.....