.45 ACP question

[Encoreman]

Hi all, I have been reloading for quite awhile, am going to start doing some .45 ACP for a friend and actually am going go teach him to do his own. Other than bullet seating depth and OAL does it matter if you use load data for a 230gr. RN and you have 230gr. TC bullets? This is going to be target practice ammo, but want to know for sure so I don't lead my friend in the wrong direction. Thanks for all replies. Before someone asks yes I have load books and read them. Mac

 

[Sneakshot92]

Hi all, I have been reloading for quite awhile, am going to start doing some .45 ACP for a friend and actually am going go teach him to do his own. Other than bullet seating depth and OAL does it matter if you use load data for a 230gr. RN and you have 230gr. TC bullets? This is going to be target practice ammo, but want to know for sure so I don't lead my friend in the wrong direction. Thanks for all replies. Before someone asks yes I have load books and read them. Mac

Shouldn't make too much difference. The only other difference is the overall profile of the ogive. That only affects feeding and bullet flight patterns/ trajectories

 

[jmorris]

Make sure they pass the ‘plunk test” as you set the seater, test function too before you load up a bunch.

 

[rfwobbly]

Be careful. Unlike RN and similar curved ogive shapes, Conical bullets bring the full bullet diameter out in front of the case. Their "shoulder" can often collide with the rifling, thus keeping the slide from fully going into battery. The OAL number you are looking for will be a result of how your exact bullet fits into your exact barrel. It is not something anyone can look up in a book.

In the following cartoon, you can see how a traditional RN (center) might have very adequate clearance, while the TC might have issues (left) in the same barrel....



Hope this helps.

 

[Erief0g]

Also, once you have found that you pass these plunk test and have your max oal due to rifling off the barrel. You will want to load up some test cartridges and check for feeding issues.

I had a bit of a time with swc profile bullets in my 1911 and actually had to load them longer than traditionally normal but still less than my max to get consistent feeding.

 

[Sneakshot92]

Be careful. Unlike RN and similar curved ogive shapes, Conical bullets bring the full bullet diameter out in front of the case. Their "shoulder" can often collide with the rifling, thus keeping the slide from fully going into battery. The OAL number you are looking for will be a result of how your exact bullet fits into your exact barrel. It is not something anyone can look up in a book.

In the following cartoon, you can see how a traditional RN (center) might have very adequate clearance, while the TC might have issues (left) in the same barrel....

View attachment 927223

Hope this helps.

Good point. Although they are 9mm guns the CZ75s are picky on bullet profiles.

 

[Charlie98]

I had a bit of a time with swc profile bullets in my 1911

True that. I have 2 basically identical 4" 1911's... one feeds SWC's fine, the other hangs up. I could have played around with the OAL, but I've decided to get out of the .45 SWC business entirely, and just stick with FMJ.

 

[mdi]

Other than bullet seating depth and OAL does it matter if you use load data for a 230gr. RN and you have 230gr. TC bullets?

Since you seem to already know about seating depth and OAL and to just answer your question; yes, you can use data from a round nose for a conical nose as long as they are both lead or both jacketed. Just start at the starting load data and work up if necessary (I hate thread drift)...

 

[Encoreman]

thanks everyone, I always err to the side of caution. I used to say " let me ask you a dumb question". I figured out quickly if you don't know the answer it isn't a dumb question.

 

[lordpaxman]

There are a lot of bullet makers out there that don’t have published data, or just refer you to “similar” bullets that do have published data. Like @mdi said, stay with the same type of bullet, start low and work up. Good luck and let us know how it goes.

 

[mdi]

IMHO; yes, there are dumb questions, the ones that the asker doesn't use his brain on first. But, on this forum, and a few others I frequent, a really dumb question is rare, and the members here are polite and don't reply with "what does your manual say?" or "did you try not doing that?"...

 

[call1911]

With 45acp and 9 Para I always recommend to start with the bullet design and weight the weapons were designed for.
In both cases it's a round / ogival bullet form.
124gn with the 9 Para and 230gn with the 45acp.

You will find the most load data paired with the least problems this way. You will be rewarded with safe, functional ammo.

When you made your first steps you can change bullet design and /or weight and hopefully at this time have enough experience to not make the usual mistakes.

 

[mdi]

In my above post I did not mean to infer the OP, Encoreman, asked a stupid question. IMO stupid questions are like asking for load data for a common bullet in a common caliber with a common powder for a common gun. It takes 15 seconds to open a manual or to click on a web site. One that has thousands of loads in up to date loading manuals and even on powder/bullet manufacturer's web sites