.45APC velocities low... SPP?

[Saluki91]

I took the chronograph out to the range today so that I could do a bit of .45ACP load development (my first .45ACP loads). The numbers were surprising. My 9mm loads chrono very consistently, and with velocities in step with published load data. However, these .45ACP loads (again - my first) were a bit inconsistent, and one powder was very slow when compared to published data. I'll attach the numbers as a .pdf for anyone interested.

Like many of us, I don't have any LPP. To create these loads, I sorted out some SPP .45ACP cases in my stash, and loaded 5 rounds each from the following:

AA#5 - 7.9gr, 8.2gr, 8.5gr
WIN 244 - 5.2gr, 5.5gr, 5.8gr
Vectan BA9 - 5.2gr, 5.5gr, 5.8gr, 6.1gr

Those are the pistol powders in my cabinet, so they are what I loaded. There are probably better choices out there, but those powders weren't on my shelf. ; - )

These were shot with a 5" Colt Gold Cup 1911, using:
Brazos 200gr LSWC
CCI No. 500 SPP
OAL - 1.240" (per suggestion from Brazos). This is longer than the OAL published in my Lyman book. It is also longer than the data from Winchester and Accurate.

BA9 has been a gem for me in 9mm... measures superbly, and produces fantastic results. As you will see, it did not shine in .45ACP.

What do you think... Are the SPP contributing to lower velocities? OAL too long? Both? Neither?

As always - Thanks!

 

[AJC1]

Longer oals combined with a spp I believe is your answer. I'm not familiar with the powders you used are they ball or flake. I would expect a smaller change with fast powders like tight group and bullseye.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

I suspect the OAL has much more to do with it than the primers.

 

[Dudedog]

W244 gave me lower than published vels in both 9mm and .45.

I did test on a couple of my .45 loads with HP38 and some with Universal (wanted to try a flake powder for the test) and while I don't have the chrono results handy,
I would say around 20fps difference between SP and LP for the ones I tested.
The two primers used for the test were S+B SPs (Known to be a mild SP ie gives lower vels than say a CCI SP) and Win LPs.
So yes there was a little difference for me in .45 ACP between SP and LPs but not really a lot.

Walkalong did a primer test that's here someplace, and he found that much difference just between flavors of SPs.

 

[Saluki91]

Longer oals combined with a spp I believe is your answer. I'm not familiar with the powders you used are they ball or flake. I would expect a smaller change with fast powders like tight group and bullseye.

AA#5 and WIN 244 are ball powders.

BA9 is extruded, but in very small "sticks"... it could pass as a ball powder at first glance.

 

[JJFitch]

You didn't mention whether or not you were using recipes specific to SPP vs. LPP!

Reloaders velocities will likely be different from factory recipes since there are so many variables anyway!

It's been years since I've given any thought to 45ACP SPP loads but as I recall there wasn't much of a difference when the SPP brass and SPP primers were the only variable.

There was a similar discussion revolving around the Winchester small flash hole vs, the large flash hole!

As mentioned above I'd look at COL but I recommend the "+.020 shoulder above the rim" rule of thumb.

I'm only familiar with AA#5 in 9mm. Based on the amount used I'd say it's a little slow for 200 gr. LSWC target loads.

Smiles,

 

[AJC1]

The testing I saw was in a magazine I dont remember which one but spp gave a very small decrease in velosity something like 20 0r 30 fps. In the article they just added a tenth or two and it was a done deal. The ball vs extruded or flake argument could be had on reduced primer power. I just mention it as a consideration for you no desire to hash that out. Additional length also lowers pressure which is normally made up by a little additional powder. If your barrel normally achieves book speeds with other loads this may be a logical path to get book speeds. It sounds that one if your powders is turning out low speeds across platforms indicating to me you may have a slow lot of that powder assuming it's a recent batch and a recent set of load data.

 

[CQB45ACP]

My vote is for something other than primer size.

Simply, and not to be flippant, but since no powder nor bullet mfr publish different data based on small v. large primers for 45ACP (nor does Lyman nor Lee), I doubt we we would’ve heard about it here first.

 

[lordpaxman]

What do you think... Are the SPP contributing to lower velocities? OAL too long? Both? Neither?

No, No.
Your numbers look fine - I’ve rarely duplicated published load data and most of the time I’m a bit below.
The 244 data looked to be almost in line with published data, and they had spec’d 1.225 while you had 1.240.
Shorten COL and pressure will increase. The reverse is true as well. There’s no good way to predict the velocity change other than to try it, or, perhaps Quickload could help.

In all my testing, I’ve not seen a statistical difference between SPP and LPP in .45. I like having both in my stable, that way if I need a quick run of .45 or test runs, I can use whatever the press is set up for. And/or, if it’s a lost brass match, leave whatever you don’t want. Good luck.

 

[243winxb]

I will keep using WLP & Bullseye Powder for 45acp target loads. Starline brass did some testing. https://www.starlinebrass.com/articles/small-pistol-primers-vs-large-pistol-primers/

Starline did not say what brand of primers were used. Has to make a difference? Winchester only makes 1 LP, the WLP. Works with Bullseye or 296/110 powders.

Edit add- starting loads may act differently then maximum loads. https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/ammunition_st_mamotaip_200909/100079

 

[FROGO207]

Add to the above that not all propellants act the same. Various volumes produce a certain pressure and a different one will not have the same pressure curve when changing by the same precentages. Some show mediocre results until near max and then do well while others will work over a wide range. The primer will make a difference but not more than a small amount in velocity, my results are 20-25 FPS at best. About the same as between different brands or batches as far as I have found.Temp variations affect things more in that regard IMO. Case volume does have a large affect as does the actual firearm and all component variables between test setups and your actual firearm.

 

[CQB45ACP]

I will keep using WLP & Bullseye Powder for target loads. Starline brass did some testing. https://www.starlinebrass.com/articles/small-pistol-primers-vs-large-pistol-primers/

Starline did not say what brand of primers were used. Has to make a difference? Winchester only makes 1 LP, the WLP. Works with Bullseye or 296/110 powders.

And we heard it here first. (Or at least I did)

 

[Howland937]

And we heard it here first. (Or at least I did)

Which part? Wanna make sure I didn't miss something important.

 

[CQB45ACP]

Which part? Wanna make sure I didn't miss something important.

I had doubted we would first hear on this forum about different performance between SPP & LPP given no mfr published different load data for the two.

So, I first heard it here with the Starline data. (Now, they aren’t publishing load data nor are they a powder mfr so I could still claim to be correct.)

 

[Howland937]

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[mdi]

FWIW; When I tested small primed 45ACP vs large primed, I ran 200 rounds with 3 different loads (200 gr. SWC, 25 LRN and 230 FMJ. Bullseye). Identical loads except different size primers (CCI for both), loaded in the same session. The difference I found was negligible and most too small to measure. Of the 100 rounds of small primed rounds, perhaps a 10-20 fps slower velocity measurement. But that could have been from several things; small primers, sun, time of day, chrony battery life (?), or my shooting. Today I reload the two identically and expect/get pretty much the same performance not different enough to notice...

 

[Saluki91]

I am always appreciative of the advice I receive here... Thank you to all who are willing to share in such a cordial manner.

Per several of your suggestions, I am trying again with a shorter OAL. The AA #5 and WIN 244 have specific OAL's suggested by the powder manufacturer. Vectan does not list an OAL in their data. My plan is to load 10 rounds at the minimum charge - 5 at 1.225" and 5 at 1.190" - and compare the chronograph results.

The 5 rounds at 1.225" look good, and had no issues with the case gauge. However, I stopped after one round at 1.190" To my uninitiated eyes, the bullet looks VERY low in the case at that length. Before I proceed, I want to get some feedback... better safe than sorry.

Pic is attached... does it look like I am seating this too deep?

Thanks!

 

[243winxb]

Yes to deep.

 

[Howland937]

Pic is attached... does it look like I am seating this too deep?

Yes.

 

[Blue68f100]

From all my testing between SP an LP, you give up ~25 fps with the SP. This varies depending on powder and load level.

 

[Jonesy814]

I am always appreciative of the advice I receive here... Thank you to all who are willing to share in such a cordial manner.

Per several of your suggestions, I am trying again with a shorter OAL. The AA #5 and WIN 244 have specific OAL's suggested by the powder manufacturer. Vectan does not list an OAL in their data. My plan is to load 10 rounds at the minimum charge - 5 at 1.225" and 5 at 1.190" - and compare the chronograph results.

The 5 rounds at 1.225" look good, and had no issues with the case gauge. However, I stopped after one round at 1.190" To my uninitiated eyes, the bullet looks VERY low in the case at that length. Before I proceed, I want to get some feedback... better safe than sorry.

Pic is attached... does it look like I am seating this too deep?

Thanks!

Yes indeed. I learned that about a tenth inch of the shoulder should be out of the case

 

[Dudedog]

With SWCs I seat with about a thumbnail thickness above the case mouth.
Some guns are not picky about the depth but others are.

Your pic looks a little to deep IMO.

If you make an OAL change with the SWCs it's probably a good idea to make sure they feed ok before loading to many.....

 

[CQB45ACP]

Yes to deep. View attachment 994809

I load to an OAL of 1.230+ for 200SWC. Have no clue what length to shoulder is nor thumbnail thickness. This feeds well in 3 different brand 1911s.

 

[243winxb]

All 4 cast bullets can be loaded to the same .947" when measured case head to bullet shoulder or ogive. On the round nose bullet, the ogive diameter of .451"/. 452" has to be located first.


Different alloys will change the bullets oal from base to nose. When measuring oal from case head to bullet nose, the shoulder of the bullet will be longer or shorter then the .947"

Why does it matter to me? For slow fire at 50 yard, the bullet just touching the rifling reduces the rounds end play in the chamber, producing better accuracy.
Brass that is at maximum trim length, is more accurate then short brass.

Only Precision Pistol/Bullseye competitors may care. Most shooter don't.

 

[CQB45ACP]

All 4 cast bullets can be loaded to the same .947" when measured case head to bullet shoulder or ogive. On the round nose bullet, the ogive diameter of .451"/. 452" has to be located first.
View attachment 994906

Different alloys will change the bullets oal from base to nose. When measuring oal from case head to bullet nose, the shoulder of the bullet will be longer or shorter then the .947"

Why does it matter to me? For slow fire at 50 yard, the bullet just touching the rifling reduces the rounds end play in the chamber, producing better accuracy.
Brass that is at maximum trim length, is more accurate then short brass.

Only Precision Pistol/Bullseye competitors may care. Most shooter don't.

For sure I care that some folks like yourself know all of this—it makes the hobby/sport better for everyone—but I’m just an indoor range paper target plated bullet shooter and I’m not even sure I have the intellect to learn these details.