OAL from book to book...

[mbruce]

I have a Lee reloading 2nd edition, Lyman #49, and powder manufacturers websites to find load data...I notice that the C.O.L/OAL is not displayed in a standardized way --- for example #49 gives an optimal OAL #... Lee gives you a min. OAL and the winchester reload website gives a C.O.L (not sure if that's min or optimal like Lyman).... Let me know if i'm on the right track with what's below ---

The max C.O.L/OAL will be the max that cycles in the gun (up to the specs in the books -- i.e., .45acp 1.275"). The min is obviously the min... and it's best to start at the max OAL and work your way down towards a reliable cycle OAL -- assuming the max doesn't cycle.

Thanks!
that question was pretty tough to state -- if it doesnt make sense please let me know and ill re-word it.

 

[drbeans]

I believe these are all the same, COL, COAL, OAL, etc. Yes this relates to proper cycling, but as you adjust bullet depth you are also causing the space inside the case to change, affecting pressure, velocity, ect.

My issue is that there does not seem to be any definitive COAL for a given caliber. I just started reloading .45 and have been using a Speer manual along with online data. If I follow the Speer manual on COAL, my loads will not cycle in my .45. This forces me to adjust bullet seating depth, thus changing the physics of the Speer recipe. I almost want to buy a chronograph so I have SOME way to measure the effects of these changes when I fire my pistol, as I am basically creating my own load.

Am I overthinking this?

 

[ranger335v]

"I notice that the C.O.L/OAL is not displayed in a standardized way "

That's true, and that alone tells us something; it's not a fixed thing.

Back when I started reloading, few manuals listed anything but the generic SAMMI "max" lengths and that was just for the magazine and/or minimum throat size of a standard chamber. And sometimes not even that. THEN, trying to help people get started, they began listing the OAL they used to develop their data. That has caused more confusion than ever!

First thing a reloader needs to understand is there is NO "CORRECT" SEATING DEPTH nor specific "optimum" depth for any bullet or cartridge or pistol or rifle! Bottom line, the book OAL is only a starting point (and not always a good one at that), exactly the same as their powder charges.

Obviously, seating for any particular cartridge reqires that the seated bullet must function through a magazine, not fall outta the case and not jam into the lands so hard it will pull out when removed from the chamber. Inside those limits, we can start load develpment with any bullet in any cartridge at any length we choose. In fact, if we follow book OAL slavishly we negate one of the best advantages of reloading, that of making ammo custom matched to our firearm.

We may choose book length, compare with a factory load, seat to the crimping groove, seat at the lands or a quarter inch off the lands as we wish and use that as a starting point. THEN find a good shooting/safe charge by following the ONE rule that matters; "Start low and only work up to max...unless...etc" Done intelligently, that rule will allow us to find a good, safe load no matter any variables. If load development is not done intelligently there ain't no other rule that's gonna save anyone!

 

[LiveLife]

The max C.O.L/OAL will be the max that cycles in the gun (up to the specs in the books -- i.e., .45acp 1.275"). The min is obviously the min... and it's best to start at the max OAL and work your way down towards a reliable cycle OAL --.

Yes.

 

[rfwobbly]

I have a Lee reloading 2nd edition, Lyman #49, and powder manufacturers websites to find load data...I notice that the C.O.L/OAL is not displayed in a standardized way --- for example #49 gives an optimal OAL #... Lee gives you a min. OAL and the winchester reload website gives a C.O.L (not sure if that's min or optimal like Lyman).... Let me know if i'm on the right track with what's below ---

Mr Bruce -

You need to do some more reading. They don't develop loads in a handgun. They us a "test barrel", which is nothing more than a huge block of steel with some gauges. They take that block of steel and bolt it to a table or clamp it in a vice. It is more akin to an artillery piece in that it's a breech-lock single shot. Follow?

• They are NOT reporting what operates your action.

• They are NOT telling you what OAL to use.



It's a simple science experiment just like you did in high school. Just like in high school when you mixed 3cc of A with 10cc of B and it turned purple. All you could report was "I ended up with 13cc of purple liquid." In their experiment they are simply reporting the PRESSURE and VELOCITY developed with X amount of powder at that OAL using that bullet in their barrel. How can they report anything else?

The max C.O.L/OAL will be the max that cycles in the gun (up to the specs in the books -- i.e., .45acp 1.275"). The min is obviously the min... and it's best to start at the max OAL and work your way down towards a reliable cycle OAL -- assuming the max doesn't cycle.

They cannot report the maximum OAL because that may be set by your handgun's barrel. For instance, maximum OAL for a CZ can be .150" shorter than for the same bullet in a Glock. They could care less about works in YOUR gun; that's you you to find out. They are only reporting what happened in THEIR experiment.

A Typical Handgun Test Setup


Again, they are not reporting what cycles a gun because.....
1) They are NOT testing in a handgun
2) All handguns are different



All they are saying is "You won't blow yourself up if you use this much powder, this brand/weight of bullet, and seat the bullet no deeper than this OAL. If you make any other changes then you're on your own." You CANNOT draw any other conclusions from the data.

Follow?

 

[kelbro]

Depends on what you are loading for and when using cast bullets, where the crimp groove is.

Some use vented test barrels, others do not.

Examples in .357:

Hornady manual says they used a Colt Python for pistol data and a Rossi 92 for rifle data.

Nosler used an H&S Precision barrel.

Sierra used a Colt MKII Trooper for pistol and a Marlin 1894 for rifle.

Speer used a S&W model 19 for pistol and a Marlin 1894 for rifle.

Lyman uses a universal receiver and vented barrel for pistol data and a Marlin 1894 for rifle data.

RCBS used a Ruger Security Six.

Hodgdon didn't say.

Accurate used a test barrel.

Alliant didn't say.

Winchester didn't say.

Vihtavouri used a test barrel.


The only absolute in handloading is that there are no absolutes Each firearm is an exception and must be treated as such. Manuals will get you safely in the ballpark and usually keep you from hurting yourself or someone else.

 

[mbruce]

I definately need to do more reading... I may not have worded my question the best and should have just given the situation that lead me to my OP...

I'm reloading for a FNp-45. For bullets I'm using MBC 185gr LSWC. I have most major powders mass produced. For books I have #49, Lee, powder manufactures. From those references I have found no load data for 185gr LSWC. The lee has 180gr but doesn't say specifically SWC -- maybe it doesnt matter. The closest LSWC load is a 200gr found on the powders' websites and in #49... So this led me to ask myself...

1. Can I use 200gr LSWC load data for a 185gr LSWC
2. Is the OAL going to be different..... which then lead me to other OAL questions... The #49 gives a "hey start at this oal"...Lee gives a "min OAL"...and powder websites I looked at just gives a "oal"... So then I wondered what is an ideal oal to start with -- I know about the compressions and the hazards and etc... I'm not looking to pioneer anything--I just want to know is there a general rule to follow when you say -- "Hey I want this oal to be xxx?" Lee gives a min...#49 gives "their claim to ideal"...SAAMI specs gives a "max" or some sort of figure that is longer than the Lee...whatever term you would want to call that ...

And that's where i'm at.... I'm not looking for fish -- I'd love to be shown or told how to fish oh and be given the fish...haha...kinda one of those things...

 

[Minnesota Wild]

The only thing I didn't see explicitly stated above was that you need to be careful as you reduce OAL because it will cause a corresponding increase in pressure. A load that is safe at a specified length but nearing max pressure will be overpressure at a lower OAL. For that reason you need to load down your powder charge and start at minimum charges as you reduce your OAL, then load back up looking for signs of pressure.

 

[kelbro]

You have that backwards. You can start 185s with 200 data but you can't start 200s with 185 data.

You can also use your barrel as a case gauge with many autoloader pistols. Load it, drop it in the loose barrel, reduce OAL if you need to.

 

[918v]

Use the OAL that fits your chamber and magazine. The round needs to be able to drop in and out of the chamber freely. It needs to travel up and down the magazine body freely. Work-up the load from min to max. Use the most accurate load that cycles your gun reliably.

Get this manual: http://www.loadbooks.com/

It contains Speer's, Hornady's, and Sierra's manual entries. These three provide a good reliable OAL to use. If you want to use another brand bullet, find a Speer/Hornady/Sierra bullet that looks like your bullet and use that OAL.

 

[Flatbush Harry]

rfwobbly's and kelbro's responses are, IMHO, excellent. I have been reloading for a total of about thirty years and I use two or more major published sources for each my loads, one to validate the other. I expect reasonable safety and acceptable accuracy from the published recipes...but that is all. I think Kelbro makes an important point about the use of different guns and rfwobbly shows the test barrel approach.

As an example, I load Cowboy action loads (800 fps) using Uique for .45Colt. I primarily shoot Uberti replicas though I also have Ruger Vaqueros (old model) and a couple of 3rd generation Colt Model Ps as well as a Win 94 and a Uberti replica 1873. I stay very conservative with the loads for the Ubertis simply because they are lighter in construction. Rather than have boxes of light and boxes of heavy loads, I choose to use the same 800 fps load for all my revolvers and rifles, though, for example, the Hornady manual shows hotter .45 Colt loads specific to Rugers given their heavier construction. I use Hornady 255gr lead "Cowboy" bullets, so I use the Hornady manual as my primary resource with Lyman's 49th ed. as a back-up, and I use Hornady's OAL of 1.575". Since it works well for me, I'm content not to change...there may well be far more accurate recipes but the one I use is safe (more than 1 gr or about 15% below maximum load), uses 6.3 gr of powder and acceptably accurate in my fixed sight revolvers. I take a similar approach to other calibers for rifle and pistol, particularly since I shoot both service semi-auto and bolt action rifles.

FH

 

[mbruce]

ok some how we got off on the wrong base... my questions have been answered, i think...but let me rephrase.....

I'm sitting here with a Lyman #49 in front of me as I type this... .45acp -- There is no mention of a lead 185gr SWC. I also have a Lee -- there is no mention of a lead 185gr SWC. I have multiple other references -- no mention of a 185gr Lead SWC. Before I just go cowboy up and add a few OAL and average them or throw darts at them or just assume i can use this one... I was just merely asking what to do when you can't find the specific grain or shape of bullet you are looking for.

I was asking

1. Can I use a larger bullets OAL data. (same shape) (answered by kelbro)
2. Can I use OAL for a 185gr Jacketed SWC (#49 has that)
3. Lee only has a min... and max is max that the gun will shoot...so just stay between those and i'll be ok? (answered by bds)

I appreciate all responses, and I read and re-read each and every one. I can read every manual I have and everyone available but so far none have come out and said hey when you don't have a bullet the same gr or shape as the one you need then do this :.........
That's what I was asking.

 

[918v]

No, No, and No.

SWC bullets have different profiles within the family. There are short noses, long noses, skinny noses and fat noses. Their shanks vary as well. They all consume different amounts of case volume. Go to Missouri Bullet's website and look at the 185gr "Button" SWC and the other 185gr SWC. The button is seated to a shorter OAL and consumes alot more case volume than the other SWC.

 

[rfwobbly]

I don't want to discourage your efforts in any way, but after you finally locate published load data, then you'll most probably set off on a second adventure just getting these bullets to feed reliably in your gun. Not all 45ACP guns use the same ramp or magazine design. The 45ACP is such a huge cartridge (diameter wise) that getting it to feed reliably is the subject of entire forums.

After a month or so of monkeying with these bullets you may come to the conclusion that although you saved some money, you are not making any advances. Frustration may set in. We certainly don't want that. May I suggest a small order of 200gr bullets so that you can get back on track. Then in 12 months when you got some reloading under your belt, you can revisit these 185gr nuggets.


So the moral of the story is this:

As a novice reloader, DO NOT buy bullets for which you don't have a published load.

All the best.

 

[918v]

As a novice reloader, DO NOT buy bullets for which you don't have a published load.

+1

What bullet are you using?

 

[Flatbush Harry]

+1 also but it's not a bad rule for experienced reloaders as well.

FH

 

[mbruce]

HA Thanks R -- lesson definately learned. From now on i'll look at books before buying bullets -- I already made my mind up on that. There were nurmous different options on the MBC 185gr bullet I figured that it must be popular and surely its in books -- yea that bit me in the rear. kinda one of those -- bought the horse before the wagon...or something like that.

I have Missouri Bullet Company 185 grain SWC. I wanted the 230gr softballs but did not see the pages at the bottom... I looked at 6 different 185 options and thought that was it..later on that week i went back to the page and noticed the multiple pages.

I can use any powder -- I live in the powder meca of the USA.

I'll follow what R says -- I just ordered some 200gr and the 230gr softballs that "every" auto loves. and I have data to go from.

But we're going to revisit this conversation -- I am curious as to how people come up with data for a "non-published" bullet. The 185gr SWC button has to be a very popular bullet -- they sell it by the tons. So someone is getting load data from something or someone -- may be its experience and just knowing how much of a powder is ideal -- I have a chronograph...that with common sense, a sensible plan, and slowly firing away should do it --
exceeding the speed of light and breaking velocities aren't my goals...so one day, safely, i'll get there!

 

[918v]

Not the "Button"?

If you have the regular SWC, go ahead and use 200gr data. I'd start with Bullseye powder. That is the classic approach.

 

[mbruce]

oh sorry --

It's the .45 button.

box reads specifically....
.45 Button
.452 Diameter
185 Grain SWC
Brinnel 12

 

[918v]

Use Lyman's 195-200gr data. Their bullet profiles and OAL's are appropriate for the "Button".

 

[mbruce]

Cool - thanks!