That Was Energetic... Bullseye Powder Loads???

[Joshua M. Smith]

http://www.leeprecision.com/cgi/catalog/cart.cgi?1245240658.3884=90346

Hello,

Using the above bullet mould.

I found some Bullseye today. Just a pound.

Working from old data, I came up with about 4.9gn under a 230gn boolit. Min listed at 4.7, max 5.1.

The recoil was quite energetic.

Looking at the latest data on Alliant's page, it looks like the new max charge is 5.7gn for a 230gn jacketed bullet.

I don't see that a 1911 would hold up all that well to that load. At least, the shooter's hands would be sore.

My load (new pet load, btw) burns completely, better than W231, and generates a bit more felt recoil than my Hydra-Shok defensive ammo.

Is the new published data wrong? Or have they changed the powder that much?

Additionally, what are your favorite loads using Bullseye? Besides being fun to discuss, this might establish a baseline for comparison.

Thanks,

Josh <><

 

[HarleyFixer]

I looked on Ammo Guide and they show loads from 4.0 to 5.7 with Bullseye and a 230 grn bullet so your info is accurate and is actually a mid load.

 

[Walkalong]

Bullseye is a tad "snappy' to me towards the high end of loads in .45 ACP, but all that is subjective.

 

[FullEffect1911]

I use 4.6 grains of Bullseye for my 230 grain cast lead rounds, Winchester brass and Winchester large pistol primers. The bullets are not of my own casting. I found that the recoil seems less then any factory ammo that I have tried and I consider it a target round. But as was said, recoil is subjective.

If you haven't already try shooting your reloads side by side with some factory stuff and see if there is much difference.

 

[Joshua M. Smith]

I did try the factory stuff. These are actually intended to be practice versions of my carry ammo (230gn HS).

The 5.0 matches it most closely.

FWIW, my baseline for all .45 ammo is military ball. Looks like 5.0gn of Bullseye under a 230gn plated bullet are the original; I use hard cast of my own making, but it does feel the same. HS gives a bit more of a "push," but only slightly.

As long as it matches the POI, that's what really matters.

Thanks,

Josh <><

 

[MikeS.]

I like 4.3 of BE in a 230 grn LTC bullet.

 

[rcmodel]

I don't see that a 1911 would hold up all that well to that load. At least, the shooter's hands would be sore.

The original old time GI hardball load was 4.7 grains Bullseye with the 230 FMJ-RN bullet.

That is the load the 1911 was designed for.
And it was the standard GI load from 1911 until at least WWII when some other powders were employed.

rc

 

[SciFiJim]

I've settled on 4.5gr of Bullseye for my rather soft cast (50/50 wheel weights/pure lead) 200 gr round flat (that with my alloy weigh about 212 gr). Not snappy, easy to control, and more accurate than 200gr commercial jacketed hollow points.

 

[fecmech]

I pulled a couple bullets from some GI ball ammo WCC72 a couple years ago. The load was exactly 5.0 grns and looked exactly like BE under magnification. I realize the ammo companies can and do use non canister grades of powder. I loaded some of my BE ( 5.0 grs) into the case and reseated the bullets and shot over the chrono for readings a little over 810 fps. That lot of ball chrono'd avg of 828 fps so I'm guessing it was BE.

 

[rcmodel]

The 5.0 grain load was most likely SR-7970, or HPC-1.

5.0 was the standard load of either powder following WWII.

The exact powder charge is immaterial anyway, because the ammo is loaded to meet the velocity specs, using how much ever powder it takes to get there.

It can vary slightly from lot to lot.

rc

 

[fecmech]

RC do both of those powders bulk the same as BE?? The reason I ask is that along with my detective work with the wcc72 I put the pulled powder into a powder bushing from my press that normally throws 4.9-5.0 BE and that powder filled the bushing to the top.

 

[rcmodel]

I have no idea.
Both powders were military arsenal stuff, and I don't think it was ever available over the counter.

Maybe it was as surplus, but I never had any.

rc

 

[Marlin 45 carbine]

sort of 'off topic' but I have some French or maybe Belgium corrosive primered .45acp rounds I bought for cheap at the fun show that are 'snappy' to say the least. haven't pulled them and wonder has anyone come across these?
in brown stiff paper box 25 to box.
230 gr fmj and they shoot good in my Colt. sort of 'bronze' color they are.
I use them for back-up when I hog hunt carrying my 625 or let nephew carry it. 'snappy' they are.

 

[Joshua M. Smith]

Thank you gents.

What would be the general velocity (I know all barrels are different) for a 5" 1911 loaded with 4.5gn of BE under a 230gn LRN cast?

I'm currently trying to find an inexpensive chrono, but they're either sold out or overpriced.

Thanks,

Josh <><

 

[ljnowell]

sort of 'off topic' but I have some French or maybe Belgium corrosive primered .45acp rounds I bought for cheap at the fun show that are 'snappy' to say the least. haven't pulled them and wonder has anyone come across these?
in brown stiff paper box 25 to box.
230 gr fmj and they shoot good in my Colt. sort of 'bronze' color they are.
I use them for back-up when I hog hunt carrying my 625 or let nephew carry it. 'snappy' they are.

Sounds like some old ammo, I wonder if they arent SMG ammo, that would account for the "snappiness" of them?

 

[rcmodel]

What would be the general velocity (I know all barrels are different) for a 5" 1911 loaded with 4.5gn of BE under a 230gn LRN cast?

Lyman #49 says out of a 5" test barrel:
4.0 = 680 @ 10,100.
5.0 = 815 @ 14,400.

I'd guess 4.5 would give around 750.

rc

 

[1858rem]

what might be the lightest shooting powder to get a 200 SWC to about 850 fps with good accuracy?
i tried trailboss but could not get much more than 4 grains in the case, i think maybe 4.5 at most

any other suggestions?

 

[jfh]

Appr. 5.1 gr. of 231 under a 200-gr. LSWC gives me about 820 fps, 1858rem.

That's from a Bar-Sto barrel, if that matters to you. 4.9-5.1 gr. is also highly accurate.

I've re-sprung the gun, too.

Jim H.

 

[1858rem]

how far off max is that load? sounds good and economical as a plus

 

[jfh]

The current Hodgdon data at the online site takes 231 under a 200 LSWC out to 5.6 gr; the 2008 printed manual goes to 5.9 gr. Older manuals take it out to 6.0 or greater, IIRC. I sorted out this load about fifteen years ago, so I am not current.

Here is the link to the Hodgdon data portal; be sure to check the LOAs.

Jim H.