Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What load do you use?

Discussion in 'Handloading and Reloading' started by ferggie, Sep 10, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ferggie

    ferggie Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    GREENSBORO, NC
    I am getting ready to load some 45 ACO 230 gr. RN (Precision Delta). I have looked up load data using WIN 231 and found the following:

    Hodgdon (Winchester): 4.3 gr - 5.3 gr

    Lyman: 5.2 gr - 5.8 gr

    Speer: 5.6 gr - 6.2 gr

    What the heck kind of range is that and which load should I trust?
     
  2. buck460XVR

    buck460XVR Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    6,038
    Without going to my manuals and looking, is the OAL the same on all?

    I always use three sources of reference when developing a new load. Generally if ALL things are the same(bullet profile, primers, OAL) I'll average them out and start in the middle. Coupla of my revolvers have tight throats so I know I need to start lower. ALL current published load recipes should be safe in a modern firearm, but still, one should start low and work their way up.
     
  3. Miata Mike

    Miata Mike Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    349
    Location:
    NE Wisconsin
    I am thinking I would go with the powder manufactures specs first for 2 reasons: They make the stuff and it is the lowest starting point.

    Don't make many of the lowest powder loads since there may be ejection and feeding issues. Work your way up until you are happy.
     
  4. Rule3

    Rule3 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    5,187
    Location:
    Florida
    I use the Speer data and OAL with that bullet. 6.0 grs HP 38, 1.260 OAL

    Hodgdon load is for a 230 FP with a OAL of 1.200
     
  5. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    48,344
    Location:
    Alabama
    The Speer data is fine, but I suspect you will find anything over 5.8 (Lyman Data) quite snappy
     
  6. Galil5.56

    Galil5.56 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,096
    5.7/5.8 grains of WW231/HP38 and a 230 grain jacketed FMJ gets right at 820-840 fps from most 5" barrels, so if you might want to work up to "GI style" loads with your combo of components, the charge weights I state will do that.

    FWIW, 6.1 grains of WW231, a 230 grain Speer Gold Dot fired from my SIG P220's 4.4" barrel, chronographs right at 820 fps avg, es 13, sd 5.
     
  7. noylj

    noylj Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,099
    Every manual says to start with the lowest starting load. The implication, to me, is to use several sources and STARET WITH THE LOWEST. It seems exceedingly clear to me. No test barrel is the same and no two guns are the same. All any company can report is what they found using their equipment. What you find using your gun can be very different.
    It was so much easier back in the '60s when data was NOT so available and we knew we had to work up loads on our own and we learned how. As such, look for any one who has been loading for more that 30 years and you will find that have LOTS of manuals and reference them all the time.
    You should start with 4.3 gn and work up to a load that performs for you. In general, one wants accuracy. In general, accuracy is not found close to a max load.
    Here is my load compilation from years of manuals:
    Bullet Weight Powder Weight Velocity Start/Max Power Factor COL
    FMJ 230 231/HP38 4.2 751 Start 173 1.200
    FMJ 230 231/HP38 4.6 600 Start 138
    JHP 230 231/HP38 4.8 740 Start 170
    FMJ 230 231/HP38 4.9 695 Start 160
    FMJ 230 231/HP38 4.9 750 Start 173
    FMJ 230 231/HP38 5.0 Mil. Ball Ammo 0
    HP-XTP, FMJ-RN, HAP, FMJ-FP 230 231/HP38 5.0 700 Start 161
    FMJ 230 231/HP38 5.0 825 190 1.285
    FMJ 230 231/HP38 5.0 0
    JHP 230 231/HP38 5.1 785 Max 181
    Hdy FMJ 230 231/HP38 5.2 817 188
    Hdy FMJ 230 231/HP38 5.2 812 187
    FMJ 230 231/HP38 5.3 832 Max 191 1.200
    RN 230 231/HP38 5.3 787 181
    FMJ 230 231/HP38 5.4 0
    FMJ 230 231/HP38 5.4 0 1.230
    FMJ/TMC 230 231/HP38 5.5 788 Start 181
    TMJ 230 231/HP38 5.6 789 Start 181 1.260
    FMJ/TMC 230 231/HP38 5.6 792 Start 182
    HP-XTP, FMJ-RN, HAP, FMJ-FP 230 231/HP38 5.7 800 Max 184
    FMJ 230 231/HP38 5.7 830 Max 191
    FMJ 230 231/HP38 5.7 850 Max 196
    Sierra FMJ 230 231/HP38 6.0 954 +P 219
    FMJ 230 231/HP38 6.0 800 Max 184
    FMJ/TMC 230 231/HP38 6.1 866 Max 199
    TMJ 230 231/HP38 6.2 858 Max 197 1.260
    FMJ/TMC 230 231/HP38 6.2 865
    Max 199

    You may find 5.5gn is a very good load, but START at the LOWEST starting load your references show.
     
  8. Galil5.56

    Galil5.56 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,096
    Can't say I would start with 4.3 grains of WW231/HP38... This data is from Hodgdon, and in my experience testing their data over a chronograph, many times shows them to be absolutely the most optimistic with their velocity to an almost absurd level, where newish Alliant data for me agrees pretty well, and some Speer data actually chronographs significantly faster than listed with same/nearly same barrel length.

    Ironic, but the data Hodgdon directly copies from their Australian derived supplier seems better. I can all but assure you that 4.3 grains of WW231/HP38 will get about 590-615 fps using a jacketed 230 grain bullet... If that works for you, then all would seem well, but I would at least start at 4.8/4.9 grains and go from there. Also, some of the listed data seems a bit squirrely, at least with what I am seeing not knowing any other variables. For example:

    FMJ 230 231/HP38 4.2 751 Start 173 1.200
    FMJ 230 231/HP38 4.6 600 Start 138

    Is the 751, 751 fps w/4.2 grains, and 600 fps with 4.6 grains???

    Lastly to put numbers on my own testing, 5.5 grains of WW231 and a 225 grain Mastercast.net TC lead bullet shot from my P220 got:

    5.5 grains WW231 CCI 300 MC 225 TC
    776 779 761 775 768 AV 771 ES 18 SD7

    Experience will demonstrate that lead bullets usually shoot a bit "faster" for a given weight over jacketed, so that should be noted here, if a jacketed bullet were to be substituted.
     
  9. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    48,344
    Location:
    Alabama
    4.0 Grs of W231 and a 200 Gr JSWC gave me 601 FPS from a 5" 1911 & 4.5 Grs W231 with the same gave me 665 FPS.

    http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=523172

    4.3 and a 230 Gr plated or jacketed bullet is quite low. 5.0 is a better place to start. (At least 4.8)
     
  10. ferggie

    ferggie Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    GREENSBORO, NC
    I went with the Speer

    Taking in all the great info from the responders I chose to start with the Speer data.

    Precision Delta 230gr FMJ RN, OAL: 1.26, WIN 231, FED 150, WIN Brass

    5.6gn, 5.8gn & 6.0gn loads to start with.

    Based on the above do you feel these are good safe loads to start with?
     
  11. Hondo 60
    • Contributing Member

    Hondo 60 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    5,378
    Location:
    Manitowoc, WI
    Look at the OAL of each data set & figure out what YOUR OAL will be.

    Then the data starts to make more sense.

    Hodgdon's OAL is 1.200. If that's your OAL, I'd use their data seeing they make the powder.
     
  12. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    48,344
    Location:
    Alabama
    Hodgdons data was for a flat point.

    I would have only loaded 5.0 to start, and maybe some 5.2 as well, if you have not already loaded them.....
     
  13. raddiver

    raddiver Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    215
    Location:
    Louisville Kentucky
    Just from my view, i think it depends on what you want to do with them.
    I dont look for the hottest load i can get. I dont design SD rounds while reloading. I leave that to factory.
    With that said, I find that most auto loads are more accurate from the starting range to the mid-point. accuracy starts to drop a bit from there. I also dont like beating up my guns with hotter rounds, So that's another proponent for me staying low-mid range. Less powder a few more rounds per lb of powder.
    Hornady lists 5.0 - 5.7.
    The lyman and hornady are pretty close.
    if it were me, id do 5.0, 5.2, 5.4 and 5.6
    Ill i'll bet you'll find the 5.2 or the 5.4 feel and shoot the best. YMMV of course.

    Let us know how it goes
     
  14. Galil5.56

    Galil5.56 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,096
    Although I see nothing "wrong" with using the Speer data, you might drop to 5.4 grains to start, see how accuracy and functioning are, and go from there. Since the Precision Delta bullet is not the actual bullet tested with the Speer data, it would not hurt to start a smidge lower. Not exactly sure of how exactly the ogive of the PD RN matches to typical "GI style" 230 RN FMJ like WW or Remington, but if very close, the 1.26" OAL seems reasonable. Had it been a TC or HP style, 1.20" would be closer to ideal in my experience, but again, all guns are a rule unto themselves. My GI spec 1911 will not chamber 230 Gold Dots seated to 1.20", that my long leade P220 does with ease.

    If you get the chance, you might try to find a copy of the now out of print MidwaUSA's LoadMAP for .45 ACP. This is an incredible piece of work, and they really did some extreme testing of nearly every bullet available at the time (1998 or so). The MAP stands for Maximum Average Pressure, and that is exactly what they did in great detail using modern equipment, giving pressure results per charge weight. FWIW, Every 230 grain FMJ RN they used, has a max charge a few 1/10's above 6.0 grains (some as high as 6.5 grains of WW231), and still did not exceed the SAAMI 21k psi max allowed chamber pressure for std pressure .45 auto.

    My friend and fellow THR member MAXM, writes for the Italian version of Handloader magazine, and has a fully equipped CIP ballistics lab at his disposal to verify data. He wrote an incredibly in depth analysis and testing of WW231/HP38 concerning .45 Auto ammo, and his results were very much in line with the Midway loadMAP data. Bottom line for me; any well assembled ammo using the bullets you mention and worked up max Speer data would be safe in any soundly made/maintained .45 Auto pistol. How accurate they are, well that's another story, and only until bullets meet paper will you know.
     
  15. ranger335v

    ranger335v Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    3,797
    "What the heck kind of range is that and which load should I trust? "

    You can bet it's the results each test facility got using their components and their firearms. No component change we can make will make as much difference as the gun it's fired in and ours is another variable they can't predict.

    So, which do you 'trust'? Trust nothing you haven't properly worked up to in YOUR gun!
     
  16. ferggie

    ferggie Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    GREENSBORO, NC
    Thanks for all the feedback

    I would like to thank everyone for their feedback. It is greatly appreciated.
    Thanks again
     
  17. mdi

    mdi Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2007
    Messages:
    2,045
    Location:
    Orygun!
    OK, you've got Precision Delta bullets and a Hodgon powder. Speer and Lyman don't manufacture either of them so, go with the Hodgon data. Reloading manuals differ in their data because of different testing equipment (some use universal receivers, some use real guns), components may be different even if bullets are same weight, powder lots may vary, and testing method will vary also. I'm sure you'd be safe using any starting load and work up watching for pressure problems: that's why they're called "starting loads"...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page