Leading - two barrels, one bullet

[LittleBill]

I have some questions for the group about leading with some rounds I loaded up using commercially made cast boolits for .45 ACP. The diameter of the ones I checked were consistent at .452". They were fired out of two guns, a revolver which had been slugged at .451, and a semi auto which had not been slugged. There was the beginning of leading starting to show in both barrels, and it was pretty much the same. These were fairly mild loads, either 5.1 or 5.3 grains of Bullseye under a 200 gr LSWC boolit.

Since these are commercially made, could it be that the boolit is too hard for these loads? Is the lube is too hard? Do I need to make them hotter to get better obturation or to get the lube flowing better? Would a tumble lube help? Am I missing something else?

Thanks.

[Case Stuffer]

According to my very old Speer Manual # 8 a mild load for a 200 gr. LSWC is 3.5 gr. Bullseye and 4.0 is max.
Starting load listed at 727 FPS and max at 811 which is not all that stout but perhaps was max. for good accuracy. That Spper Manual does not list pressures for loads.

Using a tumble lube in addation to the present lube may help. Commerical caster do use hard alloys such as 17-18 and hard lubes that stay in place during shipping and extrem storage conditions.

.45 ACP bores vary a great deal. I have ssen some military ones with extremely bad bores and even some commerical / civilian marketed ones were feed corrosive military surplus ammo and not cleaned properly.

[LittleBill]

According to my very old Speer Manual # 8 a mild load for a 200 gr. LSWC is 3.5 gr. Bullseye and 4.0 is max.

Interesting. That's quite a bit different than my book. I am using Lyman's 4th ed Cast Bullet Handbook, and for a 200 gr LSWC, it lists a starting load of Bullseye at 4.9 grains and goes up to 6.0 grains.

I will try tumble lubing them first and see if that helps. Both guns are relatively new. The one is a S&W 325 Nightguard I bought new about 2-3 years ago, and the other is a Colt 1911 Commander that was built in the 90s, and which I bought barely used. Thanks for the response.

[Edubya]

Bill, Go to the Alliant site and see what their recommended load is: http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloaders/default.aspx
I think that you'll find a little less BE might be better for you and your pistols.

EW

[MtGun44]

Agreed. In my experience, 4.8 is a full power load with a 200 SWC and will drive it at about 925 or 950 fps.
In the good old days, this was needed to ensure you beat the "180,000 power factor" - boolit wt times actual
measured velocity of 3 rds pulled during a match.

They are too hard and have crummy lube, slight leading is pretty much the norm for commercial 200 SWC in my
33yrs of using them in many 1911s. Make sure that they are actually .452, if they are ANY under that they will
do worse. IME the leading is mild and does not build up beyond a certain point and does not significantly affect
accuracy.

[LittleBill]

Bill, Go to the Alliant site and see what their recommended load is: http://www.alliantpowder.com/reloaders/default.aspx
I think that you'll find a little less BE might be better for you and your pistols.

EW

Thanks for the link. What does BE stand for?



Agreed. In my experience, 4.8 is a full power load with a 200 SWC and will drive it at about 925 or 950 fps.
In the good old days, this was needed to ensure you beat the "180,000 power factor" - boolit wt times actual
measured velocity of 3 rds pulled during a match.

They are too hard and have crummy lube, slight leading is pretty much the norm for commercial 200 SWC in my
33yrs of using them in many 1911s. Make sure that they are actually .452, if they are ANY under that they will
do worse. IME the leading is mild and does not build up beyond a certain point and does not significantly affect
accuracy.

I'm not doubting you guys at all with regard to loading, but now I am curious as to why the Lyman manual would have charges over a grain higher. They say a charge of 6.0 grains, OAL 1.235" with a 200 gr LSWC should give a velocity of 909 fps, and a pressure of 17,000 C.U.P.

It did not take long to scrub out the lead with a chore boy wrapped around a brush, so maybe I'll shoot some more up and see how it goes - with tumble lubing to see if that helps any. I can always melt them down and throw in some pure lead if it gets bad.

Thanks for the replies.

[Edubya]

BE=Bullseye

EW

[LittleBill]

BE=Bullseye

EW

Ha ha, leave it to me to miss the painfully obvious. Thanks.

[DLCTEX]

Lyman's #3 lists 3.5 -5 gr. BE. The first change I'd make would be less powder, the change to to a better lube. Lar's BAC or Carnuba Red(warm weather) or make some Ben's Red.

[44man]

Commercial boolits have always been a problem any time I tried them. I don't know if it is just the alloy, the poor lube or both.
I can't blame hardness because if the boolit fits, it seals and only when I went way too soft did I get leading. Someone sent me some trial boolits long ago with a coating for lube. I found they were pure for a .44 mag and I would do better pouring molten lead through the barrel. I think 10 fps would be too much! :lol:
With a stout load in the ACP, fast powder of course, there might just be skid. Rifling is not that deep to grab hold of a boolit.
Softer might help by grabbing lead from the bore, something I don't know.
I have the hardest time solving leading for someone else since I don't get any with what I shoot. If I had a 1911 or so, I might need help myself.
I don't know if we should ignore rifling depth.

[LittleBill]

Lyman's #3 lists 3.5 -5 gr. BE. The first change I'd make would be less powder, the change to to a better lube. Lar's BAC or Carnuba Red(warm weather) or make some Ben's Red.

I have to say, this gives me cause for concern. Given the range of loads, and the difference between editions, the current edition recommends a max load using 20% more powder than the previous manual. It also has that load bolded as potentially most accurate. And while no one has said anything yet, I am posting a pic of the table I am using so I am not subjected to the opinion that I am reading the wrong page or something. What other tables might be that much different from one edition to the next?

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o159/FotoBill/lyman45acp_zps4e2b3e47.jpg

[mag_01]

5 to5.5 would be warm for me as my load is 3.8 summer and 4grs. winter with 200 swc. for bull

[MtGun44]

Velocity and pressure depends a good bit on the gun. And some of the
older data was NEVER pressure tested and later (sometimes many decades
later) 'well known to be safe' loads were found to be way over the SAAMI
spec, and many are way over even the +P+ SAAMI specs. 1911s are
very strong and manage to put up with some serious overloads, it
is apparent.

Use up to date data and spend some time with a chrono, too. IME, 4.9 Bullseye
under a comm 200 SWC will chrono well above the 840 shown in the data sheet
reproduced above IN MOST BARRELS. I have personally seen the exact same
ammo chrono 150 fps faster in one 1911 barrel compared to another.
This is not unusual. Typically, the fastest speeds were with
the tighter match barrels, but nowdays most 1911s are using
chambers in "regular" guns that are essentially very tight match
chambers.

Bill

[Dale53]

LittleBill;
The reason for the diference in the manuals is actually quite simple. Speers data is for their soft swaged bullets - any more Bullseye and you get leading.

Lyman's data is on point, here, as they are using cast bullets of proper size and leading doesn't raise it's head (if the bullet fits and is hard enough, but not TOO hard...).

Dale53

[Dale53]

LittleBill;
The reason for the diference in the manuals is actually quite simple. Speers data is for their soft swaged bullets - any more Bullseye and you get leading.

Lyman's data is on point, here, as they are using cast bullets of proper size and leading doesn't raise it's head (if the bullet fits and is hard enough, but not TOO hard...).

Dale53