45 ACP Lead 225-230GR SWC? Boolits

[mikethearchivist]

Hello All,
I am brand new to reloading and just starting out. I have purchased the Lyman 49th edition along with the Hornady 9th. I have searched forums all over the internet and have not found the answer to the identification of the attached Boolits. I have a balance scale and have weighed the one on the left as 220gr and when I purchased these (used) along with the other ones, they were marked 200GR SWC. I initially weighed the one on the right in a balance scale at around 230 gr, some being 229 etc.
I looked all over and found forums (one here: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?113949-230-gn-swc-45-acp-oal) that basically stated that there was no such thing as a 230gr SWC boolit.

I have since weighed on an inventory counting scale and had anywhere from 224.99 gr to 228 average for 50. I have 3,000 of these, and really want to use them if possible. I need to identify both of these, but especially the one on the right so I can find appropriate recipes and COAL (although I will do the plunk test). I'm using Unique powder and thought I'd start with 5.6, but would like your expertise.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance.

Mike
79098

[SharpsShooter]

This should get you started.

79099

SS

[mikethearchivist]

Thank you for the quick response. So are these LSWC? Can I use the 230gr. data that you provided and be safe with these? It appears that this is a database that you used, is it available online?
Sorry for all of the questions, and I greatly appreciate your reply.
Thanks!
MR

[Kraschenbirn]

My Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook shows the old Lyman/Ideal 452490 SWC as a 230-grainer. That's not what you've got, though, because the 452490 had two lube grooves and I don't believe it's been made for quite a few years. If it were me, I'd just load 'em and shoot 'em using the data for a Lyman 452374 (225 gr. RN). My manual shows 5.5 gr. Unique as a starting load with 7.3 gr. as max. so your 5.6 gr load should be okay.

Bill

[376Steyr]

The difficulty with the bullets you show isn't their weight, it's that they probably need to be seated deeper in the case than a standard 230 grain round nose would. Deeper in the case means less space for the powder to burn, which leads to higher pressure and the possibility of bad things happening. If you're brand new to handloading, I'd suggest setting these aside for a while and getting some standard 200 SWC or 230 round nose and practice with them first. If you have to use these, start with the lightest 230 grain charge in the book, load a few and try them out.

[gray wolf]

Just as a simple remark---I don't like the shape of either one.
The heavy one will need to be seated way deep to chamber, whatever the weight or the shape, only a certain amount of the front band can be out of the case or it will bump the rifling. Seems to have a very narrow lube groove also in relation to the bearing surface.
The lighter one also seems to look more like a 165 grain SWC the way it has a short bearing surface.
I now your new and trying to be careful and that's great. So take the advise and start low with the powder and take mental notes, watch for pressure and you will probably be OK, Unique is a slower power and should be OK.
I think you may have more issues with feeding cause of the not so normal shape of the bullets.
Have you measured the size of theses bullets in relation to your guns groove size ??, have you slugged your barrel ?? .452 and they will probably be OK, .451 or less could have the potential for leading, ANNND lastly, I don't care for the hard blue crayon lube.

[sirgknight]

Would the place where you purchased the bullets know anything about them? I would definitely like to have that information before loading.

[jonp]

I have some 175gr lswc that look like the one on the left. I've been playing around with light loads of bullseye with them and they work ok. The ones on the right look more like something i'd use over red dot in my 45colt for target due to the size. You may, as posters have said, seat them deep and start at min powder
due to pressure.

Did you measure them to see if they are .452?

[mikethearchivist]

Thank you all for your invaluable input. I just joined today, and look forward to learning a ton on this site.

To answer some questions, with my brand new inexpensive dialcalipers I'm measuring .4505 to .452 (tough to find center, but if I set to .452 and go over the boolits it will pick many up in the middle if that makes sense.)

I have not slugged the barrel, but just read about how to do so.

I bought these from someone with a few thousand rounds of 45ACP brass and a Lee pro 1000 that I have just fully restored. He indicated that they were cast by someone else, so I have no more information, other than he was set up and used to reload 45ACP.

If it helps, the measure height of the taller one is .692.

Are you suggesting that the seating needs to be deeper than so that the body is barely visible?

Also, the lube is a strange green color, but I doubt that makes a difference?

Thanks again. I look forward to your replies, and hope to be a contributor in the future.

MR
Update: I just loaded one in an empty case and did the plunk test. Fits perfectly with a C.O.L of 1.222, and you are correct, it is seated very deeply.

[MtGun44]

The issue is that the short nosed 230 SWC will have to be seated deep enough to
let it chamber, meaning the base of the boolit will be deeper in the case than a
RN 230. This makes the combustion chamber smaller than when the 230 LRN
data was measured, so the pressures will be higher. I'd use the 230 LRN data,
but back off about 20% or so and verify velocities with a chrono. When the chrono
shows 825 (mil spec for JRN), I'd stop.

Bill

[mikethearchivist]

Great advice Bill and all! Thanks again!
Mike

[Shiloh]

Thank you for the quick response. So are these LSWC? Can I use the 230gr. data that you provided and be safe with these? It appears that this is a database that you used, is it available online?
Sorry for all of the questions, and I greatly appreciate your reply.
Thanks!
MR

You have a different profile Thre is more of a diameter with the SWC that the round nose. The SWC will seat deeper as well.
Back off the start load by about 5% and work up using standard load development practices.

Shiloh

[mikethearchivist]

You have a different profile Thre is more of a diameter with the SWC that the round nose. The SWC will seat deeper as well.
Back off the start load by about 5% and work up using standard load development practices.

Shiloh

Thanks Shiloh!