Bullet design - seating depth

[fatelk]

I'm looking at buying another Accurate mold, and am wondering about a few things. I've used a lot of different bullets in the last 30 years and have some opinions of what I like and don't like. Of course opinions don't mean much, and I'd open to learning.

I've come to the point where I like loads for most guns that approximate standard factory ammo. I'm looking at buying a new mold for .45 acp, and want a mold for a load close to GI ball ammo. When working up a load with a TC bullet that had to be seated deep to function, I remember reading to use caution with deep seated bullets to avoid over-pressure.

So, for a GI ball spec load, is it advisable to choose a bullet design that doesn't need to be seated deep? Any ideas on how bullet design like this affects accuracy? Anyone see anything I might be missing? These loads are for 1911s and a 1917 revolver. I'm looking at something like the 45-230MZ or 230V (I powder-coat). Any disadvantages with these? Any reason to go with a bevel-base design?

[fcvan]

I started casting and shooting for a SA back in 1987, starting with the Lee 452-230 RN with excellent results. I bought the Lee 452-200 SWC and it shot great. I already had the Lee 450-200 RN and Hollow point, back when they made such things. Those 2 were for a percussion revolver and were tapered at the base for ease in loading, but the base was 452 diameter so after sizing the were 452 all the way. They shot great, and worked very well with plain based gas checks at 1950 FPS, 45 Colt, 20" Carbine. I started powder coating everything and haven't used them since.

Back to your original question, yes, you can shoot 230 RB factory rated loads all day long with any well designed mold that replicates factory loading velocities. I use a load that is under max loading for 45 ACP with Unique, but have run factory specs. I just preferred my load so I haven't changed it for 34 years. There is something about the recoil pulse of a 1911 that is very unlike other pistols I have owned.

I used my SA 1911 for my EDC for 20 years until my Wife bought me a Glock 22,which eventually became my duty weapon. Now, the only time it is brought out is when my Brother and I go to the range for an 'old school shoot' consisting of 1911 pistols and M1A rifles. My load for the .308 is below max load specs, but provides 2450 FPS with a NOE 306-150 3R Spitzer bullet. Half the pressure of FMJ loads, all of the fun. My suggestion for you is work your loads up for your pistol and let is tell you what it likes. I was shooting competition 30 years ago, and 500 rounds per week was the norm. Lead was free, powder and primers were affordable, and my loads weren't that far below factory FMJ specs, they just shot better. BTW, I never bought any factory, but I did have a couple of coworkers who were reservists and came bearing gifts.

[fatelk]

I should further explain my purposes. I'm not a competitor, never have been. I might shoot 500 rounds of .45 acp in a year. My shooting is strictly recreational. I enjoy challenging myself from time to time, but I'm really not much of a bullseye/benchrest kind of shooter. It can be fun to really dial in a load for a specific gun, and I do that from time to time, but I'm really more interested in a load that works well in every gun I have in a given cartridge.

I have a nice H&G #130 mold that drops some excellent 195gr SWC bullets, but for some silly, non-rational reason I just can't warm up to a SWC in 45acp. I have a Lee 230gr TC bullet that shoots fine, but I have to seat them really deep to get them to chamber correctly in a couple guns. It works, but isn't ideal. Then I have an old 2-cavity 452374 mold that drops a ball-equivalent bullet that I like. Realistically I should probably just use it, but I was looking through the Accurate catalog, and got the itch to purchase a new 5-cavity mold that might be ideal for my purposes.

[Winger Ed.]

I have an old 2-cavity 452374 mold that drops a ball-equivalent bullet that I like.

Sounds like ya answered your own question.
I'd use the Lyman mold, and live happily ever after.

A 5 cavity is cool, and sometimes I wish I'd kept my large capacity molds.
But that's a lot of mold if you're only casting a few hundred boolits a year.

[fcvan]

I should further explain my purposes. I'm not a competitor, never have been. I might shoot 500 rounds of .45 acp in a year. My shooting is strictly recreational. I enjoy challenging myself from time to time, but I'm really not much of a bullseye/benchrest kind of shooter. It can be fun to really dial in a load for a specific gun, and I do that from time to time, but I'm really more interested in a load that works well in every gun I have in a given cartridge.

I have a nice H&G #130 mold that drops some excellent 195gr SWC bullets, but for some silly, non-rational reason I just can't warm up to a SWC in 45acp. I have a Lee 230gr TC bullet that shoots fine, but I have to seat them really deep to get them to chamber correctly in a couple guns. It works, but isn't ideal. Then I have an old 2-cavity 452374 mold that drops a ball-equivalent bullet that I like. Realistically I should probably just use it, but I was looking through the Accurate catalog, and got the itch to purchase a new 5-cavity mold that might be ideal for my purposes.

I hear you on the SWC which were popular with bullseye shooters and some steel plate competitors. I don't actually have that mold anymore, a Marine came home after 8 years in and was wanting some 'things.' This was during the last cycle of reloading parts being made of 'unobtainium.' I sent him some 45 ACP dies and that mold, and he sent me some things he had scrounged that I actually wanted, we were both happy.

I shoot exclusively the 230 RN and don't do action shooting like I did. Former 'SWAT' and a LEO for 31 years, I only do 'run and gun drills' using my last duty weapon, a Glock 22. I do enjoy the 1911, and it enjoys the 230 RN, win win for me and my Springfield. I bought it 'old school' it is parkerized, just the way I ordered it . . . for $269 bucks. I think my Springfield likes not having to dress up to go out.

[Bazoo]

Personally I'd be happy with the 452374. I have the lee TL452-230-2R and it's a get by until I run across the aforementioned Lyman.

I also have the lee TL452-230-TC and, unlike everyone else, I ain't impressed. It shoots accurate enough but it's somewhat clunky in feeding. Once in a while I feel the slide move forward. Just a bit less smooth than ball. Another thing I don't like about it is that is drops 238 grains from wheel weights. The Lyman manual lists it, but at 230 grains. I have had to back off starting loads a fair amount to duplicate factory recoil and ejection.

[fatelk]

It’s nice to see that I’m not the only one who like the old 230rn. I think it’s as much aesthetics as anything else.

A 5 cavity is cool, and sometimes I wish I'd kept my large capacity molds.
But that's a lot of mold if you're only casting a few hundred boolits a year.

You’re probably right, that is the logical thing to do. I guess I’ve gotten spoiled with the various 6cavity Lee molds I have in other calibers. I’ve been meaning to do a little more load work up to find the ideal load for my purposes, and cast and load a couple thousand, even though that should last me for years. I don’t relish spending a couple days casting with a 2 cavity mold. Rather than buy a new mold, I could just break it up with several casting sessions.

The other thought in my mind is this- some years back when there was a panic and everything ammo or reloading was selling for silly high prices, I sold off some of my stuff on eBay, and eventually upgraded a lot of tools and molds. I’m tempted to get rid of some of my molds that aren’t ideal for me, and replace them with exactly what I want.

[Winger Ed.]

I’m tempted to get rid of some of my molds that aren’t ideal for me, and replace them with exactly what I want.

There's probably some good reasons why the 230RN is still around after over 100 years.

I've thinned out molds, guns, dies, presses, brass I'll never load, etc. over the last few years.
If nothing else, I like to see stuff get back into circulation, and get used by someone who wants it.

[fredj338]

Just adjust your powder charge. Yes you will need a chrono to find out where that is. IF you are just trying to hit 230gr @ 850, seating a bit deeper with a TC is maybe 1/10gr reduction in powder charge with powder faster than Unique. Bevel bases are just a bit easier to load into the case. I would go 230V. I PC too but I like options so if I want I could run lube.

[kiwi]

I use the NOE copy of the H&G34 shoots well in various .45 ACP's functionally and accuracy wise

[gwpercle]

I spent several years in a NRA Bullseye Match League , indoor pistol , 22LR , 38 cal and 45 cal .
The 1911 was the usual 45 and we also had G.I. Government Model 45 acp matches for unmodified 1911's . And of course the rest of my shooting is on targets and a few tin cans .
But for scoring , on paper targets a RN doesn't do well at all , the SWC cuts nice clean holes so my first 230 gr. RN mould didn't last long at all on the target range ... holes were all ragged and hard to score .
A Lyman 452460 , 200 grain , SWC was purchased ... that was 30 years ago and it has worked great . 200 grains is plenty heavy , a little less recoil so easier to shoot , 5.2 grains of Unique was accurate , cut nice clean holes and helped me win a few trophies in our league matches . Targets and tin cans aren't hard to kill .
Think twice about the 230 gr.RN ...the 200 grain SWC has worked out much better for me .
Gary

[fatelk]

I've had a chronograph for 30 years, and have been shooting 1911s at least that long. I've shot a lot of Lee 230-TC bullets at 850fps for years now, using my standard load of Unique, They shoot fine, but I have having to seat them so deep in the case. I was shooting with a friend a while back and he can't find ammo, so I let him try some of mine, and his gun choked completely with them, wouldn't feed. Even though they work well for me, it turned me off a little on them. If I get another 1911 that doesn't like them, I'd have to tinker with it to make them work, and I hate doing that.

I've also been working up a new load with a different powder (what I can find, due to the current shortage insanity), and from what I can find in the loading manuals, I might have trouble safely reaching a comparable velocity with a deep-seated bullet.

I know that lighter SWC bullets have been great for competition for decades, but I'm just not a competitor, never have been. I've just never been interested in competition at all. Scoring on paper just isn't relevant for me. I know it's not entirely rational, and mostly aesthetic, but over all the thousands of rounds that I've fired through various 1911s, I've developed a preference for the old GI-ball load. I just don't like the lighter target loads as much. If it was a tool for bringing home game or winning trophies, then I can completely understand using the most practical ammo for the job, but for my purposes, I just want to shoot what I like.

I'm probably a bit of a traditionalist that way. I also find that I prefer the 454190 255gr RN bullet for the .45 Colt. It just seems like that cartridge was made for that bullet. In recent years I've really come around to the 429421 in the .44 Magnum.

Bevel bases are just a bit easier to load into the case. I would go 230V. I PC too but I like options so if I want I could run lube.

It's funny, I struggled with the same thought- that I should get a design with lube grooves instead of going grooveless. Thing is, I just recently pulled the trigger and got rid of all the last of my lubesizing equipment. Decades worth of lubesizer presses, dies, top punches, etc., all gone. I enjoyed it when I did it, but powder-coating has been such a revolutionary change for me that I don't see myself ever messing with sticky, nasty, smoky bullet lube ever again. The traditionalist in me misses it, but powder coated bullets are just SO much nicer to handle, load, and shoot.

[mehavey]

fatelk: I can't see any reason why Tom's 230M wouldn't serve you perfectly
in what you want in terms of form, fit, and function in the both 1911/1917.

[fatelk]

Well, I went ahead and ordered a mold. Estimated lead time was seven weeks, and in the meantime I figured I'd put my 452374 mold to use.

Yes, this is likely nearly a year's worth of bullets for me, so it's a bit silly to buy a 5-cav mold, but I did it anyhow.