comparing .45 ACP target loads

[lotech]

I've been using the 200 grain SAECO/Redding #069 design (#H&G #68 copy) for many years. A light popular target load with 3.5 grs. Bullseye has been very accurate as well as 5 grs. for a full-powered load.

I made up some target loads recently using the SAECO/Redding #130, a 185 grain design (#H&G #130 copy). I've had the mould for more than thirty years, but never used it as much as the #069 because it wasn't very accurate when I exceeded target load levels, unlike the #069. My "testing" has been pretty informal and I'm going to do a lot more 25 yard shooting to confirm, but it actually looks like group sizes (not measured, just eyeballed) are a bit smaller with this bullet than with the #069.

While I had the pot warmed up , I also cast some bullets from the following moulds: Lyman #452460, Lyman #452488, and the RCBS 45-200. I haven't bought new moulds in years and I haven't used any of these bullet designs in a while, but loaded them with the best target loads from my old notes. All three shoot with reasonable accuracy, but none are really any competition for the #130 and #069. I knew that and I guess everyone else did, too, but I just had to try them again.

My Colts have both been accurized by Clark Custom and are capable of shooting very small groups, even if I can't come close to using them to their potential.

[rintinglen]

That 452-460 may surprise you. I no longer have a target grade 1911, but years ago I found that my slow fire scores were just few points higher with it than with the H&G 68 SAECO clone. Timed and rapid fire scores were much of a muchness, with no discernable difference between them. (Though that may well have been the nut behind the gun.) It may have been that I wasn't good enough to tell the difference between them. Anyway, your gun will let you know what it likes.

[lotech]

That 452-460 may surprise you. I no longer have a target grade 1911, but years ago I found that my slow fire scores were just few points higher with it than with the H&G 69 SAECO clone. Timed and rapid fire scores were much of a muchness, with no discernable difference between them. (Though that may well have been the nut behind the gun.) It may have been that I wasn't good enough to tell the difference between them. Anyway, your gun will let you now what it likes.

Slow firing was where I saw the 452460 wasn't quite up to the accuracy of the #069 or the #130, but I only tried two Bullseye powder loads from old notes. Same for the #452488 and the RCBS 45-200.

I've also found some guns that don't work reliably with the #452460, #452488, and the RCBS design while others do fine. My Clark accurized Colts will handle them all, but seems like I have a 1911 that won't. The #069 (and #68) and the #130 will work reliably in any gun.

[45DUDE]

Lotche- I drew the same conclusion about 10 years ago. I keep trying trying different combos but keep coming back to the H&G 130 mold and bullseye on the bench. I have a Lyman and H&G mold that look the same and a 452460 Lyman 4 cavity. My gun will shoot 3.5 bollseye but my best group is with 4.5.--4.3 of E3 comes close. I sold my Clark 45acp but still have a Fred Kart bullseye 45acp with a rib.

[wv109323]

The two most popular cast boolits in NRA precision pistol are the H&G 68/69 and the 130. Bullseye powder is probably the most common powder but there are several that will work satisfactory. I would bump the load up to 4.0 to 4.2g of Bullseye over your 3.5g. Taper crimp to .469/.470.
I think you are just chasing your tail trying to find a more accurate boolit than these two.
Another boolit that I have found to be very ,very accurate is a H&G 272S. This boolit is the No. 130 with a shorter body. The nose profile is the same as the 130 but the body is shorten to make the bullet come out to 160 grains. Mine come out to 168 g. with lube. My load for these is 4.5 g. of bullseye with a tighter crimp of .463 to .465". These shoot 1 3/4" at 50 yards while the No.68 are around 2-2 1/4" out of my guns.

[wv109323]

I forgot to say I got my mold from Accurate Molds and IIRC it was designated the 130S, but as stated it is the 130 with a shorter body listed at 160g. weight.

[Charliemac]

I forgot to say I got my mold from Accurate Molds and IIRC it was designated the 130S, but as stated it is the 130 with a shorter body listed at 160g. weight.

Was it this? https://www.accuratemolds.com/bullet...bullet=45-160S

[racepres]

I shoot for accuracy loads in 45ACP, Out of my contender...Yes... apples and potatoes, but AA#7 has always come out on top with Cast 200 or 250.. 9.0 gr of AA#7 under the lee 200PB (with Bevel Removed) cannot be beat outta my Contender. Sadly I cannot hold the USGI anywhere near well enough to establish Real Accuracy Comparisons...

[Forrest r]

Hard to beat 4.3gr of clays and any 175gr to 210gr cast bullet.

[lotech]

The two most popular cast boolits in NRA precision pistol are the H&G 68/69 and the 130. Bullseye powder is probably the most common powder but there are several that will work satisfactory. I would bump the load up to 4.0 to 4.2g of Bullseye over your 3.5g. Taper crimp to .469/.470.
I think you are just chasing your tail trying to find a more accurate boolit than these two.
Another boolit that I have found to be very ,very accurate is a H&G 272S. This boolit is the No. 130 with a shorter body. The nose profile is the same as the 130 but the body is shorten to make the bullet come out to 160 grains. Mine come out to 168 g. with lube. My load for these is 4.5 g. of bullseye with a tighter crimp of .463 to .465". These shoot 1 3/4" at 50 yards while the No.68 are around 2-2 1/4" out of my guns.

According to my notes from years past, I worked in tenth of a grain increments with the #069 (H&G 68 copy). 4 grs. Bullseye (750 fps) was very good, though 3.5 appears to be the best. 4.2 grs. and 4.3 grs. provided mediocre accuracy. When I got to 5 grs., things turned around. That load (880fps), in my gun, was almost as accurate as the 3.5 target load. If it wasn't for noticeably more recoil, I'd probably settle on this load as my favorite.

[krems]

5.3 grains ww231 and any of the 200gr swc H&G clones shoot better than I can hold in my 45acp 1911 guns.

[wv109323]

Yes the Accurate mold is the 160S.

[georgerkahn]

I've been using the 200 grain SAECO/Redding #069 design (#H&G #68 copy) for many years. A light popular target load with 3.5 grs. Bullseye has been very accurate as well as 5 grs. for a full-powered load.

I made up some target loads recently using the SAECO/Redding #130, a 185 grain design (#H&G #130 copy). I've had the mould for more than thirty years, but never used it as much as the #069 because it wasn't very accurate when I exceeded target load levels, unlike the #069. My "testing" has been pretty informal and I'm going to do a lot more 25 yard shooting to confirm, but it actually looks like group sizes (not measured, just eyeballed) are a bit smaller with this bullet than with the #069.

While I had the pot warmed up , I also cast some bullets from the following moulds: Lyman #452460, Lyman #452488, and the RCBS 45-200. I haven't bought new moulds in years and I haven't used any of these bullet designs in a while, but loaded them with the best target loads from my old notes. All three shoot with reasonable accuracy, but none are really any competition for the #130 and #069. I knew that and I guess everyone else did, too, but I just had to try them again.

My Colts have both been accurized by Clark Custom and are capable of shooting very small groups, even if I can't come close to using them to their potential.

My "shooter" for ~20 years of Bullseye competition was a plain-Jane Colt Mark IV Series 80 Stainless Govt. Model.45ACP. I shot my cast H&G #68bb 200gn SWC Bevel Base bullets -- sized to .425 -- propelled by exactly 3.5 grains of Bullseye powder. I have two 4-Cavity matched pair (TWO different identical moulds with same serial number) moulds I'd use in tandem to cast.
geo