.45 Colt loads for short barrels..?

[John in AR]

The .45 colt is one of my favorite calibers; have 4 guns in the caliber and I've been loading for it for probably 7-8 years now.

I recently bought a Taurus 450SS, a snub-nose revolver in .45 Colt with a short (and ported) barrel. My normal loads (225's with titegroup) run very slow from the gun due to the short barrel and porting, and am looking for tips or recipes on lighter-bullet loads, with powder charges tailored to give decent results from this unusual combination.

I've just started experimenting with it using 160-grain lead RNFP bullets, with titegroup and bullseye charges. Ran five rounds each of 6.5, 7.0, and 7.5 grains of each powder, and the higher-end ones are close (running mid 800's), but am just curious if anyone has any experience with short-barrel, large-caliber loading before I get too deep in any one direction.

Also, while the .45LC version of the gun is out of production now, it was originally rated for +P loads. They actually still make the same gun in .41 magnum (the taurus 415), so it's fairly stout for its size.

I'm considering a faster powder; probably red dot since I already use it for some other things, but really am looking for ideas from others as well.


Thanks

[44MAG#1]

I know I am probably missing something but why would anyone want to use such a light bullet in a 45 Colt??????????????
I load the 45 Colt and am using the Mihec 270 gr SAA bullet that from my alloy weighs 280 grs.
I wish someone would clue me in on ulta light bullets in a 45 Colt. I may want to try some myself if I could understand it.

[John in AR]

...why would anyone want to use such a light bullet in a 45 Colt?

Strictly for velocity reasons; or maybe it's more for "lack of barrel length" reasons. The gun has a 2 3/4" barrel, and the last 3/4" or so of that is ported; so there's basically only 2" of barrel for the bullet to accelerate.

In my other .45LC's (a lever-action, a single-shot carbine, and a 5" revolver [a modified ruger super redhawk in .454]), I load more normal bullet weights, but they don't work well from this little gun. I ran some of my 230's thru it (titegroup, forget the charge right now) to see what they'd do, and they ran 620-630 fps is all. From my 5" gun, they run about 230-240 fps faster than that. With typical heavier .45LC bullets and powder charges, velocity would be pitifully slow.

Lighter bullets and faster powder would let me get to a decent power level, more than a 'normal' .45 colt load would, simply because the gun itself is somewhat of an oddball.

I also learned something about the gun since my original post above. Turns out they actually made the same gun in .44 mag (the model 445, I stumbled across one in a shop today) as well as in .45LC and .41 mag; so it has some strength to it.

I've experimented in the past with really lightweight bullets in the .45LC in the .454 ruger, so I know how to do it; but I'm hoping that someone may have already tailored up some snubnose-oriented loads due to the recent boom in .45LC guns out there.

Fwiw, not to sidetrack, but when experimenting several years ago with the really light bullets, I got over 2450 fps with 10.0 grains of titegroup behind an 82-grain bullet. (Bullets were actually XTP-Mag jackets filled with epoxy instead of lead.) Ten grains of titegroup is a "ruger-only" load with a 240-grain bullet, so completely safe with the same-size lighter-weight bullets I was using. Not something that everyone would want (and I didn't pursue it further), but it could actually make a very good bedroom-gun load. They penetrated just over three inches of pine, had very little recoil due to the lightweight bullet, had surprisngly tolerable muzzle blast due to the fast-burning titegroup powder, and should have less danger of over-penetration compared to typical heavy-bullet .45LC loads. And all the while, it's got more muzzle energy than most .44 magnum loads. It's not something I've done any tesing with in the last few years (and I know I probably shouldn't even bring it up being a newbi here), but it showed me that the .45LC is capable of a lot more than most of us do with it.

Anyway, sorry for the ramble. Just hoping for ideas & recipes for lighter than normal but still commonly-available) bullets due to the oddball characteristics of this particular model of gun.

[John in AR]

Just fwiw, this may help demonstate why bullet weight & velocity is such an issue with this gun:


There's just almost no barrel length to speak of, and what little barrel there is has vent ports over a substantial percentage of it...

[44MAG#1]

To me there is something else wrong. Even at 2 inches a 45 Colt caliber with a 2 inch barrel should shoot better than that. Even with a 250 gr or slightly heavier. Most 45 Colts are 1-16 twist. 44 Mags a re typically 1-20 Smith 44 Specials are 1-20 I believe too.
If a charter arms 44 special will do well with a 250 keith (and I know they will with a 1-18 twist ) then the shorter 250 gr 45 bullet will do as well at 1-16 at a slightly lower velocity.
My first inclination would be to check other things.
Go to a slightly slower powder like Unique or Power Pistol with a 250 gr RNFP
i don't know but I believe 620 to 630 from a 2 inch is not near what the gun is safely capable of considering a 2.5 in Charter Arms 44 Special will easily do 750 with a 250 Keith at 6.5 Unique at basically starting load in the Speer #14 manual. and they are not nearly as strong.
Just my way less than 2 cents worth.

[John in AR]

Not following you with the "should shoot better than that" thing..? Not having accuracy problems, just low-velocity and wasted-powder problems. A slower powder from this short a barrel would actually make for even lower velocities and more wasted powder beng blown unburnt out of the muzzle.

[44MAG#1]

People have this strange thing about thinking a slower powder will always produce lower velocities in a short barrel. Not necessarily so. Unless you actually try it how do you know?
I do know one thing if Titegroup is only producing in the mid 600's something is bad wrong and I mean bad. Either a too light load or something.
I just gave an example of the charter arms 44 special revolver I chroned with 6.5 gr Unique with a 250 Keith producing 750 fps actually chronoed from a 2.5 inch barrel with nowhere the load you could run in your much stronger gun.
If I am wrong how do you explain that?
Try not to be locked in on not trying slower powders in your gun. You might learn something after all.

[44MAG#1]

To give a further example of what I am talking about is Speer in their #14 manual lists loads for the 38 spcl +p loads in a 2 inch barrel with a 110 gr bullet. Unique gave over 100 fps more velocity than the faster burning Titegroup, 231 and Bullseye.
Another example in the 357 Mag with a 2.5 inch barrel AA#9 powder (with roughly the burn rate of 2400) gave 149 fps more velocity than Unique with a 135 gr bullet
These are just a couple examples I can give. You will find that the old wives tale of short barrels equal faster powder doesn't necessarily hold much water. This has been proven time and time again by others.
But then again what do I know????

[John in AR]

I'll give it a shot (so to speak... ) I have several slow powders on hand that I use for other calibers, and I'll give it a try. I use a lot of 296 in the .454, so I've got quite a bit of it on hand. I'll try some & see what I can get.

Fwiw, I looked in my notes, and the 230 grain load was with 7.0 titegroup, using Federal match primers (which aren't particularly hot, I realize, they're just nice & consistent). From my 5" gun they run 850-870 fps, but same load (same batch) is where I was getting the mid-600's from the 2" gun.

Didn't mean to sound argumentative or anything, just looking for ideas. And I'll try yours; I've got no problem with experimenting or learning new things.

Thanks

[45 2.1]

Mihec made a large hollowpoint version of the 452423 whichs weighs close to 200 gr. or a little less. In a suitable strong gun, you can look at the data in the 45 Ruger or contender sections and start at the starting load and work up to your satisfaction. A extremely efficient load can be produced to actually stop "on the spot" anything from large dog size down that would try to bite, scratch or claw you...... including the two legged varieties also. I use Unique myself..................

[Rocky Raab]

44Mag#1, I have almost given up trying to debunk that silly myth about slower powders not igniting until some point down the barrel. How people can believe that is beyond me. If it doesn't ignite when the temperature and pressure are highest, what causes them to ignite later?

But for the record, most handgun powders have completely burned by the time the bullet leaves the case. Partly burnt or unburnt kernels are due to lower than optimum pressures for that powder, or the heat sink effect of the powder touching the case and bullet.

Barrel length has almost nothing to do with picking the optimum powder for a given cartridge and load.

[John in AR]

...I have almost given up trying to debunk that silly myth about slower powders not igniting until some point down the barrel. How people can believe that is beyond me. If it doesn't ignite when the temperature and pressure are highest, what causes them to ignite later?

Fwiw, it's not that I don't think they ignite until sometime later, it was more an issue of "when do they finish burning?" to me. Trying to get the velocity without the massive blast, which is magnified in a ported gun like this...

Example; a .45Colt, 300-grain CorBon round from a 4" ruger (not me or my gun; provided by a member of another loading forum):


A part of this gun's purpose is likely going to include protective/defensive use, so excessive blast & flash are a big part of what I'm trying to avoid, while still trying to maintain decent velocities. My originial assumption was to go with as fast a powder as possible, but it sounds like that's likely wrong. That's why I asked about it, and I really do appreciiate the responses.

To try for that compromise of decent velocity without ridiculous blast from such a short-barreled gun with porting, would it be more likely achieved with the slow stuff like 296 or more medium-burning powder like a #7 or so? I'll experiment and it's ultimately on me to come up with my own solution, but y'all are obviously more broadly experienced than I am (I've loaded for 20+ years, but frankly have settled on 10-12 loads in the few calibers I load, and don't typically experiment much anymore), so any tips aren't just welcome, they're appreciated.

[Rocky Raab]

Flash is NOT due to powder still burning. It is due to flammable but unburned gasses igniting when they mix with atmospheric oxygen. There isn't enough oxygen in gunpowder to burn all the fuel; it burns"rich." So the leftover fuel ignites when it finds extra oxygen in the air. That's it pure and simple.

Full details HERE

Edit to note: In the diagram, note that "Primary Flash" should be labeled "Muzzle Glow" and vice-versa.

[John in AR]

Interesting; didn't know that, but it makes sense, thanks.

But doesn't that unburned gas (rather than unburned powder) still translate into wasted energy though?

I guess the way I should re-ask my original question is 'in a gun with this little bit of barrel, what's the best approach or compromise to achieve decent velocity without generating substantial muzzle flash?" Starting to wonder if a mid-range powder (#7 or so? - I confess no experience with Unique or Power Pistol) might be a good place to steer my experimenting toward, rather than the faster (bullseye, titegroup) or really-slow stuff like 296.

Don't mean to beat a dead horse or be overly dense about it, y'all just have me seeing this in a new light now and it's unfamiliar territory for me.

Thanks


{Afterthought - on this:

Barrel length has almost nothing to do with picking the optimum powder for a given cartridge and load.

Not to open too many cans of worms at once , but what are the primary basic considerations then? Max acceptable chamber pressure, desired velocity,...? Thanks again.}

[Rocky Raab]

If you peruse loading manuals that list handgun loads for rifles, you'll see that the powder(s) that produce the highest velocity in a handgun also produce the highest velocity in a rifle or carbine. The rifle will generate more raw speed because the expanding gasses have more time and distance to do their work, but in almost every instance, a cartridge/bullet combo does its best work with the same powder, regardless of barrel length.

In your particular case, you have an extremely short barrel, and the ports also have an effect. So even the optimum powder will produce a goodly amount of blast because the pressure at release (cylinder gap, ports and muzzle) will still be at fairly high pressure. Flash can be partly controlled by using a powder with a flash suppressant, but you may still have some. That early and massive gas release means that velocity isn't going to be very high, regardless of what you do.

As a comparison, I use a Charter Bulldog 44 Special as my carry gun. It has a 2 3/4" barrel, not ported. Factory 200 Silvertips generate 700 fps exactly. I can craft loads using 240-gr cast bullets that hit 900 fps, but the recoil is painful in such a light gun (24 ounces loaded!).

I also have a 357 Magnum revolver with a 3" ported barrel. It churns up 1200 fps with 158-gr JHP bullets.

In the 44, I get best results with medium to medium-slow powders from American Select and W231 to Blue Dot. In the 357, I use Acc#9, which is also flash-resistant.

In general, you will get higher velocity with slower powders, assuming loads to the same peak pressure. That is due to the pressure curve being broader. But a super-short barrel more or less short-circuits the theoretical outcome.

Finally, Power Pistol is NOT flash-suppressed. Blast and Flash even in longer barrels is fierce.

[NHlever]

Rocky, I've been using Blue Dot for my 3" .357 Mag loads precicely because the blast, and flash seemed less than the other powders I tried. It's good to know that AA-9 is good in that respect too. Not good to lose your night vision on the first round.

[Rocky Raab]

I fired that 357 at night and saw only a dull orange flash the size of a golf ball at the muzzle, and about the same above the barrel ports. That's it. VERY effective flash suppressant in Acc#9, whatever it is!

[John in AR]

Ran my initial trial rounds thru it finally to see how they'd do. Fifteen rounds each of Titegroup & Bullseye (five each with charges of 6.5, 7.0, and 7.5 grains, per powder) with a 160-grain rnfp (Suter's choice from midway). Two powders, three charge weights per powder, five rounds per charge - thirty rounds total. Unfired starline brass and federal match primers.

The sky was right at that level between cloudy and sunny where the chrono (an F1) would or wouldn't need its diffusers; so I got an annoying number of errors and read failures. It was obviously a poor day to chrono loads, but it was the only chance I'll have for a while to hit the range, so I did it anyway. Distance to chrono was ~10 feet.

Titegroup:

6.5 - avg 561 - very weak load, lots of sooting on outside of cases
7.0 - no good reads, all five reads errored
7.5 - avg 770 (ran 732 to 805 fps) Seems like a wide spread; possibly erroneous reads..?


Bullseye:
6.5 - no good reads
70. - 748 fps avg
7.5 - 794 fps avg

Book claim for 7.0 of titegroup with a 160rnfp is 1051 fps (using a 7.25" barrel); I was only averaging 770 with 7.5 grains. (73% of published velocity, while using 7% more powder)

Similarly, book claims for 7.0 of bullseye a velocity of 976 fps, using a 185-grain bullet. I was only getting 748 with a 160-grainer. (76% of published velocity, even using a bullet ~15% lighter)

May be due the extremely short, ported barrel; may be due to over-optimism on the part of the book. Likely some of both, with the short barrel being the main culprit.


I picked up some Unique yesterday to try out next.

Thanks for the direction & help, and please keep them coming. I'll post results of next batch when I chrono them.

[Rocky Raab]

Your results don't seem that far off to me. Book results may or may not have been with a ported barrel to simulate a revolver. If they used a solid pressure barrel, their results were accurate but not realistic for a revolver.

It's been many years since I gave up on Shooting Chrony and bought a serious chronograph, but one thing that worked for me was to replace the issue sky filters with wide strips cut from plastic milk jugs. The semi-transparent plastic worked better than the factory screens. Oh, and replace those metal supports with bamboo skewers. When (not if) you hit one, it simply breaks and doesn't knock your unit over. Cheap, too!

[John in AR]

Yeah, I've considered a new chronograph, but haven't done it. Always something a little higher on the priorities list. Like the bamboo skewer idea, we have those on hand for grilling shish-kabobs anyway; and you're right, I have (only once) hit one of the metal rods.

I'm curious to see how the Unique does when I get back to the range, hopefully in the next few days.