2400 Keith loads in 1917 45 ACP?

[Mike45]

Hope this is in the right forum. I am planning on hunting hogs with a 1917 revolver in 45 acp. The 255 gr. Keith type looks like a good idea. Not sure if 230 gr. xtp would penetrate on a big hog. So i was looking for loads since it has a large bearing surface and wasn't sure if that would raise pressures compared to speer 12th loads with 260 jhp. Will probably tick some people off by saying this but I would buy Hunter's Choice from Midway probably since i don't cast my own. Will probably use acp brass over auto rim, does that affect load?


Found the Keith load with 2400, can I use that? 14 gr. His loads with the 44 mag. are 2 grains higher than alliant website, 44 special several grains higher. 357 and 41 mag not far off, though. What sort of velocity would I get? What about say 12 grains?

[excess650]

First, Ill recommend that you use boolits that fit the throats of your revolver. In that its an old 1917, they're probably pretty big, so expect .456 or so.

Second, 2400 would NOT be my choice of powder for that cartridge (AR or ACP). It might work OK. I don't have any load data dor 2400 in either case.

I use Blue Dot in AR cases with 255gr boolits in my "modern" S&W 625. Speer #10 listed 9.0gr under a 250gr SWC for 824fps from a 6-1/2" barrel being under 16,900 cup.

I see that Speer listed the same load in #13 after Hercules became Alliant.

Cast boolits will give you more velocity at similar pressure compared to jacketed. At that velocity level jacketed aren't worthwhile.

[Shiloh]

Just curious, whats the rifling in your revolver look like?? The several tha I have seen have quite shallow rifling.

Shiloh

[35remington]

ACP and Auto Rim cases are virtually identical in capacity save for small differences between brands. So no great change there, but a chronograph would be handy to ensure the velocity you think you're getting is the velocity your actually are getting, and no more than that.

Worry more about seating depth of the bullet in the case than bearing surface length. Both are important, but the seating depth is more so. More seating depth equals more pressure for the same velocity, or less velocity for the same pressure.

2400 can work just fine in an ACP/Auto Rim revolver, as a great many of us will testify.

However, a few caveats:

Depending upon exact model, I understand that many 1917's are not considered as durable as later Auto Rim/ACP revolvers. So it is advised that the heavier loadings should be avoided in many of these oldsters.

Yours might be one of those.

I would suggest, if a suitable revolver can be found (yours may not qualify) that 13.0 grains 2400 is appropriate, depending upon which "255 Keith" you are talking about. These vary widely in seating depth, and pressures vary widely.

For example, some advise as much as 7 to 7.5 grains Unique with this bullet, and given the Keith variants I have this is excessive. I wouldn't go much over 6.5 to 6.8 grains in my much newer 625-3.

Getting back to 2400, I would not use 14 grains unless a suitable revolver could be procured and a chronograph was handy. Much over 950 to 1000 fps is not suitable, pressure wise. Quite frankly I call it quits at 13 grains as I get near 1000 fps and that is a great plenty from the stubby little ACP/Auto Rim case.

The 13 grain charge has considerable history and writing behind it, including write ups in firearm publications and by such notables as John Taffin. Heavier than that very few go, and if more velocity is needed a more powerful revolver should be purchased.

2400 is a niche powder. That is, it shows excessive velocity variation and no higher velocities than faster powders with 230 grain and lighter bullets. It only shows up, so to speak, and IMO, with the 452423 (246 grains from my mould) and the 452424 (258 grains from my mould). With these heavier bullets velocity variations go down, and it becomes a usable choice.

But I don't know that I'd exceed much over 850 to 900 f/s with this "255 Keith" unless you have a much newer revolver than I think you do...........and I bet you don't.

Truthfully, if you are limited to certain power levels of ca. 850 fps due to revolver strength, there are better powders than 2400. Like Herco and Unique, for instance.

[softpoint]

13.5 grains 2400 with a 250 cast is a very good load. I have shot thousands of them in 2 625 Smiths and the ACP cylinder of my Blackhawk convertible. More recently dropping to 12.7 grains, appears to be just as accurate.:drinks:

[square butte]

Tread lightly on your 1917 S & W. Metalurgy in that vintage is not as good as the newer Smiths - particularly in the thin walled cylinder. I would keep it somewher between 800 to 900 fps.

[kweidner]

Don't get me wrong a hog is a tough animal but we kill em around here with whatever we have on hand at the time. Killed em with anything from 22lr to 300 ultra. Shot placement is critical unless you like trailng. They are considered pests. Farmers put bountys on them. I eat em.....well all except one cause he was just too strong. over 350#. Some just leave em lie. Or WMA lands you have. to hunt with the weapon that is appropriate for the season at the time. right now it's fur bearer which means rimfire or front packer. Kill em quite regular with my tracker in .22 lr while hunting tree rats. Hit em in the head and you don't need super speed. Have a buddy dropped many out to 50 with his 40 smith.

[Mike45]

I thought I would use Unique up to 5 and half maybe 6 grains, the Keith load, for more normal velocity. but he recommended 14 grains 2400 for Colt and S&W 1917's and the 1950 S&W target models. Wondered if it was wacko but checked his other loads versus modern manuals and Lyman 47th put over 23 grains behind 429421, 245 gr. linotype, and got 36,000 cup, so doesn't look like he was pushing it. Same with 41 mag, 20gr. behind 220 cast.

The rifling looks shallow like my 1911 llama. Not sure what the throat diameter is but it has shot fine so far. If I had a chrono that would make things easier, probably just have to go with calculated recoil and compare with jacketed 230gr. loads. Probably too much recoil for that. I know it is an old revolver, but 14 grains of 2400 isn't necessarily that much. I definitely agree that 7 or 7.5 of unique is way over for my gun, and maybe even a 625, with this bullet. I thought 14 grains of powder, he must be pushing it, but have checked his loads with the lyman 47th and others and seem reasonable, although psi data which is newer can be lower. 14 gr. of 2400 was recommended with my revolver, from what i can tell.

I want to have enough gun in case they charge or things get interesting. Definitely considered a .22 though.

anybody know what these 2400 loads get for velocity? 900 would be great, anything over a bonus. Would likely work up fairly carefully. thanks everyone for replies so far. 13 grains should be close enough, if that goes well might go higher.

[Mike45]

Here's some good reading:

http://www.elmerkeithshoot.org/GA/

[35remington]

See my post for velocity obtained.

If you've never shot it, and never chronographed it, how you you "know" that 14 grains isn't "necessarily that much?" I have, and I'm suggesting from the standpoint of practical advice not to do that without better means for checking where you actually are. 255's vary substantially, and Elmer's advice is dated.

Elmer's loads probably exceeded +P 45 ACP pressures, and it's better to have less in your 1917. Things have changed since then, and some of his loads aren't published any more for a reason.

Your revolver wasn't designed for pressures over about 20,000 psi. So the other calibers you quoted have nothing to do with it. Your metallurgy and cylinder wall thickness aren't that good, and it's better to have more operating margin.

If using Unique, start at 6 grains and go from there as your chronograph indicates.

Hard bullets skid less on the shallow rifling and long jump to the cylinder. Soft bullets are not advisable when in the heavier weights in these revolvers.

If you don't have a chronograph, don't shoot some of these loads suggested by Keith. There are places you do not want to go. If you do have a chronograph, don't exceed about 900 fps. That ought to be enough.

If still determined to shoot the heavy loads without a chronograph or any basis for knowing for sure where you're at, lie down until the urge passes.

[Bret4207]

I'm an ardent Keith fan and an equal fan of the '17 Smith. With all due respect to The Sainted Elmer and Mssrs. Smith and Wesson, that particular platform is one to be used with less vigorous loads than Elmer advised. With the 255 gr Keith something in the 850 fps range is going to to do just about everything the same boolit at 900-950 will do and likely at far less pressure. I strongly advise you to be cautious. They don't make '17's anymore and those ladies are too fine and dignified to abuse.

[Char-Gar]

Do not do it! Do not do it! Those Pre-War Colts and Smiths will not tolerate such loads as contemplated for any length of time.

Way back Skeeter Skelton wrote an article called "Poor Man's Magnum", where he took a 1917 Colt and loaded the Keith 260 grain cast bullet over 7.5/Unique. In the due course of time he cracked the cylinder.

He did get another article out of it, when he re-barreled and re-cylindered the busted Colt to 44 Special. I owned that pistol for a time.

If you want to hot rod a 45 ACP DA sixgun, get one made after WWII.

[Grapeshot]

Go and get a S&W 625 and be safe. Retire the 1917. They are to valuable as a collector to risk damage from a stiff load that might have been save 80 years ago. You have no idea just how well or poorly that old 1917 has been treated in the past 95 years.

[Ben]

Tread lightly on your 1917 S & W.

I'd like to 2nd that one ! !

Ben

[leadman]

Elmer did have a welder put the topstraps back on some of his revolvers. Not something you want to have to do.

[square butte]

I have two 1917 S & W's . The one my Grandfather carried as a pilot in WWl and was with him on the day he was shot down over France during the battle of Muese-Argone. The other was given to me with a blown cylinder. Both are reserved for admiration. I used to shoot my Grandfathers, But know am older and wiser. For shooting, I go to the S & W 25-2.

[Mike45]

35Remington sorry somehow I missed the 1000 ft./second at 13 grains data. Thanks for posting. that should be plenty of velocity. I know it's an old revolver and I have looked at other loads in cartridges that actually have published data with 2400 like the 44 special, which is a larger case but to lower pressure. Got up to over 12 grains with under 14,000 cup of pressure I think, I don't have the manual here. The larger 44mag case got up to about 23,000 cup with 18 or 19 grains, I think. 2400 is a slower burning powder than unique.

This is a shooter. somebody nickel plated it, no provenance, bought it at a gun shop, 44mag got stolen. Not trying to copy 44mag loads. Would love to have a 625.

I'm not saying it's a good load, but if the rest of his loads are good, this one should be too. There is no way I'm starting at 6 grains with Unique. probably 5, don't know if I'll go past 5.5. He did work up his loads.

Yes, Keith recommended harder alloy, one part tin to 10 parts lead or typemetal, which I assume is linotype, to catch the shallow rifling. He also sized his bullets at .451. I wouldn't use 7.5 grains Unique with that bullet. that is well over published info that I have. Some of his data seems hot, such as 13.5 gr. 2400 in a heavy frame 38 special. 14 gr. of 2400 doesn't necessarily generate more pressure than 7.5 grains Unique.

Does anybody have any published data with 2400 and 45ar or acp?

[Mike45]

Yes cast bullets can vary a lot in the same weight. Also Keith only recommended 6 gr. Unique, most of his unique loads seem to be about max. A wide throat could lower pressures compared to a 625. Anybody tried the doubletap ammo in a 1917? Is that safe?

[Larry Gibson]

I'm an ardent Keith fan and an equal fan of the '17 Smith. With all due respect to The Sainted Elmer and Mssrs. Smith and Wesson, that particular platform is one to be used with less vigorous loads than Elmer advised. With the 255 gr Keith something in the 850 fps range is going to to do just about everything the same boolit at 900-950 will do and likely at far less pressure. I strongly advise you to be cautious. They don't make '17's anymore and those ladies are too fine and dignified to abuse.

+1. I also got Keithitus many years ago and tried the 452424 and 452490 with 2400 in several M1917s, S&W and Colts, with poor results. I just never could get the 2400 to burn anywhere near efficiently. ES fps was very large and the amount of unburned powder foulded the gun. Most often the powder got under the extracor and the revolver wouldn't close or would jam. Found that Unique and BlueDot worked much better.....but that was years ago. These days I've on M1917 S&W left that has a M25 6 1/2" barrel on it (I call in a M17/25) and I just shoot my regular .45 ACP practice load in it (195-205 gr cast SWC over 5 gr Bullseye). With that load it is exceedingly accurate and easy on the revolver and suits my purposes. I found years ago with the m1917 in 45 ACP and the K frame S&Ws in .38 SPL if I wanted magnum revolver performance best to get a magnum revolver.

Larry Gibson

[Mike45]

Might send serial number off to Colt, heminway's model 12 wound up as a consignment at Abercrombie and Fitch I believe. And it was a shooter.

[Mike45]

Haven't shot it much lately but seems like it did fine with light loads under light cast bullets. Seems like I got my first one hole group out of it. What powder charges did you use? What pressure signs did you get? Actually it sounds like you could've used more powder.

[MtGun44]

+1 on what Bret said.

I have worked up to 7.0 gr Unique in my 1937 S&W .45 ACP (same as 1917s) and DID not
repeat it. I would stop at 6.5, which is above what most books approve, OR LOWER.

The one benefit I did find is that with 5 or 5.5 gr, it shot low and left, and as I increased
the loads in 0.5 gr increments, the groups both tighted up considerably and moved
steadily closer to the POA, until at 7.0 they were one inch left and on height for the
POA. JUST TOO HOT!

I was using Elmer's 452423 and it was a touch too small at that point in my learning
curve. I now have a Miha Products mold and can re-run these tests with .455 diameter
boolits that fit the throat. It is on the "round tuit" list.

Bill

[Mike45]

keith had a load at 6 gr. unique. I have no plans to go over that. He also used .451 bullets. .455 bullets with 14 gr. 2400 or 7 gr. unique sounds like an explosion to me. 7 gr. or more of unique could generate more pressure than keith's load of 2400.

[Char-Gar]

Everything Elmer wrote needs to be placed in a historical context. His heyday of shooting and experimenting was before WWII. After WWII when most of us read him, he was repeating for the most part his pre-war experiences.

We are not limited to pre-war firearms as he was in his best time. He blew up a number of handguns learning his way around, there is no need for us to follow in his steps in that regard.

In short Keith was indeed a seminal figure, but we have learned lots of thing since his passing. Not to push the old pistols to the red line like he did is one important thing we have learned.

[Mike45]

In 1929 he was advocating not using bullets that you couldn't pust through the cylinder mouths by hand. And no more than .002 over.

http://www.elmerkeithshoot.org/AmericanRifleman/LastWord.pdf

I think the loads were from 1969 but not sure
Obviously worked up before 1969. Many if not all are within modern pressures, the 44 spc. seem high but in a lg. frame smith I think i'd try it without too much worry.

http://www.elmerkeithshoot.org/GA/1969_01_Elmer_Keith_Favorite_Load.pdf

[Mike45]

hate to hear about him shooting owls and eagles. he did want grizzlies reintroduced to California, though.

[35remington]

Linotype and quenched wheelweights are much harder than Elmer's 1-10 mix, and should be preferable with heavy bullets in an ACP/Auto Rim revolver. Soft heavy bullets in shallow rifling revolvers are extremely skid prone.

Use a good lubricant with these hard bullets and leading should be minimal.

[MtGun44]

Folks raised chickens and turkeys, plus hunted rabbits and squirrels for food. If you are
short enough on food to be hunting rabbits to eat, you can't afford to have raptors
eating YOUR food, or certainly not your barnyard fowl. Simple as that. I would not shoot
them, for sure, but I do understand why they did. As to golden eagles, they WILL take
lambs.

Bill

[Char-Gar]

Linotype and quenched wheelweights are much harder than Elmer's 1-10 mix, and should be preferable with heavy bullets in an ACP/Auto Rim revolver. Soft heavy bullets in shallow rifling revolvers are extremely skid prone.

Use a good lubricant with these hard bullets and leading should be minimal.

I have read that over and over again for my years, but I am convinced it is theory not backed by facts. Even Elmer held this incorrect theory.

I was shooting Bullsye competition in the mid-60s when Speer introduced their 200 grain soft swaged clone of the famous Hensley and Gibbs No. 69 (IIRC). Having been suckled on the necessity of hard bullets in 45ACP pistols and revolvers due to the shallow rifling, I could not see how they would work. I bought a box and my scores were as good or better than those with my cast bullets. I bought thousands more and they all shot great.

Since that time I have shot several hundred thousand cast bullets through various 45 ACP pistols and sixguns and none have been harder than ACWW and many much softer. Yes this includes heavier Keith (452453) type bullets.

So the bottom line is I am convinced from extensive personal experience, that this often repeated dictum is just an old wives tale not based on fact. Many others that have great experience that will back this up. I am not alone on this matter.

[Char-Gar]

hate to hear about him shooting owls and eagles. he did want grizzlies reintroduced to California, though.

Those were different times. In 1962, I made lots of money hunting eagles from an airplane in the Texas Big Bend, as they were killing lots of lambs and kids and costing ranchers big bucks. It was a common part of predator control during years gone by.

Would I do it today? Certainly not, but those were different times with a different way of thinking. Elmer never gave a thought to shooting raptors as nobody did.

The town where I live in today has lots of rattlesnakes and water mocasins and it is against the law to kill one, even if they are coiled on your front porch. That is one law I do violate.

[Freischütz]

I tried the 2400 loads from Speer Nr 7. They produced lots of un/partially burned powder. Top velocities were in the low 900 fps range. Loading the revolver required blowing into the chambers to clear the chunks of unburned powder.

Today I just can't see pushing an old gun that hard. I bought a current production S&W.

[Mike45]

Thanks again for all the great info. Yes those were different times. Wish we had more raptors today. used to shoot snakes myself on a local river but didn't eat them and wish we had more buffalo so quit. Really they've banned killing snakes? i usually relocate them but surprised they banned this in TX. Read about people in tX driving around shooting hawks for entertainment. Couldn't do that now even if it was legal. Not very many. Different times.

I just picked up some 200 grain hndy soft swaged, haven't shot them yet but they seemed to be .453. Glad to hear of your success with them. I think they might be preferable with light loads in a revolver. With top loads he wanted the .451 as it would expand properly at the rear to fill the rifling. But he pretty clearly stated that he hadn't had any luck with oversize bullets and actually preferred them a bit smaller even as opposed to oversize. Presumably he cast plenty of them. Whatever works, I guess.

[Mike45]

Freishcuchutz would love to get those loads and pressures if they put that in. 35remington yes that is what he recommended said something about type metal as well, do you know if this is linotype? Also wondered what your starting loads were? At this point I will probably stick with the unique loads, though. probably get me up to 800 fps. Hoping to get my 629 back. Not holding breath. A 625 would be great, too.

[beagle]

I totally agree. Take Elmer's old loads with about a spoonful of salt for the M1917s. I've exceeded Elmer's old 6.0 grains of Unique loads in M1917s but that was when I was younger....and dumber.

If you want to hotrod the .45 ACP, get a convertible Blackhawk and have at it but leave the old M1917s for milder loads and yes, most of the S & Ws I have owned had very shallow rifling which handled cast all right but at that stage of my career, I'm not sure that I was getting the best accuracy but the bullets went bang and made big holes./beagle

[Char-Gar]

Mike.. My luck with those Hornaday swaged bullets has only been so-so. Thus far, I have only used them in 38 Special loads. Go much past 750 fps and they lead like mad. I think it must be the dry lube they use.

I have had better luck with Speer swaged bullet and attribute it to the different lube. But that is just a guess and I have nothing to back it up with.

[MtGun44]

Speer 200 swaged shortnosed SWCs with the black overall lube have been some of the
most accurate .45 ACP bullets I have ever shot. No leading, either - and dead soft.
I have not shot them in either a Colt or S&W 1917 revolver.

Bill

[Mike45]

I got the 38 hbwc hornady and like those. I don't shoot much but they seem fine. Use about 3.3 gr of 231 I think, haven't loaded them in a while.

I'm not trying to hot rod but if it's a good load, the 14 gr. of 2400 and Keith bullet, would be interested in using it.

Amazing how dirty it is or can be!

Wow, most accurate, can't beat that. Have heard that soft swage leads less, but I think it is probably much morecomplicated than that. The hbwc worked well so thought I'd try the swc, maybe could hunt with it.

[x101airborne]

I wish you were closer. I might consider trading your 1917 for a 4" 625PD titanium. You could abuse that and I would kick my wife out of bed so the pistol could have a spot to rest.

[MikeS]

I'm not 100% sure, but wasn't the 45 Auto Rim brass that Elmer used to work up his loads the old balloon head brass? If so, that brass had a much larger capacity than modern stronger solid head brass has. I could be thinking about the 44 Special brass, I'm not 100% sure, but even so, when looking at loads from years ago, they should never be duplicated without backing off, and working up to them, that's just safe loading practice for any load.

[35remington]

So the bottom line is I am convinced from extensive personal experience, that this often repeated dictum is just an old wives tale not based on fact.

The above in reference to my comment about using a hard alloy to avoid skidding.

Chargar feels the necessity to "throw down" occasionally if he feels BS coming on. It will not surprise some to see that I side with Elmer on this one.

Chargar, I'll at least give you a chance to let you know this is coming. It's not idle surmise, and I wouldn't say it if I didn't live it. I have the odd habit of recovering bullets to see just what is happening to my fired ammunition.

How's photographic proof grabya? With your 452423 which you felt the need to write a sonnet about.

My personal experience is at least as extensive as yours......and is based on recovered bullets, as well. If skidding is reduced, accuracy improves in my pistol, and leading is reduced. Based on the condition of the bullets I can show you, this would not surprise anyone.

And skidding takes place on a scale with the Auto Rim/ACP revolver seen in few others, to the point that the rifling marks are often completely obliterated as the bullet futilely tries to "grab hold." Extra long jump and shallow rifling don't help. Going to a lighter bullet greatly reduces the tendency, as these bullets have less inertia and don't ride over the rifling so much. A 185 grain SWC would be a good example.

Give me a chance to post a photo in a day or so.

Stay tuned, and prepare to have the "old wives tale" confirmed. One of your favorite bullets is the featured attraction.

Mike, since we're talking about the 452423, a 246 grain bullet from my mould, 6.8 Unique gets around 970 fps. FWIW. That's not a recommendation for you.

[Bret4207]

35, what happens in one gun (or 25 guns) with one load with one design (or 5 designs) isn't absolutely going to happen in another. I've eaten crow by forgetting that fact a number of times.

[35remington]

Undoubtedly. But just because you say "nay" does not mean your pronunciations are the actual situation either.

I won't have to "eat crow" as I, Elmer, and Brian Pearce in his article on the 45 Auto Rim in Handloader magazine have experienced the same thing, and all of us have mentioned it as a problem.

So it happens to a lot more people besides myself, and it is pertinent to mention it.

The photographic proof will be for the naysayers.

And I did mention the conditions under which it was more likely to occur, and noted the exceptions if those reading this will reread my posts. Heavier bullets, softer bullets, greater severity.

[Char-Gar]

35 Remington... I am not going to play the, let me show you pics of skid marks on recovered bullets, game. I have no pics and I have no recovered bullets.

I am talking about how close holes are together on paper targets. How many matches won. How many critters killed grave yard dead. Skid marks on recovered bullet really are irrelevant to me. My experience is what happens when the trigger is pulled and the pistol is aimed at a target or whatever.

I have had well over 20 Colt and Smith and Wesson 45 ACP DA sixguns over the years. I am down to only five now. I have a Colt 1917 and two Smith and Wesson 1937 Brazilian Navy contract pistol. My post-war guns are all Smith and Wesson. Two are 1955 Target Models and the other is a great 625. I also have a couple of SA sixguns with 45 ACP cylinders, but we are talking DA sixguns right.

I have also had well over 40 1911 pistols of various makes and vintages. Right now I am down to three. One 2005 vintage Colt GM and two Norinco 1911A1s. The Norks both have new Colt barrels in them.

The sum total of my shooting has shown me conclusively that hard bullet are not necessary for these shallow groove barrels to produce top notch accuracy.

In my post war Smiths I regularily shoot Lyman 452423 bullets from ACWW that will weight between 242 and 247 grains depending on the mix. My standard load in either the ACP or AR case is Keith's old load of 7.5/Unique.

I put these loads over a chrony a couple of years back. My 4" 1955 Target Model (chopped barrel) gave me 980 fps. The 6.5" gave me an honest 1,100 fps. These big N frames will handle these loads with no stress at all. THERE IS NO WAY, I WOULD FIRE THESE IN ANY OF MY PRE-WWII PISTOLS!!!

This 45 ACP sixgun fetish of mine goes back 50 years. In the early days, when I bought into the "must have hard bullets for the shallow rifling" stuff, I used straight linotype, fresh from the foundry. I would classify the results as OK, but that is far as I will go. Bullseye shooters used bullets cast from a much softer alloy.

So I am willing just to state my experience, and forgo the pics of skid marks as that means nothing. The only thing of importance is hitting what you are shooting at. Lots of folks get bogged down in theory and tech stuff and forget what this is all about.

So that is just about all I have to say on the issue at hand. Folks can think what they want and do what they want. Being right on one of these threads really isn't important to me. I have a full lifetime of experience handloading, bullet casting and shooting. I am willing to share what I have learned with others if they want the information and will receive it in a good spirit.

These constant internet whizzing matchs, are very tiresome to me. Just go shooting and report back what you have learned. That way we all gain knowledge. If folks have different results then lets figure out why. Theory doesn't matter unless it has an effect on the target.

I have zero interest in what Elmer Keith or Brian has to say on the subject. At this point in life, I have had as much experience as they have on this particular subject. I am not going to deny the reality of my experience, just because somebody wrote and sold an article to a gun rag. A couple of generations ago, I broke the code on gun writers and their pronouncements. Some of their stuff is valid, some of it made up from the whole cloth, but all of it is done to make a buck. We need to wean ourselves from the commercial gun prophets. Caveat Emptor!

[35remington]

If internet whizzing matches are truly tiring to you, why did you start one? This was on your dime, not mine.

Translation:

"At this point in my life I have no time for any observations that is not in lock step with mine."

But you must expect that your observations are not mine. Or theirs.

I'm sorry that my observations, Pearce's, and Keith's does not match yours in this area.

But it is what it is.

For those less polarized, the pictures are coming anyway.

I won't deny my or their experiences either. But you did call "BS" and that deserves specific refutation.

It's rather self serving to make your pronunciation and then say before I can present my own evidence (or that of others) that whatever follows does not matter, no matter their bona fides. Never mind me; these other gentlemen have impeccable credentials.

Do you always argue in such a preemptive way? At least you've served notice that you have no time for any opinion but your own.

Rather like calling a finish to a 100 yard dash at the fifty yard line. Hope you don't mind if I have my say. The holes in the targets have indicated a problem as well. The evidence is multiple. The bullets point to the cause. Neither pronunciation stands on its own, but rather together.

[mpmarty]

Skid Marks? Only in dirty jockey shorts.

[35remington]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y228/johnnyrem/IMG_2233.jpg

On the far left is the discontinued Lee 185 SWC which shoots pretty well however cast. The rest are 452423's, cast of wheelweights, the far right being unfired, the second from right shot from a 1911 (left hand twist rifling) to provide a contrast to the rest and show what rifling marks that don't skid severely look like.

The middle bullet has nothing resembling rifling on it; the skidding was that severe. The rest show various marks that, at minimum, are doublewide to near triplewide everywhere, with only a very tiny portion of the bullet at original groove diameter. The vast majority of the bullet mikes around .444."

The Lee bullet on the far left shows what a lighter bullet that doesn't skid so severely looks like. The rifling marks are significantly wider than actual land width even at the bottom, but this unhardened bullet shoots well.

The abused looking 452423 on the second from left was recovered from a deer on a coup de gras shot that ordinarily would have whizzed right through had the deer been standing upright. Since it was laying on the ground, and the shoulder bone was backed by hide and ground, the bullet stopped after breaking the shoulder and was found underneath the hide after skinning it. Range was maybe six feet.

I figured that with the generous bands of the 452423, skidding with nearly any hardness of bullet would not be a problem, but it turned out I was wrong about that, and the groups I got at 25 yards (not fantastic anyway) enlarged very excessively at fifty.

There is something to Mr. Keith's and Pearce's pronouncements about hardness. At least in the guns they have shot, and the ones I have shot. Being in this company doesn't exactly make me feel lonesome. I figure they specifically mentioned it for a reason.

I did too.

I am also of the opinion that the very shallow rifling in a lot of these guns has been carried much too far.

[Char-Gar]

35.....As you said.."It is what it is"

[MikeS]

Just to clarify things, what is being considered a hard boolit here, and what is being considered a soft boolit? As I understand it, those terms have changed over the years, so I'm curious how the terms are being used in this thread. Thanks.

[Bret4207]

Mike, I've tried to get people to work on quantifying soft vs hard and got no where. Best of luck.

35, not to step int he middle of anything, but stripping can happen and you can still get good accuracy. It's all in how much there is.

[Char-Gar]

Linotype and quenched wheelweights are much harder than Elmer's 1-10 mix, and should be preferable with heavy bullets in an ACP/Auto Rim revolver. Soft heavy bullets in shallow rifling revolvers are extremely skid prone.

Use a good lubricant with these hard bullets and leading should be minimal.

In the above post ,the writer seems to feel that Linotype (bh 22) or water quenched ww (as hard or harder than Linotype ) is what is needed.

Elmer Keith considered 1-16 (about bh 10 ) to be hard.

Lyman no. 2 splits the difference at about bh 15.

Air cooled ww will run bn 10 - 12.

There seems to be no standard definition when soft starts and hard begins. I really don't worry about the term.

I consider ACWW to be just fine for any handgun load up to about 1,200 fps. Above that I will use a gas check or switch to No. 2

for rifle loads I consider ACWW with a gas check to br good up to about 1,900 fps. Above that I go to No. 2

As you can see I only use 2 alloys. I do not water quench or use straight Linotype any more.

Others may do things differently, bit this works well for me.

I started a thread about a year ago trying to find out what folks considered as "hard" these days. There was a wide span of ideas, but the majority seemed to think that "hard" began at around bn 15 and goes up from there.

[Char-Gar]

I have a long history with 452423 in both the auto pistol and the Sixgun (45 ACP/AR and 45 Colt) having killed deer sized and smaller game over a 40 year period and have the following observations.

1. The bullet hold its accuracy well out to 75 yards, and is OK at 100, but falls of quickly after that.

2. This bullet does not have to be harder than bh 10 to deliver top notch accuracy up to 1,000 fps in any revolver or auto pistol.

Please read my standard disclaimer at the bottom.

[35remington]

Bret, I think we can safely categorize the amount of stripping seen in this photo as "excessive" as the entire engagement surface is stripped away. If the bullet no longer has any surface capable of engaging the rifling and spin stabilizing it along with the twist, how good is accuracy likely to be? The whole bullet "bore rides" and that ain't good. I'd rather have some "groove riding."

My target results said "poor." This at 940-970 fps or in that vicinity with several powders such as Unique, Herco, and 2400, three favorites. If the bullet is going more slowly, like 800 fps, stripping severity is reduced, but this was intended for a reasonable approximation of what is safely possible in a modern Auto Rim revolver for filling my doe tag during rifle season. Nebraska requires 400 ft/lbs at 50 yards to be legal for handgun hunting, and these loads obtain that.

These same bullets proved capable of length wising a whitetail doe at 30 yards, and Chargar's fondness for the bullet is not misplaced. I have to work at it a bit to get it to work, but this is no great cross to bear.

What is needed, and what is needed for a "hard" bullet is dictated by your pistol. If accuracy is obtained, it's hard enough.

If it isn't, then maybe trying a harder bullet will help.

Further, if it strips yet shoots, who cares? I don't. I never, ever implied good results were to be ignored while proclaiming a problem existed anyway. Good results are the bottom line.

Trouble is, mine where stripping and not shooting. Hardening helped. That, to my way of thinking, is a very helpful tip. Someone else might need to know this.

I trust that the forgoing removes the idea of stripping in Auto Rim revolvers from "only for dirty jockey shorts" and "old wives tales" into the "distinctly possible" category, and "very likely" depending upon the specific characteristics of the bullet used and how fast it goes.

Keith and Pearce thought it a problem, and specifically recommended corrective steps that can be taken. So do I.

The photos merely outline the reason for their concerns. BTW, this is the first photo I've seen published that specifically outlines stripping concern in Auto Rim revolvers, despite having seen it mentioned in print many times. By guys a lot more famous than me.

I'm just sorry it took so long to post one showing such a thing. It happens, and sometimes frequently. And sometimes it matters a lot.

In my revolvers, it has to be harder than 10 BHN.

[Bret4207]

It's all part of fit.

[MikeS]

I normally cast my boolits from Lyman #2, so I guess I'm OK. I've been reading this thread with interest, as I just bought a new Smith & Wesson 22-4 Model 1950 revolver in 45ACP/45 Auto Rim. I used to have a 625, and I don't recall if the rifling in it was any different than the rifling in this revolver, but it does seem that the rifling is fairly shallow (about the same as my 1911). When I had the 625 I wasn't shooting lead boolits, but considering that I don't have any problems in my 1911, I hope I won't have any problems with the Smith 22-4, although the 1911 doesn't have the long throat, or cylinder gap to deal with. I hope to get a chance to shoot this new pistol (made in 2007) sometime next week, so I'll know then how it shoots.

[Izzoquazzo]

Years ago when I was younger and a bit more foolish, I pushed some loads in my 1917 Colt .45LC revolver. I was about half way through shooting a cylinder full and one of the rounds gave me more recoil than the others up til then. When I brought the gun down for another shot, I saw that the top strap was broken at the rear sight groove and was sticking straight up 90 degrees to the barrel. The top 3 chambers of the cylinder were no where to be found. Ruined a perfectly good old revolver. Not sure if I double dumped or what. The gun hung on the wall above my loading bench for many years.

Bottom line is that I would not trust hot loads in an old revolver like that. There are plenty of new guns that you can do that with. Get one and be safe.

[Outpost75]

This is an old thread, but I'm going to dust it off a bit for those who may not have paid attention during the passing parade. The S&W .45 Hand Ejectors are not noticeably strong. Their metallurgy and heat treatment was deemed adequate for their time, but I would caution against exceeding any of the Auto Rim loads published in Speer No.13 or later. I would bring your attention to the loads on p.569 of Speer No. 13 with the Speer 250-grain lead SWC, loaded to an overall cartridge length of 1.24" Industry maximum pressure for the .45 Auto Rim is 15,000 cup. According to Speer these loads meet those guidelines. Velocity data from S&W Model 25-2 with 6.5" barrel:

6.6 grains Herco for 842 f.p.s.
6.2 grains Unique for 824 f.p.s.
9.0 grains of Blue Dot for 824 f.p.s.

I have used these loads with complete satisfaction in my S&W .45 Hand Ejector Model of 1950 Military.

Following are some additional loads I have used extensively which I believe to be safe, based on extensive use:

Saeco #955 260-gr. RNFP, 4.0 grs. Bullseye, 712 f.p.s., 19 Sd, 49 ES, N=12 (rounds in test sample)
Saeco #954 230-gr RNFP, 4.0 grs. Bullseye, 733 f.p.s., 15 Sd, 38 ES, N=12
Saeco #954 230-gr. RNFP, 4.5 grs. Bullseye, 814 f.p.s., 16 Sd, 25 ES, N=12
Accurate #45-240A, 240-gr. WFN, 4.5 grs. Bullseye, 801 f.p.s., 12 Sd, 31 ES, N=12
H&G#68 200-gr. SWC, 4.5 grs. Bullseye, 796 f.p.s., 17 Sd, 46ES, N=12

LISTED HERE AS ACADEMIC EXPERIMENTATION ONLY AND NOT RECOMMENDED!
Accurate #45-240A, 12.8 grs. #2400, 767 f.p.s., 37 Sd, 108 ES, N=12

Considerable unburned powder jams gun unless frame opening and area under extractor and cylinder recess is brushed carefully after each reload!

Factory Load Controls:
TW55 GI Hardball 230-gr. FMJ, 837 f.p.s., 13 Sd, 35 ES, N=12
Federal 230-gr. JHP 45D, 807 f.p.s., 10 Sd, ES 24, N=12

My conclusion is that #2400 is too slow to give acceptable ballistic uniformity within safe pressures for the .45 Auto Rim.

Best results will be had with the traditional pistol powders which have given proven performance over many years in "hardball" equivalent loads. If you need more energy than that, you need a different revolver in a more suitable caliber like a .44 Magnum.

My two cents.

[35remington]

Let's contrast that comparison above using 2400 with another bullet, such as the 452423 or the 452424. Both have given substantially higher velocity than Outpost 75's load of 12.8 grains with the Accurate 45-240A when 13 grains have been used. Substantially higher means closer to 1000 fps in my own five inch 625-3. The variation in crimp groove to base distance of these bullets may account for a large portion of that, and the 452424 will most especially vary due to many different iterations produced by Lyman, some more authentically "Keith like" than others. Such results make 2400 viable in my own use, but also please note I'm using a 625-3. And I'm also not claiming to be within the Auto Rim pressure spec. At these velocities and apparent pressures 2400 works with the 452423 and the 452424, but I certainly have found it lacking with any lighter bullet, even the 230 grain projectiles. Loaded as I have mentioned the extreme spreads are quite acceptable.

There is no question that, when thinking logically, these loads at these velocities exceed the 45 Auto Rim limit, even with the rather vague pressure limitation of "15,000 CUP" which is rather ill defined and difficult to relate to in psi.

In any logical extension of thought, this load at the velocities I obtain must be closer to the pressure of 45 ACP +P of 23,000 psi, since +P loads in 45 automatic factory loads are so rated when a 230 grain bullet obtains 950 fps.

The 13.0/2400 load has been mentioned in a number of articles over the years.....but only for the stronger, newer 25 and 625 series in the latest thinking, and let no one fool themselves that it is low pressure when used with the bullets that obtain 950 fps or better. Or even 900 fps.

Furthermore, it is frequently mentioned in the "Auto Rim" threads that crop up from time to time that several users on this forum promote up to 7.5 grains Unique under the 452423 and 452424, which I am especially leery of, especially in the old Auto Rim revolvers, but I am also counseling caution in the newer 25 and 625 series revolvers. I obtain nearly 975 fps with only 6.8 grains Unique using the 452423 (which weighs 246 grains as I cast it) and I call a halt right there!

Please do not go northward of 6 grains Unique with the 240/255 grains SWC's without using a chronograph, even in the 25/625 series. The deep seating of these bullets and the variations in seating depth due to variations in mould design may very markedly affect the velocities obtained, and thereby greatly affect the pressures developed as well.

Please proceed with caution......and don't shoot any of those 7.5 grain Unique loads or 13.0 2400 loads without checking over your chronograph with a lower charge first, even if you own a newer Auto Rim revolver.

In case you're wondering where and when this heavy loading of the Auto Rim revolver came about, peruse Elmer Keith and the Speer #8. It has precedent.....but make sure it's a safe precedent given the passage of time (and the mellowing of load data) and the make and age of your revolver.

[35remington]

And, in noting the velocity obtained with 13.0 2400 in my 625-3, please also know that I have .4515" cylinder throats and a .451" barrel, which may give increased resistance to bullet travel through the cylinder and higher velocities than other guns which may have looser cylinder throats. And somewhat more efficient use of 2400 may go along with that compared to the experiences of others.

I won't rule out 2400.......but only with heavier bullets in this 625. With 230's and lighter, forget it. Not suitable.

[Outpost75]

I have both a S&W Hand Ejector Model of 1950 Military and a Ruger New Model Blackhawk, Convertible with both. 45 ACP and .45 Colt cylinders.

In the M1917 Do not exceed loads listed for .45 Auto Rim in Speer No.13 p.569, with 250 Speer lead SWC, either 9 grs. Blue Dot or 6.2 grs. Unique for 824 fps.

[50target]

35Remington, I have followed your loading info over on the Marlin Forum and have been a lot of help to me in dealing with the 25-20 WCF. Thanks for all of your hard work. In the last couple of weeks, I received my Colt 1917 revolver after a year at the gunsmith. Totally rebuilt the gun, new extractor, ejector rod, new hand, mainspring, latch pin and spring, squared the barrel stub, recut the forcing cone, set headspace and endshake, timed it. Really a nice piece. The reason I said all of this is to point out that the 1917 Colt and S&W which I've owned were made for a specific cartridge that was designed for a specific performance level when it was made, a very long time ago. The performance level of the cartridge has been enhanced by newer powders, stronger guns, etc. We should not forget that the old Colt & S&W are still old technology, metallurgy, etc. That should be respected. I set about working up loads for my new/old 1917 Colt. Years ago Ken Waters did some load development with PB in an S&W 1917 that really shined. I tried those, no luck in the Colt as to accuracy. Then I did what I should have done to start with and get out the chronograph and use it. That is a suggestion you make in your recent posts. I would like to emphasize that because there is just no way to tell what performance you're getting with a load until you clock it and test for accuracy. When I clocked the PB loads they were alll over the place, even though one of the loads gave me pretty decent accuracy for most of the shots. Those loads would vay by up to 70fps. Yes,, I checked all of the loads after the RCBS Uniflow dropped them. I got to checking some of my other manuals and according to what I saw in them, Unique was a good balance between speed and pressure. Now I am shooting the #452423 that weighs out at avg. 245 grains. Not much over the 238 advertised but is about 3%. I started with 6.0 grains(hand weighed) of Unique, in Rem. AR cases, Win. LP primer, and that got me less than 800fps. I went to 6.3 gr. of Unique (hand weighed) and all other components the same and I got 830fps and the deviation was only 4fps. Accuracy was great at 25 yds. benched. That is government issue hardball speed and with a 245 gr. bullet that is accurate is all that I need. Cases extract easily, no adverse pressure signs, nothing to indicate excessive pressure. No leading. Everything is great. I'm done!! I've said this to point out that without a chrono, which you recommend for going north of 6.0 grains of Unique is well taken. There is npo way that I would stuff 7.0-7.5 grains of Unique in that short, stubby case that is also going to be fulll of bullet. It isn't good for the 1917 guns. They are the wrong platforms. I have a Ruger flattop in 45 Colt/ACP that I can use for that. I learned a lot from chronographing those loads. No bullets recovered so I cannot speak to the "skidding issue" as I don't care what they're doing after making a 1.75" group for 12 rounds at 25 yards and I did not try to recover any. I will shoot that load again at 50 yards and further later. I have not tried the 2400 load and do not intend to as it is not needed for me. I guess the most important to remember is that just because you read it, heard it,, got it off the internet, check everything against published data by reliable sources. AND even then you have variables not covered in the published date, with different guns, tolerances in the guns themselves, etc. And my closing statement with an old Jewish proverb that applies to us all.
Who is a wise man? One who can learn from everyone.
Who is a strong man? One who can control himself.
Who is a wealthy man? One who is happy with his portion.

Be safe everyone.

[mikeym1a]

It was good of OutPost75 to refer to the OP. Reading this last page made me wonder what all the hubbub was about. A lot of what was stated on this last page had very little bearing on the OP. Shows how easy it is to get off topic. Just my opinion.:shock: